Month: October 2009

Sadly, Reagan IS Dead…but God Isn’t

I originally posted this piece on RedState, but I’m going to elaborate more in this post.

My Short Conversation with Mary Fallin

I’ll admit, I’m not real savvy when it comes to Mary Fallin, but I can tell you she is the representative for Okalhoma’s fifth district, has voted in favor of Big Oil, voted against a Climate Change Committee, and is an avid supporter of our military. And, at the Navy Birthday Ball in Oklahoma City a couple weeks ago, I got the privilege to speak with her. Our conversation was brief, but very encouraging.

After I thanked her for her stand against health care reform, I voiced my concern about the Democrats and my suspicion that, being Democrats, they’ll start to find (create) “problems” with how votes are cast or counted, or how elections have been grossly unfair in the past, or…whatever they can think of in order to get some sort of “Voting Reform” in play in time for the 2010 elections. (I left out the part about my being prone to conspiracy theories, but I’m pretty sure she picked up on it.)

Her reply?

“We’ll be OK, God is still on the throne.”

Now, for staunch members of the Armchair Politician Community, her answer might not suffice, but for anyone who understands true conservatism, her answer was spot-on.

The Republican party needs more Mary Fallins and Sarah Palins. Not because they are women, and not because they tell it like it is, but because they haven’t hollowed out the core of conservatism-that core being God.

The conservative movement is becoming a force to be reckoned with, but will it be enough? Just this week I heard a man call into Rush’s show and lament that Rush was “our only hope”. Hearing this, I pounded my steering wheel and shouted, “And therein lies our problem! We are no different than the libs if we think our salvation-this country’s salvation- lies in the hands of a man!” Don’t get me wrong, I am not minimizing what Rush has done for the conservative movement. In fact, I contend that, for all practical purposes, we wouldn’t have much of a conservative movement if it weren’t for him.

But there are those who call themselves conservatives and extol the virtues of Reaganism, but wouldn’t be caught dead saying something like this (though it desperately needs to be said)…

“We Americans are blessed in so many ways. We’re a nation under God, a living and loving God. But Thomas Jefferson warned us, ‘I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.’ We cannot expect Him to protect us in crisis if we turn away from Him in our everyday living. But you know, He told us what to do in II Chronicles. Let us reach out to Him. He said, ‘If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land’.” ~R. Reagan

The fact is, those who want to bring back the Reagan Era while omitting the very core values Reagan held, will be sorely disappointed. I contend that it is not only a mistake to think we can stop Obama’s break-neck sprint into socialism (fascism, communism…pick one) with a watered-down, Godless Reaganism, but it is also an exercise in false hope.

That conservatives want to protect American liberty is noble. That conservatives want a limited government that will adhere to the Constitution is admirable. But a Godless conservative movement with lots of steam, good policies, and some great talking points, will have very little staying power if it is not fueled with the Truth. We’ll have our tea parties, our Joe the Plumbers, and, if we’re lucky, a few more Sarah Palins, but if this nation continues to turn away from God, we will have no guarantee that the One who holds the universe will have our backs. We wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for Him, and we sure as heck aren’t going to survive without Him. It’s that simple.

There hasn’t been a nation yet that has been able to withstand the assault of a determined communist movement. And, for the record, communism (along with all the other despotic “isms”) is an ideology that demands, not only the eradication of individual liberty, but also the eradication of the God who grants that liberty. With this in mind, it is important to note that every nation that has fallen to communism had, over time, become Godless (with a big “G”). Quite simply, Godless nations cannot defeat an ideology hell-bent on destroying God-given liberties. It would be a little like asking Michael Moore to defeat obesity.

This brings us to our current conundrum. For reasons far too numerous for this post, gone are the days of America calling itself a Christian nation. That said, what makes us think we can hold back the tide of communism any better than the countries who have succumbed in the past? Tea Party Expresses, calling our congressmen, making our voices heard through our votes, and even listening to Rush, while valiant efforts, are small arms in what is truly a spiritual war.

“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” 2 Corinthians 10:4

I’d say a pathological liar for a president, a gaggle of a moral malcontents for czars, and a leftist Democrat congress are considerable strongholds. And, make no mistake, our current leaders do not care how much public support we manage to muster at tea parties or on Fox News. Despots don’t plan their steps based on the polls. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao handled dissent with humiliation, intimidation, coercion, and violence. Obama and his henchmen will do much the same.

A tea party won’t cut it. We need something bigger. We need Someone bigger.

Reagan had much to contend with, but he didn’t have this scale of evil worming its way through his country. Even so, he repeatedly pointed this country back to its roots-back to the foundation of its founding…back to what he knew was the only avenue of victory for American greatness and liberty.

We are never defeated unless we give up on God.” ~R. Reagan

It isn’t Reagan’s policies that should be restored and infused into this nation, but, rather, his zeal for and faith in God.

Reagan is dead; God isn’t.

Nobel Criteria Favors Despots: Obama Shoe-In

Obama Wins Peace Prize To Mixed Reviews

There are no words, truly, for the rampant lunacy surrounding this man.

OSLO (Reuters) – President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world “hope for a better future” and striving for nuclear disarmament, in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” But critics — especially in parts of the Arab and Muslim world — called its decision premature.

I have to ask, what more do these towel heads want? They’ve got a U.S. president who has turned the war in Afghanistan into a game of military Duck Hunt, kissed Ahmadinejad’s ring, and upgraded the status of the detainees in Gitmo to that of foreign diplomats. Are militant Muslims never happy?

Obama’s press secretary woke him with the news before dawn and the president felt “humbled” by the award, a senior administration official said.

 

When told in an email from Reuters that many people around the world were stunned by the announcement, Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, responded: “As are we.”

Humbled my arse. It’s pretty safe to say he lept out of bed mumbling, “It’s about damn time.”

And Obama surprised about this? That’s like saying he was surprised to find out ACORN needed another in service on how to vet pimps and prostitutes.

“Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said in a citation.

This translates: We are positively giddy over Obama’s success. We’ve been waiting decades to award the Prize to the man who would finally bring down America.We know it seems premature, but he had us at “nationalized healthcare”.

The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and opposes a peace treaty with Israel, said the award was premature at best.

 

“Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward,” said Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri. “Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace. And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes.”

What Zuhri means here is that Obama better step up his plans to help the Muslim world wipe Israel off the map. Then, and only then, will Obama be worthy of the Nobel in Allah’s eyes.

The the Nobel committee defended its decision.

Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland rejected suggestions from journalists that Obama was getting the prize too early, saying it recognized what he had already done over the past year.

“We hope this can contribute a little bit to enhance what he is trying to do,” he told a news conference.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize: One must unabashedly pander to the despots of the world, apologize for America’s foibles, and hand American sovereignty over to the UN on a silver platter. I’d say Obama nailed this one…and that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is a bunch of blathering idiots.

Breaking no new historic ground,

Obama, laid out his vision for eliminating nuclear arms in a speech in Prague in April. But he was not the first American president to set that goal, and acknowledged it might not be reached in his lifetime.

Ya think?

By the way, history speaks against the attempt of eliminating arms. In 1928 the American Secretary of State, Frank B. Kellogg, promoted a Peace Pact which he invited all members of the League of Nations to sign. The Peace Pact was aimed at outlawing war and keeping Germany as impotent as possible: “The unqualified renunciation of all war as an instrument of national policy.” Kellogg wanted to avoid another World War. Nothing wrong with that.

However, not everyone in the League wanted to sign off on it (FYI, the French thought it was a dandy idea.) Eliminating war sounds good, but human nature dictates its impossibility. As every leader in the world knows…that is, except Obama…you can trust your neighboring dictator about as far as you can throw his fat aunt. Hence the need for arms.

And while the world thought Germany was being restrained under the League’s thumb, and while Kellogg promoted his Peace Pact, the Germans were in Russia and Sweden building up their army, manufacturing tanks and airplanes, and perfecting their chemical warfare skills. Oh, and the rest of Europe was doing pretty much the same thing.

See the pattern? Obama, absurdly enough, thinks Iran takes him seriously about the whole nuke thing. And while he disciples Ahmadinejad on the finer points of peace, Iran, along with the rest of the malcontents around the world, are mixing up plutonium Coyote Ugly style.

And, oddly (though not surprisingly) enough, to the Nobel committee, this is a good thing. And Muslims are critical of their choice of Obama because…?

So, to recap: The purpose behind handing the fascist rookie, Obama, the Nobel is to encourage him to keep up the good work. They want to secure his continued cooperation in tearing down America along with any nation remotely as free. They know he hasn’t really done jack yet, but they know an egoist when they see one. Throw a few trinkets his way and he’ll be putty in their hands…and America will be trampled under their feet.

What does this mean for our country? Well, now every thug around the world who has wanted to see the U.S. brought to its knees has just secured our president as their biggest ally. It also means our troops are screwed, and that they’ll probably be sporting UN uniforms faster than you can say, “Allah wills it!”.

The only difference between 1928 and today is that Germany at least feared America enough to hide what they were doing. Ahmadinejad, fearing America like Oprah fears a Twinkie, not only publicly boasts about the nuclear program that Obama so limp-wristedly told them to scrap, but markets it as well: “Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”

And, it is precisely because the despots of the world have decided to nuke-up that the Nobel committee would have done well not to have awarded a budding despot the Prize for making us all unsafe as hell…and that includes the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Obama Throws America and Her Troops Under an Afghani Bus

American Troops Losing Heart in Afghanistan

This is unconscionable. Our troops have lost hope because we have a stark raving mad, narcissistic fascist for a president. (Did I leave anything out?)

It is gut-wrenching to see our soldiers demoralized like this. And, trust me, it is maddeningly infuriating to be married to an active duty military member whose commander in chief is not only frighteningly incompetent, but sadistically and pathologically dangerous as well. This man has no love for this country. He feels no duty toward our troops.

The short list is this:

Obama is intentionally and methodically making our troops vulnerable to the enemy.

Obama is intentionally and methodically destroying our economy.

Obama is intentionally and methodically killing what’s left of the American work ethic.

Obama is intentionally and methodically creating a racially divisive America.

Obama is intentionally and methodically taking away the liberty of Americans.

Obama is intentionally and methodically destroying this great country.

And he still sleeps like a (spoiled) baby at night.

Make no mistake, it is a non-issue to Obama that the American people do not support his version of Commie-Fascism or his blatant disregard for the military. Obama does not care about poll numbers. Like Mussolini, he knows you don’t need popular opinion to pull off a bloodless revolution, just enough gullible accomplices to get the ball rolling. Oh, and some fascist thugs who are willing to intimidate and beat people up…to get the ball rolling.

So, while our troops lose heart because they have been abandoned by their commander in chief; while they serve and suffer under a president who is turning out to be a bigger enemy than Al Qaeda, Obama further destroys America from within with his vapid rhetoric, his clandestine congress, and his manipulative benevolence toward the Hand Out Crowd who line up for his “free” money (aka, My Money).

This is not what our service men signed up for.

This once great nation, America, the land of freedom and endless possibility, that is what our men in uniform volunteered to defend. It would be disheartening, indeed, to be this man…

…and realize that your own commander in chief was tearing down the very things you’ve sacrificed to defend.

Who Is More Qualified To Call the Shots In Afghanistan? You Decide.

**Update** Although this post is nearly six years old, the disparity between the honor and courage of our military and the entitled, tresonous petulance of their Commander in Chief remains the same.

So, here’s the rub from the UK Telegraph:

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.

When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”

He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”

Apparently McChrystal pulling rank on Obama didn’t go over so well with the talking heads at the White House.

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

Nice to see that “some in the Obama administration” are able to grasp the obvious.

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.

A military expert said: “They still have working relationship but all in all it’s not great for now.”

That might be because McChrystal, the man in charge of keeping the free world safe, has dutifully asked his commander in chief for permission to win and all he’s getting is a back seat to Obama’s PR schedule.

But it gets better:

Some commentators regarded the general’s London comments as verging on insubordination.

FYI, ‘commentator’ as defined in the Leftist Media Lexicon (LML) is: “Any random person who acts as an armchair expert on a subject he knows nothing about. Can be a tenured news anchor, Hollywood activist, or the poor disgruntled schlub writing the story. Commentators need no credentials because that would require ‘vetting’, and, according to the LML, vetting is, “not practiced on members of the media or anyone the media proclaims is a commentator”.

Oftentimes, the ‘commentator’ is someone from the academic world:

Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements.”

Constitutional and lawyer…now there’s an oxymoron. Given the Left’s propensity for getting really credible ‘commentators’, I highly suspect Mr. Ackerman also thinks the Constitution implicitly states a president can take over the private sector.

Relations between the general and the White House began to sour when his report, which painted a grim picture of the allied mission in Afghanistan, was leaked. White House aides have since briefed against the general’s recommendations.

Now, here’s some hubris: The White House briefed “against the general’s recommendations”.

Which leads us to this question: Just who is more qualified to call the shots in Afghanistan, the general who is actually in Afghanistan, or our spoiled, man-child president who was stupid enough to use his outside voice when he said, “I’m not interested in victory”?

This question can only be answered by a comparison of the two men.

May I present Barack Obama and General McChrystal.

McChrystal:

Obama:

McChrystal’s work environment:

Obama’s work environment:

McChrystal on the front lines:

Obama on the front lines:

McChrystal’s world

Obama’s world

In case you missed that, McChrystal’s world:

Obama’s:

McChrystal’s enemy:

Obama’s enemy:

What McChrystal fights for:

What Obama fights for:

McChrystal’s men:

Obama’s men:

An average day for McChrystal, his men, and their Commander in Chief. Now might be a good time to say a prayer for your military.

Obama: “If McChrystal Was a Gay, Tax-Evading Liberal, He Could Have All the Troops He Wanted.”

Obama has refused to quickly approve a request from his commanders for a major troop build-up in Afghanistan, insisting first on a full vetting of the current strategy.

Democrats vetting military strategy? That’s tantamount to Courtney Love vetting your baby sitter. Frightening doesn’t even begin to cover it.

I’m not real impressed with the Democrats and their vetting skills. Call me picky, but didn’t they vet Rahm Emanuel, tax fraud aficionado? And didn’t Timothy Guietner come away from his vetting with two enthusiastic thumbs up even though he, like Emanuel, blew off paying his taxes?

Of course, sometimes the vetting does get a bit sloppy, as in the case of Van Jones, who, according to the White House:

“…was not as thoroughly vetted as other administration officials,” the official said. “It’s fair to say there were unknowns.”

Actually, it’s fair to say they forgot to tell him to keep his raving communist tendencies under wraps.

And let’s not forget Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. This guy was obviously vetted by Barney Frank. Jennings’ claim to fame is being the founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) and the brain child behind teaching school kids the fine art of “fisting“. Did I mention that he is in charge of ‘safe’ schools?

Needless to say, if I were McChrystal and I was told by a gaggle of Democrats that they wanted to vet my military strategy, I’d give them the driving finger as I walked, locked and loaded, to my Humvee to kill some bad guys.

Obama to IOC: I Am the First Black President Of the U.S. I Won. I Get the Games

Will Tepid Support in Chicago Derail the City’s Olympic Chances?

For the record, the headline should read, “Tepid Support in Chicago Ensures Obama Wants Olympics.”

To understand why Obama has added another leg to his “It’s All About Me” tour and flown to Denmark to pitch Chicago as the site of the 2016 Olympics despite the fact that the majority of its citizens don’t want it, one must have a working knowledge of how Obama processes public opinion.

In the Obama regime, ” tepid support” is considered “Unanimous!”, and the sentiment, “Mr. President, we really-seriously-not kidding-check the polls- don’t want nationalized health care”, is interpreted as “Hola! Bring it on!” (Or “Screw you.” if you pressed ‘one’ for English.)

Bottom line: Public opinion, in Obama’s America, is a non-issue, because, as our spoiled man-child leader has reminded us (ad nauseum), “I won…I am president.”

He probably calls, “Shot gun!” when he runs to the limo.

Using this rubric, one can see how Chicagoans grumbling about having their city become the trolling ground for foreigners who are mad at us because we abandoned the free world and foreigners who now love us…because we abandoned the free world, would lead to Obama sauntering up to the IOC to sing the praises of Chicago hosting the games.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Chicago, pride in America, or even the Olympic Games themselves. This has everything to do with Obama and the amount of face-time he will get if the games are in “his” country.

Again, it doesn’t matter that a large segment of Chicago’s population doesn’t want the games on their turf; what matters is Obama wants the games on his turf.