All Things Political Today

The Blog For Conservative Political Commentary and Analysis in the United States and Around The World

Our enemies know how to play the game, Obama doesn’t

August 29th, 2014

The modern age of warWe live in an age of war and our leader doesn’t understand that in this age every decision is fraught with peril. It could be the difference between life or death for the United States.

If that sounds dramatic, it’s meant to be. We are currently semi-engaged in a variety of crises around the globe. As the pre-eminent democracy on the planet others look to us for help and support.

But Barack Obama is a new kind of isolationist. At times he is passive, like attacking the ISIS base camps in Syria. At other times he can be very aggressive, especially with his use of drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Yemen.

Mr. President: the game is afoot. Russia has overtly invaded Ukraine with tanks and ground troops. So far, there has been no credible response from the United States, unless you consider talk at the U.N. the best that we can do now.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State continues to threaten the very continued existence of Syria and Iraq. Stiff-necked dictator Bashar al-Assad must not have gotten the memo. If he doesn’t bend a little his head will be the one on a pike for all to see.

In Iraq the Kurdish Peshmerga (Those who confront death) and the best of the Iraqi security forces are battling back from oblivion stiffened by American airpower. But unless we toss some more weight on the scales it will only be a holding action.

But Obama has revealed to the world that he doesn’t know how to play this game and doesn’t have a clue where to start.

Yesterday, at a White House press conference, he stood up and told the world that we are going to do zero to help Ukraine. Furthermore, we have no strategy to defeat the Islamic State. Can you believe that the President of the United States actually uttered such inanities?

Of course, his staff attempted to mitigate the damaging statements. Here’s Josh Earnest doing damage control on CNN:

[T]he president was asked a specific question about what approach he was going to pursue when it came to possible military action in Syria against ISIL. That was the specific question he was asked and the president was explicit, that he is still waiting for plans that are being developed by the Pentagon for military options that he has for going into Syria.

Are they kidding? Do we all look like idiots? Well, I’m sure someone, somewhere will accept this hair-splitting but in the real world of our enemies this as weakness to be exploited.

And exploit it they will. Putin will continue to press his neighbor as long as there’s no pushback. The Islamic State will continue to gobble up territory and oppose their government over millions of Syrians and Iraqis.

The administration continues with their trip through the fantasyland that is Iraq by insisting that the solution is a unified government.

Well, of course, that will help but you don’t stand by while your neighbor’s house is burning down negotiating with him for the price of the hose. They’ll get it done when they do. Meanwhile, they desperately need heavy weapons and advisers. And how about greater air power?

Josh Earnest continued with his explanation of Obama’s plans in Iraq:

But when it comes to confronting ISIL, the president has been very clear for months about what our comprehensive strategy is for confronting the ISIL threat in Iraq. It starts with a unified Iraq government, that can unite that country to meet the threat that’s facing their country right now.

It includes strengthening our relationship with the Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, to make sure that they have the equipment and training that they need, to take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their country.

The third component of our strategy is engaging regional governments. It’s certainly not in the interest of governments in that neighborhood to have ISIL wreaking havoc and perpetrating terrible acts of violence in the region.

The fourth aspect of the strategy is engaging countries around the world in this effort.

And then, of course, the fifth aspect of the strategy, the fifth component, is the use of American military force.

This is what happens with a liberal Democrat government: all talk and no action. By the time we get to end of Obama’s dithering the world will be in flames.

The Burden of Power

August 26th, 2014

The new American CenturyFrom everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. Luke 12:48

We in the United States have been given much. We carved a country out of a wilderness. We tore it from the grasp of the British Empire in a Revolutionary War. We defended it from the same British who invaded in 1812.

We persevered through a violent and bloody civil war. We built our country into an industrial powerhouse. We helped others gain their freedom and never once did we steal their resources or enslave their peoples.

Less than 100 years ago we came to the aid of our once and future allies, the French and the British. They were at the end of their resources when the United States troops entered the trenches of France.

The French Army had mutinied in 1916 with troops refusing to follow orders. Both they and the British had lost an entire generation of their young men in futile frontal assaults against the impenetrable German lines.

Then, the Americans arrived, first in a trickle then in a flood. When told that his troops must retreat in the face of a German attack, one Marine captain said: “Hell no, we just got here.”

Sergeant Daniel Dailey, already the recipient of two Medals of Honor, told his troops at Belleau Wood: “All right you apes, do you want to live forever?”

Without the United States the Allies would have lost the war. Instead, we lost the peace and allowed our partners to plant the seeds for a Second World War. Without the industrial might and the manpower of the United States, the Allies would have lost that war too.

After the war we rebuilt most of Europe and Asia that had been shattered by war. Instead of taking over the defeated nations we gave them the one precious thing that we had to offer: democracy.

For the last 100 years the United States has been the country of last resort for those who are being oppressed or invaded. We have stepped forward to lead coalitions and alliances of democracy.

We invaded Afghanistan when it became clear that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were based there. We invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people from the despotism of Saddam Hussein. After all he had killed thousands of his own people using poison gas.

But after more than a decade of warfare the American people are weary of war. Or at least that’s what we’re being told by commentators from the mainstream media. And our anti-war President has led the chorus.

No one loves war. Soldiers and civilians alike hate war. People die in war. It saps the morale of the populace. It steals funding from education, healthcare and the very infrastructure of a country.

Yet, we live in an age of war. We didn’t start it, our enemies did. Vladimir Putin saw an opportunity to steal pieces of neighboring Ukraine because he saw that we in the West would not or could not stop him.

The radical Islamists saw weakness and withdrawal from the Obama administration so they swept across Syria and Iraq to seize territory for their new Caliphate, the Islamic State.

These barbarians are a new Mongolian Horde. They have blotted out entire towns. They are attempting to kill all of the Christians, Yazidis and every other sect that doesn’t agree with their brand of Islam.

A new dark age has descended on the Middle East complete with decapitations, forced conversions and a new kind of slavery. Tens of thousands have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced.

Meanwhile, like Nero who fiddled while Rome burned, Barack Obama has vacationed and played 9 rounds of golf. After his five-minute press conference about the decapitation of James Foley, he immediately returned to the golf course.

It appears that our anti-war President is incapable of making a firm decision on the situation in the Middle East. While he dithers in the Oval Office and meets with his ‘advisers’ thousands more are slaughtered.

The Islamic State is like no other terrorist enemy we have ever faced. They are well-armed with captured weaponry from the Iraqi and Syrian armies.

They are well-funded with ransom money, gold and Iraqi currency looted from captured banks. Finally, they are selling oil from captured Iraqi oil fields on the black market.

All that we hear from the West is a call for conferences, meetings and summits. The terrorists know that without firm leadership from the United States they will succeed.

To paraphrase Frederic Douglass, it’s time for hot lead and cold steel administered by the American armed forces. The rules of engagement should be unhindered by political niceties. Nothing less than the overwhelming might of the United States will work against this new Mongolian Horde.

If Obama can’t lead then he should step aside. In the words of Lee Iacocca: “If you can’t lead, get out of the way.” 

The War over Forests

August 20th, 2014

ForestsWe’ve come full circle with the War on Women, the War on Terror and finally now the War over Forests. More properly it should be called the War over Forest Products or the War over Timber Certification.

This conflict is between three  environmental organizations who are all seeking monopoly control in forest certification.

A new organization, Forest Stewardship Council (or FSC for short), will certify that timber meets the standard that initially gained traction during the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, when it was adopted as part of a “smart growth” strategy known as “sustainable development.”

The Forest Stewardship Council includes such groups as the World Wide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace, Oxfam/NOVIB, US Wildlife Conservation Society and the Dogwood Alliance. It was founded in 1993 in Bonn, Germany and its goal is to promote responsible management of the world’s forests.

The FSC joins the Sustainable Forest Initiative, seen as the closest to the forest industry of the three, the American Tree Farm System in this war over the forests.

If the Forest Stewardship Council takes over all forest certifications, it would mean higher prices, more jobs lost, and reduced economic output, according to a study last year from George Mason University’s EconoSTATS program.

The study found the Forest Stewardship Council imposed far higher costs than did the Sustainable Forest Initiative or the American Tree Forest System.

In Oregon, it would result in the loss of more than 31,000 jobs and reduce annual severance taxes by more than $6 million. In Arkansas, it would reduce forest industry employment by up to 10,000 jobs and reduce annual severance taxes by more than $600,000.

Environmentalists devised forest certification to fight forest depletion in developing countries. The process, they say, assures consumers that wood products originate in “sustainably managed” forests.

The three competing certifiers apply their “independent” standards to assess whether a company’s forest-management practices are worthy of certification.

All of this evolved out of the 1992 UN Earth Summit that became known as Agenda 21. This document promoted ecologically responsible methods of harvesting that were supposed to allow for economic development but avoid harmful levels of deforestation.

The summit failed to pass a legally binding agreement and environmental groups stepped in to form a non-profit organization called the Forest Stewardship Council.

Members of the FSC have aggressively attempted to discredit their competitors, especially the Sustainable Forest Initiative. The Dogwood Alliance, for example, organized campaigns against businesses that used SFI standards, including OfficeMax, Office Depot, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Staples.

Despite pressure from environmentalists, the U.S. Forest Service has declined to endorse the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council over those of the Sustainable Forest Initiative and the American Tree Farm System.

On another front in this war, the EconoSTATS study warns environmental groups are trying to get into a position where they can block access to green markets  by green building certification program such as LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.

The Sierra Club, Greenpeace and the Earth Island Institute formed a joint initiative in April called Greenwash Action to promote LEED standards for building energy efficiency and to attack Green Globes, which offers an alternative assessment program.

The fight between Greenwash Action and the other two organizations, Sustainable Forest Initiative and the American Tree Farm System is attempt by FSC to gain monopoly control of timer certification. This will raise costs, block competition in building markets and have direct financial ties to the causes they support.


The March to a One-Party State?

August 19th, 2014

Obama as dictatorDoes this sound familiar? The nation’s economy is in a shambles with high-unemployment. A charismatic leader appears who convinces a slim majority of the population to vote for him.

When he is given power by the elites, he almost immediately begins a campaign to suppress his opposition by the use of subterfuge and naked force. The country’s military stand aside and allow it all to happen.

He stages a provocation and moves against the other political parties in his country, erasing all competition in one stroke. He shrugs aside the rule of law and replaces it with one-party rule. Still sound familiar?

If you thought that it was a description of Barack Obama you would be wrong. It could be a description of both Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler.

Both men and their parties came to power legally. Both men then proceeded to crush their opposition using the levers of power that they had legally acquired with the complicity of the political world. Eventually, both men led their countries to world war, utter defeat and death.

Barack Obama is treading the same path that all tyrants walk. He came to power promising hope and change. Forget the hope, we only got the change for the worst.

While Hitler was an expansionist, not surprising given Germany’s location in central Europe, Barack Obama has dismantled America’s power worldwide.

He failed to take any substantive action in Libya, Syria, Ukraine or against Iranian nuclear ambitions. He has stood by while our firmest ally in the Middle East, Israel, has struggled in a sea of enemies, all with the same thing in mind: Kill all of the Jews.

Countries around the world no longer look upon America as someone that they can depend on when they need help or someone to fear when they’re making trouble. We now have the influence of perhaps France.

Meanwhile, our military stands by either willingly or unwillingly acquiescing to all of these moves. Their officer corps has been purged of any who might pose a threat to the administration.

David Petraeus was seen as a threat so the White House had the FBI keep track of his phone and email traffic. Eventually, they discovered that he was having an affair and he was out as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

When one of General Stanley McChrystal’s aides made disparaging remarks about Barack Obama, McChrystal was forced out as commander of all forces in Afghanistan, a case of firing by association.

Then we have the strange case of General David McKiernan, another commander of our faces in Afghanistan, who was sacked without an adequate explanation. “We can and must do better … We have a new policy set by our president, a new strategy, a new mission … I believe new military leadership is also needed,” said Robert Gates, the Defense Secretary. 

Let’s face it, Barack Obama is not well-liked by the military for a number of reasons. Most military tend to be conservatives and Republicans. They don’t the way in which the president has used them as props in his political campaigns while showing little real concern for the welfare of the troops or their success in the field of battle.

Obama clearly insulted the military when he chose to play golf in Martha’s Vineyard at the very time that Army Maj. Gen. Harold Greene was being buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Greene was the first general officer to be killed in the line of duty since the Vietnam War.

Using all of the powers of his office, Obama has attempted to crush his political enemies at every turn. He has used the Internal Revenue Service as his personal Gestapo to suppress Tea Party and conservative groups.

Governing more by and more by decree he has changed his own health insurance law at least 40 times. Even liberal Iowa Senator Tom Harkin was appalled at the President’s actions. “This was the law. How can they change the law?” he asked.

The Regulatory Reign of Terror by the Executive Branch has now reached the epidemic stage. The Environmental Protection Agency led by Gina McCarthy and her merry band of prohibitionists are prepared to shut down entire industries in the name of environmental purity.

Like a pendulum our environmental policy has swung to one extreme and is being pursued to the detriment of our citizenry. Their attempt to control puddles of water, farm dust and coal is killing our economy with hundreds of billion in costs being larded on to our businesses.

You wonder to what end is all of this taking the United States. Are we on a March to a One-Party State? You decide.


Criminalizing Politics

August 18th, 2014

Rick PerryThe indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry is the latest shot fired in the criminalization of politics in America. In the eyes of most political observers Perry was indicted for carrying out his constitutional right to veto specific lines of the Texas state budget.

A number of Democrats, including former Presidential adviser David Axelrod who called the charges ‘sketchy’, see this latest controversy as detrimental to their party.

Ultra-liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has also questioned the move. Calling himself a “liberal Democrat who would never vote for Rick Perry,” but he’s still “outraged” over Perry’s indictment.

“Everybody, liberal or conservative, should stand against this indictment. If you don’t like how Rick Perry uses his office, don’t vote for him.”

The indictment was handed down by a Travis County grand jury and included two charges against the sitting governor. Both were felony abuse of power charges.

Perry vetoed $7.5 million for Travis County to run the Public Integrity unit. The governor said that he wouldn’t fund an important office run by someone that he had lost confidence in. Lehmberg was convicted of DUI in 2013.

The Travis County District Attorney’s office has been involved in questionable indictments before. The county is solidly Democrat in a sea of Republicans. Lehmberg’s predecessor, Ronnie Earle, was constantly on the hunt for Republican scalps.

On June 10, 1993, shortly after her special election victory, Travis County authorities raided Kay Bailey Hutchison’s offices at the State Treasury. The search was conducted without a warrant. 

Subsequently, after two other grand jury indictments were thrown out, Hutchison was indicted a 3rd time. Judge John Onion swore in a jury and directed the jury to acquit Hutchison, since Earle chose not to present evidence. The acquittal barred any future prosecution of Hutchison.

Earle pursued House Minority Leader Tom DeLay with a vengeance. For over two years, Earle and eight separate grand juries investigated possible violations of Texas campaign finance law in the 2002 state legislative election.

Eventually in , Earle got an indictment on DeLay for conspiring to violate Texas state election law but the Presiding Judge threw out the charge. Earle wouldn’t be discouraged and tried two more times. On the third try he suceeded in getting an indictment. 

In November of 2010 DeLay was convicted of money laundering but the conviction was overturned in September of 2013 by the Third Court of Appeals for the State of Texas. The court not only overturned the verdict, but took the step of entering a full acquittal.

Using a judicial office as a political weapon is not unknown in this country. The special prosecutor in the so-called ‘outing’ of Valerie Plamme knew all along that Lewis “Scooter” Libby was not responsible for the leak that exposed her as a CIA officer.

Yet, he proceeded with the case and Mr. Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, is a Democrat while Mr. Libby is a Republican and was chief of staff to Vice President Richard Cheney. Libby’s sentence was commuted by President Bush.

Over the last several decades political adversaries have used the ethics system as a means of smearing their political opponents. The case of Sarah Palin is well worth examining.

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced she was resigning her office due to the costs and distractions of battling ethics investigations describing the “insane” amount of time and money that both she and the state of Alaska had expended responding to “opposition research”, 150 FOIA requests and 15 “frivolous” legal ethics complaints filed by “political operatives” against her. 

She said the state had spent $2 million while she and her husband, Todd, would be spending “more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight.” 

In addition to responding to the ethics complaints, the state attorneys had to review the public record requests including the 238 filed during Palin’s administration and 189 after she was named John McCain‘s running mate.

Is this what our political system has come to? The American system is based on defeating your opponents at the polling booth but increasingly it seems that politics has moved into the courtroom.

More importantly, the judiciary seems to agree with this approach. The Founders created the American system as three equal branches but we’re now seeing a constant tug-of-war between the branches. This doesn’t bode well for the future of America.


Barack Obama is a Questionable War Leader

August 14th, 2014

ISIS executing prisonersBarack Obama does not know how to conduct war. He has no military experience, disdains our military and thinks that he has a better way.

He promised Americans a new type of governing but what we have gotten is Chicago-style thug politics. He has a tight group of advisers who in the tradition of Cook County politics have staked out their own petty fiefdoms excluding others from the decision-making process.

Valerie Jarrett, a relatively unschooled adviser, seems to be his gatekeeper. She gained her mastery through her relationship with Michelle Obama. She knows that she speaks for the President and takes advantage of that power.

Susan Rice was our ambassador to the United Nations for 4 1/2 years. We all remember her from her denials on five Sunday shows that Benghazi was a terror attack. Due to this she was denied the position of Secretary of State. She’s been backpedaling ever since.

As Obama’s National Security Adviser Rice gets to filter the information that the President receives on a daily basis. She now has the position that she coveted since the beginning of the Obama administration.

Obama’s only military adviser is Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our current response to the Islamic State’s rampage across Syria and Iraq was based on his urgent meeting with Obama where he pointed out the danger of allowing it to continue undeterred.

Obama’s response was what you might expect based on his past non-performances in Libya, Ukraine and Syria. This man has no idea how to conduct any kind of military.

His first statements were made with an eye to the polls and his base. Doesn’t he realize that he’s not eligible for a third term? He’s making decisions as if he thinks that they will affect his political future. Earth to Barack: in 2 1/2 years it’s all over for you.

I’d love to play poker against this guy. The very first thing that our questionable war leader did was lay all of his cards on the table for our enemies to see that his resolve is weak.

Off the table were any combat ground troops and the overwhelming firepower that United States airpower can bring to the battle space. Instead, Obama chose to use very limited air strikes against a vicious enemy.

How can our esteemed leader hesitate to use the armed might of the United States on such a barbaric enemy? Has he know heart or pride in our country’s reputation to help people in need?

The forces of the Islamic State have executed captured Iraqi soldiers and civilian officials, lining them up and gunning them down. They have slaughtered innocents who won’t convert to their brand of Islam, whatever that is. And they’re using social media to advertise their barbarism.

Instead, he has blithely gone off to Martha Vineyard to play golf and party while the crises around the world multiply. As the supposed leader of the Free World, Barack Obama is a complete and abject failure.


The Administration is picking Winners and Losers again

August 13th, 2014

Operation Choke PointBarack Obama and his merry band of “smart people” are at again. Once more, they’re picking winners and losers in the marketplace. After the “green energy’ debacle you would think that they would have laid low and tried a different approach.

But no-o-o! It seems that they just can’t stay away from disaster. Their latest program is called Operation Choke Point, a fitting name because it could choke the life out of this crowd.

Operation Choke Point is an ongoing initiative of the United States Department of Justice that was announced in 2013, which is investigating banks in the United States and the business they do with payment processorspayday lenders, and other companies believed to be at higher risk for fraud.

Critics say Operation Choke Point, so dubbed by Department of Justice officials, seeks to weed out businesses that the White House considers objectionable.

A House report indicates that a primary target of Operation Choke Point is the short-term lending industry. A more expansive list of out of favor, non-financial businesses includes certain ammunition merchants, coin dealers, home-based charities, and sellers of pharmaceutical drugs – also lawful enterprises.

Based on anecdotal evidence, it appears that the DOJ and their partner in this operation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, are using high-pressure tactics reminiscent of Chicago-style thuggery.

They approach a bank and using threats and intimidation force them to discontinue an offensive businesses account.

Banks receive notifications from federal regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that the government considers certain types of businesses “high risk.” Banks are then pressured, through the implied threat of government investigations, to sever ties with customers engaged in those enterprises.

In this post the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal profiled four legitimate businesses that were targeted by the two Federal agencies. They all fit the profile of companies that the administration does not like.

Secure Account Services, LLC provides payment-processing services to a variety of client companies and law firms in the debt-relief industry. 

Last spring, both Chase Bank and Horizon Community Bank closed his business  accounts, one after another. By law, his company’s funds must be held in a government-insured bank account. Without one Secure Account Services can’t do business.

Doing some research, Steve Statford, the company’s founder,  came across information on Operation Choke Point. He then contacted the banks to ask whether government officials had exerted some “undue influence.”

Confidentially, Stratford says, the bank employee told him Chase had sent letters to “hundreds of companies in similar industries in obedience to directions from several federal agencies, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency at the Department of Treasury.”

The banker told him that if his Chase branch didn’t “mitigate that risk,” all of its accounts could be audited.

With no explanation, Brian Brookman last month lost the bank account for his pawn shop.

He had no idea why. Brookman says his store in Grand Haven, Mich., never had been in trouble with federal or state officials. And being in the pawn industry, he was required by law to get a city license every year.

“If there was ever a problem, they wouldn’t renew my license,” Brookman, a former police officer and Army veteran, told The Daily Signal.

After researching his case on the Internet, Brookman says he concluded that his banker, JP Morgan Chase, closed the account because two of his business activities — dealing in vintage coins and selling firearms — were labeled “high risk” by federal bureaucrats as part of an Obama administration initiative called Operation Choke Point.

Critics say Operation Choke Point, so dubbed by Department of Justice officials, seeks to weed out businesses that the White House considers objectionable.

The Justice Department contends the goal of the program is to combat unlawful mass-market consumer fraud, although recent evidence suggests otherwise.

A House report indicates that a primary target of Operation Choke Point is the short-term lending industry. A more expansive list of out of favor, non-financial businesses includes certain ammunition merchants, coin dealers, home-based charities, and sellers of pharmaceutical drugs – also lawful enterprises.

Alden Abbott, the Rumpel senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, says of this government overreach:

Government officials have no authority to deny lawful industries access to credit merely because the government dislikes their line of business. That runs counter to the rule of law. Only unlawful activity merits sanction.


Democrats running away from their party

August 12th, 2014

Forward to defeatThere is a new phenomenon in the political world. Like the cat whose tail is on fire, Democrats a running away from their party.

Many who are in difficult elections or reelections are quite simply not identifying themselves as Democrats in the television, radio or print ads. They’re afraid that by doing so they will become associated with the disastrous Obama administration.

A recent story on Politico put it this way.

Faced with a treacherous political environment, many Democrats are trotting out campaign ads that call for balanced budgets, tax cuts and other more traditionally GOP positions. Some of them are running in congressional districts that just two years ago broke sharply for President Barack Obama.

* * *

New Hampshire Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, whose district broke for Obama by a yawning 11-percentage-point margin in 2012, is running an ad that touts her support for small-business tax cuts while showing her touring a local microbrewery. Separately, former Iowa state Sen. Staci Appel, in a district Obama won by 4 percentage points two years ago, underscores her record of fighting overspending in state government, a populist theme often heard from tea party-aligned conservatives.

Like the commercials aired by Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, Kuster and Appel, Arizona Representative Ron Barber’s doesn’t mention his Democratic Party affiliation.

Truthfully, the Democrats are only following the lead of the mainstream media. When they report on a scandal involving a Democrat they either don’t mention their party affiliation at all or it’s buried deep in the story.

Many of their Republican opponents have taken to highlighting their association with Barack Obama. Ed Gillespie who is running against Mark Warner makes sure that you know Senator Warner voted with the President 97% of the time.

Cory Gardner (R-CO) is running against Mark Udall and in a recent commercial he made sure that the voters know that he’s on their side when he revealed that his family’s insurance had been canceled, too.

In Ron Barber’s recent ad (D-AZ) the only way that you would know he was a Democrat was in the fine print where it says: “Paid for by Arizona Democratic Party & Ron Barber for Congress”. Otherwise, he could be a member of any party.

Their themes are patently false with many Democrats running as pseudo-Republicans. Let’s face it, if the ran as Democrats who are loyal to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid they would be crushed on election day.

There only recourse is to lie to the voters. ‘We’re for everything that the Republicans are for.’ But next year if they’re elected they’ll fall in line and do what their political masters require them to do.

Oh, plenty of Democrats have told the electorate ‘I’ll be an independent voice in Congress’ but it never happens. If they stray from the party line they’ll get lousy committee assignments or offices in the basement. That’s why they call it the party line.

So, when you hear one of these phonies talking about independence and speaking for their constituents, don’t believe it. Once they’re elected they’ll become just another reliable vote for the Democrats.

Barack Obama: The Reluctant Warrior

August 11th, 2014

ISIS executionsPower abhors a vacuum. In the international sphere this has been proven time and time again.

When Harry Truman withdrew American troops from South Korea in 1949 the North Korean communists saw it as an opportunity to invade. The result was millions of soldiers and civilians killed or wounded on both sides.

The old story about when the cat is away the mice will play is being retold in Iraq. Barack Obama ran away from Iraq like a cat with its tail on fire.

When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki offered to sign an executive decree that would have satisfied U.S. concerns over a Status of Forces Agreement, he turned him down.

He withdraw every combat formation from the country and left the Sunnis and the Kurds to the tender mercies of the Maliki’s Shiite bullies who proceeded to divide the shaky democracy along religious lines.

Enter the Islamic State in Syria. With a mere 10,000 fanatical butchers they shattered the Iraqi military. Maliki and his Shiite apparatus had purged most of the Sunni officer corps from the Iraqi armed forces and the poorly trained replacements were incapable of rallying their troops.

The media coverage of ISIS fanatics lining up soldiers and civilians alike for execution was too much for many Iraqi troops. They stripped off their uniforms and fled from the battle lines.

Meanwhile, Obama and his advisers were looking the other way. When the Maliki government asked for help the Obama administration insisted on national reconciliation as a condition.

The religious groups within the artificial state of Iraq have been incapable of doing this since its creation after World War I. Yet, the administration expected them to accomplish this feat in a mere several months.

Obama and his allies were as short-sighted as Bill Clinton was in Somalia and in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Quite simply, America’s foreign policy in Iraq had become see know evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. In essence, ignore the problem.

I have no doubt that push back from our military highest officers gave the White House some concern. They began to realize that public statements by highest officers would have a damaging effect on Democrats in the mid-term elections.

I’m sure that Democrats began to pressure the White House to do something, anything, to help the beleaguered Iraqis. On the one hand, Americans may not want to return to Iraq but we are incapable of standing by while innocents are being slaughtered.

Barack Obama, a reluctant warrior, was pushed into ordering limited airstrikes to protect American advisers in Irbil and prevent a humanitarian crisis. The American military is now being forced to operate in the skies over Northern Iraq and Kurdistan with these constricting rules of engagement.

Let’s be clear about several things. The United States air forces are the finest that the world has ever seen. We have the most modern aircraft and weaponry devised by man. The truth of this is in the highest defense budget in the world.

The nascent Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to the United States and our allies. Their zone of control now stretches from the Lebanese border through Syria and into Iraq. They have nearly split Iraq in half.

They threaten oil fields in Iraq. The have captured the Mosul Dam and could unleash a torrent of water down the Tigris River to Baghdad and beyond. They have captured power stations and thousands of square miles of Iraq.

Once they consolidate their power who’s next? Maybe Jordan and from there it would be a short walk to the south against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

The complacent Europeans could be threatened this winter with a cutoff of natural gas from Russia and a similar embargo of oil from the Middle East.

A hostile Caliphate that stretches across the Middle East would present a danger to Turkey, Israel and Egypt. What if they swept into Iran and captured nuclear weapons? Then we would have a nightmare scenario in which the continental United States would be threatened.

The time and place to eradicate this threat is here and now. Unfortunately, we have a reluctant anti-colonialist in the Oval Office or wherever he is today. This isn’t about colonialism, it’s about the survival of civilization.


Could Same-Sex Marriage Shatter the Union?

August 7th, 2014

Same Sex MarriageThe on-going debate about the legality of same-sex marriage has been going on for the past several years. We now have reached the stage where previous court cases are reaching the appeals level of the Federal judiciary.

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati heard an appeal from four states, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, on voter-approved prohibitions. 

Previously, two other circuit courts had ruled that prohibitions against same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. But from the questioning of the three-judge panel it appears that they may rule differently. This would almost guarantee a hearing before the Supreme Court.

But before we ever get to that stage could this issue precipitate an irretrievable split ion the union of states? After all the individual states either passed the prohibitions through voter referendums or legislative action.

Now, we have the judiciary reversing the will of the electorate based on their own personal beliefs. After all, it has been accepted tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two woman or two men.

Based on U.S. Census data (disputed by LGBT representatives) the affected community is somewhere between 2.7% to 4%. Yet, in an attempt to placate this vocal minority our judiciary is willing to overturn traditional marriage that dates from Adam and Eve.

In their willingness to interpret the Constitution to fit their beliefs are they also willing to divide the country and destroy the Union?

In 1860, the Southern Fire-Eaters were willing to destroy the Union for their theory of slavery. Their actions divided the Union and precipitated a four-year war that cost as many as 720,000 men their lives.

Many of the states with more religiously conservative populations believe that same-sex marriage is an abomination and are willing to go to the wall over this issue.

Having said that the same-sex marriage proponents have put forward a number of practical issues that deserve to be heard and considered. The rights of survivorship, child custody and legal inheritance of property are all important issues in our modern society.

But there must be a middle ground on this issue. Civil unions have always been a possibility. Before we go so far down this road that we can never come back, as a country we need to consider other alternatives.

Before the United States Supreme Court decides for us, we need to decide for ourselves in a rational manner. What if the same-sex marriage proponents bet everything on one throw of the dice and lose? What do they do then?

Once they lose their opponents will never consider an alternative. In essence, they will say to them “Tough luck. You lost, we won.”

And if they win in the Supreme Court, what will happen then? Will the losing states decide to overthrow the ruling by walking away as the Southern Confederacy did in 1860?

A same-sex marriage ruling against the states will be the final straw that breaks their backs. Will they be like the king who was losing at chess and simply overturned the board? Perhaps.