Sunday, March 27, 2011

Why Are We At War With Libya?

With every passing day since Obama opened another war front by unilaterally attacking a sovereign State in the Islamic world it becomes more and more obvious that his war of choice was nothing more than an attack to get the minds of the American public off the ineptness surrounding the Japan Earthquake and our budget worries. Obama has yet to explain to the American people why he felt it necessary for America to go to war. It has been 7 days and Obama still hasn't sought out Congressional approval. Obama has some explaining to do especially after his SecDef and SecState both interviewed poorly today. In fact it wasn't that they interviewed poorly its the fact that neither knows why we are at war with Libya in the first place. After the interviews with Clinton and Gates, I came away understanding that Obama decided our military lives are political pawns for him to push around the board. To Obama our military members are not real, nope to Obama the military are pieces on some board game for him to push around.

Need proof that Obama disrespects our military? How about SEC Gates saying we have no vital interest in Libya. That's right according to Obama's Secretary of Defense we have no National Security reason to have attacked Libya. This was followed up by Hillary Clinton chiming in with a snippet declaring that while it may not have been in the US best interest it was a national security issue for France, Great Britain, and Italy. Clinton went as far as to say that because NATO helped us after we were attacked for some reason we should be honor bound to pay back NATO countries whenever they decide they want to attack a country that attacked no other country.

Obama must be held accountable for taking this country to war when there was no vital National Security issue at stake. We as Americans have to demand that Obama stop using our military as political pawns for the rest of the world to abuse. Where is the anti war zealots? Why are they not protesting this war? This war is a war of choice that serves no vital interest for the United States. No NATO member was attacked so we owe NATO nothing as far as Libya goes. Obama allowed the French (who want the oil contracts)take the lead and forge a National Security resolution. Obama happily donated our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to the UN. Our soldiers are in harms way because Obama abdicated his Commandeer in Chief duties to the United Nations. Obama's senior leaders admit we had no real reason to go to war. Obama has failed to make his case to the American people. Obama needs to answer the Question as to why we are at war with Libya. Obama needs to quite trying to find the right phrasing that will make Americans feel better about his feeble and non existent leadership. Bottom Line is Obama took this country to war for no apparent reason.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Obama Abdicates The Presidency

Last week Obama abdicated the Presidency. Rather than lead and make decisions Obama allowed the United Nations to force the United States into a war of choice. Many propagandists from the media have again come to the defense of our feeble and inept President. Reuters claimed falsely that Obama built a coalition unlike his predecessor. Andrea Mitchell claimed Obama did a remarkable job placing the coalition together. The pathetic pawns are calling Obama a multilateralist. Some of the pathetic pawns are claiming Obama has a slow steady leadership style and that is why it took so long to go to war with Libya. The problem is that Obama didn't create the coalition, Obama didn't lead, and Obama took America to war without even consulting the America people.

Obama calls this a humanitarian action. Yet it is a civil war between Qaddafi and a rebel force. The President has made the claim that he is backing the people of Libya against a tyrant. Supposedly we are aiding the civilian populous. However, it seems that we are backing Al-Qaeda. The rebels are backed by the very same terrorist organization that attacked America less than a decade ago. We are not protecting the populous. We are protecting a rebel fighting force. Enforcing a no fly zone is not the same as not allowing Libya to control its borders. We are not allowing the Libyan government to defend itself. Now Obama the weak is desperately attempting to get some other country of organization to take the lead. That is typical of this President. Let someone else take the lead. If the war goes well Obama will come back and take the credit. If the war fails then Obama will say it was someone else that failed. Are there reasons for us to be at war? I would think that yes, Qaddafi using planes and tanks against unarmed people may be a reason. The problem is that when the riots first started Obama sat on the sidelines so long that now the uprising is no longer a popular uprising but rather a armed conflict between gaddafi loyalist and Al-qaeda backed rebels. The bottom line here is that no matter what happens this an not turn out well for the United States.

About that infamous coalition the media says Obama created, let me be straight and say Obama didn't create this coalition. That's right, Obama was disengaged and allowed the French to put together the coalition. The current coalition is much smaller than the one President Bush put together for Iraq. President Bush took a leadership role. President Bush made decisions. Obama allowed the French and Great Britain put together a much smaller coalition. Obama allowed the United Nations to make decisions. Obama allowed Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Samantha Power to negotiate the war plan. Obama took our country to war without a plan. The commanders in the field have said they are confused about what the objectives are. Obama provided no direction whatsoever. So please Andrea explain how this is so remarkable? I think it is remarkable in one way and that is Obama took us to war at the behest of the United Nations. I think it is remarkable that Obama is unwilling to even call this a war when in fact he ordered our planes to attack the Governmental Fores of Libya. I find it remarkable that Obama has abdicated the Presidency to the united Nations. Finally Reuters please get real. This coalition is smaller than Bush's for Iraq and your outright lies that Obama took so long because he searched for a coalition unlike Bush tell a story about your propaganda machine.

It sounds like the President is finally getting around to talking to the American people. Supposedly on Monday the American President will offer his wisdom on why we are at war. I presume he had to have time to write a flowery speech so he sounds "pragmatic" in his indecisive decision making. Nine days after he started a war of choice, Obama is throwing out a morsel to the poor folk. Please Obama save us the platitudes and just tell us why in the world you abdicated American leadership to the most useless organization on Earth? America is a leader and we should never be subjected to the United Nations.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Is It Because He's Black?

Is it because he's black? That's the question Whoopi Goldberg snapped off when Donald Trump questioned Barack Obama's birth cetificate on "The View". Well that is really my question for her as well as every other race baiter that defends Obama through race baiting, Is it because he's black? Is because he's black that we as the American public dare not ever question the President? Is it because he's black that it has become "Unpatriotic" to dissent? Is it because he's black that the media attacks everyone that disagrees with him as a racist?

As far as the birth certificate goes, I tend to agree with Trump. Obama is obvouisly hiding something he doesn't want people to see. I have no idea what it is but there has to be something or he would have just released the darn thing. I tend to believe that the long form birth certificate will not squash the birth rights questions, but that is beside the point. The point is that the left questioned John McCain legitimacy because he was not born in the US. In fact John McCain was born in a foreign territory. The left went to court where a court ruled that because he was affiliated with the military when born that indeed McCain was a natural born citizen. Now if the left was willing to go to court to have John McCain's legitimacy why not require Obama to release his long form birth certificate for authentication? Why would we want to lower the bar for one person because of race but not the other?

In America we are a land of laws. Unlike Eric Holder that believes laws like the civil rights were enacted for a particular race, I believe they were designed for all people. See racism is not unilateral or one way. There are people of all races that have racists views towards others. What the black panthers did as far as voter intimidation in Philadelphia is unacceptable in our society. When Holder said that he would only enforce the bullying laws when it was a black person involved because he would only enforce the law based upon what the civil rights laws were established to protect is wrong headed. The civil rights laws may have been enacted based on race but they were enacted to protect all races and not just one. In other words the protection says we can't make decisions based upon race period, rather than the myoptic view of a particular race.

Of course the answer to Whoopi's question "Is it because he's balck? is yes. Yes the American left does expect we treat Obama with kid gloves because he's black. Yes as Americans we are supposed to lower the bar for Obama because he's black. Yes the left doesn't want to answer any tough questions concerning Obama because he's black. I wonder who is worse those that are openly racist or those that hide behind race to lower the bar and become the race baiters? The race baiters are racist in their own ways but they are not open about it. Discrimination or denying things based on race isn't right, but neither is giving something based on race. Yes Whoopi, I do believe you are a racist. Yes Whoopi, I do believe you want to lower the bar for Obama. And Yes Whoopi, I do believe you do this because he's black.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Democrats Just Don't Get It

The Democrats just don't get it. The problem is that every so called government program helps somebody but doesn't necessarily help the country as a whole. The Democrats are found of straw man arguments and and anecdotal evidence. The democrats are great at arguing "wouldn't it be nice if Mr. and Mrs. Smith received some government asisstance to improve their lives? The answer of course is yes it would be nice, then the Democrats move towards the let the government provide it then. The government has never been the "be all, end all". The governnment should not be in the business of funding frivilous activities just because one individual would be helped. No, Government should be there to provide a helping hand and not a handout.

Reid's argument that the would be no cowboy poet festival in Northern Nevada is a prime example of the Democrats not realizing how ridiculous they are. Sure some local community is helped by the government funding cowboy poets, but that is not the question. The question is "How does that help American society?", and the answer to that is that it does not. Why does the government pour millions down the drain on the National Endowment of the Arts? Sure it helps some no name artist have a chance but should the government be funding the dreams of the individuals at the expense of everyone else? Why do we fund National Public Radio and National Public Stations? Both organizations are admittedly one sided in the bias approach to newscasting yet all of America must fund their biased trash. Shy should America be funding Planned Parenthood? Sure it helps out some of the poor but wouldn't it be more prudent to fund education efforts that would avoid the need for abortion in the first place?

You see the Democrats have no intention of ever cutting spending or reducing the deficits. The democrats would rather see America fail than admit that their elitist GAIA utopian beliefs are unrealistic and an absolute failure. Rather than believe that helping someone is good, the democrats believe that giving to the needy is better. Why one might ask, especillay in light of the liberal axiom "it is better to teach someone to fish, than to give that person a fish". Why, well the answer is simple, the Democrats are only in this for the power; they don't even really belive in the trash they spin. The democrats want a society dependent upon them, the power brokers, the government elite. When a majority of the people are dependent on government handouts, the Demcorats will then become a permannent majority and America will fall into the dust bin of history. Americans understand that we can not continue down the path of fiscal irresponsibility. We understand that the Demcorats are bankrupting our nation. We understand that government is not supposed to be the "be all, end all rather it is supposed to provide a safety net for those that may have fallen and need a helping hand. Americans are most generous in our charitable ways, but Americans despise freeloaders. Americasn want to help those in need that are willing to also help themselves. The Democrats need to be honest with the American people and admit their utopian ideals are not based in reality and will be the downfall of the greatest Nation on Earth.

Wisconsin: Vote Early and Often

LAst week Wisconsin passed by a vote of 18-1 legislation that would curb some of the bankrupting power the Wisconsin public unions currently have. The vote was done in the abscence of Democrats solely because rather than debate the Democrats were cowards and ran away. When the propaganda failed and the Republicans stripped the budget restrainst from the bill so it could be passed without a qourum the Democrats took the law to the courts. The fake Democratic senators than returned home. So now the Democrats are in Wisconsin. So why not pass the original bill now?

Yes my friends the Wisconsin legislation should pass the entire law now including the budget items. Why one might ask? Well because whent the democrats lost they took it to the courts and a judge has placed a temporary restrianing order in effect that will delay the implementation of the law. Walker should immediately call the state troopers and detain the Democrats from the senate. In the mean time, place the original bill back up for a vote. A qourum would then be present, the republicans could again pass the legislation, and the restraining order would be null and void. Make the Democrats vote early and often. Who cares if the democrats whine. They failed to stop the bill once, now they are powerless to stop it again. Put it on the table and make them vote. It is time that the people are heard. The unions lost this fight, they should move along. Someone please tell me why the Democrats keep getting away with running away from their responsibilities.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

We Must Cut Spending First

Today over at the Washington Post, Greg Sargent, (Plum Line)peened a piece claiming the Post poll internals show they agree with the Democrats more than the Republicans on the budget deficit, but then says we as Americans are too stupid to realize it. The first internal number Sargent uses is:

A big majority, 64 percent, thinks the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit is through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes, while only 31 percent think the best way is through only spending cuts. The former position is the one held by most Dems, while the latter is the one held by many Republicans.

The problem is that he is wrong. Most Democrats believe in raising taxes first and most Republicans believe in cutting spending first. The poll clearly shows that Americans understand better than the elitist journalists that it will require a combination of both raising taxes and cutting spending. The question is what to do first. Do we raise taxes first or do we cut spending first? One thing is clear; our national budget is full of wasteful spending. The fat from the budget must be cut first. I'm sorry but the public should not be borrowing money so that we can fund "Cowboy Poet" festivals. We should not be borrowing money so that we can fund NPR and PBS, especially when both only push one side of the ideological chasm. When NPR and PBS made the conscious decision to go all in with the Democratic party they should have been cut off from public spending. We shouldn't be funding planned parenthood with borrowed dollars either. Sure abortions are legal in this country, but just because they are legal doesn't mean that the public at large should be paying for them, especially on borrowed dollars. There is no doubt that between the National Security team there are duplicitous efforts. Just a couple of weeks ago the OPM said the government spent $200 billion on duplicate efforts across the government agencies. The is spending that could be saved from the defense budget, there is spending cuts that could in the Departments of Education and Energy. We could reform medicare, medicade, and social security. There are many areas in which spending could be reduced without sacrificing government programs for the elderly and the underprivileged.

We need to cut the fat from the budget. Prove to Americans that the government in sincere in its efforts to balance the budget and reduce the National deficits. Once the fat is trimmed and Americans understand that what is left is spending that should take place in order for the government to provide necessary programs for the American people. Once the spending is cut and the government is leaned then maybe raising taxes to finish the job of balancing the budget would become palatable. This is what most people would want. This is how Americans balance their own books. Once an American get into financial trouble the first thing is to cut spending, the last resort is find another job.

If democrats get their way taxes would be increased and spending would never be cut. Just look at widening highways. The thought is if we widen the highway traffic will be reduced. The problem is that all that happens in the long run is traffic becomes worse as more people are drawn to the new wide road. Traffic will fill the empty void produced by the wider highway. The same thing with the budget. Once revenue is increased through taxes and the deficit doesn't seem so bad the cuts will never come. Additional spending will come to take up the slack of the additional revenue. Raising taxes does nothing accept allow our government to have a bigger appetite. We can see this everyday. As people take new jobs making more money what happens? These people find new ways to spend the extra income. Their appetite for bigger things consumes their additional income in a very short time.

Yes I am sure the American people understand that we will not be able to cut enough spending to balance the budget. Raising taxes is an almost certainty but we have to cut the fat first or we will the deficits will forever increase until America succumbs to the weight of the debt burden we are passing on to the next generation. Sorry, Greg but Democrats are not for a combination of reducing spending and tax cuts. The Democrats are only for raising taxes. Just remember the Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year. Just remember the Democrats in the senate don't even have a plan to pass a budget. Just remember the President has been to busy on the links to be worried about the budget. The Democrats have to get serious about the deficit. The democrats must come to grips with reality and find the wasteful spending first.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Gun Control? Where'd this come from?

Yesterday Obama penned an Op-Ed that appeared in the Arizona Daily Star. The Op-Ed was a push for gun control, common sense gun control according to Obama. Really, is this the most pressing issue facing this President? Nothing else could warrant the attention of the President than gun control? This untimely piece would have better served the President 45 days ago following the events of the tragic Tucson shootings. Instead Obama floats his anti-gun rhetoric pushing for further government intervention in the daily lives of freedom loving Americans. It really must have been a slow day in the oval office.

The Op-Ed piece was not much more than a bunch of lies surrounded by an urging for decent people to give up some of the liberties for the sake of safety. Obama's claim that judgment was withheld and no one pointed fingers at anyone else in the aftermath of the shootings is a bold faced lie. Sheriff Dupnik almost immediately began blaming Sarah Palin. This was followed by the media pushing the meme that right wing rhetoric caused the tragic shootings. What we needed was more civility in our politics according to the left. Of course the left blaming the right of being uncivil and the cause of the incident was not pointing fingers.

Yet as heart felt as Obama writes about the need for common sense gun laws, was that late response to the shooting incident in Tucson really the most important issue of the day? Yesterday Japan was fighting a losing battle to keep a Nuclear reactor from going into a meltdown. Japan was devastated by a 9.0 earthquake, followed by a ruinous tsunami. I guess Gdaffi using air power to strike down a rebellion is a back burner issue? The budget crisis and impending shutdown of the federal government can't garner a moment of this Presidents time, even if Obama wants to remain "above the fray"? Really? Mr. President, Gun control?

This is the pattern of our disengaged President. His remarks are usually late and untimely. Remember it took 3 days and three cracks to get tough on the Russians when they invaded Georgia. Remember it was Obama that deferred to Pelosi and Reid the Stimulus. As important as the stimulus was according to Obama he sat the sidelines until it was ready to be signed and even then it had to wait until he was finished with his first vacation. Remember it was Obama that deferred leadership on healthcare to The democrats in Congress. Even as it became apparent that the public was against the bill, Obama sat on the sidelines the summer of 2009 and only joined the fray once the unconstitutional healthcare bill had to be passed through budget reconciliation. It was Obama who stayed far away from the economy hoping to change the economy through a false sense of "the market almost always goes up".

No it is not all that surprising that in the wake of world changing events that this President would turn to an issue that is far from Americans minds. This untimely Op-Ed is simply going to be ineffective as anyone with a heart in America was tuned into the news surrounding the tragic events in Japan. Obama is making himself and by default America irrelevant in the world today.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Obama's Leadership Void

President Obama has no ability to lead what so ever. Obama flip flopped daily on the Egyptian anti government rallies, came in too late to be effective in the Libyan revolution, entered the Wisconsin fray only to retreat and claim he wasn't involved, and has nothing to say when it comes to reducing the budget. The AP would like everyone to believe that is because Obama is "Above the Fray", the real deal is Obama is in over his head.

All Obama knows is how to throw money at a problem. Early in 2009, Obama signed a stimulus bill that came in at almost $1 trillion dollars. Later Obama attempted to tackle Health care. Instead we now have a law that almost 60% of the country is against. The health care bill enacted came in at almost another $1 trillion dollars. The Obama moved on to providing over 1000 waivers to his friends. The unconstitutional health care bill certainly costs us money the US doesn't have and can't produce even close to the results predicted by Obama. We still have 8.9% unemployment and that is after the Bureau of labor statistics fudged the numbers to make it appear the rate was really decreasing, when in fat the jobs picture is bleak at best, with more people having left the job market under Obama than obtained a job. So what do have to show for our free spending President?

Of course the pathetic pawns in the media will continue carrying Obama's water. See they have to, because if Obama fails the media will be exposed as the liberal propagandists and liars they have become. The fact of the matter is Obama did enter Wisconsin and helped organize the protests through his campaign fund "Organizing for America" in coordination with the DNC. Obama did enter into the Egypt affair only to flip flop and go back and forth. There never really was any true leadership, only fence sitting hoping to jump on which ever side the chips fell. Obama is also sitting the sidelines in the Libyan nightmare. Obama couldn't even condemn Ghaddafy without going to the UN first. Obama says he met the Republicans half way in budget cuts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans came up with$61 billion in cuts. Obama offered the status qou. The compromise comes in around $6 billion. Let me tell you when I went to school half of 61 was not 6.

The bottom line here is Obama is not a leader. He is a political campaigner. That is all he does. Obama deferred leadership on the stimulus and health care to Pelosi and Reid. Obama deferred leadership on Libya to the UN. Obama deferred leadership on Wisconsin to OFA, the DNC, and the AFL-CIO. Obama deferred leadership on the new "civility" to the media. Obama deferred leadership on the budget to Reid yet again. Obama doesn't want to lead because leading is tough. Obama may be on the wrong side of history were he actually try to lead. The problem is Obama is a coward that would rather lead China then lead the US. Obama is a narcissist that couldn't handle actual failure. His administration has been a failure as evidenced by the need to hire a cabinet czar. Yet all Obama can do is blame others for his failures or complain he isn't getting enough credit for what little is going right. Sorry AP but Obama is not above the fray, he is in over his head.