Tag Archives: George W. Bush

John Dummett or Mitt Romney: Freedom or Appeasement

I am Awake

My opposition to Mitt Romney has drawn a great deal of criticism from a variety of people.  It seems my vote is the only one in the nation that actually counts.  While that is flattering in one respect I find it rather disingenuous in another respect.  Why is it that my refusal to vote for the lesser of two evils is the only factor in the destruction of our once great nation?  I find more than enough reasons to refuse to vote for Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama, based on my Christian faith and Mitty’s propensity to deny his faith in almost everything he stands for politically.

I have a great faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to carry me through whatever evil comes my way.  To me, voting isn’t a question of voting for the one who is less dangerous than the other.  My vote is based on what I believe God would have me do, on the standards set by Him and recorded in the Holy Bible.  I will vote based on who I believe to be in compliance with God’s Word and the Constitution of the United States of America, a document written by men who took much of the content from biblical principles and guidelines.

Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama claims to be a Christian man, a Mormon.  I don’t care which church he is affiliated with, that is not my concern.  My concerns about Mitty go so much deeper.  How can a man who proclaims to be a Christian support abortion on demand?  God’s Word says that he “knew us before we were even in the womb”.  Does that not accentuate the idea of life at conception to a Christian?  I understand that there are cases that can be made for abortion in instances of rape, but that is not where Mitty stands on the issue.  How can a “conservative Christian” support the joke of the “gay rights” issue?  I don’t agree that homosexuals should be hung from the nearest tree but I don’t believe they should be given special rights not afforded to the rest of us either, and neither does God’s Word.  How can a man who claims to believe in the Constitution not believe in the rights of We the People to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment?  How can a conservative candidate support Obamacare, a travesty that Mitty actually authored and has supported for several years?

God’s Word tells us to stand strong on biblical principles and to live our lives by His core values.  People who will vote for Mitty out of fear of Obama are neither putting their faith in God, nor their trust in His “divine providence”. 

Voting out of fear brought Adolph Hitler to power in Germany.  People feared another stint with the Weimar Republic and voted in a guy who promised to “fundamentally transform” Germany.  We are facing the same situation today.  People fear what Obama will do in a second term, rightfully so, but are not looking at the other choice realistically.  The mantra is “anyone but Obama, as long as it is Mitty”, and discounting any other option.

I will not vote for Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama in November.  I WILL NOT COMPLY with the party-line “vote for our guy because he isn’t quite as dangerous as the other guy” mentality.  You see, I find Mitty to be just as dangerous as Obama in many respects.  In addition to the items listed earlier, Mitty also has been bought and paid for by George Soros and the New World Order cabal.  In case you haven’t heard, Soros has publicly endorsed Mitty as the best candidate for the Republican Party.  That is enough on its own merit to stop me from voting for him, but isn’t the only reason I stand on.  I hear people make a big deal out of the Olympics and how Mitty “saved” the event.  What people are surprised to learn when I mention it is that Mitty “saved” the Olympics with $450 million federal tax dollars given to him by George W. Bush.  This same money was denied to Mitty’s predecessor.  I find that rather curious.  If the money was insignificant to the treasury but vital to the Olympics, why wasn’t the money given to the first guy, and who did this money actually go to?  And when you go look at how he balanced the state budget without tax increases you will find a substantial “federal tax donation” to the state treasury.

I will cast my vote for a man who I believe will actually stand up to the New World Order globalists and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and We the People, against all enemies foreign and domestic. I want a President I can believe will do what is right, not just “hope” he will do what is right.

Voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping for a better candidate next time is not the answer.  I heard that, and bought into it, many years ago.  I voted for Bob Dole, one of the worst candidates that has ever run for the office of President of the United States, but he was “better than the alternative and we could get a better candidate the next time around”.  It worked once because we wound up with Ronald Reagan but hasn’t worked out so well since then.  I bought it again four years ago when I voted for the McCain/Palin Republican Party ticket.  I actually voted for Sarah Palin, hoping they would win and McCain would die of a heart attack the next day and leave Palin as the President.  I think that much of John McCain, and I remember how Mitty ran second to McCain in 2008.  Four years ago Mitty was less conservative than John McCain but now he is miraculously the most conservative candidate available?  Naw, I’m not buying the same 3 legged horse again.

My vote will be cast for John Albert Dummett (www.johndummett.us), as a write-in candidate if necessary.  Wasting my vote?  Voting for Obama?  Insuring Obama gets a second term?  NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!  I am exercising the discernment given to me by God and casting my vote for the man who will follow God’s Word and the Constitution rather than voting out of fear of another Obama term.  I will vote for a man who will put what is best for the nation ahead of what is best for his cronies and the New World Order globalist cabal that so many of the Washington “elite” cater to.

I also hear the “he can’t win” line from people I talk to, and undoubtedly will hear the same from many who read this article.  Can’t win?  Why can’t he win?  He “can’t win” because of all of the people in America who would rather vote for evil out of fear of the other evil running.  Mitty the Poo doesn’t really have any support from conservative voters, and certainly not TEA Party people.  If everyone who will vote for Mitty out of the fear of another four years of Obama would vote for John Dummett it would be a slam dunk win for conservative values, for God’s values, and for We the People.  More importantly, it would be a victory for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. 

We can never regain our freedom by voting for the lesser of two evils.  We the People can only win if we have the courage of our founding fathers.  I wonder how many people said George Washington could never beat the British, armed with the strongest army and the strongest navy in the world at the time.  I wonder how many people cheered Neville Chamberlain when he came back from Europe with a paper signed by Adolph Hitler that guaranteed “peace in our time”, a peace “guaranteed” by selling Czechoslovakia to Hitler?  I wonder how many people were joyous of the pact signed between Hitler and Stalin that prevented Germany from invading Russia in World War II.  Oh, wait a minute; don’t I remember reading that something went wrong there?

Signing contracts, including voting, with evil out of fear of a greater evil is not in the best interests of anyone, particularly the future of our nation.  Our Republic is gone and nearly to the point of no return.  We now live under a dictatorial oligarchy and are in danger of finding ourselves living under a tyranny akin to that of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, and many other repressive governments.

 If you don’t have the courage to stand up for freedom now when will you find that courage?   Will you stand and fight when they come for your bible, your guns, your food, or your home?  Will you fight when they come to round your family up to be sent to the FEMA camps, also authorized under a Republican president and Congress?  Or will you simply pack your one allowed suitcase and trod off to the slaughterhouse like the Jews did in Nazi Germany?  Those willing to bow to tyranny out of fear now will not be willing to stand up for freedom when things get much worse.  The Secret Service has already tried to intimidate Ted Nugent into submission over his remarks at the NRA convention a few weeks ago. 

John Dummett (www.johndummett.us ) has received visits from the FBI, found his e-mail suddenly and mysteriously shut down, his computers hacked, and is receiving death threats.  This is only the beginning.  Those who believe things will be better under Mitty need to look at the last “conservative”/moderate president we elected.  This “conservative”/moderate, along with a Republican Congress, and in addition to the FEMA camps, gave us the “Patriot” Act, Homeland Security, and the TSA.  The last conservative/moderate Republican president did more to destroy our freedom than Bill Clinton.  That “conservative”/moderate was George W. Bush.

Now is not the time to compromise with evil.  Now is the time to stand up for freedom and vote for a man who is offering us a truly conservative platform.  People who say I am wasting my vote or voting for Obama are wrong.  Those voting out of fear of another Obama term are the ones wasting their votes.  I am voting from a positive position, voting for a man I believe will follow through with what he promises and give us a presidency we can once again be proud of.  I am voting for freedom now, not the hope that “someday” we will have an acceptable Republican candidate who will truly stand up for the values of God and our founding fathers.

Today, more than ever, we need a staunch conservative voice in the White House.  We need more staunch conservative voices in Congress.  John McCain, Orin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the others who routinely ignore the Constitution in favor of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are not leaders.  They are only interested in currying favor with despots to keep their seat in the back of Obama’s tyranny bus.  All of the dictatorships I listed earlier have their parliaments or congresses but they are only rubber stamps of a dictator, men and women who will do whatever they have to do to keep their seats of power, wealth, and prestige.

We can no longer afford to vote out of fear.  Our nation is teetering on the brink of outright dictatorship and appeasing despots never works out well for the pawns in the appeasement.  We the People must show the courage of our founding fathers and those who have sacrificed their lives to preserve our freedom over the last 236 years.  Voting for Mitty the Poo is appeasement, trying to curry favor with New World Order globalists who have nothing more than their own power.  Voting for John Albert Dummett is a vote for freedom now and in the future.

 

Bob Russell

April 23, 2012

Claremore, Oklahoma

Voters, the Economy, and the 2012 Election

Tea Party Sign

Predictions for the outcome of the election in November are starting to sprout up all over. It’s still a bit early to make any truly accurate ones, so this is what you call the “what if” and “wishful thinking” phase of pundit prognosticating. Given the state of the economy, it is no wonder that there are already those that are predicting a GOP landslide, like Michael Patrick Leahy suggests.

Tea Party Sign

Fibonacci Blue (CC)


I like Leahy, and agree whole-heartedly that the Tea Party activists are the most likely group to push voter registration efforts over the top for the GOP. One little glimmer of light in this is the fact that the RNC appears to have finally recognized the need to focus efforts on social media. Hopefully it’s not a matter of “too little, too late”, and that the RNC also looks to officially leverage the pre-existing conservative social networks on Twitter. But, that is another matter entirely.

Back to Leahy, I’m not quite as sure about his contentions about how the election will go. The primary problem is recognizing the mentality of the voters on election day. If this election is driven by fear, the GOP will have a rough time of it. Voters that cast ballots based on fear of the future do not follow anything resembling logic. When times are tough, they often swing toward incumbents, even though conventional wisdom screams otherwise. The best concept to compare this to is “Stockholm Syndrome.” Ironically enough, Democrats may blame John Kerry’s loss in 2004 on this mentality. Bush was familiar, and even though he may have been the cause of the ills in this nation in the minds of liberals, the moderates still voted for him, if for no other reason, out of fear of change. Well, at least that’s how a few left-wing pundits would probably put it.

So, fear driving the vote would not be a good thing. Anger, on the other hand, would be much better. If one spends even a few minutes watching posts with any of the various conservative hashtags on Twitter, it’s obvious that the “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore” attitude is alive and well. But, in order to turn that anger into results at the polls in November, the RNC needs to do much more than just play with Facebook. Enter the Tea Party, that isn’t dead, and is already on the ground as a regionally organized grassroots movement. If Obama gets a second term, it will be because the RNC doesn’t suck it up, and ask for the help of the Tea Party to get out the vote. That’s my little early prediction. The Tea Party is literally gifted at getting voters frothing at the mouth, and they have the ability to go out in the communities to get voters registered and to the polls. This isn’t rocket science. But, it will take quite a few swallows of pride. Now to see if the RNC is willing to do that.

The “Tolerant” Left Tweets About President George W. Bush

Last night, a curious thing happened.  Our 43rd president was the number one trending topic on Twitter (globally), and I wondered why.  I mean, he has been out of office for over three years, and he hasn’t released a book (not lately, anyway).  He hadn’t been on television (to my knowledge).  So how could we have the entire world tweet about President George W. Bush in the middle of the night, no less?  Well, it turns out that this tweet sparked it:

Okay.  Fair enough, a tweet claiming that the former president was once a cheerleader doesn’t sound so bad.  I’m sure the other tweeters would just snicker at it and move a long, right?  Watch the following video to find out.

Ron Paul: Sage Grandfather or Crazy Uncle?

I find myself intrigued with Ron Paul on a regular basis. The man can get up and say some of the most patriotic and sensible things in one sentence and then in the next sentence sound like he just came out of an insane asylum. Paul has great ideas when it comes to fiscal responsibility, spending, freedom, and the Federal Reserve. On the other side of the coin, though, his ideas on foreign policy leave me wondering where he left his brain, or if he has one that is properly balanced. When he speaks of fiscal issues he sounds like Ronald Reagan. When he speaks of foreign policy he sounds like Hugo Chavez and even to the left of Barack Obama.

When I hear him speak of auditing or eliminating the FED I stand up and cheer. The Federal Reserve is a non-governmental entity that is destroying our economy by printing money that has essentially no value, thereby lowering the value of the dollar and guaranteeing severe inflation in the very near future. The FED also has virtually no oversight from anyone in Congress. Paul is also correct in his assessment of federal government spending. We cannot keep spending money borrowed from China for building IHOP restaurants, studying ants in New Zealand, teaching African men how to wash their genitals after sex, and certainly can’t keep borrowing to prop up European countries.

I also agree with much of his stand on Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and the other third world hell holes Obama is involving us in. Fighting a war against Islamic terrorists is one thing but this “nation building” farce is only a boon for the military industrial complex and is not helping any aspect of our national security interests. We are wasting money and lives in a venture that will fail because it isn’t about winning a war; it is about being politically correct and propping up a puppet government. As we are leaving Iraq we see the sectarian slaughter returning.

Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been butchering each other for centuries and we are not going to stop it. Until these stone-age animals decide to live like human beings nothing we do is going to change anything. All we do is put our soldiers in the line of fire with a no-win policy that puts their lives in danger with rules of engagement that are insane.

While closing military bases all across the United States we build and expand bases throughout the world. While we are “helping Afghan police and military close their borders to invaders” we leave our own borders wide open to drug cartels and the very Islamic terrorists we are fighting in far off lands.

Ron Paul makes quite a stir when he talks about “legalizing drugs”. I don’t remember everything he has said about drugs but I do know he has some valid points here also. The “war on drugs” has been going on for 50 years and has cost taxpayers billions in wasted money. Not only have we not solved the problem of illegal drugs; this “war” has made it worse. Most of Paul’s position has more to do with leaving this issue to the states, not legalizing drugs wholesale as the story is reported. Ron Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate, as am I. It only took the politicians 14 years to see the problems caused by Prohibition and repeal the 18th Amendment. The war on drugs has been going on for 50 years with the same results we saw during Prohibition. I don’t condone legalizing all drugs but I see a colossal failure that could be handled better at the state level.

Paul has the same ideas on abortion; let the states decide how they want to handle this issue. I agree with him on this matter. If it isn’t in the Constitution the federal government has no business sticking their nose into it. Every time a person or group doesn’t get their way at the state level they run to the federal government to override the states, the place where these issues should be decided. I see abortion as murder, and see murder as a state issue not a federal one.

I hear all of the things Paul writes and says about these issues and I jump up and cheer him on. Then he begins to talk about foreign policy and I scream out in pain. Paul is just as bad as Barack Obama when it comes to blaming America for every ill in the world. I have a cousin who worked in the building demolition business years ago and I had several opportunities to see the activities involved in blowing a building up, or rather imploding them. When I hear Ron Paul talk about 9/11 being an inside job I want to choke his scrawny little neck.

The idea that the World Trade Center was taken down by internally placed explosives is ludicrous to anyone who has even a scant knowledge of building implosions. The amount of work necessary to drill into pillars, place the explosives, wire them together, and tie everything to a detonator cannot be accomplished in a building with thousands of people walking in and out all day every day. A building that size isn’t brought down on itself with a satchel charge tossed into an elevator. The idea that the Bush Administration was involved in setting up the hijackings is equally ludicrous and statements by Ron Paul and his supporters on this issue shows they are well outside the realm of sane or intelligent thought.

While Ron Paul has some very good ideas about what is needed to restore The Republic of the United States of America, he has more than enough crazy ideas to make him a danger to every person in this country. I would love to see Ron Paul be the next Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Federal Reserve but to put this man in the White House would endanger our nation almost as much as re-electing Barack Obama.

We need a very strong leader with strong conservative values. We need someone who will articulate the conservative message and have the courage of his/her convictions. Now is not the time for waffling or being concerned about “diversity” or “inclusiveness”. The only answer to our nation’s problems is a conservative approach that relies on the Constitution that our founding fathers fought the Revolutionary War to make possible. Anything less will result in the demise of a once great nation and the rise of another Third World banana republic with a dictator such as Adolph Hitler or Hugo Chavez. Ron Paul is not the man for the job.

I submit this in the name of the most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 23, 2012

A Brilliant Tweet: Nancy Pelosi Blasts Bush for 4.4% Unemployment

Today, on Twitter, famous tweeter, @keder shared this tweet from @guypbenson:

Clicking the link in that tweet will take you all the way back to 2006 when Nancy Peolosi disparaged George W. Bush’s progress with unemployment.   The snapshot, while sad, is funny because Barack Obama would probably love to see unemployment at 4.4% under his watch (a sight that is sure to not happen).

I’d like to thank @keder and @guypbenson for bringing bringing our attention to today’s brilliant tweet.

What do you guys think?  Will Barack Obama see 4.4% unemployment?  Is this an example of what a partisan hack Pelosi is?  Or was this all Bush’s fault anyway?  (that’s what my current president keeps telling me)  Let us know in the comments below.  Or on Facebook.  Or if you’re really nice, I might give you the mayor of Oakland’s phone number, so you can share your comments with her.  “CDN Cares”

Oakland's Mayor Not In Control Of Her City

Dick Cheney Wants Obama Administration To Apologize- What's The Point?

Dick Cheney is calling on the Obama administration to apologize for criticizing the Bush administration for their reaction to the events of September 11, 2001.

On CNN’s State of the Union, Vice President Cheney praised the Obama administration for their actions with the drone strikes that resulted in the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, but  reminded the CNN host that previously, the Obama administration has accused the Bush administration of overreacting with the War on Terror.

Vice President  Cheney said:

"I’m waiting for… the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for, quote, ‘overreacting’ to the events of 9/11. They, in effect, said we had walked away from our ideals, taking a policy contrary to our ideals. We had enhanced interrogation techniques, they clearly had moved in the direction of taking robust action if they feel it’s justified. In this case, I think it was, but I think they need to go back and reconsider what the president said when he was in Cairo.”

While it is understandable that the former Vice President must now feel vindicated, and logically, the Obama administration should apologize for criticizing the Bush administration, the real question is: What’s the point?

In the article Apologies, we discussed the difference in a true, heartfelt apology and an apology on demand. While it is highly unlikely that anyone remotely connected with the Obama administration will come out and give an apology to the Bush administration, it is even more unlikely that any apology given would be sincere.

It all comes down to politics as usual. Unfortunately, politics are no different from any other aspect of our lives today, in this regard. Society has a new found "enlightenment", but integrity, authenticity and sincerity are rarities in our world today.

Whether or not the right action was taken by the Obama administration in the death of Anwar al-Awlaki is a moot point. There is the argument that his civil liberties have been violated. There are those who say he lost his civil liberties when he turned his back on this country. Those arguments are a completely different issue.

The issue on the table right now is an apology has been demanded. No matter what happens, nothing is going to change. An apology will not suddenly make our political atmosphere all peachy-keen. Politics will still remain politics as usual- apology, or no apology.

 

 

Prayer Permeates 9/11 Ground Zero Remembrance, Despite Mayor Bloomberg Ban

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), said today the fact that prayer and Scripture were key ingredients in the 9/11 remembrance at Ground Zero shows how wrong Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in refusing to reverse a ban prohibiting religious leaders and prayer from being part of the official ceremony.

“Despite the Mayor’s ban, prayer permeated the solemn and sacred remembrance at Ground Zero,” saidJay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “We heard from nearly 40,000 Americans who supported prayer at this event. And, in the end, even with the ban in place, President Obama, former President Bush, and former New York City Mayor Giuliani – understood the importance of including prayer in their remarks – prayer for those who are still suffering from the nation’s worst terrorist attack – prayer for our nation. In spite of the Mayor’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the importance of including prayer, the fact is that prayer and Scripture played an integral part of this memorial event and for that we are grateful.”

The ACLJ sent Mayor Bloomberg a letter signed by nearly 40,000 Americans declaring their support for prayer at the event and urging him to rescind his ban.

In his remarks at Ground Zero, President Obama read Psalm 46, which begins with, “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.”

Former President George W. Bush read from a letter written by Abraham Lincoln in 1864 to a mother who lost five sons during the Civil War. Lincoln ended the letter saying, “I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.”

And former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani read from Ecclesiastes. As Giuliani put it: “The perspective that we need, and have needed, to get through the last 10 years, and the years that remain, are best expressed by the words of God as inscribed in the book of Ecclesiastes.”

A Day Like No Other

It was a bright, sunny Tuesday morning.  I awoke from a good night’s sleep around 7:25am Central time that day.  It was a day I was off from work, chalk full of appointments and other things that sometimes must happen on a weekday.

I got out of bed, kicked on the TV, which was tuned to Fox News at the time, and headed to the restroom to freshen up.  When I came back into the bedroom, I glanced over at the TV and saw a live shot of the New York skyline.  The weather that morning in New York was much like it was at my home, 2500 miles away.  It was a clear, sparkling day, a day like so many others.  This day, however, would be different.

It was September 11, 2001.  The live shot I was looking at was of the World Trade Center towers and one of them was on fire.  It seemed, at the time, that a small plane had somehow veered off course and crashed into the tower.  I stood there for a minute or two and took it in.  It was interesting, but the story obviously had to develop before more was known, so I went on about my business.

I went out of my room and found my dad.  I told him about the World Trade Center and grabbed something to nibble on.  I went back to my room and sat down at my computer to browse the, at that time, fairly young Internet to see if anything interesting was there.

Meanwhile, the TV was still on in the background, and I heard John Scott commenting on the World Trade Center incident.  I got out of my chair and stood not more than 18 inches from my Sony 27” CRT TV that was pretty close to state of the art at the time.

While standing there, I saw a second plane, coming from right to left on my TV screen heading towards the towers.  Then it happened.  In what felt like slow motion, I watched the plane impact the second tower and flames shoot straight out the other side.  If I didn’t know I was watching the news, I would have thought it was a special FX shot from an action movie.

At that moment, I heard John Scott say, “This has to be deliberate, folks”, and I could only stand there.  I couldn’t move.  I couldn’t breathe.  I just stood there and watched with utter horror, shock, disbelief, and a number of other, sometimes, conflicting emotions that I just wasn’t able to process at the time.  That image is forever burned into my mind and I will never forget it, even if I wanted to.  I continued to watch the TV all day long, skipping all of my appointments.  I waited anxiously to hear what President Bush was going to do about this.

Flash forward 10 years.  This Sunday is the 10th anniversary of that horrible day.  This week, the government released information on a credible plan to hit us again on or around the anniversary.   While something may not happen this time, it is yet another reminder that there are people in this would who will stop at nothing to try to destroy this country.

So many Americans have fallen back asleep.  Many who proudly flew American flags and proclaimed loudly in the days and weeks after 9/11 that they, too, would never forget, have, by their actions, forgotten.  One day out of the year they may allow themselves to be reminded of those horrible events, but the rest of the time, they choose not to be bothered with the truth.  They’d prefer to watch their reality shows and read the latest celebrity gossip news on TMZ.

This 9/11 and every day after that, let all of us remember with humility those who were taken from us on that bright Tuesday morning.  To the 2,976 men, women, and children that died on that day:  We made a promise to never forget you, and those of us that haven’t will make sure that the rest of us can’t.

With Friends Like These…

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, the United States has taken on the task of forming hostile nations into allies in the Middle East. The best analogy I can think of to currently describe the way things have gone is likening our nation building efforts to the comic strip “Peanuts”. The nations that we go to war with are much like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, America in this scenario, to kick. We run to kick the football, Lucy moves the football, and we fall on our behind. The difference is that immediately afterward, Charlie Brown knows that he’s been had and vows to never fall for that again, before he inevitably does. Our politicians on the other hand, refuse to reflect on the results of past interventions and many times embrace a “full steam ahead” approach.

I don’t write this as apologetics for Ron Paul, the Cato Institute, the founding fathers, Reason Magazine or any other well known libertarian intellectual cause. Instead, I’m going to use an inherently conservative thought process, the cost-benefit analysis. Liberals hate the cost-benefit analysis because it shows that their government programs to be counter-productive; this is why they often resort to arguing based on emotions and intent. Unfortunately, despite President Bush’s noble intentions, the major engagements of the War on Terror may not pass the cost-benefit test.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate Al-Qaeda and to topple the country’s acting government, the Taliban. While fighting the enemy, we also helped set up an acting Afghan government. And in 2004 Hamid Karzai was elected president of the country and the US has supported him ever since. However, it has been revealed that Karzai and his family are corrupt and that he perhaps fraudulently won re-election in 2009. The US decided to express its disapproval by sending a troop surge of 30,000 to double down on our efforts of giving him a stable country to govern. Worse yet, its also been learned that Karzai, behind our back, has been in talks with the Taliban and has had diplomatic relations with Iran. But even before Karzai’s corruption became apparent, he still wasn’t exactly our BFF. Karzai frequently threw the US “under the bus” in press conferences and openly supports the farmers there growing Opium poppy despite our requests. Even taking Karzai out of the equation, a cost-benefit analysis must be done (not in this article) on whether or not we should still be fighting in Afghanistan. Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panneta estimated in 2010 that there were no more than 50-100 Al-Qaeda still in the country.

Next we turned to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who ended up getting what he deserved, not many Americans on either side of the political aisle would disagree with that. But, as the Iraq war winded down and the US turned into a police force to help stabilize their government, the people at home wondered what the new Iraqi government would look like. While still in its infant stages, details of the new Iraqi government have been disappointing at best. It appears as though Iraq has warmed up to its former hated enemy, Iran. This is particularly bad, because the Iraq-Iran conflict helped to keep Iran in check. This is why in the 1980s we helped supply Iraq with materials to produce chemical/biological weapons; with the idea of them to using the weapons against Iran. Further showing its gratitude towards the US, Iraq recently voted against Saudi Arabia’s proposal to increase oil production at OPEC’s 2011 conference. Seeing nations turn their back on the US after the US had invested large sums of money isn’t particularly unusual, but what makes this different is that the US still has 50,000 soldiers over there. This is a blatant slap in the face.

Worst of all is Libya. If there is something positive to be said of the War in Libya, one could say that its been the least costly of the wars. Despite its comparatively low price tag, Libya could quite possibly have the costliest long term consequences. To clarify, just like Saddam, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator who deserves whatever grisly fate that awaits him. But, the United States went to war for the stated goal of stopping an alleged massacre that never took place, not for “regime change”. Then, in spite of goals which stated otherwise, we stayed until the regime change was complete. Now the question that remains is, “What now? Who are these rebels?”. That answer appears to be an interesting mix of regular citizens who grew tired of their oppressor, radical Islamic insurgents, and long term US ally Al-Qaeda. Wait… no, that’s not right, Al-Qaeda’s goal is to destroy the US and Israel. While the new Libyan constitution hasn’t been written, it was released that Sharia law is anticipated to be the main source of inspiration. If the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity in Egypt is any indication, the so called “Arab Spring” will not have positive long term effects on the US and it’s allies. Rarely do events have 100% negative consequences without a silver lining, and Libya very well could be one of those times. In life there are disappoints and ideas that backfire, but rarely do you spend money and resources to create a nation whose leadership’s stated goal is to destroy you. Before many marriages that end in divorce go bad, there is usually a blissful honeymoon. Likewise the Libyan rebels started off giving the US a deserved gift, by denying their request to extradite Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi.

The Middle East has plenty of hostile countries, some unfriendly indifferent nations, and very few allies. One of those nations considered friendly to the US is Kuwait, particularly after we saved them from Saddam Hussein’s invasion in Desert Storm. Now to Kuwait’s credit, they have repaid us with their support in the UN by voting against us a region-low 67% of the time. More and more on the right, people grow disenfranchised by our foreign involvements. Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that behind closed doors, most republicans will admit that Iraq was a mistake. This sentiment briefly gave businessman Donald Trump the affection of some republicans when he considered a presidential run. One of Trump’s main platforms was taking trillions of dollars in oil from Iraq to offset our costs there. The fact that the idea garnered some support among republicans shows that at the very least, they’re willing to admit that the Iraq war didn’t yield desired results; so they feel the need to get something out of it. I agree that in retrospect, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. But you can’t go around taking nation’s oilfields or anything else for that matter, might doesn’t make right. The equivalent I draw from the people who support the US taking oil from these nations we intervene in is this: Let’s say I cut your grass without me asking. You either try to stop me or passively let it happen. When its done I take some household appliances to compensate myself.

A best case scenario in these countries is that we pay billions yearly for their defense, having them become reliant on us, allowing them to become socialist in nature; all while complaining about our presence and influence. This allows them to become what I like to call “International democrats”. They do nothing to warrant the US taxpayer paying for their defense or fighting for them, yet we do it. What would be better is if we charged them at cost or more for us to protect them, but even then, that’s only a solution if you want to use our military men and women as mercenaries instead of only using them to “protect the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic”. Better would be forcing these nations to pay for their own defense, taking them off the government payroll.

In the world there are going to be problems that arise on an international level. Friendly dictators and elected officials alike will lose power or get overthrown from time to time. When a US-friendly regime loses power its one thing, when the US pays great costs in lives and money to create a hostile regime is infinitely worse. Woodrow Wilson’s progressive dream is alive and well today with the goal of “making the world safe for democracy”, championed by republicans (McCain, Graham) and democrats (Lieberman). Creating democracies in a region where the people who make up the electorate despise the US would seem to make the policy mutually exclusive with safety at home.

George Bush Takes High Road on Obama’s Attempt to Politicize Osama’s Death

Unconfirmed reports say that the White House invited former President George W. Bush to ground zero with President Obama in celebration of the slaying of Osama bin Laden.

David Sherzer, President Bush’s spokesman, said, “President Bush will not be in attendance on Thursday. He appreciated the invite, but has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight.

While the White House will neither confirm nor deny that Obama had extended an invitation to the former leader, George Bush’s announcement is certainly an indication that such an offer was made.

Obama needs a ground zero moment like President Bush’s famous and inspiring speech after the towers fell.

George W. Bush was, if nothing else, genuine. He was not an effective fiscal Conservative, he was not the eloquent speaker Mr. Obama is, but he was real. I will never forget the moment that his Chief-of-Staff came into the grade school classroom and whispered in his ear that America was under attack. The composure, the realization that this was his to manage and that there was little he could do in the next few minutes, so let the kids have their moment – all of it. George Bush’s approval ratings went through the roof.

President Obama’s ratings are dropping off of a cliff and the recent announcement of Osama’s death hasn’t really helped all that much. Now Obama is searching for the poll bump that Bush never needed nor wanted – but got.

I believe that President Bush bowed out because he did not believe that this moment should be turned into a circus, or carnival if you prefer Mr. Obama’s phraseology. I believe that he sees this for what it is and would never sully the images of thousands of lost Americans by turning the killing of foreign terrorist into a re-election campaign stop.

President G.W.Bush is genuine class.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »