You might be a Conservative if...
you think the Second Amendment is self-explanatory.
you believe tax cuts will stimulate the economy better than a "stimulus" package.
you think "tough actions" work better than "tough talk".
you think Health Care Reform is Health Care "Control".
you have doubts about Russian and Chinese "friendship".
you think the President Obama is in way over his head.
you believe judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.
you know Free Enterprise will create more jobs than the government.
you wonder why any bill should be two thousand pages long,
when the US Constitution is only a little over four pages long.
you think the government is way too large.
you think "Cap and Trade" is really "Cap and Tax" and will ruin the US economy.
you think Al Gore is either a moron, a con man or both.
you think people should accept responsibility for their actions.
you think it's the results that matter, not the intentions.
"Drill here,drill now" makes sense.
you believe in US sovereignty not the UN's.
you think it's okay to show valid ID in order to vote.
you aren't that worried about being politically correct.
you think "In God We Trust" belongs on our money.
you think it takes parents to raise a child, not a village.
if you say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Season's Greetings".
Merry Christmas!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
A Letter President Karzai
Dear Mr President,
I guess by now you have heard our President's plan for your country. My suggestion to you is watch your back. It seems that your turn is coming. The media has already begun stories of corruption in your administration. It won't be long until they will be calling for a complete withdrawal forces because the US in good conscience cannot back a corrupt and failing administration.
This is not unique in American History. Several times liberal presidents have left our allies twisting in the wind when they felt that it was no longer advantageous to stand beside them. Here are a few examples that have occurred in the last sixty years.
In 1949, President Truman decided that the corrupt and failing government of Chiang Kai-shek was no longer viable and allowed China to fall to the Communists under Mao. Chiang was allowed to flee to Taiwan and set up his government there. History has shown how well that has worked out for the US and the rest of the world.
Skipping to 1967, Lyndon Johnson decided that the war in Viet Nam was no longer winnable and the writing was on the wall for President Nguyen Van Thieu. Without US aid to his country, the North invaded and south Viet Nam fell into Communists hands.There has never been an accurate count of how many died in the ensuing "Unification".
Let's talk about another liberal President; Jimmy Carter. Carter, not content to just sell out our allies in SEATO, decided that the Shah of Iran was no longer worthy of American support and allowed Iran to fall into iron grip of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Thirty years of "Fundamentalist" Rule has left the Mid-East in turmoil and no end to it in sight.
Now, Mr. President, it will soon be your turn. You will first be demonized in the media, then marginalized by the liberals who run our government. The "Time-Line" that will be established will have some goals that Will be easy to meet and then your country will be left to its fate. I hope that something will happen to forestall this, but I fear the die is cast and it's only a matter of time before we will be reading that Afghanistan is not worth American lives and money. Americans will be reading that the Taliban can operate from anywhere and Afghanistan is remote enough that it wont matter that they are there. How soon we forget the lessons of 9/11.
I hope that when the Taliban seizes control again, you are able to save as many of your people as you can. Our prayers are with you and your people.
Sincerely,
Ed Carter
PS: I am CC'ing a copy of this to the newly elected President of Honduras, Porfirio Lobo. I have a feeling his name is on the same list as yours.
I guess by now you have heard our President's plan for your country. My suggestion to you is watch your back. It seems that your turn is coming. The media has already begun stories of corruption in your administration. It won't be long until they will be calling for a complete withdrawal forces because the US in good conscience cannot back a corrupt and failing administration.
This is not unique in American History. Several times liberal presidents have left our allies twisting in the wind when they felt that it was no longer advantageous to stand beside them. Here are a few examples that have occurred in the last sixty years.
In 1949, President Truman decided that the corrupt and failing government of Chiang Kai-shek was no longer viable and allowed China to fall to the Communists under Mao. Chiang was allowed to flee to Taiwan and set up his government there. History has shown how well that has worked out for the US and the rest of the world.
Skipping to 1967, Lyndon Johnson decided that the war in Viet Nam was no longer winnable and the writing was on the wall for President Nguyen Van Thieu. Without US aid to his country, the North invaded and south Viet Nam fell into Communists hands.There has never been an accurate count of how many died in the ensuing "Unification".
Let's talk about another liberal President; Jimmy Carter. Carter, not content to just sell out our allies in SEATO, decided that the Shah of Iran was no longer worthy of American support and allowed Iran to fall into iron grip of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Thirty years of "Fundamentalist" Rule has left the Mid-East in turmoil and no end to it in sight.
Now, Mr. President, it will soon be your turn. You will first be demonized in the media, then marginalized by the liberals who run our government. The "Time-Line" that will be established will have some goals that Will be easy to meet and then your country will be left to its fate. I hope that something will happen to forestall this, but I fear the die is cast and it's only a matter of time before we will be reading that Afghanistan is not worth American lives and money. Americans will be reading that the Taliban can operate from anywhere and Afghanistan is remote enough that it wont matter that they are there. How soon we forget the lessons of 9/11.
I hope that when the Taliban seizes control again, you are able to save as many of your people as you can. Our prayers are with you and your people.
Sincerely,
Ed Carter
PS: I am CC'ing a copy of this to the newly elected President of Honduras, Porfirio Lobo. I have a feeling his name is on the same list as yours.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Another Liberal Warrior?
Well, seems like we have have us another Wartime President that has no business even playing paintball much less determining US Global Strategy and conducting a war that could determine the fate of our very way of life?
Maybe you think I'm being too hard on him, but there has neve been a Liberal yet that could conduct a war to actually win it. They are too concerned with policy and fallout from their decisions. They are also more concerned with how to get out of a war than how to truly win one. They also seem to think that they are about twice as smart as the people that that have trained their whole lives and dedicated themselves to their chosen profession.
I'm only going to go back to the beginning of the 20th Century to make my point. so here goes.
Woodrow Wilson: WWI- He was willing to settle for Armistice rather than victory and pushed for the League of Nations in his Fourteen Points. We all know how well that worked. Twenty years later the world was at war again, with another liberal at the helm.
Franklin Roosevelt: WWII- Caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor, then sold out the British by believing Stalin. He then allowed the Soviets free rein in Eastern Europe. How well did that work out? Seems like the ends never work out the way things liberals plan.
Harry Truman: Korea: I will say that he started strong, but then listened to advisors instead of ground commanders and intelligence. Then issued very ambigious orders to field commanders that lead to near disaster and an eventual stalemate that lasted nearly three years and cost thousands of lives.
John Kennedy: Bay of Pigs Cuban Missile Crisis, and Viet Nam- During the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, Kennedy gave the okay then vacillated and refused to commit air cover leaving men stranded and and eventually captured by the Cubans. This would eventually lead to the Missile Crisis because they felt that he would back down again. And he did, he talked tough up front but during the back-door negotiations, missiles were removed from Turkey. In Viet Nam, he began a build up that would eventually nearly tear the country apart. On a military note, he did allow the US Special Forces to wear the Green Beret.
Lyndon Johnson: Viet Nam- Volumes could be written here, but when a president is picking the bombing targets, it can't end well. Add that to confining rules of engagement, unclear directives and you have a recipe for disaster.
Jimmy Carter: Iran- Hosatges, and a failed recsue mission. That speaks for itself.
Bill Clinton: Bosnia, USS Stark and Somalia- I will only touch on Somalia here. After landing troops and getting 32 men killed he pulled out, leaving the impression among terrorsits that the US was a paper tiger. Among those coming to that conclusion was Usama Bin Laden.
Now we come to the latest and greatest addition to the list: Barak Hussein Obama. It took him 4 months to come up with a strategy? Whats he doing planning strategy? Dont we have generals for that? And his strategy focuses on getting out rather than winning. More liberal reverse victories.
Maybe I'm wrong here but a strategy to conduct a war should include winning it. And, the exit strategy should be "We come home after we have thorougly destroyed the desire in people to attack us again". I may be overly simplistic, but what works on a school yard will work in the world. Somebdy comes at you, you beat them so bad the last thing they ever want to do is mess with you again. Our foreign policy should be one sentence,"We can be your best friend or your worst nightmare." Simple but effective.
Maybe you think I'm being too hard on him, but there has neve been a Liberal yet that could conduct a war to actually win it. They are too concerned with policy and fallout from their decisions. They are also more concerned with how to get out of a war than how to truly win one. They also seem to think that they are about twice as smart as the people that that have trained their whole lives and dedicated themselves to their chosen profession.
I'm only going to go back to the beginning of the 20th Century to make my point. so here goes.
Woodrow Wilson: WWI- He was willing to settle for Armistice rather than victory and pushed for the League of Nations in his Fourteen Points. We all know how well that worked. Twenty years later the world was at war again, with another liberal at the helm.
Franklin Roosevelt: WWII- Caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor, then sold out the British by believing Stalin. He then allowed the Soviets free rein in Eastern Europe. How well did that work out? Seems like the ends never work out the way things liberals plan.
Harry Truman: Korea: I will say that he started strong, but then listened to advisors instead of ground commanders and intelligence. Then issued very ambigious orders to field commanders that lead to near disaster and an eventual stalemate that lasted nearly three years and cost thousands of lives.
John Kennedy: Bay of Pigs Cuban Missile Crisis, and Viet Nam- During the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, Kennedy gave the okay then vacillated and refused to commit air cover leaving men stranded and and eventually captured by the Cubans. This would eventually lead to the Missile Crisis because they felt that he would back down again. And he did, he talked tough up front but during the back-door negotiations, missiles were removed from Turkey. In Viet Nam, he began a build up that would eventually nearly tear the country apart. On a military note, he did allow the US Special Forces to wear the Green Beret.
Lyndon Johnson: Viet Nam- Volumes could be written here, but when a president is picking the bombing targets, it can't end well. Add that to confining rules of engagement, unclear directives and you have a recipe for disaster.
Jimmy Carter: Iran- Hosatges, and a failed recsue mission. That speaks for itself.
Bill Clinton: Bosnia, USS Stark and Somalia- I will only touch on Somalia here. After landing troops and getting 32 men killed he pulled out, leaving the impression among terrorsits that the US was a paper tiger. Among those coming to that conclusion was Usama Bin Laden.
Now we come to the latest and greatest addition to the list: Barak Hussein Obama. It took him 4 months to come up with a strategy? Whats he doing planning strategy? Dont we have generals for that? And his strategy focuses on getting out rather than winning. More liberal reverse victories.
Maybe I'm wrong here but a strategy to conduct a war should include winning it. And, the exit strategy should be "We come home after we have thorougly destroyed the desire in people to attack us again". I may be overly simplistic, but what works on a school yard will work in the world. Somebdy comes at you, you beat them so bad the last thing they ever want to do is mess with you again. Our foreign policy should be one sentence,"We can be your best friend or your worst nightmare." Simple but effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)