I often find myself wondering in my studies of history what the voice of someone might have sounded like. It’s easy for us now since the age of the phonograph began and recordings have been made to hear the tone of people’s voices in the last hundred years. But what about before?
They say Abraham Lincoln had a rather high-pitched squeaky voice. I would love to have heard Patrick Henry thundering, “Give me liberty or give me death.” I think the most pleasing voice of all will probably be that of Jesus, and although we can’t hear him now, I imagine someday in heaven His voice will be the sweetest music to the ear ever heard.
Last Friday, January 8, was the 60th anniversary of the death of the five martyrs in Ecuador, Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian and Pete Fleming. In their cases there are still people alive who had heard them speak and may remember their voices.
January 8 is a special date for me as it was on this day in 1967 that I trusted Jesus Christ as my Savior. When I was younger I used to think I somehow had a connection with the martyrs because of the date. The story became closer to me when my cousins, Jim and Sharon Smith began to work with Nate’s sister, Rachel, in the jungle in Ecuador. I’ve seen video of Rachel in interviews and heard the dedication in her voice and the determination in her soul to carry on the work her brother had envisioned with the Waorani people in Ecuador. But I’ve never heard a recording of her brother or the other men. Until today.
Here is a recording of Jim Elliot preaching a message in 1951. I was surprised by what I heard. It seems to me his voice sounds like a much older man than 24. It is a powerful voice, tenacious and purposeful in its delivery. There is no temerity or lack of confidence in his delivery. Rather there is urgency and a quickness to pack as much into the time he had available as possible. His passion is evident as he eloquently unfolds the implications of the Gospel.
It’s a good message, forty minutes worthy of our hearing. If you can get on youtube do yourself a favor and look it up.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=youtube+jim+elliot+missionary
This is the kind of preaching America needs to hear today.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Thursday, December 17, 2015
The Value of a Life
I had intended to write this a couple weeks ago but the San Bernardino terrorist attack captured everybody’s attention first. The day before in Olongapo City a Filipino judge issued the sentence and verdict of US Marine Lance Corporal Jacob Scott Pemberton in the murder trial of a transgender prostitute named Jeffrey Laude, who went by the name of Jennifer. Pemberton got shafted. He’s paying for his own actions to be sure, but it’s much more than he deserved.
In October 2014 the USS Pelilieu made a port call at Subic Bay in the Philippines. Lance Corporal Pemberton and three of his shipmates went on liberty into Olongapo City to go bar hopping and look for girls. Pemberton was twenty, not even old enough to legally consume alcohol in the States, but such laws don’t matter here and the US Navy has always had a cavalier attitude about its personnel drinking and shopping for whores.
Pemberton and his friends wound up at a dingy gin joint near the end of Magsaysay Blvd. near the Rizal roundabout called the Ambyance. Several girls hit on the group and Pemberton left the bar with two calling themselves Barbi and Jennifer. Pemberton has been described by his shipmates as a nice kid who had never been in trouble. He was obviously too nice and too naive to be left alone with not one, but two women of the night, but his friends (I use the term loosely) let him go off to have a good time.
Barbi and Jennifer took Pemberton across the street to an adult’s only hotel frequented often by prostitutes. It’s a dirty, run down, classless establishment that makes one wonder why anybody would go there at all unless they were already half drunk. The three got a room while a bellboy watched the hall.
After a while Barbi left and only then as Jennifer disrobed did Pemberton find out she was in reality Jeffrey. Embarrassed and horrified Pemberton yelled at Jeffrey who then slapped him. Pemberton feared Barbi and maybe others had set him up and would be coming back, but as he tried to get dressed Jeffrey tried to slap him again. Pemberton then put him in a headlock and choked him before dragging him into the bathroom where he dropped him on the floor.
Pemberton got dressed and left, and turned himself in at the ship, but claimed Laude was still breathing when he left the hotel. The next morning Laude was found dead with his head in the toilet and a necklace and chain clasp in one hand. He had also been robbed as his wallet and jewelry he was known to be wearing was missing.
A Mexican standoff followed. Philippine officials refused to let the ship leave until Pemberton was handed over. The ship at first refused, but after several days an arrangement was made where Pemberton would remain in US custody in the brig at Camp Crame, a Philippine army base in Manila near the US embassy and the Pelilieu finally sailed.
The situation then took on soap-operatic proportions. A German man named Marc Schulbach, a fat slob of a guy with no brains, showed up claiming Laude was his fiancée. He went to the mortuary complete with a TV news team to record the event, and wept over the casket claiming the whole story was false. Jennifer would never cheat on him, he declared.
After Pemberton was transferred to Camp Crame Schulbach went to Manila, found a way to climb over the wall onto the base and was arrested by the military police. In a show of false bravado he shouted that he was going to kill Pemberton. Then he tried to rough up the MPs while they escorted him off the base. He finally apologized and offered to just go home, but his passport was confiscated by immigrations until deportation proceedings sent him home. Under the deportation law he is banned from ever returning. Nothing has been heard from him over here since, but it has come out that the TV News station had actually flown him to the Philippines and took him to the mortuary in Olongapo to manipulate the event on the stipulation that they be the only ones Schulbach would tell his story to.
As it turns out, Laude was a notorious drug addict, thief and con artist who regularly worked in tandem with Barbi and other transgenders in Olongapo. He also was the primary source of income for his mother and family. But most disgusting of all, his mother had encouraged his lifestyle because of the money he could make. She offered to drop the charges if Pemberton would pay her 100 million pesos, which amounts to over 2.17 million dollars.
The Philippine courts, however, would not, and could not in order for justice to be served, drop the charges. The trial began in March and the verdict and sentencing was announced December 1. Pemberton was found guilty of homicide, but not murder, because intent to murder could not be proven. He was sentenced to six to twelve years minus time served in a Philippine national prison, and ordered to pay the Laude family 4.6 million pesos, about 98,000 dollars, for potential lost income.
Pemberton was to be remanded to the Philippine prison system as a “national” because of a law that states any foreigner sentenced to over three years would be considered as a national and therefore incarcerated in the Philippine prison system. He was ordered to the New Bilibid prison, a deplorable facility used for political prisoners. The US embassy immediately contested the ruling and refused to turn Pemberton over. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Philippines stipulates that in such a case where a US serviceman is involved the United States must approve of the facility where he will be held. After long discussions Pemberton was returned to Camp Crame while negotiations are made for his future imprisonment.
It is a sad story, full of contradiction and hypocrisy. The Philippine government had to take someone to trial in order to show that life is not taken for granted in the Philippines. Unfortunately an American was the pawn in a game designed to show that the Philippines respects law and order. When it comes to prostitution, however, that respect apparently goes out the window. It has always been this way. Prostitution is illegal, and regardless of all the talk about law and order and respect for life, nothing is being done to clamp down on prostitutes and transgenders or their sordid scams taking advantage of unwitting foreigners who fall into their clutches.
While the circumstantial evidence is against Pemberton, he claims he did not kill Laude, and the prosecution was unable to prove that he did. Because of that a murder charge was lowered to homicide with a lesser penalty, but the only thing the prosecution was able to prove was that Pemberton was there and Laude was dead. There was DNA evidence of an unidentified third party, and the chain in Laude’s hand did not belong to Pemberton. The defense argued that this unknown third party might have killed Laude, but the bellboy in the hallway claimed no one else had entered the room that night. Of course, the bellboy could have entered the room that night. It’s hard to imagine that he could not have heard the shouting match going on in the first floor room of this dinky, drafty hotel only a few feet from where he was sitting.
There are too many unanswered questions remaining about what happened that night for Pemberton to have received a penalty as severe as the one given. The judge ruled that the financial demand of Laude’s mother was absurd, but the amount decided on is equally absurd. Pemberton couldn’t pay it in twenty years on a lance corporal’s salary, and he’ll never be able to come up with anything languishing in prison, which in the end ensures that Laude's family will probably never receive anything.
It’s a shame on the US Navy and Marine Corps that as fine of military organizations as they are (they are hands down the world’s best) that they take no better care of their young troops as to let something like this happen. Olongapo isn’t anything near what it was like twenty-five years ago before the US Navy moved out, but wickedness still abounds, and impressionable young men still throw away their honor, character and virtue looking for it.
When the Navy was based here the only advice ever given was be sure to use condoms, which were freely provided at medical facilities. At least at that time all the known “hospitality girls” (prostitution was illegal, therefore according to the Philippine government there were no prostitutes, but there were hospitality girls) had to work in Navy approved bars, and were checked monthly for AIDS. There isn’t even that anymore. There aren’t as many bars or working girls either, but there are transgenders who usually aren’t too hard to identify if you're familiar with the culture. But then you get a half drunk naive kid who knows nothing, who should have been warned, who should have been protected by his shipmates, and Scott Pemberton has thrown away the best years of his life.
Almost already forgotten in the whole sordid affair is Jeffrey Laude, a pathetic little twenty-six year old, living not just as a woman, but a prostitute, pushed into his vice and wicked lifestyle by his own mother, whose only concern in his death was that she be given 100 million pesos, 2.17 million dollars. No, the Philippine court ruled, only 4.6 million, 98,000 dollars. The value of a life. And nobody seems to care.
In October 2014 the USS Pelilieu made a port call at Subic Bay in the Philippines. Lance Corporal Pemberton and three of his shipmates went on liberty into Olongapo City to go bar hopping and look for girls. Pemberton was twenty, not even old enough to legally consume alcohol in the States, but such laws don’t matter here and the US Navy has always had a cavalier attitude about its personnel drinking and shopping for whores.
Pemberton and his friends wound up at a dingy gin joint near the end of Magsaysay Blvd. near the Rizal roundabout called the Ambyance. Several girls hit on the group and Pemberton left the bar with two calling themselves Barbi and Jennifer. Pemberton has been described by his shipmates as a nice kid who had never been in trouble. He was obviously too nice and too naive to be left alone with not one, but two women of the night, but his friends (I use the term loosely) let him go off to have a good time.
Barbi and Jennifer took Pemberton across the street to an adult’s only hotel frequented often by prostitutes. It’s a dirty, run down, classless establishment that makes one wonder why anybody would go there at all unless they were already half drunk. The three got a room while a bellboy watched the hall.
After a while Barbi left and only then as Jennifer disrobed did Pemberton find out she was in reality Jeffrey. Embarrassed and horrified Pemberton yelled at Jeffrey who then slapped him. Pemberton feared Barbi and maybe others had set him up and would be coming back, but as he tried to get dressed Jeffrey tried to slap him again. Pemberton then put him in a headlock and choked him before dragging him into the bathroom where he dropped him on the floor.
Pemberton got dressed and left, and turned himself in at the ship, but claimed Laude was still breathing when he left the hotel. The next morning Laude was found dead with his head in the toilet and a necklace and chain clasp in one hand. He had also been robbed as his wallet and jewelry he was known to be wearing was missing.
A Mexican standoff followed. Philippine officials refused to let the ship leave until Pemberton was handed over. The ship at first refused, but after several days an arrangement was made where Pemberton would remain in US custody in the brig at Camp Crame, a Philippine army base in Manila near the US embassy and the Pelilieu finally sailed.
The situation then took on soap-operatic proportions. A German man named Marc Schulbach, a fat slob of a guy with no brains, showed up claiming Laude was his fiancée. He went to the mortuary complete with a TV news team to record the event, and wept over the casket claiming the whole story was false. Jennifer would never cheat on him, he declared.
After Pemberton was transferred to Camp Crame Schulbach went to Manila, found a way to climb over the wall onto the base and was arrested by the military police. In a show of false bravado he shouted that he was going to kill Pemberton. Then he tried to rough up the MPs while they escorted him off the base. He finally apologized and offered to just go home, but his passport was confiscated by immigrations until deportation proceedings sent him home. Under the deportation law he is banned from ever returning. Nothing has been heard from him over here since, but it has come out that the TV News station had actually flown him to the Philippines and took him to the mortuary in Olongapo to manipulate the event on the stipulation that they be the only ones Schulbach would tell his story to.
As it turns out, Laude was a notorious drug addict, thief and con artist who regularly worked in tandem with Barbi and other transgenders in Olongapo. He also was the primary source of income for his mother and family. But most disgusting of all, his mother had encouraged his lifestyle because of the money he could make. She offered to drop the charges if Pemberton would pay her 100 million pesos, which amounts to over 2.17 million dollars.
The Philippine courts, however, would not, and could not in order for justice to be served, drop the charges. The trial began in March and the verdict and sentencing was announced December 1. Pemberton was found guilty of homicide, but not murder, because intent to murder could not be proven. He was sentenced to six to twelve years minus time served in a Philippine national prison, and ordered to pay the Laude family 4.6 million pesos, about 98,000 dollars, for potential lost income.
Pemberton was to be remanded to the Philippine prison system as a “national” because of a law that states any foreigner sentenced to over three years would be considered as a national and therefore incarcerated in the Philippine prison system. He was ordered to the New Bilibid prison, a deplorable facility used for political prisoners. The US embassy immediately contested the ruling and refused to turn Pemberton over. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Philippines stipulates that in such a case where a US serviceman is involved the United States must approve of the facility where he will be held. After long discussions Pemberton was returned to Camp Crame while negotiations are made for his future imprisonment.
It is a sad story, full of contradiction and hypocrisy. The Philippine government had to take someone to trial in order to show that life is not taken for granted in the Philippines. Unfortunately an American was the pawn in a game designed to show that the Philippines respects law and order. When it comes to prostitution, however, that respect apparently goes out the window. It has always been this way. Prostitution is illegal, and regardless of all the talk about law and order and respect for life, nothing is being done to clamp down on prostitutes and transgenders or their sordid scams taking advantage of unwitting foreigners who fall into their clutches.
While the circumstantial evidence is against Pemberton, he claims he did not kill Laude, and the prosecution was unable to prove that he did. Because of that a murder charge was lowered to homicide with a lesser penalty, but the only thing the prosecution was able to prove was that Pemberton was there and Laude was dead. There was DNA evidence of an unidentified third party, and the chain in Laude’s hand did not belong to Pemberton. The defense argued that this unknown third party might have killed Laude, but the bellboy in the hallway claimed no one else had entered the room that night. Of course, the bellboy could have entered the room that night. It’s hard to imagine that he could not have heard the shouting match going on in the first floor room of this dinky, drafty hotel only a few feet from where he was sitting.
There are too many unanswered questions remaining about what happened that night for Pemberton to have received a penalty as severe as the one given. The judge ruled that the financial demand of Laude’s mother was absurd, but the amount decided on is equally absurd. Pemberton couldn’t pay it in twenty years on a lance corporal’s salary, and he’ll never be able to come up with anything languishing in prison, which in the end ensures that Laude's family will probably never receive anything.
It’s a shame on the US Navy and Marine Corps that as fine of military organizations as they are (they are hands down the world’s best) that they take no better care of their young troops as to let something like this happen. Olongapo isn’t anything near what it was like twenty-five years ago before the US Navy moved out, but wickedness still abounds, and impressionable young men still throw away their honor, character and virtue looking for it.
When the Navy was based here the only advice ever given was be sure to use condoms, which were freely provided at medical facilities. At least at that time all the known “hospitality girls” (prostitution was illegal, therefore according to the Philippine government there were no prostitutes, but there were hospitality girls) had to work in Navy approved bars, and were checked monthly for AIDS. There isn’t even that anymore. There aren’t as many bars or working girls either, but there are transgenders who usually aren’t too hard to identify if you're familiar with the culture. But then you get a half drunk naive kid who knows nothing, who should have been warned, who should have been protected by his shipmates, and Scott Pemberton has thrown away the best years of his life.
Almost already forgotten in the whole sordid affair is Jeffrey Laude, a pathetic little twenty-six year old, living not just as a woman, but a prostitute, pushed into his vice and wicked lifestyle by his own mother, whose only concern in his death was that she be given 100 million pesos, 2.17 million dollars. No, the Philippine court ruled, only 4.6 million, 98,000 dollars. The value of a life. And nobody seems to care.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Oval Office Address
Forced into a corner by his inept analysis of ISIS after a seven year failed diplomacy of nicety and a weak-kneed foreign policy of leading from behind, Obama made a very rare Oval Office address to the nation to calm America's fears about the threat of terrorism. The thirteen minute speech was remarkable for its brevity considering the gravity of the crisis America is facing. The San Bernardino shooting last week, which was clearly a terrorist attack, was the largest act of terror on the American homeland since 9/11.
Obama tried to sound forceful and militaristic, but after seven years of wimpiness he was hard to believe. He tried to sound knowledgeable by referring to his daily intel briefings, but that comment was laughable when you consider White House sources have said he has missed more than half of the briefings, and military analysts have said he puts whatever he doesn't want to hear on the shelf.
The speech actually fulfilled all of my expectations except one. Obama was lacking in anything new as far as substance, he exploited the tragedy once again as a platform for gun control, and he defended Islam. The one thing I anticipated he might have added but didn't was climate change.
He started immediately to dissect the two shooters from ISIS by saying there was no evidence of orders from ISIS or Al Qaeda directing this attack. He did identify it as an act of terror, but as always he missed the point. ISIS has openly called for "lone wolf" attacks in America. Now it is coming out from his father that Syed Farook was greatly influenced by ISIS. He didn't need specific orders, he had a general order from the Islamic terrorist group that he was following and that his wife had sworn allegiance to.
The question being asked is if he was "radicalized" by his wife or the other way around. Interesting how terminology shows up and is used. This term "radicalized" hasn't been in the common usage about terror until last week and now it's the most thrown about word all over the media. We hear about "radical Islam" all the time, but now apparently for someone to be a radical Muslim they must first become radicalized. The term itself is an attempt to draw attention away from the truth about Islam. As I've stated before, and what even the most conservative politicians and pundits don't seem to understand, is that there is no such thing as radical Islam. There is Islam by the Koran, which is what we are seeing carried out by Jihadists, and there is moderate Islam that does not live by the brutal force of the Koran. But I digress.
Obama made some striking statements. He said we have been at war with terrorists since 9/11, something he has refused to admit until now. He said that complicated events like flying into the twin towers have been reduced and the terrorist threat has evolved to simpler acts such as mass shootings. Then he referenced the Ft. Hood shooting, which up until just a few days ago had been classified as "work place violence." Remember his first comment about the San Bernardino shooting last week also suggested it may have been work place violence. I just saw, however, a comment from Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) that the government has relented and awarded the victims of Ft. Hood purple hearts and benefits. It's a great victory for our troops, but it makes me wonder since this apparently just happened, if Obama didn't approve it just so he could make the comment in his speech.
Obama called terrorism a cancer and said many people have asked if there is a cure. He answered that the threat is real and we will destroy ISIS (or ISIL as he insists on calling it). He said we will prevail by being "strong and smart." Interesting that he has finally gone beyond containing and degrading to call for terrorism's total destruction. However, his comment about being "smart" gives it away. He's told us for years that we need smart diplomacy, in other words, his plan to bring about peace by the strength of his nice personality. It hasn't worked, and considering Obama the comment "strong and smart" is contradictory.
The president then gave a four point strategy to defeat terrorism: 1, The military will continue to take out ISIS leaders, 2, We will continue to give training and equipment to Iraqi ground forces, 3, We will continue to work with allies to prevent ISIS plots, and work with Turkey to seal its border with Syria, and 4, American leadership will produce a cease fire among the Syrian forces in order to concentrate on ISIS. He once again referred to his 65 nation coalition, which at best exists only on paper, and said we need to review how we do background checks on visas.
Unless he has some plan to ratchet up the first three points, his strategy is nothing different than what he's already doing, which because of it's weak implementation is accomplishing little. It is ironic, however, that he would tell Turkey to seal their border when he refuses to do anything about our own. As for the fourth point, Putin has been thumbing his nose in Obama's face for months, and the Russians are the primary force in Syria right now. What makes Obama think he's going to have any influence on how operations in Syria are going to be conducted? Nobody is listening to him.
Obama then regurgitated his anti-gun garbage and blamed the Republican led Congress for not doing more to make it harder for people to purchase guns. He ignored the fact that many Democrats are also opposed to his attacks on the Second Amendment. He wants stronger screening for those coming into the country without a visa. Say that again? You mean like the refugees? I thought they were already being thoroughly vetted by the strictest requirements ever. And why do you have to strengthen that anyway? A foreign national without a visa can't legally purchase a gun in the United States now.
Obama took the last half of his speech to tell us what we cannot do in the War on Terror. He does not want to be drawn into another long protracted war on the ground. I think everybody agrees with that, which means go in there and bomb ISIS into oblivion. Right now 80% of all sorties we are flying are coming back with unexpended ordnance because Obama won't let them drop anything if there's the danger of one civilian being injured. You want to get serious about taking ISIS out remove the restrictions. This is another Vietnam scenario.
Further, he said, we should not turn against one another by defining this as a war of America against Islam. That's what ISIS wants, he said. No, I rather think what Obama said is what ISIS wants. If we finally wake up and realize that Islam has already declared war against the United States and we go after the terrorists wherever they are hiding including mosques and homes, we will absolutely destroy them. That's what ISIS is afraid of, and based on Muslim loving Obama's comments, he's probably afraid of it too.
He then suggested we need to enlist Muslim communities and Muslim leaders to join us in this battle. Fat chance. If he really believes that's possible he is the biggest ignoramus on earth. Actually I don't think he really believes that. He's doing all he can to defend Islam and prevent its expansion from being hindered.
He then told us that we must reject discrimination against Muslim communities, which begs the question: When and where have Americans ever discriminated on a large national or even local scale against Muslims? There is no evidence of any anti-Islamic movement or prejudice anywhere in America. In fact, we have been remarkably tolerant of Islam considering the attacks Muslims have made against America.
No, this performance was not calming or assuring. Rather, it was an insult to our intelligence. Obama has failed to understand the severity of the crisis we are in, has either failed or refused to recognize the enemy we are facing, has failed or deliberately refused to recognize the Islamic ideology we are at war with, and blindly refuses to admit that his policies have been wrong all along, and are the cause of this mess. At least he finally admitted this is a War on Terror and not just an overseas contingency problem, but he refused to link terrorism to Islam.
This address may well go down as the capstone of Obama's disastrous foreign policy.
Obama tried to sound forceful and militaristic, but after seven years of wimpiness he was hard to believe. He tried to sound knowledgeable by referring to his daily intel briefings, but that comment was laughable when you consider White House sources have said he has missed more than half of the briefings, and military analysts have said he puts whatever he doesn't want to hear on the shelf.
The speech actually fulfilled all of my expectations except one. Obama was lacking in anything new as far as substance, he exploited the tragedy once again as a platform for gun control, and he defended Islam. The one thing I anticipated he might have added but didn't was climate change.
He started immediately to dissect the two shooters from ISIS by saying there was no evidence of orders from ISIS or Al Qaeda directing this attack. He did identify it as an act of terror, but as always he missed the point. ISIS has openly called for "lone wolf" attacks in America. Now it is coming out from his father that Syed Farook was greatly influenced by ISIS. He didn't need specific orders, he had a general order from the Islamic terrorist group that he was following and that his wife had sworn allegiance to.
The question being asked is if he was "radicalized" by his wife or the other way around. Interesting how terminology shows up and is used. This term "radicalized" hasn't been in the common usage about terror until last week and now it's the most thrown about word all over the media. We hear about "radical Islam" all the time, but now apparently for someone to be a radical Muslim they must first become radicalized. The term itself is an attempt to draw attention away from the truth about Islam. As I've stated before, and what even the most conservative politicians and pundits don't seem to understand, is that there is no such thing as radical Islam. There is Islam by the Koran, which is what we are seeing carried out by Jihadists, and there is moderate Islam that does not live by the brutal force of the Koran. But I digress.
Obama made some striking statements. He said we have been at war with terrorists since 9/11, something he has refused to admit until now. He said that complicated events like flying into the twin towers have been reduced and the terrorist threat has evolved to simpler acts such as mass shootings. Then he referenced the Ft. Hood shooting, which up until just a few days ago had been classified as "work place violence." Remember his first comment about the San Bernardino shooting last week also suggested it may have been work place violence. I just saw, however, a comment from Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) that the government has relented and awarded the victims of Ft. Hood purple hearts and benefits. It's a great victory for our troops, but it makes me wonder since this apparently just happened, if Obama didn't approve it just so he could make the comment in his speech.
Obama called terrorism a cancer and said many people have asked if there is a cure. He answered that the threat is real and we will destroy ISIS (or ISIL as he insists on calling it). He said we will prevail by being "strong and smart." Interesting that he has finally gone beyond containing and degrading to call for terrorism's total destruction. However, his comment about being "smart" gives it away. He's told us for years that we need smart diplomacy, in other words, his plan to bring about peace by the strength of his nice personality. It hasn't worked, and considering Obama the comment "strong and smart" is contradictory.
The president then gave a four point strategy to defeat terrorism: 1, The military will continue to take out ISIS leaders, 2, We will continue to give training and equipment to Iraqi ground forces, 3, We will continue to work with allies to prevent ISIS plots, and work with Turkey to seal its border with Syria, and 4, American leadership will produce a cease fire among the Syrian forces in order to concentrate on ISIS. He once again referred to his 65 nation coalition, which at best exists only on paper, and said we need to review how we do background checks on visas.
Unless he has some plan to ratchet up the first three points, his strategy is nothing different than what he's already doing, which because of it's weak implementation is accomplishing little. It is ironic, however, that he would tell Turkey to seal their border when he refuses to do anything about our own. As for the fourth point, Putin has been thumbing his nose in Obama's face for months, and the Russians are the primary force in Syria right now. What makes Obama think he's going to have any influence on how operations in Syria are going to be conducted? Nobody is listening to him.
Obama then regurgitated his anti-gun garbage and blamed the Republican led Congress for not doing more to make it harder for people to purchase guns. He ignored the fact that many Democrats are also opposed to his attacks on the Second Amendment. He wants stronger screening for those coming into the country without a visa. Say that again? You mean like the refugees? I thought they were already being thoroughly vetted by the strictest requirements ever. And why do you have to strengthen that anyway? A foreign national without a visa can't legally purchase a gun in the United States now.
Obama took the last half of his speech to tell us what we cannot do in the War on Terror. He does not want to be drawn into another long protracted war on the ground. I think everybody agrees with that, which means go in there and bomb ISIS into oblivion. Right now 80% of all sorties we are flying are coming back with unexpended ordnance because Obama won't let them drop anything if there's the danger of one civilian being injured. You want to get serious about taking ISIS out remove the restrictions. This is another Vietnam scenario.
Further, he said, we should not turn against one another by defining this as a war of America against Islam. That's what ISIS wants, he said. No, I rather think what Obama said is what ISIS wants. If we finally wake up and realize that Islam has already declared war against the United States and we go after the terrorists wherever they are hiding including mosques and homes, we will absolutely destroy them. That's what ISIS is afraid of, and based on Muslim loving Obama's comments, he's probably afraid of it too.
He then suggested we need to enlist Muslim communities and Muslim leaders to join us in this battle. Fat chance. If he really believes that's possible he is the biggest ignoramus on earth. Actually I don't think he really believes that. He's doing all he can to defend Islam and prevent its expansion from being hindered.
He then told us that we must reject discrimination against Muslim communities, which begs the question: When and where have Americans ever discriminated on a large national or even local scale against Muslims? There is no evidence of any anti-Islamic movement or prejudice anywhere in America. In fact, we have been remarkably tolerant of Islam considering the attacks Muslims have made against America.
No, this performance was not calming or assuring. Rather, it was an insult to our intelligence. Obama has failed to understand the severity of the crisis we are in, has either failed or refused to recognize the enemy we are facing, has failed or deliberately refused to recognize the Islamic ideology we are at war with, and blindly refuses to admit that his policies have been wrong all along, and are the cause of this mess. At least he finally admitted this is a War on Terror and not just an overseas contingency problem, but he refused to link terrorism to Islam.
This address may well go down as the capstone of Obama's disastrous foreign policy.
Friday, November 27, 2015
A Safer, Better Future
The White House Occupant wanted us to discuss gun control over the table this Thanksgiving. So we did. We discussed how many blunderbuss muskets it took the Pilgrims to shoot enough turkeys to feed the Pilgrims and their 90 Indian guests at the first Thanksgiving.
In his Thanksgiving Day address the WHO compared the Syrian refugees with the Pilgrims who only wanted "nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families.”
Actually the real Pilgrims didn't opt for a safer future, they risked their lives to build a nation in a wilderness full of danger and uncertainty. They left England with no promises, no security, and no help. They didn't go looking for a free ride, or cowardly running from a fight to save their own country.
They did go with the purpose of establishing the Christian religion in the New World. Do you think maybe the Syrian refugees might have a similar agenda in mind even while they take handouts from their Christian benefactors?
There has never been a president this ignorant or disrespectful of American history.
In his Thanksgiving Day address the WHO compared the Syrian refugees with the Pilgrims who only wanted "nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families.”
Actually the real Pilgrims didn't opt for a safer future, they risked their lives to build a nation in a wilderness full of danger and uncertainty. They left England with no promises, no security, and no help. They didn't go looking for a free ride, or cowardly running from a fight to save their own country.
They did go with the purpose of establishing the Christian religion in the New World. Do you think maybe the Syrian refugees might have a similar agenda in mind even while they take handouts from their Christian benefactors?
There has never been a president this ignorant or disrespectful of American history.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Happy Thanksgiving Pilgrims
We don't have a large Muslim population here in Olongapo, but they seem to be growing and we've noticed a lot of Muslim street vendors across from the mall lately. Yesterday at one of the open air markets in town there was a Muslim riot. We're not sure yet what it was about, but it was Muslim on Muslim trying to kill each other. My guess would be we have both Sunni and Shia Muslims here in that case.
With that in mind the first thing I'm thankful for this Thanksgiving is that our God is Love, that His message is love, that His command to us is to love, that He doesn't bribe us with physical pleasures for hatred and murder, but rather promises an eternal joy that we can't even begin to imagine (I Corinthians 2:9) all because He loves us enough to have died in our place (John 3:16).
Unlike the White House Occupant I understand and appreciate our history. Our real history, that is. I love the story of the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock after braving the stormy North Atlantic in search of religious liberty. I'm proud of the heritage they gave us by settling an area where no Indians lived and brokering a peace treaty with the Wampanoag and Narragansett tribes that lasted 55 years until the Indians broke it.
I'm proud of the true history of the first Thanksgiving when the Pilgrims invited the Indians to join them in a harvest feast and thanking God for His mercy and provision through that first terrible year. Yes, I'm sure they were very grateful to Squanto for the help he gave them, but the first Thanksgiving wasn't about Squanto or the Indians like some public school textbooks teach. It was about thanking the God of the Bible.
Thank you, Lord, for your magnificent provision and blessings in our lives. Thank you for giving us the greatest country in the history of the world. Thank you for those who have sacrificed to make it possible, and especially for those who have paid the ultimate price that we might breathe free.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING PILGRIMS.
With that in mind the first thing I'm thankful for this Thanksgiving is that our God is Love, that His message is love, that His command to us is to love, that He doesn't bribe us with physical pleasures for hatred and murder, but rather promises an eternal joy that we can't even begin to imagine (I Corinthians 2:9) all because He loves us enough to have died in our place (John 3:16).
Unlike the White House Occupant I understand and appreciate our history. Our real history, that is. I love the story of the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock after braving the stormy North Atlantic in search of religious liberty. I'm proud of the heritage they gave us by settling an area where no Indians lived and brokering a peace treaty with the Wampanoag and Narragansett tribes that lasted 55 years until the Indians broke it.
I'm proud of the true history of the first Thanksgiving when the Pilgrims invited the Indians to join them in a harvest feast and thanking God for His mercy and provision through that first terrible year. Yes, I'm sure they were very grateful to Squanto for the help he gave them, but the first Thanksgiving wasn't about Squanto or the Indians like some public school textbooks teach. It was about thanking the God of the Bible.
Thank you, Lord, for your magnificent provision and blessings in our lives. Thank you for giving us the greatest country in the history of the world. Thank you for those who have sacrificed to make it possible, and especially for those who have paid the ultimate price that we might breathe free.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING PILGRIMS.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Democrat Debate, Part 2
We don't have Fox Business Channel here so we didn't see the Republican debate this week. Then the Democrat debate was late last night your time which was during church this morning here, so we missed it too. No worries. From the news clips it looks like Rubio and Cruz had great nights, and the Democrats were all losers.
No sooner had Obama declared that ISIS is contained than ISIS uncontained itself and spread out of the Middle East to attack Paris. In response in their debate all three Democrat candidates supported Obama's plan to allow 170,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. Do you think there is something lacking in their intellectual capacitors? Then Bernie Sanders made the most insane claim yet about global warming. It's the cause for the rise of ISIS he said. Ann Coulter thinks the events this week just gave the next presidency to Donald Trump. The question is whether or not we will survive long enough for there to be a next election. While Obama golfs the world has descended into chaos, and liberals still think he's the greatest president in history. There's no measurement for brain capacities that small.
No sooner had Obama declared that ISIS is contained than ISIS uncontained itself and spread out of the Middle East to attack Paris. In response in their debate all three Democrat candidates supported Obama's plan to allow 170,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. Do you think there is something lacking in their intellectual capacitors? Then Bernie Sanders made the most insane claim yet about global warming. It's the cause for the rise of ISIS he said. Ann Coulter thinks the events this week just gave the next presidency to Donald Trump. The question is whether or not we will survive long enough for there to be a next election. While Obama golfs the world has descended into chaos, and liberals still think he's the greatest president in history. There's no measurement for brain capacities that small.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Ben Carson Gets Fired Up
Well did you see where obama said the bottom line about obamacare is that the American people like it? He's living in an alternate universe where everything he says is truth, and the lame stream media worshipping at his feet confirm everything he says. In the real world 70% of Americans want it overturned.
Did you also see Ben Carson's interview yesterday? He wrote his autobiography and claimed to have been offered a "scholarship" to West Point. Since he didn't take it the media is doubting the credibility of his claim. Actually, "scholarship" is the wrong word. If you get chosen you get an appointment to the service academies and then the government pays your way. But Carson turned it down because he wanted to go into medicine. No big deal except the media is challenging the truth of the allegation.
Along with that Carson wrote that in his rebellious teenage years he once threatened a friend with a knife. The liberal media is all over it, checking up with all the childhood friends they can find and finding no evidence of the incident. While they are busy calling Carson a liar they are missing the real story. Carson was such a good kid that none of his neighbors ever knew of the incident. It appears that the three things he mentions are about the only three things he ever did wrong in his youth. Carson is just being real, showing that he's not perfect, and the media is calling him a liar for admitting he isn't.
The best part, however, came in the news conference when reporters kept challenging him on these little tidbits of facts. Carson came unglued and angrily challenged the news media for not investigating obama's false claims in his books when he was running for president. When they tried to change the subject Carson wouldn't let them and repeatedly asked them why they had never asked these questions of bho. That led to bringing up the validity of the birth certificate. Carson accused the media of being all over his claim of a "scholarship" and what his true college credentials are, but they've never yet asked why obama's college record is sealed.
Carson brought up everything the politically correct leftists and wimpy right wing compromisers are afraid to talk about and laid it at the feet of the liberal media. But what's more, he showed he can get angry and raise his voice and command a situation. This was a great weekend of Ben Carson and for America. Finally we have people not afraid to demand answers to questions that even Bill O'Reilly has been afraid to ask because of political correctness.
Did you also see Ben Carson's interview yesterday? He wrote his autobiography and claimed to have been offered a "scholarship" to West Point. Since he didn't take it the media is doubting the credibility of his claim. Actually, "scholarship" is the wrong word. If you get chosen you get an appointment to the service academies and then the government pays your way. But Carson turned it down because he wanted to go into medicine. No big deal except the media is challenging the truth of the allegation.
Along with that Carson wrote that in his rebellious teenage years he once threatened a friend with a knife. The liberal media is all over it, checking up with all the childhood friends they can find and finding no evidence of the incident. While they are busy calling Carson a liar they are missing the real story. Carson was such a good kid that none of his neighbors ever knew of the incident. It appears that the three things he mentions are about the only three things he ever did wrong in his youth. Carson is just being real, showing that he's not perfect, and the media is calling him a liar for admitting he isn't.
The best part, however, came in the news conference when reporters kept challenging him on these little tidbits of facts. Carson came unglued and angrily challenged the news media for not investigating obama's false claims in his books when he was running for president. When they tried to change the subject Carson wouldn't let them and repeatedly asked them why they had never asked these questions of bho. That led to bringing up the validity of the birth certificate. Carson accused the media of being all over his claim of a "scholarship" and what his true college credentials are, but they've never yet asked why obama's college record is sealed.
Carson brought up everything the politically correct leftists and wimpy right wing compromisers are afraid to talk about and laid it at the feet of the liberal media. But what's more, he showed he can get angry and raise his voice and command a situation. This was a great weekend of Ben Carson and for America. Finally we have people not afraid to demand answers to questions that even Bill O'Reilly has been afraid to ask because of political correctness.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
The Democrat Debate
The much anticipated Democrat debate aired at 8:30am here in the Philippines so I adjusted my schedule to stay home and watch it. I probably didn't need to waste my time, except that I was curious to see if there would be any attempt to take down Hillary. There wasn't. In fact, there wasn't anything really unexpected in the two-and-a-half hour socialist love fest. It was almost a race to see who could promise to give away more: free college tuition, paid maternity leave, and Obamacare for illegal immigrants. Coldly missing from all their promises was anything for veterans.
The location for the debate, Las Vegas, Nevada, the gambling mecca of the world, seemed appropriate. In Las Vegas people put their entire lives on the line over a throw of the dice. They gamble away hard earned dollars hoping beyond hope for one lucky jackpot that will change their lives, and the vast majority go away disappointed and empty-handed.
It's like voting for a Democrat. The candidates promise the world with no specific plan on how to get it other than class warfare, make the wealthy pay. The liberal argument is always give it enough time and it will happen, like evolution. The facts are that socialism has been given enough time and the track record is that it has never worked anywhere in the world, and is not working under Obama's imperial usurpation of unconstitutional power. The roll of the dice on another Democrat president with the same agenda and disregard for the Constitution as Obama is a fool's wager.
I will say that Anderson Cooper did a good job moderating the debate. He kept it moving with machine-gun quick questions so that the discussion never stalled, but it was more of another powder-puff liberal interview for the candidates than a debate. Cooper's first question to Hillary challenged her flip-flopping on issues and asked if she would say anything to get elected. Her answer was that she has always been consistent on her principles but has learned and adjusted. Cooper pressed her on whether she is a progressive or a moderate. She is definitely a progressive, she answered. "I can get it done," she said emphatically.
That was the last tough question anybody was asked the entire evening. The debate then became a "same ol' same ol" regurgitation of Democrat socialist ideas and issues of minor or meaningless importance. One constant theme was an attack on Republicans for being obstructionists. Climate change appeared to be the most important issue for Sanders, although they all chimed in on it. Black lives matter over all lives matter was a softball for the African-American community. Three chimed in for black lives, Webb said all lives, and Hillary never answered the question. While Hillary made vague attempts to distance herself from Obama they all praised him and gave him their support.
They had nothing new on the economy. After seven years of the slowest economic recovery in history brought on by a recession caused by a Democrat controlled Congress, the Democrat candidates are still blaming President Bush. They all seemed to be in a race to see who could be the biggest Santa Claus and give away the most while leveling the playing field to make it fair for the middle class.
Sanders complained that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the world and the only country without universal healthcare. He pumped class warfare by calling for a groundswell movement to get everyone out to vote (the same type of movement as the Tea Party which Democrats excoriate) in order to defeat billionaires. But all of his attacks and those of the others about the inequality of the middle class are indictments against the Democrats and their failed policies. After seven years of Obama we still have the highest child poverty rate? What has Obama been doing about it? Where did he go wrong? We're still the only country without universal healthcare or paid maternity leave? What happened to Obamacare? It was supposed to fix that.
You might notice also that all the class warfare attacks were against billionaires, not millionaires. Of course, that might be because Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were "broke" when they left the White House according to Hillary, made 25 million dollars last year. If any of them are serious about class warfare, they ought to give away their own fortunes to pay down the national debt.
In the end their positions on the economy were very "Trumpish." The Democrats have all attacked Donald Trump for his bully-boy boasting but lack of specifics. But that's just what we saw in the debate. A lot of talk about massive giveaways but no specifics on how it will be done.
Of the five candidates only two are seriously running for president. The others were only there to make it look like a wide field of choices. Lincoln Chaffee provided comic relief, standing tall and looking like a throwback to the early 1800s. At least twice he pointed out that in thirty years of public service he never had a scandal attached to his name. He didn't get any traction.
James Webb was the most conservative candidate. He also was given the least amount of time in the debate which he complained about several times. He constantly referred to his military service and his son's service, for which he should be applauded, but he was stiff, inarticulate, and looked like he had a hard time expressing himself. Martin O'Malley was the strongest of the three lower tier candidates, but the debate was all about Sanders and Hillary. Sanders had an angry demeanor the entire evening in contrast to Hillary who had a smile almost plastered on her face.
They had slightly differing opinions on gun control but the only one opposed to it was Webb. He is for background checks but believes people need the ability to defend themselves. Chaffee said he believes in the Second Amendment but they have to find a common ground to address the issue.
On Russia in Syria Hillary blamed the deteriorating situation on Putin and said that our warplanes flying in Syria give us leverage to negotiate with Russia. She also boasted that she had been in the situation room. The question that begs to be asked and wasn't, is that since we already had warplanes flying in Syria why didn't that give us leverage to keep the Russians out? And what good is it to have been in the situation room if all you've learned from the experience is how to retreat and disengage yourself from the world?
Sanders went on a tirade saying the Iraq war was the worst policy in US history, called it a quagmire and said he would get us out. On Syria he tacitly supported Obama saying that Russia's economy would force them to leave. Chaffee proudly acknowledged that he was the only one in the Senate who voted against the Iraq war. O'Malley attacked Bush and supported Obama's policy on Syria.
Webb said Russia is in Syria because Iraq became destabilized. He went on to criticize Obama for the Arab Spring that allowed terrorists to ruin North Africa, and pointed out the greater threat right now is China's aggression in the South China Sea. He made an important point that everyone in the western world seems to be ignoring. China is a serious threat to Southeast Asia. Webb was the only one to get it right.
Hillary challenged Webb on Libya saying that Europe was begging the US to get involved in overthrowing Khadaffi who was murdering Americans. Webb argued that it was not so urgent that Obama couldn't have come to Congress first for a constitutional authorization to act. Hillary defended the action by saying Libya had its first free elections since 1951. Webb countered that Libya was no threat to us, and that now their situation is much worse than it was under Khadaffi. It was the sharpest exchange of the evening and Webb was right again.
O'Malley tried to bring up Benghazi but nobody would bite and the issue went away. But that was typical of the entire debate. It seemed to be protect Hillary night rather than debate real issues. Sanders from the start defiantly declared he was sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails. That brought applause and a thank you from Hillary, but it was a stupid move for Sanders if he is serious about winning the nomination. He just took away one of his most powerful debating tools. If it's important enough for the FBI to be investigating, it must be important enough to be discussed.
But this was corral the wagons around Hillary. There was no discussion of any difficult issues that would put her on the spot. Benghazi, ISIS, Planned Parenthood and the e-mail scandal were ignored, and when Hillary boasted of turning over 55,000 e-mails nobody challenged her on the 30,000 e-mails she had deleted or the amateur server she was using, or the lies she told about no classified materials being sent.
On illegal immigration they all supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Clinton blasted the Republicans for "demonizing immigrants," and said she would go further than Obama has with executive orders. Webb at least said we need to define our borders, and O'Malley called Trump a "carnival barker."
After an hour and a half the debate became tedious and boring, but I lingered on till the end. Most of it was big government socialist ideology with Webb, the only one to challenge some of the Democrat norms, getting the least amount of time. There seemed to be a concerted attempt to accuse Republicans of being for bigger government, all the while ignoring that all the socialist giveaways they promised throughout the evening would expand government bigger than it has ever been.
When asked what they would do different so as not to be an Obama third term, the four men all gave a one point short comment, but the only difference Hillary gave was that she would be the first woman president. She then said she would build and go beyond what Obama has done. She also slipped in one comment about a woman's right to choose which brought the longest and loudest applause of the evening from the audience.
In the end the debate was really only face time for Sanders and Hillary. Chaffee and Webb were all but ignored. O'Malley was given more time and he asserted himself well when he had his chances, but he's going no where. The focus of the debate was on Sanders and Hillary, but rather than point out their differences they essentially patted each other on the back and held the same or similar positions on nearly every subject.
Sanders certainly didn't help himself and Hillary didn't hurt herself, so if there's a winner I would say it would have to be Hillary. If there's a loser I would say it's America if either of them becomes the next president.
The location for the debate, Las Vegas, Nevada, the gambling mecca of the world, seemed appropriate. In Las Vegas people put their entire lives on the line over a throw of the dice. They gamble away hard earned dollars hoping beyond hope for one lucky jackpot that will change their lives, and the vast majority go away disappointed and empty-handed.
It's like voting for a Democrat. The candidates promise the world with no specific plan on how to get it other than class warfare, make the wealthy pay. The liberal argument is always give it enough time and it will happen, like evolution. The facts are that socialism has been given enough time and the track record is that it has never worked anywhere in the world, and is not working under Obama's imperial usurpation of unconstitutional power. The roll of the dice on another Democrat president with the same agenda and disregard for the Constitution as Obama is a fool's wager.
I will say that Anderson Cooper did a good job moderating the debate. He kept it moving with machine-gun quick questions so that the discussion never stalled, but it was more of another powder-puff liberal interview for the candidates than a debate. Cooper's first question to Hillary challenged her flip-flopping on issues and asked if she would say anything to get elected. Her answer was that she has always been consistent on her principles but has learned and adjusted. Cooper pressed her on whether she is a progressive or a moderate. She is definitely a progressive, she answered. "I can get it done," she said emphatically.
That was the last tough question anybody was asked the entire evening. The debate then became a "same ol' same ol" regurgitation of Democrat socialist ideas and issues of minor or meaningless importance. One constant theme was an attack on Republicans for being obstructionists. Climate change appeared to be the most important issue for Sanders, although they all chimed in on it. Black lives matter over all lives matter was a softball for the African-American community. Three chimed in for black lives, Webb said all lives, and Hillary never answered the question. While Hillary made vague attempts to distance herself from Obama they all praised him and gave him their support.
They had nothing new on the economy. After seven years of the slowest economic recovery in history brought on by a recession caused by a Democrat controlled Congress, the Democrat candidates are still blaming President Bush. They all seemed to be in a race to see who could be the biggest Santa Claus and give away the most while leveling the playing field to make it fair for the middle class.
Sanders complained that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the world and the only country without universal healthcare. He pumped class warfare by calling for a groundswell movement to get everyone out to vote (the same type of movement as the Tea Party which Democrats excoriate) in order to defeat billionaires. But all of his attacks and those of the others about the inequality of the middle class are indictments against the Democrats and their failed policies. After seven years of Obama we still have the highest child poverty rate? What has Obama been doing about it? Where did he go wrong? We're still the only country without universal healthcare or paid maternity leave? What happened to Obamacare? It was supposed to fix that.
You might notice also that all the class warfare attacks were against billionaires, not millionaires. Of course, that might be because Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were "broke" when they left the White House according to Hillary, made 25 million dollars last year. If any of them are serious about class warfare, they ought to give away their own fortunes to pay down the national debt.
In the end their positions on the economy were very "Trumpish." The Democrats have all attacked Donald Trump for his bully-boy boasting but lack of specifics. But that's just what we saw in the debate. A lot of talk about massive giveaways but no specifics on how it will be done.
Of the five candidates only two are seriously running for president. The others were only there to make it look like a wide field of choices. Lincoln Chaffee provided comic relief, standing tall and looking like a throwback to the early 1800s. At least twice he pointed out that in thirty years of public service he never had a scandal attached to his name. He didn't get any traction.
James Webb was the most conservative candidate. He also was given the least amount of time in the debate which he complained about several times. He constantly referred to his military service and his son's service, for which he should be applauded, but he was stiff, inarticulate, and looked like he had a hard time expressing himself. Martin O'Malley was the strongest of the three lower tier candidates, but the debate was all about Sanders and Hillary. Sanders had an angry demeanor the entire evening in contrast to Hillary who had a smile almost plastered on her face.
They had slightly differing opinions on gun control but the only one opposed to it was Webb. He is for background checks but believes people need the ability to defend themselves. Chaffee said he believes in the Second Amendment but they have to find a common ground to address the issue.
On Russia in Syria Hillary blamed the deteriorating situation on Putin and said that our warplanes flying in Syria give us leverage to negotiate with Russia. She also boasted that she had been in the situation room. The question that begs to be asked and wasn't, is that since we already had warplanes flying in Syria why didn't that give us leverage to keep the Russians out? And what good is it to have been in the situation room if all you've learned from the experience is how to retreat and disengage yourself from the world?
Sanders went on a tirade saying the Iraq war was the worst policy in US history, called it a quagmire and said he would get us out. On Syria he tacitly supported Obama saying that Russia's economy would force them to leave. Chaffee proudly acknowledged that he was the only one in the Senate who voted against the Iraq war. O'Malley attacked Bush and supported Obama's policy on Syria.
Webb said Russia is in Syria because Iraq became destabilized. He went on to criticize Obama for the Arab Spring that allowed terrorists to ruin North Africa, and pointed out the greater threat right now is China's aggression in the South China Sea. He made an important point that everyone in the western world seems to be ignoring. China is a serious threat to Southeast Asia. Webb was the only one to get it right.
Hillary challenged Webb on Libya saying that Europe was begging the US to get involved in overthrowing Khadaffi who was murdering Americans. Webb argued that it was not so urgent that Obama couldn't have come to Congress first for a constitutional authorization to act. Hillary defended the action by saying Libya had its first free elections since 1951. Webb countered that Libya was no threat to us, and that now their situation is much worse than it was under Khadaffi. It was the sharpest exchange of the evening and Webb was right again.
O'Malley tried to bring up Benghazi but nobody would bite and the issue went away. But that was typical of the entire debate. It seemed to be protect Hillary night rather than debate real issues. Sanders from the start defiantly declared he was sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's e-mails. That brought applause and a thank you from Hillary, but it was a stupid move for Sanders if he is serious about winning the nomination. He just took away one of his most powerful debating tools. If it's important enough for the FBI to be investigating, it must be important enough to be discussed.
But this was corral the wagons around Hillary. There was no discussion of any difficult issues that would put her on the spot. Benghazi, ISIS, Planned Parenthood and the e-mail scandal were ignored, and when Hillary boasted of turning over 55,000 e-mails nobody challenged her on the 30,000 e-mails she had deleted or the amateur server she was using, or the lies she told about no classified materials being sent.
On illegal immigration they all supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Clinton blasted the Republicans for "demonizing immigrants," and said she would go further than Obama has with executive orders. Webb at least said we need to define our borders, and O'Malley called Trump a "carnival barker."
After an hour and a half the debate became tedious and boring, but I lingered on till the end. Most of it was big government socialist ideology with Webb, the only one to challenge some of the Democrat norms, getting the least amount of time. There seemed to be a concerted attempt to accuse Republicans of being for bigger government, all the while ignoring that all the socialist giveaways they promised throughout the evening would expand government bigger than it has ever been.
When asked what they would do different so as not to be an Obama third term, the four men all gave a one point short comment, but the only difference Hillary gave was that she would be the first woman president. She then said she would build and go beyond what Obama has done. She also slipped in one comment about a woman's right to choose which brought the longest and loudest applause of the evening from the audience.
In the end the debate was really only face time for Sanders and Hillary. Chaffee and Webb were all but ignored. O'Malley was given more time and he asserted himself well when he had his chances, but he's going no where. The focus of the debate was on Sanders and Hillary, but rather than point out their differences they essentially patted each other on the back and held the same or similar positions on nearly every subject.
Sanders certainly didn't help himself and Hillary didn't hurt herself, so if there's a winner I would say it would have to be Hillary. If there's a loser I would say it's America if either of them becomes the next president.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Cold War 2
I make no claim to being a prophet but I published a comment July 6, 2009 about Obama's sniveling to then Russian president Medvedev and said, "My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War." Here's the comment:
I've been listening to the speeches Medvedev and BHO have been making after signing another "historic" agreement. What they've agreed to do is to work out a new nuclear arms treaty for our mutual protection, and to have better relations in the future.
This kow-towing Jimmy Carteresque president is back to bowing down to Russia and signing away our security with nuclear arms reductions, and sitting by while Putin lectures him on Russian-American relations. Then when questioned by Fox News' Major Garret, the first interview he's given to a Fox News reporter, he explained his statement about the Cold War being won by many nations by saying the Poles under Lech Walesa and the Czechs under Vaclav Havel had a part to do in it as well.
The truth is those protest movements only succeeded because Ronald Reagan challenged the USSR and gave the protesters moral support. Without it they would never have succeeded, and those movements would have come to nothing. Yes they were small cogs that helped to bring down the Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall was a part of that, but they only succeeded because the Soviets pulled their troops out of Eastern Europe, and that was the result of no one else's efforts but the USA.
Obama doesn't understand history or foreign relations and he's making us extremely vulnerable. My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War.
In the six years since then Obama has retreated from the Middle East, backed down from an ascendant Russia's invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine, backed down from China's threats in the South China Sea, allowed Assad of Syria to cross his red lines with no retaliation, backed Muslim Brotherhood uprisings all over North Africa and Yemen which have all but destroyed any opportunity for freedom or democracy in the region, refused to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others while they were killed by terrorists in Libya and blamed it on an unknown anti-Muslim video, allowed the "JV" ISIS to rise to super terrorist status making no response while they brutally behead Christians, and given away the whole store to Iran in nuclear negotiations which were nothing less than a full scale surrender.
And now, after six years of Obama wimpiness, Russia has moved into Syria and a Russian general marched into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and with utter disdain told us to stop flying over Syria. Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the world stage has left a void for the revived evil empire of Vladimir Putin to fill, and he's filling it.
So was I right? Is this Cold War 2 starting? Am I a prophet??? I made another prediction back in early 2012. I wrote that if Obama gets reelected, and if he gets away with dismantling our military and perverting our entire culture (which he is getting away with), that he would manufacture some kind of crisis in order to declare Martial Law and retain power. In that case his overthrow of America would be complete. So what do you think? A year from now will I be two-for-two?
I hope not.
I've been listening to the speeches Medvedev and BHO have been making after signing another "historic" agreement. What they've agreed to do is to work out a new nuclear arms treaty for our mutual protection, and to have better relations in the future.
This kow-towing Jimmy Carteresque president is back to bowing down to Russia and signing away our security with nuclear arms reductions, and sitting by while Putin lectures him on Russian-American relations. Then when questioned by Fox News' Major Garret, the first interview he's given to a Fox News reporter, he explained his statement about the Cold War being won by many nations by saying the Poles under Lech Walesa and the Czechs under Vaclav Havel had a part to do in it as well.
The truth is those protest movements only succeeded because Ronald Reagan challenged the USSR and gave the protesters moral support. Without it they would never have succeeded, and those movements would have come to nothing. Yes they were small cogs that helped to bring down the Warsaw Pact, and the Berlin Wall was a part of that, but they only succeeded because the Soviets pulled their troops out of Eastern Europe, and that was the result of no one else's efforts but the USA.
Obama doesn't understand history or foreign relations and he's making us extremely vulnerable. My guess is they've just restarted the Cold War.
In the six years since then Obama has retreated from the Middle East, backed down from an ascendant Russia's invasion of the Crimea and Ukraine, backed down from China's threats in the South China Sea, allowed Assad of Syria to cross his red lines with no retaliation, backed Muslim Brotherhood uprisings all over North Africa and Yemen which have all but destroyed any opportunity for freedom or democracy in the region, refused to help U.S. Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others while they were killed by terrorists in Libya and blamed it on an unknown anti-Muslim video, allowed the "JV" ISIS to rise to super terrorist status making no response while they brutally behead Christians, and given away the whole store to Iran in nuclear negotiations which were nothing less than a full scale surrender.
And now, after six years of Obama wimpiness, Russia has moved into Syria and a Russian general marched into the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and with utter disdain told us to stop flying over Syria. Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the world stage has left a void for the revived evil empire of Vladimir Putin to fill, and he's filling it.
So was I right? Is this Cold War 2 starting? Am I a prophet??? I made another prediction back in early 2012. I wrote that if Obama gets reelected, and if he gets away with dismantling our military and perverting our entire culture (which he is getting away with), that he would manufacture some kind of crisis in order to declare Martial Law and retain power. In that case his overthrow of America would be complete. So what do you think? A year from now will I be two-for-two?
I hope not.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Should a Muslim be President
What is overlooked in this debate on whether or not a Muslim should be president is that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the only religion of any consequence in the country was Christianity. The Christian founders guaranteed freedom of religion to all religions, but they never expected to see a day when Islam or any other non-Christian religion would have been dominant. This is clear in their own writings and comments. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and author of five of The Federalist articles, said that it is the duty of Christians in a Christian nation to elect Christians to the nation's highest offices. The Founders, while granting freedom of worship to all religions, expected that America would be a Christian nation in perpetuity. The reason someone adhering to Sharia Law should not be president, even if the Constitution would allow it to happen, is that in Islam there can be no loyalty to any entity other than Allah. A Muslim president could not honestly take the oath of office because his only loyalty would be to Islam and an Islamic takeover and overthrow of the Constitution he would be swearing to defend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)