Gen. Stanley McChrystal is being ordered back to Washington by the president to answer for comments made by him and his staff critical of the liberal novices running the White House. His opinions came to light this week in an interview the general did with Rolling Stone.
My years of military life taught me that a soldier should never openly criticize his superiors. It is detrimental to overall morale, and it shows a willful disregard for the value and importance of the chain of command.
Gen. McChrystal know this probably better than most soldiers. The general is also of a strategic mind, so it is difficult to believe he let his ideas slip out to a RS reporter without a reason behind it.
If he did make such a ridiculous error, then he will have to throw himself upon the mercy of the president. After all, no one criticizes the Obamessiah without risking swift punishment.
If it was not a mistake, then the general meant to send a broader message. Obama must realize this. It should be no surprise to anyone that all echelons of the military have a low opinion of Obama's abilities, his fitness to lead, and his motivations as Commander-in-Chief. Our fighting forces want to be inspired by their leadership, and Obama does not instill that confidence to any degree.
Gen. McChrystal is a fine leader...let's hope his CinC will, for the first time, drop his uppity opinion of himself and finally listen to our military leaders on the ground.
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. Get busy.
22 June 2010
Town Snatches Sovereignty From the Federal Jaws of Inaction
Citizens of my birthplace, Fremont, NE, have passed a local law requiring prospective renters to apply for a license before renting living space in their town. Whether or not it will pass constitutional muster remains to be seen.
However, this law shows not racism or bigotry but rather the frustration local towns -- citizens -- feel about our government shirking its duty to maintain our border security.
From California hippies to the liberal college elite to most of Obama's administration, America is innundated by the shrill cries of 'RACISM!'whenever the subject of border security comes up. The truth is that many progressives, already opposed to a normal America, would love to see a flood of immigrants for what they see as an opportunity to tear down the country we love. Many Democrat politicians, as well, trumpet the change in our cultural landscape as a victory for the masses. What they really mean is that they are eager for the opportunity to fish for votes out of a larger pool of vulnerable minorities.
Fremont townsfolk aren't bigots, but neither do they want to sacrifice our laws, or their security, on the altar of diversity. Illegal is illegal and right is right; the city of Fremont rests firmly on the side of right on this one.
However, this law shows not racism or bigotry but rather the frustration local towns -- citizens -- feel about our government shirking its duty to maintain our border security.
From California hippies to the liberal college elite to most of Obama's administration, America is innundated by the shrill cries of 'RACISM!'whenever the subject of border security comes up. The truth is that many progressives, already opposed to a normal America, would love to see a flood of immigrants for what they see as an opportunity to tear down the country we love. Many Democrat politicians, as well, trumpet the change in our cultural landscape as a victory for the masses. What they really mean is that they are eager for the opportunity to fish for votes out of a larger pool of vulnerable minorities.
Fremont townsfolk aren't bigots, but neither do they want to sacrifice our laws, or their security, on the altar of diversity. Illegal is illegal and right is right; the city of Fremont rests firmly on the side of right on this one.
Free Speech or Girl's Softball: Kagan's 'Hot or Not' List
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Chief Executive who had barely held a job running anything is touting a nominee who hasn’t been a judge. The last time a non-judge was nominated was over 40 years ago. To be fair, the Constitution does not require a sitting justice to have been a local, state, or federal judge. The qualifications, in fact, are completely absent: a president may nominate anyone to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), regardless of their lack of qualifications. It seems in this instance President Obama is taking that idea to an extreme.Anyone can read her full bio here. In a nutshell, Kagan is a product of Ivy League schools and has spent most of her life either in liberal academia or serving under former President Clinton. She clerked for a couple of courts early in her career, and she had done a stint in private practice. Most recently she has served as Solictor General under Obama, a position where she has represented the U.S. government in cases heard before SCOTUS. Kagen's true relative background, like her personal live is noticeably ambiguous.
Kagan has some pragmatic views, to say the least. On the side of ‘right and good’, while under Clinton she had seemed to advocate a tolerance for expression of religious views, both in the workplace and in private situations. She also was a little more moderate in some abortion language of the time.
But most disconcerting is her acceptance of limits on free speech. Kagan is all about restrictions. She wanted to restrict students on campus to access to recruiters. She has voiced support for the government to limit political pamphlets being distributed. Kagan may have even went so far during her Clinton years to see if the Volunteer Protection Act would cover members of groups the administration did not like, and it appears that she questioned if the National Rifle Association and the KKK would be covered.
Really?
Obama’s nominee has also written that the government may decide on a ‘disadvantage’ to certain ideas ‘if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.’ The bare hint of this smacks of the type of restrictions on freedom of speech seen in much of Europe and with our Canadian neighbors. Officials in these countries routinely make determinations as to what or how their citizenry may express themselves, right down to banning outright certain words or phrases deemed to be offensive. Some of these countries, contrary to the civilized norms one would expect, even may resort to arrest and prosecution for ideas the government decides to be unsavory. Jackbooted behavior such as this is to be expected in Third World countries, but the thought police are thriving in many more places than the average American would believe.
Kagan’s nomination is but another example of the controlling mindset prevalent with those on the Radical Left. Adherents of this ideology range from current Obama administration ‘czars’ like Cass Sunstein, (who wrote a paper in 2008 calling for a tax on proponents of certain ‘conspiracy theories’), to the FCC diversity czar, (who thinks ‘white people’ should step down from government positions to force a different perspective upon Americans). In the same vein, advocates of global warming propaganda, like Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel, would like the licenses of skeptical weathermen revoked if the deny manmade causes of climate change. Likewise, NASA scientist James Hansen wants criminal trials for skeptics, and RFK Jr. said in 2007 that being skeptical of global warming was treason!
This is the political climate in which supporters of Obama thrive and let their true colors show. While the assault on our constitutional rights may continue unabated from various media, radical politicians, and even Supreme Court nominees, the president may want to look at his waning popularity and consider pulling a retro-Clinton move and do the soft shoe back toward the middle for the rest of his term in the White House. Otherwise, not all the hope in the world will keep him off that long Greyhound ride back to Chicago.
20 June 2010
This American Life, sans Hyphen
In yet another victory for civilization, an inner-city toddler is taught to sing and dance to some stupid rap song…complete with all the age-inappropriate lyrics for which rap music is known.
And here are a few things I know: a) this kid is going to have a tough childhood; b) someone in his immediate family probably owns at least one pit bull; and c) his father will never be arrested going to, or coming from, a public library.
We are all slowly becoming Diversity's bitch.
And here are a few things I know: a) this kid is going to have a tough childhood; b) someone in his immediate family probably owns at least one pit bull; and c) his father will never be arrested going to, or coming from, a public library.
We are all slowly becoming Diversity's bitch.
(watch at the risk of your own righteous and understandable anger.)
Oil and Idiots and Obama, Oh My!
Is Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) an idiot?
That is the question on the lips of every talking head and politician of every stripe. Conservatives and radical leftists alike are debating endlessly about his speaking his mind during the recent hearings on the Gulf spill. And thanks to a media who are generally supportive of El Presidente, we’re all supposed to believe that it is worthy of conversation, as well. So what is the answer? Is Joe an idiot?
And the answer is…’yes’. That is, he was an idiot, but not for the reasons the Far Left would have you to believe.
You see, Rep. Barton had the right sentiment. MSNBC this week gleefully bragged about how their boy in Washington 'shook down' BP for the fund. And the congressman is familiar with the tactics of the White House, and more importantly, with the Chicago-style politics practiced by Obama and those of his ilk. In their political world, persuasion is accompanied by threats and other strong-arm methods. Think Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s right hand man, who is known throughout the political landscape as a hardballer. Think Rod Blagojevich, who apparently demanded political contributions before he would release federal funding and who may have extorted reporters as the Chicago Tribune. Think Bill Ayers: terrorist with whom Obama is sure he never met. In Chicago. Never-ever.
Barton was correct in thinking that Obama may have applied some Windy City pressure to BP to get them to front the $20 billion claims fund to help folks affected by the oil spill. The president had already ratcheted-up his rhetoric against British Petroleum in order to cap the huge leak in his poll numbers. But even threats from the White House aren’t enough to get that kind of scratch from any business in one 15 minute meeting.
The fact is that BP knew they were helping their own cause by offering the money for the claims fund and Obama would be able to look as if he was actually doing something. This move was most likely in the works for some time, as well. BP knew they would pay the money anyway, and this way they appeared more compassionate.
So what of the good congressman?
He was an idiot by giving the administration something useful to divert attention from their own lack of action. Barton took something that should be preordained for a catastrophe such as this and turned it into a chance for the Left to make his party look like they were in the backseat with Big Oil, getting all handsy and such. Since those stupid remarks left his mouth, it has been a daily political sleight-of-hand from the White House.
It would have been better for Barton to acknowledge that BP was absolutely culpable, and then he could have moved on to the fact that the administration has failed us yet again. How about how the administration’s insistence on ‘greening’ America apparently doesn’t mean anything when it comes to upholding drilling regulations? Or how about the entrenched bureaucracy at the Minerals Management Service was allowed to be lax on a company who continuously violated its own policies on offshore platform drilling? How about how Obama has been like a deer in the proverbial headlights when failing to react as soon as he could to this disaster? Or how nothing Obama has done has kept one bit of oil from continuing to flow into the Gulf?
Finally, where is the discussion about Obama making a speech, ostensibly about the spill, where he mainly touts yet another bloated and corrupt government program accompanied by some additional taxes?
Now, for almost the past week, the conversation was allowed to drift from these salient points…all because Rep. Barton tried to score some cheap political points. BP, and our government, are equally guilty. And by him lowering himself to the level of the Left, we again see that politics can still trump real need – just pay no attention to that oil spill behind the curtain.
And the answer is…’yes’. That is, he was an idiot, but not for the reasons the Far Left would have you to believe.
You see, Rep. Barton had the right sentiment. MSNBC this week gleefully bragged about how their boy in Washington 'shook down' BP for the fund. And the congressman is familiar with the tactics of the White House, and more importantly, with the Chicago-style politics practiced by Obama and those of his ilk. In their political world, persuasion is accompanied by threats and other strong-arm methods. Think Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s right hand man, who is known throughout the political landscape as a hardballer. Think Rod Blagojevich, who apparently demanded political contributions before he would release federal funding and who may have extorted reporters as the Chicago Tribune. Think Bill Ayers: terrorist with whom Obama is sure he never met. In Chicago. Never-ever.
Barton was correct in thinking that Obama may have applied some Windy City pressure to BP to get them to front the $20 billion claims fund to help folks affected by the oil spill. The president had already ratcheted-up his rhetoric against British Petroleum in order to cap the huge leak in his poll numbers. But even threats from the White House aren’t enough to get that kind of scratch from any business in one 15 minute meeting.
The fact is that BP knew they were helping their own cause by offering the money for the claims fund and Obama would be able to look as if he was actually doing something. This move was most likely in the works for some time, as well. BP knew they would pay the money anyway, and this way they appeared more compassionate.
So what of the good congressman?
He was an idiot by giving the administration something useful to divert attention from their own lack of action. Barton took something that should be preordained for a catastrophe such as this and turned it into a chance for the Left to make his party look like they were in the backseat with Big Oil, getting all handsy and such. Since those stupid remarks left his mouth, it has been a daily political sleight-of-hand from the White House.
It would have been better for Barton to acknowledge that BP was absolutely culpable, and then he could have moved on to the fact that the administration has failed us yet again. How about how the administration’s insistence on ‘greening’ America apparently doesn’t mean anything when it comes to upholding drilling regulations? Or how about the entrenched bureaucracy at the Minerals Management Service was allowed to be lax on a company who continuously violated its own policies on offshore platform drilling? How about how Obama has been like a deer in the proverbial headlights when failing to react as soon as he could to this disaster? Or how nothing Obama has done has kept one bit of oil from continuing to flow into the Gulf?
Finally, where is the discussion about Obama making a speech, ostensibly about the spill, where he mainly touts yet another bloated and corrupt government program accompanied by some additional taxes?
Now, for almost the past week, the conversation was allowed to drift from these salient points…all because Rep. Barton tried to score some cheap political points. BP, and our government, are equally guilty. And by him lowering himself to the level of the Left, we again see that politics can still trump real need – just pay no attention to that oil spill behind the curtain.
16 June 2010
'In Europe soccer is called football!'
Of course it is. But we're only reminded of that when some emaciated liberal wants to convince us that by referring to it as 'football' somehow diminishes its reputation for being boring, theatrical, and well, boring. Sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone who is the on the edge of their seats, all aquiver with anticipation, eage to watch dudes running back and forth while not scoring.
And fighting to a tie? Please...
And fighting to a tie? Please...
11 June 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
