Obama had it All Wrong
Apr 15, 2008 Political
Last week Barack Obama made a statement that has ended up being the most damaging of his campaign, at least up until this point. The young Senator indicated that people in small towns (the unstated message: mostly white people) turn to guns and religion and against immigrants because they are bitter about their economic situations. As an aside, most people are against ILLEGAL immigration and have no problem with those who come here legally.
I have been listening to the talk shows and reading stories about the Obama gaff and I am amazed at the number of people who say that Obama was right in what he said but he chose his words poorly. I do not believe this to be the case and I refuse to accept the apologists point of view that Obama meant people were angry because of their economic situation. I don’t see any possible way to arrive at that conclusion from the statement he made. What does turning to guns actually mean (does he mean violence) and why indicate that the small town folks only turn to religion in bad times?
The fact is, poorly chosen words or not, Obama did not say people were angry no matter how this is spun. There is no need to bring guns or religion into this to indicate anger. I could see the argument about ILLEGALS (though Obama chose to say immigrants) because many people are bitter about them coming here and taking jobs. But, many people were upset with them being here long before economic circumstances turned sour. There are a great number of law abiding citizens who resent ILLEGALS being here regardless of the economy as demonstrated by the huge opposition to the amnesty bill Congress tried to ram down our throats.
Many people in small town America own guns and are responsible people. They do not go around shooting people for the hell of it and they do not commit crimes with their guns. Certainly there are some who do but the overwhelming majority are law abiding gun owners. Obama was referring to Pennsylvania when he made his statement. That state has a huge number of hunters and other legal gun owners. The bulk of the gun crimes are in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where people (many of whom may not legally possess firearms) use illegal weapons to commit crimes. Obama chose to ignore this group of people who happen to be the ones that turn to guns in good times and bad and instead insulted a group of people who are responsible firearms owners.
Obama also decided that he would knock religion as some crutch that people only turn to when they are on the skids. In the Obama world people turn into gun toting zealots when times are bad. Otherwise they would be non gun owning part time worshipers who were happy to have a good life while helping ILLEGALS cross the border. It does not occur to this elitist (I know he grew up poor) that many people hold their religious convictions in high regard regardless of their economic circumstances. It never occurred to him that many believers have faith that through good times and bad God will not saddle people with more than they can handle. Obama fails to understand that there are people who worship as a matter of devotion rather than a matter of convenience. It is not hard to see why when one considers that Obama joined the most popular black church in Chicago to increase his standing in the black community. Since his pastor always preached hatred and doom and gloom it is not hard to see why Obama believes that people only attend church when things are not going well. Twenty years of clinging to hatred obscured any message of hope that one expects from religion.
The Obama apologists and the candidate himself would have us believe that he misspoke about his true meaning. They want us to believe that Obama was saying that people were angry because of their situations when he actually stated that guns, religion and opposition to law breakers are refuges for those who have nothing in life or those who have lost a lot. No matter how one slices it there is no way to get to what they say the meaning was from what he actually said.
Senator Obama, when apologizing, stated that he chose his words poorly and that he should have said it better. He and those who defend him are upset that his words are being “twisted” to fit a political agenda. How dare people politicize the words of a political candidate!
It is amazing that Obama would cry about his poorly chosen words being twisted and used against him. The Senator did not hesitate (nor do any of his followers) to twist the words of John McCain with regard to being in Iraq for 100 years. McCain meant that we could have a presence there (after the war) just as we have had in Korea and Europe for the last 60 years or so. Though this was clearly what John McCain said, it has not stopped Obama and his minions from saying that McCain said we would be at war for 100 years. All the Democrats have twisted those words to indicate we would be at war for 100 years when that is clearly not what was said or what was meant. For those who doubt the meaning:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” CNN
As for Obama’s statements, he said them and he will have to live with the backlash. I believe it shows his disdain for small town America and the predominantly white residents thereof. That he feels this way should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard his pastor speak.
It seems Barack Obama clings to that message of hate.
Tags: hate, Iraq, McCain, Obama, small town
Democrats Did Hussein’s Bidding
Mar 27, 2008 Political
There is word today that three Congressional Democrats took a trip to Iraq and it was paid for by Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency. The trip was arranged by Muthanna Al-Hanooti who acted as an intermediary for the Hussein government. Al-Hanooti was arrested for conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, illegally purchasing Iraqi oil (he received oil from Iraq for setting it up) and lying to authorities.
The indictment did not name the Democrats involved but the AP reports the dates coincide with dates of a trip taken by Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan (no longer in Congress) and Mike Thompson of California, all of whom opposed the war.
McDermott and Thompson indicate that the trips were approved by the State Department but that does not mean that the SD knew about the Iraqi connection and it does not exonerate the members who accepted the trip from a non government source. The real question is, did these three know who was really paying for their trip and did they receive anything else for their support of Hussein and his regime? Did they knowingly accept a trip from a hostile government and did that government exercise undue influence on US elected officials? Perhaps they knew nothing about this but it needs to be fully investigated and i mean the kind of investigation a Republican would get if one were involved in such a thing. Investigators need to dig down deep in the weeds to make sure these three did not sell out our government. If these guys knew about this or received any gifts (not necessarily oil) then they need to go to jail.
It is quite possible that they knew nothing and thought it was being paid for by the entity claimed. This points out problems in the way our government does business. No member of our government should be going on trips paid for by anyone other than our government because if the trip is important enough to go on then the government should be paying for it. This would prevent elected officials from giving the appearance of influence peddling. It would also keep members from helping our enemies. Democrats do that enough without working directly for them. The fact that these guys went there on someone else’s money is bad enough but being there and expressing doubts about our government’s position gave aide to our enemy. Our enemy, in effect, paid three Congressmen to go against our government. Sure, these three were entitled to disagree with the Administration’s opinion, but doing so while being paid by the enemy gives the appearance of impropriety and removes any appearance of independent judgement.
The junkets to vacation spots (not that Iraq is one of those) and to other countries that are paid for by lobbyists and other organizations are unethical and call into question the integrity of the officials who go on them. It does not matter what party they belong to they need to stop having anyone except the government pay for their trips. The people footing the bills for such trips are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing it in order to get something in return. Each one of the trips is designed to influence elected officials and that is wrong and it is a disservice to the American People. Claiming it was for the children does not excuse the behavior.
People from both parties trumpet reform and they all say to elect them so they can clean the place up. Then when they are elected they pretend to make reform an issue and they pretend to be doing something but in reality they continue to be the bought and paid for prostitutes for anyone willing to pay. The only way to get true reform is to replace every one of them. This year remove all 435 Members of the House and every Senator up for reelection. It is time for new blood.
We have already started in my Congressional District by getting rid of Wayne Gilchrest. My District will have a new member of Congress come November. That is a start but the rest of you have to step up and do your part as well.
If we do not like the job they are doing it is our responsibility to fire them.
Let’s Leave Iran Alone
Dec 17, 2007 Political
The report is out and the intelligence community has weighed in on Iran and it has determined that Iran has no nukes and that while they might acquire the capability to build them, they are not yet at that state. Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat. Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes and never mind the fact that Israel has a vastly different opinion. We should also ignore the fact that Iran stopped working on its nuclear program and then started back up without anyone knowing and that they deliberately took actions to keep from being detected. We should also forget that the people telling us Iran is not a threat is the same community that missed 9/11 completely.
I think we should just leave them alone and let them do whatever they want because if we try to stop them now then everyone and their brother will scream that they had no nukes or no WMD. We will be looked at as aggressors rather than the liberators that we have been throughout history. People have used the “we found no WMD” mantra to question the validity of the war in Iraq despite the fact that WMD constituted a very small portion of the resolution for going in there and people seem to forget that Hussein actually used WMD on his enemies as well as his own people. Iran has shown that it cannot be trusted but that should really be none of our business. No matter what they build it is unlikely it can reach the US or that they can get it here so we should be safe.
Let the Russians and the Europeans worry about the fallout from a nuclear blast, should Iran develop a nuke. If they never develop one then it was prudent not to go after them and if they do build one then those who said they would were right and those affected can pay the consequences for not listening. However, any person (or nation) who opposes interfering with Iran and its nuclear ambitions now will have no right to blame their development of nuclear weapons on George Bush. Any member of the US Congress that does should be immediately taken to Gitmo and left there until they die. Any nation that has the audacity to blame it on him should be cut off from the world. This scenario is not beyond belief. Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the North Koreans and then Bush was blamed for “taking his eye off them” when they ended up testing a nuclear device.
I say the hell with Iran and let’s just ignore them. We will have proof of their nuclear ambitions when they announce they have the weapon (they wouldn’t lie, now would they) or when they launch one. In any event, we will then have the provocation we need to send about a hundred thousand Tomahawks toward their country and wipe that miserable place off the map. I bet then the naysayers will want action.
Of course, this all assumes that Israel is going to play the wussy games that the US is playing and sit idly by while Iran develops a weapon that will be used to destroy that country. If Israel gets fed up Iran might not exist too much longer.
Tough sanctions are needed right now and without them the world will be getting what it asked for. We need members of the UN Security Council to sanction Iran and we need the damned Russians and Chinese to get on board with the program instead of selling the Iranians what they need to make war.
I believe we should try diplomacy first but sine the diplomats are cowards and will not go practice diplomacy we are left with few choices should things get dicey.
The old Goodwrench commercial used to say; “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” If we don’t do something now (like sanction Iran) then someone will pay for it later. It will be harder, of course, because Iran looks at the latest intelligence report as a declaration of surrender.
The only way to deal with Muslims is to be tough and to never back down. Thanks to the spineless people in our intelligence community and the greedy rulers of Russia and China, we will have a tougher road to travel from this point forward.
Syria OK with Turkey Trot to War
Oct 18, 2007 Uncategorized
Turkey is lining up for an attack into Iraq against Kurds with whom they have been having trouble. The US is asking for Turkey not to attack and the President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, is asking for more time to resolve the issue. What I find interesting in this situation is what President Bashar Assad of Syria had to say:
However Syrian President Bashar Assad, visiting Turkey, said he supported the country’s right to take the action “against terrorism and terrorist activities”. BBC News
Hamas and Hezbollah are both terrorist organizations and they continually launch rockets into Israel. Israeli soldiers have been abducted and are still held captive (some believe in Iran) and Israel’s neighbors salivate at the chance to attack or wipe out that country. Launching missiles across the border into areas populated with non combatants is an act of terrorism and yet, when Israel defends itself by sending in its military Syria is quick to point the finger of condemnation.
Why is it that Syria would have two standards with regard to this subject? The obvious answer is that Turkey is an Islamic country and Israel is not. In fact, Israel is full of Jewish people and the Muslims cannot stand Jews and do not think they should be allowed to exist. It is also ironic that Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism, would describe someone else’s acts as terrorism.
The UN and the rest of the world should remember Assad’s words so the next time Israel responds to acts of terror there will not be a rush to condemn that country. Syria’s president is nothing more than a two bit terrorist who supports killing people, especially Jews.
No wonder Pelosi and her ilk like visiting the guy.
Tags: Commentary, Iraq, Israel, Syria, terror, Terrorism, Turkey
General Sanchez Sounds a Little Bitter
Oct 13, 2007 Military
Retired General Ricardo Sanchez, who was the commanding general of all the troops in Iraq, has spoken publicly giving his opinions about the war and the way it was handled. General Sanchez is entitled to his opinion and he knows a lot more than I do about running a war but he seems to have placed blame on everyone but himself.
General Sanchez said that the war was a “nightmare with no end in sight” and blamed Congress, the State Department, the Bush Administration and any number of other government agencies. He said we did not have enough troops and equipment going in (I agree with that) and that surge was a desperate attempt to make up for misguided policies. That might be partly true because we should have had more troops from the start. However, the assessment of General Petraeus is slightly different and a bit more optimistic, probably because he has been in Iraq recently and Sanchez has been out for a little while.
Sanchez is entitled to his opinion and I think he might be a little bitter because his was a rocky command. This is not to say that he is a bad leader, I do not know him, but he had to spend part of his time fending off the problems associated with Abu Ghraib. He was eventually cleared of any wrong doing but that had to have consumed a lot of his time, time that should have been spent leading the troops in war. I can certainly understand his sentiments and his anger at the government and while I disagree with him on what actions he could have taken while in command to let his superiors know how he felt, I certainly understand why he is bitter. The problem is, General Sanchez placed blame squarely on everyone in government. He picked the administration, Congress, and other government entities. However, the left will cherry pick his comments and make the criticism all about President Bush. This statement will be used in a Democratic political campaign to blast the right:
“From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan, to the administration’s latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize the political, economic and military power,†Sanchez said.
And this one will be ignored:
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.â€
Mark my words, the first quote will be used by MorOn.org and Democratic candidates to show how terribly the administration did and will ignore the quote that places blame on everyone, including a Congress that takes decisions based upon polls and fails to actually lead. It is unwise to give the enemy anything that can be used as propaganda and Sanchez’s words can be blasted all over al Jazeera and at the DNC (the same entity).
The interesting thing is that the very groups who will latch on to the words of General Sanchez and hail him as a truth telling hero who thinks the war is a failure and use this to claim they support the troops are the ones who attacked General Petraeus because he did not say what they liked.
I wonder if General Sanchez is thinking about running for office or if he is lining up a gig as a war analyst at some cable news network because he has come out with both barrels blazing. I am not sure Sanchez would be good for political office and I would be weary about voting for him (though he would not be running in my state anyway) based upon his admitted silence about things he thought were wrong because I think leadership involves expressing those opinions.
I wish Sanchez well in whatever he does but I think he might have done the troops more good if he had spoken up a few years ago rather than wait. I also think pointing the fingers in every direction except inward is just a defense mechanism to deflect some of the blame that certainly rests upon his shoulders.
If you fail to speak up about something that you know is wrong you are just as responsible for it as the folks who did it.
Sources:
My Way News
Stars and Stripes
Tags: Abu Ghraib, Commentary, Iraq, Pace, Petraeus, Sanchez, war