Sunday, May 18, 2008
11:31 am
Daniel J. Summers
Lost amid the race vs. gender war that is the Democrat primary season and the focus on the next administration is the pure genius in the current administration. Sure, they say Bush is still the mindless dolt that somehow managed to outsmart them twice; and yes, he's certainly given them enough anguished English ammunition to come up with quite a rotation for their “Bushism of the Day” quote machines. However, Bush has flashes of political genius, and one of them cam during his speech to the Knesset, the Israeli governing body, celebrating 60 years of Israeli independence. (The below quote is found about half-way down the page.)
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
There are no names in this. Really, it could apply to a host of people who call for diplomacy even once diplomacy has failed, or those who call for diplomacy with terrorist organizations or terrorist-supporting nations. However, as Jeff Foxworthy once said, “There's no sense confessing to something she don't know about yet.” (This is in response to an upset wife - do you start saying “sorry” for everything she might be mad about, or do you simply ask "What's wrong?")
Being all sophisticated and everything, the Democrats must not be aware of this technique, and through their responses showed us that President Bush struck a nerve. Barack Obama (D-IL) was livid, blaming the current administration for strengthening Iran. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that such words were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president.” Joe Biden (D-DE) threw the BS flag (literally), and Harry Reid (D-NV) said that Bush should explain the “inconsistency between his administration's actions and his words today.”
So, basically, here's how it went down:
Bush: "Appeasers are dangerous."
Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Reid (in unison): “No we're not!”
Priceless…
Friday, May 11, 2007
12:06 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This past Wednesday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared that this July 4th will be known as “Energy Independence Day” and focus on global warming issues. This is absolutely ludicrous - can they not let us celebrate the founding of our nation without trying to make us feel guilty over our success? I guess not - they feel that the mandate from their November win entitles them to force their earth-centric religion on us.
I wonder what would happen if a Republican politician stood up on the House floor and declared that July 4th will be known as “Sin Independence Day” to remind us to fear a holy God. How long would it be until every leftist organization in the nation called for his removal? The issue is the same. In fact, I think it takes more faith to believe in global warming than it does to be a Christian.
Global warming is based on flimsy science, a short-sighted view of natural weather cycles, outright fraud, and an arrogance that we, as man, can control the weather. If we're so powerful, why can't we make it rain when areas go through droughts? Why can't we keep hurricanes from going whatever way they want? Why can't we drop the humidity in the Southern states? The global warming crowd has no answers for this. Even if we unplugged everything and lived in tents for the next year, it would have no effect on the weather.
The outright fraud is perhaps the most disturbing of the global warming crowd's claims. For example, I'm sure you have seen the picture of two polar bears floating on a piece of glacier. This picture supposedly shows that these poor bears are floating and are going to drown because of the glacier melting. In fact, this picture was taken of young polar bears playing on the piece of ice. A picture of something beautiful in nature is presented as a problem.
And this claim by the Democrats to want energy independence is pretty rich. Which party has been opposed to drilling in the area of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) that was set aside for that purpose many years ago? Which party vilifies the energy companies for making profits? Without profits to invest in research of alternative sources and uses, how much progress do they expect to be made?
Don't fall for this. July 4th is Independence Day - our nation's birthday, the day we declared independence from Britain, and the day we formally began the most successful experiment in representative republicanism to date.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
10:54 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Today, we discuss an article published in Stars and Stripes entitled "Air Force: Shift in funds may affect payroll". Let me preface this by saying that, although this may appear to be a fisking, it's not - I'm simply using this as a launching pad for saying things that have needed to be said for a long time. With that in mind, look at the selective quotes below…
The Air Force said Wednesday that it might not be able to pay its airmen in the coming months if the Pentagon is forced to shift some $800 million to the Army to fund the war in Iraq.
The Army announced this week that it will slow spending and prioritize repairs to equipment as it waits for Congress to review emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the Pentagon has asked Congress for the OK to shift $1.6 billion in funds meant for the Navy and Air Force to pay the Army's operating expenses, according to an Army news release.
“The Air Force believes this is a prudent measure and expects that the funds will be restored quickly so that military payroll will not be disrupted,” Araujo said in an e-mail response to Stars and Stripes.
...
“Bottom line: we need the bill to be passed quickly to avoid any further impacts to readiness,” she wrote.
Think about what that says for just a minute. The Army is so strapped for cash that they're considering dipping into the Air Force's payroll to fund their equipment repairs. Why in the world would they be doing that? The clue is in the first sentence of the second quote. They are waiting on Congress to pass the emergency funding bill.
I have about had it with this new Congress. They are the most power-hungry group of people I have ever seen. The President requested this legislation February 5th. February 5th! If continuing stalemate on April 24th and beyond is considered “emergency,” let us all pray that neither Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi ever become the fire chief in your town.
And speaking of Reid and Pelosi, let's take a look at the so-called “leadership” of this new Congress. Over on the Senate side, they're led by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). While some, through their tough, dogged leadership, may think it positive to have the nickname “Dirty Harry,” Sen. Reid has earned his moniker. Though you wouldn't know it from the nightly news, he earned over $1M from a land sale that was, to put it as nicely as possible, legally dubious. This past week, he made the statement that the war in Iraq was not just unwinnable, it was already lost. (Though he clarified what he meant by saying that the military portion was won long ago, I have to agree with James Taranto of OpinionJournal.com (fourth article, entitled “The Old Green Lady”)…
Haven't we been hearing for years that President Bush was an arrogant fool for appearing on a ship with a banner saying “Mission Accomplished”?
But we can't leave the House of Representatives out, now can we? Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is the current Speaker of the House. For those of you not up on your Constitution, this means that if President Bush and Vice President Cheney were to meet their demise, she would be the President. (I'll pause while the shuddering stops…) Speaker Pelosi decided that, rather than leave international diplomacy to the Executive branch, where it should be, she would rather take it upon herself to begin visiting foreign heads of state. Of course, this trip started with Syria - a state sponsor of terrorism with whom we are currently already working. I swear, sometimes I think that Democrats have never met a terrorist they didn't like; either that, or they so hate President Bush that they're falling into the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality. Either way, it's dangerous for our nation. And, when the House recently enacted a minimum wage increase, American Samoa was exempted. Why was that? Seems StarKist tuna, a subsidiary of San Francisco-based Del Monte, employs nearly 75% of the island's workforce. Rep. Pelosi's district includes San Francisco. And the Democrats have the nerve to say the Republicans have a “culture of corruption”?!?!?
This is the same problem that is now plaguing the emergency funding bill, flailing nearly three months after it was requested. Congress has passed a bill - but it was so loaded with pork that neither Jews nor Muslims would come within a mile of it! “Bringing home the bacon” has always been an art form in Washington, D. C.; but to stock up on the backs of the troops on the ground is beyond reprehensible. Coming back to the article that started this, the situation is so bad that the Army is considering borrowing from its sister services. But, pork is not the only thing holding up this bill.
The Bush administration has requested an additional $100 billion in war funding, but the request has stalled as Congress tied those funds to a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. President Bush has vowed to veto such a bill, leaving the Army with little funds to carry out its mission in Iraq.
The timetable! Not only does this Congress want to usurp foreign policy and diplomacy, they want to usurp the Commander-in-Chief duties as well! I applaud any vetoes of the bill that contain these treasonous, un-Constitutional provisions, and I hope that all the blame for the funding delay falls squarely on the shoulders of those responsible - the power-hungry, overreaching Democrats in Congress.
But hey - if we miss a paycheck, we can just tighten our belts, right? Here are some of the money-saving initiatives the Army is considering…
Among the belt-tightening measures being considered by the Army are a freeze on new civilian hiring from outside the Army and laying off temporary employees, the statement said.
...
According to the Army statement, beginning in mid-April, the Army will slow the purchase of repair parts and other supplies, relying instead on existing inventory to keep equipment operational. Priority will be given to repair and refurbishment of immediately needed war-fighting equipment, while training and other nonmission critical equipment repair will be deferred, officials said.
...
In addition, the purchase of day-to-day supplies with government charge cards will be restricted, nonessential travel will be postponed or canceled, and shipment of equipment and supplies will be restricted or deferred altogether, unless needed immediately for war efforts, the statement said.
Well, that doesn't sound too bad, right? “Nonmission critical,” “nonessential” things will be canceled, while “immediate needs” will be addressed. But in the lingo of the military, the things that are being foregone are not “nonessential.” Many things that are considered non-essential are essential when viewed long-term. What the Army is saying is that they're basically going to let everything slip, things go unfixed, and soldiers go untrained so that they can afford the immediate need. This is not sustainable - and, the Army went on to say (emphasis mine)…
...even with these spending restrictions and the possible shift of $1.6 billion from the Air Force and Navy, funds are sufficient to keep operations running only until the end of June.
So, we've dropped all the replenishment and taken the Air Force's and Navy's payroll money, and we've only bought 2 months. This is absolutely despicable. Congress needs to get off its collective duff and get the military the money it needs.
I'll close with this. In this country, we have always disagreed about when, where, and to what extent our military should get involved. Prior to Vietnam, though, the side that didn't get their way shut up and supported the troops and their mission, through to its completion. In Vietnam, this changed; and our government's failure to prosecute treason back then is one reason the Democrats are so bold today. Whether they actually want America to fail, or they just want President Bush to fail so badly that they don't care if he takes America down with him, they have now invested themselves in our defeat. If this isn't treason, I don't know what is.