About Me

Name: LowDownCentral
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Mooning the American Spirit

Obamamoon.jpg picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson 

The last Americans to walk on the moon, Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, did so in December 1972–thirty-seven years ago.  If President Obama has his way, it’ll be 37 years before any more footprints are made in the lunar dust, and they probably won’t be made by an American. 

That’s because Obama plans to cancel this nation’s manned space program.  He will cut funding for the new Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, the Orion crew capsule, and the Altair Lunar lander, on which over $8 billion has already been spent.  There will be no money for a moon base, nor any reason for one, since the moon will no longer be a destination for NASA.  Instead of reaching for the stars, NASA will cast its eyes downward, in a vain attempt to quantify the discredited myth of global warming.  No better example of cosmic navel-gazing can be imagined.
 
Of course, the International Space Station will still roam the skies in low-Earth orbit, but Americans who want to get there will have to buy a seat on a Russian Soyuz capsule.  That’s $51 million dollars per astronaut, not counting the baggage charge.  We will thus be subsidizing the Russian aerospace program while dismantling ours.
 
Russia will not be the only player in the space game.  Communist China’s space program has advanced significantly.  North Korea and Iran are building rockets that will do double duty–lifting payloads into space or lofting warheads over their neighbors.  India’s space program is just beginning.  Only the United States is turning its back on the frontier that it conquered these many years ago. 
 
In the early 1970's, when the country was facing tough economic times, the space program was a tempting target for budget cutters.  We faced a recession, an unpopular war, rising unemployment, a languid stock market, an increasingly powerful Soviet Union. The shared national purpose that launched thousands of young people into science and inspired feats almost beyond imagination from our country’s aerospace and technology workers was no longer a unifying crusade.  Having witnessed the ultimate fulfillment of the century’s greatest technological challenge and America’s ascendancy to undisputed master of the cosmos, all during his presidency, Richard Nixon cancelled the Apollo program. 
 
We have a new century and a new President who doesn’t mind writing multi-trillion dollar bad checks on America’s taxpayers’ accounts to pay for thousand-page collections of earmarks, bribes and political kickbacks.  But an investment that is less than what it cost for Obama to buy a controlling share of General Motors is too much to spend on keeping America first on the last frontier.
 
The issue isn’t money, because obviously the President doesn’t mind spending all that we have, or ever will have.  It goes much deeper, into a vital aspect of the American character that Obama will never understand.
 
America started out as a frontier.  Americans are drawn to the frontier.  America needs a frontier.  We are a nation of dreamers, strivers and achievers.  We thrive on challenge, we grow strong in the endeavor, we redefine ourselves with each new summit conquered.  Obama’s political agenda clearly demonstrates his core belief that Americans need to be taken care of.  Universal health care, nationalization of private industry, redistribution of wealth all rise from the same conviction–the government must guide, regulate and manage America’s inherent restlessness, or we will face disappointment and disaster.
 
But Americans don’t need to be shown how to overcome adversity–that is our heritage.  We have faced disappointment, disaster, and much worse in our past, and it has only deepened our resolve. All we need is a goal.  Personal, public, local, or national, the great achievements of Americans fuel our continued progress.  Americans conquered the air, joined the seas at Panama, split the atom, and put men on the moon.  We are more than ready for the next challenge–we eagerly seek it, and desperately need it.
 
We are inspired by those who encourage us, support us, and join us in such efforts, because we know the journey defines our character as much as the destination.  Those who fail to understand that fundamental aspect of the American character will seldom lead for long, and will never be remembered fondly.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Symbolism in Massachusetts

FreedomofSpeech-Brown.jpg Scott Brown-Freedom of Speech picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson 

Both sides have spun their versions of what Scott Brown’s decisive upset of Martha Coakley means in political terms.  Conservatives cheer the end of the Democrat supermajority in the Senate, Democrats from the President on down characterize the victory of the Republican in true-blue Massachusetts as a symptom of Bush fatigue.  But there are some interesting symbolic factors which may be significant for this election year.
 
First is the widely-discussed pickup truck, a GMC Canyon with 200,000 miles that was Scott Brown’s executive ride.  The mere fact that Brown has put 200,000 miles on the vehicle shows that whenever it was new, it was not acquired as a conscious political symbol.  Nonetheless, it is.
 
Trusty trucks with two hundred grand on the odometers are the transportation of choice for middle class working people.  They are driven by Americans with mortgages to pay, groceries to buy, and private sector work to do.  As Scott Brown has shown, people like this actually live in Massachusetts, much to the surprise of the Democrats in Congress.  He is not just “in touch” with the middle class, he is one of them.  He knows what they value, where they work, how the live, and how much they’re upset by the Democrats and their drive for nationalized health care.
 
Brown’s truck is a product of General Motors, a company that once dominated the American market.  Barack Obama, during a last-minute campaign stop in Massachusetts before the election, mentioned Brown’s truck often, exhorting voters to pay no attention to the it.  “Anybody can buy a truck,” he famously concluded, to cheers from his supporters and derision from his opponents.  In fact, since Barack Obama’s administration took billions of taxpayer dollars to buy a controlling chunk of General Motors stock last year, it’s not that “anybody can buy a truck.”  The truth is, “Everybody has bought a truck.”  Theoretically, all Americans own small portions of General Motors trucks, thanks to Obama’s government takeover of private industry.  This symbol was not lost on Massachusetts voters.
 
Another symbol dismissed by the MSM is Scott Brown’s military service.  Brown served thirty years in the Massachusetts National Guard.  He has the rank of lieutenant colonel, and serves as the 26th Brigade’s Staff Judge Advocate General.  He has experience as an infantry officer and quartermaster officer, is jump qualified, and earned the Army Commendation Medal.  All of that requires the dedication and selflessness that characterizes Americans in military service.  Brown’s military record was not a focus of his campaign, but it does reveal character.
 
Pollsters have told us that Americans are rejecting the liberal agenda of the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they are rushing back to embrace Republicans.  Americans have been burned by both parties.  They are searching for leaders they can believe in.  The same pollsters tell us that while the President’s approval is below 50%, and Congress’ approval is about half that, Americans rate our military as the most highly trusted and regarded of our institutions. 
 
All Senators and congressmen and presidents take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.  So does every American who serves in uniform.  The difference is that our troops back up their oath with their lives.  This fall, there are over two dozen congressional seats where candidates with proud military records are in contention.  If American voters are looking for people they can trust and believe in, they may find a record of military service very convincing.
 
The last symbol is Scott Brown’s bullhorn.  While the President, who has given over 400 interviews and over a hundred press appearances–more than any other president in the first year of an administration–bemoans the fact that he hasn’t spoken directly to the American people, Scott Brown did exactly that.  He stood up in the bed of his pickup truck, and spoke to the crowds without handlers, without teleprompters, without elaborate Greek revival backdrops.  He took his plain-spoken case directly to the voters, and they liked what he said.  A bullhorn may sound like an impersonal communication device, but it spoke louder and more convincingly than Coakley and her powerful surrogates.
 
It also reminded me of the bullhorn George W. Bush used when he stood on the pile of rubble that was once the World Trade Center after September 11th, 2001.  The President had borrowed the bullhorn from a veteran firefighter who had spent countless hours digging through the debris in a search for survivors, to commend the crowd of volunteers who were doing the same thing.  Someone in the crowd yelled, “I can’t hear you.”  Bush replied, “I can hear you.  The world can hear you.  And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from all of us soon.” 
 
That’s how to talk directly to the people.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrat Success Story

BHOCheerleaders.jpg BHO Cheering Squad picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson 

Even though “Democrat Achievements of 2009” would fall into the category of titles of the world’s shortest books, such a book would not be entirely empty.  In fact, Democrats can legitimately claim that in the last year, they have accomplished something that the GOP has repeatedly failed to do for at least two decades.  The Democrats have managed thoroughly to discredit liberal political philosophy and governance.  This is no small achievement.
 
In the years after Reagan, Republican politicians warned against liberals; run against liberals; chastised, ridiculed and accused liberals in order to gain political advantage.  Liberals even changed their name–to “progressives”–to avoid the feared liberal label.  But the charges began to ring hollow as big-government Republicans raised taxes, increased spending, expanded entitlements, and argued for lenient immigration policies.  Were liberal politics only bad when practiced by Democrats, and tolerable when enacted by Republicans?  Evidently not, because the GOP lost control of Congress in the past decade when they offered no clear alternative to liberal Democrats.  In 2008, they lost the White House, too.
 
Suddenly, the Democrats had a commanding majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, and one of their own in the White House.  They enjoyed an adoringly uncritical media and a wave of electoral bliss seldom equaled.  In effect, they had a brand new credit card with almost unlimited political capital.  How did they spend it?
 
President Obama began by assembling a cabinet and administration full of tax cheats, liars, strong-arm political operatives and communists–many of whom were amateurs at national politics, but almost all of whom had more experience than their boss.  Democrats funded bail-outs and stimulus bills that were full of earmarks, political pay-backs and liberal pet projects that doubled the already swelling debt.  As terrorists attacks again struck American soil–in Little Rock, Fort Hood, and on a Detroit-bound plane--Obama fought to empty Guantanamo and give terrorists the Constitutional rights of American citizens.  Obama’s team nationalized private industry, abandoned long-time allies, bowed in supplication before our enemies, and embarked on passing massively expensive and unintelligible health care reform that would multiply our debt yet again. 
 
As details and cost analysis of all these plans filtered down to the American people, the Democrat agenda became less and less popular.  So, as it happens, did Democrats.  The approval ratings of Congress continued to slide downward from even the low marks legislators earned during the Bush administration.  But even more surprising, the historic, unprecedented, hope-and-changeling in the White House also saw his numbers fall.  And the more he tried to sell the liberal package of multi-trillion dollar big government programs, the further he dropped. 
 
None of this could have happened if the Democrats did not have the power to enact their agenda over the protests of conservatives and common sense.  Democrats believe that the answer to bloated government is more government.  The answer to ballooning debt is more spending.  The answer to high taxes is even higher taxes.  The answer to international threats is to apologize for our past, betray our allies, and promise to look the other way when rogue nations go on the warpath.
 
Any conservative who tried to warn us that this would be the result of Democrat control of two branches of government would have been dismissed as an extremist.  Eighteen months ago, the idea of the United States in economic, diplomatic, and moral decline would have been unthinkable.  Today, it’s an undeniable trend. 
 
The Democrats have proved that, given no checks and balances, they are determined to bring this nation to its knees and saddle us with enough debt to keep us there.  They have given the American people a year’s preview of a future under Democratic governance, and a majority of us want no part of it.  Suddenly, the iron grip Democrats had on Congress is slipping away, with each new announcement of retiring legislators or party-switching representatives.  Barack Obama is no longer a messenger of hope and change, but a huckster peddling an increasingly unpopular line of hokum.  Conservative principles are defining the debate, only a year after so many pundits pronounced conservatism dead.
 
Moreover, the media that waved its pom-poms for Barack Obama is no longer cheering from the press box.  It began with a few respectful questions that were ignored, avoided, or ridiculed by the party in power.  But now, as the media senses weakness, they will become more aggressive, more insistent, more adversarial.  Reporters read the polls, too, and no news outlet wants to be behind the trend.  As they see Obama, Reid and Pelosi faltering, the press will turn on them, hound them, savage them, and participate in their downfall.  Because if an outcome seems inevitable, the media likes us to believe that we heard it from them first.
 
So let us give thanks to the Democrats who governed in 2009.  These true believers have done to the liberal religion what no heretic could manage.  They have exposed their impotent idols and false gods for all the world to see, and have quickened their own demise.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Man-Made Disaster Prevention

Keystone20Napolitano.jpg Keystone Napolitano picture by LDCuploads07

By Lance Thompson 

Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano has retreated from her controversial statement on the would-be Detroit airline bomber.  Having initially characterized the fortuitous intervention of airline passengers in the mid-air bombing attempt by terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as proof that “the system worked,” she now must face another unpleasant fact.  Terrorist acts, or, to use Napolitano’s term, “man-caused disasters,” remain a threat.  In response to the attempted destruction of a passenger jet, DHS came up with clever countermeasures such as limiting carry-on luggage, locking passengers out of airliner restrooms, confining passengers to their seats, and outlawing paperback books. 

The Department of Homeland Security must study past man-caused disasters to predict future threats, and devise measures to thwart them.  Looking back on 2009, it seems clear that there was no more debilitating man-caused disaster than the Obama administration’s national security policy.  One could quibble that it should be a “men- and women-caused disaster,” giving equal credit to the ineptitude not only of Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, but also to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and DHS Chief Napolitano.  But none of these people would have any authority if it hadn’t been for Obama’s presidency, so let’s just designate him as the man who caused the disaster. 

Democrats and the mainstream media showed tasteful reserve in all but eradicating images of that other famous man-caused disaster that occurred on September 11th, 2001.  To respond in kind, we will not dwell on a detailed review of the devastation of the Obama-caused disasters in foreign policy.  We will gloss over Obama’s refusal to call the Fort Hood murders acts of terror, the transferring of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed to the United States for trial, and the granting of the rights of American citizens to all and sundry foreign terrorists.  Let’s further avoid mentioning the unilateral cancellation of anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe, the warnings to Israel not to defend itself against the Iranian offensive nuclear program, and the tacit endorsement of the acts of international villains from Hugo Chavez to Kim Jong-il. 

Still, the DHS must devise and employ countermeasures against such man-caused disasters.  Here are a few suggestions: 

Just as we now require background checks for some firearms purchases, we should likewise require background checks on any American voter who cast one (or more) ballots in Barack Obama’s presidential election.  Such a voting record would immediately cast suspicion on that voter’s sanity and judgment, and would place him in a “high risk” category subject to full body search.  And yes, this might include a cavity search.  Security officers might want to start in the brain cavity that–in Obama voters–would likely contain much dangerous material. 

Just as the Transportation Security Agency keeps a “No-Fly List” (even if unenforced against likely terrorists), the federal government should keep a “No Hire List.”  This list would be populated by operatives from the Democrat political machine in Chicago, long-term congregants of the Trinity United Church of Chicago, and anyone who owns a Che Guevara t-shirt.  Additional persons to be included in the federal “No-Hire List” would be anyone appointed, pardoned, praised, bowed to or admitted without invitation to a White House party by the Obama administration. 

As the TSA limits carry-on luggage, we should also limit the ability of any member of the Obama administration to carry on.  They must be prevented from pontificating, speechifying and carrying on about how they won’t rest till our enemies are brought to justice.  This sort of rhetoric is contradicted by an administration that permits terrorists and murderers to engage the highest-paid lawyers the ACLU can provide and expose the secrets of our national security to anyone trying to discover them.  When this administration mouths the lyrics of patriotism and sings the praises of the men and women who defend us, every word is false and every note is sour. 

Most important of all, every American must undertake to remain alert, vigilant and proactive as we guard against more man-caused disasters in the future.  What can an ordinary citizen do to keep us safe?  You will find the most effective means at your polling place.  If Americans show more sense than their leaders next November, both the disasters and the men who cause them can be forever removed from authority.  It won’t keep us safe from every enemy–but it will reduce the threat from the internal ones.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Honoring KSM

KSMParade.jpg KSM on Parade picture by LDCuploads07

By  Lance Thompson 

The Obama administration’s decision to try Kalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal left many Americans mystified.  Since Attorney General Eric Holder’s old law firm defends terrorists held in Gitmo (and did so while he was a senior partner there), we can assume that a Justice Department under his control will not successfully or even vigorously prosecute this confessed mastermind of the September 11th attacks.  Much time and money will be wasted in parading KSM through the legal process.  There is, however, a way to serve justice swiftly and, one might even say, diplomatically.  

It is well known that KSM revealed vital information about the al Qaeda organization that enabled Americans to interdict terrorist attacks against our country.  This information was obtained with the help of interrogation methods that included waterboarding.  These methods, many believe, are the real target of the Obama administration in this trial, since KSM has already confessed to his integral role in the 9/11 attacks.  In a civilian court, the methods of interrogation are as much on trail as the defendant, especially when the defendant’s prosecutors are sympathetic to and indistinguishable from the defendant’s defenders.
 
If Obama and Holder’s Justice Department do not really wish to prosecute KSM, and the defendant’s release is expected if not desired, then let’s not waste time with a civilian court or a military tribunal.
 
Instead of dragging KSM to New York for a months-long terrorist trial circus, let President Obama simply pardon him.  And not in a quiet, weekend ceremony in the middle of the night, as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid handle controversial votes on health care.  Arrange a reception in the White House Rose Garden, with a band, supportive members of the media, and a 70-virgin choir vocalizing Islamic chants.
 
Let Obama present KSM with some sort of award (too bad the Nobel Peace Prize is already taken for the year) recognizing his service to America.  A cash stipend might not be out of order either–a million or two would hardly be missed in the federal spending spree currently underway.  Obama could even claim that Paid Islamic Informant is one of the 60,000 phantom jobs created or saved by the stimulus bill.
 
Such accolades may seem excessive to those of us who view KSM as a confessed enemy of our nation and murderer of our countrymen.  But consider how he will be received by his fellow terrorists once he is publicly congratulated and rewarded for the information he provided to the Great Satan.  Who knows how many Predator missile strikes, covert assaults, and dead terrorists resulted from information KSM provided to his interrogators?  He can hardly claim a hero’s welcome after ratting out his fellow rats.
 
Thus, I think al Qaeda will mete out the proper punishment to this blabbermouth with much less of the delay, hand-wringing and endless appeal that a US civil court trial would guarantee.  If we’re lucky, maybe al Jazeera or some enterprising Islamist youtuber will post a grainy video of KSM losing his head at the hands of some sword-wielding fanatic.
 
This is the best way to punish KSM.  But the real target of this trial is not the entity identified by those three initials.  The real targets are the entities identified by the initials FBI, CIA, and USA. 
Those are the enemies of the Obama administration.  But in three years, we’ll have a chance to vote for president again.  Then we can get rid of the ultimate three-letter enemy: BHO.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If It Quacks, It Must Be A Marxist

PresidentDuck.jpg picture by LDCuploads07

by  Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon 

In American politics, the fringe groups of the left, right and center sooner or later end up accusing the sitting President of the United States of being a Nazi, a Marxist or a Communist.  Such references are usually punctuated by cartoons of the luckless leader sporting a Hitlerian moustache, a fuzzy beard and wild smoky hair, or perhaps even a handlebar moustache below a leering look.  By way of example, if you Google “Bush and Hitler” you get well over nine million hits. 

Until now, it was semi-amusing to blow off steam with this kind of partisan ram-rodding.  It seemed harmless because “everyone does it.”  And we would laugh it off because we knew in our hearts that all the jabbing was no more than satire run amok.  That was then. 

This is now: 

In the frenetic months leading up to the 2008 presidential election, conservative pundits railed against Barack Obama’s questionable alliances, specifically Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco, George Soros, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  Sean Hannity of FoxNews initiated an unrelenting and unyielding charge against the candidate’s suspicious leftist associations, tracing the dubious connections as far back as Obama’s childhood.  But the powerful and fawning mainstream media were able to block, distort, distract, and disengage from what Hannity and others tried to present as nothing more than a smear campaign against their chosen one.  They were blinded by Obama’s shining smile and the opportunity to make politically correct history.  History has been made, but it’s been extraordinarily incorrect. 

Try as they might, the conservative talking heads barely put a chink in the armor the MSM had dressed Obama in since his rousing 2004 speech at the DNC.  That was the day, nigh, the moment, when the lights went on in the heads of the leftist power elite -- that here was the malleable shining star who could and would make the changes they so desperately tried to effect since the last Great Depression.  “Last” you say?  Yes, because creating the second Great Depression is the aim of this administration: to crush the hearts and minds of the citizenry until we accept their brand of redistributive change. 

Conservatives in both public and private life who speak on behalf of our Constitutional rights and against this maelstrom have been ruthlessly branded by lefties, liberal journalists, RINOs, and the press with just about every hostile and threatening moniker.  It’s not unlike the way the Nazis slapped the yellow cut-out Star of David on Jews throughout Germany and in countries overrun by the Third Reich.  The Jews of Europe had no one to speak freely on their behalf without fear of retribution, and that silence contributed to the destruction of European Jews. 

Today, an American – a white knight – has charged forth to expose the brutish attempts to wreck our country.  He is working hard to help with the recovery of conservatism and lead the counterattack to save the former “United” States of America.  That knight is Glenn Beck. 

Practically from his debut he has been the object of extreme ridicule (the usual thread-worn defense mechanism of liberals).  He’s been called a circus clown, a raging alcoholic, a moron, or, as Stephen King referred to him, “Satan’s mentally challenged younger brother.”  But this time the sticks and stones are bouncing off his proud chest like the proverbial s**t hitting the fan -- and it’s landing square on the smug faces of Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and David Letterman.  And the sludge is coming in the form of stratospheric ratings for Glenn Beck and Fox News. 

Beck has repeatedly pointed out that Obama’s message has been unambiguous with respect to his revolutionary intentions.  Beck’s exhortations were not innuendo or speculation but direct, factual quotes and video footage of then candidate Obama which would hold up in any court of law.  But Americans, largely shielded by the utopian fantasies of the leftist media, did not, or wished not, to hear or see the truth. 

Even David Von Drehle has proffered in Time Magazine, albeit in a backhanded way, “…Whom do you trust?  Either the corrupt, communist-loving traitors on the left are causing this, or it's the racist, greedy warmongers on the right, or maybe the dishonest, incompetent, conniving media, which refuse to tell the truth about whomever you personally happen to despise.” 

At the Huffington Post, Camille Paglia recently wrote, “The mainstream media's failure to honestly cover last month's mass demonstration in Washington, D.C. was a disgrace. The focus on anti-Obama placards (which were no worse than the rabid anti-LBJ, anti-Reagan or anti-Bush placards of leftist protests), combined with the grotesque attempt to equate criticism of Obama with racism, simply illustrated why the old guard TV networks and major urban daily newspapers are slowly dying. Only a simpleton would believe what they say.” 

Green jobs adviser, Van “Republicans are a bunch of assholes” Jones, resigned purportedly so as not to distract from Obama’s agenda.  Gosh, we wonder why.  And then this past week, Obama’s Mao-worshipping Communications Director, Anita Dunn, has also resigned.  Two down, and several Marxists (dots that Beck has already connected) to go, are waiting in the wings, eager to sacrifice themselves for their greater god, uh, good. 

Over the last few months, Beck has ingenuously presented facts and pointed questions about everyone surrounding Barack Obama and those within his inner sanctum.  You just can’t make this stuff up, and everyone knows it.  Beck is smart, but even he could not concoct the shocking pyramid of leftists with direct access to the most powerful man on earth.  The presidential minions have been given ample opportunity to refute possible misstatements of fact or opinion, but they have instead chosen to ignore the commentary in the mistaken belief that their silence would be interpreted as not lending credence to those facts and opinions.  

It is no secret – and no surprise to conservatives – that Obama & Co. (the duplicitous Democrat-controlled Congress) are forging the chains of socialistic enslavement of the American People, and pulling our country apart at the seams.  But Beck’s relentless search for the truth is growing exponentially, so much so that the upcoming American Revolt of 2010 already is being felt around the world. 

The freedom that we cherish, which was born from the precepts and principles of our sacred Constitution, is a “one size fits all” gift from our founding fathers – from those individuals who put their lives on the line and holding that line against oppression.  No one person or group is granted either more or less — everyone is equal in freedom. 

And so we conclude: “If it walks like a Marxist, quacks like a Marxist, looks like a Marxist, you can bet it’s not a duck.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gitmo Hero

Bulkeley.jpg Gitmo Hero - Bulkeley picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson

 
The American naval base at Guantanamo Bay has received plenty of attention in recent years, ever since we started hosting terrorists in pleasant Carribean detention there.  Liberals and wobbly conservatives have called for shutting down the terrorist-holding facilities there for some sort of vague public relations purpose.  I’m all for relieving the United States Navy of the responsibility of running a tropical retreat for our enemies, as long as they can be moved to some place more fitting–like Devil’s Island.
 
Whenever I hear about Guantanamo, I always wonder how the US Navy ended up with such a perfect natural harbor on one end of the most brutal, oppressive and dangerous communist island in the world.  Moreover, how does the United States maintain its position there while the Castro family has spent half a century trying to devise ways to get rid of us?  To satisfy my curiosity, I did some research.  Like so many other world-changing aspects of history, the security of our base at Guantanamo can be traced  to one man–determined, aggressive, and fearless. 
 
United States Marines planted the first American flag at Guantanamo Bay during the Spanish-American War in 1898, in which Cuba gained independence from Spain.  The new Cuban government, in 1903, signed a treaty that leased Guantanamo Bay to the United States to use as a coaling station for American naval forces.  The United States was to have complete jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay in perpetuity.  Only by abandoning the base could the United States abrogate the treaty.  
 
For many years, the landlord-tenant relationship was mutually beneficial.  In exchange for an excellent harbor on the west coast of Cuba, the United States pumped money into the Cuban economy, paying rent; buying food, water, building supplies and other goods from Cuba; and employing thousands of Cubans in the base civilian work force.
 
In 1959, the situation changed radically.  Fidel Castro, briefly imprisoned for a previous attempt at insurrection, finally succeeded in overthrowing the government of dictator Fulgencio Batista, and instituted a communist system increasingly dependent on Soviet aid.  Castro nationalized hundreds of millions of dollars worth of American private property on the island, and the United States responded with a trade embargo.  The Eisenhower and subsequent Kennedy administrations both wanted Castro out.
 
In April, 1961, an American-sponsored invasion by Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs failed when President Kennedy refused to authorize American air support.  In October, 1962, an American U-2 reconnaissance plane detected Soviet missile launchers being erected in Cuba.  A tense diplomatic showdown ensued, escalating to an American blockade against Soviet ships, and the world stood at the brink of war between nuclear superpowers.  Ultimately, the Soviets agreed to dismantle their launchers, take back their missiles, and uneasy peace was restored.
 
Yet Castro, recently exposed as an enthusiastic and bellicose Soviet client, still had a large American naval base on the western end of his island nation, reminding him that he was not master of his domain.  He was determined to rid himself of the American military presence. 
 
Into this highly-charged atmosphere came the new Guantanamo Bay base commander, newly-minted rear admiral John D. Bulkeley.  It was December, 1963, two weeks after the assassination of President Kennedy showed the world that its fate is never certain.  Admiral Bulkeley commanded a garrison of 5,000 marines, sailors and Seabees and a squadron of Crusader jets with which to defend his 45 square miles of Cuban real estate from Castro’s 250,000-man military equipped with modern Soviet weapons, tanks, and MiG fighters.  Of course, Guantanamo was backed up by military forces on the American mainland, but Bulkeley’s position was hardly favorable.
 
Bulkeley was not intimidated.  During World War II her served in the Pacific, Atlantic and Mediterranean.  Among other achievements, Bulkeley engaged and sunk Japanese and German warships, conducted secret missions on the coast of Fortress Europe, and was the PT boat skipper who delivered General Douglas MacArthur from Corregidor, through a cordon of Japanese ships and planes, to safety on Mindanao.  By the end of the war, Bulkeley had been awarded a Silver Star, three Distinguished Service Medals, two Distinguished Service Crosses, the Navy Cross and the Medal of Honor.  He was not the type to back down from a fight.
 
Castro tested Bulkeley in the first few days.  Cuban engineers bulldozed 1100 feet of chain link fence on the perimeter, and Castro’s minister of state security sent Bulkeley a threatening message advising the Americans it would be “imprudent” to repair the fence.  The reason for this incursion was that failing to repair the fence was considered “abandonment” by the treaty, and Castro could lay claim to Guantanamo if the Americans abandoned the base.  If Bulkeley heeded the Cuban warning and did nothing, the United States could lose legal claim to the base.  If he defied the Cubans, he could incite a shooting war with a Soviet ally. 
 
Bulkeley ordered the fence repaired the next morning.  The admiral, dressed in fatigues, stood shoulder to shoulder with two thousand well-armed marines at the break in the fence.  His Crusaders were overhead, and four destroyers were in the bay, armed and ready for any Cuban reaction.  There was none, and navy Seabees had the fence repaired before dark.  Bulkeley had stood tall and Castro had backed down.
 
The Cuban government repeatedly incited the population with fabrications about American atrocities, incursions, and provocations–none of which were true, and none of which caused a popular uprising against the Americans.  So in February, 1964, Castro seized control of the pumping station for Guantanamo’s fresh water supply (which was outside the Guantanamo perimeter) and shut off the tap.  The Americans had been paying the Cuban government for the water since 1939, and Castro had kept the pipeline open even through the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis to get the $14,00 monthly payment.  But now Castro intended to drive the Americans out by drought.
 
Bulkeley instituted severe water restrictions for the ten thousand Americans (military personnel, their families, and civilian workers) on base, cutting the two million gallons used per day in half.  Water tankers and barges shuttling back and forth from the United States and Jamaica brought millions of gallons per visit, and a desalination unit on one vessel supplied further water, but the base was far from self-sufficient.  The crisis made American headlines, and during this presidential election year, there was plenty of bipartisan support for the base commander.  President Johnson authorized immediate construction of a permanent desalination plant at Guantanamo.
 
With Bulkeley and Guantanamo holding out even without Cuban fresh water, Castro was on the verge of a public relations embarrassment–the Americans didn’t need his water.  So he fabricated another scandal–he accused the Americans of stealing Cuban water through the old pipeline.  Immediately, inquiries from the international press and the American State Department flooded Bulkeley’s office–“Are you stealing Cuban water?”
 
What neither Castro nor the gullible press knew was that Bulkeley had sealed off the old pipeline as a precaution against Castro restoring the flow with tainted or poisoned water.  Bulkeley sensed a public relations victory of his own.  He invited members of the press to Guantanamo, and had his engineers cut open the pipeline at the perimeter.  It was bone dry, as it had been for at least a week.  Castro was publicly caught in a lie, Bulkeley had again outsmarted him, and the world press was there to witness it.
 
Guantanamo’s desalination plant was completed by July, ensuring water self-sufficiency in perpetuity.  Castro was furious–Bulkeley outmaneuvered him at every turn.  When Cuban soldiers set up searchlights across the fence from a marine strong point, shining the intense beams into the eyes of the sentries to blind them, Bulkeley had a giant Marine Corps emblem placed on the front of the strong point.  When the Cubans realized they were just lighting up the emblem of their enemies, they removed the searchlights.   
 
Castro’s schemes continued, but Bulkeley frustrated them all.  The Cubans even shot one of their own deceased soldiers and blamed the death on trigger-happy marines, but Bulkeley had clear evidence that the shot did not come from an American weapon.  Castro’s frustration finally led him to put a $50,000 bounty on Bulkeley, dead or alive.  It was never collected.
 
At any one of the crisis points in the first years of Castro’s reign, a less resolute officer might have buckled under the pressure.  John D. Bulkeley was not prone to buckling.  He steadfastly defended American interests with demonstrations (but never use of) of force, by ingenuity, and by exposing communist lies and propaganda. 
 
Bulkeley had one advantage over contemporary officers.  He enjoyed the full support of the American press, public and president.  In the mid-sixties, American military victories, whether moral or martial, were celebrated by our nation.  Presidents still honored officers who performed well under pressure, rather than second-guessing them.  Citizens still cheered heroes, rather than questioning their motives.  The press still trumpeted our triumphs, rather than questioning our principles.
 
Admiral John D. Bulkeley made it clear that America would never willingly give up Guantanamo Bay, and would fight to keep it.  The legacy of his courage ensured our possession of Guantanamo Bay today.  According to the treaty, only abandonment will return this important American base to the communists.  If he were still around, Admiral Bulkeley would be astonished at how many Americans want to do just that.
 
---
 
For the full story on Admiral Bulkeley and his lifelong service to this nation, see “Sea Wolf, the Daring Exploits of a Navy Legend,” by William A. Breuer, Presidio Press, Novato, California, 1989
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Research Proves Global Warming Model Wrong

GoreBear.jpg picture by LDCuploads07
There is new research (review of it attached) which you may want to pass along to anyone who has been persuaded that (1) humans are causing the planet to warm, (2) this will have a disastrous effect, and (3) we should try to do something about it such as passing Cap and Trade legislation, installing subsidized wind and solar power plants, buying hybrid cars, CFL bulbs and so forth.   The more scientifically-oriented of you can go right to the attachment.  The article begins at the bottom of the first page. Others may choose to read the rest of this e-mail.
 
Everyone should understand that it is NOT a proven fact that humans have any effect on the climate.  However, the media and some politicians treat it that way.  Those who say that "the science is settled" are just plain wrong.  Even Mr. Gore, if pressed, would have to admit that the predictions of warming are 100% the result of computer models. That's right, 100%.  It's all a prediction somewhat like predicting the weather, only much, much, harder.
 
The people making these computer models insert the known facts.  They also insert various assumptions of how these facts will interact with one another, coming up with what they hope will be a model of the climate that will produce accurate predictions.  Those assumptions mean everything, and now the research proves that they are wrong.  And not just a little wrong.  It turns out that the assumptions are exactly backwards.
 
At the risk of using a dated computer expression, don't forget that it's still true that Garbage In = Garbage Out (GIGO).  Have you ever worked with a computer spreadsheet?  Have you ever inserted your estimates of future revenue and expenses and seen how  a few little changes here and there can result in either huge profits or devastating losses?  You might, for example, realize that at 3% revenue growth you'll go broke in four years, but at 7% you'll be a billionaire in six years.  It's hard to be objective in those circumstances, especially if you have investors.  In the case of the climate modelers, virtually all of them are funded by grants designed to study the climate "problem."  No problem, no grant.  No fame either.  No political power.  Objectivity can be difficult to maintain. 
 
The computer models on which all of the fears are based rely on the assumption that carbon dioxide (CO2), a weak greenhouse gas, will trigger something called positive feedback which will amplify its weak effect, causing the effect to grow and grow.  (Positive feedback here is not the same thing as getting compliments about your job performance.  In this case, it means that when more of something happens it triggers even more of it to happen, with a snowballing effect.)  The climate models on which the current fears are based all assume that this positive feedback will occur. Without this assumed positive feedback, no human-caused global warming will occur.  Without the positive feedback assumption, the predictions of the models wouldn't scare anyone.
 
The good news for the planet is that instead of having to make feedback assumptions there is now real data, and it shows that in the real world the feedback is negative. This means that the warming effect of CO2 triggers an effect that offsets it.  Therefore, all of the models are wrong. In plain English, this means that increased CO2 will not warm the planet. Whoopee! You can read more about this in the attached newsletter, Access to Energy, with the article beginning at the bottom of the first page. (I've been a subscriber for over 30 years.)  For more background, and what you should do, please read on.
 
As most of us know, Earth has warmed by about 1 degree over the last century.  It has been much warmer in the past, and we are still here.  It has been much colder in the past and we are still here.  Today we are in one of the better heat ranges.  Of course, at some point it would be too hot to sustain life as we know it. 
 
As most of us also know by now, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "greenhouse" gas.  That means that it tends to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape into space.  CO2 is what humans and all animals exhale after breathing in oxygen.  It is also what is produced when we burn so-called fossil fuels like wood, coal and petroleum products.  No one doubts the benefits of the energy we get from these inexpensive sources.  Furthermore, plants need CO2.  Increased CO2 has greatly improved the growth of plants and trees.  However,  a legitimate concern is whether there is a serious or even catastrophic downside because of CO2's greenhouse effect.  Studying this issue has been the right thing to do to.
 
CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas, which means that its effect in and of itself is small.  There is not much of it in the atmosphere, about 300-400 parts for every million parts of air.  However, we are adding to it at a fairly good rate.  Given the economic realities, there is virtually no chance that countries like China and India are going to stop or even slow down very much.  To hear some people tell it, the very existence of mankind is threatened. That is, of course, unless we here in America turn our lives upside down and spend trillions of dollars on more expensive energy.  That will apparently convince the rest of the world to do the same.  Well, maybe not, but at least we'll be "green" --  green and poor.  Have you ever noticed that the poor people of the Third World don't care about being "green?"  Food and shelter come first.
 
President Obama has advisors who are committed to the belief that humans are causing global warming and that we need to stop it.  Their mantra is "the science is settled."  I do not believe that they are intellectually honest.  Why else do they refuse every offer to debate the scientific issues?  Why do they resort to name-calling rather than dealing with the evidence? They will never admit that they are wrong, and Obama is not going to hear anything else. The information in the attachment is not going to get to him. Can you imagine Al Gore walking into the Oval office and saying, "Mr. President, there is new evidence on global warming.  It turns out that I was wrong.  There's no problem. We don't have to do anything about it." 
 
It has been said that Al Gore is going to make a billion dollars off of cap and trade.  In my view he would deserve to make even more if he actually helped save the planet.  But he and the others who stand to make money or wield political power don't want to hear the good news.   And they won't unless you and others do something about it.  Last Friday, Glenn Beck interviewed Christopher Monckton, who briefly presented what I've discussed above.  This is probably the largest exposure this will get in the mass media.  If this troubles you, please tell others, including your elected representatives.  Spread the word: the sky is not falling.
 
Richard Boren
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ministry of Fear

fear-and-loathing-in-WH.jpg picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson 

Barack Obama rode to the presidency on a tidal wave of campaign enthusiasm, famously promising Hope and Change.  Instead, his administration has been governed by Fear and Loathing.
 
The arguments for Obama’s health care reform bill–ten pages shy of two thousand pages at last count–have all used fear.  Twenty million Americans are without health insurance, we are told, then 32 million, then 47 million.  If we don’t pass this massive, indecipherable bill, insurance will be unaffordable, you will go broke if you get sick, millions will die.  Prescription drug companies, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals who question the grand prophecies of the bill’s proponents are told that if they protest this massive takeover of one sixth of the economy, they will be punished with retributive amendments and strangled by federal regulation. 
 
The cap and trade bill was sold in the same way.  If we don’t hobble our industries with restrictions and regulations, the Earth will grow warm, ice caps will melt, polar bears will starve, coastal cities will be inundated.  Carbon dioxide, a gas all animals exhale, is now a toxic substance that must be regulated as well.  We are all polluters, and we must literally be saved from ourselves.
 
The stimulus bill passed on fear and panic.  If we don’t pump $800 billion into the economy within a week, the market will crash, millions will lose their jobs, your savings will vanish, your home will be foreclosed, you will be living in an appliance box under the freeway.
 
The federal government took over banks, auto companies, Wall Street firms, this time applying the voice of terror to the corporate officers and boards of directors.  If you don’t agree to a government takeover, your pay will be cut, your pensions cancelled, your stock made worthless.  Go along with us, or the full weight of the federal government will be used to crush you.
 
What the Obama administration cannot convince us to fear, they loathe.
 
The administration loathes our international allies.  The White House significantly recharacterized the “special relationship” we’ve had with Great Britain since World War II to a “special partnership,” putting our English cousins at arm’s length. We observe diplomatic niceties with Iran, Libya and leaders of Hamas while warning the Israelis we may shoot down their jets if they do the world a favor and knock out Ahmadinejad’s nukes.  The French, whose relationship with the United States warmed when Sarkozy took over, are snubbed when Obama is too busy to meet with the French President on a European trip.  Taiwan and Japan look for backup from us against North Korean missile launches, but we scarcely can find the time to lodge a half-hearted protest.  The Obama administration holds our allies in contempt.
 
The administration loathes a free press.  They like the main stream media, as long as they are Obama-worshiping cheerleaders and not impartial referees.  But if Fox posts a critical story, the administration attacks them, and threatens to cut off access to top officials.  When the Associated Press found last week that the White House had overstated stimulus-created jobs by 5,000, the White House immediately attacked the wire service.   If a conservative commentator lambasts the administration, he is discredited, insulted, and prevented from engaging in his right to enter a bid on a football franchise.
 
Most of all, the Obama administration loathes America.  They despise its military power, so often used to defend against tyranny and aggression.  They are ashamed of its capitalistic system and economic strength, though both are inspirations for the world.  They dismiss the independent spirit, the individual liberty, and the unlimited opportunity that characterize the American dream.  Instead, they believe in an all-powerful state that redistributes wealth, picks winners and losers in the private sector, and takes over companies and entire industries by fiat.  .
 
The Obama team’s loathing for America becomes more evident every day, as more and more administration officials are shown to be involved in corrupt organizations like ACORN, sympathetic to or adherents of communism, or enablers of terrorists foreign and domestic. 
 
The fear weapon also has a limited term.  Just as Al Gore’s shrieking alarms of global warming become less and less credible with passing time and lowering temperatures, so will all the dire predictions the Obama administration uses to run up massive debt, pass nationally destructive legislation, and appoint subversives to positions of power.  The case that only government can save us from catastrophe becomes harder to prove each day, as government itself is clearly shown to be the greatest danger we face.  When Americans become wary of their government, then the Obama administration will find that fear is a two-edged sword, and an irresistible motive for change.  Or so we hope.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Economy Falls

TARP20Ride-1.jpg picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson 

The Dow passed to the good side of 10,000 last week, and celebration was widespread because it was heralded as a sign of better times ahead.  As early as May 27, Treasury Secretary and Turbo Tax tyro Timothy Geithner said the US economy was in the early stages of recovery, and in late August announced “We are back from the brink.”  Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the financial equivalent of the Magic 8 Ball, has been saying since March that “signs point to recovery.” Administration spokesmen point to improving home sales, rising stock prices, and make-work jobs programs and credit the stimulus spending for curing the economy from its ills.  They conveniently overlook the virus of unemployment, the contagion of home foreclosures, or the consumptive decline of the dollar’s value. 
 
Here in Idaho, one of our state’s favorite outdoor activities is white water rafting.  The confidence of the various predictors of economic recovery reminds me of a raft full of people that has just gone through a particularly turbulent stretch of river.  After overcoming the challenge of the rapids, they find that the white water subsides, the surface appears smooth, and all are thankful they prevailed over adversity.
 
Yet if this raft was full of economists, and the river was the American economy, they serenely overlook what’s waiting downriver–a waterfall of staggering height which will make the rapids they’ve passed seem insignificant.  The waterfall cannot be passed safely–it is the dead end of a wild ride on the tracherouis waters of financial tumult.
 
The waterfall is the staggering debt that has been amassed with the government bailouts and spending initiatives that began with the TARP bill under President Bush and grew geometrically with President Obama’s stimulus bill, and subsequent massive government programs.  The spending that under Obama has eclipsed that of all previous administrations combined has multiplied the American debt to a level beyond possible repayment.  To ignore this downstream hazard and speak of economic recovery is to blindfold oneself to reality.
 
The government cannot create wealth, a fact which will probably come as a great surprise to Obama supporters who believe in his ability to provide largesse at a whim.  But all the money the government spends and distributes has to come from the American people and American business.  Government consumes wealth, but it is up to us to produce it. The more the government spends, the more we must produce, and the more of it we must surrender to the government through taxes. 
 
So the debt must some day be repaid by us, just as the economic raft must eventually reach the waterfall.  But with each new trillion-dollar spending initiative–health care, cap and trade, or any other massive government program–the waterfall gets higher.  As our economy floats downriver on a temporarily smooth current, there is no cause for complacency.  In fact, our fate grows more dire with each addition to the debt.
 
Unfortunately, we have not yet had to pay the price for this debt.  It will come with the sudden impact of higher taxes–the only way the government can take the wealth from those who produce it.  And those taxes will fall upon all of us–income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, fees and licenses will all be raised, and all of us will pay them.  At that point, the economic raft will be over the edge and plunging into the abyss of fiscal ruin.  The damage to our economy, our industry, and our system of government will be too massive to reverse. 
 
So when you hear happy prospects of a recovery that is just around the corner, listen more carefully.  You’ll hear in the background the distant but growing rumble of the coming fall.  As spending multiplies, as the debt continues to grow, as government persists in hobbling our private sector with takeovers and punishing regulation, the roar of the cataract will also grow.  At some point it will be louder than those who are telling us not to worry.  The question is, which sound will we listen to, and which will we believe?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Last to Know

HasBeen.jpg picture by LDCuploads07
By  Lance Thompson
“You’re always the last to know your own reputation.”  I can’t be certain that I coined that phrase, but I am sure that it is an underlying principle of the universe, and even presidents are bound by its laws.
 
I first noticed the principle in Hollywood, where no matter how washed up a has-been some one is, no one will ever say it to his or her face.  One whose future is past is still welcomed, just not that warmly.  His calls are still taken, at least for a while.  He still goes to parties, but he’s no longer on the A-list.  As the has-been begins to notice the lukewarmness of his receptions, the increasing distance of his close pals, he seeks reassurance from those around him.  They will tell him that he’s imagining things, that he’s as cool as he ever was, that he’s still on top of the world.  Until those reassuring friends also stop returning calls.
 
Barack Obama is still sailing along on the certainty that he’s the coolest world leader on Earth.  He won an historic election, the media was solidly behind him, adoring crowds greet him wherever he goes, and only a few cranky right-wing commentators and tea partiers dare to rain on his parade.
 
But as Charles Krauthammer and others have revealed, Obama knew of Iran’s perfidy in concealing their nuclear program when he spoke at the United Nations on 24 September.   Despite the urging of European allies, he refused to bring up the uncomfortable subject, as it would detract from his speech.  The focus of the speech–Obama’s dream for a nuclear free world.  He still spun his no-nukes platitudes, knowing full well that one of the most dangerous regimes in the world was inches from deploying a nuclear weapon.  France’s President Sarkozy, England’s Prime Minister Brown, Germany’s President Merkel all wanted to use the international forum to expose Iran’s decades of deceit, but Obama postponed until the G-20 summit.  Obama’s refusal showed his weakness of character and selfishness of motive.
 
Last week’s presidential sales call on the International Olympic Committee, complete with first lady, cabinet officials, and the other Big O, was also exposed as a failure when it was announced Chicago was the first of the finalist cities to be out of the running for 2016.  Obama received the news on his way home.  Political pundits assumed that Obama had an agreement in hand before he departed, since a president would certainly not risk the prestige of the office to play door-to-door salesman unless he already had a sure thing.  He did not, and the whole trip was basically a slow lap around the Atlantic in Air Force One.  Even minor symbolic rewards seem to be beyond the once irresistible president–and the world noticed.
 
During his campaign, Obama identified the war in Afghanistan as the war we should have been fighting, the one that was vital to our nation’s interests.  He promised increased troop levels, greater efforts, more resources in this vital fight.  Then last month, General Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s choice to command our forces in Afghanistan, revealed that he had had exactly one conversation, lasting less than an hour, with the Commander-in-Chief since Obama took office.  Obama’s profound disinterest in the war, in our troops, in the stakes involved could not have been more clearly demonstrated. 
 
These and countless other examples of fecklessness and incompetence on Obama’s part have caused his approval ratings to steadily decline, along with support for his health care reform and global warming initiatives.  Each day, it seems, brings another revelation about corruption in Obama’s community organizing alma mater, ACORN; another expose on a communist appointed to the fitting position of czar; or another announcement of a betrayal of an ally or the appeasement of a foe. 
 
People across the country and around the world are taking Obama’s measure–those who cheered his election as well as those who did not.  But more and more are coming to the inescapable conclusion that he is a self-important neophyte playing at being a world leader, and falling far short of mere competence. 
 
No one who serves at the pleasure of the president will tell him this, for his ego is fragile and fiercely protected.  But one day, perhaps soon, Obama will begin to notice the crowds thinning, the media coverage becoming less adulatory, the poll numbers sinking too low to dismiss.  And he will look around, seeking assurance that he’s still the coolest guy in the room.  But by then the room will be empty, and no one will be returning his calls.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What A Character

MissileDefense.jpg Missile Defense picture by LDCuploads07

by Lance Thompson 

A nation’s character, like that of an individual, is determined by many factors.  Among these are promises kept, principles upheld, ideals embodied and sacrifices made.  Under the Obama administration, our national character has suffered in all these categories, most recently in regard to the cancellation of the missile defense system our nation previously pledged to erect in Poland and Czechoslovakia.  The system was designed to guard against attack by potential enemies with nuclear-capable missiles. When the installation was planned, only Russia qualified as such a potential enemy, but now Iran is also a member of the nuclear bully club.  The anti-missile system offered proven and advanced defensive technology to friendly nations who did not have the means to defend themselves against more powerful enemies.
 
The Obama administration last week announced that they would renege on this agreement.  Obama said that instead of the promised stationary defense system, the United States would offer a new, untried, high-tech, mobile sea-based system sometime in the indefinite future.  The announcement came on the same day that the IAEA issued a report that Iran was capable of producing a nuclear weapon.
 
When the Obama administration pulled the rug out from under Poland and Czechoslovakia, they placed allies in danger–not just the two nations in question, but all of Europe, which would have enjoyed the protection of the system.  Withdrawing our protection from Poland and Czechoslovakia is a tacit admission that we will not come to their aid in any substantial way if they are threatened or attacked.  We have abandoned them to the mercy of merciless enemies.
 
Both nations must be experiencing a bad case of deja vu.  In World War II, Poland was allied with England and France.  Both countries agreed to come to Poland’s aid in the event of attack by another nation.  On 1 September, 1939, Poland was attacked from the west by Hitler’s Germany and from the east by Stalin’s Russia.  British and French troops were alerted and mobilized, but none came to the aid of Poland, which was overrun and subdued in a matter of days.  After the war, the Soviets, who had taken all of Poland in their drive against Germany, broke their agreement to allow self-government in the occupied country, and Poland became part of the Soviet bloc.
 
In Czechoslovakia in 1948, when it looked like the communists were going to lose the upcoming election, they staged a coup to take over the government.  Thereafter, the communists purged the Czech military of non-communist officers and reorganized the Czech government along Soviet lines.  (“Purge” does not mean that these patriotic Czechs resigned, went to school on the GI Bill, and found other work in the private sector.  They were imprisoned or murdered.)  Czechoslovakia became a stalwart member of the Warsaw Pact.  Still, there remained much anti-communist resistance among the Czech people, and in 1968 the Soviet Union invaded with half a million troops, neutralizing the Czech military and making Czechoslovakia a submissive Soviet satellite.  The West did not interfere, and the Czechs lived under communist government until 1990 when communist influence crumbled, and Czechs had their first free election since 1946.
 
Now, Poland and Czechoslovakia have again been abandoned by a powerful ally.  Why?  The anti-missile system has long been a sore point with the Russians, the potential aggressors it was originally designed to deter.  President Obama has a meeting scheduled with Putin and Medvedev shortly.  It has been this administration’s policy to unilaterally make concessions in advance of any meeting with rivals, only to get nothing in return but more demands for concessions. 
 
Under Obama, our nation broke its promise to defend Poland and Czechoslovakia from missile attack, violated the principles of diplomacy by making this decision unilaterally without consulting the nations whose security it threatens, turned its back on the ideal of defending democracy around the world, and did so on the basis of fiscal economy and diplomatic spinelessness
 
Meanwhile, every American ally must be wondering who will be next to be abandoned by the Obama administration.  Under Obama, American promises mean nothing, our principles are expedient, our ideals for sale, and our allies cannot depend on us.
 
Obama campaigned on a promise to restore American prestige in the world.  Instead, he has irreparably damaged the character of the American nation by replacing it with his own.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Presidential Pants on Fire

Presidential20Pants20on20Fire.jpg Presidential Pants on Fire picture by LDCuploads07
 
by  Lance Thompson
 
During President Obama’s health care speech to a joint session of Congress, the President’s claim that illegal aliens weren’t covered in the legislation met with incredulity from the few people present who read and understood the bill.  But Republican congressman Joe Wilson said out loud what the rest were thinking.  “You lie!” 
 
Wilson’s honest reaction to a dishonest sales pitch was widely condemned on both sides, and Republican leadership even directed him to tender an apology, which he did.  This despite the fact that Democrats routinely called President Bush a liar (and much worse), from Senate majority leader Harry Reid on down.  (Reid apologized for calling the president a “loser,” but pointedly refused to apologize for calling him a “liar”).  The main difference with Wilson was that he had the courage to tell the President to his face, while Reid and the other Democrats mostly insulted Bush to crowds of enthusiastic supporters (in other words, journalists).
 
Still, it leaves us with a question: How does a member of Congress respond to a President telling whoppers of the magnitude of Obama’s claims that a government-run health care system won’t add one dime to the debt, will save half a trillion dollars by eliminating waste and fraud, and will serve millions more people than the market-based system we have now?
 
If two-word outbursts like Congressman Wilson’s are frowned upon, then we must have an appropriate way of communicating the sentiment, “Pull the other one, there’s a bell on it.”  Hillary Clinton, during President Bush’s speeches, would always find some way of looking disgusted, rolling her eyes, or just sneering as if she’d found a blue dress in her closet that wasn’t her size.  But this all seems hopelessly poor-sporty, and there’s no guaranteeing C-SPAN will catch less renowned members exhibiting such expressions.
 
If one were good-natured, as Senators and members of congress usually are--unless they’re Democrats coming out of a town hall meeting–they could respond as one would to an entertaining teller of tall tales.  “Ha!” one could exclaim, laughing out loud, slapping one’s knee, and exclaiming, “nobody can spin a yarn like that youngster from Chicago!” 
 
Since the Obama administration wants to create over fifty new bureaucracies with this new health reform bill, perhaps they could create one more for Truth Content.  This office might assign varying colors to degrees of truth in the President’s speeches, as the Department of Homeland Security has done for the terrorist alert level:  green for highest truth content, yellow for some stretchers, red for out-and-out-fibs, and perhaps neon orange if anyone actually spots the President crossing his fingers behind his back. Memembers could be given paddles with different colored panels to flash their reactions from their seats.
 
Perhaps, instead of the usual tepid response from the opposition party, the Republicans could arrange for some sort of simultaneous translation, with a close-captioned text crawl at the bottom of the screen.   As the president says, “It will cost not a dime more,” the text crawl could read, “not a dime more than two or three trillion.”  The same effect could be achieved by an inset box in the bottom corner of the screen, with an on-screen interpreter providing the truthful translation.  To protect her from retribution, she could be seen only in silhouette, her voice distorted, and her true identity hidden behind the pseudonym, “Polly Graf.”
 
But none of these has the power and directness of congressman Wilson’s from-the-heart response.  Wilson, by the way, has enjoyed a tremendous surge of support and increase in donations since his outburst, and seems destined for greater things.  This is even more galling to the Democrats, whose name-calling is so routine that if Republicans aren’t pilloried by Harry Reid, they send a reminder to his office asking if they’re being ignored on purpose.
 
Still, we must wonder why Democrats exhibit much greater outrage at having their honesty questioned than the GOP does.  Perhaps being accused falsely is frustrating, but being fairly caught is all the more painful.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prosecutorial Misconduct

JudgeHolder.jpg Judge Holder picture by LDCuploads07

The Obama administration announced that Attorney General Eric Holder will assign a special prosecutor to take the first step in bringing to trial CIA operatives who used extreme measures to interrogate terrorists. These extreme measures did not include torture, but merely threats and coercion which caused those interrogated to reveal details of planned terrorist attacks, and further permitted the United States to prevent them.

TheJury.jpg picture by LDCuploads07

Others have persuasively argued that prosecuting those who defend our country encourages our enemies, discourages our own people, and makes our allies wonder why they’re on our side at all. However, under the present administration, anyone who takes an oath to defend our nation should be ready to be prosecuted for doing his or her duty, and crucified for going above and beyond the call.

ExecutionerHolder.jpg Executioner Holder picture by LDCuploads07

The Obama administration prefers that its Justice Department dismiss criminal cases against its friends. This happened last week in the dismissed case of Democrat New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s shady deals with campaign contributors, and last month with the dismissed case of Democrat Senator Chris Dodd’s questionable favors bestowed by Countrywide Mortgage. Instead, Attorney General Eric Holder’s wrath is directed at Americans serving on the front line against terror. Further, there seems to be no statute of limitations on such vital practices as interrogating, interdicting, hunting and killing our nation’s enemies. So here is a list of some additional targets for Obama DOJ investigations:

Navy Captain Stephen Decatur, who in February, 1804, sailed his schooner Enterprise under the hostile guns of Tripoli harbor and in a daring raid destroyed the captured American frigate Philadelphia, denying the valuable ship to the terrorist Tripolitanian enemy.

Colonel William Travis and the defenders ofthe Alamo, who in February, 1836, obliged Mexican General Santa Ana and his army to find out what Texans are made of.

Marine Captain Lloyd Williams of the 5th Marine Regiment who, prior to the valorous stand of soldiers and Marines at Belleau Wood in June, 1918, responded to a French officer’s suggestion to withdraw from the exposed position, “Retreat, hell–we just got here!”

Or the civilian passengers of United Flight 93, who on September 11th, 2001, met the greatest terrorist attack on our nation with courage, resolve, and selfless sacrifice so that others might live.

Admittedly, these Americans are all beyond the pitiful jurisdiction of Eric Holder. Their cases have, in fact, already come before the Highest Power. (No, that is not a reference to Rahm Emmanuel.) But it is certain that before the Ultimate Judge, these heroes were not only acquitted, but honored, feted, and invited to sit on the side of the angels, which is certainly where they belong.

And they’ll be saving a place for those CIA operatives now threatened by the earthly courts of lesser men.

Lance Thompson
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tricky Trillions

Obamas20Money20Tree2.jpg Obama's Money Tree picture by LDCuploads07

Basic political tactics dictate that bad news is released on a Friday, preferably before a big holiday weekend, when few people are paying attention. The current administration has had no shortage of bad news of late, but last Friday they announced that their previous ten-year estimate of the budget deficit (about $7 trillion) was too low. The revised deficit estimate for 2010-2019 is $9 trillion–two trillion dollars higher than before. 

 

Until Obama came to the Oval Office,finding something to spend two trillion dollars on was a challenge. Now that Obama and the Democrats are in charge, of course, spending two trillion dollars is an almost monthly occurrence. But in the old days (prior to 2009), two trillion was a lot of money. It’s the sort of price tag one would expect for waging a protracted world war, finding a cure for cancer, turning the Sahara Desert into fertile farmland, or colonizing Mars. And such ambitious programs would be exhaustively debated in Congress, in the media, and among voters across the country. Because two trillion dollars is more money than any previous administration has spent on anything, and we’d want to be sure we were getting our money’s worth. 

 

But the value of two trillion dollars has changed under Barack Obama. The current president seems to think that he has been issued the world’s most powerful credit card, with no limit and easy terms–spend however much you want, and simply mail the bill to successive generations. Under Barack Obama, massive spending is the solution to everything. But this is not two trillion dollars invested in a major piece of legislation or vital investment in our nation’s future. This is two trillion dollars of accounting error.

 

And remember, this is only an estimate of what the deficit will be ten years from now. In the first six months of the administration, that estimate has already been adjusted upwards by two trillion dollars. That estimate does not take into account more wars, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, energy disruptions, or pandemics. Any of these occurrences could cause the estimate of the deficit to be bumped upward again. By how much more next time? Two trillion? Five trillion? Ten trillion?

 

The administration released this information on a Friday, hoping Americans would be too busy enjoying their weekend to notice. Barack Obama hoped to set the example by flying off to a Martha’s Vineyard vacation in the direct path of Hurricane Bill. If the president isn’t worried by this looming tsunami of red ink, why should any of us be concerned? Besides, every thousand-page piece of legislation the president champions carries a multi-trillion dollar price tag. What’s a couple more trillion added to a multi-trillion dollar debt we have no way of repaying anyway? Max out the credit card and head for beach!

 

One other bit of weekend news most Americans won’t notice came out on Sunday. Rasmussen reports that the president’s approval rating is the worst since he took office. While 27% of respondents strongly approve of the president’s performance in office, 41% strongly disapprove. Rasmussen’s numbers are the lowest for the president of any major national poll, but all show steady deterioration in support for Obama. It may be that Americans are paying attention after all. And they have two trillion more reasons to do so since last Friday.

 
Lance Thompson
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789101718Next »