Dan Carlin's latest Common Sense podcast is one of his best, I think... and I've heard it twice now. I'd love for you all to listen, but if you don't, here's the Titus-condensed version:
The crisis in Iraq is the result of very nearly 100 years of bad foreign policy, starting with the Entante Powers of WWI right through to the post-invasion provisional government set up by the US in 2005. Simply put, why the UK, France, Turkey, the UN, the US or anyone else would or could think they would work in the best interest of the Iraqi people in general is beyond me. Hind sight being 20/20, I think we can easily see that NO NATION had the best interests of the Iraqi people first and foremost in their planning offices, and Mr. Carlin goes a long way to show that with real, objective historical review. He goes on to say that what is happening now in Iraq is almost the same as the "three state solution" we argued about here on the Bund... divide Iraq into a Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite states that would self-govern themselves, and throw away the arbitrary lines that were drawn on maps in 1918 by the victorious Allies as they carved new colonies out of the former Ottoman territory.
His point about the "three state solution" was particularly topical, I thought. Kurdistan exists... no question about that. Even Turkey has all but recognized it. ISIS is carving out the Sunni portion of the Iraqi map, and what is left is, demographically speaking, Shi'ite. This wasn't a peaceful transition... far, far from... but I think it was a necessary one. I'd even have to agree that, had we given the Sunni people their own state back in 2005, they'd still have that state now... and the violence be over at worst, and avoided at best.
I found it refreshing that Mr. Carlin didn't blame one side of the political aisle or the other... it wasn't one administration's fault over another... it was simply failed foreign policy from start to finish. Our nation was founded on the principals of self determination of the people, yet we routinely deny that self determination to other people... why?
I had to agree that the "Arab Spring" we saw blooming over the last four years was also a result of our foreign policy. It, however, was "undirected" by a superpower such as the US... and was far more spontaneous than I think anyone in Washington DC was ready for. What we don't hear in the media is that the Arab Spring can't happen if there isn't a very substantial portion of the Arab world's population that is unhappy with repressive, ultra-conservative regimes dictating every aspect of life to the people. These zealots calling for a return to a "caliphate" are calling for the impossible... as is evidenced by the situation in Iran right now (and for the last 40 years), and the very near future in places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Gotta go to work... more later...
Monday, June 30, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
Tasteless...
Seriously? You're quoting Bangles lyrics... here... on the Bund? That crosses a very real line, my friend.
First off... Palestine was NOT my example of a self-sustaining, food rich society. Far from, in fact. I mentioned it only in that the farms I used as examples are located in Palestine and Jordan, very near to the place where Christ was baptized.
Secondly, I'm not so ready to dismiss my position. Zealotry is real... but it is NOT limited to the Islamic world, and it is not only those fanatics that call for a re-institution of a medieval caliphate that exist as a threat to peaceful Western lifestyles.
The radical nature of this "ultra-conservative" sect of Islam is dangerous only so long as it has adherents, and most (if not all) of its adherents are under 30 years of age, male, unemployed and see no viable prospects for their future, immediate or otherwise. When this was NOT the case in the Levant, places like Beirut, Damascus, Antioch and Cairo were seen as vibrant, lively places to live and do business... and I'm not talking about ancient history. I'm referring to as recently as the 1950's.
It is impossible for us (the Bund) to expect these people of the Arab world to willingly embrace the Western dream of the ideal... it is too culturally different to translate in any meaningful manner. When I talk about real, honest "independence" for the people of places like Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan... and smaller hot-beds like Yemen, Sudan, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Libya... I'm talking about the rights of those people to self determination. To decide for themselves how they want to run their lives, their societies and their lands... and to not have those decisions made by foreign powers whose interests are NOT the same as the people they are controlling. All the blood, sweat, tears and treasure we spent to get a real, "democratic" vote established in Iraq was for what? Air time for an American President trying to justify his part in the matter? Even if all intentions were honest and good... nothing came of them. Surely we are all aware of which road is paved with good intentions, right?
America has succeeded where nearly every other nation has failed when it comes to personal liberty... but it wasn't easy and it certainly wasn't without cost. Think of the hundreds of thousands of lives WE have spent shaping this nation from an idea summed up in the Declaration of Independence and into the nation that has matured to a point where one half of the Presidential election ballot was going to be either a black man or a white woman. We paid that cost... and it isn't perfect, but it is the best around.
Why, then, is it wrong to let other peoples find their own way? Why can't they pay their own costs, as we have done here? Could part of the problem with failing nations like Greece, Spain, Italy, Wiemar Germany, the USSR, be that they DID NOT pay that cost, and thus had no appreciation for the liberty they were given?
The best example other than us is Britain... and they certainly paid their dues. As did Australia. Brasil. South Africa. Jordan. Why can't Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran do the same? If the violence spreads, respond. Otherwise, stand back and help pick up the pieces when its over.
First off... Palestine was NOT my example of a self-sustaining, food rich society. Far from, in fact. I mentioned it only in that the farms I used as examples are located in Palestine and Jordan, very near to the place where Christ was baptized.
Secondly, I'm not so ready to dismiss my position. Zealotry is real... but it is NOT limited to the Islamic world, and it is not only those fanatics that call for a re-institution of a medieval caliphate that exist as a threat to peaceful Western lifestyles.
The radical nature of this "ultra-conservative" sect of Islam is dangerous only so long as it has adherents, and most (if not all) of its adherents are under 30 years of age, male, unemployed and see no viable prospects for their future, immediate or otherwise. When this was NOT the case in the Levant, places like Beirut, Damascus, Antioch and Cairo were seen as vibrant, lively places to live and do business... and I'm not talking about ancient history. I'm referring to as recently as the 1950's.
It is impossible for us (the Bund) to expect these people of the Arab world to willingly embrace the Western dream of the ideal... it is too culturally different to translate in any meaningful manner. When I talk about real, honest "independence" for the people of places like Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan... and smaller hot-beds like Yemen, Sudan, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Libya... I'm talking about the rights of those people to self determination. To decide for themselves how they want to run their lives, their societies and their lands... and to not have those decisions made by foreign powers whose interests are NOT the same as the people they are controlling. All the blood, sweat, tears and treasure we spent to get a real, "democratic" vote established in Iraq was for what? Air time for an American President trying to justify his part in the matter? Even if all intentions were honest and good... nothing came of them. Surely we are all aware of which road is paved with good intentions, right?
America has succeeded where nearly every other nation has failed when it comes to personal liberty... but it wasn't easy and it certainly wasn't without cost. Think of the hundreds of thousands of lives WE have spent shaping this nation from an idea summed up in the Declaration of Independence and into the nation that has matured to a point where one half of the Presidential election ballot was going to be either a black man or a white woman. We paid that cost... and it isn't perfect, but it is the best around.
Why, then, is it wrong to let other peoples find their own way? Why can't they pay their own costs, as we have done here? Could part of the problem with failing nations like Greece, Spain, Italy, Wiemar Germany, the USSR, be that they DID NOT pay that cost, and thus had no appreciation for the liberty they were given?
The best example other than us is Britain... and they certainly paid their dues. As did Australia. Brasil. South Africa. Jordan. Why can't Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran do the same? If the violence spreads, respond. Otherwise, stand back and help pick up the pieces when its over.
Walk like an Egyptian...
You are thinking like a Westerner. This has been our problem - in my estimation - time and time again.
Look, I do not disagree that plentiful food supplies are a major factor in preventing Western nations from descending into violence. But think about what you used as your example of a Mid East region (because it's not a state) that has successfully adopted self sufficient farming/water - Palestine. Yet they elected HAMAS. These same individuals danced in the streets on 9/11 (literally, if you remember the broadcasted images). Plentiful food supplies will not stop religious zealotry. Palestinians have been offered that and more, up 90% of their demands put into writing and ready to sign, yet they walked away from the agreement. We're over here thinking that if they just had plentiful jobs and food the violence would end, meanwhile they're there thinking (at least as is represented in their chosen leadership), "How can I push all the Jews into the Red Sea?" The mindset of Western "fixes" for the region is flawed on a very fundamental level.
The bottom line is there is a 7th century strain of Islam running through the Muslim world. It is organized, committed, and worst of all enjoys far too much passive support from non combatant Muslims. There is no strawberry patch or Twinkies supply that will quell this desire for a caliphate. Now I will agree, plentiful food and gainful employment can help to prevent - or at least shore up resistance - against this caliphate from spreading a literal, hot war across ever more boarders in the region, but as long as Sharia law is propped up and promulgated by "peaceful" nations like Saudi Arabia then the region will continue to turn out violent,committed jihadists, as we saw on 9./11.
To put it simply, as of 2014 I do not see evidence that when given the opportunity the Arab world would embrace a democratic form of government over a fascistic theocratic regime. And so long as that's true no amount of food supply will produce a peaceful society. Westerners are happy and peaceful when there is a chicken in every pot and a pay check in every home, very true... but I think it a grave mistake to believe the same can be said of men living by a 7th Century set of rules whom find passive supporters by the millions among their brethren. From the mounds of evidence I have witnessed the majority mindset of the region simply has not evolved to the point that a full belly can breed a peaceful man. It's just not that simple. The commitment to hate is far too deep to be dislodged by home canned tomatoes.
Look, I do not disagree that plentiful food supplies are a major factor in preventing Western nations from descending into violence. But think about what you used as your example of a Mid East region (because it's not a state) that has successfully adopted self sufficient farming/water - Palestine. Yet they elected HAMAS. These same individuals danced in the streets on 9/11 (literally, if you remember the broadcasted images). Plentiful food supplies will not stop religious zealotry. Palestinians have been offered that and more, up 90% of their demands put into writing and ready to sign, yet they walked away from the agreement. We're over here thinking that if they just had plentiful jobs and food the violence would end, meanwhile they're there thinking (at least as is represented in their chosen leadership), "How can I push all the Jews into the Red Sea?" The mindset of Western "fixes" for the region is flawed on a very fundamental level.
The bottom line is there is a 7th century strain of Islam running through the Muslim world. It is organized, committed, and worst of all enjoys far too much passive support from non combatant Muslims. There is no strawberry patch or Twinkies supply that will quell this desire for a caliphate. Now I will agree, plentiful food and gainful employment can help to prevent - or at least shore up resistance - against this caliphate from spreading a literal, hot war across ever more boarders in the region, but as long as Sharia law is propped up and promulgated by "peaceful" nations like Saudi Arabia then the region will continue to turn out violent,committed jihadists, as we saw on 9./11.
To put it simply, as of 2014 I do not see evidence that when given the opportunity the Arab world would embrace a democratic form of government over a fascistic theocratic regime. And so long as that's true no amount of food supply will produce a peaceful society. Westerners are happy and peaceful when there is a chicken in every pot and a pay check in every home, very true... but I think it a grave mistake to believe the same can be said of men living by a 7th Century set of rules whom find passive supporters by the millions among their brethren. From the mounds of evidence I have witnessed the majority mindset of the region simply has not evolved to the point that a full belly can breed a peaceful man. It's just not that simple. The commitment to hate is far too deep to be dislodged by home canned tomatoes.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
On Freedom...
I'm hesitant to say that Iraqis don't want "freedom" either collectively or individually. It IS a fundamental, universal truth that human nature craves that state. What we don't crave is the responsibility that comes with freedom.
Even under the Ba'athist regime of Saddam, Iraqi's saw many of their daily needs provided by the State rather than by their own efforts. When the success of the US invasion in 2003 removed an entrenched government (which had existed for longer than 57% of the nation had been alive), the numbers of unemployed were staggering even here in the US. 600,000 military personnel out of work. No one to deliver food and water, no repairs to infrastructure that had been devastated by the fighting.
I can't find the link, but I read an article about this very problem. The jist was that it cost humanitarian aid from abroad millions of dollars to deliver food and medicine to Iraqi citizens and non-combatants, food that was never adequately spread out and much of it was never delivered at all. Not because the people didn't need it, but because the means to get it to the people that needed it was not there. The US Army had its hands full, the Iraqi government was in shambles, and the people themselves were not able to take on the tasks necessary without the government support that they'd had (good or bad) for the 25 years previously.
What the article was saying was that had we taken the money we (the humanitarian West) had wasted on the food and medicine that never got delivered... sums far in excess of $60,000,000... we could have put into place the means by which a city the size of Baghdad could feed itself long-term. Fruit and nut trees, perennial shrubs, herbs, water catchment and aquifer replenishment, urban livestock habitats... the means by which cities can sustain themselves almost indefinitely with only the initial installation of earthworks and trees driving cost.
Now, I can hear F Ryan already... chomping his tongue off to keep from screaming "Tree-hugger!" or "What kind of hippie crap is this?" I'm not wearing patchouli oil, Berkinstock sandals, or tie-died Jerr-Bear tees... I'm offering a possible solution to problems like this in the future.
If there is no "want" in regards to food or water... what happens to the unrest that brings about violence of the sorts we see in Iraq right now? If there is no question about where the next meal is coming from, why take to the streets, throwing bricks or Molotov cocktails? I know filet mignon doesn't grow on trees, and bread doesn't grow on bushes... but enough food can be grown, even in urban areas, to sustain a population through hard times if nothing else were available.
There are test farms in Palestine and Jordan right now that are producing tons (literally TONS) of food, all year around, with no additional water resources or chemical fertilizers being bought or used. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are spending millions to research how they can do the same. This is BIG BUSINESS that is profitable AND sustainable... and fixes the problems that cause the unrest in the area.
The more I think about this sort of effort, I am drawn to the fact that the reason there is so little violent unrest here in the West (and specifically in the US) is that there is so much food! Say what you want, but we produce a lot of food here... the surplus alone is staggering. Far more than our 350 million citizens need. However, if that supply were cut off or eliminated, do you think we'd be as stable and peaceful as we are now? Or would the US look like much of the Middle East or central Africa, where people fear for their lives with each passing season? It wasn't that long ago (1932, in fact) that the second largest "peaceful" protest ever to occur on US soil was a 70,000 man march on Washington DC from Pittsburgh PA led by Fr. James Cox... and a large part of the reason they marched was that they and their families were starving to death.
Can we deny that Victory Gardens, urban farms and container gardens helped feed millions during the war years? Huey Long promised a chicken in every pot... but it was the war years that put a coop on every block in New York City, and a vegetable patch in every front yard of Los Angeles. Why won't that work now? Why can't THAT be the sort of effort we make to "aide" a foreign nation in need?
How is that not the path to actual independence?
Even under the Ba'athist regime of Saddam, Iraqi's saw many of their daily needs provided by the State rather than by their own efforts. When the success of the US invasion in 2003 removed an entrenched government (which had existed for longer than 57% of the nation had been alive), the numbers of unemployed were staggering even here in the US. 600,000 military personnel out of work. No one to deliver food and water, no repairs to infrastructure that had been devastated by the fighting.
I can't find the link, but I read an article about this very problem. The jist was that it cost humanitarian aid from abroad millions of dollars to deliver food and medicine to Iraqi citizens and non-combatants, food that was never adequately spread out and much of it was never delivered at all. Not because the people didn't need it, but because the means to get it to the people that needed it was not there. The US Army had its hands full, the Iraqi government was in shambles, and the people themselves were not able to take on the tasks necessary without the government support that they'd had (good or bad) for the 25 years previously.
What the article was saying was that had we taken the money we (the humanitarian West) had wasted on the food and medicine that never got delivered... sums far in excess of $60,000,000... we could have put into place the means by which a city the size of Baghdad could feed itself long-term. Fruit and nut trees, perennial shrubs, herbs, water catchment and aquifer replenishment, urban livestock habitats... the means by which cities can sustain themselves almost indefinitely with only the initial installation of earthworks and trees driving cost.
Now, I can hear F Ryan already... chomping his tongue off to keep from screaming "Tree-hugger!" or "What kind of hippie crap is this?" I'm not wearing patchouli oil, Berkinstock sandals, or tie-died Jerr-Bear tees... I'm offering a possible solution to problems like this in the future.
If there is no "want" in regards to food or water... what happens to the unrest that brings about violence of the sorts we see in Iraq right now? If there is no question about where the next meal is coming from, why take to the streets, throwing bricks or Molotov cocktails? I know filet mignon doesn't grow on trees, and bread doesn't grow on bushes... but enough food can be grown, even in urban areas, to sustain a population through hard times if nothing else were available.
There are test farms in Palestine and Jordan right now that are producing tons (literally TONS) of food, all year around, with no additional water resources or chemical fertilizers being bought or used. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are spending millions to research how they can do the same. This is BIG BUSINESS that is profitable AND sustainable... and fixes the problems that cause the unrest in the area.
The more I think about this sort of effort, I am drawn to the fact that the reason there is so little violent unrest here in the West (and specifically in the US) is that there is so much food! Say what you want, but we produce a lot of food here... the surplus alone is staggering. Far more than our 350 million citizens need. However, if that supply were cut off or eliminated, do you think we'd be as stable and peaceful as we are now? Or would the US look like much of the Middle East or central Africa, where people fear for their lives with each passing season? It wasn't that long ago (1932, in fact) that the second largest "peaceful" protest ever to occur on US soil was a 70,000 man march on Washington DC from Pittsburgh PA led by Fr. James Cox... and a large part of the reason they marched was that they and their families were starving to death.
Can we deny that Victory Gardens, urban farms and container gardens helped feed millions during the war years? Huey Long promised a chicken in every pot... but it was the war years that put a coop on every block in New York City, and a vegetable patch in every front yard of Los Angeles. Why won't that work now? Why can't THAT be the sort of effort we make to "aide" a foreign nation in need?
How is that not the path to actual independence?
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
275
That is the number of troops the POTUS is sending to reinforce our embassy in Iraq as the ISIS horde sweeps through the country.
Our embassy there is the most expensive, advanced, and biggest (containing 8 football fields worth of space) ever built by the US. It is a fortress that would make the empires of old jealous. The ISIS advance makes it clear that the supposed 900,000 man Iraqi army that we trained simply doesn't have the will or conviction to fight in large numbers. The ISIS force is estimated at 10,000 (on the high side). The theory is that they (the Iraqis) have fallen back to Baghdad to protect the capital. However, my own sense of historical battles tells me this is a military maneuver designed to repel an enemy that outnumbers you, that you cannot hope to face in the open field, not one that you outnumber 9 to 1. So I am dubious about that "theory", to say the least. In my estimation the only way to prevent the fall of Baghdad, and the subsequent overrun of "fortress Iraq" (our embassy), is to send in 10,000 Marines. Personally, I no longer trust the "warmongering" G.W. Bush to allow these Marines to engage in total war, so I especially oppose this president essentially starting the war over - retake Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit, and on and on and on. It would be the worst "do-over" in the history of mankind. This entire fiasco is the result of piece meal, politically correct war making, and as I stated the other day we will be engaged in an never ending game of whack-a-mole, sending troops in to beat fundamentalist hordes back, leaving, then returning again until some Iraqi George Washington steps up and leads his people to the promised land.
What immediately occurs to me as I consider the prospect of our boys fighting until the Iraqis step up, is that if the Iraqi force is even half of the estimated 900k, and they can't turn back 10,000, then that whack-a-mole game will be played by generations of Americans - my sons, their sons, and their sons. And even then the Iraqi people may not step up. If the Iraqis do not make a stand here and push this force back into Syria, we will have final proof that our experiment of democratizing the Near East has failed. As of 2014 they will have proven unready for the responsibility of defending and maintaining a republic. It is my opinion that they simply do not have the intimate familiarity with, and inherent desire for freedom the way we do, and I am done using the lives of US Marines to try and convince them of the contrary. We CAN beat this ISIS horde, no question. But much in the way you can make the scam of social security work on paper, the real life application of sending in our boys by the thousands - correction, REsending in our boys by the thousands - is fraught with the human errors of our civilian leadership whom have proved themselves incapable (in either party) of committing to the concept of total war.
So to say this as succinctly as possible - if the Iraq force cannot repel ISIS from Baghdad and begin retaking those cities ON THEIR OWN, then we leave. Period.
In that context I have a simple question. What can 275 soldiers do much more effectively than 10,000?
Answer: evacuate an embassy.
As of now I fully expect my sons to witness what their grandfather's did in South East Asia... a last helicopter desperately trying to depart an embassy under attack. The word "sad" is incomprehensibly inadequate to describe what we are seeing. And yes Titus, I did expect this to end differently. I honestly thought that the desire for freedom was universal. They may not have wanted Saddam, but neither do they want a pluralistic society, not in large enough numbers. Islam is too potent a force, the commitment to its' law too appealing for too many for western style governance to take hold. And as we've seen in every conflict throughout history - the most committed wins.
Our embassy there is the most expensive, advanced, and biggest (containing 8 football fields worth of space) ever built by the US. It is a fortress that would make the empires of old jealous. The ISIS advance makes it clear that the supposed 900,000 man Iraqi army that we trained simply doesn't have the will or conviction to fight in large numbers. The ISIS force is estimated at 10,000 (on the high side). The theory is that they (the Iraqis) have fallen back to Baghdad to protect the capital. However, my own sense of historical battles tells me this is a military maneuver designed to repel an enemy that outnumbers you, that you cannot hope to face in the open field, not one that you outnumber 9 to 1. So I am dubious about that "theory", to say the least. In my estimation the only way to prevent the fall of Baghdad, and the subsequent overrun of "fortress Iraq" (our embassy), is to send in 10,000 Marines. Personally, I no longer trust the "warmongering" G.W. Bush to allow these Marines to engage in total war, so I especially oppose this president essentially starting the war over - retake Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit, and on and on and on. It would be the worst "do-over" in the history of mankind. This entire fiasco is the result of piece meal, politically correct war making, and as I stated the other day we will be engaged in an never ending game of whack-a-mole, sending troops in to beat fundamentalist hordes back, leaving, then returning again until some Iraqi George Washington steps up and leads his people to the promised land.
What immediately occurs to me as I consider the prospect of our boys fighting until the Iraqis step up, is that if the Iraqi force is even half of the estimated 900k, and they can't turn back 10,000, then that whack-a-mole game will be played by generations of Americans - my sons, their sons, and their sons. And even then the Iraqi people may not step up. If the Iraqis do not make a stand here and push this force back into Syria, we will have final proof that our experiment of democratizing the Near East has failed. As of 2014 they will have proven unready for the responsibility of defending and maintaining a republic. It is my opinion that they simply do not have the intimate familiarity with, and inherent desire for freedom the way we do, and I am done using the lives of US Marines to try and convince them of the contrary. We CAN beat this ISIS horde, no question. But much in the way you can make the scam of social security work on paper, the real life application of sending in our boys by the thousands - correction, REsending in our boys by the thousands - is fraught with the human errors of our civilian leadership whom have proved themselves incapable (in either party) of committing to the concept of total war.
So to say this as succinctly as possible - if the Iraq force cannot repel ISIS from Baghdad and begin retaking those cities ON THEIR OWN, then we leave. Period.
In that context I have a simple question. What can 275 soldiers do much more effectively than 10,000?
Answer: evacuate an embassy.
As of now I fully expect my sons to witness what their grandfather's did in South East Asia... a last helicopter desperately trying to depart an embassy under attack. The word "sad" is incomprehensibly inadequate to describe what we are seeing. And yes Titus, I did expect this to end differently. I honestly thought that the desire for freedom was universal. They may not have wanted Saddam, but neither do they want a pluralistic society, not in large enough numbers. Islam is too potent a force, the commitment to its' law too appealing for too many for western style governance to take hold. And as we've seen in every conflict throughout history - the most committed wins.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Happy Father's Day
To all reading this, Happy Father's Day! Enjoy the moments with kids and family... they mean the most.
I guess I was mistaken...
I thought we were far more in agreement than we actually are, I guess.
I take nothing away from your points... they are valid, 100%. I simply do not agree with the premise they are based on: that any party or politician would or could have done what was needed to complete the job to my satisfaction.
You assumed I was a fan of even the Tea Party Darlings like Cruz and Paul... but I am most certainly not. Thus, any discussion we have on the points you made from here on would be utterly moot. So, let me make my position perfectly clear before we proceed any further.
Pick your example of the most "conservative" candidate that you could run in a presidential election... F Ryan's "dream candidate"... someone that could fit the bill for everything he wants in a President, but could still be elected (so, Ron Paul, whom I have never seen as a viable candidate... ever... would be off the table), and ask yourself if he/she could (or would, even) accomplish any ONE of the following things I feel need to be done:
1) Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security. Everything that HS is was already in place prior to its creation... CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, INS, Border Patrol, DEA, Secret Service, Marshal Service, DIA, Treasury, Coast Guard... it was all there, fully functional and only lacking a means to coordinate and communicate effectively between the various organs. All HS did was increase the cost of each by a factor of 27% and increase the overall size of government by 17%. I have seen no evidence to date that the nation is any safer because of the new moniker... and 14 years of no measurable and specific benefits means we don't need it.
2) Repeal every facet of the Patriot Act. Enough said.
3) Reinforce the FACT that unwarranted (literally) surveillance of American citizens is illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Stop all current "listening" and put in place the means by which any future peeking can be prosecuted WITHOUT oversight or control by the Executive Branch... regardless of who is President.
4) Work from DAY ONE to put into place the framework of a balanced budget requirement that would be 100% carved-in-stone before 2029.
5) Eliminate the Department of Education. Please.
I could run this list on for pages and pages... but my point is made, surely. No one we can elect to the White House NOW is going to fix ANYTHING. I simply do not believe it at all. Anything short of attempting to fix what is wrong is nothing more than contributing to the problem.
If you want to know what sort of political action I am supporting, I can tell you this as a prime example:
Several States have enacted legislation that says that any NEW gun control law that is passed in DC will be ignored at these State's levels. Example: Utah passed a law that says that any gun manufactured in Utah and sold in Utah does not constitute "interstate commerce" and thus is outside of Congress' authority as defined by the Constitution. Now, Remington and Colt are looking to move production facilities into Utah where they will jointly manufacture, assemble and sell specialty weapons to civilian buyers who reside in Utah.
(Due to an internet connection failure, the rest of this post was lost. I'll pick up the threads later and continue... my apologies.)
I take nothing away from your points... they are valid, 100%. I simply do not agree with the premise they are based on: that any party or politician would or could have done what was needed to complete the job to my satisfaction.
You assumed I was a fan of even the Tea Party Darlings like Cruz and Paul... but I am most certainly not. Thus, any discussion we have on the points you made from here on would be utterly moot. So, let me make my position perfectly clear before we proceed any further.
Pick your example of the most "conservative" candidate that you could run in a presidential election... F Ryan's "dream candidate"... someone that could fit the bill for everything he wants in a President, but could still be elected (so, Ron Paul, whom I have never seen as a viable candidate... ever... would be off the table), and ask yourself if he/she could (or would, even) accomplish any ONE of the following things I feel need to be done:
1) Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security. Everything that HS is was already in place prior to its creation... CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, INS, Border Patrol, DEA, Secret Service, Marshal Service, DIA, Treasury, Coast Guard... it was all there, fully functional and only lacking a means to coordinate and communicate effectively between the various organs. All HS did was increase the cost of each by a factor of 27% and increase the overall size of government by 17%. I have seen no evidence to date that the nation is any safer because of the new moniker... and 14 years of no measurable and specific benefits means we don't need it.
2) Repeal every facet of the Patriot Act. Enough said.
3) Reinforce the FACT that unwarranted (literally) surveillance of American citizens is illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Stop all current "listening" and put in place the means by which any future peeking can be prosecuted WITHOUT oversight or control by the Executive Branch... regardless of who is President.
4) Work from DAY ONE to put into place the framework of a balanced budget requirement that would be 100% carved-in-stone before 2029.
5) Eliminate the Department of Education. Please.
I could run this list on for pages and pages... but my point is made, surely. No one we can elect to the White House NOW is going to fix ANYTHING. I simply do not believe it at all. Anything short of attempting to fix what is wrong is nothing more than contributing to the problem.
If you want to know what sort of political action I am supporting, I can tell you this as a prime example:
Several States have enacted legislation that says that any NEW gun control law that is passed in DC will be ignored at these State's levels. Example: Utah passed a law that says that any gun manufactured in Utah and sold in Utah does not constitute "interstate commerce" and thus is outside of Congress' authority as defined by the Constitution. Now, Remington and Colt are looking to move production facilities into Utah where they will jointly manufacture, assemble and sell specialty weapons to civilian buyers who reside in Utah.
(Due to an internet connection failure, the rest of this post was lost. I'll pick up the threads later and continue... my apologies.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
