a) GW Bush gave more money, and did more
to fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa than anyone in history, and has gotten
almost zero credit. Oh well, doing good is it's own reward.
b) If
something isn't done about
India and Russia specifically; as to counter fitting our patented drugs, and African
continent patients not taking the drug dose properly- (either or both issues can and do lead to issues because the patient is not getting enough of the real drug, the real "stuff" in their system to defeat the desease- some, but
not enough); well the disease will jump or progress beyond these known to be effective drugs to where the drug is no
longer a cure, or effective, all progress will be lost and the disease will have mutated to something far worse.
c) Under ACA / Obamacare, where is the incentive to R & D new drugs? HUGE expense, lot's of failure for that one success. Did you know only one new anti-biotic approved since 2010? Hmmmm, coincidence? I think not! Hey, but ya get free birth control so all good, right? Right.http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/802891
c) There was a time loonies and lefties
blamed Ronald Reagan for AIDS. Remember? Heck, it wasn’t even until 1984 that
doctors were even able to ascertain with any certainty that the disorder
was in fact caused by a retrovirus. So again, facts. “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
―
Frédéric Bastiat
d) Malaria, we had it beat, then
lefty ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural
environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by
the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish
malaria from vast portions of the globe. By means of that ban,
environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the
ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a
disease that was entirely preventable. Malaria no more, a fine cause certainly, http://www.malarianomore.org/pages/ddt-policy
now has all kinds of idiot lefty support. Here: http://twitchy.com/2013/09/24/lefty-celebs-on-board-with-ddt-friendly-malaria-no-mores-power-of-one-campaign/
So I ask, when will Rachel Carson, the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund along with Greenpeace,,
and biologist Paul Ehrlich.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MILLIONS OF DEATHS!!! YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!!
Further Source- a long read and frustrating/disheartening: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259
“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics,
that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is
that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”
―
Daniel Patrick Moynihan RIP Senator, but we see now, your theory is debased.You too, were WRONG!!!
"The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive." ~ Thomas Sowell
Monday, September 30, 2013
Money — the crisis Washington’s ignoring.
Simply the most important article one can read this week. Succinct, to the point and absolutely true.
One of the most amazing stories right now is the failure of either President Obama or Congress to address the monetary crisis. This is the crisis Joe Six-Pack feels when he fills his car with gas or fetches up at the supermarket checkout — or when he has a hard time finding a job.
Even as our money doesn’t seem to go as far as it used to just a few years ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke keeps insisting that inflation is low. Yet the hottest story about Obama’s naming of a new Fed chief has been what a New York Times dispatch called the decision’s “gender undertones.”
The Times broke that “story” a few weeks ago. It was writing about the conflict between those who favored a man, Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary, and those who favored a woman, Janet Yellen, the current Fed vice chairman. Summers withdrew from consideration Sunday, having lost the support of his own party, and it looks like Yellen is now the frontrunner.
No one that I know has a problem with a woman heading the Fed; it would be a dramatic crack in the glass ceiling. But where is the debate about the role of the Federal Reserve itself in creating the Great Recession and the crisis that has kept unemployment above 7 percent for Obama’s entire presidency? The figure would be far worse if record numbers of Americans hadn’t entirely given up on looking for work.
It happens that we are just now beginning to mark the 100th anniversary of our country’s central bank: It was exactly 100 years ago that Congress started to work on the legislation that created the Fed. There will be centennial events over the coming year; the central bank began operations in 1914.
At the time, the value of the dollar was fixed by law at a 20.67th of an ounce of gold. Today, the value of the dollar isn’t fixed at all — and the actual value of the dollar has collapsed to less than a 1,300th of an ounce of gold. That’s higher than the nadir a year ago, but it’s radically lower than the dollar has been under any previous president.
This is what we all feel when, say, we go to buy a tank of gas. Since Bernanke became Fed chairman, the price of an average gallon has soared 54 percent to $3.52, even while the value of the gallon of gas has plunged nearly 33 percent to 1/372nd of an ounce of gold.
In other words, it’s not the gas price that is going up, but the dollar that’s going down.
It’s not just gas. Over the same period, the monthly grocery bill for a family of four jumped 25 percent to $1,036, while the value of those groceries fell 45 percent to 0.79 ounces of gold.
And the average sale price of a new home rose 4.2 percent, but the value fell a staggering 54 percent to 257 ounces of gold.
Absent a dramatic turn of events, Bernanke will leave his successor with a dollar that is less valuable by far than any dollar ever left by any Fed chairman. In percentage terms, the plunge in the dollar’s value on Bernanke’s watch is the second most dramatic in history.
The cover for him to do this is a 1978 law called Humphrey-Hawkins, which gives the Fed the job not only of watching prices but of boosting employment.
How has that worked out? The Fed has been ballooning its balance sheet by billions — “not literally” printing money, Bernanke quipped before Congress; it’s now done electronically — and the unemployment rate is still stuck above 7 percent.
Congress has the chance to use the Fed anniversary to take a serious look at whether the Fed is working the way it was intended. The chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), is pushing a bill to set up a Centennial Monetary Commission. He wants it to be a serious, bipartisan group.
His colleagues haven’t yet agreed. It seems that Congress may prefer to have a central bank that will pump out the funny money to cover the deficits Congress lacks the backbone to control. This means that the only way to force the issue is going to be through Tea Party politicians and crises like the coming showdown over the federal debt limit.
At least until Joe Six-Pack runs out of gas.
Source: http://nypost.com/2013/09/18/money-the-crisis-washingtons-ignoring/
One of the most amazing stories right now is the failure of either President Obama or Congress to address the monetary crisis. This is the crisis Joe Six-Pack feels when he fills his car with gas or fetches up at the supermarket checkout — or when he has a hard time finding a job.
Even as our money doesn’t seem to go as far as it used to just a few years ago, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke keeps insisting that inflation is low. Yet the hottest story about Obama’s naming of a new Fed chief has been what a New York Times dispatch called the decision’s “gender undertones.”
The Times broke that “story” a few weeks ago. It was writing about the conflict between those who favored a man, Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary, and those who favored a woman, Janet Yellen, the current Fed vice chairman. Summers withdrew from consideration Sunday, having lost the support of his own party, and it looks like Yellen is now the frontrunner.
No one that I know has a problem with a woman heading the Fed; it would be a dramatic crack in the glass ceiling. But where is the debate about the role of the Federal Reserve itself in creating the Great Recession and the crisis that has kept unemployment above 7 percent for Obama’s entire presidency? The figure would be far worse if record numbers of Americans hadn’t entirely given up on looking for work.
It happens that we are just now beginning to mark the 100th anniversary of our country’s central bank: It was exactly 100 years ago that Congress started to work on the legislation that created the Fed. There will be centennial events over the coming year; the central bank began operations in 1914.
At the time, the value of the dollar was fixed by law at a 20.67th of an ounce of gold. Today, the value of the dollar isn’t fixed at all — and the actual value of the dollar has collapsed to less than a 1,300th of an ounce of gold. That’s higher than the nadir a year ago, but it’s radically lower than the dollar has been under any previous president.
This is what we all feel when, say, we go to buy a tank of gas. Since Bernanke became Fed chairman, the price of an average gallon has soared 54 percent to $3.52, even while the value of the gallon of gas has plunged nearly 33 percent to 1/372nd of an ounce of gold.
In other words, it’s not the gas price that is going up, but the dollar that’s going down.
It’s not just gas. Over the same period, the monthly grocery bill for a family of four jumped 25 percent to $1,036, while the value of those groceries fell 45 percent to 0.79 ounces of gold.
And the average sale price of a new home rose 4.2 percent, but the value fell a staggering 54 percent to 257 ounces of gold.
Absent a dramatic turn of events, Bernanke will leave his successor with a dollar that is less valuable by far than any dollar ever left by any Fed chairman. In percentage terms, the plunge in the dollar’s value on Bernanke’s watch is the second most dramatic in history.
The cover for him to do this is a 1978 law called Humphrey-Hawkins, which gives the Fed the job not only of watching prices but of boosting employment.
How has that worked out? The Fed has been ballooning its balance sheet by billions — “not literally” printing money, Bernanke quipped before Congress; it’s now done electronically — and the unemployment rate is still stuck above 7 percent.
Congress has the chance to use the Fed anniversary to take a serious look at whether the Fed is working the way it was intended. The chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), is pushing a bill to set up a Centennial Monetary Commission. He wants it to be a serious, bipartisan group.
His colleagues haven’t yet agreed. It seems that Congress may prefer to have a central bank that will pump out the funny money to cover the deficits Congress lacks the backbone to control. This means that the only way to force the issue is going to be through Tea Party politicians and crises like the coming showdown over the federal debt limit.
At least until Joe Six-Pack runs out of gas.
Source: http://nypost.com/2013/09/18/money-the-crisis-washingtons-ignoring/
Saturday, September 28, 2013
NYC Mayor election
Bill de Blasio’s war on minorities
Their embrace means fewer choices for kids trapped in bad city
schools: Teachers-union boss Mike Mulgrew with de Blasio in front of
City Hall on Monday.
Photo: Reuters
De Blasio clinched the Democratic primary for mayor in large part by promoting his inter-racial family and, notably, his son’s prominent Afro. His “two cities” mantra is meant to suggest he’ll fight for the have-nots — minorities. In a new poll, African-Americans say they back him over Republican nominee Joe Lhota by a whopping 86 percent to 3 percent — that is, near-unanimously.
Yet de Blasio’s positions on all the key issues — crime, jobs, education — will hit minorities hard. At the same time, despite his attacks on the “1 percent,” he’ll leave wealthy New Yorkers relatively unscathed.
Think about it: De Blasio has been front-and-center in the drive to constrain pre-emptive crime-fighting in the city. He rails against “the burdensome impact of overly-aggressive [police] tactics,” like stop-and-frisk. As mayor, he’d drop the city’s appeal of federal Judge Shira Scheindlin’s recent ruling against stop-and-frisk and has already moved to oppose a stay of that ruling.
He also demands an end to “racial profiling” of suspects (though NYPD policy and city law already ban it) and supports the law creating a new inspector general for the department.
The net result of all this: Hamstrung cops. Less pro-active policing. More violent crime. And that will be particularly true in New York’s sketchiest neighborhoods, where aggressive policing is most needed.
Who will be the victims of more violent
crime? Predominately, blacks and Hispanics. Last year, for example, 96
percent of all shooting victims in New York have been black or Hispanic.
And nine out of 10 murder victims are minorities.
A spike in murder, to put it bluntly, means more dead blacks and Hispanics. Whites won’t be affected as much.The same logic holds for de Blasio’s stands on education. Wednesday night, the United Federation of Teachers threw its support to de Blasio. That’s because it knows he’ll back the union over the interests of kids — particularly on core issues like charter schools, which the UFT despises.
But with fewer charters, more kids will remain imprisoned in rotten traditional schools. The tens of thousands of desperate families who routinely get shut out of charter-school lotteries for lack of seats will continue to get shut out.
Who are these families? Hint: New York’s public-schools are 69 percent black and Hispanic. Whites disproportionately send their kids to private schools, or find the very best public schools for them. They won’t suffer as much.
But hundreds of thousands of black and Hispanic kids trapped in failing city schools, which de Blasio vows to keep open, certainly will.
And to make it more tragic, they’re the ones who, collectively, need help most: College-readiness rates among minority graduates, for example, are about half that of whites. And the graduation rate for minority kids is itself about 25 percent lower.
Then there are jobs. De Blasio favors “living wage” laws, higher minimum-wage rates, mandatory paid sick days and other costs to businesses that tend to price entry-level and low-skill employees — largely minorities, especially the young — out of jobs. And his plan to sock the rich with higher taxes will encourage investors to look elsewhere to run businesses.
Upshot? Kids like de Blasio’s son Dante (or, rather, kids like Dante whose dads aren’t powerful) will be hurt most. And never mind the high unemployment rates among minorities: 13 percent, for example, for blacks nationally, compared to 6.4 percent for whites — and 38 percent for black teens.
Let’s face it: Whites, particularly wealthy ones, will have more options if de Blasio becomes mayor and pushes through his plans. If his tax hikes are too high, they’ll move out of town. If schools continue to fail, they’ll rely on private schools. If crime shoots up, they’ll steer clear of the bad areas.
Alas, blacks and Hispanics won’t have such easy choices. They’ll be hit with more violent crime. They’ll be cheated of the kind of educations that whites enjoy at private schools. Their young will lose out on entry-level jobs and perhaps lapse into lives of dependency.
Talk about a tale of two cities
The single best analysis I have seen-
Source: http://nypost.com/2013/09/18/bill-de-blasios-war-on-minorities/
Now, let's add this to the equation: http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/19/special-orders-dont-upset-them-meet-some-fast-food-workers-that-wont-unionize-ever/
Here is there website: http://momentummachines.com/#product
He is a fool, but one with a wonderful message: "I will help you." Alas, like Obumble, his POLICIES will do way more harm than good. For simple example,
and in the words of the great social engineering POTUS himself:
"The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence
immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief
induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the
national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a
subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of
sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America."~
FDR
USS GERALD R. FORD, CVN-78
4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory; 90,000
Tons of Diplomacy. I am the
USS GERALD R. FORD, CVN-78!!!
all details here:
Thursday, September 26, 2013
What do you believe?
Do you believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the words of Providence revealed?
Do you believe in the Enlightenment?
Do you realize the importance of The Protestant Reformation, which encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and how the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily and how that would tidal wave ideas in the future?
Do you agree with the thoughts of the single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States, namely the writings of John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government? In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.
Do you believe as I do in the writings of Thomas Paine, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin?
Do you respect and revere that they adapted Locke's theory, then invented and adopted revolutionary ideas about scientific rationality, religious toleration and experimental political organization?
Do you believe that Borders, Language, Culture and a shared set of moral principles and values define a Country?
.
.
.
Then you, like me, are a Constitutional Conservative. Hooah!!
Do you believe in the Enlightenment?
Do you realize the importance of The Protestant Reformation, which encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and how the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily and how that would tidal wave ideas in the future?
Do you agree with the thoughts of the single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States, namely the writings of John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government? In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.
Do you believe as I do in the writings of Thomas Paine, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin?
Do you respect and revere that they adapted Locke's theory, then invented and adopted revolutionary ideas about scientific rationality, religious toleration and experimental political organization?
Do you believe that Borders, Language, Culture and a shared set of moral principles and values define a Country?
.
.
.
Then you, like me, are a Constitutional Conservative. Hooah!!
Monday, September 9, 2013
Beautiful advice from a divorced man after 16 years of marriage
Touching, lessons can be learned here I imagine, WTF do I know?
My advice after a divorce following 16 years of marriage, by Gerald Rogers.
Obviously, I’m not a relationship expert. But there’s something about my divorce being finalized this week that gives me perspective of things I wish I would have done different… After losing a woman that I loved, and a marriage of almost 16 years, here’s the advice I wish I would have had
1. Never stop courting. Never stop dating. NEVER EVER take that woman for granted. When you asked her to marry you, you promised to be that man that would OWN HER HEART and to fiercely protect it. This is the most important and sacred treasure you will ever be entrusted with. SHE CHOSE YOU. Never forget that, and NEVER GET LAZY in your love.
2. Protect your own heart. Just as you committed to being the protector of her heart, you must guard your own with the same vigilance. Love yourself fully, love the world openly, but there is a special place in your heart where no one must enter except for your wife. Keep that space always ready to receive her and invite her in, and refuse to let anyone or anything else enter there.
3. Fall in love over and over again. You will constantly change. You’re not the same people you were when you got married, and in five years you will not be the same person you are today. Change will come, and in that you have to re-choose each other everyday. SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO STAY WITH YOU, and if you don’t take care of her heart, she may give that heart to someone else or seal you out completely, and you may never be able to get it back. Always fight to win her love just as you did when you were courting her.
4. Always see the best in her. Focus only on what you love. What you focus on will expand. If you focus on what bugs you, all you will see is reasons to be bugged. If you focus on what you love, you can’t help but be consumed by love. Focus to the point where you can no longer see anything but love, and you know without a doubt that you are the luckiest man on earth to be have this woman as your wife.
5. It’s not your job to change or fix her… your job is to love her as she is with no expectation of her ever changing. And if she changes, love what she becomes, whether it’s what you wanted or not.
6. Take full accountability for your own emotions: It’s not your wife’s job to make you happy, and she CAN’T make you sad. You are responsible for finding your own happiness, and through that your joy will spill over into your relationship and your love.
7. Never blame your wife if you get frustrated or angry at her, it is only because it is triggering something inside of YOU. They are YOUR emotions, and your responsibility. When you feel those feelings take time to get present and to look within and understand what it is inside of YOU that is asking to be healed. You were attracted to this woman because she was the person best suited to trigger all of your childhood wounds in the most painful way so that you could heal them… when you heal yourself, you will no longer be triggered by her, and you will wonder why you ever were.
8. Allow your woman to just be. When she’s sad or upset, it’s not your job to fix it, it’s your job to HOLD HER and let her know it’s ok. Let her know that you hear her, and that she’s important and that you are that pillar on which she can always lean. The feminine spirit is about change and emotion and like a storm her emotions will roll in and out, and as you remain strong and unjudging she will trust you and open her soul to you… DON’T RUN-AWAY WHEN SHE’S UPSET. Stand present and strong and let her know you aren’t going anywhere. Listen to what she is really saying behind the words and emotion.
9. Be silly… don’t take yourself so damn seriously. Laugh. And make her laugh. Laughter makes everything else easier.
10. Fill her soul everyday… learn her love languages and the specific ways that she feels important and validated and CHERISHED. Ask her to create a list of 10 THINGS that make her feel loved and memorize those things and make it a priority everyday to make her feel like a queen.
11. Be present. Give her not only your time, but your focus, your attention and your soul. Do whatever it takes to clear your head so that when you are with her you are fully WITH HER. Treat her as you would your most valuable client. She is.
12. Be willing to take her sexually, to carry her away in the power of your masculine presence, to consume her and devour her with your strength, and to penetrate her to the deepest levels of her soul. Let her melt into her feminine softness as she knows she can trust you fully.
13. Don’t be an idiot…. And don’t be afraid of being one either. You will make mistakes and so will she. Try not to make too big of mistakes, and learn from the ones you do make. You’re not supposed to be perfect, just try to not be too stupid.
14. Give her space… The woman is so good at giving and giving, and sometimes she will need to be reminded to take time to nurture herself. Sometimes she will need to fly from your branches to go and find what feeds her soul, and if you give her that space she will come back with new songs to sing…. (okay, getting a little too poetic here, but you get the point. Tell her to take time for herself, ESPECIALLY after you have kids. She needs that space to renew and get re-centered, and to find herself after she gets lost in serving you, the kids and the world.)
15. Be vulnerable… you don’t have to have it all together. Be willing to share your fears and feelings, and quick to acknowledge your mistakes.
16. Be fully transparent. If you want to have trust you must be willing to share EVERYTHING… Especially those things you don’t want to share. It takes courage to fully love, to fully open your heart and let her in when you don’t know i she will like what she finds… Part of that courage is allowing her to love you completely, your darkness as well as your light. DROP THE MASK… If you feel like you need to wear a mask around her, and show up perfect all the time, you will never experience the full dimension of what love can be.
17. Never stop growing together… The stagnant pond breeds malaria, the flowing stream is always fresh and cool. Atrophy is the natural process when you stop working a muscle, just as it is if you stop working on your relationship. Find common goals, dreams and visions to work towards.
18. Don’t worry about money. Money is a game, find ways to work together as a team to win it. It never helps when teammates fight. Figure out ways to leverage both persons strength to win.
19. Forgive immediately and focus on the future rather than carrying weight from the past. Don’t let your history hold you hostage. Holding onto past mistakes that either you or she makes, is like a heavy anchor to your marriage and will hold you back. FORGIVENESS IS FREEDOM. Cut the anchor loose and always choose love.
20. Always choose love. ALWAYS CHOOSE LOVE. In the end, this is the only advice you need. If this is the guiding principle through which all your choices is governed, there is nothing that will threaten the happiness of your marriage. Love will always endure.
In the end marriage isn’t about happily ever after. It’s about work. And a commitment to grow together and a willingness to continually invest in creating something that can endure eternity. Through that work, the happiness will come. Marriage is life, and it will bring ups and downs. Embracing all of the cycles and learning to learn from and love each experience will bring the strength and perspective to keep building, one brick at a time.
These are lessons I learned the hard way. These are lessons I learned too late. But these are lessons I am learning and committed in carrying forward. Truth is, I loved being married, and in time, I will get married again, and when I do, I will build it with a foundation that will endure any storm and any amount of time.
If you are reading this and find wisdom in my pain, share it those those young husbands whose hearts are still full of hope, and with those couples you may know who may have forgotten how to love. One of those men may be like I was, and in these hard earned lessons perhaps something will awaken in him and he will learn to be the man his lady has been waiting for.
MEN- THIS IS YOUR CHARGE: Commit to being an EPIC LOVER. There is no greater challenge, and no greater prize. Your woman deserves that from. Be the type of husband your wife can’t help but brag about.
Source: http://jamesrusselllingerfelt.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/beautiful-advice-from-a-divorced-man-after-16-years-of-marriage/
My advice after a divorce following 16 years of marriage, by Gerald Rogers.
Obviously, I’m not a relationship expert. But there’s something about my divorce being finalized this week that gives me perspective of things I wish I would have done different… After losing a woman that I loved, and a marriage of almost 16 years, here’s the advice I wish I would have had
1. Never stop courting. Never stop dating. NEVER EVER take that woman for granted. When you asked her to marry you, you promised to be that man that would OWN HER HEART and to fiercely protect it. This is the most important and sacred treasure you will ever be entrusted with. SHE CHOSE YOU. Never forget that, and NEVER GET LAZY in your love.
2. Protect your own heart. Just as you committed to being the protector of her heart, you must guard your own with the same vigilance. Love yourself fully, love the world openly, but there is a special place in your heart where no one must enter except for your wife. Keep that space always ready to receive her and invite her in, and refuse to let anyone or anything else enter there.
3. Fall in love over and over again. You will constantly change. You’re not the same people you were when you got married, and in five years you will not be the same person you are today. Change will come, and in that you have to re-choose each other everyday. SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO STAY WITH YOU, and if you don’t take care of her heart, she may give that heart to someone else or seal you out completely, and you may never be able to get it back. Always fight to win her love just as you did when you were courting her.
4. Always see the best in her. Focus only on what you love. What you focus on will expand. If you focus on what bugs you, all you will see is reasons to be bugged. If you focus on what you love, you can’t help but be consumed by love. Focus to the point where you can no longer see anything but love, and you know without a doubt that you are the luckiest man on earth to be have this woman as your wife.
5. It’s not your job to change or fix her… your job is to love her as she is with no expectation of her ever changing. And if she changes, love what she becomes, whether it’s what you wanted or not.
6. Take full accountability for your own emotions: It’s not your wife’s job to make you happy, and she CAN’T make you sad. You are responsible for finding your own happiness, and through that your joy will spill over into your relationship and your love.
7. Never blame your wife if you get frustrated or angry at her, it is only because it is triggering something inside of YOU. They are YOUR emotions, and your responsibility. When you feel those feelings take time to get present and to look within and understand what it is inside of YOU that is asking to be healed. You were attracted to this woman because she was the person best suited to trigger all of your childhood wounds in the most painful way so that you could heal them… when you heal yourself, you will no longer be triggered by her, and you will wonder why you ever were.
8. Allow your woman to just be. When she’s sad or upset, it’s not your job to fix it, it’s your job to HOLD HER and let her know it’s ok. Let her know that you hear her, and that she’s important and that you are that pillar on which she can always lean. The feminine spirit is about change and emotion and like a storm her emotions will roll in and out, and as you remain strong and unjudging she will trust you and open her soul to you… DON’T RUN-AWAY WHEN SHE’S UPSET. Stand present and strong and let her know you aren’t going anywhere. Listen to what she is really saying behind the words and emotion.
9. Be silly… don’t take yourself so damn seriously. Laugh. And make her laugh. Laughter makes everything else easier.
10. Fill her soul everyday… learn her love languages and the specific ways that she feels important and validated and CHERISHED. Ask her to create a list of 10 THINGS that make her feel loved and memorize those things and make it a priority everyday to make her feel like a queen.
11. Be present. Give her not only your time, but your focus, your attention and your soul. Do whatever it takes to clear your head so that when you are with her you are fully WITH HER. Treat her as you would your most valuable client. She is.
12. Be willing to take her sexually, to carry her away in the power of your masculine presence, to consume her and devour her with your strength, and to penetrate her to the deepest levels of her soul. Let her melt into her feminine softness as she knows she can trust you fully.
13. Don’t be an idiot…. And don’t be afraid of being one either. You will make mistakes and so will she. Try not to make too big of mistakes, and learn from the ones you do make. You’re not supposed to be perfect, just try to not be too stupid.
14. Give her space… The woman is so good at giving and giving, and sometimes she will need to be reminded to take time to nurture herself. Sometimes she will need to fly from your branches to go and find what feeds her soul, and if you give her that space she will come back with new songs to sing…. (okay, getting a little too poetic here, but you get the point. Tell her to take time for herself, ESPECIALLY after you have kids. She needs that space to renew and get re-centered, and to find herself after she gets lost in serving you, the kids and the world.)
15. Be vulnerable… you don’t have to have it all together. Be willing to share your fears and feelings, and quick to acknowledge your mistakes.
16. Be fully transparent. If you want to have trust you must be willing to share EVERYTHING… Especially those things you don’t want to share. It takes courage to fully love, to fully open your heart and let her in when you don’t know i she will like what she finds… Part of that courage is allowing her to love you completely, your darkness as well as your light. DROP THE MASK… If you feel like you need to wear a mask around her, and show up perfect all the time, you will never experience the full dimension of what love can be.
17. Never stop growing together… The stagnant pond breeds malaria, the flowing stream is always fresh and cool. Atrophy is the natural process when you stop working a muscle, just as it is if you stop working on your relationship. Find common goals, dreams and visions to work towards.
18. Don’t worry about money. Money is a game, find ways to work together as a team to win it. It never helps when teammates fight. Figure out ways to leverage both persons strength to win.
19. Forgive immediately and focus on the future rather than carrying weight from the past. Don’t let your history hold you hostage. Holding onto past mistakes that either you or she makes, is like a heavy anchor to your marriage and will hold you back. FORGIVENESS IS FREEDOM. Cut the anchor loose and always choose love.
20. Always choose love. ALWAYS CHOOSE LOVE. In the end, this is the only advice you need. If this is the guiding principle through which all your choices is governed, there is nothing that will threaten the happiness of your marriage. Love will always endure.
In the end marriage isn’t about happily ever after. It’s about work. And a commitment to grow together and a willingness to continually invest in creating something that can endure eternity. Through that work, the happiness will come. Marriage is life, and it will bring ups and downs. Embracing all of the cycles and learning to learn from and love each experience will bring the strength and perspective to keep building, one brick at a time.
These are lessons I learned the hard way. These are lessons I learned too late. But these are lessons I am learning and committed in carrying forward. Truth is, I loved being married, and in time, I will get married again, and when I do, I will build it with a foundation that will endure any storm and any amount of time.
If you are reading this and find wisdom in my pain, share it those those young husbands whose hearts are still full of hope, and with those couples you may know who may have forgotten how to love. One of those men may be like I was, and in these hard earned lessons perhaps something will awaken in him and he will learn to be the man his lady has been waiting for.
MEN- THIS IS YOUR CHARGE: Commit to being an EPIC LOVER. There is no greater challenge, and no greater prize. Your woman deserves that from. Be the type of husband your wife can’t help but brag about.
Source: http://jamesrusselllingerfelt.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/beautiful-advice-from-a-divorced-man-after-16-years-of-marriage/
Foreign Policy #fail
Several terrific, in fact stellar articles on Foreign Policy and FP failure of this administration.Oh, we have much work to do to correct the past ten years really.
Source: http://www.therightcontext.com/archives/45
Schizophrenic Foreign Policy
......Economies falter or grow, conflicts arise or are averted, and security is eroded or enhanced on the strength of foreign policy. In the case of the Obama Administration, America’s foreign policy appears increasingly schizophrenic, arbitrary, and even capricious. Consider what we have learned since Obama took office: .............................Source: http://www.therightcontext.com/archives/45
9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask
this is a fairly straightforward, accurate synopsis of the Syria "situation".
9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask
From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Obama the phony
Economist Thomas Sowell: "Like other truly talented phonies, Barack
Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people
-- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the
things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship
to the facts is politically irrelevant. A talented con man, or a slick
politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable
skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not
going to convince the others anyway."
I love Thomas Sowell and he is spot-on here with just a paragraph. Obama is a master Campaigner, master fund raiser indeed. He is an ineffective Leader. His policies suck. Imagine fifty-Six months into his Presidency, he still blames. Blames Bush, republicans, yada, yada. He will be judged by history as America's MOST ineffectual President certainly insofar as Foreign Policy, but Domestically, he is almost criminal. The massive growth in Federal spending, the Deficit and debt- unconscionable.
I am happy Australia today elected a Conservative as Leader.
That is what this country needs, a Constitutional Conservative Leader. Our forefathers had it right, we keep f*cking it up. Return to the basic principles, please.
I love Thomas Sowell and he is spot-on here with just a paragraph. Obama is a master Campaigner, master fund raiser indeed. He is an ineffective Leader. His policies suck. Imagine fifty-Six months into his Presidency, he still blames. Blames Bush, republicans, yada, yada. He will be judged by history as America's MOST ineffectual President certainly insofar as Foreign Policy, but Domestically, he is almost criminal. The massive growth in Federal spending, the Deficit and debt- unconscionable.
I am happy Australia today elected a Conservative as Leader.
That is what this country needs, a Constitutional Conservative Leader. Our forefathers had it right, we keep f*cking it up. Return to the basic principles, please.
Monday, September 2, 2013
The Arab collapse. Middle East a vulture’s feast.
NY Post Op-Ed
From May 20, 2013 !!!!!
The Arab Spring has unleashed the Arab Collapse. Everybody still standing in the region is picking the flesh of the helpless. The Islamist cancer proved more virulent than Arabs themselves expected, while dying regimes behave with unrestrained ruthlessness.
And our diplomats still think everyone can be cajoled into harmony.
We’re witnessing a titanic event, the crack-up of a long-tottering civilization. Arab societies grew so corrupt and stagnant that violent upheaval became inevitable. That’s what we’re seeing in Syria and Iraq — two names, one struggle — and will find elsewhere tomorrow.
We can’t stop it, we can’t fix it, and we don’t understand it. But we can stay out of it.
When the US is in the Middle East, the Arabs want us out. When we’re out, they want us in. But our purported Arab (and Turkish) allies consistently agree that Uncle Sam should pay the party bill, while they take home all the presents.
Yes, Syria’s humanitarian crisis is appalling. And no, I don’t like to see innocents dying or suffering. But the calls from the region for American action are nakedly cynical.
Turkey has the largest military in NATO after our own, but cries “helpless” crocodile tears over Syrian refugees — while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire upon their ruined lives. Our Saudi “friends” spent decades building the most-sophisticated military arsenal in the Middle East, apart from Israel. Now the Saudis wring their hands over Syria’s misery — but won’t intervene directly to stop the killing.
The Saudi position is always “You and him fight!” As long ago as Desert Storm, Saudis joked about renting the American army and our bumpkin gullibility. (Try to find one US officer who’s worked with the Saudis and doesn’t hate their guts. . .) Now they want Washington to spend our blood and treasure to open the mosques of Damascus to their Wahhabi cult.
Well, the Assad regime is horrible, but not al Qaeda horrible. Better poison gas than poisoned religion, as far as our own security’s concerned. This is an Arab struggle (with Turkish and Iranian vultures overhead). This time, we need to let them fight it out.
The region’s outdated order is disintegrating. But Washington’s still mesmerized by the artificial boundaries on the map.
Nine decades ago, the diplomats at Versailles ignored the region’s natural fault lines as they carved up the Middle East, forcing enemies together and driving kin apart (while Woodrow Wilson turned his back on the Kurds). Only brute force and dictators kept up the fiction that these were countries. Now the grim charade has reached its end.
Iraq was carved out for British interests, while Syria was France’s consolation prize. Now Syria’s collapsing in a too-many-factions-to-count civil war. And Iraq’s in the early stages of its own dissolution; even a would-be dictator — another of our one-time “friends,” Nouri al-Maliki — can’t keep the “country” together.
We don’t even know how many new states will emerge from the old order’s wreckage. But the Scramble for the Sand is on, with Iran, Turkey, treacherous Arab oil sheikdoms and terrorists Sunni and Shia alike all determined to dictate the future, no matter the cost in other people’s blood.
We had our chance to extend the peace and keep both Iran and Wahhabi crazies at bay after we defeated Iraq’s insurgencies. But a new American president, elevating politics over strategy, walked away from Baghdad, handing Iraq to Iran. Now it’s too late. If George W. Bush helped trigger the Arab Spring, Barack Obama made this Arab Winter inevitable.
We must not be lured into the current fighting — centered, for now, on Syria — by cries of humanitarian necessity. The local powers could step in to stop the killing. But they won’t. Once again, they want us to pay the bill. (It’s time for the Saudis, especially, to give their own blood.)
We’ve paid enough. Rhetoric and red lines notwithstanding, we need to back off from Syria, if for no other reason than a strategist’s golden rule: If you don’t understand what a fight’s about, stay out.
Source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_arab_collapse_tfjo7W92EreoUHdxdQq1DN?utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost&utm_content=Oped+Columnists&utm_source=SFnypostopinion
Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel (Intelligence).
From May 20, 2013 !!!!!
The Arab Spring has unleashed the Arab Collapse. Everybody still standing in the region is picking the flesh of the helpless. The Islamist cancer proved more virulent than Arabs themselves expected, while dying regimes behave with unrestrained ruthlessness.
And our diplomats still think everyone can be cajoled into harmony.
We’re witnessing a titanic event, the crack-up of a long-tottering civilization. Arab societies grew so corrupt and stagnant that violent upheaval became inevitable. That’s what we’re seeing in Syria and Iraq — two names, one struggle — and will find elsewhere tomorrow.
The next country to go: Rescuers working at the site of a car bomb in
Kirkuk, Iraq, last week. Violence is rising rapidly across the country.
When the US is in the Middle East, the Arabs want us out. When we’re out, they want us in. But our purported Arab (and Turkish) allies consistently agree that Uncle Sam should pay the party bill, while they take home all the presents.
Yes, Syria’s humanitarian crisis is appalling. And no, I don’t like to see innocents dying or suffering. But the calls from the region for American action are nakedly cynical.
Turkey has the largest military in NATO after our own, but cries “helpless” crocodile tears over Syrian refugees — while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire upon their ruined lives. Our Saudi “friends” spent decades building the most-sophisticated military arsenal in the Middle East, apart from Israel. Now the Saudis wring their hands over Syria’s misery — but won’t intervene directly to stop the killing.
The Saudi position is always “You and him fight!” As long ago as Desert Storm, Saudis joked about renting the American army and our bumpkin gullibility. (Try to find one US officer who’s worked with the Saudis and doesn’t hate their guts. . .) Now they want Washington to spend our blood and treasure to open the mosques of Damascus to their Wahhabi cult.
Well, the Assad regime is horrible, but not al Qaeda horrible. Better poison gas than poisoned religion, as far as our own security’s concerned. This is an Arab struggle (with Turkish and Iranian vultures overhead). This time, we need to let them fight it out.
The region’s outdated order is disintegrating. But Washington’s still mesmerized by the artificial boundaries on the map.
Nine decades ago, the diplomats at Versailles ignored the region’s natural fault lines as they carved up the Middle East, forcing enemies together and driving kin apart (while Woodrow Wilson turned his back on the Kurds). Only brute force and dictators kept up the fiction that these were countries. Now the grim charade has reached its end.
Iraq was carved out for British interests, while Syria was France’s consolation prize. Now Syria’s collapsing in a too-many-factions-to-count civil war. And Iraq’s in the early stages of its own dissolution; even a would-be dictator — another of our one-time “friends,” Nouri al-Maliki — can’t keep the “country” together.
We don’t even know how many new states will emerge from the old order’s wreckage. But the Scramble for the Sand is on, with Iran, Turkey, treacherous Arab oil sheikdoms and terrorists Sunni and Shia alike all determined to dictate the future, no matter the cost in other people’s blood.
We had our chance to extend the peace and keep both Iran and Wahhabi crazies at bay after we defeated Iraq’s insurgencies. But a new American president, elevating politics over strategy, walked away from Baghdad, handing Iraq to Iran. Now it’s too late. If George W. Bush helped trigger the Arab Spring, Barack Obama made this Arab Winter inevitable.
We must not be lured into the current fighting — centered, for now, on Syria — by cries of humanitarian necessity. The local powers could step in to stop the killing. But they won’t. Once again, they want us to pay the bill. (It’s time for the Saudis, especially, to give their own blood.)
We’ve paid enough. Rhetoric and red lines notwithstanding, we need to back off from Syria, if for no other reason than a strategist’s golden rule: If you don’t understand what a fight’s about, stay out.
Source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_arab_collapse_tfjo7W92EreoUHdxdQq1DN?utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost&utm_content=Oped+Columnists&utm_source=SFnypostopinion
Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel (Intelligence).
Amen Colonel, it needs to be said again! "If you don’t understand what a fight’s about, stay out."
At the Last Minute, Obama Alone Made Call to Seek Congressional Approval Change in president's thinking confounded White House insiders
Wall Street Journal 9/1/13
![[image]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uXOQbdFT-QGfFH4BQXJoRxwt3FODT-ZTJokIbvCEAePB574g3IP0LK8oLsa-lfyNeUd1c9Zp_ArvC3wISaBsmHLO8LBOV5wZmpVI99i8_-a_ieBf8-Xq7TqPnlex-rXR6brVMFhQ8sLeAKwd7fnxEr=s0-d)
AFP/Getty Images
After a 45-minute walk Friday night, President Barack Obama made a fateful decision that none of his top national security advisers saw coming: To seek congressional authorization before taking military action in Syria.
The stunning about-face after a week of U.S. saber rattling risked not only igniting a protracted congressional fight, which could end with a vote against strikes, but a backlash from allies in the Middle East who had warned the White House that inaction would embolden not only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but his closest allies, Iran and Hezbollah.
Aides said the decision was made by Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama alone. It shows the primacy the president places on protecting his hoped-for legacy as a commander in chief who did everything in his power to disentangle the U.S. from overseas wars. Until Friday night, Mr. Obama's national-security team didn't even have an option on the table to seek a congressional authorization.
The only real discussion was a plan to punish Mr. Assad for what the U.S. and others have called a chemical-weapons attack amid Syria's grinding civil war. The final question, policy makers thought, was how many targets to hit and when to tell the Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean to open fire.
Yet Mr. Obama made no secret to aides he felt uncomfortable acting without U.N. Security Council backing. Current and former officials said his decision reflected his concerns about being seen as acting unilaterally—without political cover from Congress and without the U.K. at his side. Arab states, for their part, have offered little public support despite their private encouragement.
The change in Mr. Obama's thinking confounded White House insiders. Some raised concerns about the decision. They asked what would happen if Congress refused to authorize using force, a senior administration official said.
The move also took key allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia by surprise, diplomats said. They thought Mr. Obama was about to pull the trigger and were preparing for possible retaliation from Mr. Assad.
One official said the biggest concern for the Middle Eastern allies was that the passage of time during the congressional debate would reduce the sense of urgency for action.
At a Situation Room meeting of his White
House National Security Council on Aug. 24, three days after the Syrian
bombing raid, Mr. Obama made clear his strong inclination was to take
action.
During one meeting, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said something that left an impression on Mr. Obama: The timing of a strike didn't matter, officials said.
Gen. Dempsey's message to Mr. Obama was that whether the strikes were launched tomorrow, or a week from now, or a month from now, the military would be able to ensure the effectiveness of the operation, officials said.
On Thursday, the White House watched with alarm as U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron failed to secure parliamentary support for the U.K. to join the U.S. military operation. The takeaway for White House officials, aides say, was not to discount the level of war-weariness, both in the U.K. and at home.
Until Friday night, Mr. Obama's national-security team was focused on only consulting Congress, rather than seeking a vote on an authorization to use force. Mr. Obama's team concluded that Mr. Obama had the legal authority to act without congressional authorization and was proceeding on that basis.
During his daily wrap-up meeting with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Mr. Obama and Mr. McDonough went on a 45-minute walk around the White House grounds.
During the walk, Mr. Obama told Mr. McDonough his thinking—that consulting with Congress wasn't enough—lawmakers should have to go on the record one way or the other.
Current and former officials said it was no surprise Mr. Obama would make such an important decision after consulting with Mr. McDonough, who in his previous role as deputy national security adviser emerged as a leading voice of caution against intervening in Syria. Mr. McDonough's successor on the National Security Council has overseen a gradual expansion of U.S. support to the Syrian opposition, but he doesn't have as close a relationship with the president.
In meetings devoted to Syria last year, Mr. McDonough would push to keep the U.S. off the "slippery slope" leading to a potentially unpopular intervention, according to officials involved in these meetings. One official, recalling Mr. McDonough's prior role, said "any time Denis would show his cards a little bit, they would ultimately line up with where the president would come down."
Dennis Ross, a longtime diplomat who served
with Mr. McDonough in the NSC in the president's first term, said of Mr.
McDonough: "He is very mindful of what the high cost of American
intervention had been. So he approaches the issue of the use of force
with a genuine caution and a genuine concern about really once you do
this, where are you? And how do you get out of it?"
At 7 p.m. Friday, Mr. Obama called his top aides into his office, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, to inform them of his plans. Aides say Mr. Obama came up with the idea himself to seek an authorization.
Many insiders were stunned because of the risk Congress will say "no." "You have to win the vote. You have to win," one senior administration official said after the decision was disclosed. "If Congress doesn't let him act, the consequences for him and for the country's standing in the world are enormous."
Later Friday night, Mr. Obama told aides the decision reflected his growing frustration with lawmakers who appeared to want to have it both ways—criticizing the president for not seeking congressional authorization, and then criticizing the decisions he makes.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) had sent a letter to Mr. Obama demanding more consultation with Congress and asking the White House to clearly lay out the goals of a military mission in advance. Other Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have said Mr. Obama's plans for a limited strike didn't go far enough. And still other lawmakers, including a sizable minority of Mr. Obama's own party in Congress, have expressed opposition to any intervention in Syria.
Current and former officials said Mr. Obama wanted to force Congress to make the decision so lawmakers own it as much as the president does. He also thought the U.S. would be in a stronger position to act in Syria with Congress's full backing, officials said.
On Saturday, Mr. Obama held a two-hour long meeting of his National Security Council.
Gen. Dempsey repeated his assurances to Mr. Obama that the strikes can wait. The general told Mr. Obama and his advisers the U.S. military is confident that there would be no negative impact and that Navy destroyers could remain in place.
During the past week, White House advisers have said they were moving fast on Syria. One senior administration official cautioned that hesitation could embolden Mr. Assad.
"There is an urgency here in our view given that the further you get away from the event the less the attention is on what took place actually on the 21st of August and it becomes more about process and provides an opening for the Syrians and others who support them to obfuscate and delay and muddy the water," the senior administration official said earlier this week. "And frankly that sends its own message, which is you can essentially cover your tracks as it relates to using chemical weapons."
Mr. Obama made clear during the meeting that the decision was final and in the end, his advisers agreed.
Just before his Rose Garden address, Mr. Obama called President François Hollande of France. The U.S. still hopes to act with France.
A senior administration official voiced confidence Mr. Assad won't take advantage of the delay to push ahead with his offensive using chemical weapons. White House officials also predicted that Congress would authorize using force, citing the strength of the underlying intelligence being shared with lawmakers this weekend. With Congress's blessing, strikes could still be launched, officials said, within weeks.
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579047542466837078.html?mod=e2fb
There is so much here that is troubling. First, classless to have your feet on the desk ( The Resolute desk is a large, nineteenth-century desk often chosen by presidents of the United States for use in the White House Oval Office as the Oval Office desk. It was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 and was built from the timbers of the British Arctic Exploration ship Resolute. ~ Wikipedia) in the Oval Office. Amazing really. Ronald Reagan would not even take off his suit jacket in the Oval Office out of respect...and Obama I suppose just looks at the desk as some golified Ikea furniture. Absolutely amazing.
Second, the quote: "Aides said the decision was made by Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama alone. It shows the primacy the president places on protecting his hoped-for legacy..."
Wow, the sheer depth of the narcissism and hubris, as always to the forefront, FORWARD!
Moral relativism has its limits .....
“The relativism which is not willing to speak about truth but only about ‘what is true for me’ is an evasion of the serious business of living. It is the mark of a tragic loss of nerve in our contemporary culture. It is a preliminary symptom of death.” ~ Lesslie Newbigin
Remember this?? http://mrc.org/biasalerts/following-syrias-devastating-chemical-weapons-attack-will-media-remember-hillarys-touting
I do agree with Pat Buchanan and his terrific 5 questions:
The questions to which Congress needs answers:
To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assad’s, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.
The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.
Which makes this news report all the more troubling: http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/#.UiBSXR_-9vQ.twitter
Along with this tidbit: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/gordon-g-chang/punishing-assads-wmd-supplier?utm_source=World+Affairs+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ff2862d4b5-August_28_2013_Blog_Chang_DeOnis_Motyl&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f83b38c5c7-ff2862d4b5-294603281
I always find Dr. Tim Stanley's analysis quite insightful. This one is no different.
The above statement comes with caveats. First, al-Qaeda inspired Islamists are only one, unwelcome part of the rebel alliance. Second, any military action the West carries out will be devised to punish Assad for using chemical weapons rather than to decisively throw the war in his opposition's favour. But the reality is that any intervention into Syria involves picking sides and so helping one to win, and given that the rebel side contains all the fundamentalist fruitcakes we are – effectively – putting ourselves on the side of the crazies who hate us. You know, those folks who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. Remember them?
These are the kind of people we'd be allying ourselves with in any conflict. The Islamist rebels hate Christians and have given them the option of "flee or die". In June, the Catholic priest Francois Murad was murdered by a Syrian opposition group; according to the Vatican, he was beheaded in public while boys and men cheered. This week, video leaked out of the country purporting to show a roadside execution of three men accused of being insufficiently Muslim. Their truck was flagged down and they were interrogated to find out if they were Sunnis or members of the Alawite minority according to their prayer habits. When they gave the "wrong" responses, they were taken to the side of the road and shot in the back to shouts of "Allahu Akbar". The presence of such savages within the rebel ranks threatens to open up a second civil war within the rebellion itself: according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Kurds and Islamists are shooting at each other right now in the northeast of the country.
Of course, Assad has proven himself just as capable of brutality – he's a vile dictator that the West should have rejected, isolated and helped drive from office years ago. Had we intervened earlier, when the opposition was dominated by democrats, we might have compelled proper elections and created a freer Syria. But a mix of our inaction, Assad's tenacity, radicalisation and foreign intervention by Islamists has helped to pollute the rebel faction with religious maniacs. The result is that we don't know who we're siding with in a war that feels so depressingly inevitable. The enemy of our enemy could turn out to be our most dangerous enemy of all.
The prowar lobby keeps saying that if Assad wins the Syrian war there will be a bloodbath. That's more than likely. But if the rebels win there will be a bloodbath, too. It's that kind of war: lots of killing on either side and it all ends in a bit more killing. The only question is how much blood we in the West want to get on our own hands. I'd advise, "as little as possible".
Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100233098/syria-and-al-qaeda-the-enemy-of-our-enemy-could-turn-out-to-be-our-most-dangerous-enemy-of-all/
And finally, digusting in it's allegation, but there is certainlt some truth to it, sadly.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/curl-obamas-2014-calculation-lets-have-war/
What a mess. We need a long range Foreign Policy, not reactionary but prudently proactive that promotes America's values. Under the Obama Administration, our foreign policy appears increasingly schizophrenic, arbitrary, short sighted and confused at best.
AFP/Getty Images
In this image released by the
White House, President Barack Obama talked on the phone in the Oval
Office with House Speaker John Boehner on Saturday, as Vice President
Joe Biden listened.
The stunning about-face after a week of U.S. saber rattling risked not only igniting a protracted congressional fight, which could end with a vote against strikes, but a backlash from allies in the Middle East who had warned the White House that inaction would embolden not only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but his closest allies, Iran and Hezbollah.
Aides said the decision was made by Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama alone. It shows the primacy the president places on protecting his hoped-for legacy as a commander in chief who did everything in his power to disentangle the U.S. from overseas wars. Until Friday night, Mr. Obama's national-security team didn't even have an option on the table to seek a congressional authorization.
The only real discussion was a plan to punish Mr. Assad for what the U.S. and others have called a chemical-weapons attack amid Syria's grinding civil war. The final question, policy makers thought, was how many targets to hit and when to tell the Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean to open fire.
Yet Mr. Obama made no secret to aides he felt uncomfortable acting without U.N. Security Council backing. Current and former officials said his decision reflected his concerns about being seen as acting unilaterally—without political cover from Congress and without the U.K. at his side. Arab states, for their part, have offered little public support despite their private encouragement.
The change in Mr. Obama's thinking confounded White House insiders. Some raised concerns about the decision. They asked what would happen if Congress refused to authorize using force, a senior administration official said.
The move also took key allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia by surprise, diplomats said. They thought Mr. Obama was about to pull the trigger and were preparing for possible retaliation from Mr. Assad.
One official said the biggest concern for the Middle Eastern allies was that the passage of time during the congressional debate would reduce the sense of urgency for action.
During one meeting, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said something that left an impression on Mr. Obama: The timing of a strike didn't matter, officials said.
Gen. Dempsey's message to Mr. Obama was that whether the strikes were launched tomorrow, or a week from now, or a month from now, the military would be able to ensure the effectiveness of the operation, officials said.
On Thursday, the White House watched with alarm as U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron failed to secure parliamentary support for the U.K. to join the U.S. military operation. The takeaway for White House officials, aides say, was not to discount the level of war-weariness, both in the U.K. and at home.
Until Friday night, Mr. Obama's national-security team was focused on only consulting Congress, rather than seeking a vote on an authorization to use force. Mr. Obama's team concluded that Mr. Obama had the legal authority to act without congressional authorization and was proceeding on that basis.
During his daily wrap-up meeting with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Mr. Obama and Mr. McDonough went on a 45-minute walk around the White House grounds.
During the walk, Mr. Obama told Mr. McDonough his thinking—that consulting with Congress wasn't enough—lawmakers should have to go on the record one way or the other.
Current and former officials said it was no surprise Mr. Obama would make such an important decision after consulting with Mr. McDonough, who in his previous role as deputy national security adviser emerged as a leading voice of caution against intervening in Syria. Mr. McDonough's successor on the National Security Council has overseen a gradual expansion of U.S. support to the Syrian opposition, but he doesn't have as close a relationship with the president.
In meetings devoted to Syria last year, Mr. McDonough would push to keep the U.S. off the "slippery slope" leading to a potentially unpopular intervention, according to officials involved in these meetings. One official, recalling Mr. McDonough's prior role, said "any time Denis would show his cards a little bit, they would ultimately line up with where the president would come down."
At 7 p.m. Friday, Mr. Obama called his top aides into his office, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, to inform them of his plans. Aides say Mr. Obama came up with the idea himself to seek an authorization.
Many insiders were stunned because of the risk Congress will say "no." "You have to win the vote. You have to win," one senior administration official said after the decision was disclosed. "If Congress doesn't let him act, the consequences for him and for the country's standing in the world are enormous."
Later Friday night, Mr. Obama told aides the decision reflected his growing frustration with lawmakers who appeared to want to have it both ways—criticizing the president for not seeking congressional authorization, and then criticizing the decisions he makes.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) had sent a letter to Mr. Obama demanding more consultation with Congress and asking the White House to clearly lay out the goals of a military mission in advance. Other Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have said Mr. Obama's plans for a limited strike didn't go far enough. And still other lawmakers, including a sizable minority of Mr. Obama's own party in Congress, have expressed opposition to any intervention in Syria.
Current and former officials said Mr. Obama wanted to force Congress to make the decision so lawmakers own it as much as the president does. He also thought the U.S. would be in a stronger position to act in Syria with Congress's full backing, officials said.
On Saturday, Mr. Obama held a two-hour long meeting of his National Security Council.
Gen. Dempsey repeated his assurances to Mr. Obama that the strikes can wait. The general told Mr. Obama and his advisers the U.S. military is confident that there would be no negative impact and that Navy destroyers could remain in place.
During the past week, White House advisers have said they were moving fast on Syria. One senior administration official cautioned that hesitation could embolden Mr. Assad.
"There is an urgency here in our view given that the further you get away from the event the less the attention is on what took place actually on the 21st of August and it becomes more about process and provides an opening for the Syrians and others who support them to obfuscate and delay and muddy the water," the senior administration official said earlier this week. "And frankly that sends its own message, which is you can essentially cover your tracks as it relates to using chemical weapons."
Mr. Obama made clear during the meeting that the decision was final and in the end, his advisers agreed.
Just before his Rose Garden address, Mr. Obama called President François Hollande of France. The U.S. still hopes to act with France.
A senior administration official voiced confidence Mr. Assad won't take advantage of the delay to push ahead with his offensive using chemical weapons. White House officials also predicted that Congress would authorize using force, citing the strength of the underlying intelligence being shared with lawmakers this weekend. With Congress's blessing, strikes could still be launched, officials said, within weeks.
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579047542466837078.html?mod=e2fb
There is so much here that is troubling. First, classless to have your feet on the desk ( The Resolute desk is a large, nineteenth-century desk often chosen by presidents of the United States for use in the White House Oval Office as the Oval Office desk. It was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 and was built from the timbers of the British Arctic Exploration ship Resolute. ~ Wikipedia) in the Oval Office. Amazing really. Ronald Reagan would not even take off his suit jacket in the Oval Office out of respect...and Obama I suppose just looks at the desk as some golified Ikea furniture. Absolutely amazing.
Second, the quote: "Aides said the decision was made by Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama alone. It shows the primacy the president places on protecting his hoped-for legacy..."
Wow, the sheer depth of the narcissism and hubris, as always to the forefront, FORWARD!
Moral relativism has its limits .....
“The relativism which is not willing to speak about truth but only about ‘what is true for me’ is an evasion of the serious business of living. It is the mark of a tragic loss of nerve in our contemporary culture. It is a preliminary symptom of death.” ~ Lesslie Newbigin
Remember this?? http://mrc.org/biasalerts/following-syrias-devastating-chemical-weapons-attack-will-media-remember-hillarys-touting
I do agree with Pat Buchanan and his terrific 5 questions:
The questions to which Congress needs answers:
- Do we have incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad ordered chemical weapons be used on his own people? And if he did not, who did?
- What kind of reprisals might we expect if we launch cruise missiles at Syria, which is allied with Hezbollah and Iran?
- If we attack, and Syria or its allies attack U.S. military or diplomatic missions in the Middle East or here in the United States, are we prepared for the wider war we will have started?
- Assuming Syria responds with a counterstrike, how far are we prepared to go up the escalator to regional war? If we intervene, are we prepared for the possible defeat of the side we have chosen, which would then be seen as a strategic defeat for the United States?
- If stung and bleeding from retaliation, are we prepared to go all the way, boots on the ground, to bring down Assad? Are we prepared to occupy Syria to prevent its falling to the Al-Nusra Front, which it may if Assad falls and we do not intervene?
To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assad’s, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.
The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.
Which makes this news report all the more troubling: http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/#.UiBSXR_-9vQ.twitter
Along with this tidbit: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/gordon-g-chang/punishing-assads-wmd-supplier?utm_source=World+Affairs+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ff2862d4b5-August_28_2013_Blog_Chang_DeOnis_Motyl&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f83b38c5c7-ff2862d4b5-294603281
I always find Dr. Tim Stanley's analysis quite insightful. This one is no different.
Syria and al-Qaeda: the enemy of our enemy could turn out to be our most dangerous enemy of all
We've spent the last twelve years fighting a war on terror, by which we mean a war on al-Qaeda. Now we're proposing intervening in the Syrian conflict on the side of – wait for it – al-Qaeda. We've lobbed a grenade at the looking glass and jumped straight through.The above statement comes with caveats. First, al-Qaeda inspired Islamists are only one, unwelcome part of the rebel alliance. Second, any military action the West carries out will be devised to punish Assad for using chemical weapons rather than to decisively throw the war in his opposition's favour. But the reality is that any intervention into Syria involves picking sides and so helping one to win, and given that the rebel side contains all the fundamentalist fruitcakes we are – effectively – putting ourselves on the side of the crazies who hate us. You know, those folks who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. Remember them?
These are the kind of people we'd be allying ourselves with in any conflict. The Islamist rebels hate Christians and have given them the option of "flee or die". In June, the Catholic priest Francois Murad was murdered by a Syrian opposition group; according to the Vatican, he was beheaded in public while boys and men cheered. This week, video leaked out of the country purporting to show a roadside execution of three men accused of being insufficiently Muslim. Their truck was flagged down and they were interrogated to find out if they were Sunnis or members of the Alawite minority according to their prayer habits. When they gave the "wrong" responses, they were taken to the side of the road and shot in the back to shouts of "Allahu Akbar". The presence of such savages within the rebel ranks threatens to open up a second civil war within the rebellion itself: according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Kurds and Islamists are shooting at each other right now in the northeast of the country.
Of course, Assad has proven himself just as capable of brutality – he's a vile dictator that the West should have rejected, isolated and helped drive from office years ago. Had we intervened earlier, when the opposition was dominated by democrats, we might have compelled proper elections and created a freer Syria. But a mix of our inaction, Assad's tenacity, radicalisation and foreign intervention by Islamists has helped to pollute the rebel faction with religious maniacs. The result is that we don't know who we're siding with in a war that feels so depressingly inevitable. The enemy of our enemy could turn out to be our most dangerous enemy of all.
The prowar lobby keeps saying that if Assad wins the Syrian war there will be a bloodbath. That's more than likely. But if the rebels win there will be a bloodbath, too. It's that kind of war: lots of killing on either side and it all ends in a bit more killing. The only question is how much blood we in the West want to get on our own hands. I'd advise, "as little as possible".
Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100233098/syria-and-al-qaeda-the-enemy-of-our-enemy-could-turn-out-to-be-our-most-dangerous-enemy-of-all/
And finally, digusting in it's allegation, but there is certainlt some truth to it, sadly.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/curl-obamas-2014-calculation-lets-have-war/
What a mess. We need a long range Foreign Policy, not reactionary but prudently proactive that promotes America's values. Under the Obama Administration, our foreign policy appears increasingly schizophrenic, arbitrary, short sighted and confused at best.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
From Capitalism Institute:
In all honesty, I disdain this woman. She has done too much already that has harmed this great country.
Nancy Pelosi is the embodiment of almost everything wrong with statism. Economically ignorant, resentful, elitist, and completely clueless on every level. There are a lot of reasons why central economic planning doesn’t work, and she’s up there on the list.
She also thinks that even talking about cutting her pay — while millions of Americans are unemployed — is out of the question. Why it’s not just out of the question… it’s actually a violation of her “dignity”. That’s right, she thinks it is beneath her to live like a typical American. Meanwhile, she’s doing a hideous job of ruling over us petty peasants. Absolutely disgusting.
In all honesty, I disdain this woman. She has done too much already that has harmed this great country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)