The Most Disturbing Words in Obama's Hiroshima Speech

To me, the most disturbing words contained within President Obama's Hiroshima ceremony speech are these:

"How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause. Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill."

The implication here, is that the destruction of Hiroshima and/or the war in the Pacific were done in the name of religion.  Obviously, this a backhanded apology.  But, I hardly think that Harry Truman based his decision to bomb Hiroshima on a religious belief.

This isn't the first time that Obama implied that war and murder occurred for religious reasons.  Note this excerpt from his 2015 White House Prayer Breakfast speech:

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religion for their own murderous ends?

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

Essentially, these words seem to expose the President's belief that religion is at the core of  all wars in the world.  He ignores the fact that most wars are a result of either imperialism or hatred.  It was Japan's imperialistic goal to have control over the entire Pacific region that drove them to try and get us out of the way by attacking Pearl Harbor.  Religion had nothing to do with it.  In fact famed Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamotto said it best about Pearl Harbor: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." No mention of religion in those words. And, it was Hitler's same desire to have expanded nationalist rule in Europe that drove his war.  Again, religion had nothing to do with it.  According to British historian Alan Bullock, "Hitler was a rationalist and materialist 'who believed neither in God nor in conscience'".  His goal was simply the creation of a Third Reich with himself as dictator.

In my opinion, Obama's words seem to either expose his deep-seated and unfounded hatred of religion; or perhaps, that he, himself, is trying to hijack religion as a means of explaining his own reticence to go to war to confront the evils in the world such as ISIS or Al Qaeda.

References:

Text of President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima, Japan: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/world/asia/text-of-president-obamas-speech-in-hiroshima-japan.html

Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast

Religious views of Adolf Hitler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

The Arms Race Begins In The Middle East

Following the Iran nuke deal, President Obama said "This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure...no deal means the chance of more war in the Middle East".

Well, if that was true, why is Obama now providing $3 billion in military aid to Israel and preparing to provide a missile defense system to Saudi Arabia; and perhaps others in the region?  At the same time Russia has inked a deal with Iran to provide them with a missile defense system.

These two actions by the U.S. and Russia show that war is being assumed as a potential reality.  This isn't peace.  I would suspect its only a matter of time before Saudis move to get their own nukes and their own ballistic missiles in order to have retaliatory capability against Iran. Others in the Middle East are sure to follow.  Also, it has long been known that Israel already has nukes.  Will they now build or buy their own ballistic missiles?  Expect everyone in the neighborhood to beef up their armies and conventional weapons capabilities.

The world is now...safer? More secure?

References:

Iran Nuclear Deal: President Obama Says Deal Makes World 'Safer and More Secure': http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/iran-nuclear-deal-president-obama-deliver-statement-historic-accord-n391646

U.S. to help Arab states to develop ballistic missile defense capability: http://missilethreat.com/u-s-to-help-arab-states-to-develop-ballistic-missile-defense-capability/

Russia Confirms Sale of S-300 Missile Systems To Iran: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/05/26/russia-confirms-sale-missile-systems-iran/27970269/

Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal: http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-arabia-considers-own-nuclear-options-iran-deal-131228648.html

Nuclear weapons and Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Iran Nuclear Pact Could Spark Buildup Of Conventional Weapons: http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/15/423101307/iran-nuclear-pact-could-spark-buildup-of-conventional-weapons 

What's Really Behind The December 23rd Protests In New York City

The graphic you see above was posted on a website of the organizers of the December 23rd protest march down New York City's 5th Avenue.  The organizers in this case were a group of individuals that call themselves the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition.  The acronym A.N.S.W.E.R stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. 

Now, while ending wars and stopping racism sounds like truly noble endeavors, the real reason this group exists is to try and divide Americans over issues such as race and war; and, in doing so, attempt to destroy the country as we know it.  The people who founded this group did so right after 9/11 and before we had even talked of invading Afghanistan.  Their motives were less about us going to war over 9/11 and more about the fact that we deserved what we got; and, as such, the people responsible for the horror of that day should not be punished with war.  The "coalition" they represent is pretty much pro-socialism and anti-capitalism;  pro-Palestinian/Muslim/Arab and anti-Israel; and, they all support the destruction of this capitalist society.  That is exactly why they chose 5th Avenue to march in protest.  5th Avenue is arguably the most pricey and prestigious street in the United States with some of the most expensive store fronts and shops in the world.  It symbolizes everything these people think is wrong with our country.  Specifically, wealth and capitalism.

So, whether or not the people marching in that protest knew it or not, they were participating in an event that was designed to fracture and weaken this country.  An attempt to pit Americans against the police.  To divide blacks against whites and the police.  And, for those who participated in that protest not knowing what A.N.S.W.E.R is all about, there's one name for them: Useful Idiots.

One last thing.  For those who think capitalism is bad and socialism good, ask yourself why there are only 4 remaining socialist countries in the world: Vietnam, Laos, North Korean, and Cuba.  Even China, which at one time was a hardcore communist nation, has evolved into a more and more capitalistic society by the day.   Gone are all the former union of Soviet satellites that were once socialist/communist because the way of socialism is oppressive and it literally breaks the human spirit of free will.

References:

ANSWER Coalition: Tuesday, Dec. 23 March Proceeding As planned: http://www.answercoalition.org/

A.N.S.W.E.R.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.

A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism): Profile By Stand4Fact.org: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/answerprofilestand.html

Fifth Avenue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Avenue

Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

List of socialist states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

A Republican Senate Will Put Congress At War With Obama

Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has only had to use his veto power twice.  The reasons for this are quite simple.

In his first two years in office, he had a fully Democrat-controlled Congress.  So, only "friendly" Senate and House bills were sent to the President for his signature.  Thus, they never put the President in the politically awkward position of having to veto a bill.  Then, since 2010, when the House of Representatives went to Republican control, Harry Reid managed to shield the Obama from using his veto power by simply sitting on more than 350 bills that the Republican House had sent over to the Democrat Senate.  Some are being tied up in Democrat-led committees; while the rest are just withering away because Harry Reid won't bring them to the floor for a vote.

If the Senate turns Republican, Reid will lose his majority leadership and all the Senate committees will become controlled by Republicans.  As a result, many of those idled bills will start being passed and sent to the President for his signature.  Now, most of those bills are not going to be to Obama's  political and ideological liking.  Especially the ones that would kill or delay ObamaCare. So, expect a flurry of vetoes that have never been seen in this country before.  Then Obama will be seen as the obstructionist.  Not Congress.

But, another interesting thing might happen with the vetoing of so many bills.  The President's approval rating may drop significantly.  That drop may force some Democrat Senators who are up for, and at risk of losing reelection in 2016, to distance themselves from him by joining the Republicans in overriding those vetoes.  Of course, that will force Obama to use even more executive orders in order to counter any those bills where his veto was overridden.

Lastly, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully implemented the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, he literally blew up the minority party's ability to use a filibuster to block the passage of certain bills and, the requirement of a minimum of 60 yea votes to approve the President's  nominees to the judicial bench or to any positions in his Administration.  As a consequence, the Senate Republicans lost the ability to do anything to block bills or block presidential nominees.  Many seem to think that, if the Senate goes Republican, the majority leader will reverse the nuclear option. I don't think so. By once again, requiring a 60-vote override of the filibuster, many of those 350 bills in the Senate won't reach cloture and won't even be sent to the Senate floor for a vote because they will just remain tied up in a filibuster by the Democrats.  Thus, if the Senate does go to the Republicans, the minority party Democrats will deservedly find themselves hoisted up on their own petard because they foolishly and selfishly implemented the nuclear option.

Ah yes.  the President's last two years in office could be quite interesting as both he and Congress battle it out in what could only be envisioned as an all out war.


References:

Veto Counts by President: http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

Stack of 350 Bills Stuck in the Senate: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/stack-350-bills-stuck-senate-006985

Let Us Remember All Our Heroes

War is hell.  With war, America has lost many good people who have put their lives on the line to fight for and on behalf of this country.  But let's not just remember the fallen who paid the ultimate sacrifice on this day of remembrance.  Let us also think about the thousands who have been wounded and injured in battle.  For many, their lives are no longer whole and they have to live their sacrifice every single day.

Would Obama Have Even Gone To War In Afghanistan Over Bin Laden?

This week, the big political flap is over Barack Obama's campaign ad which implies that Mitt Romney would "not" have taken the shot to kill Osama Bin Laden if he had the chance.  But, I pose a different question.  Would Obama, if he were in George Bush's place, gone after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda by going to war with Afghanistan? Or, would the obvious anti-war Democrat and constitutional lawyer, consider the attack on the World Trade Center a civil problem?  A civil problem and a police problem because Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had no true "alliances" to any one country.  In my mind, I think the latter is true.  As a consequence, I think they would still be flourishing in Afghanistan today.  At best, Bin Laden, thanks to Obama's timidity, might only have wound up on the FBI's Most Wanted list with a bounty on his head.

But, for me to think that would be "pure and unwarranted" speculation.  Just as it is "pure and unwarranted" speculation to think that Mitt Romney would "not" have taken the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden.  I think this is why so many, including Democrats, are being critical of the President over the assumption made in that campaign commercial.  Further, I think people are turned off when they see a sitting President try to take singular credit for something that took more than 10 years to  accomplish with hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in giving Obama a chance to take that historic shot. That, to me, only diminishes this Presidency.

Bin Laden's Failed 9/11 Plot

On this day, ten years ago, 19 hijackers killed nearly 3000 Americans in what, I am quite sure, Osama Bin Laden thought to be his crowning victory for Al Qaeda. But, did the United States cower as a result of that attack? Did we crumble as an economy? No. We strengthened against Al Qaeda and for that reason Bin Laden's 911 attack was a tactical failure.

Osama Bin Laden's attack on America has resulted in more than one million Muslim deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; and, in Bin Laden's own death as the feeble-looking disheveled rat that he really was. Bin Laden did his faith and his people no favors on 9/11. Instead, he inflicted more damage to millions of Muslims; along with their homes, their businesses, and their homelands.

I would hope and pray that this very costly lesson will keep Al Qaeda, or anyone else, from ever again committing an act of mass terrorism on U.S. soil.

The Taliban & Al Qaeda Now Know That a Win Is In Sight

Like it or not, the President's indecision on additional troops for Afghanistan has just signaled the last piece of information that the Taliban needed to tell them that they are winning.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda, even being trapped in the Mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, are well aware of what's going on in this country in terms of the general sentiment about the Afghan War. Thanks to the World Wide Web, I'm am quite sure the extended donkey-net has gotten word to the Taliban leaders that America's public opinion has shifted away from that war and that the Democrats -- now completely in charge -- have no interest in additional troops or increased expenses for military operations.

So, if you were the enemy, what would you think about this critical information? I'm quite sure you'd be heartened by it.

I think, when history is written, this last week will be documented as the turning point that resulted in our loss of that war. It reflects a point were our "heart" is no longer in winning. Because of this telegraphed attitude, you can expect the battles to get more fierce with the Taliban inflicting more damage and causing an increasing amount of American casualties. Within the next year, we will probably decide to leave Afghanistan; only to return some day when the Taliban and Al Qaeda have rebuilt their bases of operations in that country and have done us some additional harm.

I hope I'm wrong but I seriously don't think so. Somewhere, Bin Laden has to be smiling.

The All Too Quiet Surge

Just like there's a psychological impact of "talking down" this economy, there's a psychological component to winning a war.

For a guy who can't seem to go to the bathroom without thinking he has to give a 20-minute speech beforehand, Obama quietly sent 17,000 additional troops into Afghanistan with a simple written order. There was no speech. There was no press conference. No fanfare. Just a quiet, and hardly transparent, executive order (See Full Story).

The national media was just as quiet too. No front page hysteria as was the case whenever George Bush sent more troops into war. Not for Mr. Obama.

This is surprising to me because Obama campaigned on the fact that our focus should have been Afghanistan and not Iraq. He made it clear that he was going to raise the stakes in that country as soon as he got into office.

But, I think he is seeing, as I think I am seeing, that many of this country are tiring of the Afghanistan war. Everyday, Afghanistan is looking more like another Vietnam. Not just to the people of this country but to the military observers that are closely following it (See Full Story).

You have the equivalent of North Vietnam in the border areas of Pakistan. Those who live along that border, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, are more loyal to the Taliban than they are to their central governments in Kabul or in Islamabad. It is like the "Wild West" in that part of world with the local warlords having all the power.

Even so, I think that Obama would have best served the troops that are fighting over there by making a "show" out of sending 17,000 more troops to fight that fight. That's because there's a lot of psychology involved in winning any war. First, you need the home front to be engaged and believe that the war is winnable. Sending in more troops shows that we, as a country, are committed to winning. Secondly, an announced troop increase puts our enemy on psychological notice. Hyping that fact could give us a mental edge in that war.

I just think that Obama (or, his advisers) don't understand the psychological importance of being a leader. They absolutely don't seem to know how to use the "bully pulpit" the way it should be used. He talks down the economy when he should be cheerleading. He says nothing when he should be scaring our enemy into submission. But, this is consistent with a lot of his campaign talk. He wants to talk, without precondition, with our enemies; and, at the same time, he publicly denounces our friends, like Pakistan or Israel. He has constantly criticized the elected leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai; yet, he needs that person's support in winning the war. Personally, I think Obama has a lot to learn and I don't think he'll learn fast enough before we get ourselves into some serious trouble. And, that's just my opinion.

So...Where are they?

Did I miss it? Is the war in Iraq over? Did all of our troops come home? Did we come to some kind of accord in Afghanastan? Of course not! So, where are all the anti-war protesters? Where is Code Pink? Where's Cindy Sheehan? Where did all those who parked their silly butts outside Bush's Ranch go?

The fact is that they all went home. To me it was never so much about being anti-war than being anti-Bush. Those people weren't around when Clinton engaged us in a war in Kosovo. It just seems to me that if you are truly anti-war, you are anti-war. No maybe's; sometimes; and certainly not only-when-you-feel-like-it anti-war. If you are truly anti-war you would be against what is happening in the Gaza Strip or in the Sudan. There are plenty of wars to protest. Actually, it could be a full time job. But only in America is being anti-war so selective. Aren't they special?