Obama Enlists Supporters From Military For Staged Affection
Apr 8, 2009 Military, Political
There was a recent comparison as to how Resident Obama was greeted by the troops and how President Bush was greeted. The troops were much more enthusiastic with Bush, golf clap warm for Obama. The left made the excuses, about being at attention (no clapping at attention by the way) and all that. The reality is that an overwhelming number of troops are conservative and vote Republican. Black troops voted Obama about 70% (compared to nearly 95% of the general black population) but over all the numbers were much greater for McCain.
The MSM and the Obama administration were well aware of the comparisons. These people scan the web looking for things that are unflattering to The Won. The MSM were certainly aware of the comparisons. So what do they do? Obama goes to Baghdad and the reports are that wildly cheering troops greeted him, blah, blah. The reporting made it sound like the troops were having orgasms because Obama showed up. MacRanger has a post up and he indicates that he received an email from a soldier who was there. It might explain a few things:
“We were pre-screened, asked by officials “Who voted for Obama?”, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.”
Take a look at the picture at AP and notice all the cameras are the same models? Coincidence? I think not.
The Obama propagandists got there, screened the troops, gave them cameras and then told them to hold them up (so everyone can see how many troops are taking pictures).
I saw raw footage of his speech (could not understand the audio) but the claps and HOOAHs for him were rather restrained. The enthusiasm is not what I would expect from an Army crowd.
I know that Obama would just love to have the troops on his side but most of them do not agree with him and they do not like what he is doing to their country. They will not support him in the next election and I am sure there will be more efforts to disenfranchise them (like went on in New York last week).
No matter. Resident Obama got his photo op. The MSM got its staged photos and can now make the claim that Obama is loved by the troops.
No, they respect the office but so far the reception for the man has been lukewarm at best.
I know he thinks he knows what he is doing but most of those 20 year old men and women have more leadership experience than Obama does and have experienced things in life he will never come close to.
Perhaps one day he will get the big, warm reception but not while he is apologizing to every country in the world and blaming America. Our troops are not too keen on folks who blame America for the ills of the world.
I figured most of them would leave the service if he won but I guess his Democratic buddies have helped him make the job outlook so bad that the troops have to stay in to keep getting paid.
The will continue to succeed (something Obama tried to keep them from doing as a Senator) despite the incompetent boob in the White House.
As an aside, Obama used a lot of phrases that Bush used. Did his speech writers decide sounding like Bush would be better for Obama?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: baghdad, lies, Military, Obama, pre screened, propaganda, troops
Obama’s Defense Budget Increase
Apr 2, 2009 Political
I wrote recently that Obama was cutting the military budget and the lefties out there informed me that programs were being cut, not the operational budget which Obama has actually increased. We do not know if he has increased it because the people in the Department of Defense (DOD) had to sign non disclosure statements. The public report was a 4% increase but how do we really know this is the case if people were sworn to secrecy? It seems strange to me that the most transparent administration in history (just ask them) would do something like this.
Let us assume there was an increase and that it was 4%. It is now clear why that increase was needed and it is clear that it was not for military operations. An increase was needed so that Obama could use military aircraft to ferry around his 500 person entourage. The Washington Times reports that Obama’s trip to Europe has strained the Air Force because more aircraft were needed to fly all the additional people to Europe. It has so taxed the Air Force that the service had to use private contractors to accomplish its mission to resupply our forces in Afghanistan.
The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials.
The Air Mobility Command, part of the U.S. Transportation Command, was ordered to provide airlift for the president’s entourage of nearly 500 people, including senior officials, staff, support personnel, news reporters and some 200 Secret Service agents for the European visit, which began Tuesday in London.
Airlift for the traveling entourage also was used to move the president’s new heavy-armored limousine and several presidential helicopters used for short transits.
To make up for the shortfall, the Air Force had to increase the number of Eastern European air transport contractors hired to fly Il-76 and An-124 transport jets into Afghanistan loaded with troop supplies, the two officials said.
The airlift crunch comes at a particularly difficult time, as the military is stepping up deliveries of supplies in advance of a surge of 21,000 U.S. troops.
Couple this with Nancy Pelosi’s demands on the Air Force and her use of it as a personal airline and it is no wonder that the budget would need to be increased.
Why did he need 500 people with him? Why was it necessary to take resources away from our war fighters in order to send him and this huge contingent to Europe?
For you liberals who make claims about the military budget and how Obama is so supportive, keep this in mind before you make any claims:
One official said the problem was not only the vehicles and helicopters that were needed for presidential security, but also the unusually large number of people traveling with the president. The official said U.S. taxpayers are paying twice for airlift, once for Air Force jets that are not available for a war zone and again for foreign contractor aircraft that are. [emphasis mine]
No wonder Obama would need to increase the military budget. Taxpayers now have to pay two times for the Air Force to accomplish its mission.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: air force, defense budget, europe, Military, Obama, waste
Obama Considers Using Military At Border
Mar 12, 2009 Political
Barack Obama is considering using the military to secure the violent region known as the Texas-Mexico border. Obama is said to be looking at a tipping point for action. Americans have been killed down there as a result of the drug war going on. My question is, does not the murder of Americans constitute a tipping point?
I am also don’t think that Obama has much say in this because he is not talking about using active duty troops:
“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama said during an interview with journalists for regional papers, including a McClatchy reporter.
“I don’t have a particular tipping point in mind,” he said. “I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens.”
Unless Obama plans on calling the National Guard to active duty, he has no control over them. He is not the Commander in Chief of the National Guard unless they are called to federal service.
Until that time they belong to the governor of the state and he should be ignoring Obama’s “tipping point” and sending the troops down to squash the violence.
It would make no sense to federalize the Texas National Guard to perform a mission in Texas. The National Guard is capable of handling the unrest and it has the authority to detain Americans who might be breaking the law. The active duty is forbidden by law from performing police actions.
Governor Perry has called for 1000 troops to secure the border but Obama said it is a big border and he is not sure he wants to militarize it.
Perry should just call up his Guard and send them and their combat equipment to the border to protect his state. The border might be an issue that belongs to the feds but the state belongs to Perry and the citizens of Texas. They have every right to defend their state.
He needs to ensure they are safe while Obama twiddles his thumbs looking for the tipping point.
Source:
McClatchy
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: drug war, Mexico, Military, Obama, perry, texas, troops
Obama Might Throw Our Troops Under The Bus
Mar 9, 2009 Military, Political
Barack Obama is famous for throwing people under the proverbial bus. He has thrown his pastor, his grandmother and about any other person who was a threat to his quest for power under the bus so as to keep from being harmed. He recently threw his Attorney General under the now overcrowded vehicle. Now it looks like Obama might just well throw our troops under the bus.
The Telegraph UK is reporting that Barack Obama is considering signing on to the International Criminal Court (ICC) which will mean that our troops can be charged with crimes under an international organization. President Bush withdrew the US from the statute to keep our troops from being arraigned for alleged war crimes. Now they might not be protected:
The next logical step is for the United States to sign up to the ICC. That would flatter Obama’s ego as the conscience of the world. It would also put US servicemen at the mercy of any American-hating opportunists who might choose to arraign them on trumped-up charges before an alien court whose judges are likely to be ill-disposed towards America too.
This would, of course, leave the ICC open to charging President Bush for war crimes which might be what the left is looking for. In any event, this is not a good development and Obama should consider it carefully. Signing on could leave our troops at the mercy of those who don’t care for us very much.
Why anyone would serve in the military under Obama is beyond me. If I were still in the service I would get out or retire as soon as possible in order to keep from being The Evil One’s political pawn. Is it any wonder our troops do not trust the man?
So, vengeful Democrats could facilitate the indictment of President George W Bush and all his senior commanders in Iraq. American troops on active service have been shown in polls to have little confidence in Barack Obama. His overtures to the ICC will hardly reverse that tendency. [emphasis mine]
I urge my fellow service members to reconsider your service. If you are on the edge as to whether to reenlist please consider getting out and doing something else. This guy and his Democratic buddies do not have your best interests at heart.
I have always believed that military service was a good thing and a way to give back to a country that has given so much. When young people ask me for advice I tell them the pros and cons and encourage them to join if they truly want to serve.
For the first time in my adult life I find myself telling them to consider something else. Though I have encountered few Obama supporters who want to join the service I do encourage them to join.
They should have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: ear crimes, icc, international court, Military, Obama
Our Military Is Under Attack By The Left
Jan 16, 2009 Political
The United States Military is a uniformed service that requires skill and discipline and a willingness to put the team before the individual. I served for 24 years and had the opportunity to serve with some of the best people this country has to offer. Some of the people I served with were homosexuals who served under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy instituted by Bill Clinton. They were great soldiers and great patriots. DADT worked because it prevented the distractions and problems of open homosexuality.
Barack Hussein Obama has vowed to end DADT and to allow homosexuals to openly serve. This is the case despite the reality that most homosexuals will not serve and despite the fact that a Military Times survey found that 24% of current service members would leave if open homosexuality were allowed. Of those, 10% would definitely leave and 14% would consider not reenlisting. 10% would equal the number of active duty Marines and 24% is close to the number of active duty soldiers in the Army. Those are significant numbers that will not be made up by homosexuals joining.
Obama owes the homosexual activists. He stated he was against gay marriage but the reality is that earlier in his (short) career he supported it. The opposition was likely some of that “campaign rhetoric” he discussed on ABC. Obama and the gay activists see this as equal rights or getting rid of discrimination but that is not what it is. The military is selective by necessity. Overweight people are either discharged or denied favorable actions. People without certain physical characteristics cannot hold certain jobs and women are not allowed in the combat arms. These are all necessary to accomplish the primary mission of defending this country.
About 75% of military members identify themselves as conservative. This is no surprise because very few liberals are willing to fight for anything. They would rather have others protect them while they protest the manner in which that protection is provided. That is all well and good but why do they have a say in how the military is handled? The majority of troops oppose homosexuality but only 24% of those would leave because of it. But how will openly gay members affect the military as a whole?
Perhaps things would be fine. Other countries have openly gay service members and they seem to do OK. However, those countries are much more liberal than ours and they have a different value system. People claim that soldiers in the Israeli Army don’t mind but what would it matter if they did? All people are compelled to serve so they really have no choice as to whom they serve with. Allowing homosexuals to serve ensures that those who do not want to serve are not able to use homosexuality as an excuse.
The military in this country is an all volunteer force. Despite the claims by the left that George Bush was going to institute the draft, that never happened. In fact, the only people who pushed for the draft were Democrats. George Bush and military leaders know that our military is much better with the highly skilled, all volunteer force we currently have. Newsflash to moonbats: Charlie Rangel is reintroducing his initiative to have a draft.
I have always been opposed to the draft because I feel it violates the Constitution. It also fills the ranks with people who do not want to be there and that is not the best way to accomplish our mission. Our government must have figured a way around the Constitution because we have the mechanism for a draft.
Regardless of how I feel about it, if Obama forces the military to accept openly gay people then every physically able person between the ages of 18 and 22 should be required to serve for 2 years. We should start with 22 year olds and work back until we hit the 18s and then service would be mandatory for all persons when they reach 18 (and have graduated or are out of high school). This will ensure that the homosexual community is adequately represented in the military and that we do not deplete the ranks in order to appease a few. After the 2 year assignment each person would be in the reserves, subject to recall AT ANY TIME, for four more years. This would solve the problem of multiple combat tours that the liberals are always complaining about. It could also rid places like Berkeley of the recruiter stations the moonbats so vehemently oppose.
My plan would include everyone and there would be no waivers for college (unless the college is a military academy) and all able bodied persons would be required to serve no matter what. This includes the children of rich people and politicians and failure to serve would be a felony punishable by 2 years in jail and 4 years of probation and loss of any type of government aid.
The military is not the place to try social experiments and allowing openly gay people to serve is either an experiment or an attempt to dismantle the Armed Forces by getting people to leave them. Since Obama is a Socialist who has surrounded himself with like minded people as well as those who want to allow Mexico to retake part of our country, it would not surprise me that he would work to dismantle the biggest obstacle to that goal.
So, now is the time to see how committed the homosexuals are. Do they still want openly gay people to be allowed to serve if the condition for it is mandatory service for all?
One other thing, if queers are allowed to openly serve they are not allowed to adopt the motto; “Never leave your buddy’s behind.”
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: gay, homsexual, Military, Obama, queer, social engineering