Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Decline of Post WW-II US Will to Win

I'm rather slow when it comes to realizing certain things. After reading this article titled North Korea May Attack US; South Korean Ships, it finally dawned on me, 56 years late, that the US has not decisively won a war since WWII.

For the past few years, here I was, concerned about the "recent" decline of US power and influence in the world, when the reality is we have been declining since the Korean War. We never won that war. We executed a half-assed truce - a draw - a war that resulted in BS - nothing. The belligerant enemy was left to fight another day. Why should I feel bad about the US "tail tucked between our legs" defeat in Vietnam? Or the pending realization that Iraq will likely revert to fundamentalist Islam in the next couple of years, or the quagmire in Afghanistan, or our impotence concerning Iran and North Korea.

Yes, back to North Korea - a situation that should have been resolved 56 years ago. The "another day" for North Korea to fight is in our faces today.

Is our failure to decisively win any war since WWII due to our declining power and weakness, or is it due to badly chosen conflicts? Badly chosen conflicts have hastened and continue to hasten our declining power. Was Korea a badly chosen conflict? Probably not. A close ally was attacked. We responded "proportionately", that is, with just enough power to lose thousands of men and not win the war. We could have won, but our will was awol. Since then, we have suffered from the dual curse of poorly choosing our fights, and an awol will to win. Hence, a greatly weakened America.

Whatever Happened to No Discrimination...

...Based on Race, Gender, or National Origin?

Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor because of her race, gender, and national origin - and because her legal opinions will be based on the "unique sensitivities" such background brings to the court that no white male could bring. Wow!

For the past 4 decades it has been illegal to choose anyone for anything on that basis - not employees, not college students, not contractors, not tenants - no one.

Newt Gingrich correctly observed: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.” Ironically, Janet MurguĂ­a, president of the National Council of La Raza ("La Raza" meaning "The Race", more specifically the race of people indigenous to Mexico) warned against judging Sotomayor "unfairly." Well, well, Ms. "non-racist" racist La Raza President, I'm pretty sure what your opinion of "unfair" will be. Pretty much the same as your Puerto Rican, non-gender neutral, non-race-neutral female hispanic pal, Sonya.

(Note to critics of my sexist, racist verbiage: I only mention these gender and racial qualities because they are central in importance to our President Obama and to his Supreme Court nominee - not because I'm racist or sexist as I would be called if not for the fact that it has apparently become popular and accepted to be so.)

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out: "In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity."

In the interest of "change", Obama has nominated a self-declared racist to be on our Supreme Court. But what else could we expect from Obama, with his background steeped in racist rhetoric - 20 years of listening to "Not God Bless America; God damn America." And the company he keeps - yes - is there any doubt this is his natural course?

Will she be confirmed? A quick "Google" of "will Sotomayor be confirmed" indicated a solid consensus she will. I would hope for a resounding "ya gotta be kiddin'" rebuke of Obama from Congress. But in reality, the most likely "best case" is a long (and essential) confirmation debate.

In Sotomayor's Own Words
by Human Events


President Obama on Tuesday nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court. Here are some provocative statements she has made in the past.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.”

“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence.Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud… Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.”

“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”

“All of the Legal Defense Funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law.’ ”

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Trillion $ Deficits Scream for Universal Health Care

Is President Obama really blaming our current multi-trillion dollar fiscal crisis on our current health care system? Yup. Here it is - another twilight zone moment.

C-SPAN's Steve Scully, interviewed President Obama today.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades. So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off. So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

So, if I understand this correctly, the way to not "run out of money" (i.e. the way to reduce our multi-trillion dollar national debt) is for the federal government to spend more hundreds of billions on universal health care - Obama's current pet program. Yup. That'll fix the little red wagon of government runnin' out of money.

As Rahm Emanuel recently proclaimed, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Obama is a great student. Use our current generation gagging deficits as an excuse to further shackle these future generations with even greater deficits spent on health care. NOW I understand.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Stupidity in defense of liberty is no virtue

From the mid- to late 1960's, civil strife in this nation was rampant. Leftist anti-war radicals were rioting on college campuses. Black street gangs were rioting in our major cities, and fears of a right-wing racist backlash were rampant. During this period the nation was in fear of insurrection. The national guard was called out on many occasions and US Army troops were also called to defend life and property. Because the US Army was involved, Army intelligence services were required to help understand the situation and the individuals instigating these riots. Pertinent FBI reports were monitored by our military intelligence specialists. There were some instances of Army special intelligence agents also monitoring US civilian activities when Army personnel had to be involved in suppressing these college campus and urban riots.

There was one chap in Army intelligence (I'll call him "Weasel 1") who disagreed with the concept of the Army gathering some of its own intelligence in preparing itself for its assigned riot control mission. In fact, his complaint went to the US Supreme Court as Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972). Specifically, the complaint accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen political activity." The case was dismissed for "lack of ripeness", meaning it was determined that no harm was done. Not surprisingly, Weasel 1 became a law professor and does work for the ACLU. Weasel 1 and the ACLU thrive on stupidity in defense of liberty.

This 1960's history reminds me very much of the concerns of present day "Weasel 2" and his radical left cohorts. These Weasels are consumed with concern over the CIA's methods of interrogation, not of US Citizens, but of wartime captives who were involved in the worst ever atrocity against our nation, the 9-11 attacks. They also believe that our nations "values" are harmed in the eyes of our enemies because of our "enhanced interrogation methods" and because we chose to detain terrorists at Guantanamo, Cuba, during wartime, which by the way, we are still in. Weasel 2 also thrives on stupidity in defense of liberty.

Dick Chaney, who's primary mission as past Vice President was national security, gave a speech today (right after Weasel 2's speech) on this very subject. Mr. Chaney provides essential reminders of why we did what we did. More importantly, he reminds us of the ongoing threat - the ongoing need to continue the practices that kept us safe over the last eight years. We cannot consider his work "mission accomplished" as Weasel 2 apparently does. The threat remains, and is, in fact, even greater today given the progress of our enemies in developing and likely distributing nuclear weapons (see Iran and Pakistan.)

Dick Chaney's speech is a "must read" for anyone wanting to understand our past actions, and why we cannot adopt new policies that put the concerns of our enemies ahead of our national security.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Another Sign of Obama Sympathy Toward ALL Muslims

Talk about wasteful spending: Obama wants to spend $80,000,000 to relocate his Muslim buddies from Guantanamo to the US - in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. C'mon, Hussein! Thank goodness the congressional response to this absurd proposal crosses party lines.

Nothing better explains Obama's hell-bent desire to relocate the Jihadi Muslims from Guantanamo, Cuba, to your-home-town USA than his sympathies toward ALL Muslims, no matter their past deeds or current intent. The reason certainly can't be his desire to afford foreign terrorists the same legal rights enjoyed by US citizens, could it? Hmmmmm? But then again, granting rights of citizenship without citizenship to illegal aliens has been popular among the President and his misguided supporters. Why stop with Mexican lawbreakers. Why not extend this right to terrorists - err - misguided Muslims who yearn for rehabilitation?

Or could his actions be motivated by his desire to carry out a "good deed" in the eyes of the Muslim population at large by coddling the Guantanamo detainees so that he can earn their "good will." Unfortunately, that is both the worst case and most likely scenario. That is grossly misspending his substantial political capital to the detriment of our nation and culture.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Middle East Heading South

President B. H. Obama and the Iraqi government have assured Iraq is a lost cause for the western world. This article describes how the unmotivated Iraqi government is dropping the ball on the hand-off of the US counterinsurgency initiatives. With the inevitable withdrawal of US troops in the next 18 months to 2 years, this Iraqi government predisposition to revert to the past will spell perpetual conflict and tribal anarchy until the next dictator or Sharia-endowed leader rises up.

While I'm about predicting things in the middle east, here are four more predictions that will be like watching a slow motion train wreck over the next several years:

Afghanistan: Afghanistan has already been described as Obama's Vietnam. In two years, we will tire of that mire and decide there are other actions we can take to deceive ourselves into believing that we are being productive at achieving whatever objective we have over there. Within four years, we will be out of Afghanistan whether there is lasting reduction of Al-Qaeda influence or not.

Pakistan: A nuclear-armed nation on the brink of revolution. What to do. What to do. We won't do enough. We will not safeguard the nukes. We will not prevent a radical Islamic takeover. There is now "galloping Talibanization" occurring in Pakistan. Within two years, we will resign ourselves to a west-hating controlled Pakistan who will effectively use it's nuclear power to coerce western influence-reducing concessions out of us. Obama will do whatever it takes to minimize their hatred toward us. We can expect an increasing number of Kum-bay-Yah moments from B. Hussein O. in the middle east.

Iran: The US will be effective in preventing Isreal from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. UPDATE: During todays' (Tuesday, May 18) meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama effectively neutralized any Israelli action against Iran by guaranteeing another 8 months of talk with Iran. See here and here. Here is one example of Obama's arm twisting. If Obama simply wanted notice from Israel to ready or protect American troops in the area, he would have said this privately - as in "Top Secret". This public demand was a political move to further distance himself from Israel and further cozy up to Muslim nations. Netanyahu will become a paper tiger. Again, within two years, we will resign ourselves to being subject to an Islamic, nuclear-armed Iran who will effectively use it's nuclear power to coerce western influence-reducing consessions out of us.

Israel: If two out of three of these predictions materialize, Israel's existence is in doubt in 4 years. Islamic dominance in Europe and the US will accelerate.

I hope I am dead wrong on all of them.