About Me

Name: Jax Hawk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

IS OBAMA COMMITTED TO WIN IN AFGHANISTAN?

Friday, August 28, 2009





Despite deploying up to 120,000 soldiers, supported by 300,000 Afghan government forces, the Soviets failed to crush the insurgency by Afghan mujahideen fighters who were backed by U.S. guns and money and had bases inside neighboring Pakistan. Some 15,000 Soviet troops were killed before Moscow decided the war could not be won and pulled out its forces in 1989. By that time, 1 million Afghans had lost their lives and another 5 million become refugees in neighboring Pakistan and Iran.

The tables are now turned and the United States is considering whether to send another 25,000 troops to add to the nearly 70,000 Western forces locked in a bitter stalemate with Taliban-led insurgents in south and eastern Afghanistan. "I tell you this for sure, that if NATO and America put all their attention on fighting, and invest only in the military, they will not win," former mujahideen leader and ex-President Burhanuddin Rabbani told Reuters.

And the Soviets also tried to bring progress to deeply conservative and traditional Afghanistan and in many ways their record was more impressive than that of the West so far. Most of Afghanistan's roads, ministries, major schools and hospitals were Soviet-built. Even now, many of the upper echelons of the civil service, army and police are Soviet trained.


But any gains the Soviets made through development and building the Afghan government's capacity were scuppered by the resentment and anger their devastating bombing raids caused. That is a lesson U.S. and NATO forces should learn from the experience of their former Cold War adversary. "I don't think NATO has fully understood just how serious this issue is," said a Kabul-based Western analyst. "They certainly have done what they can to try to avoid civilian casualties from air strikes, but I just don't think they have grasped how central it is to informing the views of the nation." Source:CNSNEWS.com

My question is are those who are sent to fight in Afghanistan being sent to die for a commander in chief who does not believe in victory? He has cut the defense budget,as this report indicates.
The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion.
A senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.First of all Hirohito never left his palace in Tokyo. A senior general of the Japanese arm signed the surrender. Strange such a supposedly smart man does not know this!

This statement from the Commander in Chief of the armed forces is troubling to me. The troops are sent 10,000 miles to potential death or crippling wounds and their CIC does not want victory. Sounds strangely similar to the attitude of McNamara during the Vietnam debacle!!

Obama, apparently is preoccupied with the quest to socialize our health care industry to pay attention to the fact that last month we had 4 killed in Afghanistan, and this month is is worse, casualties in the eight years the USA has been fighting there. More warriors were killed last month(44), and although August is not over it is the worst month (45) than any month in the last 8 years!

We have presently 64,000 troops in Afghanistan in harms way for a commander in chief who apparently does not think victory is the Object of their sacrifice!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE WHY OF ALL OF OBAMA'S PROGRAMS, IS TO ASSURE RE-ELECTION

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

A wise man once said that you can judge a man by what he does, not what he says. I will attempt to make an argument that everything that president Obama is doing is not for the good of the country that he governs, but to solidify his voting base and reassure his re-election in 2112.

Today he appointed a replacement for his first Czar. The car czar, Steve Rattner,the former New York investment banker, resigned yesterday under a cloud of scandal involving his regular job before he took the position of Car Czar.In April details of alleged influence-peddling surfaced, thus yesterday he announced his resignation yesterday." Source: NewsBusters
The new Car Czar,Ron Bloom, a Harvard Business-trained banker turned United Steelworkers official, will “assume leadership of the Task Force's activities as the government transitions its role away from day-to-day restructuring to monitoring this vital industry and protecting the substantial investment the American taxpayers have made in GM, Chrysler, and GMAC,” Secretary of The Treasury Tim Geithner said today.
This solidifies his base of voters within the Unions who contributed a combined total of 60 million dollars to Obama's election campaign!
And if you doubt any connection with Unions and Obama this quote from a speech Obama gave to an Iowa government union of 20,000 members, while on the campaign trail, should erase all doubts.
"DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama is telling union activists he would walk a picket line as president if organized labor helps elect him in 2008.

The Illinois senator also criticized President Bush’s policies toward working people.

`We are facing a Washington that has thrown open its doors to the most anti-union, anti-worker forces we’ve seen in generations” Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery Saturday night. “What we need to make real today is the idea that in this country we value the labor of every American. “I stood on the picket line and marched with workers at the Congress Hotel in Chicago last week” Obama said. “I had marched with them four years earlier and I told them when I left that if they were still fighting four years from now, I’d be back on that picket line as president of the United States.”

Then there is the Cap and Trade bill, or as many call it, The tax and control Trade bill. This act will satisfy those who voted for Obama because as his wife, Michelle infamously said: "she was not proud of her country until....". They are not happy with the free enterprise system and would rather see this country socialised!
This bill will also satisfy and secure the votes of the Environmental activists who have made "mother earth" their new Deity.

Former candidate for Vice-President Sara Palin so aptly described why she feared the Cap and Trade bill, and The following is an excerpt from the op-ed she wrote this week .

"I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs". Source:Sister Toldjah

National Health Care satisfies all those who have wanted socialised medicine since Andrew Biemiller tried to introduce a bill to socialise medicine in the 1950's. Biemiller was a congressman from Wisconsin who served in the Wis.state legislature as the leader of the LaFollette Progressive Party before being elected to congress.
Thus, the progressive(aka socialists) will feel they finally have control of America's medical sector of the economy that is a 1.7 trillion dollar industry.

Just as the giving the auto workers union 55% of Chrysler, solidified the auto union votes. The Stimulus has been used to bail out Bankers and special interests companies like Goldman Sachs ,GE,
and brokers who have heavily invested in the CO2 credit exchange.
Thus ensuring the votes of the "filthy" rich on Wall Street and their minions across American landscape.

Tuesday he announced that he will seek stimulus funds for students who attend junior colleges, and those who cannot now attend because of lack of funds will also be eligible for this hand out.
According to George Fogel, Rasmussen College, Inc. Vice President of Compliance and Financial Services, the new stimulus plan will benefit college students directly in several ways.

"The stimulus plan includes a $17 billion of additional funding for [Pell, which increases the amount that an individual student may receive. Beginning July 2009, students will be eligible for up to $5,350 per academic year, which is up from $4,731. Additionally, in July 2010, Pell will go up again to a maximum of $5,550," Fogel said.

Fogel explained the Higher Education Tax Credit as a tax credit plan that gives students a $2,500 tax credit every year for paid tuition, which is 40 percent refundable. Thus solidifying the young peoples vote.

He has already assured himself of the government employees and the teachers union votes with his propensity to allow them special treatment, even to exclude them from his socialised health plan and remain in their more "rich" union plans.And let's not forget the Card check proposal to allow the "goons" force non-union employees to vote for a union. This certainly is not done for any reason other than a pay back to the Union movement!

The Amnesty bill will satisfy the Hispanic voters, and the confirmation of Sotomayor
to the supreme Court will motivate those Hispanics who are not for illegals getting the easy way to all the goodies of citizenship, to vote for Obama.

And finally there is in the table the heinous bill to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors, who think that abortion is a mortal sin, to perform abortions. This will make the feminists dance for joy and be sure to pull the lever for Obama in 2112!

If he pulls all this off the Conservatives will have a very difficult time prying him out of the Oval Office in 2112!!

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

GORE'S SCAM COMES WITH A HEFTY PRICE TAG!!

Despite the fact that more scientists deny that the treat of Global Warming is actually a threat, and that we are entering a period of global cooling. People like Al Gore and president Obama are still pushing scare tactics, to what end very few people actually understand.

Is it the quest for wealth and power or is it the new religion of those who have tried their best to destroy Americans belief in the real GOD, and substituting the "mother eath" as their diety.

Perhaps the speech that Al Gore, the pied piper of global warming, gave to the faculty and students at Oxford University in England, will enlighten those of you who are credulous about the minds of people like myself who say there is an evil purpose behind this ecological movement.

"Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” Source: Marc Romano, Climate Depot

In addition,there are calls for a global carbon tax that have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the <strong>U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.</strong>” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”Once again pushing catastopy if we fail to agree to what they want us to do!!

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Redistribution of wealth'

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm. Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax.

In other words, in the manner of hypocritical power grabbers the world over, the method in which they gain the purse strings is less important than the results of gaining control of said purse strings. Source:News Busters

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

I think a more honest name for Brindal's group would be Friends of Taxing the US to Give Money to the Unaccountable UN. The real goal of all these so-called climate change advocates is the taxation of rich nations so that they can transfer money to poor nations- socialism in action.

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

I wish I could be optimistic about the possibility that any member of the national press corps will actually write in a negative manner about this attempt. Instead of defending their country against unaccountable bureaucrats and 'activists', it seems to this blogger that they are too busy trying support a President who will assist in the process of giving away US sovereignty!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »