Obama's speech to air force academy graduates...

While reading an article over at the washington post regarding obama's speech to the graduating air force academy class graduates (link below) I was struck by many of the anti- American comments posted. One poster in response to a claim that America's military was still the best trained and most competent in the world SAID, " why then have you not won a war since World War II although being at war almost every year since ?"

Ignorance is hard for me to tolerate despite my usual gentle nature . Sigh..

There will likely not to be any more wars with the kind of complete and total surrender akin to World War II.
Geopolitics is far more complex and even borders themselves become irrelevant in many instances as military actions target not just nation state actors but ideological threats such as Al Qaeda .

It would be a fool that would stand and argue the United States military is anything less than the most competent in the world . Even in Vietnam (which is arguably our darkest hour in recent history at least militarily) I would ask the apparently legion of uneducated students unaware of modern history to avail yourself of the facts....

How many Vietcong were killed for every American soldier killed?

How many Soviet migs were shot down for every American aircraft ?

Clearly the United States is competent militarily. To argue otherwise is simply ludicrous to the point of absurdity . What Vietnam ushered in was the notion that more than simple military might would be required to win future conflicts.  Even today we are witnessing the evolution and refinement of policies that will allow the United States to remain the dominant force in the world as we have made our mistakes and learn from them in nationbuilding both in Iraq and Afghanistan .

Afghanistan is admittedly quite chaotic and even still when compared to the Soviets lack of success even our modest gains there can only be considered tremendous accomplishments .

Sadly I do not believe there is a postwar age for United States as anyone of intelligence understands that Islam itself represents an  existential  threat to Western civilization so long as it purports to engage in Jihad until sharia law rules all of the earth . Well-meaning people who under the guise of religious tolerance do not wish to say the obvious  are bewildered and perplexed when confronted with the obvious question - are you willing to support sharia law which would stone a person to death publicly for adultery and behead them for other crimes ? The stark reality is that this is sharia law that every Muslim without exception is required to support and adhere to . If a Muslim does not then they are not "in communion" with the Koran and Islam itself and cannot claim to be a Muslim . Simply put if one does not believe what the Koran clearly and plainly teaches in a most explicit manner than one simply cannot claim to be a Muslim . Therefore all Muslims if they are true Muslims must support Jihad upon the world until sharia rules the earth. So-called " moderate Muslims " simply do not exist in reality to the extent that " moderate " means they disembark from the beliefs of Islam and the Koran . It is on that basis I make the perhaps audacious claim that there is no such thing as Islamic extremism there is only Islam.

Are these punishments and this system of justice in anyway congruent with the hallmarks of a civilized western society ?

Mr. Obama 's speech to the Air Force Academy graduates well perhaps inspiring like so many of his speeches have been remind me in an unsettling way of sitting through Steven Spielberg movie and it's emotional manipulation .  At this point into the Obama administration 's tenure it's clear that Mr. Obama has no integrity . His words his promises are empty and hollow without meaning and can only be regarded as trivial entertainment and self-aggrandizement which is sadly in most cases further polarizes this country despite his promises of bringing us together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-touts-american-exceptionalism-end-of-wars-in-air-force-graduation-speech/2012/05/23/gJQANN2zkU_story.html?wp_login_redirect=0

Louis Farrakhan at it again

http://goo.gl/Nlria

Shovel ready stimulus projects and Mexico's President Calderone...

 

Did you hear about what congress is trying to do now? 200-250 BILLION for "job creation" - I thought the stimulus was supposed to do that?

You remember the 1 TRILLION dollar package (over HALF which remains UNSPENT despite promises of "shovel ready" projects) that was supposed to save us and prevent unemployment from exceeding 8%?

Mind you in California unemployment is hovering around 12% and if the long term unemployed are accounted for the real number nationwide at 17%+ is one Obama does not want to talk about. We cant even consider the numbers for black men between 18 and 35 which is so shocking at 40-50% Obama ignores the issue completely as he is more interested in political payback to organized labor foresaking his many campaign promises.

Why the black community seems to allow him this transgression of such monumental proportion is inexplicable.  This then provides us with the rationale for Obama;s current aversion to a real press conference these days.

After all he really is quite busy giving President Calderone of Mexico a forum for lecturing America on immigration law. I just wish Obama who obviously has not even read the law would take a look the 10 pages (plus 5 pages of amendments) that comprise AZ SB 1070. Its a light casual read compared to the almost 3,000 page health care "reform" that was fashioned in secret out of view of even the oft promised C-SPAN cameras. "Most transparent administration in recent history" indeed... But I digress...

It is perhaps just too much to ask that our chief law enforcement official - Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano ( and ironically frmr Gov of AZ) AFTER appearing on virtually every major network criticizing AZ's law and issuing opinions as to its constitutionality admitted that neither of the officials above had even bothered to read it. That Mr Holder is Attorney General and threatened A federal legal challenge of the law and THEN in a house judiciary hearing admitted not only he had not read the law but adding insult to ignorance and bringing his competence solidly into question told legislators he relied on the news media and what he had read about the law - yet not the law itself.

This is no joke... But our Attorney General! One can only wonder what a heyday the media would have had if a Bush administration official had perpetrated the same fraud upon the citizenry as the above Obama officials. But then similarly abhorrent examples of hypocrisy and overt incompetence abound within Mr Obama's fifedom.

Most have no doubt seen Calderone's comments, "... I stonrgly disagree with Arizon's new law..."

I'd suggest a correction or several alternatives:

1) I strongly disagree with America having laws like we do in Mexico
2) I strongly disagree with America enforcing its own Southern border with the tenacity we do in Mexico

I'm sure you can come up with several of your own...

I think at some point Mexican's themselves might begin to have some shame about this whole affair. Rather than govern Mexico and tackle the ubiquitous corruption Mr Calderone and so many before him aquiesce to a country in such economic and social dissarray that the only solution they can conceive is to encourage the wholesale exodus of their citizens. I just wonder what the might think if Obama or Bush had shown up in their capitol and lectured them on corruption, drug enforcement and how education beyond 8th grade should be mandatory if they expect to compete in a global economy.

Somehow I think the proud people of Mexico might react with far greater outrage then we have. That has been a problem for those "bitter clingers" such as you and I... we hold a live and let live attitude and tend to remain silent. I heard a new phrase that we would do well to take to heart amid the clamors that all who oppose Mr Obama's radical agenda are racist (BTW how insulting and childish can you get? I odnt care what race/color the man is its his POLICIES I abhor) - anyway here it is:

Not Racist
     Not Violent
         NOT SILENT ANYMORE

"Of course we ask immigrants to show their papers!"

Mexican president:
Of course we ask immigrants to show their papers
posted at 9:00 pm on May 20, 2010 by Allahpundit


 Here’s the transcript:



BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?


CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually…


BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?


CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?


And if they explain…


BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.


CALDERON: Yes.


BLITZER: But once they’re in…


CALDERON: But not — but not in — if — once they are inside the — inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is [not] a crime anymore in Mexico.


Sounds like he’s saying (or trying to say) that you have to show papers at the border to get in but maybe not once you’re inside — unless, of course, Mexican police need to see them to “enforce the law.” Rush’s cuts leave out the border part. What exactly is “the law” in Mexico, though? Well, the boss emeritus has this:


– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.


– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.


That’s from a 2006 study on Mexican immigration law, some of which is now out of date. For instance, Calderon was right when he told CNN yesterday that it’s no longer a criminal offense, as it was until last year, to be caught illegally inside the country. But then there’s this:


Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona’s.


Arizona’s policy, which Calderon derided on Wednesday as “discriminatory” and assailed again on Thursday, requires law enforcement to try to determine the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant — provided they are already in contact with that person. They can’t randomly stop people and demand papers and the law prohibits racial profiling.


The Mexican law also states that law enforcement officials are “required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues.”


Not sure if that means at the border only or while you’re inside the country. Regardless, Mexico’s best deterrent against illegals isn’t its statutes but the fact that abuse of immigrants is so vicious and endemic that Amnesty International called it a “human rights crisis” just last month. Bear this in mind the next time you see some leftist idiot applauding Calderon’s fine principled stand on the dignity of all individuals:


Invisible Victims: Migrants on the Move in Mexico, documents the alarming levels of abuse faced by the tens of thousands of Central American irregular migrants that every year attempt to reach the US by crossing Mexico.


“Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses,” said Rupert Knox, Mexico Researcher at Amnesty International.


“Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.”


Estimated number of migrant women and girls who experience “sexual violence”: 60 percent. Exit question: Why don’t we take Mark Levin’s advice and just enact Mexico’s immigration laws here? Minus the “human rights crisis” elements, of course.

Just a pause and THANKS to ALL who serve and keep us safe...

Cap and Scam & 1867...

Cap and Scam

"will allow the average American the carbon dioxide emissions of the average citizen back in 1867"

By David Harsanyi


Were you aware that Americans have a collective obligation to stop kicking challenges to the next generation and join the White House in supporting "sweeping" and "transformative" legislation? I thought so.

These days, there are few higher callings in Washington than pretending to save the environment. Authoritative "leadership" is sorely needed in this area -- and quickly, before the three-cornered-hat-wearing Visigoths storm Washington's barricades this midterm election.

Reporting for duty are John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, armed with a new cap-and-trade "energy" bill -- christened the Newspeak-esque "American Power Act" -- that is so inclusive it nearly secured the support of a single radical right-winger (as if there were any other kind) in Republican Lindsey Graham, before he had a temper tantrum.

Praising the legislation, President Barack Obama made his customary case, twinning the fictitious economic benefits of statism with freshman-class utopianism, claiming that "we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced -- jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain."

Like most parents, I, too, hope my children one day toil in a nonproductive factory assembling taxpayer-subsidized wind turbines rather than turn to imported Canadian fossil fuels and constructive high-income professions. Unlike profits, you see, dreams never can be outsourced.

We are only in the "discussion draft" phase of the bill -- entailing tons of discussions on how to entice Western Democrats and circumvent Republicans -- which would make efficient energy more expensive, put non-energies on the dole and slap a layer of crony capitalism on the entire energy industry.

And seeing as we never waste a crisis, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has given cap-and-trade supporters another hammer to add to the debate. Though, as Newsweek summed it up, "considering that the Kerry-Lieberman bill contains a little something for everyone, it's likely to pass."

A little something for everyone except you, that is. The fabricated cap-and-trade "market" is a well-documented concoction of rent-seeking corporations that will work diligently with Washington to ensure taxpayers always foot the bill. As the legislation stands now, oil companies would also have to pay emissions allowances -- outside the cap-and-trade market -- which are nothing more than another gas tax.

This bill not only is loaded with obvious costs but also features underlying protectionist expenses that would benefit the usual industries (agriculture and steel) and, of course, unions. For example, the legislation would force nations "that have not taken action to limit emissions to pay a comparable amount" -- in other words, to pay for having the good sense not to engage in slow-motion economic suicide. (Hey, I thought we weren't supposed to impose our values on other nations.)

What do we expect from these countries and ourselves? The bill would mandate we reduce emissions by 83 percent by 2050. Roll up your sleeves, because we all will be doing organic farming. Or, as Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute points out, we "will allow the average American the carbon dioxide emissions of the average citizen back in 1867, a mere 39 years from today."

Though an energy breakthrough could make all this possible -- and that would be wonderful -- solar panels, carbon sequestration and the fertile imaginations of political opportunists who make demands before they have solutions will not.

And remember, these legislators were supposed to be the grown-ups.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
.from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/14/cap_and_scam_105583.html

Show Me Your Papers!

Obamacare Requires You To "Show Your Papers"

William A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY  blogging at Legal Insurrection

Remember when Democrats fell all over themselves trying to prove that Obamacare would NOT cover illegal aliens? When Joe Wilson shouted "you lie" about coverage for illegal aliens, Obama and Democratic leaders assured the nation that illegal aliens would be excluded.

Under the final Senate health care bill signed into law (unlike the earlier House version), illegal aliens are screened out. Only persons who can prove they are "a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States" get to participate.

In other words, when you try to buy a policy through an exchange, or seek a subsidy, or receive any of the other supposed benefits, you will be told "show me your papers."

Just like in Arizona now. If you are contacted lawfully by the police. And if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are here illegally. And if you cannot produce any of the specified common forms of identification. And in that case, the officer has to try to confirm your status with the federal immigration authorities.

The burden of producing identification under the Arizona law is no more intrusive than the documentation you need to fly; or ride an Amtrak train; or check into a hotel; or rent a car; or cash a check.

It certainly is less intrusive than the health care mandate, which forces people to spend money or be penalized, and requires that employers and taxpayers report to the government about insurance status. I find it quite interesting that the same people who insist that the federal government can control virtually all aspects of our health care find it so horrid when a state government seeks to protect its citizens by verifying immigration status.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could go through our lives without ever being told "show me your papers." And there would be no problems with foreign drug gangs and terrorist groups. And immigration would be controlled at the border.

But this is not a perfect world, as the people of Arizona can attest.

But it also is not the equivalent of being in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or apartheid South Africa, as is being claimed by opponents of the Arizona law. Anymore so than a molehill is a mountain.


If being told "show me your papers" under the Arizona law constitutes the equivalent of any of those evil forms of government, what does that make Obamacare? And the Democrats who voted for it? And the President who signed it? And the bureaucrats who will implement it? And the doctors who will provide services under it? And the patients who will participate in it?


Are they all now Nazis, and Communists, and Apartheidists? Just like the people of Arizona.


Byron York has an even longer list of things for which we already have to show our papers:


No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers.


We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license.

When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who William A. Jacobson looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license.


Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny.