Thoughts on Obama's Recent Speech

Overall, I'm not too impressed with President Obama's speech (full text courtesy of the LA Times). The main issue I have is how his troop announcement came with a timeline. Very bad. Read the notes below.

1. Paragraphs 5-6 – I’m glad he mentions the international and bipartisan nature of the beginning of the conflict. The US didn’t just ‘go rogue’ in Afghanistan.
2. Paragraph 8 – Blame Bush comes in. Notice there is no defining the largely bi-partisan vote that went into this decision.
3. Paragraph 10 (end) – If the efforts have been hampered by “insufficient Security Forces,” then why has it taken so long for Pres. Obama to make the decision to send more? He had information on what was needed before he even officially took office (note the highlighted text in the domestic speech, and see the international press confirmation) .
4. Paragraphs 21-28 – This actually sounds fairly presidential. President Obama states the case that most ‘right minded’ Americans know. I like the reference to extremists apprehended ‘within our borders.’ Everyone knows the danger to the US, and Democracy, will “only grow if the region slides backwards.” And Obama acknowledges this is a global threat, one that needs more participation from our allies.
5. Paragraph 33 - You’re giving a timeline for withdrawal already? Really? If you’re going to “tak[e] into account conditions on the ground,” then shouldn’t you leave it at that? What if everything is not copacetic by your deadline? Or, being the intelligent folks they are, what if the enemy simply decides to disappear until after the deadline? And just 2 years? Are you kidding me? That’s not nearly enough time to get the job done. This is troublesome. Of course, the date is no coincidence. July 2011 is basically campaigning season for Presidential candidates. It’s far enough away from the election day to claim “Leaving Afghanistan” as a political victory, while close enough to election day to help ensure security won’t totally go to sh!t before the (possible) reelection for candidate Obama.
6. Paragraphs 40-43 – I agree with President Obama’s stance on Pakistan. I think we need to have closer ties to the nation if we are to have lasting influence in the region. Concentrating solely on Afghanistan would not solve the problem.
7. Paragraphs 46-46 – I’m glad Obama puts to rest the whole “Afghanistan is Vietnam” mantra. It couldn’t be further from the truth. His main point, ‘they attacked us first,’ is germane to the whole reason we’re there.
8. Paragraph 49-55 – So, President Obama wants to include a timeframe to establish a “reasonable cost” so we don’t go beyond “our means?” Why not simply define the objectives and leave when they’re done, instead of informing the enemy you plan to pull out? And does he think we can’t rebuild the economy without cutting costs in the War on Terrorism? He’s sadly mistaken about what will actually help the economy. If limiting the National Debt and building our economy were really more than mouthed words to him, he would work to reassure businesses here at home that his policies won’t put them in the poor house. So far, he hasn’t been a big supporter of free enterprise (Note the sub-heading “Creditors Take Hit”) and contract law.
9. Paragraph 56 – If the “struggle against violent extremism” won’t be finished quickly, why the heck is he going to cut and run in Afghanistan after only 2 years?
10. Paragraph 57 – Confront extremists with “pressure and strong partnerships?” Yeah, because that’s worked so well in Iran.

What We Need to Do

If Obama was smart, he would latch hold of this guy and use his ideas.



Barnett's ideas are incredibly simple when you first look at it, but the devil is in the details. His point is that we have no real transition plan for the work that the Army does. If we had a plan like this during the initial invasion of Iraq, we would have our troops out by now, with a victory in-tact.

Who's the Victim Here?

When I read this story, I thought I was reading some sort of fiction. It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm." I can hear the argument, "Even though this is your private land, my civil rights trump your right to property." Yeah, NOT!!

I can't even believe this made it to court. I mean, why aren't they just deporting these people back to their country? Their illegal aliens for Heaven's sake. And Mr Barnett's lawyer has a valid point, "illegal immigrants [do] not have the same rights as U.S. citizens." If you're for the rule of law, then you should be complaining right now.

How is a man supposed to even own land if he's not allowed to keep people off of it? If we cannot keep people off our land, that makes it public land. This is a dangerous case of the rights of the victim being put after the rights of the attackers.

But of course it's happening in civil court, where the law is a bit different than criminal court. If this was criminal court, the actual criminals (read trespassers and illegal aliens) would be the ones on trial. Weird times.

Read the whole article.

Hat Tip Hot Air for the link.

I Agree Mostly, But...

I agree with Geert Wilders on many of the things he talks about in his interview with the Wall Street Journal. I do think that Western culture, which includes Democracy, capitalism, the rule of law and respect for others, is superior to a religiously based government that gives preferential treatment to individuals who are of a particular sect or faith. This is one of the reasons we have so many Europeans in the Americas in the first place.

The evidence for the assertions that Western culture is superior can be seen in where people go when they immigrate from their home countries. If dictatorships, socialism or Islamic rule was so much better, people in the US would be fleeing South of the border, jumping on ships to travel to Russia or China, or hi-jacking planes and demanding to be taken to Tehran, Cairo or Baghdad. However, the opposite of this is true.

However, the sticking point in all of this is how to get people to assimilate to OUR culture. This is hard because one of the main reasons our culture is so successful is we assimilate a lot from other cultures. Our governmental organization is Greek, our Courts are English, our language uses a smattering of many other tongues, including Spanish and French, our scientists are German, Jewish, Indian, Chinese and many other nationalities. All of this has been worked together over 200 years to develop the nation we have now.

I think there is one common thing that all of these contributions to our culture have in common. They all WORK. Every single one of these contributions supports the others.

Now, how would all of this work if we start kow-towing to one particular point of view? The answer is simple; it will break. Geerts tells people, "You have to give up that book." I don't think we should go that far, but I do think you shouldn't push your book in my face in my country. If you don't like it, go home.

Real Energy Independence

OPEC has decided they're not making enough money right now. So, to help bolster their bottom line and line their pockets with everyone's money, they've decided they need to cut production.

OPEC certainly understands the power of supply and demand. They know that if they limit supply, they can control the costs because of the rising demand. This will happen even as the economies of the world take a hit. the sad thing is raising oil prices will only serve to slow future economic growth because it will increase the costs of other goods and services. The OPEC nations don't care about these global repercussions one bit, though. They are simply interested in earning money for themselves.

The solution is simple, we need real energy independence. This means we need to focus on developing short term solutions for high energy prices (drill for more oil, open more refineries, more use of natural gas), as well as develop mid term (nuclear power, wind power, more bio-fuels) and long term (increased solar, tidal and geothermal power) energy solutions for our country.

This is the realistic solution that allows us to really move away from foreign oil and their major impact on our economy.