Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Over the past year and a half, I have devoted most of this blog to internal American affairs. I prefer to cover conflicts where U.S. interests are being challenged by foreign enemies. The nature of our internal conflict with President Obama has become of more immediate concern which is why I have made this emphasis change to internal conflict. And we are losing both conflicts. Islamic nationalism is winning all over the Middle East. One of the most glaring examples is Egypt. Now Egypt is becoming closer to Iran and it appears that cooperation will increase. How quickly and how far the relationship will develop remains to be seen. Egypt is only one of the more recent examples. What is of concern is that even supposedly ‘allied’ states are still a threat. I have not forgotten Turkey, who back in 2003 had given permission to the U.S. to stage our 4th Division out of their territory. Less than 2 days before our invasion of Iraq, this permission was revoked. This was intentional and intended to give direct and material assistance to our enemy. We have seen this type of action countless time on a small scale in just about all action we have taken in the Middle East. Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. This can be expected to continue and even expand as our direct influence decreases throughout the region. Bin Laden himself said it: “We will back the stronger horse.” Internally, we Americans have actually elected the most anti-American ever to come near the White House. The private sector is being taken over by the government at an astounding rate, one which cannot last long simply because the pie is becoming so small that percentagewise it cannot be repeated even if attempted. This is the very foundation of American exceptionalism and American economic strength. Our economy is what has set us apart as Americans more than anything else. And we are CHANGING it, intentionally. What is even more of a concern is that this guy actually has a good chance at being re-elected. In decades past, he would not have stood a snowball chance in hell. “Once a population realizes that it can vote itself entitlements, fiscal responsibility becomes impossible.” We are seeing this today. Our inability to live within our means (Our government) is a real threat to the republic. The only way to reverse this (outside of the long shot of our population just deciding that we want to live with less) is to disenfranchise a large percentage of the population. This is the loss of the republic and we are heading toward this result at ever increasing speed. I believe that it is now easily within my own lifetime. (20 to 30 years) This is why I say that we are losing. We are going the way of the Romans, it is human nature. I want to slow it to a crawl, but the CHANGE is here and is being implemented intentionally. We are losing both internally and externally. It cannot be long before this becomes very clear to the majority of the population of not just our country, but the entire world.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
I keep seeing and hearing about how domestic terrorism in the United States is similar to the Islamic terrorism seen in other parts of the world. That tactics is what tells us an attack is a ‘terror’ attack. The examples of domestic terrorism in the United States go back more than 100 years. Examples are plentiful of some ‘lone wolf’ or just a couple of guys who get an attitude and kill as many people as they can. They are usually quickly caught, or they kill themselves. About the only regular organization that I am aware of over the past 100 years of domestic American terrorism is the KKK. The KKK has been around since the U.S. Civil War. It has had three ‘surges’ in interest, the peak being in the early 1920’s with membership estimated about 3 to 6 million. It is unknown how much violence has been initiated by the Klan, but I can think of no examples of where the U.S. military was called in to restore order or contain the violence within the past 100 years. I would expect to find some examples in the late 1860’s as the country had just emerged from the Civil War and the military would be the main source of public control for at least the first 5 to ten years afterward. The major point is that the KKK is not generally supported by our population and gets no external support at all. To compare this with Islamic nationalist organizations who engage in terror tactics is a stretch to say the least. Islamic nationalist groups are well organized with state sponsors and military training and equipment. The KKK does not field combat units. The Islamic terror groups do. The KKK is only one organization, if you can call it that. The Islamic terror groups are numerous and widespread throughout the world. Islamic terror groups have plenty of local support and many obtain external support from national governments as well. This ability to actually fight a national armed force will naturally pit it against the host government, at least on occasion. History is full of examples of Islamic nationalist groups being engaged by the host country’s military. The police were inadequate for the job, so the military was needed. Not exactly what we have been seeing in this country. Yes the United States has domestic terrorism. All countries do. To compare the ineffective, disorganized and unsupported terrorism that we have seen in this country to the organized, effective, powerful and supported terrorist organizations and ideology that the Islamic nationalists have is like attempting to compare the Native American forces at the Little Big Horn to the German 7th panzer division in 1940. And this comparison would be giving domestic American terrorism a lot more credit than they deserve.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
I have noted that I really do not want President Obama to become desperate in this election. I am worried about what he might do. You know the old story about accusations and how they can tell you more about the accuser than the accused? Well, this is a defining moment in America. Something like 50% of our population does not pay any Federal income tax. Our spending as a percentage of GDP is approaching European levels. Austerity like what is needed in Greece is not far away for the United States. Will we become like Europe or will we revert back to America’s greatness and implement real CHANGE? If real CHANGE is not implemented THIS election, I do not believe that our course can be reversed without the loss of the republic. (I am doubtful that we can do it now anyway, but just to stop it for a decade or so will still be better than nothing.) In other words, I am the one who is desperate. I see human nature taking over. Humans will take the easy path. (Not all the time) And it is easier to keep on doing what you are doing. The pattern of the past 80 years has been greater government involvement and control. What I call the Roman complex is taking over. As more and more people become dependent upon the government, the side in favor of doing the payouts receives automatic votes. If you are getting something for nothing, why would you want to CHANGE it? It makes sense that the people who want to implement these things will encourage EVERYONE to vote. Those who do not want to bother themselves to become informed and take the time and effort to research the issues who vote are susceptible to just doing what they are told instead of taking the imitative and deciding for themselves. It is easier and heck, why not vote for someone who will give you free stuff? This type of CHANGE is not reversible. Just look at Rome for an example. I want to slow it down to a stop, if not a crawl. President Obama is doing just the opposite. This is why I have become desperate. We are at a point of no return, if we have not passed it already. This is true desperation.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
I watched part of an argument on Fox News about the voter ID laws. I can’t stand seeing people argue who are not listening to each other. Constant interruptions bother me. Anyway, one argument made was that ALL Americans should be allowed to vote. And we should be doing our utmost to help them get out voting. I must disagree. If someone is not willing to take the time and effort to become informed and go to through the process, he/she will be casting a vote that can easily be more damaging than constructive. After all, Adolf Hitler WAS elected. Not that we will do that, but to cast an uninformed vote is far worse than if the person did not vote at all. Then we have the potential fraud issue. One reason our republic is so strong is that the vast majority of our population accepts the results of our voting. If that confidence is ruined, the consequences will be severe. The results can vary in everything from a lack of interest voting in the first place to out and out rejection of our government. Our system relies upon our population generally following the law. If you don’t see the government as legitimate, I would expect law breaking to become far more common. Even the IRS is dependent upon the average persons’ honesty. Our very society would be in jeopardy. Violence and even revolution could result. This is why we must protect the confidence in the identification of the people who are casting their vote on Election Day. The amount of ID needed can be argued, but at the very least it should be government issued identification with a picture. The lack of the ability to ID yourself to this degree should disqualify you to act on something that is far more important than boarding a plane or picking up your on-line purchase at Wal-Mart. In the elections that I have participated in, all that was asked of me was to state my name and district. They looked me up and gave me a ballot. I could have been anyone. Anyone could have been me. What if someone else got there in front of me and used my ID? This is not very likely, but far more likely is a dead person who was registered and someone who knows about it uses it to cast additional votes. I am certain that you have heard about this. Political motivation is present here. I must admit, I would expect most who to be pushed into voting need would likely vote Democrat, so I would not be particularly pleased about this. But the opposite can also be said: Those who want to push people who are not likely to take the time and effort to vote know that the majority of these will vote Democrat. But it sounds better to say that they are more interested in not disenfranchising anyone. One last example: A vote is being held to build a new sewer system. A better and less expensive way is discovered but not in time to place on the ballot. Is it in our best interest to have a bunch of people who do not know anything at all about this sewer system actually voting and deciding if it should be built? What if you did your homework and voted against it because you know the new idea is a far better method and some of your neighbors who did not know anything at all about it voted for it? I will say it again: A no show for voting is much preferred over an uninformed vote.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I see the world today as having two major issues: 1) The rise of Islamic nationalism. This is the responsibility of the President. 2) The world financial crisis. (Europe and the U.S.) Of course, the world has many more issues than these, but these two for me are the most pressing. The rise of Islamic nationalism will take everyone’s attention. The choice of Vice President in this case does not make all that much difference unless Paul Ryan has experience or knowledge on this subject that I am unaware of. The financial problems of Europe and the rest of the world are not really something that the United States can do much about except to persuade and encourage. The financial crisis in the United States can be dealt with and Paul Ryan is one of the best choices in this area. (If not the best) It is much easier to spend other people’s money. Companies can and do this to a limited degree, but the constraints of the owners tend to keep this human weakness to a minimum. This is most obvious when you compare negotiations of unions. Companies are constrained by possibility of costs rising to the level of bankruptcy. Owners want to make a return on investment and need to keep costs at a certain level. Unions can only collect a certain amount before they run into a real fight. Government constraint is simply how much can the people pay? On the Federal level, bankruptcy is not really a possibility. Government negotiators can just offer more and more until the situation is reached that we are seeing across the country today. By choosing Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney is demonstrating that he is not just serious about the fiscal problems of our Federal government. While Mitt Romney is no slouch when it comes to financial matters, this team is declaring that IF elected (A BIG IF) they intend to tackle our fiscal problems by at least a major attempt at limiting Federal spending. In other words, they intend to treat the federal budget like they would with their own money. The massive spending of our Federal government is something that is so badly in need of restraint that it amazes me that we are even debating this issue at all.
Friday, August 10, 2012
This election is going to become dirtier than any before it. The negative attacks have been a pattern in politics for a long time. However, we are going where we have never been before. An ad that links Presidential candidate Romney to the death of a woman was aired recently. I have not seen the ad but that does not matter. What does matter is that ideas like that are making it difficult, if not impossible to remain an independent. Ads like this leave no middle ground. No room for compromise. This trend may have already been in place and this ad just takes the next step. What is more concerning is that because this pattern is becoming so extreme, it is becoming more difficult to concentrate on the meaningful issues of the day. The issues of Immigration, the economy of the U.S. and the world, the rise of Islamic nationalism, just to name a few. These issues are still here and what are we hearing about them? How the other guy is responsible. No more, “The buck stops here”. Not exactly an American concept. President Obama is CHANGING America alright. What is a major concern here is that President Obama cannot afford to lose this election. The CHANGE is incomplete. Much of the action that has been taken over the past 3 and ½ years can be undone. This is unacceptable to President Obama. All that hard work wasted? He cannot allow that to happen. On top of this, I just cannot see President Obama being a graceful loser. The CHANGE must be permanent. The best way to do that is to win the election. President Obama has demonstrated a remarkable ability to skirt the Constitution. This is particularly true concerning limits on Presidential powers. This is where his strength is and I expect him to use it fully. CHANGE has the benefit of allowing any limits to be moved or stretched or eliminated altogether. CHANGING the rules of the game has lots of advantages. This leads me to believe that this election is going to become very ugly. (We have not even reached the debates yet.) President Obama cannot afford to let what happened to President Carter happen to him. He needs more distractions. He needs BIG distractions. The stage is set for cheating like we have never seen before. “We need to pass this bill so that YOU can find out what it does.” OK, apply this concept to the election. What will be off limits with this type of thinking? Not much, if anything. CHANGE indeed.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
President Obama is far more adept at making enemies than he is loyal allies. I am speaking about the national level, not personal. I have no idea what the guy really is like, except that I am opposite in the way that I look at the world from his view. In many ways, I can accept these differences, but I am an American above all. This is the area of my most concern. Our allies: I believe that our allies are more like us than most of the rest of the world. As with any general rule, exceptions can easily be found. But in general, it makes sense that our allies share common goals and beliefs. President Obama wants to CHANGE this. Our economy: I believe that America’s greatness originates in our historical distrust of government and our version of limited government that allows the population to privately own the methods of production. Simply put, you will take better care of your house if you own it. Even more so, if you own the land, you will develop AND maintain it better than ANYONE who does not. President Obama wants to CHANGE this. Our country: I am loyal to America. I am male and accept the fact that I could have been conscripted into our military if our government deemed it necessary. I also accept the fact that my two sons run this risk as well when they reach the proper age. What I am attempting to say here is that I am loyal to AMERICA above ALL else. President Obama wants to CHANGE this. OH! Not my loyalty, but the independence of America itself. We as a country need to join the world collective and cede at least more of our sovereignty to world organizations instead of jealously protecting our own self interests. Our closest allies are England and Israel. Think we are close to them right now? I am surprised that Germany and Japan are not being snubbed by President Obama, but I guess he is busy snubbing Poland because they are much closer to the action. We did not build this country. Our government allowed it to happen. The first statement is false, but I can see how President Obama sees the second statement and logically believes the first. Our country was founded by people who understood how EVERYONE acts in what they perceive to be their own best interests. President Obama cannot believe this. It is obvious that he believes that he can allocate our national resources better than we can. World organizations are likewise better suited than America to direct the interests of the world. America should just accept this. We need to CHANGE from our jealous protection of our interests to allow the world to decide what is in our collective best interest. I just do not see how two people can be more opposite on the major issues of the day.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
The July/August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine has an article titled:”Obama’s New Global Posture”. (Michele Flournoy and Janine Davidson) The article argues for this strategy of ‘forward engagement’. It makes a number of points to reinforce this ‘posture’. By stationing more of our activity abroad, we make our influence greater and deterrence stronger. I have lots of problems with this article, but three stand out: 1) Sorry, but I am a BIG believer in defense in depth. This strategy has it’s uses, but the best pure defenses are ones that have depth in both space on the battlefield and its material resources. 2) The most unstable region in the world is the Middle East and the surrounding areas. If having forward bases are so important, why is the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan? Pakistan and Iran are the greatest threats in the area and Afghanistan borders BOTH countries. 3) It is riskier. Forward posturing is riskier than defense in depth. Like blitzing your linebackers. It does work at times, but to rely on it all the time is risky. Certain times require a forward defensive position. In 1944, Rommel knew that with the U.S. and English control of the air, reinforcements would need to be very close to the front because any and all movement would be curtailed by enemy air power. Conventional doctrine did not apply in this case. Is the U.S REALLY in a situation that demands a forward posture? In certain parts of the world it makes sense on the tactical level, but this article is arguing that this posture is the best strategic positioning of our forces today. I not only disagree, but believe that this is a very dangerous position to take. You just never know when a critical situation will arise and a defense in depth is generally the best way to minimize your losses and recover your position.