Happy Veteran's Day, From My Uncle Coy

I've been swamped at work, and swamped recruiting candidates for the 2014 elections.  I don't have time to come up with anything new for Veteran's Day, so here's a rerun from Memorial Day of 2012.

As people all over the world learn more and more about the benefits of Liberty, may we need fewer and fewer veterans!

During World War II, my Uncle Coy was stationed at Victory Field in Vernon, Texas.  You can go here for a lovingly created website dedicated to the memory of the place, which was closed immediately after the Allied victory in 1945.

Uncle Coy probably had some patches like these on his uniform:

Yes, lots of cartoon characters were pressed into the war effort.  (This raises a disturbing question about today's military and cartoons....Would they really want Sponge Bob Squarepants on their planes?) 

Sorry for the digression. 

For the last few years, I've had an old postcard above my desk, one that Uncle Coy wrote to my father during the war.  Uncle Coy would've been about 20 and my father was 13. 

Writing letters and postcards is almost a lost art.  We now email, instant message, Facebook, Tweet, and text.  The Aggie won't even take phone calls most of the time.  If you can't text her, give up.  She ain't talking. 

Here's the postcard.

That's a Curtis P-40 Tomahawk, according to the ultra-light print below the landing gear. 

Those of a certain age might remember the rules of letter writing.  There was 1) the salutation, 2) the opening stuff where you hope that everyone is doing well, 3) the main content, 4) the sign-off, and 5) your signature.  I haven't studied this in thirty-five years, but I think I'm close....

Men had their own rules, and I think Uncle Coy's letter is a perfect example. 
Back in the day, when men had to write a letter or postcard from the road, the battlefield, or a vacation they used this form to fill up the white space: 

1) Salutation
2) An observation about the weather
3) An observation about sports
4) An observation about hunting or fishing
5) A joke about something inappropriate - bonus points if animals were involved
6) Something about the quality and quantity of the food
7) The sign-off
8) The signature. 

What you see below is a masterpiece of the form, and I'm proud to own it.  I've got the transcription below the photocopy, just in case you can't read it.  

To: Donald Patterson, Rose Bud Arkansas,
From (Postmark): Vernon, Texas, Victory Field, July 14, 1943

1) Dear Folks,
2) Looks like we might get some rain
3) We sure have some good ball games
4) Boy that must have been some fishing trip
5) Donald, did my little heifer ever catch yours (ha)
6) I have watermelon about twice a week
7) Love,
8) Coy

I defy anyone now alive to write a postcard that covers all the bases with so few words. 

Happy Veteran"s Day, in honor of my father, his three brothers, and my father-in-law.  All five were in the U.S. military.  Uncle I.G. survived a kamikaze attack on his battleship.  Denny, my father-in-law, survived the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam. 
This is their day.  Hope it's a good one for you, and if you know someone stationed overseas, send them a postcard. 

 

Meet the guy who is standing up to Obama on Syria

Meet the guy who is standing up to Obama, and giving him holy hell about the possibility of an attack on Syria. 

His name is Barack something or other.....

 

But since Obama has daughters, they look a lot like....

Poverty has won the War On Poverty

Libertarians are often caricatured as uncaring bastards who would throw their grandmothers out on the street if Granny ever stops harvesting her percentage of the wheat crop.  But it really is possible to be in favor of Granny's continued existence in her old age, while opposing John Boehner and Barack Obama being her means of support.

Libertarians generally oppose wealth redistribution by force, therefore we dislike Uncle Sam’s welfare schemes.

Statists claim it’s because we’re greedy. (We are greedy. You are greedy.  We all want more than we have. Lots more. Unlike the Statists, though, we want you to have more also, so you'll spend it on what we produce. We know that your success doesn’t require our failure.) But greed isn’t the reason we oppose mandatory government welfare programs.

Here’s the real reason, folks: Government welfare isn’t an effective method for fighting poverty.  In fact, it looks like welfare is keeping poverty alive. 

Check out the chart, from Economist Daniel Mitchell’s International Liberty website.  LBJ’s War On Poverty was the equivalent of spreading top-notch fertilizer on a weed patch. Poverty was dying until Washington D.C. got involved in killing it.  Incredible, isn't it? 

Folks, poverty was disappearing !!  Dropping like VHS sales!!!  But when anti-poverty programs appeared, poverty stabilized between 11-15%.   How much would you give to learn what woulda happened if the War On Poverty had never been declared????  Think of the fifteen trillion or so that they've spent on anti-poverty programs.  Do you think that might have been better spent by producers rather than D.C. looters? 

People are poor because they can't be productive.  (Or in a few cases, won't be productive.)  Yeah, some prosper because of lotteries, and a few eventually claw their way out and prosper because of handouts. But most of the poor get stuck, generation after generation after generation, sitting by the mailbox waiting on the goodies from Uncle Sugar.

When Washington demonizes success (especially from the entrepreneurial side as opposed to the sports/arts/entertainment side) and demands an ever-increasing cut of the profits from any business or individual, the productive members of society are left with less and less to spend on other things, like employees. George Soros, Warren Buffett, and dotcom jillionaires might be political numbskulls, but their instincts on how to spend money are far superior to John Boehner’s and Barack Obama’s. Let ‘em keep more of their money and the jobs will follow.

If we were to cut the U.S. tax burden in half, poverty in the U.S. would die. There would be a sprinkling of unemployed disabled people who could easily be provided for by using pre-LBJ methods. In that era, we had thousands and thousands of civic, fraternal, and church benevolence funds in place that we’ve almost forgotten how to administer.

We could easily end poverty.

But we’re too compassionate to even consider doing so. 

Note to self:  Create another chart showing how Islamic Extremists were dying off until our government got involved in trying to kill them. 

Bob Dylan refuses to accept Barack Obama as his personal Lord and Savior

I picked up the new Bob Dylan CD a couple of days ago.  Good stuff. 

I have my concerns, though.  Mikal Gilmore, in a recent Rolling Stone interview gave Dylan opportunity after opportunity to confess his sins, ignore economic reality and let Obama into his heart. 

Dylan wouldn't do it.  Go here for details.

Seriously....  Was Gilmore really expecting the author of this musical gem to continue endorsing our Warlord-In-Chief ???
Here are some of the boys from Pearl Jam doing Dylan's "Masters Of War".

The top 12 things that Libertarians wish that everyone knew

Here are the top 12 things that Libertarians (IMHO) wish that everyone knew:

1)  The only Fair Trade is Free Trade.  All other arrangements are designed to protect political supporters.  And no, slavery isn't "Free Trade".  Slaves aren't free to make a choice. 

2)  You can't legislate morality.  There will always be a market for alcohol, tobacco, drugs, whores, gambling, and other things that the state doesn't like.  Prohibitions create a black market, and make the activity more dangerous.  This creates jobs for bureaucrats, which is probably the only rationale for the prohibition. 

3)  War is a racket.  Check out this rant from Medal Of Honor winner General Smedley Butler. 

4)  If you want to discourage something, tax it.  Or even threaten to tax it.  Now, take a look at our economy. 

5)  If it weren't for our arbitrary political boundaries, we wouldn't have the words "exports", "imports", "globalization", or "offshoring". 

6)  You can oppose government healthcare, education and safety standards and still support healthcare, education and safety standards.  I'm almost violently opposed to the public school system, but I like the idea of education.  Amazing, isn't it? 

7)  The "Invisible Hand", the way that markets work in a spontaneous unplanned way because of people trying to make a profit, is far more effective than any "planned economy".  See: Cuba. 

8)  There really isn't that much difference in Barack Obama and George Bush. 

9)  Gary Johnson, who spent twice as much time as governor as Mitt Romney, left his state with a budget surplus.  He vetoed more bills than all other governors combined.  He once told me that if he had been dictator of New Mexico, he could've cut government jobs and spending by 40%, and nobody would've noticed.  This would've left the taxpayers with more money to spend in the manner of their own choosing.  Gary Johnson is considered radical, and "outside the mainstream". 

10)  One day Cash For Clunkers will be linked with Mao's Cultural Revolution in lists of the most insanely destructive policies ever pursued by a government.  I might have to write the list myself, but it's gonna happen. 

11)  ObamaCare adds no doctors, only IRS agents and bureaucrats.  Therefore, it is going to be a disaster. 

12)  No private industry is as scary as any government agency.  Unless, of course, the private industry has the support of a government agency. 

FOR....WAR....d

A Dead Statesman - Rudyard Kipling

A Dead Statesman


I could not dig; I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?

 - Rudyard Kipling

Ron Paul, on "An Administration Gone Rogue"

Guess who scored a ticket to Ron Paul's speech at the Will Rogers Memorial Center in Cowtown on the 11th???
That should be good. 

BTW, Ron Paul has hired relatives as staffers, he's added non-germane earmarks to bills, somebody wrote some incredibly disturbing racist stuff in his late 80's-early 90's newsletters, and I think he once lost his patience with an incompetent nurse.  He once farted.  He has delivered more than 4,000 babies, most of whom now contribute to Global Warming.  There are rumors that in the 7th grade, Ron Paul wrote a negative book report about To Kill A Mockingbird. 
(I'm going to start getting all the negatives out of the way early so my Facebook and website trolls don't have to work so hard.) 

Here's Dr. Paul's latest broadside against Those Who Program The Teleprompter.  It's called "An Administration Gone Rogue". 

Have certain parts of the Constitution become irrelevant, as a former Republican leader once told me at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing? At the time, I was told that demanding a Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous Iraq invasion was the result.

Last week, Obama administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of Congressional participation provided by the 2003 "authorization" to use force in Iraq was to be ignored as well. In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use military force against Syria solely with "international permission". Such "international permission" could come by way of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body. Secretary Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might even seek authorization after the fact.

While Senator Sessions expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has been, de facto, the case for many years.

If we had elected my Libertarian buddy John Jay Myers to Pete Sessions' seat in Congress, John Jay would've done more than merely "express surprise.  John Jay would've jumped the railing and gotten into Leon Panetta's fat, war-profiteer face.  Oh well. 

When President Obama committed the US military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example, Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional declaration. In fact, we haven't had a proper, constitutional declaration of war since 1942, yet the US military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority. Congress's only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without question, because one must "support the troops".

Of course we should reserve our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the people's branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the Executive branch, who is to blame? Who is to blame that Congress as a body will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and guidelines? The Constitution is the law of the land and for Congress to allow it to be flouted speaks as badly about Congress as it does about a president who seeks to do the flouting.

Just last week the administration announced that it would begin providing material support to the rebels who seek to overthrow the Syrian government. Was Congress involved in this decision to take sides in what may develop into a full-fledged civil war? And what of reports that US special forces may already be operating inside Syria? Still, Congress sits silently as its authority is undermined. Does anybody really wonder why approval numbers for Congress are so low?

Many of my colleagues who stood by as then-President Bush used the military as a kind of king's army are now calling for Congress to act against this president for openly admitting that is his intent. I agree it is time for Congressional action in response to these attacks on our Constitution, but the solution is simple and Constitutional. The solution is simply voting to withhold funds, since Congress has the power of the purse. No money for undeclared wars!

The picture of Barack Obama as a jet fighter came from SodaHead, in an essay entitled "Hey, Obama, What do you say?  How many kids did you kill today?" 

Ok, let's sell the Egyptian military dictators some more jets and tanks

From the New York Holy Times.  I've inserted ONE paragraph into this ridiculous story that is not authentic.  Most of this story is genuine State Department / Military Industrial Complex bullshit excuses for making money at the world's expense.  

Only one paragraph was inserted to ridicule these war profiteers.  Can you find it? 

U.S. Restores Aid to Egypt in Move Favoring American Industry


By STEVEN LEE MYERS

Published: March 24, 2012

WASHINGTON - An intense debate within the Obama administration over resuming military assistance to Egypt, which in the end was approved Friday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, turned in part on a question that had nothing to do with democratic progress in Egypt but rather with American jobs at home.

A delay or a cut in $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt risked breaking existing contracts with American arms manufacturers that could have shut down production lines in the middle of President Obama's re-election campaign and involved significant financial penalties, according to officials involved in the debate.

Since the Pentagon buys weapons for foreign armed forces like Egypt's, the cost of those penalties - which one senior official said could have reached $2 billion if all sales had been halted - would have been borne by the American taxpayer, not Egypt's ruling generals.

The companies involved include Lockheed Martin, which is scheduled to ship the first of a batch of 20 new F-16 fighter jets next month, and General Dynamics, which last year signed a $395 million contract to deliver component parts for 125 Abrams M1A1 tanks that are being assembled at a plant in Egypt.

"In large part, there are U.S. jobs that are reliant on the U.S.-Egypt strong military-to-military relationship," a senior State Department official said, speaking on condition of anonymity under rules set by the department. In deciding how to proceed, the official said, Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues "were looking at our overall national security goals, as well as any domestic issues."

Mrs. Clinton's decision to resume military assistance, which has been a foundation of United States-Egyptian relations for over three decades, sidestepped a new Congressional requirement that for the first time directly links arms sales to Egypt's protection of basic freedoms. No new military aid had been delivered since the fiscal year began last October, and Egypt's military has all but exhausted funds approved in previous years.

Mrs. Clinton's decision provoked sharp criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum, as well as human rights organizations. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, criticized it as "beyond the pale."

Referring to Egypt's recent decision to prosecute four American-financed international advocacy organizations, Mr. Paul added, "It sets a precedent that America will not punish its aggressors but instead give them billions of our taxpayers' dollars."

Mrs. Clinton used her authority under the new law to waive a requirement that she certify Egypt's protection of human rights. That she would not certify that the military had complied was in itself a rebuke to Egypt's transitional military leaders, who have moved slowly to yield power and to lift a decades-old state of emergency, but it nonetheless allows the Egyptian military to continue to arm and equip its forces.

"The secretary's decision to waive is also designed to demonstrate our strong support for Egypt's enduring role as a security partner and leader in promoting regional stability and peace," the State Department's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said in a statement. Both the military assistance and an additional $250 million in economic and political assistance also required Mrs. Clinton to certify that Egypt was upholding the Camp David peace accords with Israel, which she did on Friday.

The statement and continuing military and other assistance to Egypt, senior administration officials said, rewarded the extraordinary progress the country has made since the overthrow last year of its autocratic president, Hosni Mubarak. Egypt has elected a new Parliament in a vote widely seen as free and fair, and it has scheduled a presidential election in May, with a runoff to follow in June.

"We've seen more progress in 16 months than we've seen in 60 years," the senior State Department official said.

Even so, the debate within the administration was unusually fraught, officials said, especially after Egypt had imposed a travel ban on seven Americans who were charged as part of the case against the American organizations.

Some in the State Department, echoing the concerns from Capitol Hill and human rights advocates, argued that the administration should have withheld new military aid until the case was fully resolved and the presidential election held.

Mrs. Clinton, officials said, favored a partial waiver, allowing some, but not all, of the assistance to begin. That would maintain leverage over Egypt's generals to transfer political power to a newly elected government without jeopardizing existing military contracts.

A looming deadline for payments, however, forced the issue before then, and the White House and Pentagon pressed for a waiver, officials said. A White House spokesman referred questions to the State Department, and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.

The military assistance to Egypt underscores a point Mrs. Clinton and other officials have made when it comes to foreign aid in general: much of it comes back to American corporations and organizations for equipment or services.

"Lockheed Martin values the relationship established between our company and the Egyptian customer since the first F-16s were delivered in the early 1980s," said Laura F. Siebert, a spokeswoman for the company, which is based in Fort Worth.

The M1A1 components are built in factories in Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, several of them battleground states in an election that has largely focused on jobs. Because the United States Army plans to stop buying new tanks by 2014, continued production relies on foreign contracts, often paid for by American taxpayers as military assistance.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who added the certification requirements to legislation authorizing military aid to Egypt, called the decision to waive them regrettable, and the resumption of aid "business as usual."

Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.

Here's Eddie Vedder and PearlJam doing Bob Dylan's "Masters Of War". 

John Jay Myers on the Iranian threat to Israel

From the Facebook page of my buddy John Jay Myers:

CNN just stated that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, so the war drums continue.  Iran, however, has never said that. Iran's nuclear capability is the "Weapons of Mass destruction" lie continued needed for us to continue war, and give oil rights to our masters.


Iran would never drop a nuclear weapon on Israel....

Reason 1: Because we would flatten them like a pancake.

Reason 2:  Because they claim to want Israel (the land), so why would they nuke it? 

Reason 3:  Because millions of Palestinians live in Israel, so I am pretty sure nuking them would come across as an act of bad faith.

Reason 4:  Nuclear bombs are no small affair, Nuking Israel would also be nuking Syria, Turkey, Egypt etc. I believe that would cause them all to have to ask... whose side are these guys on?

Reason 5:  See Reason 1, the only reason that matters.

Now, why would they want one (a nuke)?  Because we seem to have this habit of taking over countries who don't (have nukes) and respecting the rights of those that do.
 
John Jay Myers.  Always short, sweet, and straight to the point.  Plus, he makes good gumbo. 
 

Would you vote for any candidate who promised to do all of this?

There's been a minor media whirlwind for the last few days about the latest Newsweek cover. 
It features a piece by Andrew Sullivan about how freakin' stupid Obama's critics are. 

The funniest part is the little slogan about "the man with a plan".  Heh.  I don't think he could plan a lunch for four at McDonald's, but that's just me. 

Here's the best response I've seen to the Newsweek piece.  It's from Conor Friedersdorf with the Atlantic Monthly.  It hurts.  Go here to read the whole thing. 

How would you have reacted in 2008 if any Republican (or any other resident of this planet) had promised to do the following: 

(1) Codify indefinite detention into law; (2) draw up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process; (3) proceed with warrantless spying on American citizens; (4) prosecute Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets; (5) reinterpret the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible; (6) enter and prosecute such a war; (7) institutionalize naked scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports; (8) oversee a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents are already beginning to patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots; (9) wage an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries that delegates to the CIA the final call about some strikes that put civilians in jeopardy; (10) invoke the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on the merits; (11) preside over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; (12) attempt to negotiate an extension of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (an effort that thankfully failed); (13) reauthorize the Patriot Act; (14) and select an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.

Amazing, isn't it? 
Newsweek magazine, R.I.P. 

Return Of The Chickenhawks !!!!

It looks like we've finally gotten an anti-war movement going again! 
(Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only ones in it, of course.)


Like I read someplace on the 'net recently, calling Paul and Johnson "isolationists" is like calling your neighbor a "hermit" because he doesn't come into your yard and house and bust all your stuff. 


Here's something from Anti-War.com:

What a joy to see Ron Paul take down Newt “Chickenhawk” Gingrich in front of millions of Americans. Slogging through fifteen Republican presidential debates was totally worth it just to witness this defining moment. Dianne Sawyer, who sounded like she was on Quaaludes, raised her eyebrows quizzically as she asked him if he stood by his previous characterization of Newt as a “chickenhawk.” Her tone implied she thought this a little harsh. Paul took this opening and ran with it:

“I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments – they have no right to send our kids off to war … I’m trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when they called me up.”

Ouch! Having drawn the first blood of this presidential gladiatorial contest, the good Doctor moved in for the kill:

“We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven’t been won, they’re unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have – I mean, if you add up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, we’ve lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared wars.”

Gingrich’s response was worse than if he had said nothing at all:

“The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time he’s referring to. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your father getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with.”

The trap, so carefully set, was sprung: “I need one quick follow-up, said Paul with a gleam in his eye:

“When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids – and I went.”  (Here's the good Doctor with one of his boys.)

The applause was the loudest of the evening. Newt’s puffed up persona seemed to visibly shrink as he stood there on the stage, reduced to squealing like a stuck pig:

"I wasn’t eligible for the draft! I wasn’t eligible for the draft!”

Hit the link up top to read the whole thing.  Seriously, it's good stuff. 

It's going to be a great year for Liberty.  Let's pray together, shall we? 

Dear God, I know that I'm a sinner, and we are all sinners, but please, please, please let The Libertarian Party have Gary Johnson and Ron Paul on the same ticket.  Amen. 

Hit this link to see the video, which can't be embedded for some reason or another.  Otherwise, this thing would have more viewings than all the cute cat videos combined.  Pass the popcorn !!!!

This pic came from The Huffington Post. 

A Libertarian in Republican Clothing

Interesting things are happening in the Republican and Democrat party. 
Someone didn't get all the memos and emails, and it's creating some turmoil.

This raises an interesting hypothetical question....

You can apply the Ron Paul filter to almost any social or economic issue - gay marriage, ending the drug war, ending the Fed, reducing our debt, eliminating needless cabinet-level positions and departments, privatizing our disaster of a school system, legalizing gambling, bringing the troops home to defend our borders, ending aid to dictators, and on and on and on. 

You'll find a gaggle of faux opponents from both halves of the Congressional aisle on one side of the issue, and you'll see Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson on the other side.  Daddy Paul and Gary Johnson have a higher ACLU rating than anyone else running for president, and this includes the Obamessiah.  National Journal ranks Paul as one of the most economically conservative congressmen, but then declares that his votes on foreign policy (giving money to dictators, going overseas to blow shit up, etc.) aren't conservative enough for him to be considered an economic conservative !!! 

The Libertarians want to leave people alone. 

Therefore, they are extremists.  Go figure that one out. 

The pics came from Libertarian Reddit. 

Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?

Reason magazine asks the obvious question....

And from David Boaz:

In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, “I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.” Speaking of Iraq in February 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, “I was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.”

Today, however, he has tripled President Bush’s troop levels in Afghanistan, and we have been fighting there for more than nine years. The Pentagon has declared “the official end to Operation Iraqi Freedom and combat operations by United States forces in Iraq,” but we still have 50,000 troops there, hardly what Senator Obama promised.

Yeah, and we've got 9 more months to go in 2011.  Who will bomb next, Iran or Pakistan?  I'm voting Pakistan. 

Quotes and actions that will make your Bovine Excrement Meter go into the red

From our Constitutional Law Professor In Chief, back when he was running for office:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

From Ralph Nader, who thinks it is time for impeachment:

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Nader's comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.
The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which over 100 protesters were arrested.

Here are some more anti-invasion quotes from Candidate Obama, from the Verum Serum website:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.

Well, yeah.  I think we've proven that already.  Here's Hot Air, reminiscing about the last time we saw objectives that were as muddled as those of our Barack 'n' Hillary's Excellent Libyan Adventure:

The American military has the facilities and experience to assume tactical direction of the operation, and that appears to be what has shaken out.  That doesn’t mean we are in charge from the standpoint of policy or strategy.  There is an enormous difference between our public finding out about the command assignments second-hand, through the news media, and the communication practices of the last seven presidents, which were direct, explicit, involved, and responsible.  We haven’t had an administration even close to this coy about the use of force since Lyndon Johnson’s.

Ouch. 
Ok, you remember that scene in "Taxi Driver" when Robert De Niro is on a pay phone in a hallway, and he discovers something that is so painful that the camera has to turn away, shifting its eye away from the humiliation that De Niro's character is going through?  Well, the guys at The Riehl World have re-posted an old Andrew Sullivan piece called "Top 10 Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama".  What they've done to it hurts.  It really hurts.  And like Martin Scorsese, I'm not going to show any of it to you.  You'll have to hit this link if you choose to go there.  It's like watching someone torturing puppies.  You've been warned. 

And finally, here's the U.K. Guardian, via Reason magazine:

Muammar Gaddafi has been handed a "non-negotiable ultimatum" by Barack Obama to accept an immediate ceasefire, pull back from Libyan rebel strongholds and permit humanitarian assistance – or face the full onslaught of UN-endorsed air strikes.
In an attempt to reassure Middle East opinion and his own domestic audience, Obama said the US would help to co-ordinate a no-fly-zone, but not lead an operation that will include French, British and Arab jets.

You probably need one of these by now, don't you?  Don't you wish everyone had purchased one before the 2008 elections? 









Bovine Excrement Meters stolen from here. 

Touched by an invasion

Here's a close approximation of the Neocon response to Obama's decision to go into Libya....

The difference between the Iraq War and the coming Libyan War.

In which someone contrasts Iraq and Libya on Ann Althouse's blog:

Iraq – blood for oil, war for neocon corporate interests and U.S. hegemony only
Libya – no blood, no oil. Obama’s motives pure because, well, good women are running the show for him – Hillary, Susan, Samantha – and everyone knows that when women (and the French of course) run a war good things happen!

Iraq – weapons of mass destruction what weapons of mass destruction?
Libya – no weapons of mass destruction because, well, okay, because Bush invaded Iraq and Gaddafi shit his pants and gave up his nukes. Pshew!

Iraq – benign dictator who never hurt anyone, wasn’t a threat to his neighbors, did not support terrorists, and, through the Oil for Food program, only wanted to share his oil with Europe in exchange for food and medicine for his long suffering people
Libya – Gaddafi is acting like a big jerk.

All clear now?  Good. 

The Three Women Who Led Barack Obama Into War With Libya

Lord have mercy, what a week. 

Here's Ann Althouse on the Code Pink group, and the three women who led Barack Obama by the nose into Libya. 

It's the opposite of the Code Pink idea that women bring the peace. How long have I heard this feminist plaint: If only women had the power, we would have peace, not phallocratic war.

Well, Ms. Althouse doesn't agree to let an interesting theory get in the way of some cold hard facts:

In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton... changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.


Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act...

... Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.

Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention....

Is this kinda like Bush being led into war by Rumsfeld and Cheney?  I'm sure that the facts will come out later. 

Here's the latest zinger from Ms. Althouse:

To ally with Power and Rice, Clinton had to make "an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution." Oh, timid men. Step aside! Yield to the boldness of women.

Ouch. 

She Whose Name Is Not Spoken has already announced that she doesn't want to be Secretary Of State any longer.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that she's going to run against The Teleprompter next year. 

To the eternal credit of the Code Pink group, they did design this little gem of a poster:

That was before we opened a 3rd front in the Middle East. 
Code Pink doesn't have anything condemning this latest "intervention" on their website yet.  We'll see. 

They do have a bookmark that you can slip into copies of Don Rumsfeld's biography that accuses him of being a war criminal. 
Here's the bookmark that stealth shoppers can slip into unsold copies of George Bush's "Decision Points". 
And here's a handy link telling readers how to execute a citizen's arrest, just in case they want to detain one of the warmongers from the Bush administration. 

I'm looking forward to seeing the bookmark they design to slip into copies of "Dreams From My Father", by Barack Obama.
I'm looking foward to seeing these ladies take to the streets in protests next week. 
Or not. 

A poster from the Brazilian Socialist Worker's Party

My friend Harper over at Passed Up Strange has an interesting post about the Brazilian oil company Petrobas (partially owned by George Soros), our own drilling bans, and some of the hostility that The Teleprompter Jesus is now facing during his weekend in Brazil. 
It's worth reading, and not just because she graciously includes a link to one of my Facebook rants. 

I mean, where the heck did Harper dig up this priceless poster from the Brazilian Socialist Worker's Party?  Can't the BSWP (something is lost in translation, I'm sure) recognize one of its own? 

Oh well....Prophets are seldom recognized by their own. 
But that doesn't excuse this huge banner, does it? 

I hope this doesn't come across as schadenfreude based on the harsh treatment that Bush received for going to war with even less justification that Obama.  I'm not going to say anything obvious, like HOW IS THAT HOPE AND CHANGE CRAP WORKING OUT FOR YOU?????

In my case, it is about Not Trusting Politicians.  None of them.  

As long as they are in the thrall of the military/industrial machine, as long as they can be bought and sold like East Fort Worth Crack Whores, as long as people like Hillary Clinton She Whose Name Is Not Spoken can whisper seductive promises of military glory in their ears, they're going to get us into messes like we're about to enter in Libya. 
We're going in with no idea how to get out.  How the hell can we end a war whose stated objective is to provide humanitarian assistance, air cover, and logistical support, but does not say anything about removing Gaddafi????
Saddam slaughtered 90,000 Kurds while the international community did nothing.  I'm glad we hung the S.O.B.   But we're the ones left cleaning up the mess. 
The nutcase running Libya deserves the same fate.  But why do we have to be the ones to deal with it every single time? 
We might be doing the right thing in Libya, but the Brazilian Socialist Worker's Party sure doesn't appreciate it. 

P.S. - I think I'm going to sit and drink double espressos and blog about this glorious farce until 9:00 p.m.  Can someone bring me food?