Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Results Of Unrealistic Planning and Thinking

Hmmmm: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42334849/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Double Hmmmmm: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42344939/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Obama Could Have Been Talking About Iraq ... Getting Along, Political Correctness And No-Fly Zones Don't Work With Despots

In his address to the nation Monday, all the reasons for going into Libya existed in Iraq when Bush Sr took us to war there. In fact, Iraq was worse. Saddam had invaded another country, treating them brutally in the process, was brutalizing his own citizens worse than Kadhafi has been his own, had used WMD on his own people, had been ignoring UN resolutions to a greater degree, and he was a very destabilizing force in the middle east. We established a no-fly zone without taking him out so we could respond quickly and effectively to any perceived military action in the future.

By the way, do you remember that Saddam launched medium range ballistic ("SCUD") missiles at Israel?

And, everyone agrees Saddam had developed big stockpiles of WMD and, indeed, had been trying to develop nuclear weapons. Documents from Iraq's government proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He ditched most of his WMD programs at some point, probably when it became clear to even him that we were serious about attacking him again if he kept it up. [Question: what do you think Saddam would have done with his WMD if he thought our policy was like Obama's ... political correctness, letting others lead and generally trying along with other countries, hoping they'll like us enough to behave? Please attempt serious consideration what Saddam would most likely have done.]

Bush Sr fought a 'limited war' in Iraq just like Obama wants to do in Libya. What did it get us, the Iraqis and other countries in the region? Brutal mayhem in Iraq against his own citizens and cooperation with other countries that was pure pretense. When Bush 43 took us to war there, the conditions were at least as bad for Iraqis and world stability as it was in Libya when Obama took us to war there 1 1/2 weeks ago.

All the conditions that Obama said existed in Libya existed in Iraq under Bush Jr to at least the same degree. So, it seems to me that Obama was saying Monday that it WAS a good thing Bush Jr took out Saddam and made him answer for his crimes against humanity. Saddam's rule was just as dispicable and evil as Kadhafi's. The only significant difference is that Obama isn't committed to do whatever's necessary to capture Kadhafi and make him answer for his crimes. In that respect Obama's war is more like Bush Sr's. It's very likely Kadhafi will make us regret not taking swift action to capture him or take him out if that's our only choice.

This half-hearted politically correct attitude we have toward despots is sad to see in US foreign policy. Despots will ALWAYS make you pay for dithering and playing politically correct games. Sure, it's difficult and costly to do the right thing but history(!) proves not doing the right thing is worse. Despotic dictators always make you regret not delivering swift and certain justice to them. Obama is VERY fortunate that Kadhafi doesn't have a very capable military. If Kadhafi's military were anywhere nearly as capable as Saddam's, Obama's entry into this war would have been too late to prevent a catastrophe.

Why hasn't Obama learned from history that when a despot is doing what Saddam and Kadhafi were doing, they ignore words from us or the UN? Why wait until it's nearly too late? Despots are completely predictable in that respect. God help us if we become predictably ignorant of history's lessons as Obama's administration seems be.

So, what do YOU want the message to be to other dictators in the region and around the world? We have no spine? We don't care whether there's an effective force that will lead action against despots? Is that a message that will serve us well? I think not. History has pretty much proven that countries which try that fail.

Recall all our previous enemies. Hitler's Germany. Imperialist Japan. And all others. In EVERY case, their leaders struck diplomatic deals with other countries that the other countries foolishly believed. Despots WILL negotiate and even make treaties with others while, behind the scenes, making plans to make war with them when it's more convenient for them. Hitler did it with England and Russia via treaties and non-aggression agreements. Japan did it with us before attacking Hawaii. When we try to make peace with despots and try to stay out of wars and conflicts in the process, the wars INEVITABLY(!) come to us. What? History isn't relevant? Or maybe they just don't teach real history at Harvard?

While our military actions haven't always worked out very well, lacking the will to take action would have made this world much less safe and secure today. History proves that delaying action and believing despot's words only benefits the despots. Despots WILL do what despots have always done, period.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Exit Strategy? What Exit Strategy?

Did anything President Obama say in his address to the nation last night about ending our involvement in Libya sound like a real exit strategy? Going in, he said "Kadhafi must go". Now that's only "the preferred outcome". Libya IS going to become a major problem when (not if) Kadhafi puts down this little rebellion.

NATO has no stomach for aggressively getting rid of the man but if he remains entrenched he will be a threat to world peace and our security. Do you really think he won't come after us and the rest of NATO as soon as it suits him? This little "kinetic military action" is more likely to make the world a less safe place unless Kadhafi is gone. This is not much different than what happened in Iraq. The first time we went into Iraq, we left in place a brutal dictator who was also a threat to both the safety of Iraqi citizens and stability in the Arab world.

So, what are we doing to ensure Kadhafi's gone? Nothing of substance really. He's perfectly capable of putting down this rebellion with his military might and he's seems committed to do just that. What is the more likely outcome with us sitting on the sidelines and not doing anything concrete to ensure he's captured and made to answer for his terrorist crimes against other countries? History tells us it's more likely than not that Kadhafi won't be gone. Why is that a risk we seem willing to take when we know what he's capable of?

For one thing, he appears to have WMD ... mustard gas at least if not others also. Is he crazy enough to use them? Of course! Is he crazy enough to slaughter those who appear to be rebels and all who appear to have supported them? Absolutely, yes! A proper assessment of risk versus consequences dictates we get him out of there, period.

Maybe the risk of him remaining in control there seems 'acceptably low' to our leadership but the consequences resulting from his survival there would be unacceptable. The consequences of his staying in control are far worse than the consequences of going after him. The history of weakness toward despots tells us it's unwise to do a 'limited engagement' with this nut case. Last, his survival there would encourage other despots in the Arab world to stand up to us like Kadhafi has. That's soooooooo not a good thing!

So, why are we pussy-footing around with this knuckleheaded despot? For strictly political correctness reasons. Not a good way to run foreign policy.

Monday, March 28, 2011

A "Kinetic Military Action"!?!? R U Kidding Me?

Last week I noted how presidents no longer like to call a war a war. To refresh your memory, I noted that Korea was a "police action" and Viet Nam was an "advisors" operation. Then I went on about how Obama is reluctant to call wars what they are ... "overseas contingency operation" for example, instead of a war in Afganistan.

Well, they've gotten really creative with the Libyan war. They're calling it a "kinetic military action". Huh? I suppose they've coined that because they want us to believe we're not using 'troops' ... just missiles and bombs. That's a ridiculous thing to call it even if it were true we weren't using 'troops'. We have special ops forces IN Libya. Military personnel have been flying dangerous missions over Libya. A "military action", eh? And not just any old run-of-the-mill military action, a "kinetic" one! Wow! How smart-sounding! We're not going to war there, we're just bombing the crap out of them.

These word games are ridiculous.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

If President Obama Doesn't Tell The American People It's A War, Then It's NOT, Right?

Check this out: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6116A55F-E2BA-4F5E-BA61-568E9FF5E4D3

Weak and indecisive leadership: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-libya-usa-poll-idUSTRE72N1JN20110324

Note from the latter link above that most Americans are opposed to using ground troops but 79% want Gadhafi out. I don't know how you do the latter without the former, do you? And note to Americans: there's no such thing as a surgical or clean war in which troops aren't needed and don't die. War is ugly and unpleasant. Problem is, despots, tyrants and thugs leave us no choice. History proves peace always comes at a cost.

To that 79% of Americans who think President Obama is respecting their wishes not to use ground troops I remind you that we have to use ground troops and, in fact, are using ground troops. Yes, we DO have 'boots on the ground'. It's all special forces operations but, just because they're 'special', that doesn't mean they're not troops and not subject to attacks that kill them. Wake up folks and think for yourselves about what's really going on over there. This is nasty, serious business and we'll have to shoulder most of the heavy lifting for much longer than 'days' to get the job done.

It's Probably More Like A Potty Break Than An Actual Exit

That's some strategy President Obama has in Libya. Unfortunately, it depends on other countries cooperating and showing some backbone. Here's the truth that even the NY Times now admits: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/africa/25policy.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

The summary according to all the latest reports:
  • First we were going to establish a no-fly zone and then turn protection of the airspace over to other NATO and/or UN nations.
  • The actual operations turned out to involve bombing various of Libya's ground forces and equipment ... attacking troops from the air.
  • The original 'exit strategy' sold to The People: we'll withdraw from combat operations within days, after securing the Libyan airspace.
  • NATO's response: bicker, bicker, bicker. Now refusing to do much of anything. Other NATO countries finally agree to take over control of the airspace. WOW, impressive, eh? Now that Gadhafi has NO air force to speak of, just how hard a job IS that?
  • Yesterday NATO finally agreed to take over the airspace control but won't attack ground forces. Guess who gets to continue doing that? The only country left in the world that has some backbone, the USA.
  • NOW what's America's exit strategy looking like? We'll continue attacking Libyan government ground forces until it doesn't need to be done any more. When will that be? Who knows? President Obama and Secretary Clinton surely don't know. If you think they do you're being unrealistic.
Our exit strategy has devolved from "turning it over to NATO in days, not weeks" to "we'll turn over just the easy stuff to NATO in days but we'll keep doing the hardest work remaining for as long as it needs to be done". Now that's decisive leadership. President Obama is getting a lesson about other countries' spinelessness that he apparently didn't pay attention to in history classes, to the extent they teach real history at Harvard.

Bottom line folks. we aren't exiting this war any time soon although it looks like we might take a bit of a potty break.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Not Turning Over The Responsibilities After All ... Told You So

Remember that Obama promised we'd have a limited role in Libya and would turn over the military operations "in days, not weeks" with other NATO, UN and Arab countries taking over the military operations at that time? Well, check out the latest development:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42247045/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Even though Obama and Clinton promised we'd have a limited and temporary role, no other country is willing to do the heavy lifting. It's what the UN and NATO members always do. Why Obama and Clinton didn't see this coming is a mystery to me. I thought they were smarter than this.

In fact, anyone paying attention to history could see this coming. The UN and NATO always do this. They announce something must be done and pass resolutions to that effect and then member nations refuse to take any significant responsibility for the heavy lifting. They bicker and whine and all we get from them are excuses why they won't help. Even I saw this coming before NATO's announcement today that they weren't going to take it over after all. (Last paragraph of previous blog.)

That our country's leadership kept saying this past week that our role would be limited means one of two things. Either they're ignorant of this history of spinelessness and political nonsense in the UN and NATO or they do know which means they were being less than honest with us in their promises that we'd be out of the military operations "in days".

How is that progressive "be nice with other countries and they'll be more supportive and cooperative" thing working out?

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Obama Administration Says We're NOT At War In Libya! Huh?

Good Grief! Now Obama's administration says we're not at war in Libya. I guess that's why they don't think they need congress' approval to do what they're doing.

Let's see. We're shooting down Libyan fighter jets. We've fired nearly 200 missiles at various targets. We've dropped bombs on various ground targets. We've been killing significant numbers of their military.

These are, by any reasonable definition, acts/actions of war. There is a civil war going on in Libya and we're participating on the side of those fighting for their freedom from a despotic dictator and Obama said "Gadhafi must go!". That IS a war going on there and we're engaged in the interests of one side of that conflict. We ARE in a war AND we're committing acts of war in many ways. In fact, we are leading a coalition of other nations in the fighting.

As for not having troops on the ground, do you really believe we haven't had special forces on the ground there? It doesn't matter whether these people are 'special'. They ARE troops. Very, very specialized but they are members of our military. Effective air and missile warfare require good intelligence so you can bet we have specialized troops there gathering it. If captured, would they be treated as prisoners of war? Yes, by all that's 'Geneva'. Don't you hope they'd be treated as prisoners of war rather than terrorists? I do!

How is it that America's federal govenment leadership can say when we do things like this, we are not at war? We're committing acts of war against a sovereign state. It is the very definition of war. Just because Obama is reluctant to call it a war because he's been so tough on Bush about his wars and can't bring himself to look anything like him doesn't mean it isn't a war.

The American people have been through this before. Korea and Viet Nam are perfect examples. Because presidents knew Americans were opposed to entering into wars because of their experience with WWI and WWII, they avoided it by 'naming' such conflicts something else. 'Police Action' for Korea. No 'combat forces', just 'advisors' for Viet Nam.

If a president doesn't call it a war he/she can claim no obligation to go before either congress or The People to explain what he's about to do. How convenient, eh? And doing so might result in being told NO. So let's just not call it a war and I can do anything I want.

BIG PROBLEM WITH THAT 'EXCUSE': When you attack a sovereign nation (even if 'only' in the air and by missiles), its leader just might very well declare war on you! This action could INVITE war being called upon us ... by Libya or even another Arab country. The president should have to explain to congress, if not also The People, what he's about to do because his action could plunge us into something even he has to call a real war.

Doesn't this remind you of how this administration approached 'the war on terror' early on? "Overseas Contingency Operations"! Gads! These guys hate the WORD 'war' but they have no trouble with ACTS of war.

All these word games are just lame. They're irresponsible and inconsistent with the spirit if not the letter of the constitution. They are also contrary to openness. Perhaps worst, they seem to believe we're stupid or ignorant enough to fall for this word game nonsense.

Mr. President, A WAR BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A WAR!

One last question that answers itself. Obama likes to also use as justification for not getting congress' approval his 'commitment' that our participation is limited and temporary and other countries will lead the real effort to keep Gadhafi forces in check. Limited and temporary? Are kidding me? When (not if!) the rest of the 'coalition' either can't get along and be effective or evaporates because we won't participate any more (we're 'turning it over to them in 'days', right?), what will we do when (not if!) Gadhafi's forces then regain the upper hand?

This Is What Represents Fairness and Reaching Across The Aisle?

Which was the last president who actually reached across the aisle on matters of national security and policy for matters as serious as going to war? Hint: not Obama! Another hint: not a Democratic president!

Based on his divisive behavior and tendency to go around congress to implement policies and programs, what are the chances, really, that Obama would take the advice of a Republican majority leader about getting approval in advance to start a war in, say, Libya as Bush Jr did with the Democratic leadership for his wars?

I thought Obama said his adminsitration would be one of cooperation, reaching across the aisle, inclusion, and general 'getting along' ... in general doing everything better than Bush. I thought he was going to be the gold standard for fighting divisiveness and creating openness in government. Instead he's done the opposite ... very arrogant and condescending, apparently by nature.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Congressional Approval For An Act Of War: Bush Versus Obama

Folks of liberal persuasion aren't going to like hearing the truth but Bush Junior DID get congressional approval for his actions against BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. I know that liberal PC talking points say otherwise but truth is truth. Even that bastion of liberal media, MSNBC, has stopped running from and distorting the truth:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42201792/ns/politics/

For liberals who are in denial, the hard fact is, Bush got congress' approval for both of his wars but President Obama did not for this first war of his own doing. It's true that Bush's opinion(!) was that he didn't need congress' approval for actions like his, but Democrats(!) 'encouraged' him to do so. So he took(!) the advice of Democratic leadership (Tom Daschle) and got congress' approval. Even the Democratic-controlled senate sided with Bush.

Here's another thing those in liberal land aren't going to like. Congress, including a Democratic-controlled(!) Senate, agreed it was the right thing to do. That means that both wars weren't just Bush's wars. Congress, including both parties within it, owned them too.

Of course the response from the left will be that 'Bush lied' to get congress' approval. Problem with that is, just like Bush, congress believed the intelligence reports from all over the world that Saddam had WMD. Yes, much of that intelligence appears to have been exaggerated by the intelligence-gatherers. Presidents and congresses can't gather intelligence themselves. They're dependent on 'professionals' to do that for them and they have to make decisions on whatever information they're given. Truth is, congress (including Democrats) believed the intelligence reports just like Bush did. It's only a "lie" if you knowing tell something untruthful but both Bush AND congress believed the reports. True enough, both Bush and congress told us something that wasn't true but they didn't know that. Neither willfully lied.

To the extent, however, that you think Bush lied to congress, congress (including the Democratic senate) ALSO lied to the American people for the same reasons. Congress, as The People's representatives gave their approval for those wars based on the same information Bush had. It's just as valid for me to say my representatives in congress lied to me via their approval votes based on the same information Bush had. If Bush doesn't have clean hands, neither does congress, Republicans or Democrats.

For those of you who will still believe that Bush lied, I'd like to ask you the following. If you condemn Bush for lying, what do you say to Obama who is the only president in a long time who didn't get congress' approval for an act of war? We can have no assurance whatsoever that Obama is being truthful about his acts of war in Libya. Which is worse, having a president being open with congress about the intelligence he has and his reasons, therefore, for going to war OR having a president who won't discuss his authority, reasons or end-game for a war with congress in the first place? Which president's actions are more unconstitutional? Which president did not take the opposition party leadership's advice to present his cases (for acts of war) to congress?

Last but not necessarily least, did you notice this represents another flip-flop ... another broken promise? Obama said during his campaign that NO president has constitutional authority to "authorize a military action" absent approval by congress if there's no imminent threat to Amercia. He was, in effect, promising us he wouldn't do what he just did in Libya. Hello!

Hmmmmm. Is this really change you can get behind?

Libya Attacks As Act Of War

First, let's be clear what this is minus the PC nonsense. It IS war we're waging in Libya. Attacking another sovereign state on its land or in its airspace IS an act of war. Doesn't matter whether the attacking is done with 'only' our planes and missles but not troops. The 'reasons' for doing it are also irrelevant. By definition, attacking another sovereign state IS an act of war which means we are 'at war with Libya' whether we 'declare it' or not.

In fact, history shows that, ever since 'The Great War' WWII, American leadership has been reluctant to call our actions acts of war. War is ugly so if you deny it's a war, then it's obviously something else more 'benign', right? Hmmmm. Sounds like total Political Correctness rather than God's honest truth to me.

Democrats couldn't bring themselves to call the 'Korean War' a war at the time either. It was sold to Americans as a 'Police Action'. We entered the war not actually attacking North Korea but we joined the South Koreans in their actual war against North Korean. We WERE at war with our friends against the North Koreans. They were killing our troops and we were killing theirs, intent on driving them out of South Korea. Yes, there were troops on the ground so it was different from Libya in that regard but it was, as in Libya now, an attack against the military of a sovereign nation who were invading South Korea. We WERE engaged in an act of war by any definition whether the PC crowd 'deemed' it a war or not. That 'Police Action' grew into one of the most brutal conflicts we've been in.

Same with the Vietnam War. It started out as an 'assistance'. We sent 'advisors' to South Viet Nam to help that government defend itself. They were invaded by and at war with North Viet Nam. Democrats who got us into that conflict too couldn't bring themselves to call it a war and certainly not a 'Police Action' because they knew Americans wouldn't fall for that line again. Our troops were on the ground and killing the enemy in a theater of war. Therefore, we were technically and factually 'at war' with the North Vietnamese army, just not on their soil or airspace ... yet. They were killing our 'advisors' and our 'advisors' were killing them. The game changed dramatically when we started sending in major quantities of troops, bombing North Viet Nam and attacking what air force and navy they had there. Nevertheless, we joined our friends, the South Vietnamese, in war against an aggressor. We were at war with North Viet Nam from the get-go, regardless what our action was called, regardless what we called our soldiers there. Democrats put us into that war as well. For the third(!) time in 2 1/2 decades.

Both were wars and both were wars of choice because we weren't being attacked. We fought both wars for bigger reasons than only helping our friends however. We felt that we needed to stop the spread of communism which was a brutal form of government that was being forced on other countries militarily. Both North Korea and North Viet Nam were trying to spread communism to their neighbors by force and we stood against that. In the halls of congress that was probably the primary reason they wanted us there in both cases.

So, in addition to acknowledging the fact that we are at war in Libya, one must ask why have we chosen to do this? Is it simply to save the citizens from senseless slaughter by their government? Hmmmmm. A tough call PC-wise. It is at least partially the reason for sure. But what about our fear of fundamentalist Islamic dictatorships that sponsor terrorism and support the spread of it in the region and throughout the world?

The reasons we're there matter but, regardless what those reasons are, we are at war. Just because we don't have 'troops' on the ground doesn't make it less so. Just because none of our military have died there (yet) doesn't make it less so. I have no doubt that the threat of terrorism is part of what's behind our effort there but our leadership won't call it that for strictly PC reasons. It's dishonest. And we won't say it's a war for the same reasons we wouldn't call the North Korea and North Viet Nam things wars. A rose by any other name ...

Monday, March 21, 2011

The "Can't We All Just Get Along?" Approach Doesn't Seem To Be Working Does It?

Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42200172/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

To anyone who actually pays attention to history, this should come as no surprise. In the absence of strong and courageous leadership based on positive values, countries' leaders bent on becoming powerful for power sake or who simply want to defy paper tigers (for political/monetary gain or for their own amusement) will posture and bicker 'til the cows come home'. All an attitude of capitulation and getting along achieves are divisive attitudes and fractious international relationships. Despots won't respect us; they'll take advantage of us.

In full campaign mode a couple of years ago, Obama stood before Europeans and self-righteously announced that "We are the ones we have been waiting for!". Of course it was 'only' "progressive-speak". Problem is, it was spoken by the singular most powerful man on the planet, the president of the United States. Anyone with a decent sense of history said at the time it's about the nuttiest thing anyone of prominence could say.

And it's flat dangerous to the extent it results in spineless and unilateral authority-yielding policies. (Which it has in fact done!) Students of history KNOW that despots, crackpots and actual or wannabe dictators WILL start causing trouble when you unilaterally try to play nice with them. It's because they know 'communities of countries' won't be able to get along well enough for long enough to agree on anything of much use.

So much for 'community organizing' at the international level! This belief by leaders of the progressive persuasion that a strong country can make others get along with it simply by being nice, cooperating and falling on its historical sword is utter nonsense. There's real evil in the world and pretending it'll evaporate and bullies will play nice simply because you decide to relinquish strong and decisive leadership is irrational for several reasons and on several levels. It never works on the playground, either in elementary school or on the international scene. If nothing else, thousands of years of human history attest to the inevitability(!) of turmoil because of it.

This 'can't we all get along' attitude must sound great in institutions of 'higher learning'. However, all it shows us is that they haven't really learned any real 'higher' truth. It's nothing more nor less than pie in the sky unrealistic nonsense. Bullies, despots and dictators WILL ALWAYS do what bullies, despots and dictators have done all throughout history. Give them an inch and they'll make you rue the day you did it. They just will!

In the process, America comes off looking stupid, spineless and weak-willed. The downside is huge. Yes, wealth and power will be redistributed. We'll ALL be EQUALLY less safe, less secure and less prosperous.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

The Reform That's Most Needed In Education: Get The Federal Government OUT OF IT!

I've posted many blogs about the sorry state of our education system. I've given you facts to back up how it has failed miserably ever since the federal Department of Education was created for the express purpose of making it better. The facts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that just pouring money into our bureaucracies won't make education better (although it obviously needs sufficient funding).

That's one of the big problems with government welfare programs. The more 'Uncle' does FOR you, the less YOU are properly motivated to take care of business. What has putting the federal government in charge of education done for our country? The poorest-educated kids among all developed countries.

If you don't believe what I've been telling you based on the facts, will you believe The Heritage Foundation based on the same facts? Check this out:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/15/morning-bell-no-bureaucrat-left-behind/

Oh, you say, things are different now that we have a real reformer in the White House? His "Race To The Top (RttT)" education reform program will fix it! Well, guess what? It's headed off in the same lousy direction as every education reform program preceeding it. Check this out:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/27/morning-bell-secretary-duncans-race-to-waste-your-education-dollars/

Here's what I've been saying for years that we need instead of more federal bureaucracy that has proved(!) it has made it far worse, not better:
  1. More accountability and discipline at the local school level in order of importance: students, teachers and school administrators.
  2. More authority at the classroom level. We require teachers be the best educated then state and federal governments tell them what they can and cannot do.
  3. More responsibility, accountability, boundaries, and consequences on students who aren't doing well in school. Kids must know (because their parents are proactively holding them accountable!) that learning the material at school is their responsibility, not anyone else's.
  4. More involvement in their kids' education by parents. Student improvement and success BEGIN in the home. Too many parents think it is mostly the schools' responsibility to ensure kids become well-educated. That is so wrong. And it is so irresponsible. In case you haven't noticed, we've just spent the better part of 30 years and Billions of dollars proving that approach doesn't work!
  5. Eliminate the federal Department of Education. Any organization that has failed this badly (ie, stagnant test scores) for over 30 years(!) and has led our country's education during that time from the best in the world to the worst among developed countries 'deserves' only one thing: extinction. In fact, doing this will go a long way toward accomplishing (ie, forcing to happen) reforms 1 through 4 above.
  6. Drive the costs down so that most of the spending is at the classroom level. Education now consumes about half of all state spending. It's not that we can't afford proper education but we certainly cannot afford this level of mediocrity! Eliminating bureaucracy and driving authority and responsibility back down to the local level via steps 1 through 5 will accomplish most of this.
Fyi, here's a link to more of The Heritage Foundation's commentary about the sorry state of our education system:
http://blog.heritage.org/category/education/

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Good! We ARE Doing More Than Just A "No-Fly Zone" After All!

Well, it's a good news, bad news thing eh? The good news: that no-fly zone thing in Libya is much more than creating a no-fly zone. The bad news: I saw nothing from the government or from the media what they were REALLY going to do.

Creating a no-fly zone means controlling the airspace. But Nato countries are also going after Gadhafi's tanks and other military machinery. That's a good thing but who knew? I'm glad they're doing much more than they said they would. They're doing what needs to be done. I just wish our government were more forthcoming about things.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Hillary Clinton Tells Gadhafi We're Not Impressed With HIS Words?

"We're not impressed with words"? Good call Secretary of State Clinton. That'll surely impress Gadhafi. ALL we've given Gadhafi so far is WORDS! The real question therefore is how impressed is he with HER words? Obvious answer: Not Much! In fact, I can almost hear him saying, in reply to Clinton's comment, "Back at you sister ... times two"!

Our foreign policy is becoming a toothless joke around the world. The world is becoming a MORE dangerous place as a result because the only effect this has on despots is to make them feel more comfortable doing the evil that they do; in fact, doing even more of it, not less. Telling despots to play nice accomplishes only one thing: emboldens them to behave more badly, not less. It IS exactly like what happens on the playground with bullies. The ONLY thing they really understand is a good punch in the nose now and then.

Libya: NOW A No-Fly Zone? That Won't Stop Gadhafi From "Cleansing" Opponents

Does ANY rational person think a no-fly zone in Libya at this point will stop Gadhafi from cleansing his country of those who are attempting to take back their country? Think about that! Does he have lots and lots of tanks? Well, YEAH! Does he have lots and lots of troops 'willing' to do his bidding? Well, YEAH! Does he have lots and lots of rockets? Well, YEAH!

QUESTION: will a no-fly zone stop Gadhafi from using ANY of those weapons/resources? Heck NO! A no-fly zone ONLY keeps PLANES from flying! HELLO!?!? What we and the UN have just done makes me sick.

Gadhafi has ALL the military resources he needs to do the 'cleansing' he promised. At this LATE point in the process he no longer needs his planes! HELLO!

We wasted so much time getting Daddy UN to okay a no-fly zone that, now, it cannot possibly accomplish what the no-fly zone was intended to prevent ... ie, widespread 'cleansing' of Gadhafi's own citizens.

I don't know what value you think the UN is but to me it's a huge waste of time and money. The UN is totally incapable of establishing peace anywhere. Either they dither away so much time that it becomes too late OR they put so many restrictions on a peace-keeping process that it's pointless. Take Kosovo and other places where "UN Peacekeepers" are on record just standing around watching people kill each other because they don't have approval to use deadly force.

What the UN just did wrt Libya is a complete joke. And the joke is really on the Libyans who have died in the meantime. America's leaders have just shown despots around the world that they can do pretty much anything they want because we won't do anything unless Daddy UN says when and how we can by which time the effort is completely moot.

President Obama just said to Gadhafi, "All attacks on civilians must stop". That must have Gadhafi quaking in his designer boots! I'm sure he's really nervous about that. After all, President Obama might write another letter to him being even more firm.

Good Grief! Despots around the world now KNOW beyond a doubt that they can do whatever they want and we will do nothing significant to stop them. This is not good for America nor world peace. When you keep telling bullies and despots to stop and live in peace yet do nothing to enforce it, they just up the ante. When all you do is TALK about peace with bullies and despots you get the OPPOSITE result from what you want. Apparently our leaders have learned NOTHING from actual repeated history, not only in the general case regarding despots but in the specific case of middle east history. This is what they do and they don't care what we say or think. They only understand a good punch in the nose, like all bullies.

Muslim On Muslim Violence; We Can't Win With Muslims So Why Try?

As I was saying yesterday:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262292/listening-libyans-clifford-d-may

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Middle East Travails: On Islam As Religion Of Peace

I truly believe many Muslims, especially those choosing to live here in America, desire to live in peace. How they reconcile claimed peacefulness with many of the things said in the Quran that appear to be pretty hostile in nature toward anyone who is non-Muslim is a mystery to me but that's something to explore another day. Today I just want to muse over what's happening in the Middle East ... ie, Muslim against Muslim.

Today it is a curiosity to me while watching events unfold in the Middle East what are the roots of/behind the fighting under way. Why are people dying in this fighting? Much of it appears strictly 'political'. However, there's no denying the fact that a significant percentage of the hostility pitches Sunni against Shiite. One 'faction' of Islam against another. I'm trying hard not to make unreasonable and uninformed assumptions or conclusions about it but the Sunni versus Shiite aspect is clear and completely factual. Just as it has been in the past ... in the Iran/Iraq war for example. Just as there used to be within Iraq between a governing minority of one Muslim religious 'faction' over a majority of the other Muslim 'faction'. There clearly is a major 'struggle' going on between Sunnis and Shiites ... historical and ongoing. And it seems destined to play out in religion/faction-based(!) deadly fashion. One thing it is not (at least in what's playing out right now), is peaceful. There is in fact hostile and deadly stuff playing out there. It is not between Muslims and infidels. It appears to be significantly between one Muslim religious 'faction' and another.

So, I'm asking myself and contemplating 'bloggingly', how can it be that Islam is peaceful by nature as many Muslims are asking us to believe while, at the same time(!), very large numbers of Muslims are killing and otherwise punishing each other in the name of their 'version' of Islam? Sadly, as they have in fact been doing for a long time? They ask us for understanding (as being a peaceful religion) while killing each other and living in great hostility and antipathy toward one another on little bases other than whether others are Shiite or Sunni.

This is all aside from the clear hostility/antipathy many (most?) have toward all infidels (non-Muslims), especially Americans and Jews. That's a subject for another day. All I'm talking about here is the apparent abiding and deadly anger many Muslims have toward each other. How peaceful are we to believe they are based on how they actually behave? Are they able and willing to live in peace or not?

On a slightly different note, I'm having great difficulty reconciling what they say represents peace with the concept of freedom. I hear some of the rioters saying they want freedom. But history and today's actions leave me wondering what 'kind' of freedom they mean. Freedom for only Sunnis or Shiites like they are? When they get into power will they promote and practice freedom for all Muslims of any 'faction'? Freedom demands justice too but are they thinking justice of the kind called for in the Quran? That can be pretty harsh. You won't find fogiveness mentioned very much in the Quran. If you think 'eye for an eye' in the Christian Old Testament is harsh, check out what represents justice in the Quran. I'm NOT 'judging' the Quran as wrong here. I'm only suggesting we be realistic about what it says justice is. You and I can decide for ourselves whether we like/approve it or not.

So, what are they fighting for is my question. Peace? Freedom? Justice? Is that what some of them think Sharia Law is based on or represents? What, exactly do peace, freedom and justice look/act like in practice(!) in their view? I'm just asking because I can't tell what those concepts represent to most Muslims in the Middle East right now. I'm NOT judging Muslims or Islam. I'm trying to understand what they want from and of me. What various factions say and do only leave me more confused. And I AM saying one thing: what's going on within the religion doesn't look very peaceful to me. Obviously, they're having difficulty living in peace with each other.

I have NO idea what it DOES mean. I'm trying really, really hard not to be judgemental about Islam and what's going on in the Middle East. Mainly because I don't know enough (I'm too ignorant at this point) to 'judge' any of it. But if they truly do want us to believe theirs is a religion of peace, there's a lot going on that appears to be inconsistent with that. Is their religion one of peace or isn't it? If it is, then why not act like it is?

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Gee, Thanks San Jose

Having experienced a property crime (from grill stolen from a car to home-invasion burglary) approximately every year and a half for 25 years in San Jose, CA, our family has finally recoverd something from the experience. Our oldest son just got his stolen motorcycle back. Sorta. Basically, it's been destroyed. Impossible to restore for less than the cost of a replacement bike.

Thanks a lot San Jose! Couldn't be happier I no longer live there.

Monday, March 14, 2011

The REAL Outrage ... Wondering Why TEACHERS Aren't The Most Outraged?

Gotta wonder about teachers' priorities. Now, I'm NOT saying teachers don't care about our kids' education. What's mind-blowing to me is, why aren't TEACHERS more outraged than anyone by the poor results of our education system? If, as they say every time contract, raise or cutback negotiations come about, that "it's all about the kids" then why aren't they focused on fixing this mess? Why aren't they the most outraged by a failing system? Why aren't they LEADING the charge to reform it? A rational person HAS to wonder whether it's REALLY all about the kids. They won't protest the sad state of our education system but they'll protest anything that negatively affects them personally. What ARE their priorities really?

They're always complaining about why they need to be paid more and why education needs MORE money to fix this obviously broken system. Now most teachers across the country have both(!) better wages and benefits, not only while working but wages and benefits in retirement are far, far better than the rest of us have. They wanted comparable pay and benefits. Now we're not only there, but it exceeds what comparably educated professionals make. If that's what it was supposed to take to get our kids properly educated, why have our kids' test scores stagnated the entire time we've been increasing pay and benefits? Why are our kids near the bottom in test scores internationally?

A national outrage is emerging over the sorry state of and results from our education system. But is it teachers who claim to care the most leading it? Nope! Why Not?

Check out this example. According the the US Census, New York state spends the most per student at $17,173 annually and teachers can retire in their 50's like in most states! The results? Only 60% of New York city's students graduate. Of those who do, only 23% graduate ready for college. Shouldn't teachers themselves be OUTRAGED by these results? Why aren't they taking their broken system by the throat and fixing it? Not only should they care the most, they claim to be (and, by rights, should be) the most expert at how to educate our kids.

The most outraged should be the teachers. The most expert at fixing it should also be the teachers. Those two facts ought to result in teachers actually doing something to fix this, right? There's something very, very wrong going on here.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

America Is Willing And Able ... As Usual

America, the evil empire to many on this planet, including to many in America(!), will once again do what it does better than any country. Japan needs our help and they will get it. Without condition and in full measure. It will be accomplished with resolve, compassion and sacrifice. Freely. Unconditionally. We'll go in full-force, help as needed to rescue and restore. Then we'll leave.

People around the world and in America would be well-advised to consider the consequences of America's demise or even submission to the will (political and otherwise) of other countries. If (when?) we're reduced to be just like Europe (or worse) and other 'developed' nations, we won't be able to project aid and comfort to the extent needed when real disaster happens.

Yes, America's exceptionalism has some drawbacks on this globe but only one country has the will and ability to unconditionally(!) provide the exceptional help needed in such a situation to the extent needed. Losing that would come at a significant price don't you think?

Friday, March 11, 2011

The US Attorney General Said Last Year(!) That It Keeps Him Up At Night! So What's So Wrong About Looking Into It? DUH!

Attorney General Holder said last year "The [terrorist] threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens". Check out this article on the subject:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261921/peter-king-s-important-service-rich-lowry

Since ALL the terrorists who have used or attempted to use mass destruction to kill quantities of innocent Americans this century have been muslims who became radicalized, doesn't that constitute enough evidence of a problem that's serious enough to deserve looking into by the people who are constitutionally charged with the responsibility to ensure our safety and secuity?

Stop with the PC nonsense about this. Give this congressional investigation an opportunity to TRY looking into it. There is NO EVIDENCE OR WORDS FROM THAT COMMITTEE whatsoever that they're going to support, much less allow religious discrimination to affect their work. There is, therefore, NO justification for shutting them down before they start! Sure, if it happens we must reign them it. But until there's reason to believe they're doing that, LET THEM DO THEIR JOB of ensuring our safety and security.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Crying For The Wrong Thing?

So, Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman, was giving an emotional testimony today. Voice cracking, nearly crying we hear.

Was he crying over the turmoil within Islam whereby extremists routinely kill each other ... by the thousands? Nope. Was he crying over the fact that his religion is being subverted to justify the wanton killing of thousands of innocent people around the world? Nope. Was he crying over people in his own religion using Islam to justify the slaugher of Ellison's OWN fellow citizens? Nope. Was he crying over innocent American women and children being killed? Nope. Was he crying over the loss of fellow Muslims to a vile and dispicable cause? Nope.

He was crying over a muslim friend who was killed on 9/11. He was crying over unfair things that he claims were said about that friend before he was dug out of the rubble. Was he crying over muslim terrorists taking his friend's life on that day? Nope. He had no anger for those who killed his friend in the hearing where he was testifying. He was upset over things said about his friends. Let's see, which ought to be worse by a rational person, unfair words to someone or murdering him. Hmmmmm. Yeah, crying ... crying ... over unfair comments is far worse. Yep, THAT for sure is what that committee ought to be spending its time on, not on Islamic terrorism responsible for the murder of three thousand of his fellow Americans that day. Not on other Islamic radicals working every day to do more of the same. I'm sad for the loss of his friend and whatever was unfairly said about him but isn't this hand wringing over words more than a little out of balance compared with what Islamic terrorists have been up to?

We've already lost thousands to these mass-murderers and we'd like to keep from losing more. Where do we start? How about by investigating exactly who's causing it and why? Why can't we talk about this deadly threat in a mature way; in a way that helps us understand how best to combat it?

It's not as if we're going out to round up innocent Muslims like we did with Japanese during WWII. We want to investigate: 1) just how serious is this threat to our safety and security, 2) who's perpetrating it, 3) how they're promoting/perpetrating it and 4) why they're perpetrating it. We MUST fix this problem ... or more of us will die!

It's the federal government's constitutional(!) duty to ensure our citizens' safety and security. Period. It is absolutely congress' right AND responsibility to look into this. The fact that they want to do it in this rather open manner should say something about the objectives, motives and integrity of the people doing it.

Seems to me that Muslims in America, more than ANYONE, would welcome help figuring out this threat with more clarity so we can be most effective defeating it. You DO love your country of choice and its citizens, right?

It's Not A Hearing On "Islam" Folks!

Today's headline on MSNBC: "Nothing 'un-American' about Islam hearing, King says".

Good grief! What a WARPED view of a discussion that's in our national interest ... with respect to national security especially! The radical element present and growing in the world IS a serious threat. They DO blow up innocent civilians. They DO declare their intention to kill non-Muslims, especially Americans. In fact, they even kill each other within their religion, gather justification from the same religious text followed by those whom they kill. Theirs is a blind fanatical obsession to kill people simply because they don't think the way they do. It is sick. It absolutely IS an imminent danger. It must be dealt with before it gets worse. For our federal government NOT to look into this growing and IN PROCESS threat would be the irresponsible action.

This is NOT a hearing about Islam! Those running it have NOT proposed that it be. They've said they're committed that it NOT be that. They've promised that the hearings will be about radicalization of people, the result of which is a desire to attack and, usually, to kill mass quantities of Americans ... ALL Americans if they could in fact. Doesn't that sound serious to you? If not, what planet are you living on?

ALL of the attacks and thwarted attacks to cause harm via mass destruction in recent years have come from radicalized Muslims. Therefore, these hearings must include discussions about the PROCESS of radicalizing Muslims. There is NO chance of thwarting this if we're not allowed to talk about that people! Do you just want our government to sit on its hands while radicalized Muslims continue(!) to plan and carry out MORE mass killings here? It's suicidal to think that way because these radical elements are REAL, they REALLY want you dead and they have both the desire and capability to do just that. Do you prefer we stop them now or would you rather wait until they kill your family?

We keep hearing the TRUTH from The Media that we must NOT condemn all Muslims because of the actions of radical elements within the religion. Absolutely true! We're lectured incessantly to ensure we make that distinction so this committee has been careful to state as it's objective the investigation into that radicalized element that threatens our safety and security. If you've ever read the constitution, you know it's their DUTY to provide for our national safety and secuity! They SAY(!) their investigation is NOT about Islam. They attest to this distinction and have promised they'll respect it.

Because of the REAL threat to our safety and security we MUST let them do their constitutional duty. We must ALSO keep an eye on their progress to ensure they DO NOT wander off-course into an investigation into the religion OR Muslims FREELY(!) practicing it.

We Americans and the peers of those committee-persons should all help hold that committee accountable NOT to use this hearing as an excuse to investigate ANY religion apart from whatever associations exist with the teaching/indoctrination associated with radicalizing people. But we MUST NOT use a trumped-up fear of a possibility of overstepping into a religion investigation to prevent us from doing what we MUST DO for our safety and security.

Do you understand that the people we seek to prevent from blowing us up WILL use that argument ("they're going to investigate Islam") to try to keep us from stopping them? Wouldn't you do that if you were they? Of course, they'll use our very own Freedom of Religion rights against us for their dangerous purposes. Do NOT fall for it people! We need to protect our country against this very real threat. We must do it with resolve and respect but we MUST do it quickly.

It's is irresponsible journalism of the highest order for MSNBC to call it an "Islam hearing" when there is no evidence that this committee will or even wants to make it a hearing on Islam. MSNBC is practicing fearmongering and, by it, CAN bring danger upon the American people to the extent that they hinder this necessary investigation into radical elements. THIERS(!) is the only aspect of this so far where exists actual(!) irresponsible, unprofessional, unfair, and even dangerous behavior so far ... NOT this committee!

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Got A Short Memory Mr. President?

President Obama is criticizing the GOP's $61 Billion spending cut as political. Well, DUH! As if Democrats' debt-producing spending for the past four years was NOT?

And he thinks his $6 Billion counter-proposal represents a serious-minded attack on an out-of-control congressional budget deficit of $1.4 TRILLION? If he wants to be taken seriously as a 'reigner-in' of our out-of-control spending and debt, he'll have to make some serious proposals of his own. Until he does, he'll remain part of the problem.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Public Employee Collective Bargaining An Impossibility

Many VERY prominent politicians, sociologists and political science experts have labelled public union collective bargaining flat inappropriate, impractical and/or impossible. It has been judged so by some of the most progressive liberals in the history of our country including FDR, Truman and the very revered AFL/CIO Union leader of the past, George Meany! Check it out:
http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2011/2/24/afl-cio-president-george-meany-on-public-sector-unions.html

It IS impossible for public employees to bargain with their employers, The People. If that weren't an issue there's still something irrational about unionizing public employees. The PURPOSE of government in a republic is to provide essential non-commercial services to ensure the safety, security and freedom of The People and to ensure free and fair commerce. That government is chartered by constitutions (ie, CONTRACTS!) to work FOR The People, not unions. Theirs are serious responsibilities and the existence of unions in government TAKES control of those serious responsibilities out of the hands of those for whom it supposedly works; indeed out of the hands of those who CREATED THE CONTRACTS (ie, constitutions).

We The People elect men and women to represent us in running the government but unions, by their nature, steal/usurp power from The People. Unions, by their nature, make a strong effort to make our representatives do what they want, often in serious and potentially disasterous opposition to what's actually best for The People. They are in a position to demand and secure advantages to themselves that The People wouldn't support if they knew what was really going on. These unions can AND DO force our representatives to spend limited resources lavishly on them with no transparency or real oversight by their real employers, the American people.

In fact, our representatives DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to give control which The People 'own' over to unions. In theory, such unions can shut down The People's government and The People can be near powerless to stop them. Or, if they can be stopped, it comes at a big price. Air Traffic Controllers' strike for example. Managing our country's airspace is serious business. Without such management, our airspace is shut down. Major areas of commerce itself come to a complete halt, nationally and internationally. Firing them all when he did was a no-brainer for Reagan. Those air traffic controllers DID something useful, however. They proved, as FDR said, that public employees should NOT be unionized because public employee unions indeed(!) have the capability to bring the nation to its knees. And, by doing so, proved the inappropriateness of such unions.

As if you needed more proof of how unionizing public employees BEGS disaster, public employee unions are now on course to bankrupt most states. Public employee unions have accumulated enough power already that's sufficient to fight the will of their real employers, The People, with regards to fiscal soundness.

I am SO shocked to find out what lavish compensation and even MORE lavish retirement benefits have been secured by public employee unions with NO TRANSPARENCY! By what principle or document in the founding of our country CAN our government have justified and done such potentially destructive things IN SECRET FROM THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM THEY WORK?

Now these unionized government employees are telling us that the collective bargaining that they secured is a RIGHT! Huh? It is not a right. Given to government workers it is stictly a freely-given privilege, period. A privilege that the employer has full authority, indeed responsibility, to withdraw if it's abused. Even though collective bargaining is CONTRARY to appropriate governance in a republic (check FDR, Truman and Meany for example), it was granted in many areas of government anyway with the assumption that those unions would not abuse the power accompanying it. Did they use that power with the care and responsibility that was expected and appropriate? Certainly not! They used that power to bring our country's air traffic to a halt (a serious national security issue) and now they're in the process of bankrupting most states while they lavish ridiculous pay and benefits (especially in retirement) on themselves. I call that an irresponsible abuse of power AND an abuse of the freely granted(!) PRIVILEGE of collective bargaining.

This well-intended EXPERIMENT in public employee unions has proved only one thing: how inappropriate unions are in a republic's government as FDR, Truman and even Meany said they are. Hello?!?!