Guest Blogger

I found this to be a very interesting piece of military blog. It was authored by a former 1SG of mine. He has a great plan for how deployments should work in the military. It calls for longer deployments of units...and normal rotations for individual soldiers. It is a very interesting yet controversial article. Please do not pass judgment prior to reading. It does require some military history and if you have any questions please feel free to ask before you pass judgment. Click on the title Guest Blogger and it will take you directly to his webpage...particularly the blog in question.

Mit

Liberals are lambs in sheeps clothing.

In a perfect world, liberals will succeed. In our world however, there are men/countries/terrorists out there poised to strike to attempt to topple America. To continue to show a lack of faith in our own country and government (regardless of their standing) - I DONT CARE IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT - is doing nothing more than encouraging and fueling international terrorism.

Let me share with you a story about a Vietnam veteran who was captured and interrogated by the North Vietnamese. During one interrogation the North Vietnamese officer showed him a picture of an anti-war liberal phony (who still ranks above Bill Clinton and other spineless, yellow, draft dodging lower than slime, well you get my point) burning an American Flag. The officer told the American POW that his cause was worthless, because even the people back home didn't agree with him being over there. The POW responded that no, it meant that he was doing a good job, that the freedoms he fought for are shown right in that photograph.

Another story, about a Vietnam vet, captured and interred in inhumane conditions. Using scraps of his uniform and other fabrics, made a hand sewn American flag. When his captures found it, they beat him to within an inch of his life. When they returned him to his cell, he did not cower and conform to the whims of the enemy, he did not submit and think all was lost - he started sewing another flag.

Continuing to listen to this anti-government propaganda makes me physically ill. Instead of doing something about the wrong in this world, some people have instead chose to voice their aggression and disagreements towards the wrong source. No war has ever been started on a gentleman's terms. Wars are ugly necessities, started by ugly reasons, to protect the greater good. Is it not worth more to protect what is most dear, the freedom and greatness of America, than to become objects of violence, unable to retaliate against our enemies because we have become cowering, peace loving beatniks? I would vote for a war mongering republican rather than have someone with absolutely no military experience or training attempting to lead the Greatest Army in the World against the enemies of the state. Clinton proved rather inept at running the country, he ran away from conflict when he was a young man, and cowered behind it again as President.

I am afraid to see what will happen to this country if Obama is elected. If you don't like this country, which guaranteed you did not choose, no one selects where they are too be born - leave. You have to take the good with the bad.

Jet Blue joins the anti-consumer revolution

Charging for pillows and blankets? On already cramped flights because they cram as many seats as possible to make money now those travelers flying on economized airlines for cheaper prices are being hit.

What charges await us? I can see it now:

"Passengers with tickets in rows a through d may board now. Those wishing to use the jetway please have your five dollar surcharge ready. Those who wish to save money please proceed to the runway where a rope ladder has been erected to allow you to board the plane."

But then if we elect a socialist president, (ahem...read Obama) he will make a windfall tax for the airline industry in order to "share" the weath to lessen the blow of $7 dollar cokes and $10 pillows.

My response to your response...

I see that Mit has responded to my post on Cheney, and not surprisingly has totally diverted away from the subject at hand by spewing out the typical socialist jabs that usually come out when someone has something to expose about this great government of ours. Mit- DO YOU REALLY THINK IT IS OKAY TO HAVE YOUR GOVERNMENT KILL YOUR OWN PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF STARTING A WAR??
I don't think it is. And this only proves the point more how brainwashed people become; so much that you would defend a false flag attack against your own country.
*****So, please, no one be shocked if you see a "surprise" attack on the US, come sometime in September or October (right before the election).*****
Oh and I also see how impressionable you have become, Mit, for the simple fact that you are using the same war mongering vocabulary and attempting to stir up the same polarizing nonsense that your current president does: "All of these anti-war propagandists are going to be cowering in fear while real Americans defend this land." -------Alright well that says it....I guess I'm not a real American. As far as I know, I was born a US citizen. As far as I know, I have voted since I was 18. As far as I know, I am an advocate of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights).
Now I can make the argument that no one except Native Americans are real Americans, but I'm not going to go there right at this moment. I'm going to say this: If your definition of an American is a person who will support its government no matter how illegal and/or immoral the activity, then NO, I'm not an American.....because I'm one of the few people in this country who realize that there is such a thing as choice. I thought that is what we stood for?? I have a good quote for you that I recently read somewhere:
"No man escapes when freedom fails;
The best men rot in filthy jails.
And those that cried "Appease! Appease"!
Are hanged by those they tried to please."


~~Sej

LIberal Socialism

So instead of going to war with destabilizing forces throughout the world, and policing up the scum that threatens on a daily basis the sovereignty of Israel, we should elect a president who wants to conform the Republic of the United States of America from a free Republic, a democracy of freedom, into an introverted socialist nation with windfall taxes on profits going to everyone while ignoring the worlds problems?

Lets face it, the world is not the same as it was sixty years ago, isolationism is dead. President Ahmadinejad has defied the fact that the Holocaust exists. Openly taunts the United Nations, disrespects anti-nuclear proliferation treaties; confronted a U.S. flagship in NON Iranian waters, yet we should still allow him to continue to operate under such rouges? Its almost embarrassing the way some people are trying to assimilate the United States into Cuba, while we are attempting to defeat Communism and bring freedom to the people of Cuba. While Tehran denied the incident at first, it came out that there was a confrontation between Iranian speed boats and a U.S. Flagship. Iran was not in Iranian waterspace, and therefore violated the sovereignty of Iraq and its ally, the United States who are operating with the permission of the Iraqi government. The commentator in the piece submitted by Sej attempts to illiterate his propaganda and meaning into a written description of a conversation that he received from a third party. No war is started for a good reason, but there are good outcomes to war.

I cannot wait for the day the United States is invaded by another country, because the time will come. People think there is an insurgency in Iraq? I can name a number of people who own small arsenals of personal weapons, (all legally held) that will not stand to have their rights trampled on. All of these anti-war propagandists are going to be cowering in fear while real Americans defend this land.

I have a thought, that one day we will all stand before a judge on judgment day. And next to whatever deity you believe will be there to greet you into the heavenly abyss of Nirvana, will be George Washington and the signors of the Constitution. After your deity passes judgment, it will be the founders turn. Any all too many will hear these great men utter the following words,

"How dare you defile that which we created."

Hmmm...In Order to Provoke War With Iran, Cheney Proposes False Flag Attack

Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist for the New Yorker, shares with us this:



So to add to all the dishonesty and lack of concern for human lives, the admin strikes again..... but the idea was shot down........Aww too bad. I guess you'll have to come up with a legitimate reason to go to war with Iran....well legitimacy might be a stretch for the administration. So, on to the next!


~~Sej

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

---

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

---

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.

Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.

(Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."

He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.