A Soldier's General

Having read the Rolling Stone piece on General McChrystal and measured that against the press reports, I am confused. Yes, the General's staff had some colorful descriptions of Obama's advisors. The article did not have the General saying outrageous statements which would have guaranteed his "canning." On the contrary, the article is a description of a General in charge of an operation of his own creation, how he has to fight for that operation and the disagreements that he has with the current administration. One could hardly say this was an attack on the administration but more of an explanation of the two forces at work.

McChrystal comes off as a soldier's general. A man who is not afraid to get into the middle of a firefight, who arrives at the front without a entourage, and one who cares for his guys. When his guys do not understand the reason for certain actions, he takes the time to go out and address them.

Yes, I guess that is a positive view of the General which generally runs contrary to the current view of our President who would not get into a firefight, does not care for the people of the United States and would not take time to sit down with people and take suggestions from those in the know. He surrounds himself with "yes" men and cannot stomach any disagreement with his ideas. (Although he profess the opposite.)

McChrystal is not a "yes" man. He is a man of action, who knows what he wants to achieve and goes out and tries to accomplish it. It is a shame that Obama feels the need to pump up his own testosterone by firing the General. It will not be good for the war in Afghanistan or the soldiers fighting there.

Agree or disagree, I would like to hear from you.

Thomas Sowell's Thought Provoking Article

Today in Investors.com Thomas Sowell writes a very thought provoking article on the BP "shakedown" orchestrated by President Obama. Whether you agree with Mr. Sowell or President Obama, it is worthwhile to consider the impact that the demand to set up a fund of $20 Billion is legal. BP and its subcontractors are undoubtedly responsible for the spill, however, I do not understand the Presidential power that allows him to extract the money from the company. Are there any circumstances which might mitigate the responsibility? How was that number arrived at? Will 100% of those dollars go to the effected parties or will some of it find its way to Obama supporters? What audit will there be of these funds?

Regardless, as Mr. Sowell says, we are a country of laws, not men. BP, et all, has not been found guilty by a jury of their peers and yet they have been found guilty and punished without a trial. Would we execute someone who was captured on video killing someone without a trial? BP could be run out of business by this spill and the "fund." It that right?

Now before you jump through the wires to hang me, let me make a couple things perfectly clear. First of all, BP should pay for the cleanup of the Gulf and beaches as well as the damage to wildlife and income to the residents of the area. Secondly, I have been very concerned that no one at BP seems to know how to stop the leak and the government should encourage others to come forward with ideas to help "plug the hole" also at BP's expense.

BP must be held responsible but not through demands, but rather through the courts.

What do you think?

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

THOMAS SOWELL - Investors.com, June 22nd, 2010

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.”

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.”

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis” — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for the relief of the German people.”

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed “czars” controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the “useful idiots” of our time. But useful to whom?

We Need To Declare War On The Gulf Oil Spill

After listening to President Obama's mealy mouth, woefully poor speech the other night, I woke up last night thinking about what I would have said had I been in the Oval Office. My approach would have been to "declare war on the spill' bringing together all the creativity and "get er done" attitude that exemplifies the American spirit and exceptional ism. Here are some of the points that I would have covered:

a. I would immediately establish a clearing house for ideas on cleaning up the oil. Suggestions would be submitted to a committee of marine and environmental engineers with the instructions to encourage "out of the box" solutions. Decisions would be given an immediate yes or no in no less than a week. If the decision was positive, the entrepreneur suggesting the plan would be given a week to be on scene in the Gulf at an assigned location. He/she would be given a week for initial progress report. An evaluation would be made if there would be additional time given. If successful, payment would be based upon several criteria all depending the amount of oil removed from the Gulf.

We have already seen many ideas by people like Kevin Costner who has developed a machine to remove oil from water. When the leak occurred, he called the White House and offered his machines, he was rebuffed. I understand that BP has now ordered 30+ machines now. This is just one example of machines available now which could have helped to minimize the damage to the Gulf. Did we hear anything like that from the President?

b. I would immediately authorize ships from around the world to work on the oil spill. At last count there were over 3o nations that offered oil skimmers, ships and equipment to help control the spill. Obama has told them, no.

c. I would immediately authorize the dredging of the Gulf and creating berms to prevent the oil from getting into the marshes. Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana has been asking for this for weeks. Why did it take weeks?

d. I would authorize payment to the shrimpers and crabbers in Louisiana and Florida to use their boats to put out the booms and to assist the people who were approved by the clearinghouse. Why are we we not using these boats already in the area? Also why is the firm in Maine, not being allowed to ship the booms they have made? We need all hands on deck whereever they live.

e. I would authorize the use unemployed workers to clean beaches, birds and do whatever work was necessary to return the Gulf to its previous condition. Why are we not encouraging the unemployed to work on a project? Is this not a "shovel ready" project? We could use them to monitor the work being done by the project approved by the clearinghouse. We already are paying them unemployment, it would not cost us any more. We might also move some of the FEMA trailers from New Orleans to house these people.

f. I would immediately authorize the continued drilling in the Gulf. Any platform that was in place would continue. All drilling would continue under strict Coast Guard and Mineral review.

g. I would immediately order the Coast Guard to inspect all skimmers operating in the Gulf for safety. These inspections would be done while the skimmers were in operation. If there were not enough life vests or fire extinguishers or other equipment, they would be provided by the government. There should be no suspension of work while these inspections are on going.

h. I would authorize a non-governmental investigation of the cause of the fire on the rig. No government wonks blowing smoke. We need to find out why the fire started, why the fire was not allowed to burn and why the rig was sunk. We also need to find out what procedures should be in place on similar platforms and what preventative measures should be taken anytime we are drilling in these deep waters. The investigation must be done by those who have in depth knowledge of drilling rigs operating in deep water. For example, it should include everyday people like tool pushers who understand that operation . BP should also be represented.

i. And lastly, I would have never talked about cap and trade at this time. We are in a war. A war with an enemy that keeps oozing to the surface, covering the Gulf with the black goo and killing birds and other marine life. We can beat this enemy but it will take the same imagination and determination that Americans showed in the early days of WWII. We cannot do it by creating new government programs. We cannot do it when we stop local governments from acting in the interests of their citizens. We must break down the bureaucracy, get it out of the way. We cannot do it with off-the-shelf ideas, we need creativity. We must be willing to try new ideas, new remedies and yes, maybe seemingly crazy plans. We can do it but we need a leader to express the American exceptional ism that I know there is.


President Obama failed on all levels. He did not inspire, he did not have a plan, and he had no new ideas. All he has is more government programs. I do not know about you, but for me, Americans have always been able to conquer adversity if only allowed to do it on their own. It is time the President learned that.

Joran van der Sloot

One can only wonder how many other girls van der Sloot has attacked and potentially killed in the past five years since he is alleged to have killed Natale Holloway. Obviously he is very quick witted and cagey but even the worst criminal soon gets caught which seems to be happening in Peru. However, the one question that no one seems to be asking--are there any other victims? Where is the vaunted media? Why are they not asking this question? If you Google"other van der Sloot victims" you see a couple articles but nothing much else. Why I ask? Someone as sick as this man definitely has issues and to think that he has only attacked and killed two girls would be very superficial. So if any reporters read this, get on your hobby horse and find out more details.

Another issue of this case that baffles me is the involvement of the FBI. Why on earth, did they deliver him $25,000 in "hopes" of finding the remains of Natale. This guy will continue to lead all investigators around the mulberry bush for as long as he can. He will confess and then recant. He will tell them he has all the details and then change his mind. Why would you ever want to deal with this type of scum? Joran van der Sloot is only in it for himself. He does not care about anyone that he has hurt. He is an international murder and dealing with him is like trying to get your hands on the wind. He will tell you what you want to hear as long as it is in his best interests. Had he not been captured on video, he would have gotten away with this also. But the "fat lady" has not sung yet on Joran van der Sloot. My fear is that he will find a way to escape this case also, then he will have two families (or more) to get money from.

The families and the FBI should never deal with this guy and hopefully his Karma will catch up with him! We can only hope.

Who would rent Obama's College Apartment?

Today, I opened up my Yahoo! browser and found an article that baffles me. Who would ever want to rent Obama's apartment? I suppose if you were this big Obama Freak and wanted to be closer to your hero, I guess that might be one reason. Or if someone was caught up with celebrity (is he really one?), that might be another. However, for those of sane individuals who might still exist in this country, I cannot see any reason. It is a cramped old apartment with few amenities although it does have wood floors!

Are we so deprived of joy in our lives today that we have to live our lives through celebrities, near celebrities (reality show pimps) and anyone who might be more interesting than the way we view ourselves? If so, "get a life." Find something interesting and make your life interesting. Stop wishing we were like these people. I have news for you, most of them are very plastic, as shallow as tin foil and as interesting as watching paint dry. Of course, there are some who are very real, but the majority are not! In fact, in most cases, you are more interesting than they are!

So next time you see a celebrity, whether it is President Obama or Cher, realize they put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you! They are not more important or more interesting than you. Most of these celebrities pine for the day they did not have the fame and the trappings that come with it. How would you like to be followed 24/7 by photographers? Celebrity is not what it is made up to be by the press. Yes, they may have money or fame, but what they have given up is a "personal" personal life.


And getting back to the apartment, who cares if the President lived there? Do you really think that his charma will rub off on you? Will it make you more interesting? Will it make you rich or successful? I doubt it. I repeat "get a life."

Gulf Oil and contribution

Obama until late has been very quiet when it comes to the oil spill in the Gulf. According to press releases, he is "monitoring" the situation and allowing BP to take the lead in the solving the problem. Only lately has the White House started to take a more visible approach. This occurs after Obama's popularity and job performance numbers keep falling like a sinking ship. Yesterday in the Los Angeles Times comes an article which sort of explains the tepid response by our Commander in Chief. Seems that Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats are up to their ears in complications with BP. Could not happen to a better bunch of guys. And on top of that, seems that the Interior Department last year (yes, that is '09--well after Bush left office) exempted BP from an environmental study. Could that be the result of money and influence? That would not happen in this crystal clear transparent administration!!

The article is entitled "The ties that bind. Remember Rahm Emanuel's rent-free D. C. apartment? The owner: A BP advisor." June 7, 2010 posted at 3:34 pm.

So what do you think?

I just read an article by Charles Krauthammer and it blew me a way so much that I have to repeat it here. He nails the Obama foreign policy misadventure better than anyone I have read. For those of you who still believe in "change", you are getting it with both barrels and America is going to pay for it. We are no longer a Tiger, even a Paper Tiger, we are yesterdays newpaper and you know where that goes! Are you as upset as I am? Please let others know what you feel!

The Fruits of Weakness

Charles Krauthammer - Townhall, May 21st, 2010

WASHINGTON — It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.

It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak — no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil — both current members of the Security Council — are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.

But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.

The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.

That picture — a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam — is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.

They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.

They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama “reset” policy).

They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant — sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. “engagement.”

They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American “Bolivarian” coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat — accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.

Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any “world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another.” (NATO? The West?)

Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.

Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985