Update from the
Heartland
No.730
7.12.15 – 13.12.15
To all,
The
22nd anniversary of Jeanne’s 39th birthday occurred this
week. Jeanne wanted to take a
mini-vaca, so we spent a couple of days at the Winstar Hotel & Casino in
Thackerville, Oklahoma, just north of the Red River and the border with Texas. We enjoyed an excellent birthday dinner
– lobster and salmon, respectively.
Even better, she won a healthy chunk of change the first night and
played the rest of our stay with their money. I got some good writing time and the pleasure of her
company.
We
know it has to happen someday – not this year. Army-17, Navy-21; 14th straight victory. This was a back and forth, close
game. Well done, Army, but
congratulations, Navy. Go
Navy-Beat Army. May the Good Lord
bless all those who serve to protect freedom in this Grand Republic regardless
of the uniform color.
Plenty
of Press and Talking Head prognostications regarding the latest outrageous
pronouncement from the front-runner Republican presidential candidate saturated
all media this week.
“Trump Calls for 'Complete Shutdown' on Muslims Entering U.S.”
by Jill Colvin and Bruce Smith
Associated Press
Published: Dec 7, 8:11 PM EST
The Republican front-runner garnered near universal condemnation,
and yet, as noted in the Comment Section below and interviews of his
supporters, more than a few citizens support his statement, at least in a
form. I cannot imagine such a
proposal making it through Congress or surviving any judicial review of an executive
order attempting to implement a religious test for entry into this Grand
Republic. Such a sweeping, broad,
blanket religious filter for immigration or entry visa defies the rigors and
tumult of our history and the very principles this Grand Republic was founded
upon. His statement is about as
un-American as it gets. Religion
simply cannot be a criterion for public action or conduct . . . period!
That
said, I readily admit and acknowledge that bad guys are infiltrating European
and other western countries, including Canada and the United States of America. No person from anywhere should be
admitted to this country or any other freedom-loving nation, if they represent
a threat or potential threat to the safety and security of the country. Should we be concerned about the
political motives of anyone, refugee or not, attempting to enter this
country? Yes, absolutely, without
question or doubt! If we had such
a threat test in place when Tashfeen Malik [729] came to this country( 2010), she would not have passed. If there is a threat to this Grand
Republic, it is the failure of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration
reform and properly fund a robust, multi-layered Customs and Border Protection
service. Let us reject
demonization of an entire religion, based on the violent action of a fraction
of those Islam adherents. Let us
focus on the bad guys and not the majority of good people who seek the values
and principles of this Grand Republic.
We are better than that.
Related
to the above opinion, the following article is quite relevant.
"Misleading political statements may hit unprecedented high in
2016, pundits say”
by Dave Helling
Wichita
Eagle
Published: DECEMBER 9, 2015
The
U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for review in the case of Friedman
v. City of Highland Park, no.15-133 – a suburban Chicago ban of
“assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” [more than ten (10)
rounds]. Justices Thomas and
Scalia dissented in the denial.
The Supreme Court order thus affirms the 7th Circuit’s appeal
review of the case from the district court. The City’s ordinance further allows residents within its
jurisdiction 60 days to move subject items outside the city limits. As Justice Thomas notes in his dissenting
opinion, the 7th Circuit’s reasoning and the Supreme Court refusal
to review the decision draws into question the two most recent Court rulings on
the Second
Amendment – District of Columbia v. Heller [554
U.S. 570 (2008); 26.6.2008] [342];
and McDonald
v. Chicago [561 U.S. 742 (2010); 28.6.2010] [448]. Whether the Friedman
ruling signals an evolutionary shift in the Supreme Court regarding
every citizen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms is a question that
will have to wait for another day.
The Friedman order certainly brings a more confused state and
implicitly invites other government jurisdictions to challenge the Second Amendment.
Congress
passed and the President signed the latest pork barrel laden law on the back of
the much-needed highway-funding bill – Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST
Act)
[PL 114-094; H.R.22; Senate: 83-16-0-1(0); House: 359-65-0-9(2); 129
Stat. 1312]. Well, at least we
can be thankful for the bipartisan effort to maintain the federal roadways and
surface transport infrastructure of this Grand Republic, even if we must pay
for it with the largesse of our representatives in Congress.
This
offering from a long-term contributor began a long thread that may be useful to
other readers.
“Here's a cheering reality versus the stuff we get from spies and
others.
“Check this out:
“Just How Dangerous Is Terrorism, Really?”
My response:
Interesting
stuff . . . yet, there is a huge fundamental difference between disease, or
accidents, and someone trying to kill you . . . just because.
I
do not lose sleep fretting about terrorists. Then again, I do not live or work in New York City or
Washington, DC.
I
do not see the situation as a conspiracy for dictatorial or autocratic
governance.
Round Two:
“I do not lose time or sleep over this simply because I have more
important risks to address. I'm four times more likely to be struck by
lightning than killed by terrorists. Automobiles, illnesses, and armed drunks
present far greater threats than either lightning or terrorists.
“I do not see the ‘terrorist’ scare as a conscious working
together of its participants, except possibly a few corporate people. What I do
see is the most ordinary psychology at work. These people (most of those
involved) see a chance to make a buck or gain power and they take it. They
disregard consequences to others without ever thinking about them, much like
other narcissists and/or sociopaths. Those consequences for the rest of us
include the military casualties and their families, the innocent civilian
casualties in the hundreds of thousands abroad, the convictions by entrapment
of people who are basically mentally ill, and the absurd waste of tax dollars
that we need desperately for better causes. We could be re-building highways,
improving safety technology, doing medical research, and figuring out how to
prevent suicides. All of those together would cost far less money than the ‘terrorism’
scare and any one of them would save far more lives than the ‘war’ on
terrorism.
“I know very well that you are aware of the ‘autocratic governance’
issue. We have discussed the so-called PATRIOT and its expansions and
extensions and also the essentially-unregulated NSA. I still do not see how you
insist on people's freedom in personal matters then turn right around and
support spying on us. Your arguments that the spies involved will stay within
their mandate do not stand up to even one instance in history. The stated end
will be ignored whenever it would block someone's impulse. People don't
actually stick to those statements of intent. Psychology again explains where
logic does not follow. If we give people power, they use it as they see fit,
regardless of what we thought we said they should do. They misinterpret or
justify pretty much whatever they're moved to do. Power corrupts; absolute
power corrupts absolutely.”
My response to round two:
You
and I do not live in New York City or Washington, DC, thus we are far less
likely to be targets of the terrorists.
It would be interesting to see how the terror attack statistic narrow
when the population is defined by the likely targeting.
You
may well be correct in your contention that the terrorist threat is being
intentionally over-inflated to feed the military-industrial complex. I cannot argue against that
supposition. Yet, what would you
propose we do? If we take the ‘no
threat’ argument to its end point, we are relegating some citizens to being
ablative sacrificial buffers for the rest of us. As we see in this forum, perhaps President Obama has gone
too far in the other direction from President Bush (43). There is an argument there.
I
think you may be overstating my position somewhat. Further, you may well be correct . . . the camel’s nose
& all . . . regarding any domestic surveillance and the potential intrusion
by the USG into our fundamental right to privacy. I am just as uncomfortable as you apparently are. Yet, the warrior in me also recognizes
reality. We chose to ignore the
unfunded weaknesses in our border and immigration controls. So, like it or not, the bad guys are
among us. How do we find
them before they can kill, as they most assuredly will attempt to do? Does it have to happen to you and me to
believe we must do something? I am
not interested in giving the USG more power over our lives, but I am focused on
finding the terrorists among us, whether they shout “Allahu akbar,” or “Heil
Hitler” before they pull the trigger.
Likewise, I do not ever want to see the USG abuses Eliot Spitzer
suffered, either. Where is the
balance point?
Round Three:
“The supposedly increased threat in large population centers does
not correspond to any action of which I am aware since 9/11. Certainly San
Bernardino is not large. The
attack on 9/11 was probably a genuine terrorist effort by a small faction as
discussed earlier. The response was what got us into this.
“I do not accept your distinction. That distinction is used to
abuse you. Let's face it, dead is final whatever way it occurs. Let's try to
prevent that.
“I never said there was ‘no’ threat. I merely called attention to
the work of those who have studied the relative threat of ‘terrorism’ compared
to other threats. Terrorism ranks far the list of fatal events. We are wasting
vast sums of money and too many lives combating something that kills less of us
than almost any other cause, and all we get for that is an increased risk of
terrorism due to ever-rising numbers of people in the Middle East who have
literally nothing to lose (family, home, job). They know very well that U.S.
bombs, drones, and soldiers (or U.S.-supported soldiers) caused that. Ideals
have no role in survivors' decisions once the person's life is gone. They have
to do something for shelter and food. Those who can flee are doing so, but
others are fed and sheltered by the terrorists. C'est la vie. Everyone
will strive to live somehow, no matter what others say.
“We can both decrease that risk and save far more lives by minding
our own business. Our economy would benefit from better use of tax dollars. Let
the Russians get bogged down. They seem to have forgotten their adventure in
Afghanistan.”
My reply to round three:
Yes,
absolutely, without question or doubt, absent all the spending fighting
terrorism, we would have more funds available for domestic projects for the
common good.
Surely,
you must admit, there are bad people – men, women and children – out there who
want to kill Americans, Europeans, any freedom-loving people who fail to
embrace their distorted version of radical fundamentalist Islam. You have freely and abundantly offered
your criticism of those trying to protect us, so your objections are not
debatable; they are what they are.
What I would really like to hear is what you propose we do about those
bad folks out there who seek to kill our fellow citizens? If what we are doing is patently wrong,
then what is the correct way for us to protect our citizens from harm at the
hands of those bad folks out there and among us?
I
have long understood and embraced the warrior’s mantra – the best defense is a
good offense.
Round Four:
“That's where I started.
Treat those few actual ‘bad people’ as the criminals they are. If we
allow the rest of the Middle Eastern people the chance, they will get back to
their lives. That's what almost everyone does if they can. The ‘bad people’
(actual terrorists motivated by destruction of Westerners) were few until we
gave them the status and recruiting resource of treating them like a nation
instead of a few hundred ragged insane people. They will fade back into the
scenery if we stop giving them the importance they seek and allowing/assisting
them to achieve exactly what they tell recruits they are going to do.”
My reply to round four:
Re:
simple criminals. Law enforcement
has very rarely been able to intercede to prohibit crime. With constitutional rights, e.g., freedom
of speech, assembly, due process, equal protection and such, law enforcement is
largely relegated to reacting to crime, to arresting and prosecuting
criminals. Given our resistance to
intelligence operations and the hobbling of law enforcement, we are moving
farther from preventative toward reactive. Since these particular ‘criminals’ are in the business of
killing and destruction, reactive means people die, property is destroyed. I am struggling with seeing that as a
better, more informed, more progressive approach. I don’t want another drop of American blood spilled by the
jihadis; reactive makes that far more likely. So, let’s say I am wrong on this as well. What tools would you give law
enforcement to prevent these
particular criminals from killing?
Round five:
“That applies to any kind of crime and is an especially good
argument for registering firearms and keeping violent criminals from acquiring
them. The facts remain the same:
few Americans die from terrorism, and the means we employ in this ‘war’ only
aggravate the problem. Xenophobia is not a logical argument.”
My reply to round five:
Indeed! Except there is one small, little
difference as I noted earlier. The
‘criminals’ we’re talking about in this discussion are in the business of
killing and shutting down Western society, causing us to cower in our homes in
fear . . . not stealing something, beating up someone, or robbing a bank.
As
I read your words, it sounds like we should withdraw from the world, pretend
the oceans will save us, and ignore the threats beyond our borders . . . well,
as least until the ‘criminals’ decide to act inside this Grand Republic . . .
then we should arrest them, try them, convict them and fill our already
overcrowded prisons with radical fundamentalist jihadi Muslims. That does not seem to be a successful
plan for protecting our citizens.
Re:
xenophobia. Who has suggested
xenophobia?
Round Six:
“You don't see xenophobia here? Wow.
“At the time they pulled off 9/11, al-Qaeda had around 600
adherents. They scraped together enough to pull off their famous operation.
That's a band of criminals at work, with no difference in structure or attitude
from the violent anarchists of a century ago, the Red Army, or current-day ‘citizen
militias.’ All of those are or were treated as criminals. However, al-Qaeda so
stunned the U.S. on 9/11 that Bush 43 (or whoever owned him) saw a huge
opportunity. Little Bush had the lowest approval ratings of any President in
history on 9/10. This was his chance to look like a leader rather than the
bumbling crook he is. Hence all that followed. We have almost built ISIL into a
nation by treating al-Qaeda and its successors as nations and by ruining what
had been sovereign nations that got in our way. (I don't bother trying to
follow the various groups and alliances over there any more.) None of that has
had an appreciable effect on events here in the U.S.A., except for dead and
wounded soldiers and the drain on our national economy.
“What I would do comes closer to your derisive comment than you
would believe, because I have come to believe that most of the ‘threat’ is
either delusional or self-caused. I would first replace the entire cast of
characters at top two or three levels of the various defense and spy agencies
with people whose outlook is more sober and who have no allegiance or debt to
any company serving the defense or spy establishment. Even if we lose something
in ‘expertise,’ the gain in objectivity would more than balance that.
Proceeding from there, I would reduce the defense budget, the largest in the
world by far, to no more than twice the second-largest in the world for the
simple reasons that nobody needs that much military and it's not useful in the
current mode of fighting. That would pretty much solve the budget problem as an
added benefit. Then we could proceed with determining the real risk, if any,
and addressing it with the help of our allies. (That assumes we have genuine
allies rather than client states.)”
My reply to round six:
Surely
you are not accusing me of xenophobia?
If so, I must be blind. I
have tried to be very precise with my words.
I
think you have seriously understated al-Qa’ida, but only you can convince
yourself of that. Let it suffice
to say, al-Qa’ida has been attacking U.S. and Western interests since it formed
in 1988 . . . long before 9/11.
The attack of 9/11 was simply the most successful and dramatic of their
attacks. Some, and here I will say
experts on that region, will argue attacks began even before the group
coalesced. So, whether we label
those bad guys as simple criminals or Islamo-fascist terrorists, let us not
underestimate our adversary . . . an often fatal mistake in warfighting or
crime prevention.
Re:
President Bush (43). I do not
share your opinion. Yet, I will
say again, he made a terrible mistake in trying to fight the Battle of Iraq on
the cheap and not secure the country once Hussein was deposed, and that mistake
certainly contributed to the creation of al-Qa’ida in Iraq and eventually ISIL
. . . from the disenfranchised Iraqi Army Sunni officers and soldiers.
Re:
ISIL impact. I believe you are
understating the threat and impact ISIL has, does and will have on our
infrastructure, our interests in world commerce, and the interests of our
friends and allies.
There
are some arguable points in your proposal. From your proposal, I surmise you feel the so-called war on
terror, or as I call it the War on Islamo-fascism, is predominately a matter of
misguided domestic politics and the self-sustaining, self-directed, “feed me,”
military-industrial complex (of Eisenhower’s admonition). Thus, if we breakdown what is, we will
be safer. To take the inference,
the ‘criminal’ threat from al-Qa’ida, ISIL, AQIM, al-Shabab, et al, is not
worthy of interdictive action? If
so, then by your proposal we simply wait until they act, then arrest and
imprison them (since we are headed toward no capital punishment). Is that about correct?
Congress
moved quickly to amend the law regarding the Visa Waiver Program applicable to
38 identified, friendly nations.
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 158, provisionally titled the
Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015 by an overwhelming margin [407-19-0-7(2)]. The bill must make it through the
Senate and any necessary joint reconciliation process. This bill is a long way from the needed
immigration reform, but if it comes, the legislation would compel greater, more
thorough communications with the subject nations. At this stage, the bill looks like a good move.
Contributions
from Update no.728:
“Not sure why, but I did not receive an Update No.729 which should
have been last Monday.
“Yes, Thanksgiving is in fact my favorite holiday of the year.
“I agree, I do not think the situation, conditions, trends, will
improve in Syria, a proxy sphere, for USA, Russia, NATO (Turkey), etc.
“You mentioned Carly Fiorina in Update No.728, it will be
interesting to watch the circus from Las Vegas on Tuesday evening on CNN, the
last GOP debate this year. I have a funny feeling it is going to get more
explosive, divisive and entertaining, as we get closer to the
selection-election.
“On the climate talks, COP21, alleged success in Paris, I do agree
that we have not been at all, good stewards of this wonderful Earth. Industrial pollution and deforestation,
I reckon could bring devastating consequences, not to mention the consequences
of other abuse. The key, as you
mention, is whether Climate Change is directly attributable to man or part of
natural historic cycles. I think
we all agree on that. As you know,
many believe the powers-that-be and military powers capable of doing such, have
the capacity to modify weather. To
what degree, most of us do not know, and if on a large scale, I am sure such
programs/assets are protected by national security.
“On population, the big problem it produces coupled with emerging
industrialization economies, is resource wars. Obviously drinking water is going to become scarce in more
cities. Then you have India that
has so many in their population still without electricity, so they are bringing
coal burning plants on-line, which will contribute to airborne pollution and
said Greenhouse Gases. You might
recall that classic document by The Club of Rome, I believe entitled The Limits
to Growth. Didn't that document
state a sustainable global population of 500-million people (or am I thinking
of The Population Bomb book?). There
have been some solutions to large populations and their demand of resources,
examples with be the desalination plants in the Middle East.
“True, it seems we face some interesting times on primarily the
potential Cold War version 2.0 with Russia (and China). The ISIS issue, the divisive issues on
our domestic front, our economic challenges, and a whole host of other
issues. Having said that, I would bet the citizens during the
Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW-I, and WW-II, likely sensed dire times. Hopefully solutions are found,
opportunities crafted, to, as they say...de-conflict the potential flash-points
in geopolitics. I wish I could be
rosy about the global village and everyone getting along in multiculturalism
and difference in religion, but I tend to think we are on a downward track and
I do not believe we will see solutions on those fronts, anytime soon.”
My response:
I
have no idea what happened. If you
ever miss a distribution, you can always find the Update on-line. I post the Blog on-line first, and then
distribute to the list. The URL: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com.
Re:
next Republican debate. Indeed . .
. should be quite interesting. I
believe it is the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire
primary election. The real voting
is about to begin. I suspect as
the field tightens, we shall bear witness to even worse political behavior. Heck, now, they are even talking about
a brokered convention, which has not happened in a good many years.
Re:
climate change. The issue of
climate change is an intriguing and curious, scientific question. Yet, weaning ourselves off fossil fuels
is an imperative regardless of whether human activity has caused climate
change. The weaning process must
be intelligent and orderly, or the disruption of life as we know it will be far
more injurious.
Re:
population. I do not recall the
500M threshold. We passed that
level a long time ago. To my
amazement and disappointment, we still have societies and cultures (and
individuals) reproducing well beyond the population maintenance level of 2.2
children per productive couple, e.g., the Duggers. Rampant reproduction should be viewed as just as threatening
as burning fossil fuels . . . if not more so.
Comments and contributions from Update no.729:
“Sorry to hear the concert was a bust for you. Too bad it was so much noise and not
the music you were hoping to hear. It made me think about a musical
experience I had a few years ago. [My wife] and I went to Phoenix
Symphony Hall. The venue for the
evening was simply entitled something like Music of the Movies; no list of
specifics. Now, there was one score among all others that I had
fantasized for years about hearing performed live. My expectations were
high, as I could not conceive of this particular score being neglected.
The lights went down and the symphony began to play. The kettle drums led off
with that unmistakable sound of the into to the Academy award winning score by
Maurice Jarre from 1962’s Lawrence of
Arabia. My skin was crawling with goose bumps. I have tears in my eyes now just
thinking about the experience as I write this, as I had tears in my eyes then
as the symphony progressed through that score of scores. Wow! An unbelievable concert experience I will remember for all
time. So, Cap, check out your
local symphony for a better concert experience. You might get a super
wonderful surprise as I did.”
My reply:
Thank
you for the suggestion. We have
been to the Wichita Symphony many times.
The last experience was my favorite – Beethoven’s 9th Symphony;
I can never hear it enough times.
Just
a related FYI: we saw the Rolling Stones in concert at Wichita State
University’s Cessna Stadium a few years back. We thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I thought it was probably the most memorable rock
concert since I saw Chuck Berry at the Fillmore Auditorium in Haight-Ashbury,
San Francisco, in 1968, with a then little know local band opening for him –
Big Brother and the Holding Company.
According
to our daughter, we were the only ones who did not enjoy the Garth Brooks
concert last Saturday night. Oh
well. C’est la vie.
. . . with this shift in contribution:
“With regard to the disparaging comments directed toward Mr. Trump
and Leonard Pitts statement: ‘Trump giving the people what they seem to want.’
I contend he at least is not giving the entitlement base what they want in
terms of more free stuff, nor is he promising to do so. He is not
interested in growing a voter base for himself. I applaud his desire to
speak his mind. And with regard to
Lincoln’s statement, I am want to point out how many people were fooled into
voting for Obama the first time and then again a second time. And when I watch the Jesse Waters’
interviews on TV I am witness to the obliviousness and pitiful and painful
naiveté of the ignorant general populace, and I clearly see how so many people
can be fooled by the likes of those that have led their respective countries
down the toilet.
“Speaking of a country going down the toilet, I just finished
reading Hitlerland by Andrew Nagorski. This is the story of the
demise of America by the divisive and dictatorial rule under the Obama regime. This is what I told an inquisitive woman
sitting next to me on a flight recently when she asked what the book was about.
Dead silence. The book was
about the perspective of American journalists, embassy personnel, and others
working in Germany in the years following WWI and leading up to WWII. A different look than Shirer’s
comprehensive Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, the book illustrates how many
fell under the spell of Hitler, while others saw the forthcoming devastation
but were powerless to get prominent leaders to heed their observations.
And for another look at WWII, I am now reading Killing Patton?
. . . to which I replied:
We
are all entitled to our opinions, and each of us has a vote.
You
are apparently far more generous to the current Republican front-runner than I
will ever be. I appreciate frank
speaking. I am not a fan of
political correctness. However, I
think respecting the diversity of others is essential to a viable
democracy. We shall see how this
silly season plays out.
I’ve
not read the Naborski book and probably will not do so.
I
also do not subscribe to the notion the United States is in decline. We have endured hard times before. We shall grow stronger from this period
as well. I will not use the word
‘toilet’ and ‘United States’ in the same sentence or context.
. . . and this follow-up comment:
“Just wanted to put my opinion out there as you do. Obviously, my expressed generosity
toward the Republican front-runner is arguable. He has his faults, but I
see him as being better than what we presently have or what we could have if
the free stuff voters get their way.
“With regard to the U.S. being in a state of decline due to a
blatant lack of leadership or not, that would certainly make for a great
debate, but I am afraid I do not have the time or the headroom to devote to
such scholarly endeavors. Perhaps when I am retired. Yes, we have endured hard times before. But, we desperately need a leader that
does not effuse divisiveness, can take responsibility for his or her actions,
and can hold others responsible for their actions.
“Okay, maybe the toilet reference was a little strong, but I
believe I got my point across.
“And from a military point of view, Marine to Marine, would you
not deny that Obama is the worst Commander-in-Chief of all time?”
. . . my follow-up reply:
I
invite you and everyone to voice your opinions just as I do. I make no claim and offer no pretense
to being correct. I just think a
vigorous public debate is essential to any viable democracy. Disagreement is vital to the refinement
of our opinions.
Re:
the Republican front-runner. We
shall respectfully disagree, my friend.
He has far too many critical character flaws for my acceptance, and he
is shallow and purposefully offensive – those are destructive qualities. I see none of those attributes as being
worthy of the presidency. For
someone who has never served under arms or stood watch on the wall in harm’s
way, he vomits bravado that I believe will unnecessarily spill the blood of
patriots to feed his ego. He
certainly and masterfully tapped into the general disgust with the conduct of
the Washington politicians of both parties. I just feel dissent is not a sufficient reason to favor
someone as offensive as he is.
Re:
presidential attributes. I share
your list as far as it went. That
said, I apparently give President Obama more credit than others do . . . such
is life. I also gave President
Bush (43) more credit than the opposition did, yet I vehemently disagreed with
his decision to go into Iraq on the cheap; that decision got more people killed
than need be.
I
simply state for the record, this Grand Republic – the United States of America
– is not in decline. We are
certainly being shaken by political forces that are NOT healthy. Yet, I believe . . . this too shall
pass. We shall be stronger once we
pop out the other side of this nonsense.
Re:
Marine to Marine. President Obama
is NOT the worst commander-in-chief of all time. In fact, I will say, he is far from perfect, and there are
many things he has done or espouses that I disagree with, but worst . . . no, I
do not agree . . . Marine to Marine.
. . . a supplemental side note for everyone’s
benefit:
“I forgot to tell you I was down to Quantico a couple of weeks ago
on business. Fortunately we had
some extra time and I talked my coworker into stopping at the Marine Corps
Museum. That was my sixth time
there. Have you been yet? A great museum, to say the least.
My sixth time and still very moving.”
. . . my reply to the supplemental:
Unfortunately,
I have not been back to Quantico since The Basic School (1970/1), so I have not
had the pleasure. You are not
alone in your praise for the Marine Corps Museum. It is on my list of ‘to do’s. I’ve not been back to the Air & Space Museum since the
Hazy center was completed, either.
I have a lot of things I need to do. I hope your co-worker appreciated the visit as well.
. . . and one last comment to the supplemental:
“I have been to the Udvar-Hazy facility twice, also a very
worthwhile visit if you are in the area. Yes, my coworker appreciated the
visit to the Marine Corps Museum. He was Navy, in SEAL School until he got injured, and then
UH-60 ASW aboard carriers.”
A different
contribution:
“Your observation, ‘we are beginning to see the peaceful,
reasonable Muslims rise up against the Islamo-fascists who misrepresent their
religion,’ seems to me to be far too generous toward the majority of Muslims,
who are years behind in specifically and publicly rejecting the teachings of
their religion that serve to inspire Islamic terrorists. I see little of
any such trend. Unfortunately,
this also somehow inspires fundamentalist Christians to respond at their worst,
listening to their own demons.
“Our president's personal history of Muslim roots and radical
associations, echoed in some of his early written declarations of sympathy and
even fidelity toward Islam and perfectly consistent with his current reluctance
to risk offending Muslims by demanding that they act meaningfully against
radical Islam, is the irrefutable background for his characteristic lack of
patriotic leadership in this regard. I will not give him a pass on this,
but alas, I must admit that there is not much point in trying to convince
anyone of this truth, unless it can somehow be used to defeat Hillary by
association. He has already done most of his damage to our country, and
he cannot undo the results of mistakes by two Bushes, so we would do better to
hold our noses and back the POTUS now in whatever he says about limiting our
involvement in the middle east while vastly strengthening out homeland security
(without inviting trouble in the form of inadequately vetted refugees).”
My response:
Re:
too generous. Perhaps, I will
grant you that. I will only say
that recent machismo, bravado, pandering, political rhetoric from one
presidential candidate is playing directly and precisely to the ISIL
playbook. He is giving them
exactly what they seek. ISIL wants
a resurrection of the crusades, to stimulate Christians into a centuries long
blood letting in the name of religion – Christianity vs. Islam. And, what did they crusades accomplish? Islam grew and spread rapidly across
all of North Africa, into Spain, and to the very heart of Europe. Vilifying an entire religion is
ABSOLUTELY NOT the path to defeating ISIL, al-Qa’ida, and other rabid
ideological violent movements. We
need to seek out, embrace and encourage the moderate and liberal Muslims to
help us defeat the rabid aberration among us. We need to engage, to get deeper into Islam . . . NOT push
them away. Please recall my
earlier contention; Islam is 600 years behind in moderation and tolerance. We need to help them mature at a faster
pace than Christianity was able to mature. Fueling yet another religious war is simply wrong in so many
ways.
He
said, “We have no idea whether they love us or hate us.” He is more correct than not. Yet, his reaction is exactly
wrong. Instead of pushing them
away, we need to get closer, not farther away.
Re:
“Our president's personal history of Muslim roots and radical
associations.” Simply put,
I do NOT agree with your assessment of President Obama. Also, I do not agree with the President
on a number of issues, but I do agree with his softer, more diplomatic approach
to international affairs. The
Obama administration has tried mightily to engage the rest of the
freedom-loving peoples rather than beat on his chest like a Silverback Mountain
Gorilla and charge any threat.
I
still believe we should welcome refugees as we did in 1845, 1945, 1975 and
other periods as oppressed or abused people sought freedom. My paternal ancestors fled France in
1686, to escape religious persecution.
Let us remain true to the heritage of this Grand Republic . . . rather
than reject our heritage in some emotional, knee-jerk, ill-informed reaction.
The
kind of division, isolation and xenophobia being promoted by one presidential
candidate (and I must say, I am reticent to give him that honorable title) will
NOT strengthen this Grand Republic.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“Well said, but erroneous. I guess our only disagreement is
over the difference between the composition of the refugees of history that you
mention and the composition of the refugees from Muslim countries today.
Your compassion is admirable, and the words of tolerance are unarguable,
but naïveté in the face of modern facts is surprising and dangerous. Trump is inarticulate and blunt about
it, but he is dead right about the dangers of un-vetted admission of all
Muslims. If we would just postpone extending our open arms and demand
moderate Muslim leadership against Islamic fundamentalism in return for
ultimate safe havens, we would be respected for both our wisdom and our
compassion. I fear the bleeding heart syndrome, heavily supported by the
main stream media, has blinded many well-meaning Americans, and the Islamic
State leaders must be laughing their heads off.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Well,
first, I do not see my error . . . refugees are refugees whether from a potato
famine, world war or civil war.
Re:
“un-vetted admissions.” I do not
know anyone, including the Obama administration, who is arguing in favor of un-vetted
admissions of any kind for any group.
While I will not and cannot claim any vetting process in 1845, there was
a vetting process in 1945. Even Jews
trying to escape the Holocaust in 1941 were vetted. Nazis, and here I mean hard-core NSDAP members in good
standing, were vetted and still allowed into this country, because we needed
their “skills” in combating the Red Menace. So, let us vet these ‘refugees.’ Where we are able, we should allow them refuge. Where we cannot, sorry . . . “no soup
for you.” I suspect the vetting
process may yield some bad guys, which would be a double benefit. Banning all Muslims is about as
un-American as it gets, IMHO.
Comment to the Blog:
“The correct name of the place in the news at San Bernardino is ‘Inland
Empire Regional Center,’ not ‘Inland Regional Center.’ ‘Inland Empire’ is the
regional label for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, in the same sense as ‘Space
Coast’ is used for the area around Cape Canaveral.
“The ‘War on Terror’ cannot be won. It's not a war. Pretty much
every large society in the world has a faction of violent anarchists, typically
small. The USA has our militias and others, various nations have the Red Army
or similar groups, and the Muslim nations have the Wahabi and a few others.
Until 9/11, the criminal acts of such people were always treated as crimes, all
the way back to the story about the Romans' execution of Jesus because his
enemies alleged he claimed to be ‘King of the Jews.’ The Bush 43
Administration's mistaken response to 9/11 gave what had been a few ragtag
radicals the status of a nation in the eyes of both Arabs and Muslims. That has
made a great deal of money for the military-industrial complex since then and
has increased the power of the spy community and their allies/owners beyond the
restrictions of the Constitution. However, the ‘terrorists’ we treat as nations
cannot be handled as we would handle a nation that attacked us. They have no
stable territory to conquer, no formal government to force into submission, and
no economy or infrastructure to be damaged. It only aggravates the situation
that we continue to treat them as nations. Now the Russians have joined in this
foolishness as well as our lapdog ‘allies.’ All of this only serves the
often-stated goals of Al-Qaeda and its successors--bleeding our resources,
damaging our leadership in the world, and dividing us.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
“Inland Regional Center.” You did
not offer an authority or source for your suggested ‘proper’ name. According to the organization’s official
website, which I have no reason to doubt, the proper title, label or name is as
I reported. Wikipedia reflects a
previous title of: Inland Counties Regional Center. I suspect ‘Inland Empire’ is a local colloquialism.
Re:
“War on Terror.” You make valid
points, which are more applicable to al-Qa’ida and its affiliates, i.e.,
ideological organizations focused upon infiltration of existing governmental
systems. They did not outwardly
seek territory, although ultimately they seek the domination of Islam in
regions, e.g., Taliban. ISIL is
different. Their mission is
domination of territory – a caliphate – a ‘theocratic’ nation-state, the Sunni
version of the Shi’a Islamic Republic of Iran. Ideological terrorist organizations have been beaten, e.g.,
Red Army Faction, Symbionese Liberation Army, et cetera. I do agree using conventional forces in
ideological insurgency operations is not a high yield endeavor. From my perspective, the Obama
administration appears to have taken a more realistic approach to dealing with
the various terrorist groups, although there is always room for improvement.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
