Thursday, December 2, 2010
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank (especially Barney) and the rest of the left-wing, liberal-progressive, Marxist-socialists in the House and Senate have high hopes of repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" act. They will support any effort to weaken our national security and self-defense efforts. They have been further emboldened by a recent "Pentagon Study", stating that 70% of those serving in our military believe that repealing the Act would have little noticeable impact upon the performance of our troops.
Senator John McCain, (R)AZ suggests that the study is flawed, and those of us who have served in the military can understand such a suggestion. McCain's statement was directly challenged by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
For those of you who haven't had the honor of serving in our military, understand this - the Chairman of the JCS is appointed by the president (with Senate confirmation) as a 4-star general or admiral, and serves at the pleasure of the president. One does not advance into the ranks of general officers - not even a 1-star) without some serious political connections. The Defense Secretary is also a presidential appointee who serves at the pleasure of the president.
My point is simple - unless one wishes to end their military career, or forfeit a cabinet position which pays almost $200,000 (plus perks) annually - they will support the agenda of he to whom they are indebted for their prestigious and prosperous position. As the Chairman of the JCS, Admiral Mullen is compensated at the rate of $216,734.40 (O-10 over 38 yrs service = $18,061.20 per month x12 [PLUS allowances and perks]). Granted, both these men were appointed by President George W. Bush, but they still serve at the pleasure of the current president, and technically, both Mullen and the Pentagon work for Gates... and Gates works for Obama. And Obama is the Head Lefty. Would a Pentagon Study dare be released if the results were other than supportive of the president' desires? If you believe it would, you'll be deeply disappointed on December 25th... while you're waiting up for the fat guy in the red suit to come down the chimney!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The recent shelling of South Korea by their northern neighbors, reminded me of a bully in junior high school ("middle school" to some of you).
What would the United States do if we were attacked by... let's say the Mexican Army (instead of just an army of Mexicans sneaking across our southern border)? Imagine that Felipe Calderon lost his mind (just like North Korea's Kim), and began lobbing artillery shells into Arizona, California or Texas. What would our response be? Would our "president" issue a statement condemning such an action, and threaten that a strongly worded letter will follow? Obama probably would do just exactly that.
What should the response be to an attack by a bully? You can either submit and accept the beating, in the hope that someday the bully will weary of beating you up, or... you could (and should) respond quickly and surely, with all the strength you can muster. To accept the beating simply encourages the continuation of such behavior! A strong defensive response, on the other hand, has just the opposite effect - it discourages such displays of such aggressive behaviors. A swift and powerful response is what is demanded.
However......... there's another factor in the South Korea-DPRK situation. Apparently the "bully" from the North has the (thus far) unwavering backing of the Giant of the North - China - whose standing army is estimated at 2.5 MILLION (and, if you include paramilitary organizations the estimate jumps to 7.5 MILLION). To complicate matters even more, China has - primarily through lopsided international trade agreements - gained de facto control of the world economy.
Now you have to ask yourself, "If I defend myself against this little piss-ant, tin-horn dictator, will I also be fighting the hordes of Chinese military? How much affection does Hu Jintao of China really have for Kim Jong Il of the DPRK? Will we have any true allies if we respond and are faced with China? Will WalMart still be in business if China gets distracted for a few days?"
But, one thing is certain - taking no action is admitting you are powerless, and you will submit to the whims of your personal "bully". It escalates from bully to gang to army. International politics is a bitch... take the odds and kick Kim's butt!