Archives March 2008

OBAMA'S VIDEO MESSAGE TELLS ALL

Senator Barack Obama has been accused of speaking in ethereal terms, promoting hope and justice, rarely engaging in specifics about his proposed policies. That’s not exactly true.
There is a 52 second video floating around the Internet circuit in which the senator looks directly in the eye of the camera and announces his intentions about global weaponry and war systems, and what the United States would do if he were in the top position. 
Click here: YouTube
This is good. Now we know. Americans should listen closely to those 52 seconds because — in a few words — it tells us much about what to expect if this man ascends to the Oval Office.
Evaluate for yourself:
* He will end the war and immediately start pulling troops out. He’s already told us this. Ending the war is a good thing. We all want to see an end to the war. The questions remain, however: In what manner, how rapidly, will there be chaos, mass murders and destruction in the path, what will happen to the 100,000 civilian workers in Iraq, how will this affect the current government in place, and how will our image play out to the world community if we immediately abandon our commitment toward protecting and stabilizing the Iraqi people?
* He will impose massive cuts in defense spending, eliminate unproven missile systems, slow development of future combat systems and not weaponize space
* He will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, cease developing new weapons, seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and seek deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.
I must say, that sounds great. There could be nothing better than creating a world without war, without hate and without weapons, especially the nuclear variety.
If only the other nations would agree to do the same, and then keep their promises. If the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – plus the extreme factions of radical Islam everywhere — all agree to disarm and promise not to be aggressive, then we should believe what they say. Eh?
Does the name: Neville Chamberlain come to mind?
First of all, anyone who has read my writings knows I was opposed to the invasion from the start. That’s where my agreement with Obama comes to a halt. Right or wrong, we are there. We can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube. And as Colin Powell told us, “We break it, we have to fix it.”
A rapid departure from Iraq would exacerbate the situation by inciting a collapse of the Iraqi government which is not yet prepared to go it alone. Thousands of citizens would be sent to their deaths at the hands of rebels and al Qaeda, a blood bath between Sunnis and Shiites would ensue, and Iran — an avowed enemy of Israel — would be given an open door to take control. The people of the world — who already have a negative view of the United States — would loathe us even further for turning our backs and failing to keep the commitment we made to the Iraqi people.
“Sorry, Tariq. We changed our mind.”
Scaling down weapons and combat systems is also a great idea, if only everyone else would do the same. From all I have read, it’s doubtful that al Qaeda — nor other radical Islamic groups — will change their minds about bringing down the west. Iran’s leaders have sworn to destroy the state of Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to driving the Jews into the sea, which is consistent with the intentions of Palestinians — and most of the Arab world — since the inception of Israel in 1948. Nothing has changed there. Those commitments are etched in concrete.
Of course, some of these nations and/or extremist organizations might tell us one thing, then do another. If our leaders haven’t learned the lessons of history at this point, then they should not be our leaders.
Most every scholar and politician agrees that the fall of the Soviet Union was primarily a result of an unwavering position of strength on the part of the United States. In the 1980’s, had we scaled down our military, or slowed development of combat systems, or cut defense systems and reduced missiles, we would still be dealing with the Soviets as an “evil empire.”
Mr. Obama suggests that we should weaken?
Today, we are still at war — maybe it’s against radical Islam, maybe Iraqi rebels, maybe al Qaeda, maybe even Iran, but to be sure, foreign enemies are out there who are sworn to destroy the United States, by violence or subterfuge, from within or from outside. They’ve made that crystal clear. Those voices of hate and power cannot be ignored any more than the world should have ignored Mein Kampf. They are well armed and well financed. To propose weakening our defense systems at a time when we are constantly in fear of being under attack as we were on 9/11, is naive at best and utterly incompetent at worst.
I’m like everyone else. The people of this planet would love to see the eradication of nuclear weapons. So…let’s just agree to do it, right? Seeking deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal in the hopes that other countries will do the same can only be proposed by someone who still believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Madeline Albright is a liberal Democrat and no fan of George W. Bush. She said it best. In her book, Memo To The President Elect, the former Secretary of State writes, “If we disarm, and others cheat, we would be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.”
Blackmail would not be the worst of it — should others cheat.
I hope U.S. Congressman Steve King was dead wrong when (should Obama be elected) he told the Daily Reporter, “The radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11th, because they would declare victory in this war on terror.”
It’s one thing to have varied views regarding government. It’s another to live in La-la Land and self-destruct. Forget about all the other domestic issues. That 52 seconds of video tells us why electing Barack Obama to be our president is tantamount to national suicide.
But…he speaks so good.

OBAMA’S VIDEO MESSAGE TELLS ALL

Senator Barack Obama has been accused of speaking in ethereal terms, promoting hope and justice, rarely engaging in specifics about his proposed policies. That’s not exactly true.

There is a 52 second video floating around the Internet circuit in which the senator looks directly in the eye of the camera and announces his intentions about global weaponry and war systems, and what the United States would do if he were in the top position. 

Click here: YouTube

This is good. Now we know. Americans should listen closely to those 52 seconds because — in a few words — it tells us much about what to expect if this man ascends to the Oval Office.

Evaluate for yourself:

* He will end the war and immediately start pulling troops out. He’s already told us this. Ending the war is a good thing. We all want to see an end to the war. The questions remain, however: In what manner, how rapidly, will there be chaos, mass murders and destruction in the path, what will happen to the 100,000 civilian workers in Iraq, how will this affect the current government in place, and how will our image play out to the world community if we immediately abandon our commitment toward protecting and stabilizing the Iraqi people?

* He will impose massive cuts in defense spending, eliminate unproven missile systems, slow development of future combat systems and not weaponize space

* He will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, cease developing new weapons, seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, take ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and seek deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.

I must say, that sounds great. There could be nothing better than creating a world without war, without hate and without weapons, especially the nuclear variety.

If only the other nations would agree to do the same, and then keep their promises. If the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – plus the extreme factions of radical Islam everywhere — all agree to disarm and promise not to be aggressive, then we should believe what they say. Eh?

Does the name: Neville Chamberlain come to mind?

First of all, anyone who has read my writings knows I was opposed to the invasion from the start. That’s where my agreement with Obama comes to a halt. Right or wrong, we are there. We can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube. And as Colin Powell told us, “We break it, we have to fix it.”

A rapid departure from Iraq would exacerbate the situation by inciting a collapse of the Iraqi government which is not yet prepared to go it alone. Thousands of citizens would be sent to their deaths at the hands of rebels and al Qaeda, a blood bath between Sunnis and Shiites would ensue, and Iran — an avowed enemy of Israel — would be given an open door to take control. The people of the world — who already have a negative view of the United States — would loathe us even further for turning our backs and failing to keep the commitment we made to the Iraqi people.

“Sorry, Tariq. We changed our mind.”

Scaling down weapons and combat systems is also a great idea, if only everyone else would do the same. From all I have read, it’s doubtful that al Qaeda — nor other radical Islamic groups — will change their minds about bringing down the west. Iran’s leaders have sworn to destroy the state of Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are committed to driving the Jews into the sea, which is consistent with the intentions of Palestinians — and most of the Arab world — since the inception of Israel in 1948. Nothing has changed there. Those commitments are etched in concrete.

Of course, some of these nations and/or extremist organizations might tell us one thing, then do another. If our leaders haven’t learned the lessons of history at this point, then they should not be our leaders.

Most every scholar and politician agrees that the fall of the Soviet Union was primarily a result of an unwavering position of strength on the part of the United States. In the 1980’s, had we scaled down our military, or slowed development of combat systems, or cut defense systems and reduced missiles, we would still be dealing with the Soviets as an “evil empire.”

Mr. Obama suggests that we should weaken?

Today, we are still at war — maybe it’s against radical Islam, maybe Iraqi rebels, maybe al Qaeda, maybe even Iran, but to be sure, foreign enemies are out there who are sworn to destroy the United States, by violence or subterfuge, from within or from outside. They’ve made that crystal clear. Those voices of hate and power cannot be ignored any more than the world should have ignored Mein Kampf. They are well armed and well financed. To propose weakening our defense systems at a time when we are constantly in fear of being under attack as we were on 9/11, is naive at best and utterly incompetent at worst.

I’m like everyone else. The people of this planet would love to see the eradication of nuclear weapons. So…let’s just agree to do it, right? Seeking deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal in the hopes that other countries will do the same can only be proposed by someone who still believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Madeline Albright is a liberal Democrat and no fan of George W. Bush. She said it best. In her book, Memo To The President Elect, the former Secretary of State writes, “If we disarm, and others cheat, we would be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.”

Blackmail would not be the worst of it — should others cheat.

I hope U.S. Congressman Steve King was dead wrong when (should Obama be elected) he told the Daily Reporter, “The radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11th, because they would declare victory in this war on terror.”

It’s one thing to have varied views regarding government. It’s another to live in La-la Land and self-destruct. Forget about all the other domestic issues. That 52 seconds of video tells us why electing Barack Obama to be our president is tantamount to national suicide.

But…he speaks so good.

BEWARE THE BACKLASH VOTE

There is an old saying about watching out what you wish for. You might get it.

Very often, new presidents are elected, not because people vote for a candidate, rather, they vote against a candidate. I fear that’s what will happen in 2008.

Those of us over fifty will well remember. By the time 1976 came around, the national electorate had become so mired with negativity within the Nixon administration, we were ready for a change at any cost. Decent as he was, Gerald Ford’s two year stint did nothing to alleviate the image of the Republican party which had sunk to its lowest of depths following the Watergate scandal, the embarrassment of Spiro Agnew, the administration jailbirds and the whole Nixon enchilada. “Out with the Republicans, those dirty bastards.”

In 1976, we desperately sought honesty. We wanted morality. We wanted a new squeaky clean image. We wanted pacification, not aggression. We wanted compassion not intolerance. We wanted a uniter, not a divider. The nation was ready for a “change.” (Hmm…that word sounds familiar)

We got what we wanted. Jimmy Carter.

Whoops!

Now, 2008 is a mirror image of 1976. Americans are fed up with G.W. Bush and his lot, including Dick Cheney and the Republican party in general. Corrupt officials. A sagging economy. Immigration crises. Radical Islam rooting in. Questionable motives for the Iraq war. Our credibility around the world is at an all-time low. By all means, we should demand “change.” Again, people will be going to the polls, not necessarily voting for, but voting against.

Watch out, you might get what you wish for.

During the four years following Carter’s election, he would show the world how the Republicans had it all wrong. He’d fix it. Well, we certainly got a moral man in the White House. Blinded by passion and frustration, the voters also got an inept president whose policies plunged the nation into new depths of economic instability and an international image that was damaging to say the least.

Hand-out programs flourished. Taxpayers suffered. Inflation soared from 4.8 percent in 1976 to nearly 12 percent in 1980. The deficit jumped from $27.7 billion to $59 billion. Unemployment rose to 7.7 percent. People were out of work, and the cost of living spiraled out of control. By the end of his term, Gallup Polls has his approval rating hovering at 21 percent.

While Carter brokered a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, little else was accomplished on the international front. His cutbacks in military spending helped embolden the Soviet Union to become an even mightier foe. The Ayatollah ousted the Shah of Iran and ushered in a new wave of Islamic extremism throughout the world, which the non-Islamic world is dealing with to this very day. The hostage crisis brought the U.S. to its knees, showing the world we were a paper tiger. Fidel Castro pulled off a coup, opening the doors to Cuban jails, prisons, mental institutions, hospitals and the handicapped and sending them all off to the shores of Florida for the U.S. to deal with. Carter — Mr. Nice Guy — welcomed 125,000 Cuban refugees via the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, creating an unprecedented economic and social crisis, not to mention a crime wave that saw murders and rapes double and triple in certain parts of the country. I know. I was there.

What a guy.

Volumes have been written about Carter’s failure in office. Suffice to say, he was elected as a backlash against a political party Americans desperately wanted out of power. The same is about to happen in 2008.

I’m as disappointed as the next person with the final choices in this campaign. There were other candidates with substance on both sides of the aisle that I preferred over these three. Be that as it may, we must choose smartly. History teaches us to avoid emotion when making such serious decisions. Rather, we must use common sense and heed the lessons we’ve learned over time.

This coming election may well be the most vital of all time for the survival of America. We can’t afford to get it wrong — again.

The Perennial Race Card

Enough, already.

“Racial divide.” “Racial harmony.” Racial prejudice.” “Racial this, racial that.”

Until this presidential season, I’ve never heard so much racial bantering since the civil rights movement of thirty and forty years ago. This is supposed to be a good thing?

The media walks on egg shells. Politicians carefully choke over their rhetoric. Whites dare not utter a word that can be remotely interpreted as… (Oh God no!) “Racist!” In today’s America, it is a worse stigma to be labeled a racist, than a serial killer.

Barack Obama is a brilliant man. He stands on his feet and dazzles people with oratory. Yet, his greatest defense weapon, is just being black. If someone utters a truism about him that is not favorable, watch out. You could be labeled a “racist!”

Geraldine Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position…He happens to be very lucky who he is, and the country is caught up in the concept.”

She’s a racist? Well, Mr. Obama thinks so, so does the media and much of the black community. They came out shooting with both barrels. Ms. Ferraro stepped down from the Hillary campaign as an instant liability, who dared to tell the truth. Can anyone deny that Ms. Ferraro was wrong? Who dares to stand up for her, that has a job they want to keep?

On ABC’s Good Morning America, she also bashed the Obama campaign for criticizing her, saying that “every time” someone makes a negative comment about Obama, they are accused of racism. She had even stronger words for the Daily Breeze, the newspaper in Torrance, California. “Racism works in two different directions,” she said. “I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

Well, Ms. Ferraro isn’t running for office or trying to keep a job, so the muzzle is off.

The problem with America is no one wants to hear the truth any more. They want image, and fluff and the tooth fairy.

Not long ago, Hillary Clinton took racially charged flak over her statement, “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

Excuse me, but I fail to see the racism in that remark. It happens to be true. Yet, the racist powers-to-be fired off with both barrels again causing a media fury and a presidential candidate to tap dance until she explained herself hoarse.

We’re not just getting over sensitive, we are losing sight of reality. Playing the race card in America is effective, so why not?

Barack Obama’s speech following the Pastor Wright controversy was laden with racial references that, frankly, had nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue was Wright’s consistent anti-American rhetoric, his damnation of America, Obama’s cozy relationship with him and his church for last twenty years. Yet, the speech was all about racial divide, and the race of his mother, and the race of his father, and the race of the nation, as though that all had anything to do with the criticism he was defending.

I’m sick of hearing about racial divide.

I’m one of those Americans who lived through the civil rights transition. As a police officer in the 1960’s, I witnessed racism in it’s purest forms, in the streets, in the department staffing, and in local government.

We’ve come a long way. Today, government agencies everywhere are employing Hispanics, blacks, women and whites on equal terms. We have had two Secretaries of State who happen to be black. Many CEO’s of major corporations are black. Army generals are black. The sports, music and entertainment industries have made multi-millionaires of young people of all races. We have a national holiday named after a great black man in honor of his contributions to society. Contrary to my youth, young people today are color blind growing up in an integrated society. There certainly was a racial divide, but America has been on the road to correcting that, and it has come around beyond the wildest dreams of many. Constantly referring to the “racial divide” only mires the nation back into just that: Division.

No, I don’t know the feeling of being stopped by cops just because I’m black. I’ve never been discriminated against because of my color. But I have been discriminated against because of my ethnic heritage, so I have a good understanding. So do women, Hispanics and Jews, Asians and mid-easterners. Bigot victimization is not the sole domain of black people.

I can relate to Ms. Ferraro. I worked in an organization where I had to watch what I said publicly. Now, I seek no office, no job and no special consideration, so the muzzle is off. It feels great. It fosters truth, even when the truth hurts. It’s the freedom of speech our forefathers wrote about in 1791.

Good thing there weren’t any eggshells back then.

OBAMA MISQUOTE DISCREDITS BLOGGERS

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Pretty scary, coming from a U.S. Senator running for President of the United States.

That quote from Barack Obama’s book, The Audacity Of Hope, is splattered all over the Internet, particularly on hundreds of blogging sites and e-mails, denigrating the senator and pleading with folks to prevent his ascension to the Oval Office, at all costs.

First, my position: I am opposed to the election of Mr. Obama, for a number of reasons. I feel an Obama presidency would be a major mistake. I am not among those who are aglow with oratory eloquence and charisma that so often electrifies people into a false sense of love and security. To my way of thinking, there are too many red flags about the man which causes great skepticism.

But, for the sake of blogger credibility and honest reporting, I must stand up for the senator in this one issue. The quotation is incorrect and totally out of context. Such spreading of false statements cause great damage to the credibility of those who try to impart valid information.

I obtained a copy of The Audacity Of Hope for the expressed purpose of seeing for myself that if this was true. After all, it is cited in hundreds of web sites. Sure enough, on page 261, Senator Obama writes about the problems of profiling and discrimination against American citizens of mid-east descent. This is the exact text:

“In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly: they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during WWII, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

It is clear that Senator Obama did not use the term “Muslims,” anywhere in the paragraph. He was referring to American Arabs and Pakistanis, in general, thousands of whom have resided in this country for decades. Some have fought and defended this country in uniform. Some may be Muslim, some may be Christian.

It saddens me because I am one of those bloggers who seeks trust from my readers, who tries to ensure accuracy in whatever I impart, and who is angry at incompetents who try to sway public opinion by manipulating and skewing facts that are not facts at all. It hurts us all.

Sometime in the future, I may write a more comprehensive article on the reasons why I feel Barack Obama would be a mistake for America. Whether you agree with the opinion or not, I will assure my readers that any and all information within is verifiable.

Meanwhile, be careful about believing everything that comes across your e-mail circuit. The Obama candidacy — or any candidacy — would benefit from becoming the victim of wrongful accusations.