Tacitus X wrote: Silly excuse for a column. It doesn't take any more "guts" for a politician to send others to fight than it does for him to show "compassion" by giving someone else's money away.-- Rand Paul and the Gutless Generation
Dear Comrade X,
It takes a lot of guts for the president of the United States to send kids off to die. Look how much trouble Obama-- a silly excuse for a president-- had in sending the Seals in to kill Bin Laden: a no-brainer if there ever was one. Obviously, Obama’s not a pantheon to courage, and he certainly has no trouble spending other people’s money.
Lincoln’s biggest threat wasn’t the Confederate Army, but the “peace” coalition put together by...wait for it…Democrats -–again wrong on the issues; Roosevelt ran his campaigns saying he wanted to keep us out of World War II, possibly the most popular war in the country’s history; Truman took a beating over North Korea and Democrats thereby lost the presidency; Lyndon Johnson’s presidency was impaled on the tragedy of Vietnam; Nixon’s vehement opposition was stirred up by his vigorous use of bombing campaigns in North Vietnam and Cambodia. Were they brutal? Yes. Were they effective? No. Were they absolutely legal under the laws of war. You betcha, as Sarah Palin would say. George Bush I and George Bush II each pushed for Gulf wars that ended up affecting their presidency very negatively.
And don’t get me started with the War of 1812, the Mexican War or the Spanish-American War.
I know one thing for sure about politicians: They typically do what’s in their own best interest. War rarely works out well for the people who are the strongest advocates of it, especially as the images of war shot in high definition have been more ubiquitous.
“War, which used to be cruel and magnificent has now become cruel and squalid,” said Winston Churchill about the shift from courage and tactics to technology to prosecute wars.
Churchill fought Pashtuns in Afghanistan, Dervishes in Sudan, Boers in South Africa, the Germans in two wars, the communists whenever he could. And despite being the savior of that island home known as England, as soon as victory was secured, the people dispensed with him.
In his career he was often vilified as a warmonger, a sabre rattler. He certainly was a warlord. But he also was the man who made peace in South Africa, made peace with the Irish, even helping establish the current Republic of Ireland. He detested Joseph Stalin with a loathing that was as much instinct—an instinct toward decency, that is—as it was ideology, yet when Hitler invaded communist Russia, Churchill said this curious thing the next day: “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
Most of these men I have mentioned made their reputation as men of courage, even if you disagreed with them. But each of them was a skilled politician, which Obama really is not.
They knew what I have demonstrated here: That being an isolationist, anti-war candidate, is the refuge of a populist who isn’t sure that anything is worth fighting for.
It’s not peace those people are after. It’s votes.
And we can’t afford another demagogue president.
Saying that, I will admit that Barack Obama is not the Devil. And here’s how I know why because: 1) He’s too freakin’ incompetent to be; and 2) He’s too freakin’ ideological to be the Devil.
“He will be attractive. He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation,” said Aaron Altman in Broadcast News. “He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living thing... he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit. And he'll talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.”
Obama being the Devil is way too obvious. He’s supposed to lower our standards bit by bit, not by bite after bite.
Demonic? Yeah, okay. I’ll go along with that. I suppose even the Devil has incompetent demons.
But, the Devil won’t be that obvious. He’ll attract people with slogans like “peace in our time.” People forget that Neville Chamberlain was a so-called conservative, and that the people most wrong about Hitler-- a demon if there ever was one-- were conservatives.
“Thomas Aquinas once raised the issue of choosing between a proud man and a pusillanimous one,” wrote William Manchester, a Churchill biographer, and a U.S, Marine infantry sergeant in the hell they knew as the Pacific War. “Take the proud one every time, he advised, because you will be sure that he will at least do something.”
Manchester deplored the waste of war—even against Hitler and Tojo-- but he knew that some things are worth fighting for.
Look, if the history of the United States demonstrates anything it demonstrates that war is not popular with the American people—even the so-called “good wars”.
We need leaders who have both courage and competence, someone who will at least do things in America’s best interest even if they are not always popular.
And then do them well.
JWJ wrote: Responding to Sarah Pallin is a "war" on women?! Not hardly, more like a "war" on ignorance!-- More from War on Women: Eric Holder Doesn’t Like Sarah Palin
Dear Comrade JWJ,
You know I’m waiting for some facts to back up your case.
It seems to me that Palin was right about a lot of things: She was right when she said that Obama had done nothing to demonstrate his ability to be president, but he had sure written a lot of books. She was right about the renewed threat of Russia. She was right when she took on the corrupt GOP establishment in Alaska, and became governor over their objections. She was right when she pushed for increased domestic development of oil and gas in Alaska and in the United States generally. Turns out we can “Drill baby, drill” our way out of the problem, despite what our Author-in-Chief said on the campaign trail.
She was even right about Paul Revere, whereas your liberal friends were not. That isn’t surprising because liberals like you think that the only thing that has happened in American history are garment fires and the oppression of women and minorities, which by the way once included Germans and Scotch Irish who seem to have assimilated pretty well.
And here’s the clincher: You yourself decide to make the point…wait for it…by oppressing one of the most accomplished woman of our times. Because she disagrees with you.
You offer no facts, just attacks.
Way to go Stalin.
Darby O’Gill wrote: Sorry John...but....Sarah Palin was an excellent choice as a running mate??No...she was not....and it proved McCain had poor judgment. I like Sarah, but she is a cheerleader, not a leader. Besides, John , it is unnatural for men to choose a woman to lead them.....it is simply against Nature. You have been feminized,John, but , we all have been, in one way or another. -- More from War on Women: Eric Holder Doesn’t Like Sarah Palin
Dear Comrade Darby,
Not a leader? Did you see the tap dance she did all over the GOP in Alaska when reforming Alaska politics? Not likely.
Go see the movie about the real Sarah Palin, instead of the Saturday Night Live caricature of her. Or better yet, read a book.
John McCain’s judgment is poor. But his problem with poor judgment wasn’t with Sarah Palin, but rather the staffers he had on his campaign. Staffers who were…wait for it…women.
It’s really women who wage the war on women.
Speaking as an old white guy, I’m in the majority when I tell you that most of us old white guys would do practically anything to make a woman—and women—happy.
Yes, the cattiness of women on the McCain campaign did in Sarah Palin. I was there. I saw it. The utter stupidity of keeping staffers on the campaign who were sabotaging Palin from the moment she gave her acceptance speech in Minneapolis raises questions about McCain’s ability to run anything other than his mouth.
That, and his panic over the market crash did in his chances.
But it’s true: I’ve been feminized. But it’s not what you think.
You only wish you knew the high quality of women who I have been lucky enough to surround myself with.
What you need is a little more feminization, Comrade, ala John Ransom.
Go read Proverbs 31.
And may peace be with you, and with your spirit.
sheepinwolfsclothing wrote: Sarah Palin, like all the rest of the republicrats who are shills, working for the illuminati, zionist Rothschild world banking cartel who controls the world money supply, and so, the politicians of the world, whether it is Netanyahu, Palin, Obama, and the rest of the politicians since our banking system was stolen from us in 1913, are working for the world banking system and are not representatives of the general public of the world. It is sad that the general public are ignorant because of the control of the world media propaganda is also controlled by the world banking system/A.I.P.A.C. The world doesn't live in a democracy, but rather a shadow dictatorship/plutocracy/oligarchy.-- More from War on Women: Eric Holder Doesn’t Like Sarah Palin
Dear Comrade Wolf,
Yeah. I know your type. You’re the type who makes excuses for Hitler. “It’s the bankers and the Jews!”
My grandfather was a banker, my father was a banker. I might be the only finance editor in the country who has helped bailout a federally insured bank with private money—back in 2002.
Well as a guy who has forgotten more about the banking business than you’ll ever know, I hate to disappoint you, but there is no worldwide banking conspiracy—and yes, they told me I HAD to say this because I’m part of the conspiracy.
There is a confederacy of dunces. There is poor governance. There are stupid, venal politicians. There are self-serving organizations like the World Bank. There are apologists for big government. But the banking people I know despise all that.
Oh, and Go Israel! Bomb Hamas!
Rifcon wrote: First, the headline: Obama Gives Trillions for Wall Street, Not a Dime to Stop Murder in Black Chicago Neighborhoods. Isn't Congress in charge of appropriations? The evidence that the Chicago Police are cooking the books? A single article by a local magazine of unknown repute? Why wouldn't Dateline want a piece of this? This is also a Conservative making the liberal assumption that spending more money will cut crime. According to this month's Time magazine, crime nationwide is down 45% since 1991. Are we to assume that the rest of the country is cooking the books too? Sorry Ransom, this article is one of your poorer efforts. --Obama Gives Trillions to Wall Street, Not a Dime to Stop Murder in Black Chicago Neighborhoods
Dear Comrade Con,
This is not Comic Con, it’s Comrade Con.
Cuz really, you sound more like a cartoon character than anything, so I just want the record to be straight.
Once upon a time Obama had control of congress yet failed to do anything on immigration and on crime. Today he panders on both issues.
What a freakin’ phony he is.
Chicago is his “hometown,” so-called. He likely picked it because it was so corrupt he could get away with practically anything short of televised ritual murder. Now he gets away with that too, as WGN and other local stations televise the ritual of killing innocent bystanders, ala Al Capone.
Ask the Chicago Tribune, a paper that supported both Obama’s election and reelection—so perhaps a publication of known repute—how they feel about hometown boy Obama now.
ericynot1 wrote:This article has less to do with crime and more to do with the fact that Obama is from Chicago, and this is a way to take an indirect swing at him. There are an awful lot of cities more dangerous than Chicago. Try these -- Memphis, Houston, Myrtle Beach, Atlanta, Daytona Beach, Hartford, CT, and on and on. If you want to worry about something, how about this? The 2016 Republican convention will be held in Cleveland. And Cleveland's crime rate is MUCH worse than Chicago's. Turns out Chicago's crime rate is about the same as that of MInneapolis. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/top100dangerous/
Just keepin' it real ... --Obama Gives Trillions to Wall Street, Not a Dime to Stop Murder in Black Chicago Neighborhoods
Dear Comrade YNot,
You do a lot of things, but “keeping it real,” ain’t one of them.
You know, unless “keeping it real” means lying.
Tell the folks who live in Humboldt Park or Logan Square how great things are in Chicago compared to Houston, Hartford, et al.
The amount, Comrade, that you know about Chicago would fit in a thimble. The amount I know about Chicago would fit in a lifetime. You ever see drug deals at the Point near Montrose Harbor? Didn’t think so.
Why don’t you stick to things you know about, like say, pilates and Chai tea Frappuccinos and leave the adults to figure out why the GOP picked Cleveland?
Bow wow. Go…Browns…or something.
That’s it for this week.