Do you remember summer camp, at night around the campfire, singing Kumbaya and praying for world peace? Or the great scenes of the beauty contest in "Miss Congeniality" where all the contestants said they wanted World Peace? Well that is exactly what I was reminded of by Obama's "World Tour." He made great speeches, talking about brotherhood, world peace, holding hands together, etc. Not much on specifics, as usual. The media swooned over his speech in Berlin comparing it to JFK and Reagan (comeon guys, get real).
Yes I would be the first to admit I would like world peace. So would most everyone on this globe. But everyone's definition of world peace is not the same. For fundamentalist Islamic radicals (call them what they are), world peace is one world with one religion, Islam, controlled by the laws of the Koran. For Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, world peace is one world controlled by the threesome. So beware what you ask for, you might get it.
World Peace as we want it to be must be earned, by blood if necessary as the wars of the twenieth century showed. Words alone is insufficient. If Barack thinks his charm and charisma and eloquence will convince the warlords of Iran, Syria,Korea, and Venezuela, he is in for some bitterly earned lessons of the school of hard knocks. Prepareness and readiness to use armed weapons are the only tools that keep the Dark forces at bay.
Mccain forever over the naivete of Obama. If Europe wants him, let them have him.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
OBAMA politician first and foremost
While the media swoons about Obama's trips to the Mideast, if one were
to get behind the glitter and gloss and to the real events, one would find a different story with different implications. The Press telegraphed around the world shots of Barack shooting hoops with the GIs (shades of Barry in College). What they did not show and were not about to (who says they are not biased . . . ) were the treatments accorded Barack to the regular GIs. He basically ignored them, did not smile at them nor shake their hand in his effort to get to his photoshoot opportunity.
This is the kind of man we want as our commander-in-chief? He is the consumement politician and that is all. Nothing new just old as mankind itself. He only wants to get elected and could care less for the men in uniform (except that is, when it suits his purposes for the media). Not a thank you. Not a handshake. Not a nod. They are invisible to him except when it suits his purposes.
Are we going to get Hope and Change. Or much much more of the same thing if Barack were elected? I vote for the latter. The more the American people know him, the more they believe as well and will vote for "old reliable" John McCain might not make the earth move when he talks but his talks straight and from experience.
to get behind the glitter and gloss and to the real events, one would find a different story with different implications. The Press telegraphed around the world shots of Barack shooting hoops with the GIs (shades of Barry in College). What they did not show and were not about to (who says they are not biased . . . ) were the treatments accorded Barack to the regular GIs. He basically ignored them, did not smile at them nor shake their hand in his effort to get to his photoshoot opportunity.
This is the kind of man we want as our commander-in-chief? He is the consumement politician and that is all. Nothing new just old as mankind itself. He only wants to get elected and could care less for the men in uniform (except that is, when it suits his purposes for the media). Not a thank you. Not a handshake. Not a nod. They are invisible to him except when it suits his purposes.
Are we going to get Hope and Change. Or much much more of the same thing if Barack were elected? I vote for the latter. The more the American people know him, the more they believe as well and will vote for "old reliable" John McCain might not make the earth move when he talks but his talks straight and from experience.
Friday, July 25, 2008
King Barack and his heli (tank)
one of the most laughable scenes from the 1988 Presidential election is Michael Dukais in a tank with a helmet supposedly to show the world his presidential worthiness. It did exactly the opposite and was the probable cause for a most lopsided victory by Bush Senior.
Now we have another landmark occasion, King Barack, the self-appointed messiah of the Democrats and the media, in a helicopter with General Petraeus in Iraq. At least Dukakis tried to present himself as military. But in Obama's case, there were no illusions nor attempts to integrate himself into the military role (and no, playing some hoops with the troops is not a precursor to being a good commander-in-chief). After listening to a four-star general with decades of experience and a successful track record over the last 18 months indicate that although the Surge is working, it is too early to commit to any type of a withdrawal schedule and that doing so would only encourage the remnants of the opposition, King Barack with his infinite military experience (none) and vast foreign relations knowledge (none) took on his best Louis XIV attitude of "If I think it is, it must be" and "I know therefore I am." His words to the media afterwards echoed the fact that he had neither heard nor comprehended any of the general's words "Total withdrawal within 18 months by 2010 irregardless." This lack of ability to listen to experts and leaders on the ground must cast further concern about his limited and to date poor judgment.
Compare this attitude to McCain who said He would like to say withdrawal would be complete prior to the end of his presidency in 2013. However, this is dependent upon the field commanders and those most in the know. A cautionary and totally correct posture gained by decades of experience not present in his opponent.
Which one would you rather be sitting in the oval office: one who will ask and listen to the experts and leaders in the field or one who bows to political expediency and sponsors no matter the costs?
Now we have another landmark occasion, King Barack, the self-appointed messiah of the Democrats and the media, in a helicopter with General Petraeus in Iraq. At least Dukakis tried to present himself as military. But in Obama's case, there were no illusions nor attempts to integrate himself into the military role (and no, playing some hoops with the troops is not a precursor to being a good commander-in-chief). After listening to a four-star general with decades of experience and a successful track record over the last 18 months indicate that although the Surge is working, it is too early to commit to any type of a withdrawal schedule and that doing so would only encourage the remnants of the opposition, King Barack with his infinite military experience (none) and vast foreign relations knowledge (none) took on his best Louis XIV attitude of "If I think it is, it must be" and "I know therefore I am." His words to the media afterwards echoed the fact that he had neither heard nor comprehended any of the general's words "Total withdrawal within 18 months by 2010 irregardless." This lack of ability to listen to experts and leaders on the ground must cast further concern about his limited and to date poor judgment.
Compare this attitude to McCain who said He would like to say withdrawal would be complete prior to the end of his presidency in 2013. However, this is dependent upon the field commanders and those most in the know. A cautionary and totally correct posture gained by decades of experience not present in his opponent.
Which one would you rather be sitting in the oval office: one who will ask and listen to the experts and leaders in the field or one who bows to political expediency and sponsors no matter the costs?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama who to obama No
It is clear that this presidential election is Obama's to win or lose. He won the primary by catering to the ultra liberal elite that controls the democratic party. But in doing so, he has alienated a multitude of groups essential to the election. Recent results are indicating that the more the general public know about the candidate, the less they like him. His flips flops, his past associations, his adamant refusal to accept the fact that Iraq is being won and has been turned around, his non-energy policy, his tax and spend issues, and above all his overt intent to use racism as a tactic against all who would criticize him or vote against him is losing him converts at an alarming rate.
1) Hillary is a lose lose proposition for him. If he accepts her as VP, he will be cast as just another politician and her presence will galvanize conservatives who hate her more than him. If he does not, millions of hillarites will not vote or worse yet will vote for McCain.
2) The more he leans towards the center, the more his liberal base becomes worrisome and more than a few might turn to the more liberal candidates (Nader). The more he moves towards the center, the more he flip flops and few can honestly say what he really means.
3) Although he might galvanize blacks to vote for him (why is it a white not voting for Obama is racist but a black who chooses to vote only for Obama is not being racist but rationale?), but for every additional black vote two or more southern Reagan democrats will switch to vote for McCain.
4)Blue collar voters, key to the Rust belt states of Michigan, pennyslvania, Ohio and perhaps Wisconsin as well, are highly patriotic and tend to support McCain because of his track record. It is likely three or more of these states will go to McCain.
5) Although the media is in awe of Obama and have already crowned him King, many are still uncertain. The Reagan factor takes hold here. In the Carter-Reagan race of 1980, it was polled as a dead heat; in actuality Reagan won by a landslide. What happened there is likely to happen this year as well. It was PC to vote for Carter. And many remarked they would to pollsters. However, when they were in the ballot box, the only people that knows how they vote are they themselves and the God Almighty. They thought to themselves and said I could not in all honesty (and despite the PC) vote for Carter and pulled the lever for Reagan. I foresee a sufficient percentage of these voters in 2008, enough to carry the Rust Belt states for McCain.
My prediction: Mccain 320 electoral votes--all of the Republican L including Virgina, NM, and Colorado, and the Upper Midwest including Ohio, Penn, Michigan and perhaps even Wisconsin
Obama 220.
The Media will be awestruck by the ignorance of the public but the public will prevail for the next four years at least.
1) Hillary is a lose lose proposition for him. If he accepts her as VP, he will be cast as just another politician and her presence will galvanize conservatives who hate her more than him. If he does not, millions of hillarites will not vote or worse yet will vote for McCain.
2) The more he leans towards the center, the more his liberal base becomes worrisome and more than a few might turn to the more liberal candidates (Nader). The more he moves towards the center, the more he flip flops and few can honestly say what he really means.
3) Although he might galvanize blacks to vote for him (why is it a white not voting for Obama is racist but a black who chooses to vote only for Obama is not being racist but rationale?), but for every additional black vote two or more southern Reagan democrats will switch to vote for McCain.
4)Blue collar voters, key to the Rust belt states of Michigan, pennyslvania, Ohio and perhaps Wisconsin as well, are highly patriotic and tend to support McCain because of his track record. It is likely three or more of these states will go to McCain.
5) Although the media is in awe of Obama and have already crowned him King, many are still uncertain. The Reagan factor takes hold here. In the Carter-Reagan race of 1980, it was polled as a dead heat; in actuality Reagan won by a landslide. What happened there is likely to happen this year as well. It was PC to vote for Carter. And many remarked they would to pollsters. However, when they were in the ballot box, the only people that knows how they vote are they themselves and the God Almighty. They thought to themselves and said I could not in all honesty (and despite the PC) vote for Carter and pulled the lever for Reagan. I foresee a sufficient percentage of these voters in 2008, enough to carry the Rust Belt states for McCain.
My prediction: Mccain 320 electoral votes--all of the Republican L including Virgina, NM, and Colorado, and the Upper Midwest including Ohio, Penn, Michigan and perhaps even Wisconsin
Obama 220.
The Media will be awestruck by the ignorance of the public but the public will prevail for the next four years at least.
Obama-mania
Today in Europe, Europeans are cheering on Obama as if he were the second coming. Now if only they could vote in the US election . . . probably a good thing they can't. Yet what are they cheering about. Obama is not Bush. Obama is more Multilateral, Multicultural, International than other American candidates. But is that really better? Do most Americans want to become like most Europeans . . socialist, government dominated economies, stagnant, secular, socially and morally decaying, and bit by bit being assimilated into Islam due to appeasement policies? I would answer no.
Who is this obama? He is pretty. He speaks eloquently. He is charismatic. He talks about change and hope but try to get past those two words. It appears that he HOPES the american public does not notice he wants to CHANGE them to his most liberal notions. WHat experience does he have? No private sector. No military. Nothing beyond law and public sector. What does he know about foreign policy? Nothing. His views of foreign policy is talk, obviously he believes he can charm foreign dictators the way he has seemingly charmed American liberals and media (is he in for a surprise). Some proclaim him the next JFK. Obviously, they have not read the history books. JFK's foreign naiveness and lack of preparedness caused the Bay of Pigs, allowed Krushchev to build the Berlin Wall without "preconditions" or American intervention, put us in Vietnam, and nearly escalated to a nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis. And we want another JFK wannabe in the white house? Lord forbid what we may end up.
They want Obama because he is no Bush. Carter was elected because he was not Nixon in a post watergate backlash. Look what happened to Carter: Afghanistan was invaded by the Russians, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Stagflation, the Shah left Iran and created today's Iranian situation, Energy controls and almost rationing of gasoline through long gas lines. And this is what we want? Another Carter just to get rid of Bush? THere is an old saying: Beware of what you want, you might just get it.
Obama, the next JFK with Carterian overtones. Pity America in a few years.
Who is this obama? He is pretty. He speaks eloquently. He is charismatic. He talks about change and hope but try to get past those two words. It appears that he HOPES the american public does not notice he wants to CHANGE them to his most liberal notions. WHat experience does he have? No private sector. No military. Nothing beyond law and public sector. What does he know about foreign policy? Nothing. His views of foreign policy is talk, obviously he believes he can charm foreign dictators the way he has seemingly charmed American liberals and media (is he in for a surprise). Some proclaim him the next JFK. Obviously, they have not read the history books. JFK's foreign naiveness and lack of preparedness caused the Bay of Pigs, allowed Krushchev to build the Berlin Wall without "preconditions" or American intervention, put us in Vietnam, and nearly escalated to a nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis. And we want another JFK wannabe in the white house? Lord forbid what we may end up.
They want Obama because he is no Bush. Carter was elected because he was not Nixon in a post watergate backlash. Look what happened to Carter: Afghanistan was invaded by the Russians, Nicaragua and El Salvador, Stagflation, the Shah left Iran and created today's Iranian situation, Energy controls and almost rationing of gasoline through long gas lines. And this is what we want? Another Carter just to get rid of Bush? THere is an old saying: Beware of what you want, you might just get it.
Obama, the next JFK with Carterian overtones. Pity America in a few years.
Energy or environment
It appears the democrats have never heard about the fine art of trade off and compromise. In the current situation of $5 gas, the need to do everything the country can do to move towards energy independence is critical. However, their response and one that has been their response for decades has been: nothing that will endanger the environment. Not one caribou can be disturbed while Middle America lies in ruins because of oil induced recession. Even the mere thought of a drop of oil on any pristine beach is enough to keep the thermostats in the North at 50 degrees this winter. Forget drilling for oil anywhere, using the oil shale available, or the immense coal resources. The democratic password is alternative fuels (in twenty, thirty, or forty years). No Nuclear. No coal. No oil. What are citizens suppose to do to keep warm this winter or to fuel their tank to get to work? Cut down trees?
The usual Democratic response is to carpool. Most :"fly-over" Americans live miles from where they work and nowhere near their coworkers. Ride a bike or walk: 20 miles?
Move to where they would be close to their work: Sell a house that has been severely devalued over the previous two years while in a recessionary area and buy one near a plant where you might or might not be employed for the next few years. Not an economically attractive idea. Sell your guzzler and buy a hybrid. You probably owe more on the car then it is worth and where are you going to get 30 thou right now? no, none of the democratic stock answers will work in fly over America.
The correct response is to do everything (oil drilling, coal plants, nuclear, oil shade and alternative energy) at the same time and allow the free markets to determine how it all shakes out. Government has never been a good selector of winners and losers and does more damage than it betters.
Democrats--staying the course on this oil (or rather no oil) philosophy will cost you the election this year. Of course, if that is what you want . . . adhere to your liberal orthodoxy regardless of outcome, fine.
The usual Democratic response is to carpool. Most :"fly-over" Americans live miles from where they work and nowhere near their coworkers. Ride a bike or walk: 20 miles?
Move to where they would be close to their work: Sell a house that has been severely devalued over the previous two years while in a recessionary area and buy one near a plant where you might or might not be employed for the next few years. Not an economically attractive idea. Sell your guzzler and buy a hybrid. You probably owe more on the car then it is worth and where are you going to get 30 thou right now? no, none of the democratic stock answers will work in fly over America.
The correct response is to do everything (oil drilling, coal plants, nuclear, oil shade and alternative energy) at the same time and allow the free markets to determine how it all shakes out. Government has never been a good selector of winners and losers and does more damage than it betters.
Democrats--staying the course on this oil (or rather no oil) philosophy will cost you the election this year. Of course, if that is what you want . . . adhere to your liberal orthodoxy regardless of outcome, fine.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Peace
Peace. The Israelis and Palestinians as well as most of the Mideast are in peace talks and reportedly everyone wants Peace. It reminds me of a Beauty Pageant with every contestant wishing for World Peace. But what is Peace? Chamberlain and Hitler both proclaimed peace in our time in 1938 only to see the world's most deadly war break out less than a year later. Chamberlain did not want to go to war and Hitler wanted Czechoslavakia. They both got what they wanted but it was an instable peace. Pacifists say if all of us would only put down our arms and put out our arms to welcome one another, all would be well. But if the past is any indication, world bullies and terrorists would gladly welcome such a situation as they would readily take advantage of an arms-free (except for theirs) world.
We should ask ourselves what does Peace mean to the various members of the peace talks? For Israel, peace means being able to co-exist with its neighbors without the pretext of war. Sounds reasonable right? To many Palestinians and Arabs, peace means having a Mideast without an Jewish state. Three times before, the world has offered Palestinians a state of their own and each time they have wanted the whole thing, both their and Jewish lands. Will they again?
It is up to the Palestinians if Peace is to be achieved. And compromise must be in order. We will see.
We should ask ourselves what does Peace mean to the various members of the peace talks? For Israel, peace means being able to co-exist with its neighbors without the pretext of war. Sounds reasonable right? To many Palestinians and Arabs, peace means having a Mideast without an Jewish state. Three times before, the world has offered Palestinians a state of their own and each time they have wanted the whole thing, both their and Jewish lands. Will they again?
It is up to the Palestinians if Peace is to be achieved. And compromise must be in order. We will see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
