Sunday, April 19, 2009

Brother X Speaks

"That Captain Phillips is a racist! He should have asked those pirates to kill him. Then that would have proved he was not racist, just like the white folks who voted for Obama. How dare he survive!"

There must be a full moon out.

How Obama actually delayed pirate rescue SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement

"While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his 'decisive' handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.

"Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement.

"They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander."

Change you have been told to believe in: A closer examination of Barack Obama’s foreign policy

"Those who elected Obama on anti-war grounds, however, had not read the small print. Indeed, Obama’s status as a champion of pacifism can be attributed in no small part to the stance taken by his Republican opponent during the campaign; compared to John McCain’s overt belligerence, Obama became the candidate of peace by default. Whereas McCain hypothesised that American military involvement in Iraq could continue for 'a hundred years', Obama affirmed in September 2007 that, '[t]here is no military solution in Iraq and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.'[2]

In July 2008, Obama said that a previous commitment and campaign pledge to complete a full withdrawal of combat troops within 16 months could be 'refined' at a later date[3], and following his inauguration he indeed extended the timetable for the prospective pullout to between 19 and 23 months[4]. Obama’s current position is that a 'residual force' of up to 50,000 troops will be left in the country after this 23-month period has elapsed[5] – giving rise to consternation from anti-war activists and from some within the Democratic Party. There are currently 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and therefore the proposed 50,000-strong residual force represents more than one third of the American forces currently serving in the country. Under an agreement signed between George W. Bush and the Iraqi government in 2008, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by December 31st 2011.

"Aside from the somewhat confused stance with regards to the Iraq pullout, President Obama has been criticised by opponents of the ‘war on terror’ for pledging to almost double the number of U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. His proposal to supplement the existing force of 36,000 with an additional 30,000 troops[6] – presumably consisting in no small part of soldiers who have already served in Iraq – contradicts statements made in July 2008, in which Obama had suggested increasing the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by just 7,000[7]. Since taking office, Obama has already dispatched an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to the country[8].

"The newly elected President wasted no time whatsoever in continuing another policy inherited from his predecessor; attacks by unmanned drones inside Pakistani territory. In September 2008, Obama called the first attacks carried out by the government of George W. Bush inside Pakistan a 'small step in the right direction.' Susan Rice, top foreign policy advisor to Obama’s campaign, said of the raids – undertaken without approval from Islamabad - that the U.S. had a right 'Not to invade. Not to take over Pakistan’s sovereignty, but to take out that target as an act of self-defence'[9]. Obama stated publicly as far back as July 2007 that he had no qualms whatsoever about using military force against 'al-Qaeda' in Pakistan, even without consultation with the Pakistani government[10], provoking outrage in a country that has been a key strategic ally of the United States during the ‘war on terror’. Following his inauguration, Obama did not dawdle in making good on those threats.

"The new President carried out the first such strike just three days into his term in office on January 23 2009, killing 22 people inside Pakistani territory and provoking huge protests in the tribal heartlands of North & South Waziristan[11]. The total number of unauthorised U.S. raids inside Pakistani territory since August 2008 now stands at more than 30. Pakistani officials were quick to condemn these attacks as violations of their national sovereignty, pointing out that many civilians have been killed by missiles fired from unmanned drones since the raids began last summer, and emphasising that in terms of winning hearts and minds in the region such aggressions are counter productive to say the least."

Why I'm glad Obama is the President instead of McCain

"I'm glad that Obama's spending is going through the roof... hopefully more Americans will begin to realize that we're sitting in boiling water. At the same time that proponents of limited government are getting more and more agitated, hopefully the antiwar group will also realize that the Democrats are not as antiwar and pro-civil rights as they thought."

Obama Retreated, Will America Be Defeated?

"It is not such a big deal to disagree with a president and his policies. But it is shocking to realize that the leader of the world’s most powerful country doesn’t appear to understand the most basic principles of international relations.

"This isn’t surprising since Barrack Obama has no—zero, nada—previous experience in this area. It shows. There are two distinct ways other countries respond to this combination of his ignorance at realpolitik, urgent desire to be liked, and pride in projecting U.S. weakness:

  • Friends, especially in Europe, are pleased, applaud, but then add that they don’t have to give this guy anything because he is all apologies and no toughness. They like the fact that he is all carrots and not sticks. If, however, they are states more at risk—Israel, relatively moderate Arab states, perhaps Asian and Latin American allies--worry that they cannot rely on the United States to help and defend them.
  • Enemies or potential rivals, a category including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, and many—mostly Islamist—revolutionary movements, say that this guy is weak and defeated. He apologizes, offers unconditional engagements, and promises concessions because all previous U.S. policies have failed. Obama says so himself. They’ll eat the carrots and, of possible, their neighbors as well.

"Obama, the supposed liberal, also offers some considerable, bizarre reversals in the meaning of that word. A couple of years ago when a brilliant conservative Middle East analyst asked me if I, too, was a conservative now, I said that I remained a liberal. In my view, the problem is not liberalism itself but the way that the far left has taken over liberalism, as Communism tried—but failed—to do in the 1930s.

"For me, though, a liberal president is one who is harshly critical of dictatorships. He has been the kind of person who understands the importance of ideas and the value of America’s good side throughout history. He didn’t spend his time denouncing U.S. mistakes so much as urging others to follow the American system of democracy and reasonably regulated free enterprise.

"Such a president hates totalitarianism because he extolled the liberty embodied by the United States. A liberal president wasn’t someone eager to suck up to repressive dictatorships but someone who could unite democratic and moderate states.

"Will some presidential successor of Obama have to apologize some day to all those people who were crushed by the dictatorships he is coddling?"

Another Global Warming Myth Shot Down

"Apparently the Global Warming Moonbats are experts at telling half-truths. For weeks they have been warning that areas in the western part of Antarctica are melting and the Wilkins ice shelf may even break away from the continent. That is 100% true.

"Now, what the members of the Church of Global Warming Moonbats have kept to themselves is that east Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown 'significant cooling in recent decades'.

"When you put both sides together it looks as if that 'Al Gore Fire Drill' was for naught."

Why Liberals Despise American Patriots

"'Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. (Notice she attempts to even talk "black" -- Robert) That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that... They are now dependent upon immigrant bashing, and hating the black guy in the White House. Will people act on that? It's not new, but Fox doesn't mind fomenting it. Michelle Bachman doesn't mind fomenting it. Glen Beck doesn't mind fomenting it... but what have they got if they don't have this?' ~Janeane Garaofalo, 4/16 MSNBC.

"Note to Rupert Murdoch: Janeane Garofalo your d-lister on 24; needs to have her mouth washed out with soap, she should be spanked, and her parents should be called to take her home early today. She has slandered your broadcast network, doesn't seem to understand the difference between your news operation and the entertainment company that writes her paycheck, and is perhaps one of the more vile human beings to ever call herself an American.

"But enough with her best qualities."

Thou Shall Not Question Barack Obama

I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question.I question.I question. I question. I question. I question. I question.I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question. I question.

I don't think I'm making myself clear.

"After attempting to change the subject, and get the focus of the conversation OFF of dear leader Obama, the second line of attack from the minions seems to be to demonize the talk show host, and talk radio generally. I got an earful of this during a recent show I hosted at Phoenix, Arizona’s NewsTalk 92-3 KTAR. Noting President Obama’s plans to set earnings limits on corporate executives, I posed the question, 'should President Obama determine how much money you’re allowed to earn?'

"You all can’t do anything but hate on this guy' a caller said in response. 'All you talk radio guys know how to do is trash Obama' another caller said.

"Oh really? I was 'hating on' the dear leader, and 'trashing' him? I pressed further with one caller, saying “seriously…should President Obama set the limit on how much money you’re allowed to make at your job - - just to make certain that you don’t make ‘too much’?”

“'He’s not proposing to limit my pay, you idiot' the minion replied. 'He’s only limiting the salaries of corporate CEO’s, which he should be doing.' (Ja, mein Fuehrer! -- Robert)

“'So, are you saying that some of your fellow Americans deserve less freedom that you do?' I asked. 'You should be free to make as much money as you can, but your fellow American should not - - is that your point?'

“'That’s not what I’m saying, you idiot!' the angry minion replied.

"Of course, that was precisely what the angry minion was saying."

Obamatopia

"My only confusion is over motive. Does Obama do this for (a) domestic political purposes: trashing Bush abroad*, coupled with fawning foreign crowds and photo-ops, remind Americans that someone made them liked abroad after someone else did not? (b) Is it more personal, as in messianic: he sees himself as a sort of Mandela/Gandhi figure, post-national, post-patriotic, post-American in whom the souls of 6 billion are invested for ‘hope and change’? (c) Is there a touch of Democratic savvy as well—the more these “breakthroughs” are associated with Obama, the more Hillary seems sidelined, and / or forced to implement his lead? Compared to the high Rice profile, her stature seems more and more dwarfish. (d) Does he really believe in conflict resolution theory that postulates escalating disagreements arise from miscommunication and misunderstanding rather than an aggressive party sensing that its putative opponent cannot or will not impede it—in other words faith in the UN rather than age-old balance of power, deterrence, and ‘quiet but carry a big stick’ preparedness? (e) Does Obama, whether being nourished on the mother milk of Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, etc, or from his university training and Chicago organizing, really see the U.S. as historically a uniquely oppressive society in terms of race, class, and gender, and hence perhaps have empathy for a Castro or Chavez, at least more than he does for Americans of the sort who go to tea parties and listen to Fox News? I’ll let readers decide, but so far his rhetoric has been harsher to those on Wall Street, his opponents in Congress, those who make over $250,000, and those who criticize him than it has to those who clearly don’t like us abroad.

"And the result will be soon, as Sarkozy presciently saw, a general sizing up of the Obama two-step. They will either believe that we are weak, and cannot stand in the way of their illiberal agendas, or believe that Obama is somewhat sympathetic to their anti-capitalist, anti-democratic scenarios, or believe that he is a true multiculturalist who believes in the 'Post-American world.'”

The ‘Right-Wing Extremism’ Report and Europeanization

"A search of government records turns up a similar paucity of the expression in official American political discourse. Here again, when the expression does appear, it is typically employed to refer to European and, above all, German political phenomena. (See here, for instance, in the entry on Germany in the State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report.) Here again, when the expression is used to refer to American political phenomena, it is typically employed in an obviously politicized and hyperbolic manner to refer to mainstream Republicans — as, for instance, when Bernie Sanders, America’s only self-described 'socialist' senator, linked 'right-wing extremism' and the Bush administration. There is some scattered evidence of law enforcement officials occasionally using the term.

"If the expression 'right-wing extremism' is uncommon in American political discourse, however, its German equivalent — Rechtsextremismus — is a standard element of German political discourse. A search of the electronic archives of Germany’s paper of record, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), turns up over 2000 articles in which the term is used in just the last 16 years. A search of just the last year of the FAZ archives turns up 121 articles: more than twice the number found in the New York Times in the last twenty years. The German domestic intelligence service, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution [Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz], includes detailed information on “right-wing extremist” movements and detailed statistics on 'right-wing extremist' violence in each of its yearly reports. The section specifically devoted to the analysis of 'right-wing extremist' movements in the last available report (covering 2007) is over 80 pages long — this as compared to the scanty seven pages of would-be analysis in the DHS report. The Verfassungsschutz report also includes a section on 'left-wing extremism' [Linksextremismus] of about the same length."