It has been a long time since I have posted anything political, but tomorrow is the 2010 Congressional, Mid-Term Elections and I am cautiously optimistic. Oh, I know there are lots of predictions out there about a GOP landslide, and I agree. I think there will be a huge statement made all across the country tomorrow and that on Wednesday, November 3rd, there will be a lot of seriously upset, mad, angry, unemployed and depressed Democrats, Socialists and Marxists. Not the least of which is our Marxist President, Barack Hussein Obama.
Why am I only cautiously optimistic? Three reasons:
First, although I am confident that we will gain control of the House of Representatives by taking between 55 and 60 seats from the Democrats, I do not think we will win control of the Senate, although it may appear that way on election night. Remember the Al Franken v. Norm Coleman Senate race in Minnesota 2 years ago? It initially looked like Coleman won. But the re-count and legal battle lasted a few MONTHS before the Democrat machine literally manufactured enough ballots for Franken to win. Any Senate race that has a GOP winner by less than 3% is going to be challenged, manipulated and possibly stolen, especially if it is in a Blue state with democrat judges and a Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Senate seems to have the ability to adjust their rules for seating newly elected Senators, so look for Harry Reid to maybe try an under the table deal to keep a newly elected Senator, like Sharon Angle maybe, from being seated. In other words, I am convinced that with the voting irregularities that are already being reported, combined with tight races and the current Democratic Senate there is the possiblity, I would even say likelihood, that the Dems keep the Senate through less than legal/honorable means.
Second, if we get a GOP controlled House, and the Dems hold on to the Senate barely, then we will have a definite stalemate in the Congress and the Obama Marxist agenda will be slowed down if not altogether stopped. THEN the question of House leadership will enter the picture. Will they be tough and uncompromising? I hope so, but I doubt it. Time and again the Republicans have proved to all of us that they “just want to get along” and not lead. I say shut the government down if that is what it takes. I think the American people will support it this time no matter what the MSM does or says, unlike back in ’94-95 under Newt Gingrich when the shutdowns damaged the GOP. The less the State does the better. Then there is the whole issue of whether the TEA Party candidates who get elected can actually govern. Some of the TEA Party candidates, while better than the Dems they hope to replace (Christine O’Donnell for example in Delaware) they are themselves somewhat less qualified than I would like. Christine O’Donnell, Joe Wilson, Sharon Angle, and even my favorite, Sarah Palin, all have shorter resumes than I would like to see, but all would be better idealogically than the dems they would replace. Will they be able to actually do the hard work of governing.
Third, my optimism for the short term is tempered by my pessimism for the mid-term. I think America has passed the point of no return for an economic and cultural collapse. Regardless of who is elected tomorrow, I believe the economy is going to go down the toilet in the next 1-2 years. This will lead to some serious societal/cultural problems ranging from an increase in homelessness as the housing market goes bust AGAIN, and continued high unemployment to rioting in the streets of some of our more volatile cities. It could even get worse than that. My question is, What if the Conservative Avalanche tomorrow is too late and no matter what they do, the economy collapses, a terror strike succeeds, a series of natural disasters occur, etc.? These are the type of times for TYRANTS to take control. Some will make the mistake and say the tyrants will come from the conservatives. That is an impossibility because the right wing stands for personal liberty and a small state. Tyranny is always from the left because it is about empowering government to stomp on the face of the individual. The Nazis were Socialists, the Stalinists were Marxists. The Muslim tyrants allied with the Nazis in WW2 and with the Russians in the Cold War and are befriended by the Leftists of the West today.
I am ultimately an optimist. I believe that Jesus is coming again, soon. In my lifetime. Being raised in the Cold War we tended to think of Communism as the Anti-Christ with its state sponsored atheism. But communism of the European variety has failed and been discredited (Putin in Russia today is probably just a run of the mill tyrant) and communism in China has been replaced with a Statist form of Capitalism that is pretty unique. Even Castro in Cuba is beginning to make some strange capitalistic sounding speeches. That leaves North Korea and North Vietnam as the sole communists and Vietnam is becoming fairly market oriented as well. No, communism is not the anti-christ.
It looks to me as if Islam is the real anti-christ. The world will not stop Iran from developing nukes and the US under every President since Jimmy Carter has failed to stop Muslim terrorism and expansion. Our wars under Bush and Obama are a waste because we are fighting to support one group of tyrannical muslims over another group of tyrannical muslims. We are not fighting for American values nor are we fighting to win. The last war we won was WW2. When (not if) Iran gets nukes, and the nukes inevitably fall into terrorist hands, the last days will be upon us. I don’t know how much suffering we will have to go through, I am not a pre-trib rapture guy, but it will be awful.Then Jesus will come back. That will be wonderful.
All this to say that we should not trust in horses or chariots, neither dems not repubs, our trust ultimately is in God Alone. That is not to say that we should not be engaged in our culture. Go Vote ye men of God, and godly women. Vote righteously. Vote for the conservatives in every race.
May God have mercy on the United States of America.
Equality 7-2521Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
“For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.”
The following is an article written by Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington and was an article in the April 2010 issue of The American Legion Magazine. Thought you would find it interesting & scary; I did.
For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.
Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.
Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates – responsible for the U.S. military, the intelligence community, homeland security and federal law enforcement – have systematically failed to fully realize that we once again face a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction.
That failure is the more worrisome since the current ideological menace is arguably more dangerous than any we have faced in the past, for two reasons. First, its adherents believe their mission of global conquest is divinely inspired. Second, they are here in the United States in significant numbers, not just a threat elsewhere around the world.
What, then, is this ideology? It has been given many names in recent years, including political Islam, radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, extremist Islam and Islamofascism. There is, however, a more accurate descriptor – the one its adherents use. They call it “Shariah.”
Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Shariah is that it is authoritative Islam, which presents itself as a complete way of life – cultural, political, military, social and religious,
all governed by the same doctrine. In other words, this comprehensive program is not simply the agenda of extremists hunkered down in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Neither can its directives be attributed to deviants hijacking Islam.
Rather, Shariah – which translates from Arabic as “path to God” – is actually binding law. It is taught as such by the most revered sacred texts, traditions, institutions, top academic centers, scholars and leaders of the Islamic faith. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world do not wish to live under a brutally repressive, woman-demeaning, barbaric and totalitarian program. Such Muslims are potentially our allies, just as those who do adhere to Shariah are our unalterable foes.
The immutability of Shariah-adherent Muslim hostility toward the rest of us derives directly from the central tenet of Shariah: Muslims are explicitly required to seek the triumph of Islam over all other faiths, peoples and governments.
The ultimate objective of Shariah is the establishment of a global Islamic state – Sunni Muslims call it “the caliphate” – governed by Shariah. The means by which this political outcome is to be achieved is called “jihad.”
Since 9/11, many Americans have become unhappily acquainted with the terrifying, violent strain of jihad. Under Shariah, violence – often described by non-Muslims as “terrorism” – is the preferred means of securing the spread and dominion of Islam, as it is the most efficient.
While Shariah deems jihad to be the personal obligation of every faithful Muslim capable of performing it – man or woman, young or old – they can forgo the violent form when it is deemed impracticable. In such circumstances, the struggle can be pursued through means that are, at least temporarily, non-violent. Taken together, the latter constitute what renowned author and expert Robert Spencer calls “stealth jihad.” Adherents to Shariah call it “dawah.”
Examples of stealth jihadism abound in Western societies, notably Europe and increasingly in the United States. They include the demand for symbolic and substantive accommodations in political, economic and legal areas (for example, special treatment or rights for Muslims in the workplace, in public spaces and by government); the opportunity to penetrate and influence operations against government at every level; and the insinuation of the Trojan horse of “Shariah-compliant finance” into the West’s capital markets.
If stealth jihad seems less threatening than terrorism, the objective is exactly the same as that of violent jihad: the subjugation to the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) of all non-Islamic states that, like the United States, make up the Dar al-harb (House of War). It follows that those who seek ostensibly to impose Shariah through non-violent techniques – notably in the West, the organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood – are our enemies every bit as much as those who overtly strive to defeat us by murderous terrorism.
Many Western elites, including the Obama administration, have been seduced by the seemingly benign quality of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, we know from the 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation – the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history – that the Muslim Brothers’ mission in the United States is “a kind of grand jihad to destroy Western civilization from within … by their own miserable hands.”
Another Brotherhood document, titled “The Rulers,” was seized in a 2004 raid and describes how the organization will try to overthrow the U.S. Constitution in five phases:
• Phase I: Discreet and secret establishment of elite leadership
Phase II: Gradual appearance on the public scene, and exercising and utilizing various public activities
• Phase III: Escalation, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through the mass media
• Phase IV: Open public confrontation with the government through the exercise of political pressure
• Phase V: Seizing power to establish an Islamic nation, under which all parties and Islamic groups will become united
“The Rulers” makes plain that all the above-mentioned phases “are preliminary steps to reach the (fifth) phase.”
The Muslim Brothers know that by masking their ideological agenda as a religious program, they can use Western civil liberties and tolerance as weapons in their stealthy jihad. For this strategy to succeed, however, they must suppress any discussion or understanding of the true nature of Shariah.
Adherents to Shariah insist that their law prohibits any slander against Islam or Muhammad. Under such a catch-all restriction, virtually any kind of conversation about – or critique of – Islam can be considered impermissible if Muslims find it offensive. Particularly in Europe, the ever-present prospect of violence, like that which followed the September 2005 publication of Danish cartoons poking fun at Muhammad, is generally sufficient to induce self-censorship.
In this country, the application of such prohibitions seems unthinkable, given the guarantees of free speech enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Obama administration last year co-sponsored with Egypt a relevant and deeply problematic resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council, promoted for years by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim-majority nations that stridently embraces Shariah and seeks to legitimate and promote its advance around the world.
The resolution calls on members of the United Nations to prohibit statements that offend Islam. It also calls for criminal penalties to be applied to those who make such statements.
The U.S. implementation of such a resolution would obviously be a matter not just for the executive branch, which supported it, but for Congress and the judiciary as well. It is a safe bet that any formal effort to supplant the First Amendment in this way would meet with great resistance.
To a stunning degree, U.S. leaders have been effectively conforming to Shariah slander laws for some time now. For instance, presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have both repeatedly described Islam as a “religion of peace,” without acknowledging the requirement for jihad its authorities demand, pursuant to Shariah.
At the Muslim Brotherhood’s insistence, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department have barred the use of perfectly accurate terms like “Islamic terrorism.” The U.S. government has also embraced the Muslim Brothers’ disinformation by translating jihad as nothing more than “striving in the path of God.”
Under the Bush and Obama administrations, the favored name for the enemy has been “violent extremism” – a formulation that neither offers clarity about the true nature of our foe nor lends itself to a prescription for a successful countervailing strategy. Even when al-Qaeda is identified as the enemy, it is almost always accompanied by an assurance that its operatives and allies have “corrupted” Islam. Ignored, or at least earnestly obscured, are two unhappy realities: such enemies are implementing Shariah’s dictates to the letter of the law, and they have millions of fellow adherents around the world who view Islam’s requirements the same way.
One of the most egregious examples of this practice of unilateral disarmament in the battle of ideas is the January report of the independent review of the Fort Hood massacre, co-chaired by former Army Secretary Togo West and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vernon Clark. Their 86-page unclassified analysis purported to dissect an event allegedly perpetrated by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – a medical officer whose business card described him as “Soldier of Allah,” whose briefings justified murder of his comrades in the name of jihad, and who shouted the Islamic martyr’s cry “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is great!”) as he opened fire, killing 13. Incredibly, the words “Islam,” “Islamic terror,” “Shariah,” “jihad,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” were not used even once in the West-Clark report.
Such political correctness, or willful blindness up the chain of command, doubtless caused Hasan’s colleagues to keep silent about his alarming beliefs, lest they be punished for expressing concerns about them. Now, reportedly, six of them have been designated as the scapegoats for what is manifestly an institutional failure.
The painful truth is that however we rationalize this sort of behavior, our Shariah-adherent enemies correctly perceive it as evidence of submission, which is the literal meaning of the word “Islam,” and what Shariah demands of everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Indeed, Shariah offers non-believers only three choices: conversion to Islam, submission (known as dhimmitude) or death. Historically, dhimmitude was imposed through successful Muslim conquests. In more recent years, tolerant Western nations have increasingly succumbed to stealthy jihadism, backed by more or less direct threats of violence.
That trend, worrying as it is, may be giving way in this country to a new campaign: jihad of the sword. The past year saw a fourfold increase in the number of actual or attempted terrorist attacks in the United States. Sadly, that statistic will likely be surpassed in the year ahead. Four of the nation’s top intelligence officials have testified before Congress that it is certain new acts of violence will be undertaken in the next three to six months. Worse yet, a blue-ribbon commission has calculated that the probability of the use of weapons of mass destruction somewhere in the world by 2013 is now over 50 percent.
Is this dramatic upsurge in violent jihad directed at the United States unrelated to our behavior? Or does it reflect a growing calculation on the part of our Shariah-adherent enemies that violence against the United States is now, once again, practicable?
Either way, the time has clearly come to make a far more serious effort to defeat both the violent and stealthy forms of jihad being waged against this country. If we are to do so, however, we have to start by telling the truth.
Our enemy is not “violent extremism,” or even al-Qaeda alone. Rather, it is the millions of Muslims who – like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and their allies – adhere to Shariah and who, therefore, believe they must impose it on the rest of us.
We are at war with such individuals and organizations. Not because we want to be. Not because of policies toward Israel or the Middle East or anything else we have pursued in recent years. Rather, we are at war with them because they must wage jihad against us, pursuant to the dictates of Shariah, the same law that has guided many in Islam for some 1,200 years.
What is at stake in this war? Look no further than The American Legion’s Americanism Manual, which defines Americanism as “love of America; loyalty to her institutions as the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness; and the willingness to defend our country and Flag against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Such values cannot coexist with Shariah, which demands the destruction of democratic nations like the United States, its governing institutions and liberties. Shariah would supplant them with a repressive, transnational, theocratic government abroad and at home.
The extraordinary reality is that none of this – the authoritative and malevolent nature of Shariah, its utter incompatibility with our civilization, and its adherents’ determination to force us to convert, submit or die – is concealed from those willing to learn the truth. To the contrary, the facts are widely available via books, the Internet, DVDs and mosques, both here and overseas. Interestingly, on Dec. 1, 2005, Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called on his troops to expose themselves to precisely this sort of information: “I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote ‘Mein Kampf.’ He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”
As it happens, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and Army Reserves intelligence specialist recruited by the Joint Chiefs to be their expert on the doctrine and jurisprudence of jihad, took Pace’s admonition to heart. He wrote a master’s thesis inspired by the chairman’s quote, titled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.”
Coughlin’s briefings explicitly and repeatedly warned military leaders of the enemy’s “threat doctrine” – drawing from, among Islamic texts, passages the Fort Hood suspect used to justify his massacre. Unfortunately, engaging in such analysis, let alone acting on it, was powerfully discouraged in January 2008 when Coughlin was dismissed from the Joint Staff after he ran afoul of a Muslim Brother then working for Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.
In short, we are today confronted by the cumulative effect of a sustained and collective dereliction of duty, one that is putting our country in extreme peril. Our armed forces – like their counterparts in the intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement – have a professional duty to know the enemy and develop appropriate responses to the threat doctrine. If this dereliction is allowed to persist, it is predictable that more Americans will die, both on foreign battlefields and at home.
The American people also need to become knowledgeable about the threat of Shariah and insist that action be taken at federal, state and local levels to keep our country Shariah-free. This toxic ideology, if left unchecked, can destroy the country and institutions that are, indeed, “the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness.”
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington and host of the nationally syndicated program “Secure Freedom Radio.”
The only flaw in his thinking is that he thinks the enemy is merely those muslims who want Sharia law.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010- Congratulations to the State of Arizona for the recent immigration enforcement law passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer last Friday. This is a significant step forward in solving a CRISIS that the Federal Government has neglected for 20-30 years under both Republican and Democrat Presidents and Congress’s.
I am 100% in favor of this law because it is a reasonable effort to step in and fill the gap created by a Federal government that has utterly failed in one of its basic responsibilities. The law requires the police to ask for proper identification of someone who has given a reasonable suspicion to the police that they are illegally present in Arizona. Current estimates are that Arizona has about half a million illegals and it serves as the primary entry point into the country from Mexico for the illegals.
The liberals, demoncrats, foreigners, and racist people of color all hate the law for one reason: These various groups HATE the fact that America is dominantly white and has been exceptional and unique in world history; these groups want open borders so as to increase the power of liberal demoncrats and do away with the “whiteness” of America. They want to “fundamentally change America” as Pres. Obama has said repeatedly, and one way to do that is to bring in so many foreigners that America would be changed culturally and ethnically. My saying that does not make me a racist. Should not those who want to fundamentally change America be considered racist for attempting to deliberately change the ethnic make up of America BECAUSE America is not brown enough?
This law is NOT inherently racist. It will help round up all the illegal Swedes and Danes right along with those from Mexico and Guatemala. The law is color blind. The fact that 99.9% of all the illegals in Arizona are brown is not a result of the law, it is simply a demographic fact. The police are not going to be cruising around looking for groups of brown people to harass and check for immigration status. But when they see suspicious behaviour, this law gives them the tool to stop the suspect and check their papers. And by checking their papers we mean checking for a driver’s license or state issued ID, a green card, Visa or a passport. This is all reasonable. Will their be some police who might abuse this? Possibly; a tiny minority of police will behave badly in any jurisdiction. But this law simply seeks to allow local and state police the ability to enforce a federal law that has not been enforced by the feds.
In order for a nation to actually be a nation there are three things that are essential: 1) a distinct language; 2) a distinct history and worldview; and 3) clear geographical borders. If there is no border between US and Mexico, and if English is lost as the primary language, and if the third world culture of Mexico expands into the US, then we will cease being the exceptional nation that we have been for over 400 yrs now.
President Obama is going to throw the full force of his Justice Department at the Arizona Governor, Legislators and Police Agencies to entrap them in civil rights violations. They will sue Arizona to halt this. They will withhold funds for various federal projects. The Black racist/agitators like Al Sharpton will organize marches and protests (even though reducing the number of illegals will actually help the black community with finding jobs in this bad economy). ARIZONA NEEDS TO BE PREPARED TO ARREST FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO TRY TO INTERFERE IN ARIZONA’S BUSINESS.
This is an excellent constitutional issue. The federal government has the responsibility to defend the borders yet has failed completely. The State of Arizona is not encroaching on the Federal government’s role, it is picking up the slack from the federal government. Arizona ought to file suit against the Federal government and charge them for abandoning their duty.
Texas, New Mexico and California ought to follow the lead of Arizona. The four governors need to get together and stand as ONE against the federal behemoth. This can be THE leading cause to reassert States’ Rights and the 10th Amendment because the Federal Government has completely failed in its responsibility. Each of these states should mobilize its National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and recruit a civilian militia to head to the border and enforce the law.
In 1916 General ” Black Jack” Pershing led an expedition into Mexico to round up Pancho Villa and his gang for committing crimes inside the border of the US. Today, it is normal for the Mexican Army to send troops across the border into America to escort the drug and human traffickers. The Mexican Army has shot at our Border Patrol and our Border patrol’s orders are to not pursue or even shoot back.
Where is the Pershing or the Patton of today who will stand up and take action?
Some will read this blog and accuse me of being racist. In my personal life I have friends of all colors, ages, etc. Theologically, as a biblical Christian, skin color makes no difference to me or to God. I enjoy America’s diversity and I WELCOME LEGAL IMMIGRATION. But the line must be drawn somewhere and to have an open, unsecured border is one place we should draw the line.
Congratulations Arizona! May Gov. Rick Perry of Texas follow suit. I hope y’all are ready for a big ol’ ruckus ’cause it’s a comin’. Stand firm, never retreat.
Immediately below is the Arizona SB 1070:
Here is an Op Ed from the NY Times by one of the authors of the bill explaining some points:
Following are various news stories about the passing of this bill:
Gov. Jan Brewer, Rep. AZ dismisses the threat from some to boycott Arizona over their new immigration law:
Pat Buchanan’s WND column here:
I believe it is time, past time, for the citizens to arise and force the government to do its job and to throw off the tyranny that has crept in upon us.
Equality 7-2521Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
OK, I’m a birther. Sort of. I have looked at a lot of the evidence for the past couple of years and what the evidence tells me is that there is sufficient evidence to give reasonable doubt that Obama is a US citizen. I know, I know, the demoncrats think all birthers are nuts, and even a lot of true blue conservatives think birthers are nuts. But this is a constitutional issue that needs to be resolved and there is conflicting evidence. Therefore, I am calling on the Republicans to have an official hearing on the subject next January after they take over the House in November. Furthermore, I am calling on the States’ Attorney’s General to require candidates for office to provide evidence that they are qualified to hold the office for which they are running. That way this whole fiasco won’t happen again.
Now on to the evidence, pro and con.
1. President Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen, not a US citizen. But wait, he was adopted by Lolo Sotero, an Indonesian man. But wait, he also went by his mother’s maiden name at times because he was raised by her parents, Dunham. With this many aliases and two fathers neither of whom was a US citizen, this alone is cause for pause.
2. President Obama’s Kenyan grandmother claims he was born in Kenya
This claim amounts to anecdotal or hearsay evidence, which, by itself, should be discarded. However, if it is corroborated by a substantial amount of similar evidence would establish a pattern that could lead to reasonable doubt.
3. There are obviously some Africans in the press who believe Obama was born in Kenya and have included that in several stories from a variety of publishers:
Hey, the American press gets things dreadfully wrong all the time and they do write with blatant bias, therefore this could be just wishful thinking by African Press pukes. More circumstantial evidence or hearsay, but a pattern has now been established.
4. Michelle Obama has mentioned in a couple of speeches or interviews that Obama’s “home country” is Kenya.
Again, this proves NOTHING, but it is highly IRREGULAR for the First Lady to refer to Kenya as the home country of the President who was supposedly born in America, raised partly in Indonesia, and did not go to Kenya until much later in life. One would think she would have said, Kenya was Obama’s father’s home country.
5. President Obama has spent a considerable amount of money and effort to prevent the release of his Long Form Birth Certificate, and has only released the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB). Why the effort to hide the official document? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Unless there was something to hide.
Again, does this prove anything? Not at all except that Obama is avoiding transparency and openness and he is either extremely stubborn on a minute point of personal privacy and preference or he has something to hide. Again, this proves nothing but the Pattern is Very Well Established by this point. It is now reasonable to keep digging and asking, Was Obama born in America or Kenya?
6. All of President Obama’s school records, health records, passport information, etc. is still in a black hole and has not been released.
Does this Prove anything? No. But why would the President of the United States hide every record about his past? This absolutely raises suspicions and again contributes to those of us who doubt his citizenship. The Academic records may conceal that he was really a poor student, or they may reveal his nation of origin.The school’s financial records might show that he was on a scholarship reserved for foreign born students.
7. We know that Obama graduated from Columbia without honors, due to an old commencement program that listed him, so how did he get into Harvard Law School?It has been suggested that a Saudi paid his way and greased the skids for him to be admitted into Harvard. What does this prove? His muslim past, and his muslim connections helped get him where he is, therefore, this can be a clue to his strange behavior towards Israel and muslim nations.
8. There is a COLB that states Obama was born in Hawaii but there was a controversy over which hospital the birth was in.
Again, this does not prove anything about the country of his birth other than two different hospitals in Hawaii have been named as his birthplace. This does increase the likelihood that he was born in Hawaii as claimed, but the confusion also contributes to the doubt.
9. There is a problem with Obama’s SSN and Draft Registration Card. Obama’s SSN has now been proven to have a Connecticut issuing number. This SSN was obtainable on his Draft Registration Card available at the Selective Service Dept. Since World Net Daily published the problem with his SSN the Selective Service Dept. has not allowed people to search Obama’s Draft Registration Card. Here is the story from WND:
In conclusion, those of you who are Obama fans and sycophants need to acknowledge that there is sufficient cause for concern about Obama’s background, specifically his place of birth. When you understand that some Demoncrats Raised the Issue about Senator McCain’s birth in Panama on a Naval Base, and that McCain had to prove his case which was completely legal and above board, then you HAVE TO ADMIT it is HYPOCRITICAL for Demoncrats to derisively disregard “birthers” who, as pointed out above, have a significant trail circumstantial evidence pointing to doubts about Obama’s citizenship.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 12 so far )
Obamacare: A Christian’s Call To Obey the Law- not Men. Why A Christian Could Support a Revolt Against the Federal Government
A friend asked me to respond to a recent article by Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Here is the article. My response follows.
Far be it from me to point out a flaw in Dr. Mohler’s argument (he is one of my genuine heroes of the faith!) but I DO think he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how to apply the Scriptures he used in regards to the Christian’s duty to America. In Paul and Peter’s day, they lived under the rule of Man. That is, Caesar was the Law. The Republic of Rome was long gone. In our day, we are a Democratic Republic. What is the Supreme Law of the Land? The Constitution and, the Declaration, the Northwest Ordinance, the Mayflower Compact, and I would even include John Winthrop’s famous sermon “A Model of Christian Charity” (A City on a Hill)
When our political process goes astray there are multiple checks and balances: Federalism (States Rights vs. the Federal Government), The Separation of Powers (Congress may override a Presidential Veto and the Supreme Court can overrule both), and the entire Election process. But WHAT DO WE DO WHEN ALL THE ABOVE CHECKS AND BALANCES FAIL?
It has been known for DECADES that the system in Washington has become corrupt. The system has been “gamed” at every level. I think that the current Obamasky-Reid-Pelosi gov’t represents the height of political corruption, but Nixon in the 1970’s, a Republican, was close.
TODAY there is a wide consensus, even a majority, that the Obamacare bill and all the other socialist acts of this POTUS and the Democrat controlled Congress have GROSSLY violated the CONSTITUTION which is THE LAW OF THE LAND. If Obama is not a natural born citizen, and I have serious doubts that he is, THEN he is in fact an illegal alien. That .aside, the laws they have passed are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and go against the Spirit and Intent of the FOUNDERS. Even the system and procedures they used to pass these laws is blatantly wrong and corrupt.
Therefore, the Christian must decide whom to follow, the rule of men, or the rule of law; corrupt, elected officials or the Law of the Land. The Scriptures command us to follow the Law. Our Leaders are the ones in violation of the law. Our Founders objected to King George because he and Parliament were in violation of the Common Law and the UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION, Nature’s Laws. We have a much stronger case because POTUS and Congress and even the COURTS are in violation of the Plain Reading of the historically verifiable texts of the Founding Documents. We live in a day where those who rule over us declare that which is evil to be good, and that which is good to be evil.
The real question is not whether we should rebel; the real question is what means should we use. Obviously the Republicans in Congress are using every means to slow down and defeat Obamacare; but they have failed and it has become the law of the land, unjustly so. The States are suing the Federal government over portions of the Bill and State Legislatures are preparing 10th Amendment challenges to the Federal Government on Obamacare and other issues as well. Utah and Montana are good examples here. There will be an election in November of this year, 2010, and if the special elections from earlier this year are any indication, there is reason to hope for a Republican/Conservative takeover of the House, and maybe even the Senate. A Conservative run Congress may not be able to overturn Obamacare, but they can slow it down and defeat it piecemeal through not providing funding for its various programs. The election of 2012 could lead to the ouster of Obama, but much damage would have already been done.
But we must remember that it is the Republicans who have gone along with the Socialist-Demoncrats for 100 yrs as Socialism-Statism has grown and grown in America. I believe this coming election cycle may be our last chance. I am thinking more and more that our last chance has passed us by. Nothing short of a Revolution can restore the Constitution as the Law of the Land.
The Revolution need not be violent and bloody. When, not if, but when, the US goes bankrupt, (and I believe it will be in the next couple of years) the deep fractures between Red states and Blue may lead to a Great Divorce. That may be the real opportunity for a return to the Rule of Law rather than the Rule of Men.
For the Christian, remaining neutral is not an option. If Jesus is Lord of your life, he is Lord of all your life, including your political views. Romans 13:1-7, properly applied, calls us to obey the Real True Governing Authority- that is the Constitution.
The weakest part of my argument, and the most dangerous, is trusting in the average American to properly interpret the Constitution AGAINST the SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress. This view runs the risk of subjecting the Constitution to private interpretation. But just as Conservative Evangelical Protestants have a consensus on the basics of the Biblical Doctrines, I believe that Today’s Conservative Americans and the Independents can agree that the Federal (and many blue state governments, i.e. California and NY) has usurped the Constitution and has run dangerously amok, specifically with the takeover of many private industries and the Health Care Bill.
There are no easy answers or quick fixes. This country is headed for a very difficult and potentially bloody mess. We must take a stand against Tyranny and Lawlessness now. We must avoid violence until the State uses violence against us. We should use every legal and political means to seek a redress of our grievances. But when push comes to shove, THIS Christian must follow the biblical mandate of upholding the Law of the Land and reject those Tyrants who are imposing serfdom on free citizens.
Bryan E. WalkerRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
Here is the text of President Obama’s speech about the Christmas Day 2009 Nigerian Underwear Bomber, given on Thursday, 01-07-10. The text is in light print, my comments are in bold.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon everybody.
The immediate reviews that I ordered after the failed Christmas terrorist attack are now complete. I was just briefed on the findings and recommendations for reform. And I believe it’s important that the American people understand the new steps that we’re taking to prevent attacks and keep our country safe.
First, this is a much more thorough speech and review of security measures than after the Ft Hood Battle with Major Nidal Hasan. The Ft Hood terror strike produced 14 deaths (including the unborn baby of one victim) and about 30 other casualties, yet the Underwear Bomber only injured himself and the one guy who jumped him. Why the focus on this attack and the burying of the Ft Hood attack? I suspect it is because the Ft Hood terrorist was a native born American from within the officer ranks of the Army and represents a more serious issue. Underwear Boy is from Nigeria and England, and was trained in Yemen. Plus, his attack came on board an airplane and he was directly linked to Al Qaeda.
This afternoon my counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, John Brennan, will discuss his review into our terrorist watchlist system; how our government failed to connect the dots in a way that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding a plane for America; and the steps we’re going to take to prevent that from happening again.
Just like the Clinton administration failed to connect the dots (and the early Bush administration)! THEY are at WAR with US, but we are NOT at war with THEM.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will discuss her review of aviation screening, technology and procedures; how that terrorist boarded a plane with explosives that could have killed nearly 300 innocent people; and how we’ll strengthen aviation security going forward.
So today, I want to just briefly summarize their conclusions and the steps that I’ve ordered to address them. In our ever-changing world, America’s first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed and acted upon quickly and effectively. That’s what the intelligence reforms after the 9/11 attacks largely achieved. That’s what our intelligence community does every day. But unfortunately, that’s not what happened in the lead-up to Christmas Day.
It’s now clear that shortcomings occurred in three broad and compounding ways. First, although our intelligence community had learned a great deal about the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen called al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — that we knew that they sought to strike the United States, and that they were recruiting operatives to do so — the intelligence community did not aggressively follow up on and prioritize particular streams of intelligence related to a possible attack against the homeland.
Here is where the Bush doctrine of “preemptive warfare” would have helped. Yes, we had a drone strike kill some Al Qaeda in Yemen just a couple of weeks before, but that was apparently way too limited.
Second, this contributed to a larger failure of analysis — a failure to connect the dots of intelligence that existed across our intelligence community, and which together could have revealed that Abdulmutallab was planning an attack.
Third, this in turn fed into shortcomings in the watch-listing system which resulted in this person not being placed on the no-fly list; thereby allowing him to board that plane in Amsterdam for Detroit.
In sum, the U.S. government had the information scattered throughout the system to potentially uncover this plot and disrupt the attack. Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.
And that’s why we took swift action in the immediate days following Christmas, including reviewing and updating the terrorist watch-list system and adding more individuals to the no-fly list, and directing our embassies and consulates to include current visa information in their warnings of individuals with terrorist or suspected terrorist ties.
Today, I’m directing a series of additional corrective steps across multiple agencies. Broadly speaking, they fall into four areas.
First, I’m directing that our intelligence community immediately begin assigning specific responsibility for investigating all leads on high-priority threats so that these leads are pursued and acted upon aggressively, not just most of the time but all of the time. We must follow the leads that we get, and we must pursue them until plots are disrupted. And that means assigning clear lines of responsibility.
Second, I’m directing that intelligence reports, especially those involving potential threats to the United States, be distributed more rapidly and more widely. We can’t sit on information that could protect the American people.
Third, I’m directing that we strengthen the analytical process, how our analysis — how — how our analysts process and integrate the intelligence that they receive. My director of National Intelligence, Denny Blair, will take the lead in improving our day-to-day efforts. My Intelligence Advisory Board will examine the longer-term challenge of sifting through vast universes of — of intelligence and data in our information age.
And finally, I’m ordering an immediate effort to strengthen the criteria used to add individuals to our terrorist watch lists, especially the no-fly list. We must do better in keeping dangerous people off airplanes while still facilitating air travel.
And we ought to go into Yemen and root out the “hundreds” of Al Qaeda training and operating there.
Taken together, these reforms will improve the intelligence community’s ability to collect, share, integrate, analyze, and act on intelligence swiftly and effectively. In short, they will help our intelligence community do its job even better and protect American lives.
But even the best intelligence can’t identify in advance every individual who would do us harm. So we need the security at our airports, ports and borders — and through our partnerships with other nations — to prevent terrorists from entering America.
It would really help if we checked out every single muslim who is about to fly. 99.9% of all the trouble is coming from…Baptists? No. Catholics? No. Buddhists? No. Atheists? No. IT’S MUSLIMS PEOPLE! If you are looking like a middle eastern person, if you are coming from a muslim country you must be searched and interrogated to fly.
At the Amsterdam airport, Abdulmutallab was subject to — to the same screening as other passengers. He was required to show his documents, including a valid U.S. visa. His carry-on bag was x-rayed. He passed through a metal detector. But a metal detector can’t detect the kind of explosives that were sewn into his clothes.
As Secretary Napolitano will explain, the screening technologies that might have detected these explosives are in use at the Amsterdam Airport, but not at the specific checkpoints that he passed through. Indeed most airports in the world and in the United States do not yet have these technologies.
Now, there’s no silver bullet to securing the thousands of flights, into America each day, domestic and international. It will require significant investments in many areas. And that’s why even before the Christmas attack, we increased investments in homeland security and aviation security.
This includes an additional $1 billion in new systems and technologies that we need to protect our airports — more baggage screening, more passenger screening and more advanced explosive detection capabilities, including those that can improve our ability to detect the kind of explosive used on Christmas. These are major investments. And they’ll make our skies safer and more secure.
Just profile the muslims Mr. President!
Now, as I announced this week, we’ve taken a whole range of steps to improve aviation screening and security since Christmas, including new rules for how we handle visas within the government and enhanced screening, for passengers flying from or through certain countries.
And today, I’m directing that the Department of Homeland Security take additional steps, including strengthening our international partnerships, to improve aviation screening security around the world, greater use of the advanced explosive detection technologies that we already have, including imaging technology, and working aggressively in cooperation with the Department of Energy and our national labs, to develop and deploy the next generation of screening technologies.
Now, there is of course no foolproof solution. As we develop new screening technologies and procedures, our adversaries will seek new ways to evade them, as was shown by the Christmas attack.
In the never-ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step ahead of a nimble adversary. That’s what these steps are designed to do. And we will continue to work with Congress to ensure that our intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement communities have the resources they need, to keep the American people safe.
I ordered these two immediate reviews, so that we could take immediate action to secure our country. But in the weeks and months ahead, we will continue a sustained and intensive effort, of analysis and assessment, that we leave no stone unturned in seeking better ways to protect the American people.
I have repeatedly made it clear — in public, with the American people, and in private, with my national security team — that I will hold my staff, our agencies and the people in them accountable when they fail to perform their responsibilities at the highest levels.
Now this stage in the review process — it appears that this incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies. That’s why, in addition to the corrective efforts that I’ve ordered, I’ve directed agency heads to establish internal accountability reviews and directed my national security staff to monitor their efforts. We will measure progress, and John Brennan will report back to me within 30 days and on a regular basis after that. All of these agencies and their leaders are responsible for implementing these reforms, and all will be held accountable if they don’t.
Moreover, I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer, for ultimately, the buck stops with me. As president, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people, and when the system fails, it is my responsibility.
Over the past two weeks, we’ve been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let’s be clear about what this moment demands. We are at war. Then why are we “arresting” this terrorist and giving him US Constitutional Miranda rights and a lawyer? We are at war against al Qaeda, a far- reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them. Except profile muslims in airports.
And we’ve made progress. Al Qaeda’s leadership is hunkered down. We have worked closely with partners, including Yemen, to inflict major blows against al Qaeda leaders, and we have disrupted plots at home and abroad, and saved American lives.
And we know that the vast majority of Muslims reject al Qaeda. But it is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations, not just in the Middle East but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding.
That’s why I’ve directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by lone recruits. And that’s why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death, including the murder of fellow Muslims, while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. Mr. President, Islam has been at war with the west since the 7th century. Read a history book!
To advance that progress, we’ve sought new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, It goes against the Koran to respect infidels like us and work together to fulfill the aspirations that all people share — to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security. Many of the terrorists are wealthy, educated, and have a view of peace that is linked to sharia law and the conquest of the West. That’s what America believes in. That’s the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.
Here at home, we will strengthen our defenses. But we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans, because great and proud nations don’t hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. We must go on offense! That is exactly what our adversaries want, and so long as I am president, we will never hand them that victory. We will define the character of our country, not some band of small men intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
And in this cause, every one of us — every American, every elected official — can do our part. Instead of giving in to cynicism and division, let’s move forward with the confidence and optimism and unity that defines us as a people. For now is not a time for partisanship; it’s a time for citizenship — a time to come together and work together with the seriousness of purpose that our national security demands.
That’s what it means to be strong in the face of violent extremism. That’s how we will prevail in this fight. And that’s how we will protect our country and pass it, safer and stronger, to the next generation. And you need to fire Janet Napolitano; she is useless.
Thanks very much.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
In my daily jog through the news, AtlasShrugs by Pamela Geller is always one of the first places I go. This morning she had a piece from “To The Point News” that is of great import for the conservative movement and is MustReading. I have added one of my ideas to the mix, but essentially what we are looking at doing to slow down, stop and hopefully reverse the wave of marxism, fascism, and Statism that is demolishing our Constitution today, is to 1) elect a conservative House of Representatives majority in 2010, 2) defund Obama’s programs and regain some fiscal responsibility, 3) disrobe, i.e. impeach some judges, 4) Disobey the Federal Fascists by peacefully refusing some of their ridiculous laws.
First, we must work for, pray for, and vote for a conservative majority in Congress in 2010. Nancy Pelosi must go. We need a clear and powerful conservative majority in the House so that we can stop the Obamasky Socialist/Marxist agenda. You only need one half of the Congress, either the Senate or the House, to completely freeze up Washington. The House is very likely vulnerable to a Conservative takeover next year. The Senate is possible but tougher. Obama may still be in office and can veto any bill the House comes up with, and the Dems may still retain control of the Senate, so you would not get any good bills passed and signed. But you completely stop most legislation.
Second, with the House you control the purse and can DEFUND the Obamasky programs. The House can simply refuse to appropriate the needed money for Obamacare or whichever program (TARP) or even a government agency (defund the Dept. of MisEducation).
Next, the House can impeach the President and judges. Granted, the Senate would have to convict and remove, but the House can at least bring up the charges and do the initial investigations needed. One of the first actions of a Conservative House should be to examine whether or not Obamasky is qualified to be in office, i.e., was he really born in the US. Then the House needs to carefully choose some judges to impeach. Impeachment is a two edged sword and must be used carefully. Once you start this process, as soon as the Demoncrats get back in power they will use it too. So choose your targets carefully. But the fear of God and the Constitution needs to be placed in the imperial judges who have been usurping power for decades.
The article by Dr. Wheeler suggests also some civil disobedience by PEACEFULLY refusing to follow some bogus laws, such as those related to Obamacare.
Or they could focus on, say, ObamaCare. If it’s passed with the mandate to buy health insurance or pay a $1,000 fine – what if tens of thousands, what if hundreds of thousands of TeaPartyers refused to do either? Perhaps a few might be prosecuted – but there is no way all but a tiny fraction could. There are not enough prosecutors nor judges and it would tie the fed courts up in knots.
And that’s the goal. For so many people to disobey so many rules that it becomes impossible for the rules to be enforced.
Call this The Revolution of Disobedience. A Mass Movement of Conservative Civil Disobedience that empowers every participant who knows he or she is actually doing something specific and concrete to bring down Fedzilla.
To this call by Dr. Jack Wheeler and Pamela Geller, I would add (besides impeaching judges) that serious talk needs to be started by some of the Governors of conservative states, and leading state legislators, about Nullification.
If a modern day nullification movement began, and about 20-25 states participated, it could possibly succeed and stop or even reverse the growth of the Federal Government.
Along with nullification should come a serious effort to enforce the 10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Both Demoncrats and Republicans have failed the American people. The Constitution has been abused, and we the people have been enslaved. We have done this to ourselves so we need to take matters into hand and undo the damage.
Today the Islamic fascist state of Iran testfired an intermediate range ballistic missile, nuclear capable and solid fueled. This missile has a range of 1200 miles which means it can hit all of our US military bases in the middle east, all of Israel, and southeastern Europe. Because it is solid fueled it can be launched more quickly and is more accurate. This type of missile is more versatile and can be set up with more ease in more places.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it showed the need for tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran. Excuse me, have sanctions worked on Iran or North Korea before? How long have we been sanctioning Iran?
Here is the bottom line: Do you really want a radical muslim state to be armed with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles? Do you think they just might give a nuke or two to somebody like Hamas or Al Qaeda? Do you think they might really attack Israel?
Our current policy will allow Iran to fully develop nuclear weapons and the missiles with which to deliver them. There are only two options: 1) Attack Iran now (or allow Israel to attack), 2) Allow Iran to get nukes and do whatever they want to us, Israel and the other Mid East nations.
What are the consequences of the above choices?
1) If we attack Iran now we will be vilified by the world, cause an oil crisis resulting in $300 a barrel oil and $10 a gallon gas in the US which will send us into the Great Depression part two and lead Obamasky to nationalize the oil companies. The Russkies will not be happy and likely retaliate in some manner, perhaps by invading the Ukraine or Georgia. China will also not like it and do something like call in our debt leading to yet more financial problems. North Korea may also take advantage of this chaos to invade South Korea.
2) If we do not attack now and Iran gets the nukes in the next couple of years, then you get a nuclear arms race between the various mid-East countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria. Though they are all muslims they hate each other and don’t trust each other. Imagine that. Then, at some point, the Iranians will attack Israel which country they have repeatedly made threats against simply out of hatred for the Jews. If Israel is attacked with nukes they will respond in kind and likely not just against Iran. If Israel feels its very existence is threatened I would look for the Aswan dam to be hit, flooding Egypt, Damascus would be hit, and maybe even Mecca. Burn the house down ya know.
What is not likely to happen is Peace in Our Time.
And who will be our President? Barack Hussein Obamasky.
Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus, our only true hope.
President Obama’s strategy, announced in his West Point address on Tuesday, Dec.1, is doomed to fail. This failure is not Obama’s alone, but rests also in the laps of his Generals, and in the actions of the Bush administration. The failure is rooted in a confidence in a limited war strategy and a fundamental misunderstanding of the religious and historical roots of this war. In this article I will critique the President’s speech and express my reasons for believing the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause.
First of all, however, let me present my credentials. I am a lifetime conservative, have always voted Republican, was a US Army Infantry Officer during the Cold War and am the father of an active duty Infantryman in the Army. I have always been known as a “hawk”. I supported President Bush’s response to 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq, yet thought that his responses were too limited, too constrained and insufficient.
That is who I am, now allow me to critique Obama’s speech and strategy and offer my alternatives.
“To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services,” the first problem was the venue. Did Obama have the right to speak at the USMA at West Point? Certainly, he is the Commander in Chief. However, in making his speech there was he politically using the cadets, instructors and support staff as a prop? Chris Matthews even baldly stated that Obama was “going into the enemy’s camp” to give the speech.
It is a common perception among the military and amongst conservatives that Pres. Obama, and most other liberal politicians, is “anti-military”. This is seen in everything from the DOD budget to replacing the USMC band playing “Hail To The Chief” in favor of some piano player playing jazz when the President enters. So, yes, it would seem that the West Point crowd would be expected to be somewhat skeptical of the President’s speech. Numerous commentators noted the less than enthusiastic response to the President and his speech.
“to bring this war to a successful conclusion”- this is as close he gets to using the words “Victory” or “Win”. Like all good one-worlders, he cannot think in terms of winning wars. Everybody loses when you fight a war in his mind. It is a zero sum game.
“it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight.” He goes into a decent explanation for the beginning of the war, and he at least calls it a war.
“a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents.” It is here that the single largest failure of Obama, Bush and the Generals comes in. On the one hand, you can say that Islam is one of the world’s great religions, but, if you actually study what Islam teaches, how they treat their women, and what Islam has done in history, there is NO WAY you can call it a great religion. 1) Islam has, from the very beginning, been spread by the sword. It is a barbaric and bloodthirsty religion of conquest. Islam’s stated goals are to either convert everyone in the world (a goal shared by Christianity) or kill them (not a goal shared by Christianity) or enslave them (not a goal shared by Christianity). 2) Islam has always been authoritarian, despotic and corrupt in every country it has ruled. It is anti-democratic. Do Islamic lands have equal rights for women? Do Islamic nations have real free speech, real religious liberty, real free press? Are Islamic countries actually tolerant?
By any objective standard, the history and teachings of Islam, compared with the history and teachings of Christianity demonstrates that Islam is an abysmal religion. Despite all the failings of Christianity and individual Christians, the bottom line is that Christianity has a God who sent his Son to die for us, while Islam has a god who tells you to send your son to die for him. Jesus said, “Love your enemies” and Muhammad says, “Off with their heads,” while he “marries” a 6 yr old girl (but doesn’t have sex with her til she is 9).
The failure of George Bush, BArack Obama and all the Generals is the failure to recognize that this is in fact A RELIGIOUS WAR AS DETERMINED BY OUR ENEMIES. TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE ENEMY’S THINKING IS A CLASSIC MISTAKE IN STRATEGY. TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE WAR IS A GROSS INEPTITUDE. As the 9/11 commission itself said, “They were at war with us, we were not at war with them.”
In past American wars we successfully adapted to the mode of warfare our enemies understood. In King Phillips’ War in 1675-76, the English colonists had to deal with an enemy who did not march out to war in formation. The Indians attacked at night, raided villages and killed or captured everyone. They used torture and hid behind trees, conducted hit and run raids. The colonists had to learn a whole new way of fighting. This was later used to good effect against the English in the Revolutionary War. In the wars with the Indians in the 19th century villages were razed, whole herds of buffalo were killed off, and the Indians starved. In WW2 in the Pacific Theater we learned that the fanatical Japanese who worshiped their Emperor, mixing religion with politics, war and honor, would fight to the last man, not surrendering in order to spare precious lives, but in order to extract honor for themselves and their emperor and kill as many of us as possible even for a losing cause. That led us to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A proper response I might add. With the London blitz using night bombers and then the V-1 and V-2 rockets, the Nazis brought in the idea of punishing the civilian population. So we bombed Dresden.
But now, we are too civilized for all that. A bunch of towel heads learn to fly jet liners in our schools (but not to land) and we want to wage a limited war with rules of engagement that would make any civilian police department proud. Our Marines and Soldiers cannot fire if civilians are in the area. WE cannot do night raids and take people in for questioning. WE have to read the Miranda warning now. This is not waging war to win. Give me William Tecumseh Sherman and Unconditional Surrender Grant. Give me ol’ Blood and Guts George S. Patton. Firebomb their cities like they did New York.
Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere. He is stating that Al Qaeda and the Taliban took over because America and friends had turned our attention elsewhere. Even though we helped oust the Soviets from Afghanistan these people turned against us. They allowed their country to turn into a TAliban cesspool. Should we have intervened earlier in A-stan? If we did, the demoncrats would have caused a ruckus. Why would we want to intervene in a country like A-stan? We cannot prevent every national disaster in every country. But we can respond properly when a country attacks us. What happened in A-stan was not our fault. A people generally get the type of government they deserve (which explains much about Amerika today).
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. This is the equivalent to a declaration of war because the Constitution does not specify what terminology to use in declaring war. Notice the great degree of agreement on this then. But since then, in the political waters of today, how unified are we? Where are the demoncrats on this issue now?
For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security. The NATO response has been underwhelming. The British have helped us the most, but they, too, have slashed defense spending in the last 15 years. One would think the Canadians would have helped us more. After our 60 years of defending Europe, and this is the thanks we get?!
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It’s enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.- Obama can’t help himself, he MUST criticize the Bush/Cheney administration. While I did support the invasion of Iraq, it, like the invasion of A-stan, was conducted under Don Rumsfeld’s minimal force policy rather than the Powell doctrine of Overwhelming Force. While certainly that policy worked as far as defeating Sadaam Hussein and his military, it utterly failed to prevent the chaos after the war which led to the civil war in Iraq and the consequent disaster.
Limited War, minimal force, a small footprint, all seem to guarantee failure. The last war we actually won was WW2 where we went full out, whole hog, requiring Unconditional Surrender by our enemies. Korea- a draw and now the North has nukes. How did that Truman policy work for ya? Viet-Nam, a limited war, and a loss. Gulf War 1- we accomplished our limited objectives but in the long term, it failed because we had to go back to finish the job…oh wait…we are finished yet. Afghanistan… small footprint…now our longest war. If you are going to fight a war, then fight like hell to win, all or nothing. No holding back.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end– Not “winning” nor “victory”. Bush had a limited war so now we cannot be said to win, and Obama does not like to win anyway.
But while we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.– True, the Bush administration did not fight seriously in A-stan because Iraq had become such a problem. Why is that? Other than what I have already said, I would say it is because of the “Peace Dividend” proclaimed by Pres. George HW Bush and the cuts by Pres. Bill Clinton that HALVED our military. Despite going to war in 2001 Bush never increased the size of our military by more than about 10%. The US Army is seriously overworked and is beginning to suffer long term ill effects of the continuous deployments as we lose mid grade officers and NCOs. The Army needs to be DOUBLED IN SIZE to meet the current ops tempo and mission requirements. So too with the Navy, Marines and Air Force.
There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.– This is all BS. He is a war time Commander in Chief whose first priority was destroying the American Health Care system and nationalizing the Car industry. This reinforcement of A-stan should have been taken care of by April. This is inexcuseable dereliction of duty.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.– The General requested between 40,000 and 80,000 troops and he is getting 30,000. This is a cagey way to appear to be supporting the generals but instead assuring failure so that the blame can be shifted to the military.
Here is where I go radical. I absolutely disagree with the generals on this. Arrogant of me, I know, as I was but a lowly Captain. But to do the job right, would require at least 500,000 if not 1 million. Here is the problem:
A-stan is a landlocked country and all of our air routes are going over not-too-friendly countries like former Soviet republics and Pakistan. The one land route through Pakistan is fraught with perils and is inherently unreliable. By any standard of military history, if you put a field army in a place that is impossible to quickly and reliably resupply, you are being foolhardy.
WHAT IF RUSSIA or CHINA exert enough pressure on Kyrghizistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan to cancel all of our overflights and bases or potential bases?
The bottom line is we do not have a reliable means of supplying our troops in A-stan and to increase the size of our army there places more troops in harm’s way. If we had fought this war in the WW2 manner we would have invaded Iran first, (the real source of most of the Islamic trouble anyway, since 1979) and established a secure ground route through that country to Afghanistan.
After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. – This is the most stupid thing he could have said. He is attempting to reassure the American people that we will bring the troops home, and give hope to the troops, but he is also challenging the Karzai government to “get your act together or else…”. However, he is also telling the Taliban and al qaeda to hold on for 18 months then we will leave. This is incredibly foolish. No more stark contrast can be drawn between Bush and Obamasky. Bush said we will stay until the job gets done, Obamasky says, we are outta here in 18 months! Incredibly naive. This is the deal breaker and ensures defeat.
Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. – Good luck with that .
Well, I could go on and on here, but let me leave it with this. I think that the idealistic American way of conducting limited wars for noble causes is bunk. If you have to fight, go in with everything you’ve got, kill off enough of the enemy to change their culture, move in, occupy and westernize them, take some reparations to pay off our war debt, then get out. Limited war does not work, it is costly in lives and treasure, and does not accomplish the goals. We must recognize that our enemy is in fact Islam and has been since the 7th century. We are trying to fight these muslims on our terms instead of theirs, and that is a losing proposition. Bush did some things right, but did some things wrong and now Obama is compounding the wrong things.
We need to either get out of A-stan or do it right.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
TEXT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPEECH AT WEST POINT ON AFGHANISTAN 12-01-2009
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It’s an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point — where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It’s enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it’s been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we’ve made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we’ve stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation’s army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There’s no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — General McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that’s why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people — and our troops — no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I’ve traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we’re confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We’ll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who’ve argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I’ve heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we’re better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can’t leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I’m mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We’ve failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I’ll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That’s why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict — not just how we wage wars. We’ll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can’t count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can’t capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that’s why I’ve made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them — because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
We’ll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I’ve spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That’s why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
As a country, we’re not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It’s easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America — we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries