About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

OBAMA MAKES UP HIS MIND, FINALLY!!

Posted by Jax Hawk on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:11:30 AM

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

A HALF HEARTED RESPONSE TO McCHRSTAL'S REQUEST FOR 40,000 TROOPS

What would have happened had General Eisenhower delayed the invasion of Europe for THREE months after the World Press announced that the Invasion was being delayed while Roosevelt decided how many troops to send into the beaches in Normandy France?
The German’s would have slaughtered more than they did, because they would have moved all their defensive forces and firepower to the Normandy beach cliffs. It would a massacre of disastrous proportions.

The first troops to be deployed to Afghanistan are going to be Marines,( when in doubt ,send in the Marines!)” General James Conway, the Marines’ top officer, told troops in Afghanistan at the weekend. “We have been leaning forward in anticipation of a decision. And we have got some pretty stiff fighting coming.”

The Marines are expected to be followed quickly by about 1,000 US Army trainers. They will land in Afghanistan early next year to hasten the growth of the Afghan Army and police force, another critical component of Mr Obama’s new strategy. ( you remember the commander in the field, General McChrystal had asked for 40,000 troops now!)

And the additional 30,000 US troops will deploy to Afghanistan over the next 12 to 18 months.( talk about a calculated delay to satisfy his political base that is violently against sending any more troops!)

The first priority will be to dislodge the Taleban from the Helmand town of Marjeh. Despite months of often intense fighting, the 9,000 Marines already there have failed to retake the city, which is a hub of the country’s opium trade. It is also a Taleban stronghold where many of the roadside bombs, the biggest killer of foreign troops, are made. ( Why don’t the soldiers burn or defoliant the poppy fields and dry up the supply of opium. This si the source of much of the financial support given to the Taliban)

Another focus will be to build a security cordon around the southern city of Kandahar, another Taleban hotbed. The aim will be to protect the civilian population from Taleban attacks, part of the classic counter-insurgency strategy that General Stanley McChrystal, the ground commander, has already begun pursuing.

( It seems we are more concerned with what we used to call collateral damage to the population during a battle to DEFEAT an enemy than they are to support and protect our brave men and women in uniform!)

Mr Obama is also expected to lay out in a prime-time speech tonight an aggressive goal for greatly increasing the size of the Afghan Army and police force. It will call for increasing the size of the Army to 134,000 troops by next October, four years earlier than the initial goal of 2014. ( This appears to be another tip of the hat to the anti-war zealots that Obama needs to get re-elected in three years)

The accelerated training of Afghan forces is central to Mr Obama’s hopes of handing over responsibility for the country’s security to the Afghans themselves as quickly as possible. (a numbers game, never mind if they can defend themselves against the Taliban, Obama just wants to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq!)

Analysts also believe that another crucial element of the new strategy will be to use the additional troops to secure the main highway between Kandahar in the south and the capital Kabul. This central road is currently not controlled by Nato forces.(As usual we have to the heavy lifting for the NATO skimpy force!)

Mr Obama told America’s senior military leadership about his long-awaited decision on troop numbers and strategy at a 5pm Oval Office meeting on Sunday, said the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Mr Obama conveyed his decision, which has been more than three months in the making, to Robert Gates, his Defence Secretary, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, and General David Petraeus, chief of US Central Command.

The meeting was immediately followed by a secure video conference with General McChrystal and Karl Eikenberry, the US Ambassador in Kabul, when they were also formally instructed about the new strategy.
(I would assume McChrystal was very disappointed that he would not get the 40K troops immediately as he requested)

Mr Obama held a series of calls yesterday with foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown, to brief them about his decision. He also called President Sarkozy of France, President Medvedev of Russia, and personally briefed Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, who is in Washington on an official visit. (I am sure he apologized for sending the troops. Since that is all he has done since assuming the Presidency, apologize and bow to foreign leaders for America’s actions)

In tonight’s speech Mr Obama will attempt to convince a sceptical American public that the surge of troops, which will bring the number of American forces in Afghanistan to 100,000, is the right option. ( he has to convince the anti-war base that he had to send troops or risk another Viet Nam massacre )

I was already convinced that he would not grant the Commander in the fields request for 40,000 troops immediately to mount a surge. You will remember Obama said he doesn’t like the word VICTORY!!
This obvious from the leaked reports of the speech he will give at West Point tonight.
In his address,to be delivered from the US Military Academy at West Point, Mr Obama will focus heavily on the importance of an exit strategy, and will make clear that there is no open-ended commitment in Afghanistan.

He is planning to set lay out a “time frame” for scaling back the US involvement there, US officials said.


Withdrawal not VICTORY is on the Commander in Chiefs mind! What a disgrace this man is to the office he holds!!




:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IT IS TOO BAD THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE DID NOT THINK CHRYSLER BOND HOLDERS DESERVED THE SAME PRO

Posted by Jax Hawk on Saturday, November 28, 2009 2:02:02 PM

 

Saturday, November 28, 2009

If the American public had any doubt where the loyalties of the Obama administration were before yesterday. There is no doubt about it today.
As you will recall when we had the controversy over the government take over of General Motors less than a year ago. During the GM process the issue of bankruptcy for Chrysler was not allowed, by Obama's Car Czar, to go through the normal bankruptcy process, but a "special" government bankruptcy was pushed through by the Car Czar that was in direct violation of the Constitution!

This travesty ignored the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution that guarantees that the bond holders are prime recipients for any payment that results from reorganization. But in the Chrysler manipulation, the CAR CZAR appointed by, and beholden to only Obama, decided that the bond holders came last and the workers of the auto union came first. A direct violation of the Constitution! In fact Obama called the Bond holders unpatriotic because they were not willing to accept 20 cents on a dollar for their bonds and had threatened to sue to get what they thought they were due !

Now the issue of contracts between the government and ACORN has been addressed by the Attorney Generals office.The issue is, should the government pay monies owed ACORN for services that were contracted(arranged) before the President signed a Bill forbidding the payment of taxpayers money to this corrupt organization.
Remember that when they were contracted to register voters they not only registered dead people, they registered Mickey Mouse!!
In a direct contrast to the Chrysler bond holders deal, the Attorney General's office ruled that ACORN must be paid because the contracts were in force before Obama signed the Bill forbidding payments to ACORN

The following is an excerpt from an article on the internet written by Charlie Savage.
"Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.
A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.
The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote".
The deputy director of national operations for Acorn, Brian Kettenring, praised Mr. Barron’s decision.

Of course he would and so should all the recipients for the government (tax payer funded) bail outs including the Wall Street bankers, Brokerage houses(AIG,etc.) and other Obama supporters who helped elect Obama, and now are being paid back!

The decision by the acting assistant Attorney General reminds me of the testimoney of Bill Clinton when he was questioned whether he had sex with "ML". He said it all depends on the meaning of the word is, is? Of course I am paraphrasing his words, but the result is the same. The parsing of words using Semantics to confuse the issue.
Here is what the AAG said: "Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”


Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfy contractual obligations.
Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts".



I believe the reason why Obama and Democrats are pushing so hard for Health Care reform to be rushed through Congress is to reward large Unions and AARP and other ilk who will gain from Socializing 1/6th of our GNP. Not to cut the cost of health care or provide health insurance to those who cannot afford it!

Wake up Americans !! How long will this corrupt adminstration go without Americans marching in the millions on the Capitol screaming enough already!!
 

 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

IS HOLBROOKES DECISION O.K. WITH OBAMA?

Posted by Jax Hawk on Monday, June 29, 2009 9:03:50 AM

 





The Obama administration has been busy reversing or nullifying most of ex-president Bush's policies, but the latest decision by the US envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke to stop destroying the poppy fields has me wondering if this decision came down from the Oval Office in D.C., or was it a unilateral decision by Holbrooke?

If Holbrooke made the decision he should be removed from his position as envoy, but if Obama directed him to stop the eradication of the poppy fields, that produce a major portion of the heroine that is sold on the streets of the USA. Then an investigation should be begun on the reasons why Obama decided to stop destroying these field of misery and death! Who put pressure on Obama to stop doing what stops heroine producing at the source?

The London Telegraph has a story on the Net today that explains Great Britain's decision to continue eradication of the poppy fields despite the decision by Holbrooke.

The British Government said destroying poppy fields remained a key deterrent to growers and one of the "seven pillars" of its anti-opium strategy in Helmand province, just a day after Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan, said that destroying the crop only drove poor farmers to join the insurgency.

In a reversal of policy, he said the United States would stop funding poppy eradication and instead concentrate on encouraging farmers to grow alternative crops.It sounds to me like one of the continuing policies of the erudyte talker we elected a president, who thinks we can talk anyone out of doing things we percieve as bad.
It is a fallacious argument, and planting agricultural products is a lot harder and requires proper cultivation. Whereas the planting of poppies is a simple and money making crop the Afgans have been doing for decades. I doubt talking will make them change. Destroying the crops make sure that the heroine does not get made, and the Britts realize that!

The Afghan government backed Britain's stance and defended its previous efforts, which relied heavily on ripping up or flattening poppy plants, as "perfect

General Khodaidad, Afghan minister for counter narcotics, said his strategy had been "the right path".

"We are happy with our strategy and we are working according to our strategy. I don't see any deficiencies in our strategy, our strategy is perfect, our strategy is good."

Mr Holbrooke's reversal is the latest change in policy as the US struggles to stem a growing Taliban-led insurgency.Unfortunately the only way to stop the Taliban is to kill as many as we can. Talking and teaching them to grow crops will not stop those who hate us from trying to kill us. All out war including destruction of towns and hamlets that are known hiding places of Taliban leaders must be done! Else we are fighting a war of attrition like Viet Nam, and should leave for home now!

Ten thousand US troops have arrived in Helmand this month with commanders admitting overstretched British troops are at a "stalemate".

International governments have repeatedly disagreed on how to tackle Afghanistan's rampant opium business which supplies more than 90 per cent of the world's heroin and feeds hundreds of millions of dollars to insurgent fighters.

Britain and other Nato allies strongly opposed former US plans to destroy poppies with crop-spraying planes saying it would only strengthen the increasing insurgency.

Mr Holbrooke, speaking at a Group of Eight summit dedicated to Afghanistan, said he now felt eradication was "a waste of money". He said it "might destroy some acreage, but it didn't reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar".

He added: "The farmers are not our enemy, they're just growing a crop to make a living. It's the drug system. So the US policy was driving people into the hands of the Taliban."

Britain leads international reconstruction efforts in Helmand province, where 60 per cent of the Afghan opium crop is produced.

The British government is spending more than £290 million on a three-year-programme of eradication, support for farmers and pursuit of drug barons and traffickers.

And the British have good reason to want to eradicate thepoppy fields.According to the NHS report, most new heroin users are aged 18 to 35, but a significant number are between 14 and 16.
In some areas, children between 10 and 12 have even been trying the drug.
Heroin use is spreading out of inner cities across the country due to cheap and easily available supplies, said the report.
Users are both smoking the drug and injecting it.

British officials denied there was tension with the US over the policy change and said the detail had not been decided.But they made the right decision!

A spokeswoman at the Department for International Development said: "Eradication is a key part because of the deterrent effect, not because we are going to destroy the whole crop." She said eradication targeted big growers rather than poverty-stricken small farmers.
What I want to know is why did we change our policy. The reason that they will join the Taliban if we destroy their crop of poppies doesn't wash. What are they using as statistics to back up their disastrous decision to stop eradication?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SUPREM COURRT SIDES WITH TERRORISTS

Posted by Jax Hawk on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:26:56 AM

Thursday, June 19, 2008

A KAMIKAZE SUPREME COURT





During World War II, the leaders of the Japanese military and those surrounding the Emperor were followers of the Shinto cult. Japan also had Buddhists, Confucius followers and few other sects, but the Shinto's ruled.
Shinto's asserted Japan's superiority over all other nations. It maintained that the Japanese rulers, and the Japanese in general, were descended from the Sun Goddess. Emperor Hirohito (before his spectacular postwar rehabilitation at the hands of the General MacArthur and the U.S. Occupation) was reviled in wartime America.

The willingness of the Japanese soldiers, particularly the kamikaze (the " Devine wind of the gods" suicide pilots)to sacrifice themselves for the emperor was devastating. This fervor killed many thousand American troops, and disgusted and terrified Americans.

Fast forward 63 years, and we have another kind of religious warrior. The Muslim terrorist bomber, who straps on explosives and walks into a crowded public place and blows himself and everything and every body around him/her to eternity!
This new version of a Kamikaze does not fly an airplane loaded only with enough gas to get him to his target, and the rest of the plane filled with explosives. He/she is the instrument of destruction! In both the Japanese and Muslim situations it is a warped religious fervor that allows them to perform their heinous acts.


Today we here in the USA, have a very un-supreme court that is playing the role of a Kamikaze on the instrument that was the foundation of the this free country. The Constitution! The ruling passed down last week on Boumediene vs. Bush by the Kennedy led court, was as much of a destruction to our Constitutional as was the Kamikaze plane that slammed into the Bunker Hill aircraft carrier in 1944!

Prior to this left wing attack on the Constitution, aliens had no rights under the Constitution that guides and protects citizens of the United States of America. But with a stoke of Kennedy's pen, non-citizens who have never set foot in the United States, even alleged terrorist aliens, get special constitutional privileges because they were caught trying to kill Americans.


Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer,all leftists who vote as a block, dictated that Americans must regard enemies as if they were just criminal defendants, entitled to an exacting legal process including access to discovery, witnesses, counsel, etc.—This decision will make it impossible to detain them without shutting down interrogations prematurely and possibly informing the enemy of our national-defense secrets. I ask you, what was their justification for this decision, other than a fervor for the Deity of the Left. Destruction of our Constitution, and to substitute One World Government!
"The runaway" justices say that foreign AL-Qaeda killers, detained in Cuba can have access to the federal district courts and demand what, suddenly, are their unearned Constitutional rights.

In those courts, judges emboldened by the high court’s usurpation of Congressional and Presidential war powers, may be emboldened to make decisions as they go along: More access to classified information? Subpoenas commanding the testimony (and cross-examination) of our soldiers regarding the circumstances of capture? Miranda warnings? Prompt access to counsel,speedy trial ad nausea.

Sensational trials in the criminal-justice system with the same presumptions of innocence, privacy, and other privileges vested in American citizens? And who will adjudicate the resulting mess? Our imperial court, of course.” source:—National Review

We are at war, At least 75 Senators, including Kerry and Hillary and 296 Congressmen voted for the war in Iraq. During combat approximately 10,000 prisoners have been captured. Of this group about 800 have been sent to Guantanamo, Cuba where they can be interrogated to obtain information that might save the lives of the men and women who are voluntarily in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the terrorists.
Since their capture 100 plus prisoners have ben released with a promise they would not return to the war sites. Intelligence reveals that at least 30 have returned to Iraq to kill more Americans!

If what the "Kennedy five" did with their decision was not the equivalent of Judicial murder,it was a bold attack on the war effort that we must win. That makes the Kennedy sycophants at the very least, giving aid and comfort to the enemy!


the judiciary simply has no power over enemy combatants in wartime. Such power is committed to the executive as part of the commander in chief's power, and thus implicitly denied to the judiciary, just as is the power to declare war is unilaterally committed to Congress.
Kennedy's ruling thus effectively overturned the congressional declaration of war -- the use of force resolution voted for by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, 75 other senators as well as 296 congressmen. If there's no war, then there are no enemy combatants. This is the diabolical arrogance of Kennedy's opinion.

THE FINAL QUESTION WE MUST ASK OURSELVES, IS DOES CONGRESS DECIDE WHEN WE GO TO WAR, OR DOES THE SUPREME COURT? AND AFTER WE ARE AT WAR, DOES THE COURT HAVE THE RIGHT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, TO DECLARE THAT INCARCERATED PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NEVER IN THIS COUNTRY UNTIL CAPTURED?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »