Obama sure knows how to negotiate a 'fair' deal!
===
Tybee Beach Pictures! 39th Consecutive Year!
Abby, Brian, Blake and Dagny
Daniel and Lynn G-Ma Lynn, Stella and Dagny
Stella Pot Head! G'Ma and the Tykes!
G'Pa and His Kids! Blake , All Boy
Daniel, Stella and Tammy! The Girls!
Blake! Blake and G'Pa who he calls Gama!
Brave Dagny riding the waves on the sand!
===
In my cross country drive last month I learned a few things.
More Americans would benefit from learning them as well. (See 1 below.)
===
Older means wiser. (See 2 below.)
===
Now that Putin has observed how weak a negotiator Obama is and is willing to give away everything without extracting much, does he seem more willing to negotiate a resolution of Ukraine? You decide. (See 3 below.)
But then a more sober analysis of the Iranian deal? You decide again. (See 3a below.)
===
Facts are meaningless in Demwit World, Part 2. (See 4 below.)
===
Make the military PC puny is Obama's goal. as it is with everything he touches. (See 5 below.)
Our next SIRC President's Day Speaker, Allen West, let's loose! (See 5a below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Cowboy rules for: Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Nebraska , Idaho, and the rest of the Wild West are as follows:
1. Pull your pants up. You look like an idiot.
2. Turn your cap right, your head ain't crooked.
3. Let's get this straight: it's called a 'gravel road.' I drive a pickup truck because I want to. No matter how slow you drive, you're gonna get dust on your Lexus. Drive it or get out of the way.
4. They are cattle. That's why they smell like cattle. They smell like money to us. Get over it. Don't like it? I-10 & I-40 go east and west, I-17 & I-15 goes north and south. Pick one and go.
5. So you have a $60,000 car. We’re impressed. We have $250,000 Combines that are driven only 3 weeks a year.
6. Every person in the Wild West waves. It's called being friendly. Try to understand the concept.
7. If that cell phone rings while a bunch of geese/pheasants/ducks/doves are comin' in during a hunt, we WILL shoot it outta your hand. You better hope you don't have it up to your ear at the time.
8. Yeah. We eat trout, salmon, deer and elk. You really want sushi and caviar? It’s available at the corner bait shop.
9. The 'Opener' refers to the first day of deer season. It's a religious holiday held the closest Saturday to the first of November.
10.. We open doors for women. That's applied to all women, regardless of age..
11. No, there's no ‘vegetarian special' on the menu. Order steak, or you can order the Chef's Salad and pick off the 2 pounds of ham and turkey.
12. When we fill out a table, there are three main dishes: meats, vegetables, and breads. We use three spices: salt, pepper, and ketchup! Oh, yeah ...We don't care what you folks in Cincinnati call that stuff you eat... IT AIN'T REAL CHILI!!
13. You bring 'Coke' into my house, it better be brown, wet and served over ice. You bring 'Mary Jane' into my house, she better be cute, know how to shoot, drive a truck, and have long hair.
14. College and High School Football is as important here as the Giants, the Yankees, the Mets, the Lakers and the Knicks, and a dang site more fun to watch.
15. Yeah, we have golf courses. But don't hit the water hazards - it spooks the fish.
16. Turn down that blasted car stereo! That thumpity-thump ain't music, anyway. We don’t want to hear it anymore than we want to see your boxers! Refer back to #1!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)--The older we get the wiser we become . . .
3)
Phone calls between relatively low-level diplomats are normally not newsworthy. But Monday's conversation between U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin on the simmering conflict in Ukraine is an exception. The bilateral nature of the conversation and its timing amid mounting claims of cease-fire violations from the Ukrainian government and separatist forces makes it uniquely significant. Moreover, it reaffirms that the evolution of the Ukrainian conflict — whether toward a settlement or toward escalation — will be most strongly shaped not by Kiev but by the actions of and relationship between Moscow and Washington.
So far Russia's plan has been unsuccessful. Ukraine aligned itself even more closely with the West by pursuing greater economic and political integration with the European Union and greater security and military cooperation with NATO. Ukraine's close relationship with NATO is particularly worrisome for Russia, which has long feared the military alliance pushing up against its borders. Moscow has made multiple efforts to keep NATO's influence at bay, putting diplomatic pressure on Georgia in 2008 when Georgia declared its alliance with NATO, for example. It showed its concern about NATO even more dramatically in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. And of all the NATO countries, the United States has the strongest military and the most assertive policies challenging Russia throughout the former Soviet periphery.The Ukraine conflict is at its core a conflict between two geopolitical imperatives. Russia wants to protect its interior by using its surrounding territories to establish a buffer. The United States wants to prevent the rise of regional powers that could potentially challenge U.S. hegemony. These imperatives collided in Ukraine, which of all the countries in the former Soviet periphery has the most strategic importance for modern Russia. If Ukraine supports Moscow, Russia becomes a regional power on the rise. If Ukraine supports the West, Russia becomes vulnerable from without and within. The Euromaidan movement of February 2014reversed Russia's position from the former to the latter. Moscow responded by annexing Crimea and supporting the separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine in a bid to undermine or neutralize Kiev's pro-Western government.
2)--The older we get the wiser we become . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We Took down our US flag and peeled the NRA sticker off the front door.We've disconnected our home alarm system and quit our candy-ass Neighborhood Watch.Bought two Pakistani flags on eBay and raised them in the front yard, one at each corner, plus a black flag of ISIS in the center.Now, the local police, sheriff, FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, Secret Service and other agencies are all watching the house 24/7.I've never felt safer and we're saving $49.95 a month.
3)
U.S., Russia: The Case for Bilateral Talks
Phone calls between relatively low-level diplomats are normally not newsworthy. But Monday's conversation between U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin on the simmering conflict in Ukraine is an exception. The bilateral nature of the conversation and its timing amid mounting claims of cease-fire violations from the Ukrainian government and separatist forces makes it uniquely significant. Moreover, it reaffirms that the evolution of the Ukrainian conflict — whether toward a settlement or toward escalation — will be most strongly shaped not by Kiev but by the actions of and relationship between Moscow and Washington.
Since the Ukrainian crisis started nearly 18 months ago, two negotiation formats in particular stand out among numerous talks and meetings. The first is the Minsk talks between representatives from the Ukrainian government, the pro-Russia separatists and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which address the conflict on a tactical level. The other is the Normandy talks between representatives from Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France, which consider the conflict on a broader, political level. Notably absent from both talks, despite being a major political, economic and security player in Ukraine and the broader standoff between Russia and the West, is the United States. Washington has been diplomatically active in the conflict, but U.S. and Russian officials have met at various times only on an ad hoc basis.
However, this practice may have changed over the weekend, when Russian Presidential Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov said in an interview that Russia and the United States had come to an agreement to set up a "special bilateral format" of talks between the two countries — talks that would involve Nuland and Karasin. In explaining the formal announcement, Ivanov said that expanding the Normandy format to include the United States would simply be too "risky," adding that the two countries would coordinate talks on Ukraine bilaterally "for the time being." Thus the phone call between Nuland and Karasin took place to discuss the implementation of the Minsk agreement and the constitutional reform process in Ukraine, with further discussions likely to follow.
So far Russia's plan has been unsuccessful. Ukraine aligned itself even more closely with the West by pursuing greater economic and political integration with the European Union and greater security and military cooperation with NATO. Ukraine's close relationship with NATO is particularly worrisome for Russia, which has long feared the military alliance pushing up against its borders. Moscow has made multiple efforts to keep NATO's influence at bay, putting diplomatic pressure on Georgia in 2008 when Georgia declared its alliance with NATO, for example. It showed its concern about NATO even more dramatically in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. And of all the NATO countries, the United States has the strongest military and the most assertive policies challenging Russia throughout the former Soviet periphery.The Ukraine conflict is at its core a conflict between two geopolitical imperatives. Russia wants to protect its interior by using its surrounding territories to establish a buffer. The United States wants to prevent the rise of regional powers that could potentially challenge U.S. hegemony. These imperatives collided in Ukraine, which of all the countries in the former Soviet periphery has the most strategic importance for modern Russia. If Ukraine supports Moscow, Russia becomes a regional power on the rise. If Ukraine supports the West, Russia becomes vulnerable from without and within. The Euromaidan movement of February 2014reversed Russia's position from the former to the latter. Moscow responded by annexing Crimea and supporting the separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine in a bid to undermine or neutralize Kiev's pro-Western government.
Russia's long-held suspicion of U.S. influence in its periphery makes the decision to start regular bilateral talks a significant step. In some ways, these two countries wield more power to shape the political and military outcome in Ukraine than the Ukrainians and separatists themselves. But holding such talks does not necessarily indicate that a resolution or even a de-escalation of the conflict is imminent. Issues still divide the two sides, particularly what kind of autonomy Ukraine's central government should give the rebel regions.
All the major parties in the Ukrainian conflict support some level of decentralization, or the granting of greater powers to regional governments. The disagreement is over the timing and extent of the process. Russia sees decentralization as a way to maintain a buffer zone in the east outside of Ukraine's direct control, while Ukraine sees it as a way to compromise but still effectively retain control over the entire country. Ukraine wants to see separatists implement the Minsk agreement and lay down their arms before officials amend the national constitution to grant the eastern territories more regional autonomy. But separatists want the constitutional changes first, and they want a role in determining those changes. Only then, they say, can they fully implement the cease-fire.
Broadly speaking, the United States supports the Ukrainian position; Russia supports the separatists. However, during a recent visit to Ukraine and preceding her phone conversation with Karasin, Nuland weighed in on the Ukrainian legislature's debate over the constitutional amendment. Nuland urged Ukraine to give the country's eastern regions a controversial and highly debated "special status" under the law. Officials had not included the term in the constitutional amendment draft, but U.S. pressure to deliver more on the sensitive issue could be seen as a nod to Russia.
But Nuland's actions could also be a more nuanced effort to help Ukraine: The more substantial and unimpeachable Ukraine's constitutional reforms, the less room Moscow and the separatists have to criticize the changes and justify their own cease-fire violations. Washington has echoed Kiev in demanding that the separatists abide by the cease-fire, threatening Russia with more sanctions and — according to some leaked reports — restrictions on Moscow's access to credit, if separatists continue to violate the Minsk agreement.
Russia's reactions have also been mixed. The Kremlin has spoken somewhat positively of the reform process, but Russia is still influencing the Ukrainian battlefield while demanding more political concessions for the separatist territories. Russia is also seeking U.S. concessions on Ukraine for its help in facilitating the Iran nuclear agreement. Moscow and Washington are trying to reach an accommodation while keeping their threat options open as well. With more talks between Nuland and Karasin set to take place, the evolution of Ukraine's conflict and the political reform process will be the true test of the effectiveness of this new bilateral dialogue between the United States and Russia.
3a)
Iran Ascending: A Time to Shudder
By Sherwin Pomerantz
For those who have been confused by the incredible amount of verbiage that has surfaced on the Iran nuclear agreement since it was signed last week, the best analysis I have read appeared in this morning’s Ha’aretz written by Ari Shavit entitled “The Iran deal: From Thriller to Horror Story.”
While I often disagree with Shavit’s politics his analysis, which is totally bereft of political commentary but is based on his detailed reading of the entire 159 page document, is worthy of perusal and a short précis follows:
· The good news: The Iranians agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons and to suspend the existing nuclear development programs at Arak, Natanz and Fordow. They will also reduce the number of existing centrifuges and the amount of enriched uranium in their possession.
· The worrisome aspects: The sanctions mechanism which was so effective in bringing them to the table has been totally dismantled. In addition, there will be no supervision of secret, unknown nuclear sites which lets them basically do anything they want to outside of the three locations listed above. The odds of their getting caught are minimal and the chance of reactivating sanctions is close to nil.
· The darkest aspects: The P5+1 recognize Iran’s right to develop advanced centrifuges as Iran is only giving up the right to use their older ones. The capacity of the new units could be 5-10 times bigger than what they have at present and there are no controls on such a decision by the Iranians.
As Shavit concludes: “This means that the international community is not only enabling, but actually ensuring the establishment of a new Iranian nuclear program, which will be immeasurably more powerful and dangerous than its predecessor. In fact the Iranians are giving up an outdated, anachronistic deployment in order to build an innovative legitimate one, with the world’s permission and authority. The (current agreement) will lead to Iran becoming in 2025 a muscular nuclear tiger ready to spring forward, with an ability to produce dozens of nuclear bombs.”
So there you have it. What was agreed in Vienna pretty much ensures the development of a new nuclear program by Iran, significantly more powerful that what they are “giving up” and they will do so with the imprimatur of the P5+1 and, given the unanimous approval by the UN Security Council earlier this week, by the entire world. No question it is a time for all of us to “shudder.”
So what should we all be doing? I believe that the U.S. Congress should be pushed by the electorate there (i.e. by the Americans and not by us) to fight the approval of this agreement by the President and his Secretary of State. On the assumption that the Congress blocks this and then has enough votes to override the President’s promised veto, the fallout will be chaos in international diplomacy, the status of the U.S. as a world leader will drop even lower than it is today and the U.S. may very well find itself isolated in diplomatic circles. And, of course, it is also probable that Iran will go on its merry way and continue to be the bane of peace loving peoples worldwide. But, that may be better than giving the Iranians carte blanche to move full steam ahead and become a super-nuclear power in 10 years.
As far as our activities here are concerned, I still believe that the U.S. as well as the rest of the world is well aware of our position on this issue and that there is no added value at this point to continue to beat people over the head in the U.S. in order to get the point across. Bibi has spoken in the Congress on the issue, he has been interviewed almost daily by U.S. based television networks, and never misses an opportunity to state our position to every visiting foreign delegation. He is right when he stated earlier this week that if the deal is such a good one and makes the world safer, as the U.S. claims, why do they need to offer us additional weaponry? That is a logical question but, from a practical standpoint, we should take the offer and do whatever we can to retain our QME (qualified military edge). We must remember that whether or not the deal goes through there will still be country in whose missile range we sit and who continues to vow to destroy us. We dare not let our pride get in the way of our defensive needs.
It is now abundantly clear that the world is certainly not a safer place today than it was before the agreement was signed. What has happened is that the P5+1 has granted diplomatic legitimacy to a rogue state that makes no bones about disparaging the key partner to the agreement, a partner without whose steadfastness and commitment that agreement would never have been signed.
What the U.S. should have gained from this experience is a better understanding of what it means to bargain in the Middle East souk. The sad part is that American did not internalize that lesson and it mistakenly believes that the agreement creates a safer world. Sadly, it does just the opposite, initially for those of us living in this region but, ultimately, for America as well.
We need to remember Winston Churchill’s comment after Chamberlain’s 1938 speech claiming the achievement of “Peace in Our Time” when Churchill said about Chamberlain: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”
This is not 1938, Iran is not Nazi Germany and Obama is not Chamberlain. But principles remain principles, truisms remain truisms and errors of judgement remain errors of judgement, regardless of the circumstances. It is indeed, a time to shudder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)The Fact-Free Left: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
There is no way to know what is going on in someone else's mind. But sometimes their behavior tells you more than their words.
The political left's great claim to authenticity and honor is that what they advocate is for the benefit of the less fortunate. But how could we test that?
T.S. Eliot once said, "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
This suggests that one way to find out if those who claim to be trying to help the less fortunate are for real is to see if they are satisfied to simply advocate a given policy, and see it through to being imposed -- without also testing empirically whether the policy is accomplishing what it set out to do.
The first two steps are enough to let advocates feel important and righteous. Whether you really care about what happens to the supposed beneficiaries of the policy is indicated by whether you bother to check out the empirical evidence afterwards.
Many, if not most, people who are zealous advocates of minimum wage laws, for example, never check to see if these laws do more good by raising some workers' wages than harm by preventing many young and inexperienced workers from finding jobs.
One of my own pieces of good fortune, when I left home at age 17, was that the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was in single digits that year -- for the last time. The minimum wage law was ten years old, and the wage specified in that law was now so low that it was irrelevant, after years of inflation. It was the same as if there were no minimum wage law.
Liberals, of course, wanted the minimum wage raised, to keep up with inflation. The result was that, ten years later, the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was 27.5 percent -- and it has never been less than 20 percent in all the years since then.
As the minimum wage kept getting raised, so did the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males. In 1971 it was 33.4 percent -- and it has never been under 30 percent since then. It has often been over 40 percent and, occasionally, over 50 percent.
But people who advocate minimum wage laws seldom show any interest in the actual consequences of such laws, which include many idle young males on the streets, which does no good for them or for their communities.
Advocates talk about people who make minimum wages as if they are a permanent class of people. In reality, most are young inexperienced workers, and no one stays young permanently. But they can stay inexperienced for a very long time, damaging their prospects of getting a job and increasing their chances of getting into trouble, hanging out with other idle and immature males.
There is the same liberal zeal for government intervention in housing markets, and the same lack of interest in checking out what the actual consequences are for the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of government housing policies, whether as tenants or home buyers.
Government pressures and threats forced mortgage lenders to lower their lending standards, to allow more low-income and minority applicants to qualify. But, after the housing boom became a bust, the biggest losers were low-income and minority home buyers, who were unable to keep up the payments and lost everything -- which was the very reason they were turned down before lending standards were lowered.
Rent control laws have led to housing shortages in cities around the world. More than a thousand apartment buildings have been abandoned by their owners in New York alone -- more than enough to house all the homeless in the city.
High tax rates on "the rich" -- however defined -- are an ever popular crusade on the left. Who cares about the consequences -- such as the rich investing their money overseas, where it will create jobs and economic growth in other countries, while American workers are unemployed and American economic growth is anemic?
All these policies allow the political left to persist in their fact-free visions. And those visions in turn allow the left to feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Disaster: The Warrior Purge in the U.S. military
“Where do we find such men?”
That memorable line comes from James Mitchner’s Korean War novel, The Bridges of Toko-Ri. It refers to intrepid aviators lifting from a carrier, flying into untold danger. They know they may not return. They launch anyway. In boldness unfathomable to many, they willingly, artfully fly into peril. They are warriors, men of rare talent, intellect, and courage – a combination essential for victory.
Needed warriors are now being purged from the U.S. military. If America went to war right now with China or Russia, we could lose because of these purges. We’re losing top-level warrior-leaders to make the crucial differences in battle. They’re being systematically drummed out as politically incorrect. When the going gets tough, political correctness (PC) is useless. Then the brilliant, wily fighters, the coolest heads, the most courageous warriors, are needed to lead regardless of social views or record.
Today, in large measure, our fighting forces are led by briefcase-carrying busybodies, yes-men more interested in enforcing political beliefs and social change than leading in battle. They care more about their careers than what’s happening to the military and thus the country. Just last week, a new downsizing of the army was announced – without a protest.
Warriors are not prized. They are criticized and ridiculed. Up-and-coming warriors who admire the purged want to emulate them, see what’s happening, and are exiting as a result.
“Soldiers like George Patton or Curtis LeMay are no longer wanted,” writes LCOL Greg Lee, USMC (ret.) in a well-circulated internet forward. “The fundamental job of the military, ‘kill bad people and break things,’ has become critically hampered by ‘rules of engagement’ [and policies] who’s [sic] guiding logic is political outcome, not successful combat. If the US military is ever defeated, it will be because [rather than honing fighting skills, nurturing fighting thinkers and leaders] it is running the best Day Care centers in the world.”
Political correctness, social change, even care for the enemy are now the battle cries of the U.S. military hierarchy in the Pentagon. The rules of engagement (ROI), changed to limit civilian deaths under President Obama, are now so dangerous that American soldiers have been made into sitting ducks. In years past, generals and admirals resigned over such disregard for their troops. Today’s leaders acquiesce and espouse confusing non-military goals. The president confounds Coast Guard graduates saying their enemy is climate change. He sends 3,000 troops to battle...Ebola?
Pentagon priorities are women’s and gay rights and defeating the world’s social ills – disease, hunger, and poverty. These are worthy causes for a Peace Corps, church group, or diplomat, but not for the military, whose sole constitutional purpose is defending Americans against military threats. Do you send a sniper to nurse a baby?
Battlefield interrogation, once a life-saver for engaged troops, is now considered torture by the Pentagon and therefore almost eliminated. Commanders know it will bring immediate dismissal. Ask former representative Alan West, who, as an army commander, roughed up an Iraqi spy and saved his men from ambush. He was quickly relieved of command, and had it not been for public opinion, he would probably be in jail. Soft interrogation in the heat of battle is useless. Toughness, not empathy, is needed once war is declared. War is hell.
Leaders are increasingly chosen for race and/or gender rather than military skills. Under Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, a Pentagon training manual taught how white males in the military have an unfair advantage. A hushed story is that a Blue Angels skipper, Donnie Cochran, picked to head the famed Navy flying group largely because of race, resigned after admitting he wasn’t up to the job. Similarly, the first female Tomcat pilot, Kara Hultgreen, rushed into the cockpit because of her gender, died slamming into the rear of the carrier on approach because of “pilot error.” In both cases, PC rushed the assignments. The ignorance and bias of most media regarding warriors and warfare exacerbate the problem. Few have served. Most see only the social arguments.
Sexual orientation appears the next criterion – especially with the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. According to the Washington Times (June 9, 2015), a gay general in the Army recently introduced his husband at a Pentagon gay rights rally, where Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was the keynote speaker. In opening remarks, Brig. Gen. Randy S. Taylor, master of ceremonies, called attention to his husband, Lucas, “sitting up front.” Carter then told the audience, “We need to be a meritocracy. We can’t afford to close ourselves off to anybody.” But neededwarriorhood was not mentioned at the rally. It is never mentioned, because it is shunned.
Religion, too, a bedrock of warrior culture, is being purged. Pentagon edicts have banned any expressions of Christianity in counseling soldiers. A marine lance corporal, Monifa Sterling, a black female, was given a court martial and bad conduct discharge for having a Bible verse on her desk and refusing to remove it. In contradiction to the old truism, will atheists now be the only soldiers allowed in foxholes? How about Muslims? In direct contrast to Christianity, militant Islam, a self-declared enemy, is coddled, even defended. A blind eye is turned to its murder, tyranny, and aggression, a prime example being the Ft. Hood shootings. The rugged individualism and fervor, sometimes religious, of warriors like Patton, Jimmy Doolittle, Pappy Boyington, and Robin Olds are now deemed bigotry and discrimination – a quick ticket out.
As a well-circulated piece in the Beaufort (South Carolina) Observer lamented: “Can you imagine someone today looking for a leader to execute the Doolittle Raid [on Tokyo] and suggesting that it be assigned to a dare-devil boozer whose attributes [nonetheless] are [those of a needed warrior] he had respect of his men, an awesome ability to fly, and the organizational skills to put all together?” No way. “Where are all the dynamic leaders of the past?” I’ll tell you, adds the piece: “[t]hey were fired before they made major.”
Numbers tell the tale: 197 officers purged in the five years up to October 2013 – this according to Stand Up America, a media organization founded by army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (ret.). That’s an extraordinary number. Later figures are unavailable (probably hidden). It appears that senior officers who wanted to aid those under siege at Benghazi were purged. A January 2015 article at AMAC.US named Gen. Carter Hamm, in charge of African Command, and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, a carrier commander in the Mediterranean at the time, as believed relieved because of their indications to aid. “Take a look at some of the nine who have been fired or relieved of duty [since Benghazi],” writes AMAC’s Joseph R. Carducci. “This is one of the largest and fastest purges of military commanders that has ever been recorded.”
The White House is behind the purges. For the first time in American history, a U.S. president, Barack Obama, disdains the military from the Oval Office. From ignorance of the military word “corpsmen” to not acknowledging fallen heroes like at Benghazi to championing huge and dangerous reductions in the military budget, Obama, even as threats mount, has shown his contempt for warriors. While speaking out on questionable deaths of black youths, he says little to nothing about warrior deaths. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is woefully undershipped – from 600 to 300 in a matter of years. This despite military buildups in China and Russia. The Air Force and Navy need new and better planes to keep pace. We’re ridiculously withholding arms from those fighting ISIS. Only lip service is given to shamefully treated veterans. In addition, Obama refuses to identify by name America’s most vocal enemy – militant Islam. The religion’s fighters rape, murder, and torture, and assault almost every PC belief Obama and his aides expound, yet Obama dismisses them as “JV” (junior varsity), “terrorists,” or an aberration. They know he won’t fight.
Like Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister on the eve of WWII, Obama and his advisors have a naive and dangerous belief that appeasement and concession are the ways to avoid conflict and aggression. Chamberlain, waving his meaningless treaty from Hitler, learned the hard way. Once Hitler started WWII, the British people saw the error of Chamberlain’s beliefs and elected Winston Churchill, a warrior if there ever was one, to lead them in crisis.
But it may soon be too late for America. Few, if any, of Obama’s aides seem to know this gallant history. Few, if any, have served in the military. They disguise a low opinion of warriors by casually referring to anyone in uniform as a “hero” while privately ridiculing soldiers as ignorant, offish, and war-mongers – the “bitter clingers” Obama has spoken of. They certainly do not embrace the “warrior culture,” one of the phrases most used by thepurgers in calling for good riddance.
No less than John Lehman, former secretary of the Navy, has called attention to the purging. In a recent U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, he wrote, “[T]he attributes of naval aviators – willingness to take intelligent, calculated risk, self-confidence, even a certain swagger are the very [attributes] that make them particularly vulnerable in today’s zero-tolerance Navy.” Zero tolerance means one strike and you’re out – no second chance. Commanders, especially warrior-commanders, are being “bounced for the bad luck of being breathalyzed after two beers, or allowing risqué forecastle [shipboard] follies.” Such follies, usually to commemorate events like crossing the equator, have been international naval tradition for hundreds of years.
Today’s purgers, writes Lehman, are PC “thought police” who, “like Inspector Javert in Les Miserables, are out to get [the offenders] and are relentless.” Any infraction means dismissal. A soldier’s previous record or potential means nothing. He has no chance to learn from his mistake. “Adm. Chester Nimitz [who led the U.S. Navy’s Pacific victory in WWII] put a squadron of destroyers on the rocks. But while being put in purgatory for a while, he was protected by seniors who recognized his potential talent. In today’s Navy, Nimitz would be gone” – as would any officer who wanted to keep him. “Political correctness just might do more damage to American security than did the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets.”
5a)
Watch: Ex-Congressman Allen West Tears into 'Weakling' Obama
By Arutz Sheva
No holds barred: In fiery, emotional speech, outspoken commentator says what most Americans think of Iran deal, 'charlatan' Obama.
Outspoken political commentator and former Florida Congressman Allen West pulled no punches yesterday at a mega-rally against the Iran deal, slamming the Obama administration for its agreement with Tehran overthe Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
Speaking to at least 10,000 protesters at Wednesday's mega-rally in New York's Times Square, West tore into President Obama, deriding him as a "weakling" and a "charlatan," to enthusiastic applause.
Other speakers at the Stop Iran Rally spanned the political spectrum, including former New York Republican Governor George Pataki, and senior Democrat Alan Dershowitz.
"We're here as Americans to speak with one voice to say stop Iran now, reject this deal," Pataki said.
"This is a God-awful deal, this must be rejected. Congress must do its joband stand up for the American people, stand up for our safety and say no to this Iranian deal," he added.
Scholar Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, appealed to fellow liberals to side with Republican opposition.
"It is a bad deal for Democrats. It is a bad deal for liberals. I am here opposing this deal as a liberal Democrat," he declared.
He called the deal bad for America, bad for world peace and bad for the security of the Middle East.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment