tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376218832024-03-12T23:22:28.067-04:00JINGOCONSERVATIVEAMERICAN NATIONALISM WITH AN AGGRESSIVE WAR AND FOREIGN POLICYJingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-56311664038876436932014-07-12T22:02:00.000-04:002014-07-12T22:07:50.512-04:00"FOR WHAT?"<br />
President Obama mocked the suggestion of his impeachment this past week by saying, "For what?". I knew as soon as he said it that I would be taking him up on that challenge. Here you are, sir, with credit to the Nixon articles of impeachment.<br />
><br />
><br />
Article 1<br />
><br />
RESOLVED, That Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:<br />
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.<br />
><br />
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, did, in direct violation of law, release five detainees from Guantanamo Bay without notifying Congress 30 days before said releases were conducted.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has on numerous occasions unlawfully and unconstitutionally subverted both the letter and intent of the Affordable Care Act by altering statutory deadlines and generating numerous regulations outside the scope of the law.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally used the Internal Revenue Service, an agency of the United States, as a tool to suppress and target his political opposition, and did willfully interfere or endeavor to interfere in the investigation thereof.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally used the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency of the United States, as a tool to suppress and target his political opposition, and did willfully interfere or endeavor to interfere in the investigation thereof.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally conducted operations that led to the exportation of arms to Mexican drug gangs, and did willfully interfere or endeavor to interfere in the investigation thereof.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally conducted electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without probable cause and without judicial authorization or warrant, and did willfully interfere or endeavor to interfere in the investigation thereof.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally conducted electronic surveillance of members of the press, without probable cause and without judicial authorization or warrant, and did willfully interfere or endeavor to interfere in the investigation thereof.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally endeavored or attempted to endeavor to interfere in the investigation of the events at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 12, 2012.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally issued Executive Orders contradicting established law and beyond his authority.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally refused to order The Attorney General of the United States to prosecute cases referred to the Justice Department from Congress, and did willfully interfere or endeavor to interfere in the investigation thereof.<br />
><br />
The President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, has unlawfully and unconstitutionally neglected to properly manage the Department of Veterans Affairs, and did willfully interfere or endeavor to interfere in the investigation thereof.<br />
><br />
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:<br />
1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;<br />
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;<br />
3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;<br />
4. interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Congressional Committees;<br />
making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or<br />
5.endeavoring to cause prospective defendants to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.<br />
><br />
In all of this, Barack H. Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.<br />
><br />
Wherefore Barack H. Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.<br />
Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-70169083026982775622011-02-28T19:33:00.002-05:002011-02-28T19:39:53.827-05:00JINGOCON MANIFESTO“We fight neither for revenge for conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the characters of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defense for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter.”<br />><br />Thomas Paine – <em>Common Sense</em><br />><br />"JINGO" WORD HISTORY: “Jingo” was originally an interjection used as a conjurer’s incantation or as an excited utterance in place of something more risqué. “Jingo” acquired most of its current meaning in Great Britain during the Russo-Turkish War of the late 1870s. We apparently have British secularist George Holyoake to thank for the first use of “jingo” as a political label. He used the term in a letter penned to the Daily News on March 13, 1878. Holyoake was referring to a popular patriotic music hall song of the time, “By Jingo”, written by G.W. Hunt. The song contained the lyrics "We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if we do; We've got the ships, We've got the men, We've got the money too." By the turn of the century "jingoes" had become a derogatory term applied to anyone deemed too nationalistic or aggressive in foreign policy. Theodore Roosevelt was labeled a “jingoe” by his foreign policy critics, to whom he responded in an 8 October 1895 interview in (of all places) the New York Times: "There is much talk about 'jingoism'. If by 'jingoism' they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes'."<br />><br />Now the term is used like a vile curse by the defeatist and pacifist left . Defined in a post-9/11 context, it should refer to those supporting an aggressive and even belligerent war and foreign policy as the best means of securing America in the modern world. Modern American jingoists can point to multiple historical examples of a passive America inviting attack. Since 9/11 the equation had shifted in favor of "staying on offense" and high levels of American involvement abroad. The Obama administration has America in full retreat. The jingoist will rightly tell you America has no choice but to remain aggressive at all times lest we invite attack. The world is full of enemies and potential enemies. Evil men will surely succeed if good men do nothing, and that, my friends, is not debatable.<br />><br />MODERN AMERICAN CONSERVATISM: Largely sculpted by President Ronald Reagan, “conservatism” in the sense used here centers around four basic ideas: <br />><br />1. STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE: The United States of American must maintain unquestioned military superiority. Any perceived or actual weakness invites aggression.<br />> <br />2. SMALLER GOVERNMENT: Government at all levels is too large, inefficient, and subject to waste and abuse. Efforts to increase the size and scope of especially the federal government should be opposed.<br />><br />3. LOWER TAXES: At least three times since World War 2 major federal tax cuts have spurred the economy and increased total government revenues due to faster growth. Government is also forced to be more efficientl and less intrusive when taxes are kept low.<br />><br />4. 2ND AMENDMENT: The individual right to bear arms is a cornerstone of American freedom and is constitutionally guaranteed. Two recent Supreme Court cases (<a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290">Heller v. District of Columbia </a>and <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521">McDonald v. Chicago</a>) have affirmed that right. Free citizens should not be forced by local government regulations to seek the permission of police or government agencies to buy, sell, trade, own, or bear arms for self-defense.<br />><br />BASIC FOREIGN POLICY PRINCIPLES OF JINGOCONSERVATISM:<br />><br />1. The United States of America is the primary force for good in the modern world. Americans have shed more blood for the people of other lands than any nation in history.<br />><br />2. The United States is and must remain the preeminent military force in the world.<br />><br />3. The role of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the armed forces is sacrosanct and should not be infringed or impeded by the Supreme Court or Congress. The President should only take major military action with a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for use of force. The President is constitutionally obligated to take immediate military action without authorization in vital and immediate matters. <br />><br />4. The United States should maintain an aggressive posture in all international affairs. Military action should be taken only when all deliberate peaceful means of resolution have been reasonably exhausted. Ground forces should be used only when accomplishment of the mission is not possible with air, naval or elite forces alone.<br />><br />5. The United Nations should be dismantled if it refuses reform. International organizations cannot guarantee American national security, and thus their permission is not needed or desired prior to taking military action vital to our defense. The United States should not participate in or fund international agencies other than those whose members are republican allies. International law should never be used as a basis or means of adjudicating American domestic law.<br />><br />6. The United States must not allow threats to our security to fully materialize before taking appropriate action.<br />><br />7. The men and women of the United States military should always have the best training, equipment, leadership, and support than can possibly be provided. Pay and benefit levels for service members are woefully inadequate and should be drastically increased. The compensation for families of those killed in our service, and the compensation and health care benefits for wounded members and veterans should also be significantly and frequently increased. American military veterans should receive priority in all federal, state, and local government contracts and hiring.<br />><br />8. The borders and ports of the United States should be secured through physical or electronic means as soon as possible. Those who have violated our sovereignty and entered the country illegally should be deported immediately. Employers who hire illegal immigrants should face exorbitantly heavy fines and prison terms. Priority for legal immigration should be given to democratic allies.<br />><br />9. A thriving defense industry is vital to our national security. All weapons, equipment, and supplies utilized by the U.S. military should without exception be made in America.<br />><br />10. The United States should never under any circumstances tolerate the use of torture. The U.S. Congress should clearly and unequivocally define torture, including specific procedures that are not permissible. Enemy combatants taken prisoner should be held under the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war, and given the rights and confinement circumstances therein prescribed. No trials of any kind should be conducted, nor are any prisoner exchanges or releases possible. Guantanamo Bay should continue to be the main holding facility for enemy prisoners. All prisoners should be held until the conclusion of hostilities without regard to the length of time that may require.<br />><br />11. The spread of democracy around the globe greatly enhances but is not essential to American national security. All peaceful means of promoting and establish republican governments should be encouraged and supported. The extent to which the United States should militarily support democratic movements should be commensurate with the will of the foreign citizens involved and their own ability to assist and function.<br />><br />12. Energy is a national security issue. Every reasonable effort should be made to reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign energy sources and to develop successful alternative sources domestically. Drastically increased domestic production and sensible conservation measures should be pursued in the short term to alleviate market pressures. An America free from dependence on foreign oil would both greatly increase our flexibility abroad and strengthen our economy.<br />><br />13. Ballistic missile defense programs are technologically feasible and should receive increased funding. Deployment of systems should only occur in requesting allied nations. Ballistic missile defense is vital to U.S. national security and should never be the subject of concession or negotiation.<br />><br />15. The United States should take a firm stance against the hostile communist regime in North Korea. Every reasonable effort should be made to foment rebellion within the country. No concessions of any kind should be made, especially regarding direct or six party talks with North Korea. No further food or humanitarian aid of any kind should be provided to North Korea, as it will be commandeered by the government instead of being distributed to the populace. Aid only bolsters the North Korean dictator(s) and encourages further misbehavior. North Korea should be warned that any attack on American forces in South Korea will result in a full retaliatory response. The President should strongly and publicly pressure China to exert whatever control they may have over North Korea to force more polite conduct on their part. North Korea should not be allowed to mandate events by threatening or actually engaging in military operations of any kind.<br />><br />16. Iran is the main state sponsor of terror, and the regime now in power should be treated as a mortal enemy of the United States. Every effort to protest and resist by the Iranian people should be publicly and covertly supported to the maximum extent. Iran has for decades sponsored terrorist groups and attacks throughout the world, providing weapons, training and funding. Their role in terrorist attacks against Americans is undisputed and stretches back to the 1970s. Iran has been directly involved in the killing of American diplomats and military personnel abroad and has provided advanced armor penetrating IEDs to Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons program cannot be allowed to produce a deliverable weapon. The risk of Iran turning a nuclear weapon over to their terrorist allies for use against the United States or Israel is too great to allow. If Iran refuses to cooperate with international efforts to monitor their nuclear program, military action to disable their weapons program should be taken at the earliest opportunity.<br />><br />17. The United States of America should take every measure necessary to support the nation of Israel. They are the only republic in the region and are under constant threat from terrorist forces, most of which are supported by Iran. Israel should be publicly supported in any action it deems vital to its national security. Any effort to internationally condemn or isolate Israel for military action taken in its own defense should be thwarted.<br />><br />18. Africa is a vital front in the war against international terrorism. All reasonable effort should be made to assist allied nations with economic and military development.<br />> <br />19. Piracy on the high seas cannot be tolerated. All pirate vessels should be sunk immediately without regard to crew. Any pirate attack on any U.S. or allied commercial or military vessel should result in an immediate and overwhelming response.<br />> <br />20. It should at all times be clear to foreign powers that the United States of America will defend its interests and its citizens by peaceful negotiation first, but by force if necessary.<br />><br />WHAT JINGOCONSERVATISM IS NOT: An America that is aggressive and active on the international scene best secures our own nation and assists our allies and potential allies. It is not warmongering, it is not bloodthirsty, and does not seek to dominate or occupy any foreign land. American troops are always liberators and we do not "occupy" other nations.<br />><br />THE FUTURE OF OUR GREAT NATION is in mortal jeopardy. Our enemies abroad grow stronger and more numerous with each passing hour while the Obama administration has the United States in full international retreat. This President does not like or understand our armed forces, and it would be difficult to imagine a set of circumstances under which he would properly apply the force of the American military in a timely manner. Now is not the time for the United States to retreat on any front. Only by remaining aggressive and belligerent when necessary can America guard against attacks at home. A posture of weakness and vacillation will insure that our vital interests will be damaged and that our armed forces and citizens will be killed.Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-75135651991164175972009-08-11T01:08:00.005-04:002009-08-11T01:29:05.330-04:00NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUio8OOskP-EtbDf5jPRwhhEn3a8bSez7ogOJ4-c9LOapsPniP9gALke-zA8lklDMlAoVm1ToRASnVcgZyFrPxbWXMvXBZOqNU9GQqzlBlCJ0fgOe7YEF217x-_MMdqM3FhI4YJw/s1600-h/declaration_independence.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5368570496889181138" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 262px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUio8OOskP-EtbDf5jPRwhhEn3a8bSez7ogOJ4-c9LOapsPniP9gALke-zA8lklDMlAoVm1ToRASnVcgZyFrPxbWXMvXBZOqNU9GQqzlBlCJ0fgOe7YEF217x-_MMdqM3FhI4YJw/s400/declaration_independence.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>I started wondering several weeks ago about our Declaration of Independence. I thought about it for a long while, and wondered what it would look like if it were rewritten today and addressed our own federal government. The feds have become abusive under Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Of course I am absolutely not calling for the violent overthrow of the government, but rather a new constitutional convention to address the abuses of our current government. I now present my updated version:</div><br /><br /><div>When in the Course of national events, it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. </div><div><br /><br />We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers only from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience shows, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of citizens of the United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present American government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the citizens. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.<br /><br /><br />They have entered into entangling alliances with foreign powers;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have joined international organizations that are not equitably financed and repeatedly attempt to usurp our national sovereignty;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have placed an unbearable tax burden on the people, largely without consent;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have allocated for themselves exorbitant salaries and benefits far and above the means of the populace;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have entered into trade pacts that have decimated American manufacturing;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have accumulated debts that cannot be paid for many generations;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have interfered in commerce and distorted the free markets;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have ignored our federal Constitution and our state Constitutions;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have usurped the power of the States to govern their own people;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>Governors have called together state legislative bodies at places unusual and uncomfortable for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with their dictates;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have made illegal the right of the people to call for change of government;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have refused to secure our borders and prevent illegal migration;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have continually erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass the people, and eat out their substance;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have compiled large quantities of information on the populace for unknown purposes;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have refused to address our energy needs and forced the people to pay exorbitant sums as a result;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have refused to impose term limits on themselves and have thus attempted to form an elite aristocracy;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have either completely refused to prosecute or lightly punished those among them accused or convicted of malfeasance;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have failed to properly compensate or provide care for our soldiers wounded in combat;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have refused to constrain commercial monopolies, forcing the people to conduct business at unreasonable rates and in unusual ways;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have limited our right to petition the government for redress of grievances;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have hidden appropriation of large sums of money from the people;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have limited the right of the people to keep and bear arms and have compiled lists of private armaments;<br /></div><br /><br /><div>They have repeatedly violated the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, </div><div>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searched and seizures;<br /><br /></div><div>They have abused the concept of eminent domain;<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>They have violated the people’s freedom of religion by threatening to tax religious leaders who speak of political matters;<br /><br /></div><div>They have disparaged the right of the people to retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution;<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>They have sought to reinforce and support despotic foreign powers;<br /><br /></div><div>They have abdicated their responsibility to protect American citizens abroad.<br /></div><br /><br /><div></div><div>In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only with repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.<br /></div><br /><br /><div>Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our government. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by them to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our founding. We have appealed to their justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common history. They have been deaf to the voices of justice. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in war, in peace, friends.</div><div><br /><br />We, therefore, the people of the United States, by authority of the good people of this nation, solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the federal government, and that all political connection between them is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have the full power to call for a new Constitutional Convention to correct the abuses and usurpations heretofore enumerated. And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.</div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-46227073156129396482009-08-09T18:18:00.006-04:002009-08-10T00:49:54.769-04:00THE DEATH OF ENGAGEMENTI’m done attempting to engage the left. It’s a complete waste of time and effort. No matter which forum you choose, the effort is pointless. There is a great mass of the American people who are not interested in legitimate political debate of any kind. They are so convinced of the wisdom of their thinking that they refuse to allow anything close to adult conversation about it. There are some on the right, but the vast majority are on the left. Take a look any place where people can freely post their political opinions. You will repeatedly see the same thing: liberals who cannot spell or use proper grammar boldly claiming complete intellectual superiority, name-calling, and using profanity to express their juvenile and underdeveloped thoughts. They cannot justify or offer a rational explanation of their opinions for good reason: they are based on emotion rather than logic.<br /><br /><br />Most of the left wallows in a sense of entitlement. They believe they should be taken care of, preferably by a government bureaucracy. They think the world owes them something. Many of them are very young and have grown up in an America where they are not permitted to fail, where their every effort is bolstered and supported by doting parents or the government. They have no sense of history or of America’s special role in the world. They are only vaguely aware of what freedom means and the sacrifices that have been made to achieve and maintain it. They have been programmed to instantly give a knee-jerk reaction to anything that might upset their comfortable lifestyle or require some sacrifice or effort on their part.<br /><br /><br />My grandfather was a wise man, a lifelong Republican, and a man of very few words. He passed away in 1988. When he found out I had voted in my first presidential election in 1984, he said, “Huh. You <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">ain</span>’t a Democrat, are you?” I was proud to inform him that I had voted for Ronald Reagan. He told me that when it comes to debate, always remain calm, polite, and civil. He knew that the left would rarely do so and would attempt to drag others down into the mud with them, and thus would make the correct points all on their own. I never knew exactly what he meant until after he died, but I wish I had been able to tell him how correct he was. The left in America regularly touts how smart they are, yet can’t understand how debate should properly function in America.<br /><br /><br />Recent events demonstrate this more than ever. The Democrat response to significant opposition to the health care reform bill is a perfect example. Those who dare question the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Obamessiah</span> are called Nazis, plants, paid agents, or mobs. There is no retort on the relevant issues, just name-calling. Union thugs are called in to apply force. This will backfire in the long run. Conservatives are the wrong crowd to attempt to force into anything, especially something that relates to basic American freedoms. The liberals are overreaching as usual and do not understand why people refuse to go along and drink their vile <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Koolaid</span>. Those who won’t kowtow immediately have a label applied to them in an effort to diminish and dismiss their opinions. Imagine the response from the left had the Bush administration called for citizens to report those who opposed the Iraq War to the White House. It would have been overwhelming, yet the very same individuals see nothing wrong in the Obama administration doing the same in the health care debate. American liberals have become what they so often in the past decried: an oppressive force that squashes debate and stands for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">diminishment</span> of basic rights under the Constitution.<br /><br /><br />I believe we are reaching a tipping point in American history. The forces of intolerance and suppression are largely on the left. Americans will soon have to make a choice between maintaining a government by and for the people and socialist domination. During the Cold War, we heard a lot about the “convergence theory” first proposed by Dutch economist Jan <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Tinbergen</span> in the 1960s. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Tinbergen</span>’s theory hypothesized that capitalist and communist systems would gradually move toward one another until they became indistinguishable. It seemed rather unlikely at the time, but it now looks possible. The socialist or communist nations are allowing more and more capitalist reform, while America attempts to emulate the already <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">statist</span> European nations. Most Americans no longer bother to vote or participate in political functions. Tired of scandals and the heat of the rhetoric, they retire languidly to their televisions and other material possessions, blissfully unaware that they can lose it all in an instant.<br /><br /><br />I hope the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress continue on their current path and continue to use Chicago-style methods in an attempt to force their agenda on the public. The reaction in 2010 and 2012 will be overwhelming. Next summer will be the crucial time. Americans who still believe in the freedoms we used to enjoy as given should descend on Washington in great numbers in a peaceful demonstration of public disdain. It will be the only way to avoid significant violence in our future. The voices on both sides are becoming louder. That is a bad omen when the argument is between the forces of freedom and the minions of oppression.<br /><br /><br />The Democrats have made their bed, and I for one expect them to lie in it. I will no longer attempt to convince any of them of anything. They are unreachable. They have been so brainwashed that they are beyond discussion or debate. Only the public can make the changes necessary to insure that our Constitution is not shredded in an effort to impose socialist systems on all of us. The duty of all conservatives has to be to reach out to those in the middle and attempt to explain the threat to essential freedoms posed by the radical left. That threat was dismissed by the center in the last election. Perhaps now it has become more substantive and clear.<br /><br /><br />ADDITIONAL NOTE: Nancy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Pelosi</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Stenny</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Hoyer</span> have today posted an op-ed in the USA Today, and it is the most outrageous, steaming piece of political crap I have ever seen. You can read it for yourself <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html">here</a>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Pelosi</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Hoyer</span> refer to the recent opposition to their attempt to socialize medicine as "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">un</span>-American". Well, sir and madam, allow me to point out what is REALLY <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">un-</span>American.<br /><br />It's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">un</span>-American for a well-heeled group of elitists to take over Congress and refuse to even read the bills they are voting on, all the while looking down their nose at the citizenry. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">un</span>-American for members of Congress to be paid outrageous salaries and take repeated and unnecessary political junkets at taxpayer expense. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">un</span>-American for either of you to dismiss legitimate attempts to engage members of Congress on an issue that will effect every single citizen. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">un</span>-American for Congress to sit upon their high horse and refuse to be placed in the same health care pool they are mandating for everyone else. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">un</span>-American for Congress to impose <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">statist</span> conditions on a nation founded on the idea of personal freedom. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">un</span>-American for Congress to place themselves over and above the American people. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">un</span>-American for Congress to recklessly spend money and accumulate deficits that cannot be paid immediately. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">un</span>-American for Congress to trample roughshod over the rights of the citizens without listening to and hearing their concerns.<br /><br />I have never been more angry at Congress or the Democrat Party. These are the same people who cried long and hard whenever they felt their patriotism was being questioned, yet they are doing exactly that to their opponents now. What I feel like doing I cannot put in print. What should be done to these charlatans cannot be put in print. The time has come for the American people to take action. My tolerance for them is over and done. They are snobbish boors who have lost all touch with reality and think they can mandate to us poor peasants. Tarring and feathering would be too good for them. There isn't a rail long enough on which to ride them out of town. Representatives <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Pelosi</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Hoyer</span>, you have made the biggest mistake of your political career, and if your constituents can't see you for the complete asses you are, they deserve you.Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-88791539641674138032009-07-12T09:18:00.009-04:002009-07-28T22:50:49.767-04:00WHY THE LEFT HATES SARAH PALIN & HER GREEN TOES<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkp7Gy1qWwCb7mnWa-ASHjwNf99v50U6lhtDQu1Z-pC8jhhQiTPqyUfIZzWpalxlnQBiRq_ewe-SzmSGTWaLBtPQ6Yj9a_mMR8gtRhIUE5m5T3RFSlLcuQs60P615o1xBvE61GvQ/s1600-h/PALIN+GUN.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357562498480521634" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 300px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkp7Gy1qWwCb7mnWa-ASHjwNf99v50U6lhtDQu1Z-pC8jhhQiTPqyUfIZzWpalxlnQBiRq_ewe-SzmSGTWaLBtPQ6Yj9a_mMR8gtRhIUE5m5T3RFSlLcuQs60P615o1xBvE61GvQ/s400/PALIN+GUN.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div>One can always judge the strength and viability of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">conservative</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">presidential</span> candidate from the amount and intensity of hatred and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">vitriol</span> directed toward them from the left. If the left fears a particular individual, meaning a sense that they are gaining popularity, have strong convictions, or might actually be able to stand toe to toe with the liberals, they will begin the odium, name-calling and derision. Since they aren't able to effectively counter the tested and proven rectitude of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">conservative</span> principles, it's all they have. The media, always willing to chip in to help the Democrats in any way possible, publicizes the loathing and chimes in right along with them. It's like a choir: the leader sets the note, passes out the lyrics, and the singers start right along with them. Every Republican leader in my lifetime has had to face this sort of idiocy. It is tired, transparent, and predictable. The recent resignation of Alaska Governor and former Vice <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Presidential</span> candidate Sarah <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Palin</span> gave the leftist media types a perfect opportunity to begin such an effort in advance of the 2010 midterms and 2012 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Presidential</span> election. In keeping with their time honored traditions, they immediately began to spew lies, half-truths, and bitter invective. It is a measure of their shallow <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">intellectual</span> abilities: if they can't win the debate on ideas and principles, they resort to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">personalizing</span> the issues, pointing fingers, and generally denigrating the individual. The abhorrence of Sarah <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Palin</span> from the liberal left has begun in earnest, and the reasons for it are clear.</div><div><br />Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Palin</span> is everything the left once claimed to support. Here is a strong woman serving in a largely male dominated field, a woman who has made her own decisions and has carved out a career for herself while at the same time raising a family. She has had to withstand a tidal wave of insults and snide comments few men ever face. Late night comedians have referred to her look as a "slutty flight attendant", members of her family have been made the butt of crude and insulting attempts at humor, and the morality of her <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">decison</span> to raise a Downs Syndrome child has been questioned, along with her <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">intelligence</span> and experience. The focus on her clothing, appearance, and style is indeed remarkable. Not a day goes by without a negative column or <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">asinine</span> comment from the liberal talking heads. Their focus on her is obsessive and without apparent end. They keep saying how dumb and irrelevant she is, yet their parade of bile continues, actually <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">torpedoing</span> their efforts by giving her more airtime and keeping her in the national <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">conversation</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Palin</span> is what the liberals fear most: a strong, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">conservative</span> woman, and that's why they spend so much time attacking her. Were she a socialist-leaning liberal, they would be lauding her <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">accomplishments</span>, but since she is, to them, on the wrong side of the aisle, her remarkable <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">achievements</span> are scoffed at and belittled. It's the same old double standard from the left. They cannot tolerate a woman who has raised herself into the national spotlight while espousing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">conservative</span> principles. They would be a singing an entirely different tune if she were supporting gay rights, infanticide, and socialized medicine.</div><div><br />The Democrats and other assorted liberals who strike out against her would prefer the GOP remain a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">disorganized</span> entity with no recognized national leader. Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Palin's</span> emergence since being named John McCain's running mate highly disturbs them: it gives the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">conservative</span> movement a stalwart leader and guide for coming elections. Far better to the liberals would be a chaotic party without guidance, foundering and doubting while the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Dems</span> consolidate their power base of minorities, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, greens, pro-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">abortionists</span>, big government socialists, and the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">hippy</span> set. The Democrats have always been a coalition party of interest groups instead of a party united by common values and principles, and there is no questioning their <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">effectiveness</span> at cobbling those groups together into a united voting bloc. The largest threat to that alliance is a party on the other side united by ideas, especially if the leader of such a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">philosphical</span> union appears to be someone who would ordinarily be a member of one of their interest groups. That is why they so vehemently assail black or female Republicans. Surely, they think, no black or woman with a brain would join the GOP, as usual <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">demonstrating</span> their pompous <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">intellectual</span> snobbery. It galls them to no end and is a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">manifestation</span> of their elitism. Sarah <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Palin</span> offers the Republican Party a chance to once again unite around core <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">conservative</span> principles, something the left simply cannot allow.</div><div><br />Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Palin</span> came from humble origins and raised herself up through individual effort. The left has always despised any person who came from common stock to national prominence. It exemplifies the very <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">conservative</span> principles they so fervently oppose. They cannot admit anyone could possibly survive without the support of a massive and extensive government. Liberals prefer a biography replete with federal government handouts and affirmative action. Only Democrats can be permitted to elevate themselves, and even then only with a guiding hand from a nanny government. Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Palin</span> knows how to handle a firearm (gasp!), hunts, fishes, and rides snowmobiles (snow<em>machines</em>, she would correct me). She <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">demonstrates</span> unusual comfort with every day folks because she is one. A prime example was provided by today's <em>Washington Post</em>:</div><div><br />"When a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">photographer</span> prepared to take pictures of the interview, Mrs. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">Palin</span>, wearing open-toed shoes, said laughingly, 'Don't get my toes in the picture - they are green on the bottom.' </div><div><br />Indeed they were. She said the marks were grass stains from mowing her lawn the previous day"</div><div><br /></div><div>Horrors: a woman who cuts the grass! The Democrats know they can't allow any <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">conservative</span> with an ability to connect with average people to gain national prominence: it's a lesson they learned by repeatedly having their behinds thrashed by Ronald Reagan. No matter how dumb they said he was, his ability to relate to voters overcame their insults and hatred. Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">Palin</span> has the same ability, and the left fears that more than anything.</div><div><br />Sarah <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">Palin</span> is detested by liberals because they know she can win. It's no more complicated than that. They know she is the strongest candidate to oppose them in the upcoming midterm elections and is the strongest candidate to oppose the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">Obamessiah</span>. I will admit to a certain amount of vulgar sexism when judging <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Presidential</span> candidates, but for me <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Palin</span> has destroyed that by championing the tenets of Ronald Reagan the GOP unwisely ignored in 2008. Those principles transcend time and gender. Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Palin</span> is the best leader the GOP has at this moment in time. If you need proof, look at the amount of time and energy the left spends attacking her. Anytime you see the liberal set nearly foaming at the mouth with hatred of a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">conservative</span>, it's a good bet that individual is a leader they fear they cannot defeat. </div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-23086781507952009212009-06-21T13:07:00.000-04:002009-06-21T13:09:12.938-04:00TRIBUTE TO MY FATHERTHE FOLLOWING IS A TRIBUTE I WROTE TO MY DAD FOR HIS FUNERAL LAST AUGUST. HE HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH PANCREATIC CANCER IN EARLY MAY, AND CHEMOTHERAPY COULD NOT STOP THE RAPID PROGRESSION. THIS IS MY FIRST FATHER'S DAY WITHOUT HIM, AND HE IS SORELY MISSED.<br />____________________________________________________<br />THE BEST MAN I HAVE EVER KNOWN<br /><br />We have each known men who set the example for us all, men of fine character whose actions are beyond question. These good men display a higher moral standard through their deeds and in the manner they live their lives. They reflect the most basic of American values in all they do: honesty, hard work, commitment to family, and a willingness to sacrifice for others. Unfortunately, many times these men are far removed from those who look up to them. Athletes, film stars, or other celebrities partially fill the role for those without someone closer to emulate. I was blessed with a father who was always the only hero I ever needed, and I wanted to share a few thoughts and stories about Dad that demonstrate that.<br /><br />I cannot imagine anyone more honest than Dad. He let you know the facts of any situation right up front, unvarnished and without any sugary coating. I always knew right away if he disapproved of my actions or thought I was misbehaving. He rarely raised his voice in anger, but no one had any doubts about where he stood. Dad never pulled a punch, even if it was about his own health. I vividly remember his bluntness in telling me his reaction to the onset of the macular degeneration that would eventually steal most of his sight. He said, “Rob, I sat down and cried about it, but then after that, what can you do? I have to go on.” He never was one to bemoan his situation, blame others, or whine about his problems.<br /><br />My father’s devotion to his family was total. Any man willing to adopt a son and daughter and love them as his own is indeed extraordinary. He worked long hours at an extremely physical job just to provide for us. Dad always made sure I had whatever I needed to be like the other kids. I learned as an adult that he had been teased as a child at school in rural Virginia for his hand me down clothing and lack of shoes, and he didn’t want that for his own children. I think that’s why he would put on his shoes immediately in the morning and keep them on all day even if he didn’t plan to leave the house. Dad sacrificed countless times to buy me that new expensive pair of tennis shoes or winter jacket I simply had to have to be cool like the other kids. All the while he was going without the tools that might have made his work easier and eating bologna or spam sandwiches for lunch at work for weeks on end. I will always remember the roughness of his hands, and my amazement at how the calluses on his palm matched the grip of a hammer. When we were little he would often bring us candy when he returned from a long day of work. I can remember Mom being upset with him for sneaking us Mallowcups before dinner. Dad never owned fine cars or fancy clothes for himself, and I don’t think he ever desired them. He was happy just to make sure we had whatever we needed or wanted, no matter how silly or frivolous.<br /><br />He spent the last years of his life caring for Louise as Alzheimer’s slowly took her away from him. He first tended to her every need at home while he was mostly blind, and then never missed a daily visit to feed and care for her once her condition worsened. His grandchildren were very special to Dad, and I’ll never forget the look of joy on his face the first time I handed Andy over to him to hold. Andy learned early on that “Papa” was the man to see if he needed something for school or money for a new toy or video game.<br /><br />Dad raised me with a sense of obligation to country. His oldest brother Oscar was killed in the Battle of the Bulge, and his own duty to our nation had been honorably fulfilled in the combat of the Korean War. His advice to me prior to leaving for basic training was the best I ever received. He simply said, “Keep your mouth closed, listen to your sergeants, and always follow orders.” His reaction to first seeing me in Army uniform was simple and priceless. He put his arm around my shoulder and with a tear in his eye said, “You’re a soldier now. You’re a man.” He was letting me know I had fulfilled his expectation of national service. Dad didn’t care much for politicians, but he loved America and firmly believed in young men serving in our military.<br /><br />Even the way Dad used the phone told you something about him. No matter how big or distant the national chain he might be calling, Dad would always start with, “This is Gene Mullins out in Grove City,” as if they should recognize him instantly. It was simply his way of letting them know that he was a man of honor, proud of who and what he was, and that he was ready to deal with others in a straight forward manner.<br /><br />Dad’s counsel is what I’ll miss most. He had a wealth of knowledge on all subjects relevant to everyday living. So many times in my life I went to Dad and got just the right answer to a problem that had seemed unsolvable to me. His most famous advice was about keeping the oil changed in cars. Dad would launch into a five minute speech about the importance of oil changes every time he got the chance. Sometimes I would mention the subject around others just to get him going. Invariably the phrase “oil is the lifeblood of an engine” would be used repeatedly. Dad knew a little maintenance now could save a big problem later. He will be sorely missed whenever I need to rely on some real world experience.<br /><br />Dad and I shared a love of professional football from early in my childhood. Sundays were for watching the NFL together. We teased each other relentlessly during the season. Dad was a die-hard Bengals fan, and like everything else he did, he stayed loyal to them until the end. I became a Steelers fan, probably disappointing him a little. Even though that rivalry gave us many jokes to crack on each other over the years, it was never mean spirited or nasty. We both enjoyed following the league like a soap opera for men, and football was always a main subject for our discussions. It was our way of connecting to the past and to each other. Dad passed on his vast knowledge and deep appreciation of the game to me, and I will carry it with me forever.<br /><br />Simply put, Dad was the best man I have ever known. He is the standard by which I measure myself and others. Phrases like “salt of the earth” were invented to describe men like him. He was always ready to help others, even if they were strangers. He never shirked his responsibilities or made excuses. His family was his highest priority, and he never let us down, not even once.<br /><br />I have lost my father, my best friend, and the only hero that ever really mattered to me. There can surely be no doubt we have all lost a good man.<br /><br />We will all go on with our lives like he would want us to do, but it won’t be easy without him. Goodbye, Dad.<br />__________________________________________________________<br />FATHER'S DAY WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN, DAD, AND I MISS YOU EVERY DAY.Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-76796296393899210622009-06-21T00:26:00.000-04:002009-06-21T00:27:34.684-04:00MIND YOUR MANNERSCivilization requires we be civil to each other. A rapid decline of civility in America does not bode well for our future. I began thinking about this as a result of an incident at a local convenience store today. As I approached the entry door, I was preceded by two young men and an elderly woman using a cane. The two young men picked up their pace to get to the door before the lady. I assumed they would hold the door for her, but they did not. They allowed it to close without even a look back. I then took several quick steps to reach the door before the lady did so that I could hold the door for her. The look of surprise on her face was priceless and made my effort more than worth it. She said, “Thank you”, and I responded with a “Yes, Ma’am.” I was raised by a mother from Alabama who insisted on good manners at all times, especially toward women and senior citizens. She has been gone for many years, but her lessons were not lost on me. I still fear the brutal backhand that would land aside my head whenever I forgot my manners. The ugly truth is that ordinary, common etiquette has almost completely disappeared from our culture. I’m not talking about which fork to use for which course at dinner, but rather something more rudimentary. I’m referring to rules of civil society that indicate a respect for one another. We should all aspire as individuals and as parents to restore these norms to our society.<br /><br />Allow me to explain. The basics are fairly simple: saying “please”, “thank you”, and referring to elders as “sir” or “ma’am” whenever appropriate, pulling out chairs for ladies or helping them with their coats or packages, and holding doors for women and the aged are all part of a bigger code of conduct. That code seeks to protect and respect the most vulnerable members of our society, and it is sadly lacking from our daily discourse. These are not tremendous acts of sacrifice nor do they require a monumental exertion. They are simply a set of behavioral standards that place a template on our actions that shows deference to other human beings. It may sound absurd to some, but they go a very long way towards easing the stresses of daily life. Any time one sees a lady or a senior in need of assistance, we should respond without hesitation, almost reflexively. Clearly I am referring to men and specifically young men in particular. Not too long ago I witnessed an older gentleman at a home improvement store struggling to load several large pieces of plywood. I was loading my truck at the time, and I watched several strapping young men walk by without helping. I stopped what I was doing to help, as I assume anyone with a modicum of concern would. The man actually tried to tip me, but I politely refused. I considered it my basic duty and the least I could do. I had never seen this man before, and I may never again, but I know that he will not soon forget. I cannot understand why these sorts of acts are rare now.<br /><br />Young men have a responsibility to the other parts of our population whether they choose to accept it or not. It reflects very poorly on their upbringing should they not do so. Several times in the past I have grabbed the shoulder of my son and held him back when he attempted to go through an entrance ahead of others for which he should have waited. I have tried to pass along the manners taught to me by my mother because they indicate a basic regard for others. It’s bad enough that many fathers are completely absent, but it seems the ones who are present are failing to teach their young men proper conduct. Children are a reflection of their parents, and that reflection should include civility. We fail as parents and as a culture when we neglect that. It leads to greater and more concerning acts of callousness and disrespect.<br /><br />Another incident this weekend confirmed my fears. I witnessed a funeral procession traveling along a major Columbus road. When I was a young man, it was customary for opposing traffic or nearby pedestrians to briefly stop while the procession passed. It is not legally required, but it is respect for the deceased and their family. We may not have known the individual, but we can acknowledge their passing simply by taking a few seconds to pause in reflection. Our lives go on afterward, unlike the deceased. When our culture has lost regard for even the dead, it is not a good omen. Of course, respect for life has been declining in America for many years, so maybe this is part of that, but that certainly in no way excuses it. <br /><br />Politeness smoothes the daily interactions we have with one another. Next time you call a government agency or private company for assistance, start by thanking the individual by name for taking your call. You might be surprised how much more cooperative and helpful the individual will be. It’s amazing. Those of us who are parents should be even more attentive to the way we conduct ourselves. Our children watch and imitate every move we make and every transaction we have with others. Boorish manners and the insensitive treatment of others do not make things easier or faster. They simply indicate a disregard for others and a focus on one’s self.Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-63455723702726391342009-06-14T16:27:00.002-04:002009-06-14T16:30:36.370-04:00THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASSWe all know these are difficult economic times. We assume an eventual rebound with all the usual features: gains in employment, increased construction and manufacturing, and a rising tide for everyone. This economic downturn has been decades in the making, and it will not be solved overnight or even anytime soon. President Obama has made increased employment claims that are dubious and perhaps completely fraudulent. His administration’s efforts to halt the slide have been at best completely ineffective and at worst have deepened and given the crisis a longer life. We are in a huge abyss, and it’s important to look at the factors that have created it. <br /><br />Manufacturing in this country has reached an all time low. Sometimes it seems we don’t make anything in the U.S. anymore except for big, fat butts. Our cars, steel, electronics, and increasingly food, are obtained from foreign sources. One would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of American products at your local retailer. Foreign manufacturers can produce these products cheaply because they do not have to worry about environmental restrictions, quality control, or even paying their workers a decent wage. I am 43 years old, and in my lifetime alone American manufacturing has been devastated, boxed up, and shipped overseas. The paint manufacturing company I left after eleven years now has less than twenty percent of the workers it did when I resigned. Rockwell is gone from the airport, and the GM facility on the west side of town closed years ago. Consumers, eager to get their hands on cheap goods, don’t concern themselves with country of origin or even quality. For them it’s all about price. This attitude, as well as many other misguided government policies, have brought desolation to the American middle class and helped to wreck our economic engine. The days when a young man or woman could graduate from high school, get a job working in a factory, comfortably raise a family, and retire after thirty years are gone. Even if by some miracle one did manage to do that, benefits or pensions would likely be cut or completely taken away after retirement. Our automobile industry would likely collapse without government intervention. There is serious doubt about whether or not the U.S. has the steel manufacturing capacity we would need in a major war of extended length. Those two industries alone were for many years the source of decent wages and other benefits for middle class Americans. Those opportunities are now gone.<br />The American construction industry is also at an all time low. The recession itself is partly to blame, but there are indeed other factors. Everything involved in it has become an industry itself. Government regulations detail and dominate every aspect no matter how small. Legal and illegal immigrants have largely forced natural born Americans out of the business by under bidding labor. This industry was also the source of good income and benefits for the middle class, and it too is nearly gone as an opportunity.<br /><br />Trades have come under the control of either government or private business. Don’t think so? A list of occupations regulated by the Ohio Revised Code is demonstrative:<br /><br />TITLE [47] XLVII OCCUPATIONS -- PROFESSIONS<br /><a name="4701"></a><a title="4701" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4701">CHAPTER 4701: ACCOUNTANCY BOARD LAW</a><br /><a name="4703"></a><a title="4703" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4703">CHAPTER 4703: ARCHITECTS</a><br /><a name="4705"></a><a title="4705" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4705">CHAPTER 4705: ATTORNEYS</a><br /><a name="4707"></a><a title="4707" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4707">CHAPTER 4707: AUCTIONEERS</a><br /><a name="4709"></a><a title="4709" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4709">CHAPTER 4709: BARBERS</a><br /><a name="4710"></a><a title="4710" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4710">CHAPTER 4710: DEBT POOLING COMPANIES</a><br /><a name="4711"></a><a title="4711" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4711">CHAPTER 4711: COMMISSION MERCHANTS</a><br /><a name="4712"></a><a title="4712" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4712">CHAPTER 4712: OHIO CREDIT SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT</a><br /><a name="4713"></a><a title="4713" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4713">CHAPTER 4713: COSMETOLOGISTS</a><br /><a name="4715"></a><a title="4715" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4715">CHAPTER 4715: DENTISTS; DENTAL HYGIENISTS</a><br /><a name="4717"></a><a title="4717" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4717">CHAPTER 4717: EMBALMERS, FUNERAL DIRECTORS, CREMATORIES</a><br /><a name="4719"></a><a title="4719" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4719">CHAPTER 4719: TELEPHONE SOLICITORS</a><br /><a name="4721"></a><a title="4721" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4721">CHAPTER 4721: INNKEEPERS</a><br /><a name="4723"></a><a title="4723" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4723">CHAPTER 4723: NURSES</a><br /><a name="4725"></a><a title="4725" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4725">CHAPTER 4725: OPTOMETRISTS; DISPENSING OPTICIANS</a><br /><a name="4727"></a><a title="4727" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4727">CHAPTER 4727: PAWNBROKERS</a><br /><a name="4728"></a><a title="4728" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4728">CHAPTER 4728: PRECIOUS METALS DEALERS</a><br /><a name="4729"></a><a title="4729" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4729">CHAPTER 4729: PHARMACISTS; DANGEROUS DRUGS</a><br /><a name="4730"></a><a title="4730" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4730">CHAPTER 4730: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS</a><br /><a name="4731"></a><a title="4731" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4731">CHAPTER 4731: PHYSICIANS; LIMITED PRACTITIONERS</a><br /><a name="4732"></a><a title="4732" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4732">CHAPTER 4732: PSYCHOLOGISTS</a><br /><a name="4733"></a><a title="4733" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4733">CHAPTER 4733: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS</a><br /><a name="4734"></a><a title="4734" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4734">CHAPTER 4734: CHIROPRACTORS</a><br /><a name="4735"></a><a title="4735" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4735">CHAPTER 4735: REAL ESTATE BROKERS</a><br /><a name="4736"></a><a title="4736" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4736">CHAPTER 4736: SANITARIANS</a><br /><a name="4737"></a><a title="4737" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4737">CHAPTER 4737: SECONDHAND DEALERS; JUNK YARDS</a><br /><a name="4738"></a><a title="4738" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4738">CHAPTER 4738: MOTOR VEHICLE SALVAGE</a><br /><a name="4740"></a><a title="4740" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4740">CHAPTER 4740: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD</a><br /><a name="4741"></a><a title="4741" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4741">CHAPTER 4741: VETERINARIANS</a><br /><a name="4742"></a><a title="4742" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4742">CHAPTER 4742: EMERGENCY SERVICE TELECOMMUNICATORS</a><br /><a name="4747"></a><a title="4747" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4747">CHAPTER 4747: HEARING AID DEALERS</a><br /><a name="4749"></a><a title="4749" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4749">CHAPTER 4749: PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS; SECURITY SERVICES</a><br /><a name="4751"></a><a title="4751" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4751">CHAPTER 4751: NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS</a><br /><a name="4752"></a><a title="4752" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4752">CHAPTER 4752: HOME MEDICAL SERVICES</a><br /><a name="4753"></a><a title="4753" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4753">CHAPTER 4753: SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS</a><br /><a name="4755"></a><a title="4755" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4755">CHAPTER 4755: OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS; PHYSICAL THERAPISTS; ATHLETIC TRAINERS</a><br /><a name="4757"></a><a title="4757" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4757">CHAPTER 4757: COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS</a><br /><a name="4758"></a><a title="4758" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4758">CHAPTER 4758: CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY PROFESSIONALS</a><br /><a name="4759"></a><a title="4759" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4759">CHAPTER 4759: DIETETICS</a><br /><a name="4760"></a><a title="4760" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4760">CHAPTER 4760: ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS</a><br /><a name="4761"></a><a title="4761" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4761">CHAPTER 4761: RESPIRATORY CARE</a><br /><a name="4762"></a><a title="4762" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4762">CHAPTER 4762: ACUPUNCTURISTS</a><br /><a name="4763"></a><a title="4763" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4763">CHAPTER 4763: REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS</a><br /><a name="4771"></a><a title="4771" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4771">CHAPTER 4771: ATHLETE AGENTS</a><br /><a name="4773"></a><a title="4773" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4773">CHAPTER 4773: RADIATION TECHNICIANS</a><br /><a name="4774"></a><a title="4774" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4774">CHAPTER 4774: RADIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS</a><br /><a name="4775"></a><a title="4775" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4775">CHAPTER 4775: MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION REPAIR OPERATORS</a><br /><a name="4779"></a><a title="4779" href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4779">CHAPTER 4779: ORTHOTISTS, PROSTHETISTS, PEDORTHISTS</a><br /><br />Some of these are understandable, but most are not. The bulk require licensing one cannot obtain without experience, but experience cannot be obtained without the license or some sort of apprenticeship. The most outrageous example is the field of private investigation, and it demonstrates my point exactly (complete text <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4749">here</a>). The state first broadly defines the occupation to cover as many as possible, then sets restrictions that cannot be met by the average person. The next step is to configure the composition of the licensing board completely from industry insiders. Some of the requirements are understandable (no felonies, pass an exam, have insurance), but one in particular closes off the industry to almost everyone: two years experience in either investigation work, practicing law, or law enforcement or work for a public investigative agency are required. That makes the industry a clique run by a select few. Licensing and other requirements for some other occupations are similarly designed. It is the result of a government out of control to the point where it damages the people it serves. The Ohio Revised Code and the draconian restrictions contained therein effectively make the state anti-business. The intent may have been to regulate certain fields for safety or for the protection of consumers, but like every other good idea, it goes too far in the hands of the government. If only the ORC were used as a guide, it would seem clear that the state is trying to discourage business formation and the employment it could bring. Until and unless a sweeping reform of the code takes place, there is little hope for economic gains in Ohio. The state government simply will not allow individual citizens to conduct business without hampering the effort.<br /><br /> Wages for working people have fallen through the floor as a result of immigrant labor. Why pay an American twenty dollars an hour when you can pay an immigrant eight or ten? Given the price of housing, food, and other essentials, it is basically impossible for non-professional folks to survive in the current climate. The price tag on a new car is roughly equivalent to what our parents paid for a house. That sort of inflation over the last several decades has forced many to work more than one job, and many others into poverty. I see ads online everyday seeking someone to do a job that is physically demanding while offering paltry wages. Those ads are clearly directed at immigrants and the businesses or individuals placing them know it. Pay for CEOs is always on the rise, and it comes directly out of the wallets of those who serve the company in the most difficult and labor intensive positions. It is not the federal government but the business owners and shareholders that should demand limits on executive compensation. Exorbitant sums being paid to one individual at the top is both a bad business model and demoralizing to the rest of the workforce. Meanwhile, the working individual is having their wages reduced and benefits eliminated. It’s a recipe for disaster, and what we see now is only the beginning.<br /><br />As if that all weren’t a bad enough scenario, add the high and fluctuating cost of energy, particularly gasoline. Those who work in the transportation field feel it, but so does the small business person. Here in Columbus we are now paying around $2.75 a gallon for regular gas. Just a few short months ago it averaged $1.50 a gallon. The price jump has nearly doubled the costs of transport for everything. It’s a factor in virtually every quarter of the economy, and the effects of an upward price change ripple throughout and hit everyone. The highly speculative oil market makes billionaires of a few and paupers of the rest.<br /><br />All of these factors and many others combine to reduce the number of people in the middle class. Eventually we’ll all be either poor, rich, or work for the government. There isn’t going to be room for anything else. President Obama’s economic recovery measures will result only in higher deficits and increased inflation and will leave the next generation of Americans an even greater burden. Politicians and the media are oblivious to what is happening. If they don’t notice and take significant action soon, it may be too late.Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-70285883706855580652009-05-14T12:39:00.002-04:002009-05-14T12:43:36.961-04:00ENOUGH ABOUT TORTURE<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt2rZcjL7sF5aDAVtsEgXiMqdlie991FiRpSBBiogeN9rDmIZeD-l0ISUY-0yQ_t1hK1GxiKM0rc3HKcrfe3q6mYThxxpZoJlgKf2SPd6i95lQ-UG3bJbUn0SN9YMax61XsXOB6A/s1600-h/oldantitortureposter-4c6qc8rfi.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5335721037451200930" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 291px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt2rZcjL7sF5aDAVtsEgXiMqdlie991FiRpSBBiogeN9rDmIZeD-l0ISUY-0yQ_t1hK1GxiKM0rc3HKcrfe3q6mYThxxpZoJlgKf2SPd6i95lQ-UG3bJbUn0SN9YMax61XsXOB6A/s400/oldantitortureposter-4c6qc8rfi.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>The debate over torture is getting tiresome. It is a deliberation we should not be having at all. It makes me wince every time it’s mentioned, and naturally the media uses it as a cudgel to pound the Bush administration while ignoring those in the Democrat leadership who knew from the beginning. This subject is so dark and heavy it weighs on our foreign policy and reputation abroad. It’s time to end the debate, reaffirm what should have been the case, and commit in the future to never again delve into this sort of depravity.</div><br /><div>The standards that should be applied are plain. Those captured by the United States, whether soldiers, enemy combatants, or terrorists, should all be afforded the full protections offered by the Geneva Conventions. The real standard is much simpler: prisoners of war should be treated as we would want our soldiers treated should they be captured. The standard cannot be to use the same immoral techniques as the enemy in order to defeat them. That is the difference between us. As Bin Laden and others have repeatedly pointed out, the Islamofascists worship death. The terrorists have no qualms about using whatever brutal methods they can dream up for their victims. They do not have any concern about norms of civilized behavior or adhere to international accords. That’s the whole point. We as a democratic republic cannot condone, participate in, or allow those in our custody to be mistreated. It violates the very principles for which we are struggling. That is not to say we should adopt a Jimmy Carter-style foreign policy that focuses on human rights to the exclusion of all else, but it is to say that the abuse, mistreatment, or torture of prisoners of war is makes us little better than those we fight. </div><br /><div>Supporters of “harsh techniques” always make an argument that suggests there is no other way to get information or that pressure might have to be applied expediently to avert an imminent attack. Neither of these is logical or acceptable. Tortured prisoners are simply going to divulge whatever is necessary to make their tormentors stop. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the media rounds lately in an effort to defend the use of torture on guys like KSM. As much respect as I have for Dick, I don’t agree with him on this one. I appreciate his spirited defense of the former administration, but discussing whether or not timely and reliable information was obtained as a result of torture completely misses the point and makes the situation worse. Some intelligence may have been obtained, but at what price? It’s the same with the recent release of the memoranda and potential release of photos involved. Repeatedly bringing the subject back up for public discussion in any manner does nothing to improve the situation. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but in this case the sunlight is also toxic to us. More than enough damage has been done. Our intelligence work should be advanced enough to avoid situations where information about a pending attack has to be gained at any price. The very same Democrats in Congress that spent the 1990s gutting our national intelligence services like a fish are the very same ones first to criticize and rebuke whenever there’s a problem. Some of those very same folks were briefed on what was happening and turned a blind eye. That is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. They knew and did nothing. </div><br /><div>Threats of criminal prosecution against lawyers at DOJ who formulated and approved the policies in question are absurd and counterproductive. Calls for a “truth commission” are equally as ridiculous. The facts are that members of both Congress and the Bush administration were aware of and at least tacitly condoned the techniques that were being used. Any sort of criminal charges would merely be a speeding ticket: many others similarly situated would escape prosecution. More potentially damaging, however, are the hearings now underway in Congress. Why they are being conducted in open committee session is beyond me. Any information related to this subject should be held in the strictest of confidence. Keeping the subject in the public discourse damages our reputation further and allows our enemies to point the finger right back at us for hypocrisy. </div><br /><div>There is a catch. While those held by us should be afforded maximum protection, they also must be held until the conflict is resolved. No releases, no trials, and no tribunals. Prisoners of war are traditionally held until either the end of the war or until a prisoner swap can be negotiated. Since there is no one to negotiate with, the solution is to hold them until it’s over. More than one prisoner has been released only to return to combat against American forces. The proposed closing of GITMO should be abandoned. We must have a secure facility in which to house these people, and better it be far from American shores than somewhere inside the continental United States. The idea of indefinite detention is a powerful tool.</div><br /><div>Our image abroad does matter, as much as we would like to tell the rest of the planet to get lost. We’re the good guys. We don’t build an empire, we are not conquerors, and we respect basic human dignity. Anything less knocks us off our moral high ground and is used by the enemy to recruit. If we’re going to disparage others for cruelty, surely we cannot afford to engage in it ourselves. I understand that water boarding does not quite equate to an internet beheading, but it is torture. Pointing out human rights violations in China or Cuba or elsewhere rings quite hollow if we are a nation known for torturing prisoners. Torture cannot be broken down into degrees of severity. Either a nation respects the rights of those captured or it does not. That doesn’t mean soft treatment. It means following the basic rights we have already committed to both in principle and by international agreement.</div><div> </div><div>So enough about torture. It goes against all we are as a nation. It gives the enemy a recruiting tool we cannot easily counter. Whether or not it is effective is irrelevant. Allowing it because our enemies are crueler throws us into the same filthy pit. We must make every effort to insure prisoners of war are treated humanely. And they are POWs. Calling them “enemy combatants” somehow allows treatment that would not ordinarily be permitted.</div><br /><div>They are prisoners of war and they should be treated accordingly. That includes holding them until the war is over. All of them. </div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-59662130620546221202008-12-03T20:40:00.002-05:002008-12-03T21:59:12.399-05:00ATTACK IRAN NOW: MORE EVIDENCE<strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">BACK ME UP ON THIS: Events relating to Iran's nuclear program continue to spiral out of control. The last entry of this blog called for Iran to be struck now instead of waiting for the Obama administration to assume power. Since then, nearly every significant news headline screams for action against the world's largest state sponsor of terror before it's too late. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"> </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Iran is currently conducting a six-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf stretching all the way to Oman. Apparently intended to reinforce Iran's threats to shut down the Gulf to oil traffic in the event of an attack, the exercises cover some 130,000 square kilometers of ocean. Iran appears able to deploy at least a somewhat credible naval force despite the United Nations sanctions limiting their ability to acquire new equipment and spare parts for their military. How surprising that the U.N. is totally ineffective. Iran's naval forces should be a high priority on the target list for an attack, and this week's exercises are more proof of that. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"> </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The United States military in Iraq has captured over 30 Iranian suspects in Iraq in the last four weeks. Just today, two members of Ketai'b Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist network, were detained in Baghdad while a third was killed when he unwisely chose to fire on American forces. No more evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq is needed. The proof already amassed in sufficient to warrant military action. Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of United States military personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. To date they have suffered very few consequences as a result.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Israel continues to draw up plans for an attack on Iran with or without American assistance. A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would not be in our best interests. It would place Israel in an untenable position. At least the IDF recognizes the threat posed by Iran and their unchecked nuclear program. The United States should coordinate with Israel and prevent the IDF from having to take action on their own. The United States has already deployed a sophisticated X-band radar system and the troops necessary to operate it to Israel. The system would give an earlier warning of an Iranian missile launch. What could be done to intercept a potentially nuclear-tipped projectile at that point is unclear. What is clear is that the threat exists. Shouldn't we be willing take action to prevent the possibility of such an attack instead of waiting for an actual launch? By that time it would likely limit Israel's response to defensive measures, and a single nuclear strike on Israel would be catastrophic given their size.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, aggressive rhetoric, and continued flexing of military power all point to one possible response for the United States: strike as soon as viable with as much violence as possible to at least significantly delay their hostile intentions. President Bush could take one more measure to enhance our security before leaving office, and that would be to launch a comprehensive air and naval attack on Iran and their nuclear facilities. The longer he waits, the worse the situation becomes. Should he leave office without taking action, he would be abandoning our defense to a President and group of advisers naive enough to think diplomacy is the answer. Talking with Iran will only allow them more time and space to develop the weapons and missile technology necessary for them to launch the attack they have already loudly and clearly announce is their aim. Let's hope Bush has the foresight and intestinal fortitude to take care of one last item before he departs. Giving Obama the keys to the Oval Office is no less than giving Iran the keys to the nuclear Pandora's box.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">BAILOUT NONSENSE: Our government is approaching full-blown socialism, and very few seem willing to oppose it. Private industry relying on the federal government for financial support is the very definition of socialism. Businesses should succeed or fail of their own accord, not be propped up by taxpayer money. American consumers are the ones in need of assistance, not corporations who have poorly managed their affairs for decades. Newt Gingrich has proposed a several month long taxpayer holiday that makes far more sense than shoveling money into poor business models. Unions have done their share in pushing the auto companies into near bankruptcy. Everyone is for fair labor practices, good benefits, and higher wages, but those too have limits. Businesses can only pay what they can afford. The autoworker unions have forced U.S. car companies into paying labor costs that are simply unsustainable. That coupled with lack of innovation and shoddy products have created the problems that now exist. Asking the government to now step in with potentially trillions of taxpayer dollars in relief in unacceptable. Businesses should be allowed to fail or succeed of their own accord. Government's only role should be to create an environment in which business is permitted to succeed without excessive interference or regulation. That's it. Requiring taxpayers to compensate for bloated CEO salaries and fifty years of incompetence is beyond the pale. Let these banks and corporations fail if we must. The result will be companies wiser and more in tune with consumers. Forget the bigwigs, it's the working men and women of this country who need relief. Adding the burden of government bailouts is precisely what they don't need. Congress should turn their back on bailouts and instead concentrate on how to help average men and women. Now that would be real change.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">GERMANS FAILING: Recent German parliamentary reports indicate that Bundeswehr troops in Afghanistan are drinking too much, not exercising enough, and are too fat. Little surprise then that they are allegedly failing miserably in their mission to train Afghan police. This is the kind of support we can routinely expect from Old Europe. Allowing them alcohol while deployed in a Muslim country speaks to their lack of commitment to the effort. At last count, German troops in Afghanistan consumed 896,000 pints of beer in the first six months of 2008. Pathetic indeed for a military deployed to counter the Taliban. </span></strong>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-66861279763024409082008-11-21T01:54:00.003-05:002008-11-21T04:11:33.548-05:00TEN REASONS TO STRIKE IRAN NOW<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQKDjrl2XakaBTd4mPb2rvGw8wvKvH54jTlw2BKOPAQz-dshzS9Rd_NrSyeVGlIIDVeVAJLPXH2lNzxI4S1Gq26CPVl7zhGkHwKH2a9FnYlRyM9cd1qNd3rtwtF8M5vqC_vucBmQ/s1600-h/bomb.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5271000707267563650" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 324px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQKDjrl2XakaBTd4mPb2rvGw8wvKvH54jTlw2BKOPAQz-dshzS9Rd_NrSyeVGlIIDVeVAJLPXH2lNzxI4S1Gq26CPVl7zhGkHwKH2a9FnYlRyM9cd1qNd3rtwtF8M5vqC_vucBmQ/s400/bomb.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:180%;">"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." George S. Patton</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:180%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">There is a looming threat on the horizon. All those with knowledge of the situation are aware of its <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">existence</span>. It has been approaching for some time without significant action being taken to stop it. The consequences for not acting could be disastrous or even apocalyptic. Most of the world stands idly by, also cognizant of the threat, but seemingly paralyzed. It is as if a gigantic destructive asteroid is approaching our planet while everyone stares at the sky in disbelief. Some are screaming at the top of their lungs while most remain stunned.</span></strong></div><div> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of much debate for years. Media reports this week indicate they now have enough material to build at least one bomb, needing only to refine it. Experts predictions place the time frame at anywhere from one to seven years until refining is possible and complete. The point of no return for the rest of the world, and especially the United States and Israel, is nigh. Now is the time to strike Iran with all our collective might before events overtake us and such a mission is not possible. Here are ten reasons why:</span></strong></div><div> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">1. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">IAEA</span>) have made little to no progress in slowing or even successfully monitoring the Iranian nuclear program. In its latest report, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">IAEA</span> and Director General <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Mohammed</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ElBaradei</span> admit that after six years, they are not one bit closer to determining the purpose of Iranian nuclear intentions. The <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Iranians</span> allegedly have nearly four thousand centrifuges running to produce the necessary material, with another two thousand plus ready to come on line. Iran continues to defy Security Council demands to halt enrichment, claiming the program has a purely peaceful purpose. Other intelligence sources indicate Iran is testing high explosives and missile re-entry vehicles. The entire fiasco is shrouded in mystery, has been all along, and the U.N. is powerless to do anything about it. Three rounds of U.S. sanctions restricting the export of military technology to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Tehran</span> have been roundly ignored. Those who claim that <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">further</span> enrichment would tip off inspectors are whistling past the graveyard. No amount of U.N. resolutions or sanctions can stop them at this point. There can be no remaining doubt about the intentions of their development. It is military in nature and aiming for a weapon capable of striking with little to no warning.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">2. Iran's leaders have made repeated threats, especially against Israel. The rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Ahmadinejad</span> continues to be menacing and even borderline insane. Wiping Israel off the map and striking Iran's enemies are a normal part of his statements. It seems the majority of the world continues to turn a deaf ear to his rantings. He continually rejects Israel's right to exist and is a known Holocaust denier. Apologists question his hold on power and assert he is not actually in charge, both suggestions dubious at best. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Ahmadinejad</span> should be taken seriously. Future victims of an Iranian nuclear attack may wonder why he was so long ignored. His re-election, once in question, now seems assured.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">3. Iran's support of terrorist movements around the world is documented and well known. Their support of Hezbollah, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Hamas</span>, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and interference in Lebanon is not a matter of debate. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, had prior knowledge of the kidnapping and murder of USMC Colonel <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">William</span> Higgins in Lebanon in 1988, and directly supported the group responsible for the 1996 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Khobar</span> Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen American servicemen. Should they succeed in developing a weapon, they could easily pass it on to one of their terrorist allies and place their guilt for an attack in question.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">4. Iran continues to interfere in Iraq. They have provided advanced armor-penetrating <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">IEDs</span> to Iraqi insurgents, directly resulting in the deaths of American forces. Iranian agents have occasionally been detained in Iraq while they provided weapons and training to terrorists battling Iraqi and U.S. forces. Their recent vocal opposition to the Iraqi security pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American forces shows their level of interest. </span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">5. An attack now would be somewhat unexpected. The sense of relief they may feel over the election of Barack Obama should be exploited now before it dissipates. </span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">6. Israel is ready and capable of helping. The F16-I now in the Israeli arsenal has made a long distance attack more feasible. Considering the level and frequency of threats against the Jewish state, their cooperation and assistance is assured.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">7. Obama is coming. His promise to engage in direct talks with Iran will only result in further delay that would allow the Iranian nuclear program to proceed apace. Further diplomatic discussion with Iran is pure tomfoolery. Their repeated and continued defiance of the United Nations and the international community as a whole is not likely to be reversed with a few high level chats. Involvement in photo ops with Obama would only legitimize their delusions of grandeur and give them more time for enrichment and missile development.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">8. The Bush administration, now fully in lame duck mode, would pay little or no political price domestically or internationally for an attack now. The election is over. The Republican candidate already lost. There are only a few months left to act before Obama takes office. Should the President-elect decide to talk with the Iranians as promised, his position would only be strengthened by a successful attack he could somewhat distance himself from later. </span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">9. An attack, while possibly not completely devastating to Iranian nuclear plans, would provide an additional measure of time for further international action if any is possible. Their facilities may well indeed be widely dispersed and deeply buried, but many of them are readily apparent and above ground. Claiming that an attack might not be one-hundred percent successful does not justify doing nothing at all. Broadening the target list to include Iranian oil refineries would further handicap their efforts.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">10. American naval forces are now deployed in the Persian Gulf in sufficient numbers to both launch an attack and counter any Iranian attempts to block the flow of oil. The fact those forces are already in place also provides an additional edge of secrecy. The threat to the U.S. Navy from Iranian naval forces would be minimal, especially if the targets for an attack included ports and harbors used by them.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong> </div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Options for countering Iranian nuclear development narrow as time progresses. The United Nations and other international organizations are feckless as usual. The time to effectively strike is now, but the window is rapidly closing. When it eventually slams shut, the world will have no choice but to rely on the good intentions of men like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Ahmadinejad</span>. The United States and Israel cannot take the chance that Iran will either build a usable nuclear weapons platform or pass a weapon off to their terrorist allies. The risks of acting are indeed great, but the risks of not acting are potentially devastating to millions of people for many years to come. Strike while the iron is hot, and surely it's flaming right now.</span></strong></div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-42193593329262489072008-11-12T20:01:00.003-05:002008-11-12T21:16:08.143-05:00OBAMA TO KILL MISSILE DEFENSE?<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">President-elect Obama has more than one major military <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">decision</span> to make, not the least of which is what to do about missile defense. He'll have to decide whether or not to continue the Bush administration's plans to deploy ten missile interceptors in Poland and a set of radar stations in the Czech Republic, set to be operational by 2014. Obama was not specific about his plans for the program during the campaign, obviously designed to leave him some flexibility. As with most military issues, Obama seems less than fully informed. Any reasonable person who has followed the issue should be aware of the success of recent tests, the threat posed by Iran, and the apparent viability of a system first proposed by Ronald Reagan.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Today, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">LTG</span> Henry <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Obering</span> III, head of the Missile Defense Agency, wondered about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Obama's</span> intentions for the program and its pending deployment. It is remarkable that more than a week after his election, neither Obama nor any of his minions have reached out to the general. Of course, Obama has yet to consult <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">SECDEF</span> Gates and has only had a brief conversation with JCS Chairman Mullen, so why would one suspect he has delved any further into other vital defense issues. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Obering</span> expressed confidence in the European leg of the system to function properly and provide a viable defense against missile launches from rogue nations, namely Iran. Just yesterday Iran test fired a new generation of missile and continues its inexorable march toward acquiring nuclear capability. Their <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">latest</span> missile provides them another option should they decide to strike Israel or Europe. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Given the increasingly disturbing rhetoric coming from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Tehran</span> and their pace of weapons development, European capitals would be wise to consider full deployment in the shortest possible time frame. The proposed European deployment does not defend the continental U.S. and would only provide protection against a limited number of strikes. Opposition from European <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">peaceniks</span> is puzzling considering it is a system that is purely defensive. Do they prefer to be left naked to Iranian aggression? As usual, Old Europe seeks to oppose any American efforts to shore up collective defense, more proof that NATO is moving headlong toward becoming completely useless. They won't provide additional troops for combat in Afghanistan, preferring instead to keep their precious and relatively small troop contingents in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">REMF</span> roles and allow U.S. forces to bear the brunt of fighting and thus casualties. They're fine with supplying a few additional troops, so long as they don't have to participate in actual combat. Old Europe as a bloc tries to act as a counterbalance to American power even while enjoying the nuclear and defense umbrella we continue to provide. So much for gratitude and commitment to collective defense.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Kremlin also seems somewhat uninformed about missile defense. The system nearing deployment is not designed to counter a nuclear arsenal as large as Russia's or provide an offensive capability. Russian President <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Dmitry</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Medvedev</span> said last week he plans to deploy nuclear missiles closer to Poland to counter a possible deployment to interceptors. This is nothing more than paranoia, not an unusual reaction from Russia. Anything that comes within a thousand miles of their border is seen as an imminent threat. Russian nuclear forces could easily overwhelm the proposed system. Perhaps they're still terrified by Reagan's vision. They should be more concerned about Iran and the destabilizing nature of their threats. Russia has provided technology and equipment to further Iranian missile development, so maybe they think they are immune from potential attack. Moscow has also threatened to deploy jamming equipment to counter any defensive systems, but we don't hear Berlin or Paris howling about that. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">President-elect <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Obama's</span> inexperience may lead him to kill the program as part of a gutting of the Pentagon budget to provide funds for ridiculous social spending. That would be a dangerous path to follow. Iran's missile program has placed Europe squarely in the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">cross hairs</span>. Leaving them without any defense, even if they don't see the wisdom of it, is simply foolish. The Iranians should know that there is a good possibility that a missile strike against Israel or Europe would likely result in an intercept and an overwhelming response may be enough to deter them from doing so. That is the real purpose of the system. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama has some time to make the decision, but he doesn't have forever. Stepping up to the plate on this issue would be a strong move. Whether or not he has the guts is another issue. The whole idea of missile defense, having been conceived by the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Gipper</span>, elicits a knee-jerk reaction from the Democrats, as do most high tech defense programs. Their desire to divert the funds to domestic spending could leave Europe and Israel short in the event of an Iranian attack. Obama needs to show he has the ability to take actions necessary for national security opposed by the pacifist left. Future Presidents may be hamstrung by the decision Obama makes on this issue. He should aggressively pursue development and deployment not for others, but for American national security. None of us knows what the future may hold, and it would as always be prudent to prepare for a worst case scenario. Missile defense has come a long way, the test firings are increasingly successful, and deployment is simply the next stage. Delaying or cancelling deployment would indicate <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Obama's</span> plans for other Pentagon programs necessary for our defense and the protection of others. Let's hope he makes the right call. We'll be watching to see how he moves on this one.</span></strong>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-9061613287188828622008-11-11T21:12:00.003-05:002008-11-11T22:04:14.689-05:00TAP DANCING ON A LANDMINE<span style="font-size:130%;">President-elect Obama is already showing his naivete concerning military matters. So far he has only spoken briefly to JCS Chairman Mullen and not at all to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">SECDEF</span> Gates. One would think these two <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">gentlemen</span> would already have been extensively consulted by the man about to take the reins of the world's finest military currently fighting two wars. His campaign promises do not bode well for our armed forces or their efforts. His intent to exponentially increase spending on domestic programs spells certain doom for Pentagon efforts to maintain and improve our forces. It is hard to fathom that this was truly the intent of the American people.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The subject of the enemy combatants held at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">GITMO</span> has already arisen. Obama seems headed toward allowing these miscreants civilian trials, an outrage considering they have been detained as suspected Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Qaeda</span> members or were taken prisoner on the battlefield while actually engaging U.S. forces in combat. Allowing them all the rights and privileges of American citizens is beyond the pale. The only logical policy is to hold them until the war is over or begin military tribunals that would lead most if not all of them to the gallows. Does anyone think our Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Qaeda</span> enemies would be kinder than we have been? I wouldn't dare suggest we start cutting off heads on the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Internet</span> as they have often done, but fair is fair. Why should they be treated any differently than prisoners taken in past wars? Obama should resist the urge to placate the rest of the world and handle them with velvet gloves. They should be treated with an iron fist instead, if nothing else to dissuade others from joining their cause of killing Americans. Enemies of the United States should know that if they attack American forces in the field, they will be swiftly tried and executed if they are fortunate enough to be taken prisoner. The Geneva Conventions, which should be followed during their captivity, certainly do not require anything close to what Obama is suggesting. Enemy combatants not in the uniform of a recognized nation are accorded absolutely nothing. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Obama's</span> plan could set a dangerous precedent for our military. The idea of Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Qaeda</span> members taken prisoner immediately demanding lawyers for their defense and being given the exact same rights as American citizens is unthinkable.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Media reports Tuesday indicate the Taliban are urging Obama to discontinue our efforts in Afghanistan show what course should not be taken. The President-elect has repeatedly indicated a willingness to send more forces to Afghanistan lest he appear a total defeatist. Unfortunately he has also indicated a desire to quickly withdraw American forces from Iraq at a time when victory appears imminent. A hasty retreat from Iraq could result in a total collapse of all the efforts there so far. That would be a waste of all the blood and treasure invested over the last five years. Iraqi forces are largely in control of the country now, but our forces are still needed to support and train them. Obama should defer to General <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Petraeus</span> on both these conflicts, and most assuredly the general would not recommend such a plan. He should also pay close attention to the lessons of history concerning Afghanistan. Both the Russians and the British before them attempted to control the country with massive amounts of troops, and both failed miserably. Some additional forces may be needed, but certainly not the numbers we have seen in Iraq. Instead, Obama should recognize his total inexperience and allow <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Petraeus</span> to continue the policy of negotiating with the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">reconcilables</span> while battling the less agreeable insurgents. Obama has certainly not made the prospects of victory any more likely by suggesting we take more aggressive action across the border in Pakistan. We need the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Pakis</span> as allies, not enemies as the result of increased action. Some strikes withing Pakistan may be necessary, but it is a far wiser policy to continue pressuring the nuclear-armed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Pakis</span> themselves to take the required actions. Obama was rather careless during the campaign in his comments about Pakistan, a fact not lost on the <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">them</span> or others in the region. He should tread carefully when suggesting we bomb an ally, an idea that reveals his lack of understanding of military matters.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The Pentagon budget is just as tricky. Obama will have to balance the maintenance of current forces against programs for future weapons systems, just as every President before him has done. Defense projects take many years to complete and thus must be wisely planned. Both the new F-35 fighter jet and the sorely needed new generation of ground combat vehicles for the Army have been identified as possible budget casualties. Every time Obama proposes some new government cheese program, he is putting the future defense of our nation at risk. Seeking to trim budget overruns and speed up procurement delays would be the wiser policy. Today Obama promised to care for America's veterans, but that seems doubtful considering the amount of new domestic spending he proposed during the campaign. Hopefully Mr. Obama will have wise counsel on these issues, because he certainly doesn't have the personal experience to handle them alone. It's unlikely his Cabinet will be stocked with Pentagon hawks, making the outlook for desperately needed military equipment programs cloudy at best.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Our nation is taking a potentially dangerous risk by placing Obama in the Oval Office. Rumors of a twenty-five percent Pentagon budget cut floated last week indicate the depths to which he may be willing to go to fund his domestic spending. One can hope that was only a rumor. At a time when we are engaged with the enemy on multiple fronts and faced with increasing threats at home, Obama risks devastating our armed forces for decades to come. He is without a doubt the emptiest suit ever elected to the highest office in the land. Those who supported him will bear direct responsibility for the consequences of his defense policy. The tragic part is that our men and women in uniform and in harm's way will pay the price more immediately.</span>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-12545985937475416932008-11-10T11:48:00.002-05:002008-11-10T11:51:32.126-05:00FRESH START<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKIuLQUHFmq8LwLPoZLZaKBzeSZYi_OJ1PxDIF4zrzp88MALUL_yqgpaKxSGnQGzuGIGcU6uvDHWJWMPV84IkHsJSimWL-jY-pguc4c2QzRCXvuduXE6idlrWPL1agdL9Y1ibwng/s1600-h/NOBAMA.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5267072472320298338" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKIuLQUHFmq8LwLPoZLZaKBzeSZYi_OJ1PxDIF4zrzp88MALUL_yqgpaKxSGnQGzuGIGcU6uvDHWJWMPV84IkHsJSimWL-jY-pguc4c2QzRCXvuduXE6idlrWPL1agdL9Y1ibwng/s400/NOBAMA.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>I will admit I have been completely demoralized by the election results. I considered deleting this entire blog and ignoring politics. </div><br /><div>I can't do it.</div><br /><div>There are too many important issues, especially concerning our armed forces. I will begin posting again tonight. Rest assured there will be no quarter given to the Hussein Obama administration. Thanks for reading.</div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-4304561623780055722008-10-20T11:43:00.000-04:002008-10-20T11:45:34.705-04:00JINGO REPORT 10/20/08COLON POWELL UPDATE: Now we get a little insight into General Colin Powell’s endorsement of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Barak</span> Obama yesterday. “He will have a role as one of my <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">advisers</span>,” Obama said on Monday. So that’s it. Powell’s poor judgment of presidential candidates is a naked attempt to gain further high office. He chose to endorse Obama over McCain, a man whose judgment on military matters has been shown to be wise. At a time of war for America, Powell’s endorsement was at first puzzling. Obama’s comment from this morning reveals the truth and reflects very poorly on the general. Were the general truly a genuine supporter of Obama, why did he wait until the last hour to endorse? Surely he had an opinion before this time. Worse was Powell’s condemnation of Sarah <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Palin</span> as unqualified to serve. Compared to who, General, a one-term Senator from Illinois with about as much experience as my teenager? General Powell has now lost whatever scraps of credibility he had left. <br /><br />SARAH <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">PALIN</span> UPDATE: Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Palin</span> did well on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">SNL</span> this past weekend, much to the dismay of her critics. The media, locked in a passionate kiss with Obama, cannot stand the sight of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Palin</span>. She turns their philosophy upside down. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Dems</span> are always claiming to be in favor of the mothers and working mothers of America, until they find out she’s a conservative that is. Then the full weight of the press comes down in an attempt to smear and discredit. It’s fine to be a working mom as long as you’re a pro-abortion liberal. Conservative women break their model and thus cannot be tolerated. It’s been a real joy to see Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Palin</span> take on the media and hecklers. They have no answer for her.<br /><br />AFGHANISTAN <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">BANANA STAND</span>: The press is up to their usual <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">hi jinks</span> concerning Afghan war casualty figures. Deaths caused by Taliban attacks or suicide bombings are trumpeted from the highest mountain, but numbers of Taliban killed by allied forces are posted on the back page. The reality is that the Taliban have been taking a pounding for some time now, and the only actions left for them are pathetic suicide attacks focused largely on civilians. Every time an American soldier is killed, the story leads and casualty figures for the entire war are restated. As of Friday, American deaths totaled 542. Certainly every loss is tragic and every soldier irreplaceable, but considering we pushed out the Taliban and established a new government in a nation on the other side of the globe, the total is remarkably low. The liberal press just can’t stand to see any good work from the military and will do their best to obfuscate the real battlefield situation should we be winning. Heard much news from Iraq lately? You won’t, because it’s generally good news of progress, and that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">doesn</span>’t serve to help elect Obama.<br /><br />FORT DIX TRIAL: The trial of five foreign-born Muslim men accused of plotting to sneak onto the Fort Dix, New Jersey, Army post and kill soldiers begins today in Camden. All face possible life in prison. The question is why they are not facing the death penalty. It seems to me plotting to attack a U.S. military installation in time of war would qualify for the ultimate penalty. Liberals and other apologists for terrorists are saying this type of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">pre</span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">emptive</span> prosecution troubles them. Perhaps we should have waited until an actual attack took place and soldiers were killed. The most troubling aspect of this is the fact that these foreign terrorists are being accorded full legal rights just like any other American citizen. The five should be in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">GITMO</span> until the war is over.<br /><br />KIM <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">JONG</span> IL ILL?: North Korea is poised for a “major announcement” concerning the health of its leader, 66 year old Kim <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Jong</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Il</span>. The little dictator <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">hasn</span>’t been seen since mid-August amid rumors of a stroke or a military coup. We can only hope the “dear leader” is dead or incapacitated. We eagerly await further news from the isolated and starving communist nation.<br /><br />FALLING OIL PRICES HURT CHAVEZ: Earlier this year crude oil prices topped $145 a barrel. That price had dropped to $71.85 by Friday. Oil profits had allowed Venezuela’s leader to play the big man in South America, spreading money around to nearby nations and financing massive social spending in his own country. Estimates suggest oil would have to stay at or above $95 a barrel for Chavez to balance his budget. Chavez’s promised oil refinery for Nicaragua now sits rusting among the weeds. Hopefully oil prices will continue their downward trend, easing the pain on American consumers and putting the screws to petty tyrants like Chavez.Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-59231028564238574812008-10-19T23:54:00.000-04:002008-10-19T23:55:53.073-04:00NOBAMA: TOO RISKYNOBAMA: TOO RISKY<br /><br />Presidential elections are usually a choice between the lesser of two evils, and this cycle is certainly no exception. It is extremely rare to find a candidate that exactly matches our own philosophy. Only once in my voting lifetime have I had the opportunity to cast a ballot for a President I knew would nearly identically match my own ethos, and that was Ronald Reagan in 1984. Every other election since has been a compromise, some big, some small. As this election nears, every voter must consider both the times in which we are living and the experience and attributes of those running. Most of us can name someone else we would rather have as our next President, but that is fantasy. The reality is that there is only the one choice, unless you care to waste your ballot on a third party candidate who will not win. <br /><br />The first factor is the situation in which we find ourselves currently. We are involved in two wars on the other side of the globe. Our national economy and indeed that of the entire world has been rocked by the mortgage mess and falling home values. Politicians of every stripe have been caught being naughty or outright corrupt. Congressional approval ratings are abysmal thanks to the complete incompetence of Democrat leadership on nearly every issue. More than seven years have passed since 9/11, and Bin Laden remains alive and free to taunt us with an occasional video tape. Our ports and borders remain unsecured, allowing a free flow of illegal immigrants and possibly Al Qaeda members. Iraq has improved but isn’t quite completely secured yet. Iran continues its seemingly inexorable march toward nukes while their leader preaches the destruction of Israel. Pakistan holds nuclear weapons under suspect security arrangements with a military heavily infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers. North Korea is a continuing problem with no clear leader and no firm resolution in sight. Africa is beset by AIDS, political violence, and famine despite decades of international assistance. In South America, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela consorts with our enemies and behaves like the petty tyrant he really is. Anywhere one looks around the globe there are situations that directly threaten our national security. That only scratches the surface. In short, this is no time for amateurs nor is there time for learning on the job. The new President will have a full plate from day one.<br /><br />Barak Hussein Obama has done next to nothing. If his brilliant new ideas were so hot, why has he done absolutely nothing in the Senate since arriving? He has authored no important legislation and made no significant progress on anything. Remember that this is at a time when his own party controlled both the House and Senate with significant margins. It would be different had a Republican majority prevented him from accomplishing his goals, but that was not the case. Even if his record as an Illinois legislator is paper thin. Reaching further back into his history, I still have no idea what a “community organizer” is. <br /><br />Senator Obama’s associations from the past are at least concerning. He still has not answered to how he could sit in church year after year and not have a problem with Reverend Wright’s sermons damning the United States. Obama described Wright as his “spiritual advisor” until scrutiny forced him to distance himself from the reverend. Then there’s the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Senator Obama boldly lied when questioned about Ayers during the last debate. McCain pointed out that Obama had begun his political career in Ayers’ living room, an established fact that Obama falsely denied. Ayers is a man who participated in the bombing of the Pentagon and a New York City Police station and to this day expresses no regrets. Senator Obama constantly claims all the violence took place when he was eight years old. That is a diversion and doesn’t explain or excuse their associations in more recent times. Obama is certainly the most inexperienced man ever to receive the nomination of a major party for President. One term as United States Senator, a stint in the Illinois legislature, and time as a “community organizer” (whatever that means) is the extent of his resume. He has no military experience, not even indirectly. He has no experience as an executive. What he has is the ability to say nothing better than anyone in quite a while. Certainly his rise to prominence is impressive politically but not enough to qualify him for the office.<br /><br />John McCain has not been a reliable conservative in the past, nor is he espousing uniformly conservative policies now. He has made a career of defying the party when he was needed to pass important legislation. Far too often McCain sided with Democrats and proposed or furthered bills on matters that were not exactly on the top of the Republican agenda. He has spent his political career not as an executive, but as a legislator. He has shown a disturbing propensity to compromise on important issues, an important tool for a Senator, but not necessarily as good for POTUS. Some of his recent proposals, like $300B to buy up home mortgages, smack of unadulterated socialism. McCain has spent the last decade poking a finger in the eyes of conservatives at every opportunity. Now he comes asking for our votes and laying a dubious claim to Reagan conservatism. McCain is fortunate that he is running now, when America needs a man experienced in military policy.<br /><br />I must address the disappointing Obama endorsement by Colin Powell. The general was brought into the national security staff and later appointed Secretary of State under Republican administrations. Powell was a total disappointment at State, failing to secure U.S. access to attack Iraq from the north through Turkey and throughout generally opposing the policies of the very administration he served. Powell endorsed Obama today on “Meet the Press”, no surprise given Powell’s questionable behavior since he left the government. He has fashioned himself as some sort of neutral wise man. Never mind the fact that he is during time of war NOT endorsing a fellow Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war schooled in military command. No, no, instead let’s endorse a guy whose resume is transparent. General Powell lost his credibility long ago, and now it seems he is losing his mind as well.<br /><br />John McCain is the only choice. It will require some nose-holding in the voting booth, but there really is no other choice. Barak Obama as President would be dangerous for America. His distorted world view, wrong-headed policies, and radical associations from the past should be enough to put off most voters. Unfortunately the media is in the midst of a torrid affair with Obama, and they spend all their ink covering over any matter that might prevent his election. It will be interesting to see how far the press will go in these last two weeks.<br /> <br />Fear for the republic should Obama and his ACORN defrauders manage to get him elected. Jimmy Carter, anyone?Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-302627514030909702008-10-07T23:45:00.002-04:002008-10-07T23:50:52.663-04:00DEBATE 07 OCT 08<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo8fi0Aoa94aPPiEWbUdWbKOlM25A2ySdoGHs3yYexgCP98aDbdPM2_VWbneaNUTETA0c75MzbIWO7CwtJB0szCP6uSa42xaHgb8v9-Y18_bLQdD7i8oaXTtPJ6Yoo5SDFHl2NIw/s1600-h/JRPT+TEDDY.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5254625165142736242" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo8fi0Aoa94aPPiEWbUdWbKOlM25A2ySdoGHs3yYexgCP98aDbdPM2_VWbneaNUTETA0c75MzbIWO7CwtJB0szCP6uSa42xaHgb8v9-Y18_bLQdD7i8oaXTtPJ6Yoo5SDFHl2NIw/s400/JRPT+TEDDY.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>DEBATE IN THE ROUND: Last night’s Presidential debate wasn’t exactly a thriller. The potential of the town hall format was wasted by moderator Tom Brokaw’s poor choice of questions from both email and the assembled crowd of allegedly undecided voters. Of course most of the discussion was concerned with recent economic matters and the home mortgage situation, dooming the entire evening to a very dry doom.<br /><br />Obama predictably blamed the Bush administration and deregulation policy of the last eight years, ignoring the role of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He continued to make his outrageous promise to go through the federal budget with an axe “line by line”. Anybody want to tell the Senator that money bills must originate from the House? The President does not have the line item veto to do such a thing. Even more disturbing was Obama’s reference to “coordinating with other countries” on matters of economic policy. That sort of internationalism is the last thing we need right now. Another part of Obama’s mantra is pointing out that the federal budget was in surplus when George W. took office. Never mind that little, um, WAR that came along. Naturally no Democrat could discuss economics without engaging in a little class warfare, and the Illinois Senator is no different. He continues to harp on “middle class” tax cuts and appears oblivious to the fact that most small businesses are sole proprietorships that file federal taxes as individuals. These businesses would be crushed by Obama’s tax hikes and massive new spending. Senator McCain said some of the right things, but more disturbing was his proposal to sink the federal government $300B deep into the home mortgage market by having Treasury buy up mortgages. The taxpayers are sure to get soaked to the bone on that one. It is remarkable that leaders of both parties have an instant reflex to deepen government involvement in the markets, fleeing like lemmings toward a high socialist cliff. Gee, the feds have done so well with all their other programs, let’s have them start taking over our economy and healthcare.<br /><br />The foreign policy portion of the event was notable only in the fact that it was another display of the dangers of making Barak Hussein Obama the next Commander in Chief. He even referred to “moral interests” being a factor in determining proper use of American forces. He continues to insist upon withdrawing forces from Iraq as an answer for Afghanistan as well as repeatedly promise to strike in Pakistan if necessary. The question was actually about strategy for the Afghan front, and Senator McCain correctly responded by deferring to General Petraeus. Both gentlemen essentially backed Israel in the event of an attack by Iran, vowed to prevent the Iranians from developing nukes, and promised to prevent a “second Holocaust”.<br /><br />RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:<br />1. Seeing Senator McCain interact with a Navy veteran in the crowd was touching and insightful. McCain patted the man’s back and warmly shook his hand as he thanked him for his service to our nation. Obama didn’t bother to get out of his chair to thank the guy.<br />2. Cindy McCain wore BLUE while Michelle Obama wore RED. Shouldn’t that have been opposite? Anyone besides me notice?<br />3. McCain needs to get some fresh new phrases to use. He’s wearing out “my friends” and “the point is”. He even dusted off “naked aggression”, one that never fails to make me smile.<br />4. Both candidates willfully violated the time limits and the little green, yellow and red lights intended to guide them, and Brokaw kept whining about it.<br />5. At the end of the affair, Obama and McCain moved to shake hands, blocking Brokaw’s view of the giant teleprompter and nearly causing him an aneurism.</div><div><br />The scary part of the whole election is the idea of Obama at the controls of the mightiest military force the world has ever known in a time of war. John McCain doesn’t exactly thrill me, but there’s just no way I can vote for a man with no military experience at all in time of war. It’s nearly irresponsible. With less than four weeks remaining until Election Day, Americans face a choice they and our military will have to live with for years to come. Meanwhile our enemies continue to plan and plot to kill more of us. </div><div> </div><div>Vote carefully. </div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-42816092189480766902008-09-26T22:44:00.003-04:002008-09-27T00:54:18.677-04:00MCCAIN VS. OBAMA DEBATE ROUND 1<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSisrXbgtcGh2VhcHEcXYpajhuOEjpegGjHhCSa_z8q0QeZZ8i7V-El6mLwKHaBe8pXfyZomFb5aFOpWQ9xSpezrCN7XMpLRyC5XtvWVX5nwAzDStiGIoZmMrHuPWgmFqZ7IgyzA/s1600-h/JRPT+TEDDY.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5250553801266951426" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSisrXbgtcGh2VhcHEcXYpajhuOEjpegGjHhCSa_z8q0QeZZ8i7V-El6mLwKHaBe8pXfyZomFb5aFOpWQ9xSpezrCN7XMpLRyC5XtvWVX5nwAzDStiGIoZmMrHuPWgmFqZ7IgyzA/s400/JRPT+TEDDY.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Arizona Senator John McCain squared off against Illinois Senator Barack Obama Friday night in a spirited debate. The event, held on the University of Mississippi ("Ole Miss") campus, was originally billed as a foreign policy only debate. Unfortunately nearly half the time available was spent on economic issues currently in the headlines. The format provided for a two minute answer to each question and then a five minute period for free discussion during which the candidates were permitted to address and question each other directly.</span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">About ten minutes before the start of festivities, I surfed over to CSPAN2 to check out their raw feed. Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS's "<em>NewsHour</em>" spent seven minutes sternly warning the audience about cheering, cell phones, and other possible disruptions. He repeatedly whined about how hard and important his job was going to be. Lehrer appointed Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain as persons in charge of enforcing silence in the audience, even telling them to "take names". Can anyone in America imagine Michelle or Cindy dragging an unruly protester down the aisle and out the door? It made me glad the Secret Service was nearby: you can't miss the guys with ear pieces and slight bulges in their suits. I don't think either lady could possibly be ready to muscle someone out of the hall.</span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The first forty minutes of the debate supposed to be about foreign policy at a time when America is at war were consumed by discussion of the bailout bill. All of sudden and thus allegedly requiring immediate action, the Bush administration has proposed a potential $700B bailout of failing mortgage lenders to prevent the collapse of large financial institutions and the credit markets. Never mind the outrageous concept of a wholesale government takeover of a significant portion of a private market, and please don't notice that the money required to do this will be borrowed from foreign investors, largely China. The whole thing smells like Sovietization of the American economy. Since when is it a good idea for the federal government to take financial responsibility for either poor business or poor personal decisions? The Democrats assert this is all the result of eight years of Bush policy to deregulate markets, ignoring the fact that the concept of offering mortgages to people who clearly couldn't afford them began under Slick Willie. Like all government money, once it began the program snowballed into a monstrosity too big to sustain. It was disappointing such a large portion of the evening was spent on blah economics. We won't be worried about Wall Street CEO salaries if America isn't secure. Dead people don't get new mortgages or invest in the stock market.</span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The first foreign policy question concerned the lessons of Iraq. Senator McCain pointed out his push for strategy change early on in Iraq, praised the "great" General Petreaus, and hung the potential bad outcomes had we failed around his opponents neck. Obama originally proposed a staged, sixteen month withdrawal of American forces from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground, a policy clearly proven wrong by the success of the surge. The Illinois Senator also lauded Petraeus as "brilliant", odd praise from a man who didn't actually go to Iraq until the conflict was more than nine hundred days old. Obama was wrong about the surge and attempts to partially cover by jumping on the Petraeus bandwagon. Too late, Senator, you missed that train long ago. McCain brought the Iraq discussion into sharp focus by pointing out that Obama clearly doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy, something the liberal media glosses over almost as much as Democrat Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's verbal gaffes. Obama continues to claim that Al Qaeda is more powerful now than at any time since 9/11, a dubious assertion at best, and that Iraq distracted us from our fight against them and our search for UBL. Senator Obama apparently thinks the American military is incapable of multiple missions. </span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The question of more troops brought the candidates to the subject of Afghanistan. Senator Obama painted a gloomy picture of a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda running roughshod while U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq. He proposed an immediate boost of two brigades and warned of his willingness to strike at Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan if the Pakis are unwilling or unable to do so. Senator McCain reminded us that America had largely washed its hands of the entire region after the Soviet withdrawal and warned about the clear dangers of publicly threatening military action inside Pakistan. Obama accused the Bush administration of coddling former Paki President Musharraf, ignoring the fact that Pakistan was a failed Islamic state in possession of nuclear weapons when he took over. The candidates then conducted a "battle of the bracelets", both explaining why they wore one inscribed with the name of a U.S. soldier killed in action.</span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Moderator Jim Lehrer then moved the discussion to the threat of nuclear Iran. Both candidates stressed the danger to Israel and the potential nuclear arms race that would ensue throughout the region. Both gentlemen agreed that Iran with nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, but their ideas about how to get there differed sharply. Obama is sticking to his concept of direct talks. That's all well and good to sit down with whatever rogue world leader you can think of, but it lends legitimacy to them and their outrageous words and actions as well as diminishes the American presidency. Does anyone really want to see Cuba's Raoul Castro or Iran's Ahmadinejad strolling the Rose Garden or the media circus that would result from a meeting without precondition? McCain more sensibly proposed a league of democracies, an idea long overdue given the uselessness of the United Nations. No matter how many economic sanctions are proposed against Iran, Russia and China will kill them in the Security Council. Neither man was willing to unequivocally commit to military action at any point while simultaneously refusing to eliminate it as an option. The rest of the world, least of all Old Europe, will not help us with Iran, and pretending otherwise is foolhardy.</span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Russia was the next item on the agenda, fair enough considering the provocative military and economic actions they've taken lately. Resumption of Russian bomber flights off the U.S. coast, the occasional restriction of natural gas supplies to eastern Europe, and the invasion of Georgia have been on their hit parade recently. Obama seemed a little lost, digressing into economics and unbelievably ending his comment with a reference to global warming (huh?). Senator McCain called it like it is: Russia is a KGB-run Putin dictatorship fueled by petrodollars. McCain proposed adding Georgia and Ukraine to NATO and continuing programs to secure the "loose" nuclear weapons left from the former Soviet Union.</span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The final question was about the potential for another 9/11 on American soil. Both Senators claimed we are safer but not yet safe. McCain focused on border security and Obama on the danger of suitcase nukes being smuggled into the country. The question seemed like a liberal media trap to get McCain on record guaranteeing security or some such nonsense. Nice try, no bite.</span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">McCain clearly won the foreign policy portion of the evening hands down. Whether voters clearly understand the economic issues discussed is another matter. McCain repeatedly and correctly referred to Obama as naive. The Illinois Senator shows his inexperience each time the use of American power abroad is discussed. Funny that tonight will be overshadowed by the Vice Presidential debate next week, featuring Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin versus Democrat Deleware Senator Joe Biden. Palin has become a political star and Biden is prone to make verbal mistakes. Should be fun.</span></strong></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-91645278986113075792008-09-22T23:46:00.003-04:002008-09-23T00:40:45.428-04:00TRIUMPHANT RETURN<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">NOTE: I am returning after a summer hiatus from writing. My normal subject matter of war and politics will return tomorrow after I vent on matters of personal conduct.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">WHAT IS A GOOD PERSON?</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Occasionally I will refer to someone as a "good man" or "good woman". It seems like a simple statement yet carries a specific connotation. We have all met individuals we would never call "good" for a variety of reasons. What exactly are reasonable standards of conduct for civilized folks nowadays? Of course we can generally accept the Ten Commandments standards, but a few deserve special comment.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Honesty comes to mind first. Sure, we've all told a little white lie here and there, but what I am referring to is complete honesty with those closest to you. Intentional deception is a heinous form of lying. Fooling someone into doing ones bidding or putting up a facade for whatever reason are unacceptable. Lying by omission is another sneaky form of dishonesty. Intentionally not revealing information vital to the individual involved is just as evil as a direct lie. Those who dabble around the edges of treachery are only fooling themselves and will eventually suffer the same disgrace as those who dive in all the way. It is extremely hurtful to people because each lie slowly erodes confidence and trust in the offender. Frequent liars often get caught in their own webs and are usually quickly identified. This is a deep character flaw that is not easily remedied or managed. Liars are not good people.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Most of us have suffered through adult relationships that saw some form of duplicitous behaviour that either bordered on or actually was cheating. Think about that: an individual gives a commitment, either in deed or word, to be monogamous, then later takes great effort to abandoning their own word. Breaking that vow is in itself lying, and there's usually a lot of it when a cheater is at work. Some people simply cannot commit to another individual within the framework of adult relations. They simply don't have the mental discipline or strength to conduct themselves with honor or control themselves. Others drift from new person to new person to soak up as much new attention as possible, an early sign of potential for cheating. Seeking a love relationship outside of a commitment qualifies, with or without actual sex. Cheaters are not good people.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Keeping your word is a related subject. Promises mean something. People who give a specific promise and then do not follow through are making themselves liars. There is very little hope for mankind if we cannot count on each others' word of honor. Promises were not made to be broken, they were made to allow people to trust each other. Anyone who will not keep a given promise should be viewed with a highly skeptical eye and not trusted further. Those who break promises are not good people.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Being a good person comes down to a simple element: can you be trusted to do the right thing? Good people do not require supervision or constant reminders to behave in an acceptable manner. It is their nature. People caught lying or being intentionally deceptive should not be trusted further until they redeem themselves wholly. None of us have time in our lives for the aggravation and humiliation of dealing with bad people in our personal lives. Our time on this planet is limited and shouldn't be wasted on those not even good enough to be honest or those who cannot treat other individuals with even the most basic of respect. </span></strong>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-19869990894670840102008-02-17T22:24:00.002-05:002008-02-17T22:28:45.206-05:00NANCY REAGAN HOSPITALIZEDOUR THOUGHTS THIS EVENING ARE WITH FORMER FIRST LADY NANCY REAGAN, HOSPITALIZED AFTER A FALL AT HOME. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OFFERED THESE DETAILS:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Nancy Reagan Hospitalized After Falling<br /><br />9 minutes ago @ 2217 EST<br /><br />SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) — Former first lady Nancy Reagan was hospitalized Sunday after falling in her home in Bel-Air but is doing well, her spokeswoman said.<br /><br />Reagan, 86, was taken to St. John's Health Center, where doctors determined she did not break a hip as feared, spokeswoman Joanne Drake said.<br /><br />Drake said Reagan was doing well and would stay the night in the same room where former President Ronald Reagan stayed after he broke his hip at home in 2001. He died June 5, 2004.<br /><br />The former first lady is "joking and visiting in her room," Drake said.<br /><br />Reagan's family physician recommended the overnight stay "as a precaution," Drake said.<br /><br />Nancy Reagan's last major public appearance was at the Jan. 30 Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., where she sat with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.<br /><br /><br />GET WELL SOON!Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-1010909716439916112008-02-06T22:59:00.000-05:002008-02-07T00:40:45.525-05:00JINGOREPORT 07 FEB 08<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS0RxdlCoRuuCvWdVrXNjH0kCf-_cN15-eZ5TxtgZQk4usuXkxCNnWAtVadcXhcE1uHqGdso7l-hyC34nzKHI9h9i9rC5HdXIDbUr_Qb2WOmlw5t7G_1e3xIAHbz1RYedOJlrTfg/s1600-h/JRPT+TEDDY.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5164083255695668274" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS0RxdlCoRuuCvWdVrXNjH0kCf-_cN15-eZ5TxtgZQk4usuXkxCNnWAtVadcXhcE1uHqGdso7l-hyC34nzKHI9h9i9rC5HdXIDbUr_Qb2WOmlw5t7G_1e3xIAHbz1RYedOJlrTfg/s400/JRPT+TEDDY.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong>PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS FINAL WORD: Yesterday's Super Tuesday primary results make it increasingly clear Arizona Senator John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President. That does not bode well for the conservative agenda, as previously detailed. While I state once again that I have great respect for his military service, I cannot endorse or support Senator McCain. Future postings will instead focus on foreign affairs and the war.</strong></span></div><div><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong>> </strong></span></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">TOP MILITARY MAN ABETS SURRENDER MONKEYS: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen has described American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as being tired and in need of a rest. Mullen also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Army deployments should be reduced to twelve months. Regardless of whether or not these statements accurately depict the situation, Admiral Mullen should know better than to throw that sort of red meat to defeatists on the Hill who will use any rationale to justify surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Does the admiral not have a legislative liason? Can we get him one? These are the sort of statements that should be made only in closed session to keep our enemies from picking up on them for their own use. The Pentagon's proposed budget for next year includes $20.5B to increase the Army by 7,000 and the Marines by 5,000. As always, the amount of money and troop increases are too small and very late, but none of that gives the admiral a pass on this one. And shouldn't our JCS Chairman be a Army or Marine general, since Iraq and Afghanistan are largely ground operations? Former Chairman Pete Pace, we miss you already.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">GEE, THANKS, GERMANY: Germany continues to be a reluctant ally in Afghanistan. The Germans have announced the deployment of 250 additional troops to replace a Norwegian unit. The catch is that they will be stationed in the northern area of the country, where the Taliban are relatively inactive. The Germans and other allies in Afghanistan have repeatedly refused U.S. and Canadian requests to send troops south, much to the dismay of SECDEF. Other members of the administration have been beating that drum also. SECSTATE Condi Rice, in London for meetings with PM Gordon Brown, reinforced that message and said only a few nations have troops in the south. It's not surprising, especially for Germany. This especially dismays me, having served two years in Nurnberg during the Cold War. I expect more from a nation of an estimated 87 million people. 250, that's the best you can do? Never mind, fellas, as usual American will have to do the heavy lifting alone while alleged allies stand by fecklessly. Old Europe only helps when it benefits them, and apparently fighting terrorists isn't high on their list. What a bunch of turds.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">IRANIAN MISSILE TEST: Iran tested a rocket on Monday it said would eventually allow it to deploy satellites. Yeah, right, and there are no homosexuals in Iran, either. The Pentagon responded by emphasizing the urgency of ongoing negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic for deployment of a missile defense system. The Polish FM said last week in Washington that agreement in principle had been reached on initial deployment. Europe might want to step up the pace a little. Iranian nuclear and missile technology is proceeding full speed ahead, and since no one in Europe will try to stop them now, they might want to take adequate defensive measures. If their not going to take a stronger stand against the Iranian nuclear program, they better start building an effective missile interceptor system and fallout shelters. </span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">ANOTHER SECRET REVEALED: The existance of a secret facility at GITMO for high value detainees has been confirmed by the AP. Lawyers for Majid Kahn, a Baltimore man who allegedly plotted to blow up gas stations, originally revealed the secret facility to the media in December. They should be hung. Now those same lawyers are claiming they can't discuss the matter further because of a gag order. It seems a bit late for that. When are we going to start protecting our national secrets again? One problem is the complete lack of criminal prosecutions for this sort of damaging leak. No one is ever held accountable, so there is no fear of punishment. Those who reveal vital defense information are aiding and abetting the enemy, whether it's an attorney or a liberal, defeatist newspaper. Shame on them.</span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">></span></strong></div><div></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><div><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">PAKI CEASE FIRE: Word of another cease fire is coming out of Pakistan, and that is not good news. Musharraf may be looking for a little help with the upcoming February 18 parliamentary elections. His past political deals with pro-Taliban militants have allowed them to regroup and grow stronger to launch more attacks in Afghanistan against American troops. When you're enemy asks for a cease fire, press them all the harder. It means their weak, and that means the time to eliminate them is now, not after they rest and recuperate. Musharraf better get his act together before America is forced to do the killing he seems so unwilling to undertake.</span></strong></div>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-29049538739574785442008-01-31T21:54:00.000-05:002008-01-31T23:51:06.389-05:00A LIBERAL KODAK MOMENT IN L.A.<strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Senators Clinton and Obama faced off in a political joust Thursday evening at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles. CNN televised the event under the moderation of Wolf Blitzer, assisted by Jean Cummings of Politico.com and Doyle McManus of the <em>Los Angeles Times. </em>This was the last debate for either party before next week's Super Tuesday, with primary voting for both parties in twenty-two states. The audience was packed with California politicians and celebrities. I try to ignore Hollywood, but I did recognize Jason Alexander, Rob Reiner, Stevie Wonder, and Pierce Brosnan. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">The Obama campaign tactically announced on the eve of the debate today that they had raised $32M in January alone, a staggering figure helped along by 170,000 new donors. Obama's South Carolina win, followed by the Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements, have him on an undeniable roll. Whether he can competee on a national scale will be tested next week. Hillary, meanwhile, has kept Slick Willie on a tight leash this week. His comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson and his previous tirade against a reporter forced the Clinton campaign to reel in Bill a little, at least for now. Don't doubt that if the race tightens further and goes on longer, the Clinton machine and it's army of private detectives will launch attacks that will make all the previous ones seem mild by comparison.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">I have to issue a brief disclaimer. It is nearly impossible for me to tell who has won a Democrap debate. I have no frame of reference. I disagree with nearly everything that is said. I try to concentrate on the particular words and phrases used by the Dems that reveal their true intent or illustrate clear differences with conservative philosophy. Sure, I can tell when someone gets in a good shot, but beyond that, I'm at a loss. Listening to the talking heads just confuses the issue even more. And the truth is that there are very little policy differences between the Democrat candidates. Their contest this year is a matter of style and experience, not major policy fights.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The candidates were introduced simultaneously and walked out together, so it was a little hard to determine if there was any initial crowd bias. Some cheering occurred in response to both candidates at later points, but it wasn't dramatic. Wolf offered time for an opening statement, and off they went. Obama used the majority of his time to praise John Edwards, who dropped out Wednesday, in a naked appeal for the support of Edwards voters. Hillary instead attacked the "failed" Bush administration, and she definitely has experience with a failed adminstration. Each candidate was then given a chance to point out specific policy differences between them. Hillary started by attacking the Republican candidates, a general election pitch. She also called health care a "right", something I could not find in the Constitution. Clinton then spelled out her solution to the increase in housing foreclosures, which sounded very similar to the big government plan John McCain detailed last night in the Republican debate. Hillary's proposal to freeze interest rates is nothing less than a government takeover of the markets. Socialism, anyone? Obama admitted their health plans are "95 percent similar," but said his was absent mandates that would logically require enforcement of some kind. He declared drug company profits "oversize", an odd view of capitalism for a potential President to hold. Obama then landed a firm smack to the forehead of John McCain by pointing out the "tax cuts for the wealthy" language McCain used when twice voting against the Bush tax reductions. If McCain is the Republican nominee, we'll see that again, even though both Dems openly admitted they will surely raise taxes if elected.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The discussion then moved on to illegal immigration, and this is where they lose me completely. They both support a "comprehensive" immigration reform, and that translates to "amnesty". Obama refused to even acknowledge the effect illegals have on American jobs, terming the idea "scapegoating". Hillary was pressed on drivers licenses for illegals, a question she originally stumbled on in the Philadelphia debate. She twice attempted to run out the clock without answering by comparing Republicans to jackbooted Nazis for insisting immigration law be enforced and citing her support from a migrant farmworkers union. She eventually said she opposes licenses for illegals, but it took a while to get there. Obama cited public safety concerns for his support of licenses, and then Hillary uttered one of the most insincere and ironic sentences I have ever heard: "We have to respect the dignity of every human being." That's a real change in philosophy if she meant it. She has respect for illegal immigrants and criminals, but not for human life created yet unborn. Killing fetuses by the tens of millions is acceptable, but she "respects" EVERY human being?</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The broadcast returned late after a commercial to candidate response to an apparent question about qualifications to be President. Senator Obama detailed his meager experience and said he has the skills that are needed. Hillary immediately threw out her "35 years" pitch. Again, you don't call the plumber's wife to fix a leak. She claimed visits to eighty-two foreign nations, like tourism is an executive skill, and topped off her response by maintaining she had once negotiated with (drumroll please)....Macedonia! Wow, I bet that was a tough deal to complete. The Macedonians are known worldwide for their diplomatic skills. A question about Romney's business experience gave Hillary the chance to swipe at Bush again, and Obama suggested Mitt had gotten a bad return on his investment in the campaign so far. The two played nice over the Kennedy endorsements and then Hillary was asked about the possibility of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. As in the past, she instantly defended Slick Willie's administration by citing the "surplus" when Bill left office. Never mind that war, balance the budget.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The debate again went to commercial, so I grabbed the remote like a hungry man grabbing a biscuit. Mitt Romney on Hannity calling McCain's tactics "Nixonian", and I thought that was pretty cool, as well as accurate. CNN returned from break with an exterior shot, and I saw something that warmed my heart: Ron Paul supporters. It's just good to know he's bedeviling the Democrats also.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Iraq policy arose next, with the candidates differing very little on future policy. Both are prepared to order a precipitous withdrawal, ignoring the progress of the surge and the sacrifice so far, and without regard to consequence. Hillary said the Iraqi government has "no time" remaining, strange for a member of an organization that can't issue checks in less than four months. Clinton proposed withdrawing one or two American brigades per month, but expressed a concern for the Iraqis who have supported us. She's not concerned enough to keep Al Qaeda from beheading them, but she's concerned none the less. Hillary even admitted and shrugged off the potential of further Syrian and Iranian involvement in Iraqi sectarian strife. Not only is she willing to surrender to Al Qaeda, she is prepared to abandon the battlefield to the two largest state sponsors of terror. Obama asserted our effort in Iraq has distracted us from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Latin America. Okay, I get the first two, but Latin America? Senator Obama beat Hillary over the head with her vote for the Iraq war, with Wolf Blitzer helping by asking Clinton if she was "naive" for doing so. She tried to assert that her vote was for further diplomacy and not military action, but that's tired and everyone knows it's disinginuous. Both have pandered to the cut and run wing of their party, and it will be hard for them to seem responsible on the issue in the general election, especially if substantial progress continues.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The broadcast returned late from it's final break, an annoyance considering they have clocks. The final segment was a big Democrat hug. Hillary was asked about Bill's role in her campaign and potentially in the White House, and it drew a hideous cackle from her that chilled the blood. She also described the presidency as a "lonely" job, something that may partially explain how the fat intern ended up under her husband's desk. The candidates were then quizzed about running together. Obama called the matter premature, but Hillary took the opportunity and ran with it. She gave a thirty second plug for her upcoming "national town hall" on television and the web. It was cheesy and opportunistic, paralleling her entire campaign.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">No more debates for a while. The next ones are after Super Tuesday, February 27th and 28th in my home state of Ohio. Who knows what kind of political carnage may have occurred by then. It's up to the voters, as it should be. Just don't begin to think next Tuesday will settle either race, because that's unlikely.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"> </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-27699884933475715672008-01-30T21:42:00.000-05:002008-01-30T23:40:38.098-05:00REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE<strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The surviving Republican Presidential candidates convened for a debate Wednesday evening hosted by CNN in the Air Force One pavilion of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. There could not have been a less appropriate setting, considering none of the gentlemen still remaining in the race quite fit the Reagan philosophy. Questions were posed by moderator Anderson Cooper with assistance from Jim Vandehei of Politico.com and Janet Hook of the <em>Los Angeles Times. </em>Instead of dividing the evening up into issue segments, I decided to score the debate like a sporting event. Yeah, yeah, I know this is about selecting the leader of the free world and all that, but the Republicans have now debated at least a hundred times. I can only take so much, so why not have some fun with it and declare a winner at the end? Each candidate was awarded one point for each time they stated something with which I agreed, and one negative point for each time they said something that I found objectionable. The scores have been tallied, so let's look at the statistics, starting with the losers.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Ron Paul earned three good, solid kicks in the testicles for the number of times he used the word "empire" to describe American foreign policy. Listen closely, grandpa: America does not now nor has it ever maintained an "empire". We just don't fit the definition. United States forces in no way rule over foreign lands as absolute authorities, nor do we go around the planet absorbing smaller, weaker nations. Paul's assertion is that we can simply withdraw from the globe behind our oceans and no one will bother us. It's both stunningly stupid and stunningly naive for a man of his experience. His foreign policy totally ignores the last say, oh, seventy or eighty years of world history. His presence in the campaign has been a sad little joke that has wasted everyone's time. I will never get back the time I wasted listening to Ron Paul's vacuous and assanine philosophy, and I deeply resent that. I cannot explain the money he has raised or his continued presence in the race. Having a substantive debate over critical domestic and foreign policy matters is not helped by the presence of some braying jackass who has zero chance of getting the nomination. And stop saying "empire".</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee scored a big three points. Now, admittedly, I may have a residual bias against Huck from Iowa. I may never get over the floating cross commercial. It made me think of a Christian version of "Big Brother". Huckabee scored a point for his strong advocacy of federalism and the right of states to more freely legislate, a largely missing subject from this campaign. He also scored for wondering about borrowing money from China to finance consumer puchases of Chinese goods in an effort to stimulate the economy. Huck didn't score for a long stretch until the end, when his reply to a question about who Ronald Reagan would endorse, he said, "I don't know if he would endorse me, but I endorse him." Governor Huckabee complained several times about the amount of time allotted to McCain and Romney, and he was right. The press always neglect coverage of real issues to gather around a fight like children on a playground. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Arizona Senator John McCain scored plenty. Unfortunately for him, all his points were negative, and by the end of the evening, he stood at negative ten. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. When asked about his record as a conservative, McCain used his stock phrase to describe compromising conservative principles and submitting to the Democrats: "reaching across the aisle to get something done". I don't want "something" done, I want the right thing done. I vote Republican to promote conservative policies, not meld them with liberal claptrap. McCain's response to California's attempts to more strictly regulate carbon emissions devolved into a rambling version of Gore-style global warming hysteria. His answer to the subprime lending situation is massive government regulation. He continues to push the absurd claim that the Republican congressional losses in 2006 were solely because of spending, a simplistic argument that ignores every other possible factor. McCain's defense of his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, formed in cooperation with Ted Kennedy, continues to be unconvincing and pathetic. He also could not defend his Iraq timetable sucker punch of Romney on the eve of the Florida primary, and even the liberal media so in love with McCain seem to agree it was dishonest. He lost another point for complaining about "negative ads". I call those "political ads". You'd think a man who spent five years a prisoner of the North Vietnamese could take a few jabs. Shortly after his complaint, he took a shot at Romney's experience as "for profit", characterizing his as "for patriotism". So, he seems to have a problem with capitalism and thinks commanding a naval squadron is relevant experience in dealing with the national economy? Another shot at Romney's business experience cost McCain another point when he said, "He bought, and he sold, and some people lost their jobs." Again, a shot at capitalism. When did John McCain morph into John Edwards? McCain was assessed a tenth and final negative point for constantly saying he was a "footsoldier in the Reagan revolution". He was more like a passerby or witness than he was a footsoldier. McCain's performance was flat and unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was today's endorsement of McCain by Rudy Guliani, brazenly conducted at the library as well. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will reportedly endorse McCain tomorrow as well. Big deal. </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney finished the night with eight points, well ahead of the other fellows. Mitt's justified interpretation of McCain's record scored first, and Romney even threw in the <em>New York Times </em>endorsement of McCain as proof. Romney correctly disputed Huckabee's assertion that building infrastructure can help the economy in the short term, and pointed out that McCain was one of only two Republicans in the Senate to vote against the Bush tax cuts. He strongly supported deporting illegal immigrants and assailed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Romney said Ronald Reagan would find McCain's tactics on the eve of the Florida primary "reprehensible", and he was right. He scored again over the same subject by asking McCain, "How are YOU and expert on MY position?" Mitt's last point came during his summation question about a theoretical Reagan endorsement. He concisely stated the Reagan philosophy and formula for winning elections and aggressively made his cas for the nomination. Huckabee's response to the same question was properly humble, but Romney made a good case for himself within the Reagan model.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">There have been two debates since Fred Thompson dropped out, I have judged them both objectively, and in my estimation Mitt Romney has easily won them both. His challenge going forward will be to somehow slow the snowball effect of McCain's South Carolina and Florida wins. I can't say yet that I would vote for Romney, but it's looking more and more probable with each debate. If I can't vote for the candidate I really wanted, then I'll have to pick the best of what's available. The evening made clear once again that McCain certainly isn't it.</span></strong>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-15268650918128518142008-01-28T22:17:00.000-05:002008-01-29T00:06:32.419-05:00LAST STATE OF THE UNION FOR BUSH<strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">President Bush delivered his seventh and final State of the Union speech to the 110<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">th</span> United States Congress Monday evening in the House chamber. The annual event is the single largest gathering of federal government authority in one place at one time, and as one would imagine, security is ironclad. The rituals of the affair are usually more interesting than the actual speech itself. The audience is always a Who's Who of Washington politics, and this time was no exception. First Lady Laura Bush was accompanied for the first time by both Jenna and Barbara. Democratic Presidential candidates Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Obama</span> were present, along with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Alito</span>, Kennedy, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Souder</span>. The President entered as usual after being announced and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">proceeded</span> down the aisle, glad-handing with members of Congress along the way. It's funny to see which members seem to get the seat next to the aisle every time so they can appear with the President. Some of them are sworn political enemies to the President, but no one can deny the power of television. The customary applause continued as the President delivered a hard copy to House Speaker <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Pelosi</span> and Vice President Cheney. The roar from the audience continued long enough for Bush to manage three hand shakes with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Pelosi</span>. Let's all hope he has hand sanitizer readily available for just such an emergency.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The President began with domestic issues, and the economy was at the top of the list. Bush encouraged the Senate to pass the growth package as soon as possible and without a load of pork added. He also made his pitch for making his tax cuts permanent. In the best line of the night, Bush said he appreciated the enthusiasm of those who would voluntarily pay higher taxes, and said the IRS takes "check or money order". He also vowed to veto any tax increase and by executive order cut 151 wasteful federal programs, saving $18B almost immediately. Bush then laid down the law on earmarks, the spending hidden in legislation without a vote. Saying Congress had failed his request in 2007 to cut them, Bush said he would veto any spending measure that did not cut earmarks be at least half in number and total. He then threw down a gauntlet by saying he would order federal agencies to ignore spending not voted on by the Congress. This policy should have been implemented long ago, and it is one Bush can continue until he's gone. The whole section on earmarks elicited an evil Cheney smirk, most entertaining as he sat next to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Pelosi</span> and behind the President.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The remainder of the domestic agenda was expressed as a laundry list of the policies the President hopes to maintain or get at least some movement on before he exits. He called for the reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May, and called on Congress to provide tax-free bonds to refinance mortgages in danger of foreclosure. Bush restated his policies on health care, education, trade, and federal judges. He also supported an international agreement on greenhouse gasses, then made it a fantasy by saying all the major nations (read China and India) would have to be included. Bush challenged Congress to take action on entitlements, now that his proposals on the matter have been rejected. The President continues to to insist that our borders cannot be secured without a guest worker program, a dubious claim at best. Bush has never been shy about big federal spending on domestic programs, and his proposals Monday evening did not disappoint on that count.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The President shifted to events abroad by reviewing the events in that arena over the past seven years. Calling the war "the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century," Bush thanked Congress for it's support on Afghanistan and quickly moved to Iraq. "Some may deny the success of the surge," the President said, "but... Al <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Qaeda</span> is on the run in Iraq, ... and this enemy will be defeated." Only the Republican side of the audience rose to cheer that, as often happens during controversial parts of the speech. The Democrat reaction to our undeniable progress in Iraq is a striking denial of reality and reveals their heavy political investment in defeat. Bush promised our military all the tools necessary to defend our nation, and pressured Congress for full funding of our troops on the battlefield. He laid out a gradual troop withdrawal plan for Iraq bringing 20,000 home this year, but only if conditions allow and commanders on the ground recommend doing so. Bush's stance on Iraq has been <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">unwavering</span>, and he will deserve every iota of the credit if we succeed, if for nothing else than refusing to budge.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">His emphasis on democracy as a cure for terrorism continues despite dangerous results in the Palestinian <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">territories</span>, as does his inexplicable pursuit of a terrorist state astride Israel. The President called for Iran to abandon it's uranium enrichment and stop support for terror, neither of which is very likely. He did, however, warn Iran that we will defend our troops and our interests in the Persian Gulf. Bush stated American opposition to the genocide in Sudan and support for freedom in Cuba, Zimbabwe, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Belarus</span>, and Burma. He also disturbingly requested an additional $50B over the next five years for his African AIDS efforts. That amount of foreign aid could best be used at home or for defense.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The President concluded with veterans affairs. He pointed out funding for veterans programs has increased 95 percent during his administration. Bush called for further funding and a reform of the system. Bob Dole and Donna <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Shalala</span>, co-chairs of the Commission on Care for Wounded Warriors, were in attendance, and Bush also requested implementation of their recommendations. Our nation would be making a huge leap in veterans care if Congress ever does.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The speech lasted fifty-three minutes and was interrupted by applause seventy times. The networks let the microphones roll as the President made his way out of the chamber. It was a unique insight into the man and the job. It seemed every member wanted an autographed program, and they crowded the aisle and often squeezed the President's shoulder in congratulation. The very same folks will be trying to rip out his political guts tomorrow morning. Members customarily gather in Statuary Hall after the speech to snag interviews and judge the President's performance. It's a fascinating ritual of our republic, regardless of who holds the office. Bush may get some approval for his effort, but the rest will require help from Congress. That's doubtful unless the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Dems</span> see political gain in cooperating, a rarity indeed.</span></strong>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37621883.post-22754534311793857692008-01-27T12:52:00.000-05:002008-01-27T13:44:48.649-05:00CAMPAIGN STATUS REPORT<strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Barrack <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Obama</span> thrashed Hillary Clinton in South Carolina's Democrat primary yesterday, far surpassing his expected vote total. The polls predicted a eight to ten point win for the Illinois Senator, but he finished with a twenty-eight point victory that netted over double the vote total for Hillary. Now the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Dems</span> move on to Super Tuesday while the Republican contenders face a Tuesday Florida primary with polls showing a slight Romney advantage over McCain. Now is probably a good time to review the situation on both sides and assess prospects for the future.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The reactions of both sides in the Democrat race last night illustrates the differences in strategy. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Obama</span> gave a soaring victory speech calling for unity and rejecting the politics of the past. The Hillary camp sent out a concession email and promptly <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">proceeded</span> to Tennessee. Slick Willie has compared <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Obama's</span> victory to those of Jesse Jackson in the 1980s, attempting to relegate him to a "black candidate" status. Despite all the pronouncements of Bill Clinton as the most effective politician of our time, his contribution so far has been to divide the Democrat electorate along racial lines. He might have blown his status as the "first black President" over the past two weeks. He managed to turn a small win for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Obama</span> into a spanking of epic proportion. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Clintons</span> are running on the idea of a co-presidency, odd for the first viable female candidate. Hillary claims to be strong enough to run for President, but has her husband out on the trail as her hatchet man to do all the dirty work. It's natural for conservatives to support Clinton opponents, but don't be fooled by Senator <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Obama</span>. He gives a great speech, but he's as far left as they come. The policy differences among the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Dems</span> are few and minor. Hillary continues to run the Clinton political machine that feeds opponents into a meat grinder and will do anything to win. If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Obama</span> beats Hillary on Super Tuesday, he could be hard to stop with the usual Clinton dirty tricks. The Democrat electorate has tired of the same old dirty tricks and may continue to punish <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Billary</span> for them.</span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">The Republicans are campaigning across Florida ahead of the Tuesday primary there. Mitt Romney holds a slight poll lead over McCain, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Huckabee</span> is a distant third, and Rudy looks near finished. Romney had a superb performance in the last debate, and his business successes in the past have given him credibility to speak credibly on current economic issues. He currently leads in delegates, having won Michigan and Wyoming. A Romney victory could propel him with significant momentum into Super Tuesday. Mitt has enough money to finance his own campaign, so he's in the race to stay. McCain comes off his South Carolina win hoping to make nice with all the conservatives he has <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">smited</span> in the past. Florida is the first primary to allow only Republicans to cast a ballot, so McCain cannot rely on independent support that has helped him in the past. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Huckabee</span> is working on proving Iowa was a one time event and that he has no chance anywhere else. Rudy has pinned his hopes on winning Florida, having bypassed the earlier primaries, but the polls show him in fourth place and approaching single digits. The scandals involving his time as mayor of New York reported in November and December didn't help, and neither did his complete absence from the early part of the process. </span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">Both races have developed into two person contests. Mitt and McCain battle it out to go against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Obama</span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Billary</span>. The sure bet is that nothing will be settled anytime soon. The party conventions this summer could be real floor fights instead of coronations. All the candidates will be forced to review their plans after Super Tuesday, and by then the picture may be a little clearer. Until then, sit back and watch the fur fly.</span></strong>Jingoconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03943298243673547532noreply@blogger.com0