Thursday, March 31, 2011
What if?
Thursday-March 31, 2011 What if? As I write today’s FORUM, I am getting closer to perfecting what I have been working on for almost two years. There have been a few glitches on the site and we have now figured them out. Many names have been collected from around the country. These people have expressed an interest in getting their neighborhoods organized. These are patriots. They are not radicals, nor are they extremists. These are people that want to make a difference and they want to ensure that our prosperity is retained for our posterity and all the freedoms that come with it. So I was thinking, as I had my taxes done yesterday, what if things were different and what if this country and every citizen would come together and really work toward making a better America. I often think this and I often ask myself how this would work? What would we need to do? How long would it take and would people really want to make the changes that are necessary to do that? I started to ask myself what if and I came up with a list of what ifs. What if we didn’t have Senators like Chuck Schumer (D) New York, who was caught on tape saying that the Republicans have to be characterized as extreme and the tea party is pulling them to the right? He said, "The main thrust is basically that we want to negotiate and we want to come up with a compromise, but the Tea Party is pulling Boehner too far over to the right. I always use the word extreme, that's what the caucus instructed me to do the other week." What if we didn’t reelect Senators like Schumer and every other politician that has served for more than 20 years? What if we elected leaders that could truly lead with statesmanship, instead of judging our leaders by their picks of basketball brackets and how effective they are at demonizing the other side? What if guys like George Soros were not allowed to dabble in U.S. politics and the economy? He is not a citizen, but he controls Media Matters and Move On.org., too mention two. These organizations are extreme far left and are dedicated to socialize America and the world. Soros is a billionaire and has been characterized as the man who brought down the English pound through currency manipulation. This is fact and not fabrication. What if America were energy rich; meaning that we stopped buying our oil from the mid-east, Hugo Chaves and the rest of those countries who want to bring America down by holding us hostage? What if we drilled here at home and used our coal and incorporated smart technology to conserve and expand energy resources? Maybe we could build a few more nuclear power plants, modernize the power grid and have Americans conserve by turning off that light bulb that is lighting a room when no one is using it? What if we deported every illegal citizen and shut our borders down, along with changing the Constitution to re-define or define the 14th amendment? What if we stopped handing out the billions in aide to countries that work against our interest? What if we moved out of every sea port that we have our military vessels docked, as a sign of protection to our allies? What if we told the United Nations to take a leap, get out of the country and end our relationship? What if we told the Mid East allies, like the Saudis, they should not depend on our defense any longer? What if we built a Star Wars defense shield to protect our country from any air born missile, like Reagan wanted to invest in? What if we constitutionally demanded proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate, for any one who becomes president? What if we took every foreign product built abroad and shipped here for consumption, like cars, toasters, electronics etc. and just closed our trade down? What if we took these products and built them right here, creating jobs and commerce for us to prosper from? What if we could pay our income tax, just by filling out the back of a post card? What if we told every terrorist and every backward country that wants to do us harm to just try it? What if we got our financial house in order to the extent that other countries would have to borrow from us? What if we educated our children in math, science, our true history and not aim our education specifically to the minorities and other groups who say our history is one of murder and oppression? Speaking of murder and oppression, what if we didn’t go to the defense of countries like Kuwait, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and all the other countries who in the end wind up complaining about American involvement in world affairs? What if America just shut down and dismantled the Statue of Liberty and shipped it back to France C.O.D.? What if we explored the universe and claim every planet and moon that we land on as sovereign American territory, instead of taking a giant leap for mankind? What if America didn’t export its medical technology and its medical aid in times of disaster? What if we got back to our principles and stopped redefining what our principles are, and rely on the ones that are clearly defined in the founding documents? What if the United States just shut its doors? What if all this did happen? We would be fine, but the rest of the world would go into a thousand years of darkness. However, what if we could do just a few things on this list? I’ll let you determine what they are! Maybe just maybe we could collectively decide on what they are and move on. Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: What if you had the power to do just a few things on this list. What if someone said you do have that power!
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
What's in play?
Wednesday-March 30, 2011 What’s in play? As I listen to our government leaders, the term they are using is “many things are still in play” seemed to stick out in my mind. The Vice President was asked what is the end game in Libya is? He said the end game starts here! The Secretary of State seems to be playing the role of Commander in Chief yesterday, while the President was in New York at a fundraiser. A number of Arab league members are running away from their commitment in Libya. These were the countries that urged America and the U.N. to go into Libya. The President said that the Secretary of State was on her way to London to discuss the outcome of the Libyan situation. Only 8 of the 22 Arab League members bothered to show up for the much touted meeting that the president said was the turning point in handing over our lead in Libya to NATO. So why are they not participating in the biggest meeting of the coalition to date? These Arab Muslim nations see the infidel, the non Muslim nations, bombing another nation in the region. They are now running off even though they asked for help. Why is this? A number of these Arab nations are now concerned of a nuclear Iran taking over the region. Libya is in for some very dark days, whether Qadaffi in is or out. The action in the region is not popular in the Arab Muslim world. Some are now afraid and some are now concerned about Al Qaeda taking hold in their own countries out of retaliation for asking for the help. The mixed messages are what we need to pay attention to. When you have a vacuum of leadership at the top, because the president is clearly uncomfortable with the mantle of leadership, then you have uncertainty here at home and abroad. It is ridiculous to think that this is a humanitarian mission, as the United States is now on record as saying. The bombs tell another story. When the president stresses that the United Sates has followed the lead of the U.N., backing away from the operation is clearly more difficult. Why not just say that our role is to take out Qadaffi. This is what is in play. When we target his command and control these Arab nations can clearly say that the humanitarian statement is just another lie by the infidel. I don’t know if the trap has been set or if the trap has been sprung. What I do know is something is in play and that something is what we are not being told. The Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “we cannot and must not impose our will on Libya.” The confusion that is now in play is that the United States through the coalition partners are saying that this is a time for great change and it is up to the Libyan people to chart their own destiny all we are doing is following the U.N. resolutions. Khaled Kaim the Libyan deputy foreign minister is calling upon the “President and all the other western leaders within and outside the E.U. not to be war mongers but to be peace makers and not to push Libyans towards Civil War. This is what is in play and this is what is going on. WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces. In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show. And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive. Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts: ___ OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role." THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption. NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars. The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American. ___ OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives." THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, it reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear. Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday. The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters. Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms. ___ OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America." THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait. "The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch." Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest." ___ OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance." THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials. Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened." Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said. At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that." ___ OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated. More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara. The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S. Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself. In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands." He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?" Now, such questions are coming at him. Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report. Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. You see that many things are in play, even the truth! Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: When the left says George Bush lied they didn’t stop their assault, when the right says that the president is not being truthful they say there are many things in play!
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
He spoke!
Tuesday-March 29, 2011 He spoke! He did not lead, he was too late and he showed little passion – otherwise, the president’s speech was a good. It was designed for our consumption and he succeeded. The president tried to convince a listening audience that it was in America’s best interest to fight this fight. He tried to convince us that the action was in accordance to our goals and objectives. He tried to lay out a new policy of using America’s strength as the world’s police, when it becomes necessary. He tried to say that we worked with coalition leaders and that he made the decision to go to the U.N. All of what the president said is fine and good. I honestly can’t disagree with what he said, but I don’t trust that what he said is what he necessarily believes. The President used the back drop of the National Defense University for the speech, not the Oval Office. The president’s speech was not in prime time and the major networks did not carry it. What the public consumption will be is the diluted sound bites and the favorable reporting of the biased press. The President used the comparison of humanitarian aid and not the military or Washington going it alone. The President could not pass up the chance to compare his quick war to that of George Bush’s lingering war. He also intimated that he was the president who was bringing the troops home and winning the war on terror, without using the word terror. If the operation in Libya is turned over to NATO as the president said our troops would then be under NATO control. Every country in NATO would then see how our military platforms work on the ground. I am not talking just about weapons I am talking about as the president put it “unique capabilities” not only in strategy but in how our troops are commanded in combination. We would be making our playbook public. The president did not answer the one remaining question and that is when will this be over? What happens if Qadaffi is able to cling onto power? The president said that he averted a blood bath, but if Qadaffi clings to power what will be the blood bath that will ensue? The president did not address the knowledge gap that now exists. In other words, who are the opposition forces that we are defending? There are new reports that the opposition forces are the jihadists that we were fighting in Iraq. Any thing is possible in this part of the world. The president did not talk about the Pentagon concerns that “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” The broader question that is not yet answered is what happens if some the freedom fighters decide to kill other freedom fighters in order to gain a political position? In many cases the history of the region brings in a greater threat when events of this kind take place. Qadaffi has been the longest surviving dictator in that part of the world. You don’t just disappear overnight when the bombs start dropping. We are, as our protocol dictates, targeting Qadaffi, but we are asking that he step down. The main question remains what happens if he, Qadaffi, doesn’t go? What the speech didn’t do was illustrate the real truth. The Europeans get 90% of their oil from Libya. The Lockerbie bomber was released early on humanitarian means a year ago, so that Britain could continue getting their oil. Qadaffi held another country hostage with his oil. What happens if unfriendly forces that say they are our friends turn out to be our enemy and cut off the supply of oil to Europe? This could be a likely scenario that would require many countries to invade Libya to secure the oil. You see: “the enemy of enemy is not my friend.” We were told that the proximity of Libya, between Tunisia and Egypt, was the main concern in the region. We were told over the weekend that any unrest could overflow into a fragile Egypt and a fragile Tunisia. This is not about liberation and not about humanitarian aid; it is about the oil and who would be best to manage the reserves. This is the quintessential American $64,000 question. What we are witnessing is a hundred year event. This is the biggest shake up in Mid East politics in generations. We all hope that the turmoil today will lead to democracy tomorrow. I have been saying that democracy in the Middle East doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand. Today, we are getting reports that the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining significant ground in the new Egyptian political system. We heard Qadaffi say that he would turn Libya into another Somalia, if he is forced to step down. You see: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” However, the bigger story today is what the New Black Panthers said yesterday. They said that the First Lady Michelle Obama “should leave her husband, because he is nothing but an Uncle Tom.” When words of this type are used it only disgraces a nation that has tried to elevate itself beyond these terms. As we are fighting another conflict, now in an African nation, other groups that see a weakness will target that weakness. It never fails, it is always groups like this that cause dissention. You see: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: The catch phrase: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend” is something that the president will realize – unfortunately, it will be at our expense and now possibly the worlds!
Monday, March 28, 2011
He speaks!
Monday – March 28, 2011 He speaks! Tonight the president speaks about Libya. Many of the pundits on the Sunday talk shows have given their view and hopefully have given an accurate account of what the President will say tonight! Most of history is unpredictable. Most of the events that occur in the world are unpredictable. Most presidents have been unpredictable. Who could have predicted a year ago that Egypt would fall? Who could have predicted a year ago that Libya, Syria and Yemen would have civil unrest? This is why pundits speak and this is why pundits get paid. This is also why our leaders get paid. I have a sneaking suspicion that some in the government knew a year ago that the civil unrest that we are talking about today would happen. I would feel more confident, if I knew for sure. But we don’t, so punditry continues. I cannot predict what the president will say tonight, but I do know that what ever he says we will hear differing opinions of what was right and what was wrong with what the president says. The one thing I do know is that we do have the freedom of speech, so that we can be pundits and so that some of us can write what we want, when we want. In the countries that have civil unrest today, many cannot write what they want, when they want. Many cannot even read or write. But many do know that democracy can bring the freedom that some desire. When rulers like Qadaffi and Bashar al-Assad of Syria are allowed to rule as tyrants, we cannot view the word democracy in the prism of the mid east. I hope that part of the president’s message carries that thought. I hope that another part of the president’s message will explain why the action in Libya is a related to our national interest here at home and abroad. I hope the president’s message will be bold and will outline, in no uncertain terms, that the U.S. is committed to the support of democracy. What I do know is that the president’s message to night will be designed for public consumption. I would hope that it wouldn’t be. However, when a president takes this long to speak about military action you know that it will be. What makes this president different? Every president that has committed any military asset or personnel usually will address the nation within 24 hours of the decision to go to war or to make war. The president can do both, if it is in an effort to protect the country. This is the problem with Libya. No one can answer why Libya is a threat to our national security. Certainly this president hasn’t. In my opinion, just having Qadaffi around is a threat, but what do I know? I would h ope that the president sees it that way and if he does that’s enough for me to support the action or any action of the same. My judgment and my instinct tell me that part of the message will be just that. However, the other part tells me that confusion will still reign and that confusion will be the weakness that every adversary in the world senses and will continue to see. When can the president’s words be used against him? In a 2002, at an anti war rally a young politician by the name of Barack Obama said: “What I am opposed to is a dumb war, what I am opposed to is a rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion.” This was a statement that was designed to invoke a response of the electorate in 2002. This was statement to brand George Bush’s decision to go to war as dumb, rash and, not to mention, that Republican’s passion to invade Iraq, under the guise of fighting Islamic radicalism. We all want a reason to sustain our appetite of consumption, but we don’t want to be the victims of someone have misplaced passion. This is why a president’s judgment is critical and this why we need the reason behind the president’s decision to go to war. This is why we need to know why the events that have occurred happened in the way that we have been told. We must be told what the president’s final objective is. Just last week, the president said, “If he (Qadaffi) changes his conduct he can stay in power.” Then why did the president then take the back seat in leading the war? This is very complicated and it is very confusing. I am sure a lot of other people, who are far more important than me, want to know! The spread of American Democracy in the region of the mid east and now Africa is now at the tipping point. Islamic Hegemony in the region is moving quickly and this might be the threat that no one is talking about. We do not know exactly who the rebels that are fighting for freedom and democracy are. We do not know the motives of the freedom fighters. What we do know is Qadaffi gave up his quest for nuclear weapons. He gave up his quest for expanding his reign after Reagan attacked him. We do not know exactly how the uprising in Libya started. All we can do is make our opinions known and predict what will happen. The term Islamic hegemony is now being used. “The Hegemony "leadership" or "hegemon" for "leader") is the political, economic, ideological or cultural power exerted by a dominant group over other groups. It requires the consent of the majority to keep the dominant group in power. While initially referring to the political dominance of certain ancient Greek city-states over their neighbors, the term has come to be used in a variety of other contexts, in particular Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony. The term is often mistakenly used to suggest brute power or dominance, when it is better defined as emphasizing how control is achieved through consensus not force.” I have to wonder if we are exerting force to control the region or fighting a force to control the region. This is the unknown. I hope that the president will at least clarify this point, if he can! Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: Remember the TV ad – “When E.F. Hutton speaks everyone listens”? I wish we could say the same about our president.
Friday, March 25, 2011
When is war a war?
Friday – March 25, 2011
When is war a war?
The President joined a multilateral force, the U.N., to enforce a no fly zone over Libya. The President didn’t go to Congress, but made the decision himself. Now the administration is saying that the military is engaged in a “kinetic military action.”
Technically, what is meant by the term kinetic is movement. There is movement and there is gunfire being exchanged. While the administration is moving the U.S. military towards a humanitarian rescue force, the coalition is now being fractured. The Germans, under Merkel of Germany, have all but pulled out and Sarkozy of France is the only member of NATO that wants to move against Qadaffi militarily. Sarkozy is not concerned about labeling the action kinetic. He is concerned about the oil.
The strategy of warfare has changed. The Super Powers cannot use their military might in conventional ways. New labels have been placed upon military actions and the restrictions have made all partners equal.
Secretary of State Clinton has been the spokes person for the action that has precipitated. She said yesterday that command and control would be turned over to NATO in a few days. She said that NATO will enforce the no fly zone. This is all fine and good, because there are no aircraft in the Libyan air force that pose any danger to any one anymore. But we are led to believe that the mission is a success, because of the turn over.
If you study the history of warfare, you will become knowledgeable on what war is. If you study the history of warfare, you will become familiar with the great battles and the great commanders. If you study the history of warfare, you will become aware that the great battles and the great wars were won by military genius and clear military goals.
We cannot let our military be a humanitarian military force. Today, there are new protests in Syria. Are we going to implant our military there, because of a humanitarian need? What are we to do with North Korea and China? Are we to commit our military there, because of a humanitarian need? The military is there for two reasons. It protects our strategic interest and it provides security to the citizens of this nation.
There is a new debate over the president’s commitment of the U.S. military to create a no fly zone in Libya by committing our military assets. There is debate over his lack of notification to Congress of his decision. Every president has in some way or another violated this Constitutional requirement. Every president has found a way around this requirement. As citizens, we need to remind our leaders that the Constitution is there for a reason. I don’t care if it is Obama, or Bush or Clinton or even Reagan. A president cannot violate the Constitution in this way. There is a danger of a president committing troops in a military operation that has no structure, no organized goals and not calling it by its proper title. Vice President Biden warned President Bush about not notifying Congress when we entered into war against Iraq. He said in 2007, if the president commits troops with out notifying Congress he would move to impeach. Where is the Vice President now, since his president violated the Constitutional authority that he spoke of in 2007? Where is the impeachment of his president?
Part of a president’s duty is to set an example. A president must lead with Constitutional authority and not false authority. A president must be a president to every citizen and he cannot pick winners and losers. A president must be cautious, but bold, in committing the military. A president cannot make up the rules on the fly, something that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates alluded to earlier in the week.
A president cannot be a contradiction to his own policy and he cannot be contradicted by those who serve under him. A president must lead to win and his objectives must be planned with that in mind.
A president cannot use the country’s assets in a way that make it personal, nor can his decisions be personal. A president must be knowledgeable of the military that he is the commander in chief of.
Many of our presidents came from a military background. Many came into office with the traditions that were learned in service and in war. Washington was a general who won our Revolution, Lincoln a Captain, Eisenhower a General of the Army in WW II, Kennedy a lieutenant, Truman was a Colonel and knew the importance of saving lives by making a military decision. Ulysses S. Grant was the General of the Union Army whose decisions saved the Union and defeated the Confederacy. There are more presidents that served in our military than haven’t. More presidents have been Colonels and Generals who have led men into battle, than haven’t led men at all.
Since Eisenhower, two presidents have not served in the military. They are Clinton and Obama. Both loathed the military and both dithered about using the military. Both have committed troops based on a humanitarian need - Clinton in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Both suffered contradictions and both had very liberal beginnings.
Look back in history. Kennedy said: "A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living." Both Clinton an Obama never had real private sector jobs! Both never had to make a payroll and both never had to suffer from a layoff, let alone lead men into battle.
One the greatest Military minds and greatest generals of all time, not only in American War history, but in the war history of the world, was General George S. Patton. I have done some research on him and found that he believed in one thing - he charged to where the sound of gun fire was.
I believe what he would tell our young president today, if he were alive and saw what the president is making the military into would be this, “The objective of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." General George S. Patton
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Look at who your presidents were, look at the military challenges they had and find out for yourself who won the battle, but lost the war!
When is war a war?
The President joined a multilateral force, the U.N., to enforce a no fly zone over Libya. The President didn’t go to Congress, but made the decision himself. Now the administration is saying that the military is engaged in a “kinetic military action.”
Technically, what is meant by the term kinetic is movement. There is movement and there is gunfire being exchanged. While the administration is moving the U.S. military towards a humanitarian rescue force, the coalition is now being fractured. The Germans, under Merkel of Germany, have all but pulled out and Sarkozy of France is the only member of NATO that wants to move against Qadaffi militarily. Sarkozy is not concerned about labeling the action kinetic. He is concerned about the oil.
The strategy of warfare has changed. The Super Powers cannot use their military might in conventional ways. New labels have been placed upon military actions and the restrictions have made all partners equal.
Secretary of State Clinton has been the spokes person for the action that has precipitated. She said yesterday that command and control would be turned over to NATO in a few days. She said that NATO will enforce the no fly zone. This is all fine and good, because there are no aircraft in the Libyan air force that pose any danger to any one anymore. But we are led to believe that the mission is a success, because of the turn over.
If you study the history of warfare, you will become knowledgeable on what war is. If you study the history of warfare, you will become familiar with the great battles and the great commanders. If you study the history of warfare, you will become aware that the great battles and the great wars were won by military genius and clear military goals.
We cannot let our military be a humanitarian military force. Today, there are new protests in Syria. Are we going to implant our military there, because of a humanitarian need? What are we to do with North Korea and China? Are we to commit our military there, because of a humanitarian need? The military is there for two reasons. It protects our strategic interest and it provides security to the citizens of this nation.
There is a new debate over the president’s commitment of the U.S. military to create a no fly zone in Libya by committing our military assets. There is debate over his lack of notification to Congress of his decision. Every president has in some way or another violated this Constitutional requirement. Every president has found a way around this requirement. As citizens, we need to remind our leaders that the Constitution is there for a reason. I don’t care if it is Obama, or Bush or Clinton or even Reagan. A president cannot violate the Constitution in this way. There is a danger of a president committing troops in a military operation that has no structure, no organized goals and not calling it by its proper title. Vice President Biden warned President Bush about not notifying Congress when we entered into war against Iraq. He said in 2007, if the president commits troops with out notifying Congress he would move to impeach. Where is the Vice President now, since his president violated the Constitutional authority that he spoke of in 2007? Where is the impeachment of his president?
Part of a president’s duty is to set an example. A president must lead with Constitutional authority and not false authority. A president must be a president to every citizen and he cannot pick winners and losers. A president must be cautious, but bold, in committing the military. A president cannot make up the rules on the fly, something that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates alluded to earlier in the week.
A president cannot be a contradiction to his own policy and he cannot be contradicted by those who serve under him. A president must lead to win and his objectives must be planned with that in mind.
A president cannot use the country’s assets in a way that make it personal, nor can his decisions be personal. A president must be knowledgeable of the military that he is the commander in chief of.
Many of our presidents came from a military background. Many came into office with the traditions that were learned in service and in war. Washington was a general who won our Revolution, Lincoln a Captain, Eisenhower a General of the Army in WW II, Kennedy a lieutenant, Truman was a Colonel and knew the importance of saving lives by making a military decision. Ulysses S. Grant was the General of the Union Army whose decisions saved the Union and defeated the Confederacy. There are more presidents that served in our military than haven’t. More presidents have been Colonels and Generals who have led men into battle, than haven’t led men at all.
Since Eisenhower, two presidents have not served in the military. They are Clinton and Obama. Both loathed the military and both dithered about using the military. Both have committed troops based on a humanitarian need - Clinton in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Both suffered contradictions and both had very liberal beginnings.
Look back in history. Kennedy said: "A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living." Both Clinton an Obama never had real private sector jobs! Both never had to make a payroll and both never had to suffer from a layoff, let alone lead men into battle.
One the greatest Military minds and greatest generals of all time, not only in American War history, but in the war history of the world, was General George S. Patton. I have done some research on him and found that he believed in one thing - he charged to where the sound of gun fire was.
I believe what he would tell our young president today, if he were alive and saw what the president is making the military into would be this, “The objective of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." General George S. Patton
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Look at who your presidents were, look at the military challenges they had and find out for yourself who won the battle, but lost the war!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The contradiction:
Thursday-March 24, 2011
The contradiction:
We have heard many versions of what is happening in Libya, since the enforcement of the no fly zone that was initiated last weekend. Secretary of State Clinton said Colonel Qadaffi must go. The Secretary went on to say: however, there is no legal authority that permits us to do that in United Nation’s resolution to enforce a no fly zone.
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, says that the policy of the transition of authority to enforce the no fly zone from the United States to that of NATO is being done “on the fly.”
The President was being lauded by the press for his multi tasking ability to eat dinner in Chile and be kept up to date on the actions in Libya. The President also says that the turn over of authority will be accomplished by weeks end. All of which has been contradicted not only by NATO, but by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.
I have been observing this situation and other interesting situations created by this White House throughout the year. The conclusion I come up with is that when the President agrees to do something, he makes a decision and says I want it done tomorrow or I want it ended tomorrow. He then shifts gears to something else.
This way, he can shift the responsibility and shift the blame when things go south. He will also take the credit when things surprisingly go well. He creates a win - win situation for himself at the expense of others.
My fear is that the President made a decision that he didn’t want to make, with regards to Libya. The coalition that was assembled has members that have never been part of a NATO coalition and or any other coalition of that type. In the end, these new members will ultimately make the decisions that will affect the NATO troops, as this war ramps up. The president’s policy to commit the U.S. military early on has now been contradicted by his policy to pull out the U.S. military prematurely. He has also pledged American help in the future
There are three main elements to any successful military campaign - they are:
A clearly defined mission
A unambiguous chain of Command
A stated end goal or goals – that will give direction on what it is you are working towards
The mission in Libya today is a contradiction, the chain of command is a contradiction and the stated goals are yet a bigger contradiction.
My question is what happened to the common goal of any military conflict to eliminate or defeat your adversary? With all these contradictions, how can the coalition be successful? It can’t, because that goal is not part of the mission even though the president said Qadaffi must go. While some officials are saying this is a military operation, most are denying it.
If the shoe were on the other foot, what would Qadaffi do? First - I think he would go for the oil – second he would show no mercy – third he would go into the theater of operations with overwhelming force. Finally, he would be leading the coalition.
The price of oil hit $105.00 a barrel yesterday and we are not securing the oil in Libya for our consumption and the coalition’s consumption. This is the contradiction in leadership because no one is securing a valued piece of real estate there. Here, the price of oil has risen by $19.00 a barrel since February 16, the day the Libyan events started.
The price of gasoline is now up to $3.56 a gallon. The President has pledged 3.5 billion American dollars to help Brazil in development of their offshore shore oil reserves. The oil coming out of Libya has been halted. The president is giving Brazil credit, so they can exploit their offshore development while it is illegal for us to do it here in our country! It’s okay for them, but not for us!
This is the contradiction that the world has now seen and is now concerned about. When the supply of oil is halted from Libya, there is not another country that can fill the supply void quickly. When the supply of oil is halted from Libya, you cannot depend on another country filling the void in the short term.
Today, there is confusion and contradiction in the goals, the ultimate leadership and the duration of the military events in Libya. Today, there is confusion and contradiction in the goals, the ultimate leadership and the duration of policy initiatives coming out of the White House.
General Omar Nelson Bradley said: “We need to learn to set our course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship.”
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: We expect action from our leaders. We do not and should not accept inaction, especially with contradiction!
The contradiction:
We have heard many versions of what is happening in Libya, since the enforcement of the no fly zone that was initiated last weekend. Secretary of State Clinton said Colonel Qadaffi must go. The Secretary went on to say: however, there is no legal authority that permits us to do that in United Nation’s resolution to enforce a no fly zone.
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, says that the policy of the transition of authority to enforce the no fly zone from the United States to that of NATO is being done “on the fly.”
The President was being lauded by the press for his multi tasking ability to eat dinner in Chile and be kept up to date on the actions in Libya. The President also says that the turn over of authority will be accomplished by weeks end. All of which has been contradicted not only by NATO, but by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.
I have been observing this situation and other interesting situations created by this White House throughout the year. The conclusion I come up with is that when the President agrees to do something, he makes a decision and says I want it done tomorrow or I want it ended tomorrow. He then shifts gears to something else.
This way, he can shift the responsibility and shift the blame when things go south. He will also take the credit when things surprisingly go well. He creates a win - win situation for himself at the expense of others.
My fear is that the President made a decision that he didn’t want to make, with regards to Libya. The coalition that was assembled has members that have never been part of a NATO coalition and or any other coalition of that type. In the end, these new members will ultimately make the decisions that will affect the NATO troops, as this war ramps up. The president’s policy to commit the U.S. military early on has now been contradicted by his policy to pull out the U.S. military prematurely. He has also pledged American help in the future
There are three main elements to any successful military campaign - they are:
A clearly defined mission
A unambiguous chain of Command
A stated end goal or goals – that will give direction on what it is you are working towards
The mission in Libya today is a contradiction, the chain of command is a contradiction and the stated goals are yet a bigger contradiction.
My question is what happened to the common goal of any military conflict to eliminate or defeat your adversary? With all these contradictions, how can the coalition be successful? It can’t, because that goal is not part of the mission even though the president said Qadaffi must go. While some officials are saying this is a military operation, most are denying it.
If the shoe were on the other foot, what would Qadaffi do? First - I think he would go for the oil – second he would show no mercy – third he would go into the theater of operations with overwhelming force. Finally, he would be leading the coalition.
The price of oil hit $105.00 a barrel yesterday and we are not securing the oil in Libya for our consumption and the coalition’s consumption. This is the contradiction in leadership because no one is securing a valued piece of real estate there. Here, the price of oil has risen by $19.00 a barrel since February 16, the day the Libyan events started.
The price of gasoline is now up to $3.56 a gallon. The President has pledged 3.5 billion American dollars to help Brazil in development of their offshore shore oil reserves. The oil coming out of Libya has been halted. The president is giving Brazil credit, so they can exploit their offshore development while it is illegal for us to do it here in our country! It’s okay for them, but not for us!
This is the contradiction that the world has now seen and is now concerned about. When the supply of oil is halted from Libya, there is not another country that can fill the supply void quickly. When the supply of oil is halted from Libya, you cannot depend on another country filling the void in the short term.
Today, there is confusion and contradiction in the goals, the ultimate leadership and the duration of the military events in Libya. Today, there is confusion and contradiction in the goals, the ultimate leadership and the duration of policy initiatives coming out of the White House.
General Omar Nelson Bradley said: “We need to learn to set our course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship.”
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: We expect action from our leaders. We do not and should not accept inaction, especially with contradiction!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Patrick Henry and today!
Wednesday-March 23, 2011
Patrick Henry and today!
“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other.
They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been
so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrance’s have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
On this date, in 1775, Patrick Henry proclaims “Give me Liberty or give me death.”
Within these words lie the truth of revolution and resolve. Today, as we fight in three wars our flag waves brilliantly at home. Within the stars and stripes we see and can hear the song of freedom and liberty. Within our historical footnotes we can read and feel the fervor that the men of our founding wanted us to remember.
As I watch events unfold in the Middle East, I see the quest of freedom and liberty by some and I see the need to oppress by others. I cannot distinguish friend and foe through the fog of battle that comes into our homes every night in the vision that has been filtered for our consumption. I cannot distinguish the good by the evil that some men say is necessary. I cannot wish the brutality that I see on my worst enemy. Through it all I can see the vision of our liberty that became real by the use of words. Liberty and freedom do exist in the minds of men. Evil and death exist, because of the minds of men.
As I witness the abuses of our own Constitution, by men and women who take an oath to protect and defend it, I would remind you to read the words of Henry once again to get the perspective of what is meant by “give me liberty or give me death”.
I would ask you to remember that our liberty and our freedom are still unique to the world and it is something that we must dedicate ourselves to educate and remind others of the same.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Liberty is sometimes forgotten in the decisions that are made by others that ultimately affect us all. Liberty and death cannot be separated, but they can be celebrated when the quest for freedom was sought.
Patrick Henry and today!
“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other.
They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been
so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrance’s have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
On this date, in 1775, Patrick Henry proclaims “Give me Liberty or give me death.”
Within these words lie the truth of revolution and resolve. Today, as we fight in three wars our flag waves brilliantly at home. Within the stars and stripes we see and can hear the song of freedom and liberty. Within our historical footnotes we can read and feel the fervor that the men of our founding wanted us to remember.
As I watch events unfold in the Middle East, I see the quest of freedom and liberty by some and I see the need to oppress by others. I cannot distinguish friend and foe through the fog of battle that comes into our homes every night in the vision that has been filtered for our consumption. I cannot distinguish the good by the evil that some men say is necessary. I cannot wish the brutality that I see on my worst enemy. Through it all I can see the vision of our liberty that became real by the use of words. Liberty and freedom do exist in the minds of men. Evil and death exist, because of the minds of men.
As I witness the abuses of our own Constitution, by men and women who take an oath to protect and defend it, I would remind you to read the words of Henry once again to get the perspective of what is meant by “give me liberty or give me death”.
I would ask you to remember that our liberty and our freedom are still unique to the world and it is something that we must dedicate ourselves to educate and remind others of the same.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Liberty is sometimes forgotten in the decisions that are made by others that ultimately affect us all. Liberty and death cannot be separated, but they can be celebrated when the quest for freedom was sought.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Good and Evil!
Tuesday – March 22, 2011
Good and Evil!
What defines good and evil? I could give you the dictionary definition or I could ask you what your definition is.
There is no good time for killing. Killing is evil. But killing is part of the human condition. In a perfect world, there would be no killing and no crime. In a perfect world, there would be no need for armies and police. In a perfect world, there would be no tyrants and there would be benevolent princes.
Machiavelli said, in effect, “You either caress a Prince or you kill him.” The world is not perfect. The human condition is one of struggle and one of battle. The battle could be on the battle field or it could be based on ideas. In any case, disputes over territory come with a price. Disputes over ideas come with a price. Most times, it comes with the loss of life.
The first record of war was in 8000BC – Sharpened stone heads were used for axes, spears and arrows. Wood was used for clubs, axe handles and spear shafts. Spears were generally shorter than the warrior and used with one hand. Sling use was limited, only by the training needed to use it effectively. However, slings did outrange all other missile weapons, even bows, throughout the 4th century BC.
Today, our weapons are far more sophisticated than those used in the fourth century BC. Today, our weapons are designed for killing. Today, our preferred method of fighting is done through coalitions. Invasions come quickly, but linger on. Today, the decisions to go to war are disguised under the cloak of the United Nations. The United Nation’s is a deliberative body that takes its time and, as a result, prolongs the grief and suffering of oppressed people.
The decision to go to war is a heavy one. In this country, the President decides with the approval of Congress. In other countries, such as Libya, the ruler decides himself. In countries, such as Libya, the ruler, Moammar Qadaffi, also makes war on his own people. In countries, such as Iraq, Saddam Heussien used to make war on his own people and on his neighbors.
The military is exclusive to their mother countries. They can also be shared by other allies to conduct joint exercises, like the one occurring in Libya today. While the U.S. is making policy themselves they also have to work within the U.N. mandate. President Obama says that Qadaffi must go and that is the U.S. policy, however the U.S. will also work within the U.N. mandate. This is the confusion that, in most cases, causes a war to be prolonged and makes it untenable.
The world is a small environment. Information is passed with the speed of light. Weapons can be fired from hundreds of miles away and hit their designated targets with pin point accuracy. In some cases, these weapons have replaced soldiers on the front line.
The president made his decision to go to war. He didn’t consult Congress and didn’t follow the War Powers Act. Our law says that the president cannot make the sole decision to go to war, with out consulting Congress. The president can make the decision go to war himself, if there is an eminent threat coming our way. The Constitution spells out these rules. George Bush followed the rules and was criticized, because he did. In this case, President Obama violated the law and our rules. Some would say he is no different than the oppressive ruler that we are trying to eliminate. Some are asking who the good one is and who is now the evil one?
Libya is not a threat to the U.S. Libya can be controlled and the leader can be contained. Our foreign policy has been one of containment and that is what needs to be changed. Our policy of propping up an enemy this year and destroying him next year must stop. This is the good and evil of our policy and the men who decide on the policy.
When a U.S. president dithers and does not win the battle, he will loose the war. If Moammar Qadaffi remains as the leader of Libya, our president will look weaker than he already is. Our president is framing this action as a being a part of a coalition and not solely a U.S. action. Are you confused yet? We are making the decisions from the back seat only to turn over command to other countries “soon.” Are you now more confused than you were before?
Don’t get me wrong, I support the action of riding any tyrant, especially Qadaffi. But when our president is wrong in the design of the action and the communication of the actions goals, then I have a problem with it. It appears to me that this president is on a mission to prove himself. This is a dangerous proposition and it affects every American. Some say that George Bush was doing the same. I disagree. George Bush was protecting the country from further attacks when he decided to wage a war on terror. When Reagan bombed Qadaffi, in 1986, it was in retaliation. We also were in a dispute about territorial waters and Libya’s view of where they began and ended.
The end game is here. It is now a matter of making good from the evil. The end game should include supporting a benevolent Prince, and making foreign policy a matter of supporting the people of Libya and not just containing its dictator. If the president can do this, then I will support him. The truth of the matter is, I don’t think he can, because there is still not enough good and far too much evil being done.
I heard something the other day that puts a perspective on good and evil. Out of thousands of years of human history on the planet Earth, ninety five percent (95%) of the total population of mankind has been enslaved and has spent their lives under oppression. The United States can boast that we were free from the start and that we remain that way today. It is the United States that can spread freedom to the world, but we should do it on a consistent basis. You tell me what the good and evil of that is!
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Good and evil comes in many forms it is our duty to make sure that our leaders rule with that premise and that they promise to do so!
Good and Evil!
What defines good and evil? I could give you the dictionary definition or I could ask you what your definition is.
There is no good time for killing. Killing is evil. But killing is part of the human condition. In a perfect world, there would be no killing and no crime. In a perfect world, there would be no need for armies and police. In a perfect world, there would be no tyrants and there would be benevolent princes.
Machiavelli said, in effect, “You either caress a Prince or you kill him.” The world is not perfect. The human condition is one of struggle and one of battle. The battle could be on the battle field or it could be based on ideas. In any case, disputes over territory come with a price. Disputes over ideas come with a price. Most times, it comes with the loss of life.
The first record of war was in 8000BC – Sharpened stone heads were used for axes, spears and arrows. Wood was used for clubs, axe handles and spear shafts. Spears were generally shorter than the warrior and used with one hand. Sling use was limited, only by the training needed to use it effectively. However, slings did outrange all other missile weapons, even bows, throughout the 4th century BC.
Today, our weapons are far more sophisticated than those used in the fourth century BC. Today, our weapons are designed for killing. Today, our preferred method of fighting is done through coalitions. Invasions come quickly, but linger on. Today, the decisions to go to war are disguised under the cloak of the United Nations. The United Nation’s is a deliberative body that takes its time and, as a result, prolongs the grief and suffering of oppressed people.
The decision to go to war is a heavy one. In this country, the President decides with the approval of Congress. In other countries, such as Libya, the ruler decides himself. In countries, such as Libya, the ruler, Moammar Qadaffi, also makes war on his own people. In countries, such as Iraq, Saddam Heussien used to make war on his own people and on his neighbors.
The military is exclusive to their mother countries. They can also be shared by other allies to conduct joint exercises, like the one occurring in Libya today. While the U.S. is making policy themselves they also have to work within the U.N. mandate. President Obama says that Qadaffi must go and that is the U.S. policy, however the U.S. will also work within the U.N. mandate. This is the confusion that, in most cases, causes a war to be prolonged and makes it untenable.
The world is a small environment. Information is passed with the speed of light. Weapons can be fired from hundreds of miles away and hit their designated targets with pin point accuracy. In some cases, these weapons have replaced soldiers on the front line.
The president made his decision to go to war. He didn’t consult Congress and didn’t follow the War Powers Act. Our law says that the president cannot make the sole decision to go to war, with out consulting Congress. The president can make the decision go to war himself, if there is an eminent threat coming our way. The Constitution spells out these rules. George Bush followed the rules and was criticized, because he did. In this case, President Obama violated the law and our rules. Some would say he is no different than the oppressive ruler that we are trying to eliminate. Some are asking who the good one is and who is now the evil one?
Libya is not a threat to the U.S. Libya can be controlled and the leader can be contained. Our foreign policy has been one of containment and that is what needs to be changed. Our policy of propping up an enemy this year and destroying him next year must stop. This is the good and evil of our policy and the men who decide on the policy.
When a U.S. president dithers and does not win the battle, he will loose the war. If Moammar Qadaffi remains as the leader of Libya, our president will look weaker than he already is. Our president is framing this action as a being a part of a coalition and not solely a U.S. action. Are you confused yet? We are making the decisions from the back seat only to turn over command to other countries “soon.” Are you now more confused than you were before?
Don’t get me wrong, I support the action of riding any tyrant, especially Qadaffi. But when our president is wrong in the design of the action and the communication of the actions goals, then I have a problem with it. It appears to me that this president is on a mission to prove himself. This is a dangerous proposition and it affects every American. Some say that George Bush was doing the same. I disagree. George Bush was protecting the country from further attacks when he decided to wage a war on terror. When Reagan bombed Qadaffi, in 1986, it was in retaliation. We also were in a dispute about territorial waters and Libya’s view of where they began and ended.
The end game is here. It is now a matter of making good from the evil. The end game should include supporting a benevolent Prince, and making foreign policy a matter of supporting the people of Libya and not just containing its dictator. If the president can do this, then I will support him. The truth of the matter is, I don’t think he can, because there is still not enough good and far too much evil being done.
I heard something the other day that puts a perspective on good and evil. Out of thousands of years of human history on the planet Earth, ninety five percent (95%) of the total population of mankind has been enslaved and has spent their lives under oppression. The United States can boast that we were free from the start and that we remain that way today. It is the United States that can spread freedom to the world, but we should do it on a consistent basis. You tell me what the good and evil of that is!
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Good and evil comes in many forms it is our duty to make sure that our leaders rule with that premise and that they promise to do so!
Monday, March 21, 2011
No guts, no glory:
Monday – March 21, 2011
No guts, no glory:
We have all heard the expression “No guts, no glory.” This is essentially an American theme. We expect players who play football, baseball, hockey, golf and even those who go 200 hundred miles per hour down the back stretch to display the courage and the guts to go for it. Coaches and owners of pro sports teams expect the players on the field to make that one sacrifice to win the game. No guts, no glory!
We expect our leaders to display good judgment along with the guts that make it possible to make that play work, so that we get the glory!
War requires smart players with a strong team and good leadership to win. A new coalition of players has started the process of implementing a no fly zone in Libya. Moammar Qadaffi presumably is on the run and in control, while his army is still fighting the rebels on the ground. Our president has given up the role of leadership in this fight. It was the French who made the first attacks by air. Our president went on record saying that the U.S. will not commit any ground troops and the attacks will be limited to the air by our allies who make up the coalition. The president said that the U.S. will contribute on the front end by our unique capabilities to ensure safety for the Libyan people. While this is honorable and demonstrates his compassion, he is giving up a tactical element of war, and that is the stated goal of defeating the enemy!
All the tyrants and all the dictators of the world recognize strength and weakness. Though the president might have the U.S. military behind him and he might have the coalition leaders on this side, Qadaffi doesn’t see it that way. Qadaffi will use the U.N. and the resolution that just passed to his strength.
Moammar Qadaffi has been on the scene for forty-one years. He has suppressed many uprisings and he has successfully eluded American strength. He is the Castro of the Mid East. Qadaffi has sent his loyalists to intermingle with the local townspeople. They will use the townspeople as human shields. He pays members of his military one thousand dollars a day and he has been known to hire mercenaries. Qadaffi is seen by some to be the weak one, I don’t he has everything on his side right now.
China has opposed the U.N. resolution against Qadaffi. Russia is supplying Qadaffi with military support in weapons and training. Our president does not want it to appear that the U.S. is leading this invasion from the air. The theory of the president is, that if we look like we are in the background, then the rest of the region and the world will have a more favorable opinion towards us. The Arab League of Nations, who favored the resolution, has not come forward with any support in the way of money or weapons. We will spend over five hundred million dollars in the next few days. So far we have launched 124 Tomahawk missiles at the cost of 1.5 million dollars from the back seat.
The French who led the airstrikes get their oil primarily from Libya. They do have a vested interest in the region. Though The United States is assuming the back seat, we are still driving the effort. This charade makes us look untrustworthy and will prove to be a detriment in the long run. The stated objective is to protect the people. If Qadaffi is allowed to stay, then his people are still at risk under his leadership.
It would have been easier to do something more direct a month ago or two months ago when the uprising started. It would have been easier to initiate a military plan then.
Reagan had the solution when he sent U.S. bombers to Qadaffi in April of 1986 and not the people of Libya. The attack was in response to a bombing of a disco in West Berlin.
That attack contained him, until he planned the downing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. It was proven that he was responsible and the West did nothing. Qadaffi has been silent for over twenty years. He has been silent until now, because he knows that the president is no match to his experience, though ruthless as it may be. No guts, no glory is how Qadaffi sees it!
I am a strong advocate of using the military, when it’s necessary. I advocate creating a strong position through military strength in our foreign affairs. Wasn’t it Reagan that said “peace through strength?” There is no question Qadaffi must go. There is no question the world would have been a better place if Qadaffi never came to power. Today, he is still in power and the likely hood of him remaining is a strong possibility. He will do anything and he will use what ever means he has at his disposal to remain in power. The question is, will President Obama use whatever means he has to take Qadaffi down? The sure bet is that Qadaffi doesn’t think he will and that is the danger. The U.S. is seen as being the weak one, because we are hiding behind the allies. The U.S. is seen in that region of the world as having no guts, because we have had no glory in the way they define it!
In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships. History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others. Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.
On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:
“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
On this date, in 1790, Thomas Jefferson reported to President Washington in New York, as The first Secretary of State. One particular matter of concern was the Barbary Coast Pirates in the region of the world that we are now engaging with air strikes. Even then, Jefferson knew that these pirates had to met head on. When Jefferson became President, he launched his assault, the Barbary Coast War.
The "Marines' Hymn" is the official hymn of the United States Marine Corps. It is the oldest official song in the United States military. The line "To the shores of Tripoli" refers to the First Barbary War. Those early Marines knew what “no guts, no glory” meant! Unfortunately, our president does not look at it in the same way.
Hillary Clinton is this nation’s 67th Secretary of State. Just last week, she said she will not be Secretary of State in 2012. Say what you will about Hillary, I think she would have done things a lot differently, if she was allowed to do her job. There is great confusion on the part of our allies when they see and hear remarks like the one she made. I am sure that there is great confusion on the part of our allies when the president is not seen as having the guts for glory!
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: As I wrote last Friday, it is easy to be a Monday morning quarter back. However, when I see the U.S. taking the back seat I fear for the future! Remember “no guts, no glory” is a purely an American theme. What other themes can you think of that have become distant memories?
No guts, no glory:
We have all heard the expression “No guts, no glory.” This is essentially an American theme. We expect players who play football, baseball, hockey, golf and even those who go 200 hundred miles per hour down the back stretch to display the courage and the guts to go for it. Coaches and owners of pro sports teams expect the players on the field to make that one sacrifice to win the game. No guts, no glory!
We expect our leaders to display good judgment along with the guts that make it possible to make that play work, so that we get the glory!
War requires smart players with a strong team and good leadership to win. A new coalition of players has started the process of implementing a no fly zone in Libya. Moammar Qadaffi presumably is on the run and in control, while his army is still fighting the rebels on the ground. Our president has given up the role of leadership in this fight. It was the French who made the first attacks by air. Our president went on record saying that the U.S. will not commit any ground troops and the attacks will be limited to the air by our allies who make up the coalition. The president said that the U.S. will contribute on the front end by our unique capabilities to ensure safety for the Libyan people. While this is honorable and demonstrates his compassion, he is giving up a tactical element of war, and that is the stated goal of defeating the enemy!
All the tyrants and all the dictators of the world recognize strength and weakness. Though the president might have the U.S. military behind him and he might have the coalition leaders on this side, Qadaffi doesn’t see it that way. Qadaffi will use the U.N. and the resolution that just passed to his strength.
Moammar Qadaffi has been on the scene for forty-one years. He has suppressed many uprisings and he has successfully eluded American strength. He is the Castro of the Mid East. Qadaffi has sent his loyalists to intermingle with the local townspeople. They will use the townspeople as human shields. He pays members of his military one thousand dollars a day and he has been known to hire mercenaries. Qadaffi is seen by some to be the weak one, I don’t he has everything on his side right now.
China has opposed the U.N. resolution against Qadaffi. Russia is supplying Qadaffi with military support in weapons and training. Our president does not want it to appear that the U.S. is leading this invasion from the air. The theory of the president is, that if we look like we are in the background, then the rest of the region and the world will have a more favorable opinion towards us. The Arab League of Nations, who favored the resolution, has not come forward with any support in the way of money or weapons. We will spend over five hundred million dollars in the next few days. So far we have launched 124 Tomahawk missiles at the cost of 1.5 million dollars from the back seat.
The French who led the airstrikes get their oil primarily from Libya. They do have a vested interest in the region. Though The United States is assuming the back seat, we are still driving the effort. This charade makes us look untrustworthy and will prove to be a detriment in the long run. The stated objective is to protect the people. If Qadaffi is allowed to stay, then his people are still at risk under his leadership.
It would have been easier to do something more direct a month ago or two months ago when the uprising started. It would have been easier to initiate a military plan then.
Reagan had the solution when he sent U.S. bombers to Qadaffi in April of 1986 and not the people of Libya. The attack was in response to a bombing of a disco in West Berlin.
That attack contained him, until he planned the downing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. It was proven that he was responsible and the West did nothing. Qadaffi has been silent for over twenty years. He has been silent until now, because he knows that the president is no match to his experience, though ruthless as it may be. No guts, no glory is how Qadaffi sees it!
I am a strong advocate of using the military, when it’s necessary. I advocate creating a strong position through military strength in our foreign affairs. Wasn’t it Reagan that said “peace through strength?” There is no question Qadaffi must go. There is no question the world would have been a better place if Qadaffi never came to power. Today, he is still in power and the likely hood of him remaining is a strong possibility. He will do anything and he will use what ever means he has at his disposal to remain in power. The question is, will President Obama use whatever means he has to take Qadaffi down? The sure bet is that Qadaffi doesn’t think he will and that is the danger. The U.S. is seen as being the weak one, because we are hiding behind the allies. The U.S. is seen in that region of the world as having no guts, because we have had no glory in the way they define it!
In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships. History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others. Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.
On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:
“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
On this date, in 1790, Thomas Jefferson reported to President Washington in New York, as The first Secretary of State. One particular matter of concern was the Barbary Coast Pirates in the region of the world that we are now engaging with air strikes. Even then, Jefferson knew that these pirates had to met head on. When Jefferson became President, he launched his assault, the Barbary Coast War.
The "Marines' Hymn" is the official hymn of the United States Marine Corps. It is the oldest official song in the United States military. The line "To the shores of Tripoli" refers to the First Barbary War. Those early Marines knew what “no guts, no glory” meant! Unfortunately, our president does not look at it in the same way.
Hillary Clinton is this nation’s 67th Secretary of State. Just last week, she said she will not be Secretary of State in 2012. Say what you will about Hillary, I think she would have done things a lot differently, if she was allowed to do her job. There is great confusion on the part of our allies when they see and hear remarks like the one she made. I am sure that there is great confusion on the part of our allies when the president is not seen as having the guts for glory!
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: As I wrote last Friday, it is easy to be a Monday morning quarter back. However, when I see the U.S. taking the back seat I fear for the future! Remember “no guts, no glory” is a purely an American theme. What other themes can you think of that have become distant memories?
Friday, March 18, 2011
This is what you get!
Friday-March 18, 2011
This is what you get!
Colonel Moammar Qadaffi could be sly as a fox or he could just be plain crazy or he could be a crazy fox. He said last night, after the U.N. approved a resolution and enacted a no fly zone in Libya, “If the world acts crazy then we will be crazy with the world” Qadaffi said.
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, especially in the White House these days. Our young president has waited for nearly two weeks to act on the crisis in Libya. He made a statement that “Qadaffi must go.” It ended there no action, no back up, nothing. This empty action has only added to the death toll and emboldened a crazy man. It emboldened his army to commit near genocide after Colonel Qadaffi said, “Benghazi will be cleansed.” No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, because nothing is going on. We hear empty rhetoric and words that sound good, but don’t hold up to the test.
The president’s action is inaction and it shows. The White House said that action “will come swiftly.” Hopefully, military plans have been drawn up by those that know how to do it. I am afraid that the Civil War in Libya will be over before the planned action is completed, let alone started. The president will come out at some point and say that the process of peace through the U.N. worked. However, Colonel Qadaffi will still be in power and he will still control the sweet crude oil that comes out of Libya. It will be harder to remove Colonel Qadaffi and it will prove to be detrimental to the world’s security. This is what you get from Liberals who are more interested in the process, than taking bold and immediate action with allies that are prepared to go the distance.
Now, the U.S. will be caught in the middle with the U.N. and the Arab League countries who will want to do things their way. This is what you get when the leader of the free world is absent. I know this is easy for me to say. I know I sound like a Monday morning quarterback. However, when the history of the region is reviewed and the history of the man in Libya is reviewed, even a buck private can see that the Colonel presents a danger. When the history of the young president is reviewed and patterns of no action become the norm and the wait and see approach is predictable, even the common citizen, such as me, can see that the president’s continued behavior and seemingly detached style presents a danger.
Fox News reported last Sunday: “The Obama administration and other governments have expressed deep reservations about a tactic that would require them to destroy Qaddafi's air defenses and possibly shoot down his planes. The Arab League raised the pressure on the U.S. and its NATO allies on Saturday by asking the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone, but a day later they appeared no closer to taking action.”
"This was a rare decision of the Arab League," rebel spokesman Abdul Basit al-Muzayrik told Al-Jazeera. "We call on the international community to quickly make a firm decision against these crimes."
The poorly equipped and loosely organized rebel fighters said throughout the day they were fleeing the oil town of Brega under heavy attack, losing a vital source of fuel for their vehicles and leaving Qaddafi's military less than 150 miles from the main opposition city of Benghazi.”
Move forward in time by one week and Benghazi becomes the place where the Colonel is waging war.
This is what you get when the governing body of the U.N. works through the process and uses caution instead of swift action. A week later and after many deaths it might be to late with the action that has been approved.
This is what you get when the world is devoid of a Winston Churchill, a Margaret Thatcher, a Ronald Reagan and, yes, two Bush’s. These leaders were not afraid to draw the line in the sand. The U.N. security process always delivers the wrong solution because it is always too late. The leader that can define the situation quickly with energy and conviction will always make the process efficient, timely and one that offers the right solution. If you review the profile of these leaders and review the history that these leaders were confronted with and then made, you will see what you get from leaders that knew how to lead and how to act.
This is what you get when the role of leadership is respected. This is what you get when a president assumes the role of leader and not the follower. Someone once told me “if you are not the lead dog, the view never changes.” I fear that this is what we are now seeing.
As you know, I end each week with a quote that hopefully sums up the week’s history and the topics I write about and will organize around.
Ronald Reagan was one of the 20th century’s greatest leaders. He was also one of our most respected Presidents. He knew the cost of inaction and was not afraid to confront tyrants with strong words of condemnation. When he spoke, other leaders followed. When he acted, he knew what the outcome would be, because he led in the action. He said:
We did not seek the role of leadership that has been thrust upon us. But whether we like it or not, the events of our time demand America's participation.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: There is a leader among us the question is when will we notice that leader? The rest of the world wants to follow in our lead but they remain hesitant. This is what you get when a leader doesn’t know his role!
This is what you get!
Colonel Moammar Qadaffi could be sly as a fox or he could just be plain crazy or he could be a crazy fox. He said last night, after the U.N. approved a resolution and enacted a no fly zone in Libya, “If the world acts crazy then we will be crazy with the world” Qadaffi said.
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, especially in the White House these days. Our young president has waited for nearly two weeks to act on the crisis in Libya. He made a statement that “Qadaffi must go.” It ended there no action, no back up, nothing. This empty action has only added to the death toll and emboldened a crazy man. It emboldened his army to commit near genocide after Colonel Qadaffi said, “Benghazi will be cleansed.” No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, because nothing is going on. We hear empty rhetoric and words that sound good, but don’t hold up to the test.
The president’s action is inaction and it shows. The White House said that action “will come swiftly.” Hopefully, military plans have been drawn up by those that know how to do it. I am afraid that the Civil War in Libya will be over before the planned action is completed, let alone started. The president will come out at some point and say that the process of peace through the U.N. worked. However, Colonel Qadaffi will still be in power and he will still control the sweet crude oil that comes out of Libya. It will be harder to remove Colonel Qadaffi and it will prove to be detrimental to the world’s security. This is what you get from Liberals who are more interested in the process, than taking bold and immediate action with allies that are prepared to go the distance.
Now, the U.S. will be caught in the middle with the U.N. and the Arab League countries who will want to do things their way. This is what you get when the leader of the free world is absent. I know this is easy for me to say. I know I sound like a Monday morning quarterback. However, when the history of the region is reviewed and the history of the man in Libya is reviewed, even a buck private can see that the Colonel presents a danger. When the history of the young president is reviewed and patterns of no action become the norm and the wait and see approach is predictable, even the common citizen, such as me, can see that the president’s continued behavior and seemingly detached style presents a danger.
Fox News reported last Sunday: “The Obama administration and other governments have expressed deep reservations about a tactic that would require them to destroy Qaddafi's air defenses and possibly shoot down his planes. The Arab League raised the pressure on the U.S. and its NATO allies on Saturday by asking the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone, but a day later they appeared no closer to taking action.”
"This was a rare decision of the Arab League," rebel spokesman Abdul Basit al-Muzayrik told Al-Jazeera. "We call on the international community to quickly make a firm decision against these crimes."
The poorly equipped and loosely organized rebel fighters said throughout the day they were fleeing the oil town of Brega under heavy attack, losing a vital source of fuel for their vehicles and leaving Qaddafi's military less than 150 miles from the main opposition city of Benghazi.”
Move forward in time by one week and Benghazi becomes the place where the Colonel is waging war.
This is what you get when the governing body of the U.N. works through the process and uses caution instead of swift action. A week later and after many deaths it might be to late with the action that has been approved.
This is what you get when the world is devoid of a Winston Churchill, a Margaret Thatcher, a Ronald Reagan and, yes, two Bush’s. These leaders were not afraid to draw the line in the sand. The U.N. security process always delivers the wrong solution because it is always too late. The leader that can define the situation quickly with energy and conviction will always make the process efficient, timely and one that offers the right solution. If you review the profile of these leaders and review the history that these leaders were confronted with and then made, you will see what you get from leaders that knew how to lead and how to act.
This is what you get when the role of leadership is respected. This is what you get when a president assumes the role of leader and not the follower. Someone once told me “if you are not the lead dog, the view never changes.” I fear that this is what we are now seeing.
As you know, I end each week with a quote that hopefully sums up the week’s history and the topics I write about and will organize around.
Ronald Reagan was one of the 20th century’s greatest leaders. He was also one of our most respected Presidents. He knew the cost of inaction and was not afraid to confront tyrants with strong words of condemnation. When he spoke, other leaders followed. When he acted, he knew what the outcome would be, because he led in the action. He said:
We did not seek the role of leadership that has been thrust upon us. But whether we like it or not, the events of our time demand America's participation.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: There is a leader among us the question is when will we notice that leader? The rest of the world wants to follow in our lead but they remain hesitant. This is what you get when a leader doesn’t know his role!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The color green:
Thursday-March 17, 2011
The color green:
On this date, in 1762, the First St. Patrick’s Day Parade was held in the streets of New York City.
Little is known of Patrick's early life, though it is known that he was born in Roman Britain in the 4th century, into a wealthy Romano-British family. His father and grandfather were deacons in the Church. At the age of sixteen, he was kidnapped by Irish raiders and taken captive to Ireland, as a slave. It is believed he was held somewhere on the west coast of Ireland, possibly Mayo, but the exact location is unknown. According to his Confession, he was told by God in a dream to flee from captivity to the coast, where he would board a ship and return to Britain. Upon returning, he quickly joined the Church in Auxerre in Gaul and studied to be a priest.
In 432, he again said that he was called back to Ireland, though as a bishop, to Christianize the Irish from their native polytheism. Irish folklore tells that, one of his teaching methods included using the shamrock to explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to the Irish people. After nearly thirty years of evangelism, he died on 17 March 461, and according to tradition, was buried at Down Patrick. Although there were other more successful missions to Ireland from Rome, Patrick endured as the principal champion of Irish Christianity and is held in esteem in the Irish Church.
This is day of celebration for many. It is day to wear green and drink green beer. It is a day that the Chicago River turns green.
Well, like many FORUMS I write, here comes the political part. As we wear our green ties, green shirts, green shoes and green pants, we must stop to consider what the color green has come to symbolize.
The color green symbolizes the environmental movement. The color green symbolizes electric cars and wind mills. The color green symbolizes a fuel called ethanol that takes vast amounts of energy to produce. The energy it takes to produce does not equal the perceived benefit. Ethanol takes vast amounts of corn out of the food supply, because that is the basis of the fuel. When the corn is distilled, water is added to the mixture of gasoline, which is now found to corrode engines. When engines are serviced in this way more energy is consumed in the repair process. The color green has become the symbol of a religion to the environmentalists that lobby to prohibit domestic drilling for our readily available oil reserves. The list goes on.
The color green also represents the destruction of an American born Industry. The incandescent light bulb is now being forced out of production and replaced by a mercury filled light bulb all in the name of the environment. American jobs have been lost to China where these new light bulbs are being made. If these new type of light bulbs are not disposed of properly or if they accidently break a required process of environmental clean up is needed.
The color green has become a color of the liberal left who will stop at nothing in order to control what you purchase, what you eat, what you drive and now how you light your home. The color green has cost the tax payer billions of wasted dollars on wasted programs that have made some liberal’s very wealthy at the expense of your liberty and freedom to make individual choices. The color green has limited the free enterprise system and limited entrepreneurship. The color green has limited the principles of the free market.
The color green can be used to describe a young president, who is green himself. Our president is out of his league and it shows. Our president is not leading, he is following. While turmoil in the mid east is occurring, he is waiting on the U.N. to invoke sanctions. This is something that green liberals do when they don’t have an idea of what is happening.
In 2009, the price for a gallon of gas was $1.83. Today, for the same gallon of gas you will pay $3.55, up 90%. The economy is struggling along with a job less recovery. Housing starts are at a low and it does not look like they will improve any time soon. Our energy policy is being driven by a guy that rides his bike to work. This is all due to a president who is green in experience.
Like any other urban politician that is put into a place of authority, his lack of experience is reflected in his style of governing. His lack of experience is now costing this country its stature in the world. Our currency the -green back- might be replaced as the world’s monetary standard. Our country is not feared and not respected. Our president would rather make basketball picks than lead.
Today’s FORUM is not one of my best - but then again, I am still a little green myself, because I am not used to making so many criticisms of a green president.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: It used to be that many of the world’s citizens were green with envy, because we are Americans. Our Green president has now made the U.S. into a country that is now becoming no different from many others.
The color green:
On this date, in 1762, the First St. Patrick’s Day Parade was held in the streets of New York City.
Little is known of Patrick's early life, though it is known that he was born in Roman Britain in the 4th century, into a wealthy Romano-British family. His father and grandfather were deacons in the Church. At the age of sixteen, he was kidnapped by Irish raiders and taken captive to Ireland, as a slave. It is believed he was held somewhere on the west coast of Ireland, possibly Mayo, but the exact location is unknown. According to his Confession, he was told by God in a dream to flee from captivity to the coast, where he would board a ship and return to Britain. Upon returning, he quickly joined the Church in Auxerre in Gaul and studied to be a priest.
In 432, he again said that he was called back to Ireland, though as a bishop, to Christianize the Irish from their native polytheism. Irish folklore tells that, one of his teaching methods included using the shamrock to explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to the Irish people. After nearly thirty years of evangelism, he died on 17 March 461, and according to tradition, was buried at Down Patrick. Although there were other more successful missions to Ireland from Rome, Patrick endured as the principal champion of Irish Christianity and is held in esteem in the Irish Church.
This is day of celebration for many. It is day to wear green and drink green beer. It is a day that the Chicago River turns green.
Well, like many FORUMS I write, here comes the political part. As we wear our green ties, green shirts, green shoes and green pants, we must stop to consider what the color green has come to symbolize.
The color green symbolizes the environmental movement. The color green symbolizes electric cars and wind mills. The color green symbolizes a fuel called ethanol that takes vast amounts of energy to produce. The energy it takes to produce does not equal the perceived benefit. Ethanol takes vast amounts of corn out of the food supply, because that is the basis of the fuel. When the corn is distilled, water is added to the mixture of gasoline, which is now found to corrode engines. When engines are serviced in this way more energy is consumed in the repair process. The color green has become the symbol of a religion to the environmentalists that lobby to prohibit domestic drilling for our readily available oil reserves. The list goes on.
The color green also represents the destruction of an American born Industry. The incandescent light bulb is now being forced out of production and replaced by a mercury filled light bulb all in the name of the environment. American jobs have been lost to China where these new light bulbs are being made. If these new type of light bulbs are not disposed of properly or if they accidently break a required process of environmental clean up is needed.
The color green has become a color of the liberal left who will stop at nothing in order to control what you purchase, what you eat, what you drive and now how you light your home. The color green has cost the tax payer billions of wasted dollars on wasted programs that have made some liberal’s very wealthy at the expense of your liberty and freedom to make individual choices. The color green has limited the free enterprise system and limited entrepreneurship. The color green has limited the principles of the free market.
The color green can be used to describe a young president, who is green himself. Our president is out of his league and it shows. Our president is not leading, he is following. While turmoil in the mid east is occurring, he is waiting on the U.N. to invoke sanctions. This is something that green liberals do when they don’t have an idea of what is happening.
In 2009, the price for a gallon of gas was $1.83. Today, for the same gallon of gas you will pay $3.55, up 90%. The economy is struggling along with a job less recovery. Housing starts are at a low and it does not look like they will improve any time soon. Our energy policy is being driven by a guy that rides his bike to work. This is all due to a president who is green in experience.
Like any other urban politician that is put into a place of authority, his lack of experience is reflected in his style of governing. His lack of experience is now costing this country its stature in the world. Our currency the -green back- might be replaced as the world’s monetary standard. Our country is not feared and not respected. Our president would rather make basketball picks than lead.
Today’s FORUM is not one of my best - but then again, I am still a little green myself, because I am not used to making so many criticisms of a green president.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: It used to be that many of the world’s citizens were green with envy, because we are Americans. Our Green president has now made the U.S. into a country that is now becoming no different from many others.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
What just happened?
Wednesday-March 16, 2011
What just happened?
Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the government functioning and would also provide the funding to continue ObamaCare.
John Conyers (D-MI) said that Obama care is the platform for a future single payer healthcare program. I might remind you that, John Conyers’ wife is serving out a sentence in jail, she is a convicted felon for her role in bribery as a City of Detroit Councilwoman. This has nothing to do with Obama care, but it has everything to do with who we choose to represent us.
The House passed this provision only to review it again in three weeks. Freshman Republicans and a few seasoned Republicans voted against it. Even if it was voted down in the House, it would have passed in the Senate and get the president’s signature. You might say we didn’t have a chance to begin with, because of Harry Reid’s minions in the Senate. With the House passage of the continuing resolution, it signaled that there could be a weakness on Speaker Boehner’s part.
It signaled that the victory in November, which changed the House leadership and majority, didn’t make any difference. It signaled that the Republicans will let Obama care move in the direction of implementation, because the money is still there and it will be spent. It signaled that the House, like the White House, is not paying attention to Federal Judge Vinson’s ruling that Obama care in unconstitutional. It signaled that the House leadership will throw the Constitution out the window like the Democrats before them. It signaled that the House leadership does not want to stop the spending that will cripple future generations with debt.
In the two hundred and thirty five (235) years that this country has been around - one third (1/3) of our debt has occurred in the last three years.
What would make the House leadership buckle under and vote to continue spending? You might say that the House bargained to pass the resolution, while reducing spending by 9 billion dollars. You might say that this is a beginning. It very well could be.
Since January, the new House majority has voted to fully repeal the $2.6 trillion Obama care law; to defund the law as part of H.R. 1; and to repeal the job-destroying 1099 small business mandate. The House has also started the process of replacing the health care law with common-sense solutions that would protect jobs and bring down costs for families and small businesses.
Any upcoming effort to repeal Obama care’s slush funds is “part of a broad assault on wasteful mandatory spending programs that began last week with passage of two bills saving taxpayers as much as $9 billion.” One of last week’s bills, for example, began the process of shutting down the TARP bailout program. There’s a similar bill on the House floor this week that makes additional cuts – and there are many more to come.
Why aren’t these slush funds repealed in today’s short-term continuing resolution? Continuing resolutions “can only be used for discretionary spending cuts and not changes to mandatory spending accounts.” In other words, it would require “resorting to Pelosi-style rules abuses of the sort that enraged Americans last year” – remember “we have to pass the bill, so you can find out what’s in it?”
Repealing this wasteful mandatory spending can happen without resorting to the sorts of abuses Speaker Boehner and the new majority pledged to end. Speaker Boehner said, “If the Senate won’t join us in passing a bill that repeals ObamaCare all at once, we will work to repeal it step-by-step” and “do everything we can to stop this gravy train and ensure this job-crushing health care law is never fully implemented.”
I hope that we can depend on the House Republicans to make good on Speaker Boehner’s commitment. Our debt, as a nation, and our personal freedom is at risk. There are now less than two years that this president will remain in office. He can and will continue in his efforts to destroy our traditions and our security. We will continue to pay for the damage he has caused well into his retirement years. It is now a matter of reducing that risk.
So, when you ask what just happened, you might want take a close look and trust that a strategy is in place to reduce the risk of a young president who will spend recklessly, but will not take the time to lead the free world.
When you ask the question, what just happened, ask your Congressman.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: In three weeks, I hope we can ask the same question and get the answer we are looking for.
What just happened?
Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the government functioning and would also provide the funding to continue ObamaCare.
John Conyers (D-MI) said that Obama care is the platform for a future single payer healthcare program. I might remind you that, John Conyers’ wife is serving out a sentence in jail, she is a convicted felon for her role in bribery as a City of Detroit Councilwoman. This has nothing to do with Obama care, but it has everything to do with who we choose to represent us.
The House passed this provision only to review it again in three weeks. Freshman Republicans and a few seasoned Republicans voted against it. Even if it was voted down in the House, it would have passed in the Senate and get the president’s signature. You might say we didn’t have a chance to begin with, because of Harry Reid’s minions in the Senate. With the House passage of the continuing resolution, it signaled that there could be a weakness on Speaker Boehner’s part.
It signaled that the victory in November, which changed the House leadership and majority, didn’t make any difference. It signaled that the Republicans will let Obama care move in the direction of implementation, because the money is still there and it will be spent. It signaled that the House, like the White House, is not paying attention to Federal Judge Vinson’s ruling that Obama care in unconstitutional. It signaled that the House leadership will throw the Constitution out the window like the Democrats before them. It signaled that the House leadership does not want to stop the spending that will cripple future generations with debt.
In the two hundred and thirty five (235) years that this country has been around - one third (1/3) of our debt has occurred in the last three years.
What would make the House leadership buckle under and vote to continue spending? You might say that the House bargained to pass the resolution, while reducing spending by 9 billion dollars. You might say that this is a beginning. It very well could be.
Since January, the new House majority has voted to fully repeal the $2.6 trillion Obama care law; to defund the law as part of H.R. 1; and to repeal the job-destroying 1099 small business mandate. The House has also started the process of replacing the health care law with common-sense solutions that would protect jobs and bring down costs for families and small businesses.
Any upcoming effort to repeal Obama care’s slush funds is “part of a broad assault on wasteful mandatory spending programs that began last week with passage of two bills saving taxpayers as much as $9 billion.” One of last week’s bills, for example, began the process of shutting down the TARP bailout program. There’s a similar bill on the House floor this week that makes additional cuts – and there are many more to come.
Why aren’t these slush funds repealed in today’s short-term continuing resolution? Continuing resolutions “can only be used for discretionary spending cuts and not changes to mandatory spending accounts.” In other words, it would require “resorting to Pelosi-style rules abuses of the sort that enraged Americans last year” – remember “we have to pass the bill, so you can find out what’s in it?”
Repealing this wasteful mandatory spending can happen without resorting to the sorts of abuses Speaker Boehner and the new majority pledged to end. Speaker Boehner said, “If the Senate won’t join us in passing a bill that repeals ObamaCare all at once, we will work to repeal it step-by-step” and “do everything we can to stop this gravy train and ensure this job-crushing health care law is never fully implemented.”
I hope that we can depend on the House Republicans to make good on Speaker Boehner’s commitment. Our debt, as a nation, and our personal freedom is at risk. There are now less than two years that this president will remain in office. He can and will continue in his efforts to destroy our traditions and our security. We will continue to pay for the damage he has caused well into his retirement years. It is now a matter of reducing that risk.
So, when you ask what just happened, you might want take a close look and trust that a strategy is in place to reduce the risk of a young president who will spend recklessly, but will not take the time to lead the free world.
When you ask the question, what just happened, ask your Congressman.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: In three weeks, I hope we can ask the same question and get the answer we are looking for.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The fallout:
Tuesday – March 15, 2011
The fallout:
The term fallout is usually associated with a nuclear accident. In Japan, today, the fallout of the explosions at four nuclear power plants is a reality. Though we will not know the immediate effects of the small amounts of radiation that have leaked into the immediate environment, in Japan, we do know that there is a brewing calamity.
Before the fallout, it is known that there has been an effort to call for nuclear safety around the world. Many of the nuclear plants in our country that are now in operation are designed to take a 7.9 magnitude earthquake. We have been told that there are a number of redundant safety factors that are designed into these plants. There are 104 nuclear power plants in our country. Out of the 104 plants in operation 23 are of a similar design to those that are in distress now in Japan.
Many leaders in our country are calling for a moratorium on future nuclear power plant construction. I would agree that we should slow down the efforts of nuclear energy, because the risks of a catastrophe do not equal the benefit of this type of energy production.
The fallout on the immediate horizon is one that we should all take note of. As we witness the events in Japan, the world should be working to ensure that if similar events occur any where else in the world the risk of fallout is minimized. If it takes more robust designs or more redundant backup systems then there should be standards that the world community can agree on.
Like food, we consume vast amounts of energy. We need energy to live on. We need energy to sustain life. We need energy to move economies of the world forward. Without energy there would be little advancement of the human race. If we know this why are we not using energy more sensibly? The fallout of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit Japan will be far reaching. It will be noticed in the physical sense the emotional sense and now the environmental sense.
We should, as a world community, learn from this and use our energy in a smart way, instead of using energy to hold countries hostage. We should work to prohibit the risky forms of energy production from being the main form of production. The risk is far too great to allow a potential crippling of a nation, because they don’t have ready access to cheaper and safer forms of energy production.
The fallout here at home is two fold. We will not be able to borrow money from the Japanese and we will feel the effects of Japans standstill economy immediately. The need for additional oil in that country will now tip the fragile supply chain. They are our trading partners and like it or not we are connected to them economically and militarily. Japan is the world’s third largest economy.
For instance, all Japanese auto production facilities, except one, will experience an interruption in parts supply. The one remaining facility in Flat Rock, Michigan that produces the Mazda 6 will continue operating, because of their relationship with Ford Motor Company. Our domestic Auto Industry suppliers have been working for years to produce parts for the Japanese Automobile manufacturers. The Japanese have for years refused to use our domestic parts suppliers in large capacity. The fallout of this will now be felt in Japan. The electronics industry will also feel the manufacturing pinch as the products coming out of Japan will be few, if any.
The United States will feel the fallout, because as we come out of our recession other areas of our economy will now suffer as a result of less trade due to the shutdown of Japan’s manufacturing facilities.
We will find it harder to finance our debt as a result of Japan having trouble financing theirs. Japan’s debt today is 200% of their GDP. Tomorrow it will be higher as they print more yen to liquidate their economy.
In our country, we have not had a consistent and well laid out energy policy for fifty years. We use politics to determine a four or eight year policy initiative, due to who is in the White House. We use the politics of fear by the environmental lobbies. We use the politics of liberal versus conservative ideology. We use the politics of political correctness. The only thing not correct here is that we are not using our energy resources in a smart or correct way.
One of the contributing factors of World War II was over the need for oil in Japan. The politics of the day were being used to embargo oil to that nation. In our early founding of this country, our early emissaries reported back on the use of this black liquid that was bubbling up to the surface on the ground in huge pools. It was in abundant supply and it was reportedly used to produce energy.
Oil has been used for trade and for energy for hundreds of years and yet today it is still the source of world conflict and world safety. Alternate forms of energy should be explored. But when alternate forms prove to be deadly and not as efficient then the fall out is great.
In this country, we have tremendous supplies of oil. Canada, our trade partner to the north, has the world’s third largest supply of untapped oil reserves. The fallout in Japan should be enough to use our own domestic reserves for our own needs. Oil can be efficient and it is safe. While we can readily tap into these reserves we cannot forget to explore new forms of energy. This is how technology improves. What we shouldn’t be doing is using oil as a political tool to create fallout on one side or another in the political sphere.
Nuclear power, when used safely, is great source of energy. However, when confronted with the energy and power of the earth the results always prove to be catastrophic. We are temporary inhabitants of this planet. Natural sources of energy should be tapped so that we do not destroy nature itself by other laws of nature that can destroy.
The time has come to say ‘no’ to the politics of the past. The time has come to use our natural sources of energy for the natural advancement and safety of humans. The time has come to create a real energy policy that we must come to terms with. If we don’t, the fall out will be something worse than we are seeing today in Japan and that in and of itself is a frightening vision.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: The fallout of some bad decisions is now on display. Systems can be designed to give security to man made energy resources but at what costs - or systems can be designed to gain security by an abundant resource found in nature itself.
The fallout:
The term fallout is usually associated with a nuclear accident. In Japan, today, the fallout of the explosions at four nuclear power plants is a reality. Though we will not know the immediate effects of the small amounts of radiation that have leaked into the immediate environment, in Japan, we do know that there is a brewing calamity.
Before the fallout, it is known that there has been an effort to call for nuclear safety around the world. Many of the nuclear plants in our country that are now in operation are designed to take a 7.9 magnitude earthquake. We have been told that there are a number of redundant safety factors that are designed into these plants. There are 104 nuclear power plants in our country. Out of the 104 plants in operation 23 are of a similar design to those that are in distress now in Japan.
Many leaders in our country are calling for a moratorium on future nuclear power plant construction. I would agree that we should slow down the efforts of nuclear energy, because the risks of a catastrophe do not equal the benefit of this type of energy production.
The fallout on the immediate horizon is one that we should all take note of. As we witness the events in Japan, the world should be working to ensure that if similar events occur any where else in the world the risk of fallout is minimized. If it takes more robust designs or more redundant backup systems then there should be standards that the world community can agree on.
Like food, we consume vast amounts of energy. We need energy to live on. We need energy to sustain life. We need energy to move economies of the world forward. Without energy there would be little advancement of the human race. If we know this why are we not using energy more sensibly? The fallout of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit Japan will be far reaching. It will be noticed in the physical sense the emotional sense and now the environmental sense.
We should, as a world community, learn from this and use our energy in a smart way, instead of using energy to hold countries hostage. We should work to prohibit the risky forms of energy production from being the main form of production. The risk is far too great to allow a potential crippling of a nation, because they don’t have ready access to cheaper and safer forms of energy production.
The fallout here at home is two fold. We will not be able to borrow money from the Japanese and we will feel the effects of Japans standstill economy immediately. The need for additional oil in that country will now tip the fragile supply chain. They are our trading partners and like it or not we are connected to them economically and militarily. Japan is the world’s third largest economy.
For instance, all Japanese auto production facilities, except one, will experience an interruption in parts supply. The one remaining facility in Flat Rock, Michigan that produces the Mazda 6 will continue operating, because of their relationship with Ford Motor Company. Our domestic Auto Industry suppliers have been working for years to produce parts for the Japanese Automobile manufacturers. The Japanese have for years refused to use our domestic parts suppliers in large capacity. The fallout of this will now be felt in Japan. The electronics industry will also feel the manufacturing pinch as the products coming out of Japan will be few, if any.
The United States will feel the fallout, because as we come out of our recession other areas of our economy will now suffer as a result of less trade due to the shutdown of Japan’s manufacturing facilities.
We will find it harder to finance our debt as a result of Japan having trouble financing theirs. Japan’s debt today is 200% of their GDP. Tomorrow it will be higher as they print more yen to liquidate their economy.
In our country, we have not had a consistent and well laid out energy policy for fifty years. We use politics to determine a four or eight year policy initiative, due to who is in the White House. We use the politics of fear by the environmental lobbies. We use the politics of liberal versus conservative ideology. We use the politics of political correctness. The only thing not correct here is that we are not using our energy resources in a smart or correct way.
One of the contributing factors of World War II was over the need for oil in Japan. The politics of the day were being used to embargo oil to that nation. In our early founding of this country, our early emissaries reported back on the use of this black liquid that was bubbling up to the surface on the ground in huge pools. It was in abundant supply and it was reportedly used to produce energy.
Oil has been used for trade and for energy for hundreds of years and yet today it is still the source of world conflict and world safety. Alternate forms of energy should be explored. But when alternate forms prove to be deadly and not as efficient then the fall out is great.
In this country, we have tremendous supplies of oil. Canada, our trade partner to the north, has the world’s third largest supply of untapped oil reserves. The fallout in Japan should be enough to use our own domestic reserves for our own needs. Oil can be efficient and it is safe. While we can readily tap into these reserves we cannot forget to explore new forms of energy. This is how technology improves. What we shouldn’t be doing is using oil as a political tool to create fallout on one side or another in the political sphere.
Nuclear power, when used safely, is great source of energy. However, when confronted with the energy and power of the earth the results always prove to be catastrophic. We are temporary inhabitants of this planet. Natural sources of energy should be tapped so that we do not destroy nature itself by other laws of nature that can destroy.
The time has come to say ‘no’ to the politics of the past. The time has come to use our natural sources of energy for the natural advancement and safety of humans. The time has come to create a real energy policy that we must come to terms with. If we don’t, the fall out will be something worse than we are seeing today in Japan and that in and of itself is a frightening vision.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: The fallout of some bad decisions is now on display. Systems can be designed to give security to man made energy resources but at what costs - or systems can be designed to gain security by an abundant resource found in nature itself.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Just a perspective:
Monday – March 14, 2011
Just a perspective:
Every Monday, I start the week with a thought or even projecting what might be in the news for the week. This week we will hear more about the aftermath of the earth quake and the tsunami that hit Japan last week. We will see more terrifying video footage; we will see more pictures and hear stories about courage and stories of defeat as the week looms on in Japan.
If there is one thing we can take out of the tragedy in Japan, is that no matter how we prepare and no matter how hard we work to achieve the good things that we all want for our families, tragedies can occur in the blink of an eye.
I was listening to the taped news shows late Thursday night and woke to the sound of a FOX news alert. I was half asleep and half awake, when I saw the first video streaming at 2:00 am in the morning. Some times I get a little restless, so I stay up. When I got my senses back and realized what I was watching I had a terrified feeling. At first I thought I was dreaming, only to realize that what I was watching was real and not some computer generated graphic.
Real life and death and real life destruction was occurring on my 50 in. HD - TV. I have been hearing stories all weekend about the tragedy in Japan. A one time enemy that we brought to peace through the use of a Bomb that represented the dawn of the nuclear age was once again being threatened by a new nuclear threat: that being the nuclear power plants that were built to supply electricity for millions of Japanese citizens. These power plants that were designed to bring comfort and security to 2/3 of its population were now becoming an added source of fear and anxiety.
If we look at how quickly a tragedy can happen, we would consider staying inside of our safe domains and never going out of the front door. We are humans and we do scare, but as easy as we scare, we tend to gain courage and set examples of leadership through courage.
If we look at the courage of the people that are now living the nightmare we can gain a perspective of how fortunate we are and also ask how we can help.
It takes little things like organizing a campaign to send packages of aid and contacting the Red Cross. Ask your church leaders how to send articles of clothing and canned items to relief organizations. Get on the internet and look for organizations that are looking for specific things. Use your creative thought process to come up with a plan to help the people of Japan and ask others to do the same through that perspective.
The people of Japan are only human. They will persevere, if we can do just a little thing to help them persevere, it will go along way for their survival.
The Japanese are proud people with a rich history. Their culture is one of tradition and one of planning ahead. However, no one could plan a head for a tragedy of this magnitude and of this scale.
It is simple for us to gain the things we need here to live on. It is altogether a different thing in Japan tonight for them to get the things they need to live on.
Let’s show the world how America can go to a neighbor with open arms to help!
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone conservatives
A footnote: Politics aside, no matter what your perspective might be helping a neighbor is always the right thing to do.
Just a perspective:
Every Monday, I start the week with a thought or even projecting what might be in the news for the week. This week we will hear more about the aftermath of the earth quake and the tsunami that hit Japan last week. We will see more terrifying video footage; we will see more pictures and hear stories about courage and stories of defeat as the week looms on in Japan.
If there is one thing we can take out of the tragedy in Japan, is that no matter how we prepare and no matter how hard we work to achieve the good things that we all want for our families, tragedies can occur in the blink of an eye.
I was listening to the taped news shows late Thursday night and woke to the sound of a FOX news alert. I was half asleep and half awake, when I saw the first video streaming at 2:00 am in the morning. Some times I get a little restless, so I stay up. When I got my senses back and realized what I was watching I had a terrified feeling. At first I thought I was dreaming, only to realize that what I was watching was real and not some computer generated graphic.
Real life and death and real life destruction was occurring on my 50 in. HD - TV. I have been hearing stories all weekend about the tragedy in Japan. A one time enemy that we brought to peace through the use of a Bomb that represented the dawn of the nuclear age was once again being threatened by a new nuclear threat: that being the nuclear power plants that were built to supply electricity for millions of Japanese citizens. These power plants that were designed to bring comfort and security to 2/3 of its population were now becoming an added source of fear and anxiety.
If we look at how quickly a tragedy can happen, we would consider staying inside of our safe domains and never going out of the front door. We are humans and we do scare, but as easy as we scare, we tend to gain courage and set examples of leadership through courage.
If we look at the courage of the people that are now living the nightmare we can gain a perspective of how fortunate we are and also ask how we can help.
It takes little things like organizing a campaign to send packages of aid and contacting the Red Cross. Ask your church leaders how to send articles of clothing and canned items to relief organizations. Get on the internet and look for organizations that are looking for specific things. Use your creative thought process to come up with a plan to help the people of Japan and ask others to do the same through that perspective.
The people of Japan are only human. They will persevere, if we can do just a little thing to help them persevere, it will go along way for their survival.
The Japanese are proud people with a rich history. Their culture is one of tradition and one of planning ahead. However, no one could plan a head for a tragedy of this magnitude and of this scale.
It is simple for us to gain the things we need here to live on. It is altogether a different thing in Japan tonight for them to get the things they need to live on.
Let’s show the world how America can go to a neighbor with open arms to help!
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone conservatives
A footnote: Politics aside, no matter what your perspective might be helping a neighbor is always the right thing to do.
Friday, March 11, 2011
A bridge too far to cross:
Friday-March 11, 2011
A bridge too far to cross:
Religion can be a hard bridge to cross, especially when there are opposing opinions and opposing sides. It shouldn’t be this way, but the harsh reality is that it is. This is why the bridge is too far to cross and too far to come to terms with when opposing religions are involved.
The issue of Islam is confusing to some and is mind boggling to others. But to a Muslim, it is everything. We, as a society, want to show compassion and welcome Islam and Muslims with open arms. We should, because our Constitution makes that possible. It makes it possible so the religions of the world can get along and assimilate with the greater society here in America.
America is now becoming a society of the world. Unlike many other countries of the world, the United States welcomes all who seek freedom and all who want to live under our Constitution. The United States guarantees the right of citizenship under the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Our immigrant population is growing. As a result, there is now a culture gap and a culture clash. The issue of Islam is one of those gaps that become hard to come to terms with, when you are a Jew or a Christian.
The bridge becomes too far to cross, when the radical elements of Islam practice Jihad and call their new neighbors Infidels. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when the nation that these immigrants want to live in is questioning why the radical elements want to destroy it.
I watched most of the hearings yesterday, on Capital Hill, which is investigating the Islamic radicalization of Americans. I thought the guests demonstrated restraint and respect for our members of Congress, no matter how out of touch some of these members looked. Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee (D), made these hearings out to be a matter of discrimination. She held up a copy of the Constitution and made it as if the hearings themselves were unconstitutional. Ms. Lee has again demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts and has again grandstanded for her own political expediency.
She said: “I brought with me the Constitution, the living, breathing document. The First Amendment allows us the freedom of religion. The freedom of association and expression,” she said. “But I will tell you today, that this breathing document is in pain.”
The Constitution lives, because of the written words in the document. The Congresswoman is correct in saying that it guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of association and expression. The question I have is this, why can’t we, as a society, question the harmful association that through specific expressions of hatred towards the infidels becomes a matter of jihad? Why can’t we question it and why can’t we say it is dangerous? This is also freedom of speech, freedom of association and expression.
Congressman Keith Ellison (D,) a Muslim himself, gave compassioned testimony. He shed tears over the fact that the Muslim community was under such scrutiny. He showed emotion, but failed to say that the radicalization element of his religion must stop, because there is no place for it in America. The other part of this issue is that many other members of the Islamic community also fail to say stop. Maybe they can’t, because it could be part of the religion.
The bridge becomes too far to cross, when members of Congress make this a partisan issue like Lee and Ellison did. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when members of Congress cannot demonstrate to the world and to those who will do us harm that we are committed to stopping the radicalization process. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when those who are practicing it don’t say STOP the radicalization process.
Islamic radicalization is occurring, radicalization is a threat, and radicalization is something that should not be tolerated. It should be confronted and it should be rejected by all who favor peace and who honor our unique freedoms and our constitution.
When members of Congress take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but turn the Constitution itself into a question, they have failed in their oath. When members of Congress use these hearings to court a new voting block they are in essence violating the intent of the documents that protect our way of life and our guarantees of liberty and freedom.
When any religion starts to undermine our society and our Constitution, the citizens of the host country should be able to voice opinions and voice their concerns, when a radical element is involved in undermining the society and the rule of law.
This is not an issue of discrimination in America. It is a National Security issue that Americans should be concerned about and should be able to legally act on. Our tradition’s, the basis of our laws and of our founding was for two reasons freedom and liberty. We not only have an obligation to investigate and to pursue our enemies even if it may be a religion, it becomes our duty to protect our posterity.
I will not question anyone who wants to shorten the bridge so that it becomes possible to cross. I will, however, question those who fail in their oath and who are blind to the obvious abridgements of our freedom.
John Hancock -1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: We should all work toward shortening the bridge so that it can be crossed. But some times a bridge is too far to cross when others do not want to work with you.
A bridge too far to cross:
Religion can be a hard bridge to cross, especially when there are opposing opinions and opposing sides. It shouldn’t be this way, but the harsh reality is that it is. This is why the bridge is too far to cross and too far to come to terms with when opposing religions are involved.
The issue of Islam is confusing to some and is mind boggling to others. But to a Muslim, it is everything. We, as a society, want to show compassion and welcome Islam and Muslims with open arms. We should, because our Constitution makes that possible. It makes it possible so the religions of the world can get along and assimilate with the greater society here in America.
America is now becoming a society of the world. Unlike many other countries of the world, the United States welcomes all who seek freedom and all who want to live under our Constitution. The United States guarantees the right of citizenship under the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Our immigrant population is growing. As a result, there is now a culture gap and a culture clash. The issue of Islam is one of those gaps that become hard to come to terms with, when you are a Jew or a Christian.
The bridge becomes too far to cross, when the radical elements of Islam practice Jihad and call their new neighbors Infidels. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when the nation that these immigrants want to live in is questioning why the radical elements want to destroy it.
I watched most of the hearings yesterday, on Capital Hill, which is investigating the Islamic radicalization of Americans. I thought the guests demonstrated restraint and respect for our members of Congress, no matter how out of touch some of these members looked. Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee (D), made these hearings out to be a matter of discrimination. She held up a copy of the Constitution and made it as if the hearings themselves were unconstitutional. Ms. Lee has again demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts and has again grandstanded for her own political expediency.
She said: “I brought with me the Constitution, the living, breathing document. The First Amendment allows us the freedom of religion. The freedom of association and expression,” she said. “But I will tell you today, that this breathing document is in pain.”
The Constitution lives, because of the written words in the document. The Congresswoman is correct in saying that it guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of association and expression. The question I have is this, why can’t we, as a society, question the harmful association that through specific expressions of hatred towards the infidels becomes a matter of jihad? Why can’t we question it and why can’t we say it is dangerous? This is also freedom of speech, freedom of association and expression.
Congressman Keith Ellison (D,) a Muslim himself, gave compassioned testimony. He shed tears over the fact that the Muslim community was under such scrutiny. He showed emotion, but failed to say that the radicalization element of his religion must stop, because there is no place for it in America. The other part of this issue is that many other members of the Islamic community also fail to say stop. Maybe they can’t, because it could be part of the religion.
The bridge becomes too far to cross, when members of Congress make this a partisan issue like Lee and Ellison did. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when members of Congress cannot demonstrate to the world and to those who will do us harm that we are committed to stopping the radicalization process. The bridge becomes too far to cross, when those who are practicing it don’t say STOP the radicalization process.
Islamic radicalization is occurring, radicalization is a threat, and radicalization is something that should not be tolerated. It should be confronted and it should be rejected by all who favor peace and who honor our unique freedoms and our constitution.
When members of Congress take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but turn the Constitution itself into a question, they have failed in their oath. When members of Congress use these hearings to court a new voting block they are in essence violating the intent of the documents that protect our way of life and our guarantees of liberty and freedom.
When any religion starts to undermine our society and our Constitution, the citizens of the host country should be able to voice opinions and voice their concerns, when a radical element is involved in undermining the society and the rule of law.
This is not an issue of discrimination in America. It is a National Security issue that Americans should be concerned about and should be able to legally act on. Our tradition’s, the basis of our laws and of our founding was for two reasons freedom and liberty. We not only have an obligation to investigate and to pursue our enemies even if it may be a religion, it becomes our duty to protect our posterity.
I will not question anyone who wants to shorten the bridge so that it becomes possible to cross. I will, however, question those who fail in their oath and who are blind to the obvious abridgements of our freedom.
John Hancock -1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: We should all work toward shortening the bridge so that it can be crossed. But some times a bridge is too far to cross when others do not want to work with you.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
140 years after!
Thursday – March 10, 2011
140 years after!
Think of what this country might be like in 140 years. Some of us might say the country will be pretty much the same. Some might say it will be socialist. Some might say it won’t exist because of the 2012 Mayan calendar prophesy of doom. Others will have you believe it will be an Islamic state.
Today, Congressman Peter King of New York starts his committee hearings on the Islamic radicalization of Americans. This is an important topic to study and it is an important subject to discuss. The Islamic radicalization of Americans is occurring and it is something we, as a nation, must pay attention to and must prevent its proliferation.
“The goal of the hearings, the first of which is being held today, is “to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community,” according to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
He also charges that Muslim Americans are not doing enough to discourage extremists in their midst.”
We cannot look at this problem through the prism of comparing it to fundamentalist Christian activity or even an anti U.S. point of view. The reality is that Islam related and inspired terrorist attempts on Americans have definite ideological underpinnings that inspire some people to commit acts of terrorism for the sake of Islam.
These hearings are necessary for several reasons and they must address some of these issues:
The first and most important fact is that terrorism in the United Sates is changing; over the past several years, major terrorists attempts were conducted by American-born or naturalized citizens.
The second is that there is no longer a definite profile for an individual ready to commit terrorist acts in the name of radical Islam. The profile is broken, because it includes woman, as well as men, life long Muslims, as well as converts, and college students, as well as jailed prisoners.
The third is the proliferation of personal technology that makes it easy- and increasingly likely for aspiring terrorists to gather intelligence, conduct surveillance, in order to design and carry out a terrorist act. The most notable factor in linking these attacks is the internet which offers unlimited and varied information on religious ideology and indoctrination of the latest terrorist actors and suspects. The challenge that law enforcement has in countering this technological trend is a formidable one. It will require development of different approaches to monitoring and identifying these potential threats.
The fourth is dealing with Islamic radicalization which requires an understanding of and a familiarity of the larger Muslim community in the United States. It is diverse and runs along ethnic, social, confessional, and geopolitical lines and does not represent a single Islamic point of view.
Fifth, a review of radicalization timelines is necessary to better understand and continuously update the process of personal radicalization in the name of religion in order to develop better observation and prevention techniques.
Sixth, how does a suspected homegrown terrorist move quickly from adopting extremist rhetoric to committing a terrorist act.
.
Presently, the U.S. is admitting thousands of Muslim refugees from the Mid East to Somalia and from many European countries. Once they are here they live in groups, and move into whole neighborhoods. If his trend continues, they will become a significant voting block and they will have the means to change our laws to reflect Sharia law, based on their form of religion.
As we question our young president’s religious foundations, we cannot ignore that he has been consistent in his efforts to appease the Islamic world. He has shown and demonstrated his support for pro Islam groups abroad and has discouraged anti Islam groups from being heard. Our young President has alienated Israel and has favored most recently the pro Islamic group of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Islam is a political force and it identifies weaknesses among the willing. Islam came as a result of the Arab conquest of the mid east centuries ago. The first writing or biography of Mohammad, the prophet, didn’t come until 140 years after his death. Some say that the religion of Islam was made up, because of the political force that it acquired. Some say that this force will never change America in 140 years. But consider this; if the prophet Mohammad did exist why did it take 140 years to write about him in an historical, political and religious context? How much can history can be rewritten in 140 years?
We must remember that The United Sates was created by men of Christian faith our founding documents were based on that Christian belief. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have their particular differences and beliefs. Our Constitution prohibits government from establishing one overall religion. But our Constitution also guarantees rights and gives us the freedom to practice a religion. The issue here is not the Muslim faith or that of Islam, the issue is the radicalization of individuals to kill, to proliferate and take over complete governments because of the political context of Islam. This is what our Constitution was designed to prevent.
The movement of Islam occurs behind closed doors, they do not honor women in the same way western cultures do and they do not permit most of the freedoms that western cultures do. With them, it is change through political and religious indoctrination that is diametrically opposed to that of the west and that of Israel.
I hope Congressman King is successful in identifying what is clearly an enemy and threat to our security and well being. My question to you is this: what do you think our country will be like in 140 years from now? And do you think our way of life is worth preserving and worth extending to our posterity? I know it is and I will fight for it!
George Washington said:
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
If we don’t stand up today and say no to Islamic Radicalism in 140 years we won’t be able to.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Pay close attention to the hearings that Congressman King is holding this week. Support your country and support the traditions that it was founded upon.
140 years after!
Think of what this country might be like in 140 years. Some of us might say the country will be pretty much the same. Some might say it will be socialist. Some might say it won’t exist because of the 2012 Mayan calendar prophesy of doom. Others will have you believe it will be an Islamic state.
Today, Congressman Peter King of New York starts his committee hearings on the Islamic radicalization of Americans. This is an important topic to study and it is an important subject to discuss. The Islamic radicalization of Americans is occurring and it is something we, as a nation, must pay attention to and must prevent its proliferation.
“The goal of the hearings, the first of which is being held today, is “to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community,” according to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
He also charges that Muslim Americans are not doing enough to discourage extremists in their midst.”
We cannot look at this problem through the prism of comparing it to fundamentalist Christian activity or even an anti U.S. point of view. The reality is that Islam related and inspired terrorist attempts on Americans have definite ideological underpinnings that inspire some people to commit acts of terrorism for the sake of Islam.
These hearings are necessary for several reasons and they must address some of these issues:
The first and most important fact is that terrorism in the United Sates is changing; over the past several years, major terrorists attempts were conducted by American-born or naturalized citizens.
The second is that there is no longer a definite profile for an individual ready to commit terrorist acts in the name of radical Islam. The profile is broken, because it includes woman, as well as men, life long Muslims, as well as converts, and college students, as well as jailed prisoners.
The third is the proliferation of personal technology that makes it easy- and increasingly likely for aspiring terrorists to gather intelligence, conduct surveillance, in order to design and carry out a terrorist act. The most notable factor in linking these attacks is the internet which offers unlimited and varied information on religious ideology and indoctrination of the latest terrorist actors and suspects. The challenge that law enforcement has in countering this technological trend is a formidable one. It will require development of different approaches to monitoring and identifying these potential threats.
The fourth is dealing with Islamic radicalization which requires an understanding of and a familiarity of the larger Muslim community in the United States. It is diverse and runs along ethnic, social, confessional, and geopolitical lines and does not represent a single Islamic point of view.
Fifth, a review of radicalization timelines is necessary to better understand and continuously update the process of personal radicalization in the name of religion in order to develop better observation and prevention techniques.
Sixth, how does a suspected homegrown terrorist move quickly from adopting extremist rhetoric to committing a terrorist act.
.
Presently, the U.S. is admitting thousands of Muslim refugees from the Mid East to Somalia and from many European countries. Once they are here they live in groups, and move into whole neighborhoods. If his trend continues, they will become a significant voting block and they will have the means to change our laws to reflect Sharia law, based on their form of religion.
As we question our young president’s religious foundations, we cannot ignore that he has been consistent in his efforts to appease the Islamic world. He has shown and demonstrated his support for pro Islam groups abroad and has discouraged anti Islam groups from being heard. Our young President has alienated Israel and has favored most recently the pro Islamic group of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Islam is a political force and it identifies weaknesses among the willing. Islam came as a result of the Arab conquest of the mid east centuries ago. The first writing or biography of Mohammad, the prophet, didn’t come until 140 years after his death. Some say that the religion of Islam was made up, because of the political force that it acquired. Some say that this force will never change America in 140 years. But consider this; if the prophet Mohammad did exist why did it take 140 years to write about him in an historical, political and religious context? How much can history can be rewritten in 140 years?
We must remember that The United Sates was created by men of Christian faith our founding documents were based on that Christian belief. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have their particular differences and beliefs. Our Constitution prohibits government from establishing one overall religion. But our Constitution also guarantees rights and gives us the freedom to practice a religion. The issue here is not the Muslim faith or that of Islam, the issue is the radicalization of individuals to kill, to proliferate and take over complete governments because of the political context of Islam. This is what our Constitution was designed to prevent.
The movement of Islam occurs behind closed doors, they do not honor women in the same way western cultures do and they do not permit most of the freedoms that western cultures do. With them, it is change through political and religious indoctrination that is diametrically opposed to that of the west and that of Israel.
I hope Congressman King is successful in identifying what is clearly an enemy and threat to our security and well being. My question to you is this: what do you think our country will be like in 140 years from now? And do you think our way of life is worth preserving and worth extending to our posterity? I know it is and I will fight for it!
George Washington said:
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
If we don’t stand up today and say no to Islamic Radicalism in 140 years we won’t be able to.
Gregory C. Dildilian
Founder and Executive Director
Pinecone Conservatives
A footnote: Pay close attention to the hearings that Congressman King is holding this week. Support your country and support the traditions that it was founded upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
