Thursday, July 24, 2014

How To Lose Three Wars----Without Ever Starting One

Just think: Barack Obama may very well go down in American history as the first President to lose three American wars---all after they were victories.

With many accolades under Ronald Reagan’s policies, we won the cold war against Russia, (formally the Soviet Union) and their tyrannical communist regime---all without firing a shot.

The war in Iraq was over in two weeks and Saddam and his thugs were defeated militarily, but it took a few more years and the blood of our heroes to finally secure the peace, and drive out outside interest, including al Qaeda.

In Afghanistan, George W. Bush kept his promise that those who attacked us on 9/11, (and any parties that protected them), would pay dearly.  Both al Qaeda and the Taliban were driven out of the country, along with Osama Bin Laden taking up cave-dwelling.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan required a surge of our military to finally claim a strategic and demographic military victory over these two nations.  Credit to Barack Obama for the one in Afghanistan and finally locating Bin Laden in the Pakistani suburbs and disposing of the vermin.

But, this is where Barack Obama’s experience in foreign policy and leadership comes to a pathetically sad ending.

Without insisting on leaving a status force in Iraq, Obama misjudged, (in his hurry to score political points), the level of strength in the Iraqi forces to maintain stability in the nation---a fatal mistake that may very well prove over 4000 of our finest might have died in vain.  Even with the warnings that a power-vacuum was occurring from Syria all the way through northern Iraq, Obama did nothing.  Politically, he had little choice, since a war-weary America would never allow “real forces” to re-deploy to the region.  Today, ISIS forces are on the city limits of Bagdad, and the entire nation is about to fall into total chaos.  The ISIS Jihadist have even declared in a fatwa that all women between the ages of 14 and 46 undergo Female Genital Mutilation in the town of Mosul: 

Isis orders all women and girls in Mosul to undergo FGM
UN says 'fatwa' issued by militant group in and around Iraqi city could affect 4 million
The militant group Islamic State (Isis) has ordered all girls and women in and around Iraq's northern city of Mosul to undergo female genital mutilation, the United Nations says.
The "fatwa" issued by the Sunni Muslim fighters would potentially affect 4 million women and girls, the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Jacqueline Badcock, told reporters in Geneva by videolink from Irbil.

The UN Human Rights Council is too busy siding with the Palestinians over the Israel’s rights to protect their citizenry. 

And I doubt there will be an official statement from this organization before these barbaric brutalization begins in Iraq.  And, of course when Obama abandons Afghanistan with no status force agreement, the Taliban will march right back in and demand a similar fatwa for those low-life women who thought they might finally enter a 21st century society.

So, there you have it.  Vlady Putin is strutting his bare chest with an expansion tour/re-taking his lost territory, while rebuilding a former Soviet Union.  Iraq is about to become a full-fledged terrorist haven.  And Afghanistan will only be an “Obama executive order” away from becoming the same.

Three wars……and they’re all lost because of Barack Obama.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

The Joke of Immigration Reform is on All of Us

The most recent Gallup polling shows the American Public is concerned and well aware of the immigration debacle on our southern borders:

One in Six Say Immigration Most Important U.S. Problem
          Immigration concerns surged in July, while economic mentions ebbed
This is not the first time that immigration has spiked in the public's consciousness. Most recently, Gallup found the issue increasing to 10% in 2010, at a time when a new immigration law in Arizona was making news. And prior to that, it increased twice in 2006 to 15% or higher, amid congressional debate over immigration reform.
Signaling that public mentions of immigration today could be stemming more from concern about illegal immigration than from support for immigration reform, mentions of the issue are significantly higher among Republicans (23%) than Democrats (11%). Gallup polling earlier this year showed Republicans with a preference for focusing on sealing the border, while Democrats prioritized addressing the status of illegal immigrants already here.  (link)  (emphasis mine)

Translation:  The Democrats agenda is not to stem the tide of illegal immigration, but to continue their primary objective of providing a path to citizenship of an entire class of people who are wholly or in a large part dependent on government services.  Big business, (and specifically the National Chamber of Commerce), have hardly gone out of their way to hide the fact that they are in dire need of millions who are willing to accept low wage jobs, as long as their remaining source of income is subsidized by government benefits.

It’s a win-win situation for Democrats and Big Business.  One’s looking only for a voter who’s totally dependent on government servitude and will thereby vote to maintain their status quo.  The other is depending on a cheap labor pool who, (as long as the government supplies the balance of their incomes), will not seek higher wages or benefits which would take a bite out of their bottom line profits.

In most businesses, (both small and large), labor is still a major expense that can be controlled/manipulated as opposed to uncontrolled expenses, such as rent, utilities, and, for the most part taxes on profits.  Both state and federal governments understand the concept of a higher gross income = a larger amount of taxable income that is collected by these governments.

The Democratic Party*, in collaboration with Big Business, (and a wink and a nod by our government), would prefer that the average voter not know or even understand their private little enterprise that keeps/maintains an entire class of people dependent on a system---designed and perfected to guarantee both money and votes flow into the Democratic coffers.

* The Democratic Party is not exclusively invested in this unjust system.  There are also Republicans who are and do participate in this travesty that feeds on this current immigration system like parasites, feeding on this potential cash cow.  However, the pre-planned and well rehearsed rhetoric by the Democratic Party who, (under the guise and deception of a “compassionate” party looking out for the downtrodden and disadvantaged immigrant), point directly to the Republican Party as the threat to this long perverse system no one in government seriously chooses to address.  Herein lies the conundrum.

Instead, they, (both parties), will continue to play the political games that might advance their own personal statures in this pathetic hierarchy of power and control.  Until the American Public calls these politicians on the carpet, and demands this “profitable system” be changed, there will be little progress in the immigration debate.  But remember, there are powerful interest in play here.  They have no intention of relenting their heavily invested interest.  And the big money feeding these parasites trumps all who would seek a change in this cycle.  Can these “American Politicians”, (or the businesses that are in complete collaboration with these politicians), claim they are not just a more sophisticated entity of the Mexican Mules transporting and enslaving immigrants for profit?  I doubt it.

(photo credit---Courtesy of Congressman Henry Cuellar)

Editor's note:  While there are numerous suppositions and accusations throughout this post, I fully intend to add names, provide quotes and documentation to corroborate this story.  All writing here is exclusively the opinion of the author and no one else.  All edits, revisions, and additions to this post will be distinctly identified at the discretion of the author.

Update: It should be noted that the mainstream media appears to be complicit in only reporting, (or not reporting), stories that does no damage to the Democratic Party, President Obama, or the special interest.

Jeffery Dickens at Newsbusters chronicles the media's blatant omissions:

The Border Crisis Stories the Networks Aren't Telling You About