Victory Institute Action Alert

January 9, 2009

Print this page (.pdf)

In September, Navy SEALs captured Ahmed Hashim Abed – a most-wanted al Qaeda leader – during a nighttime raid. Abed is the suspected mastermind of a 2004 ambush that brutally murdered four Blackwater security contractors – including a former SEAL – in Fallujah, Iraq. The contractors were burned, mutilated, and suspended from a bridge. According to the terrorist himself and conflicting statements from another sailor, these SEALs might have hit Abed in the stomach.

The objective of Operation Neptune’s Fury is to exonerate the SEALs, who should be honored as heroes, not tried as criminals.

The charged SEALs are:

• SO2 Matthew McCabe, 24, of Perrysburg, Ohio
• SO1 Julio Huertas, 28, of Blue Island, Ill.
• SO2 Jonathon Keefe, 25, of Yorktown, Va.

All are from SEAL Team Ten in Little Creek, Va.

The Navy has just over 2,000 SEALs, and it takes years of training to become one. These men are some of the most elite warriors in the world. They accomplished their mission, yet could face discharge because the man responsible for the Fallujah ambush could have received a fat lip?

"How long before America’s front-line troops begin to wonder if the country really has their backs?" asked Lt. Col. Ralph Peters in a New York Post op-ed.

Unfortunately, they already are. As a SEAL officer told me in an interview, "SEALs are tired of having to watch their back – not only from the enemy – but also from our own leadership." These warriors clearly need our help. This is a battle that they cannot win.
Take Action!
Let the SEALs know that the United States does have their backs. Admiral Eric Olson is the Commanding Officer of Special Operations Command; he is a SEAL himself and has the authority to stop the trials. Politely inform him that the charges against the SEALs must be dropped. These elite warriors have went above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to securing our freedom, and deserve to be treated as heroes rather than tried as criminals.

Remember, what you communicate could either help or hurt these men’s careers.

1. Call Admiral Eric Olson at               (813) 826.5100         (813) 826.5100
2. Or Fax (813) 825.5109
3. Or Email: olsone@socom.mil
4. Then Forward this to as many people as possible

Sign up to receive Victory Institute Action Alerts here.

Donate to the SEALs’ Legal Defense Fund

I encourage all of you who can do this to express your opinion and your support for these men in honor of the sacrifices they make in the name of our safety and protection.  In my opinion, these men are heroes and Abed is lucky to still draw breath.  His fate has been far more kind than the fate of the men that he captured, tortured, murdered and then hung their desecrated bodies on display for the entire world to see.  Enough is enough.

It is a well know fact that once elected politicians almost immediately forget the very promises that got them elected in the first place.  This administration has been no different.  Of course they have kept some of the promises that they made, but those are only the ones that serve their purposes and drive their agendas. 

What promises have they kept?  Well that is easy, we were promised justice for those held in Guantanamo Bay, they have certainly delivered on that.  In fact those who are now held at Gitmo can rest assured that they will have far more legal rights then the very soldiers that captured them on a foreign battlefield.  You see the Obama administration promised them justice and they shall have it in the form of the American civil legal system, something actually denied our brave men and women who serve and die for this nation.  No, military tribunals or courts martial was not good enough for the illegal enemy combatants who fought our soldiers overseas.  They must have far superior legal rights, attorneys paid for by the American tax payer and access to all the case law, precedence and jurisprudence afforded each and every American citizen.  Who cares that our brave servicemen and women do not get this luxury, those terrorist suspects certainly deserve it.  You see when you become a soldier, airman, sailor or marine in service to this nation, you not only pledge your life to the defense of this nation and her Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, you also waive your right to the very guarantees provided by the document that your are duty bound to protect.  You swear to surrender your rights and be governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  However, now those who fight against American troops on the field of battle do not have to worry about such details.  Now they can have the same rights as any other American criminal, including the right for some sleaze ball attorney to find a legal loop hole to let them go free, because some bureaucratic bookworm did not fill out some piece of paperwork in triplicate or some soldier was insensitive to the cultural needs of a detainee.  Not to mention the fact that in their utmost lack of wisdom, the Federal government has decided to try some of these terrorist just miles from the scene of the ‘crime’.  I be New Yorkers will welcome any verdict that comes out of these trials that they will be forced to host, even if it is an innocent one, so long as the rights of these terrorist who killed 3,000 innocent New York citizen were not violated in even the slightest way.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is one promise that the Obama administration has kept: Far superior legal rights and proceedings for terrorist suspects than is afforded our very own soldiers, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

You want an American trial for these jihadist?  Well, I agree.  Here is my idea.  Dress them in bright pink jumpsuits, pick a day and time to release them in Hoboken or Queens, broadcast the location and time of release to everyone in the Tri-State area, then let them go.  If they can make it out of the city alive, they are free to go.  It is a hell of a better fate than the three thousand innocent civilians that burned to death or were buried alive in the rubble so many years ago.

What other promises have they kept?  Ah, yes, healthcare.  They told us they would ram a Federally controlled healthcare plan down our throats whether we liked it or not.  Almost a year later they are close to succeeding, but here is where some of the broken promises come in.  Now I am not talking about the one we would have plainly been fools to believe, like that he would not have any activist or lobbyist as his advisors or that he would not sign any bill with a single piece of pork attached to it.  No, I am talking about those that he repeated over and over again that gave all the naive liberal votes hope that we would see the shining light of democracy from the unprecedented transparency promised by the Obama administration.  You see he knew this healthcare thing was poisonous.  He knew that the American people would not willingly sacrifice their choices, their rights and their control over their medical decisions if they really knew what was being planned.  No secrecy would be key to the success of this agenda.  The American people could not really find out what what in this healthcare bill or they would resist, but if he promised us that we would get to see each and every deliberation about this  live on CSPAN it sounded awfully good for the campaign.  Complete transparency, it seems, is just a bit more opaque than we thought.  Where has this CSPAN coverage been?  Why now that people are demanding that he live up to his promises is he hemming and hawing about allowing his bumbling press secretary to blurt out one half-witted excuse after another?  It is funny how those promises that you never meant to keep, come around and bite you in the ass, Mr. President.

On to other promises, how about that unemployment rate?  Hey, I know this one personally.  Both my wife and I had good productive jobs to start off 2009.  Nine months later neither of us did.  So what was this about if we passed the TARP bill, or was it the Omnibus, that we would not go over 8% unemployment?  What about the transparency promised with all of these bailout an stimulus programs?  Oh, sure there was a website created and job loss numbers spewed about, but then we find out that those numbers were complete bullshit.  They included thousands of jobs that had not even started yet and did you know that almost one billion dollars, that is right $920 million of your dollars cannot be adequately accounted for from the funds that were spent in the first six months.  Oh and did you also know that much of this money did not even go to create jobs?  Well that is of the money that has actually been spent of the staggering amounts allocated for these travesties that were voted into law.  That is another thing that apparently was just a flat out lie or just something that this administration does not care much about.  You see, for weeks we were told that we had to act now to avert a crisis.  We had to infuse the economy with these staggering trillions of immediately of face collapse.  Funny, that, because as of today only about 20% of the funds for first $890 billion so called stimulus packages has been spent with another 20% or so in process to be spent within the next six months.  That does not sound like a shot in the arm, but more like a long term prescription plan.  So why the rush if we are going to sit on more than $600 billion dollars until well into 2010?  Why did we have to pass this massive bill in its entirety right then?  Could we not have slowed down and voted to spend the roughly $160 billion dollars that we have so far, then taken our time on the rest?  Hell, now there is even talk of another stimulus package, because the first one was ineffective and the economy has not recovered.  Well no shit, Sherlock.  If $890 billion dollars in funds immediately injected into the American economy was the real answer, then spending $160 billion over six months won’t have the same effect.  That is the difference between a shot and a slow drip IV, not anywhere close to the same thing.

You know there is a question that I always hear thrown around at election time.  Are you better off today than you were four years ago?  It seems that is how we are to judge the effectiveness of our leaders, most pointedly the President.  Well, Mr. President, I am not better off that I was four years ago, nor even two for that matter.  Two years ago, my wife an I both had very profitable jobs in solid industries, hers in the middle of a growing boom.  We were making significant salaries, had good future prospects, good health insurance, large life insurance policies, a healthy stock portfolio and plenty of money in the savings.  Yeah, uhm, we don’t have any of that anymore.  My wife has spent the last nine months unemployed because her industry freaked out about Cap and Trade and I joined her for two months as the economy wore into my job as well.  Hell I even worked for a government contract regulatory lab.  People HAVE to have done what we did, but it still cut into our business enough that I am not even sure my former company will survive after being in business since it was founded in 1976.  No, Mr. President I am far, far worse off now than I was before you were elected and there are many Americans who are right there with me.  You have had a year and all your policies have done is make worse an already bad situation.  You have three years left.  The clock is ticking.

Since I am in an analogy mood, this evening I will give you another one.   Let’s say you take your car into a mechanic and he charges you $890 dollars to fix your engine.  A week later you have to take it back to him for the very same problem.  This is when you discover that he only spend $160 dollars to fix your car the last time, hides the invoice when you try to look at it, can’t explain to you what some of it was spent on and tells you that it should be running better because the flux capacitor is now in synch with the primary phase coil, but he promises that if you will give him another $1,000 he will make sure it runs right.  Now, ask yourself, how likely would you be to let this man work on your car again, provided you do not punch him out straight away and take your money back forcibly.  Now ask yourself how likely would you be to let him recommend a doctor for you and your family, or decide what medical procedure you need or do not need?  Scary thought isn’t it?

As we approach the celebration of our hard fought independence just a few weeks away, I have been pondering how far we have come in the past 233 years. We successfully threw off the tyranny of England and forged a new form of government never before seen on the face of the Earth and forever changed the future of this planet.

For years our young country still struggled with many of our own difficulties. Small wars for territories, westward expansion and a bloody civil war to preserve this fledgling nation and end the stain of slavery all plagued us within the first century. Growing out of these struggles emerged a strong industrial nation. We emerged a nation not only capable of defending ourselves, but we were a nation capable, if not always willing, to stop global threats and liberate millions of people from oppression. Twice this past century we stood against massive global threats and by our sweat, blood and tears entire nations were freed. We survived great depressions and financial recessions always emerging a stronger, more capable nation. This nation has pioneered the fields of medicine, manufacturing, science, engineering and so many others. Our might has brought forth terrible weapons of war, but our compassion has tempered their use only to protect and liberate. Our feet first touched the soil of another planet and our ingenuity gave birth to much of the modern digital world. Our arts, music, television and music lead the modern world in creativity, beauty and skill. Our farms feed the hungry nations of this world, while our medicines heal the sick an injured.

In less than a quarter of a century, this young county of ours has grown to be the greatest nation in the world, comprised of the most generous of people and representing the strongest force for good this world has ever known.

I fear for this nation as our Independence Day approaches. We have abandoned the principles that shaped this nation into what it has been over the past quarter of a century. Today we move farther from the dreams of our founders and we betray their ideals with massive government expansion, government ownership of and interference in private industry and the usurpation of the rights of the States and the citizens by an overly powerful central government. We no longer stand for liberty and freedom. We are no longer willing to protect and liberate the innocent. We no longer have the will to stand against global threats for our own protection nor that of others. We have become a weak shadow of our former selves and we allow our fear of what others think of us to paralyze us into inaction.

Today, citizens of Iran die in the streets while they call for freedom and liberty much as we did just over two centuries ago. We sadly turn our eyes away from the horror, too cowardly to even condemn the actions or voice outrage against this oppressive regime. After years of telling these people to throw off their oppression and rise against this totalitarian government, we turn our back on them when they finally do. We, who possess strongest, most advanced military in the world, cower in the face of public opinion and let innocents suffer at the hand of a brutal government, just as we did in Somalia and Darfur.

Is it because we are so focused on the possible nuclear threat posed by the rogue nation in Asia who threatens to launch a weapon towards one of our states this very Independence Day? No, unfortunately not. Once again, when we face an open, hostile threat toward the peace and security of this nation and her allies from a unhinged, uncontrollable rogue state that potentially has the capability of delivering nuclear weapons to the continental United States, we cower and do nothing. We stand by and wait for them to act, at which time it may be too late. Just as before with the horrible attacks of Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center, we want to avoid conflict at all cost while our enemies plot our destruction. If we have learned nothing else from our past, the one thing we should have learned is that appeasement of our enemies is the fastest way to cost more American lives than was necessary. It failed with Germany. It failed with Japan. It failed when Israel had tried it with the Palestinians. It has failed when we have tried it with the terrorist threats we face today. Appeasement is weakness.

I fear for the future of this nation, her citizens and all those worldwide who depend America’s benevolence, compassion and strength. What exists before your eyes today is a shadow of its former self, an echo of its strength and a pale reminder of its purpose and will. I will celebrate this Independence Day with some sadness in my heart as I realize, this could well be one of the last ones we celebrate, lest we offend some other minor groups of people who hate us no matter what we do.

There has been an awful lot of discussion surrounding the torture subject again since the Obama administration has floated the idea of criminal investigations into the harsh interrogation methods used by the CIA to extract information from al-Qaida operatives. The Obama administration has received both harsh criticism and demands for further investigation after the releasing the CIA memos detailing the interrogation methods used by the CIA and the decision making process surrounding them. I believe this is a reckless step aimed at political gain and poses a great risk to our nation on many fronts.

To begin this discussion, one must first decide what exactly torture is and what remains a harsh interrogation method that does not cross this line. This is a question over which much debate has raged throughout the last few years. While some clearly see water boarding as torture, others disagree and find the practice perfectly acceptable when used in high level, critical interrogations where other methods have failed. Many would also argue that these interrogation methods are ineffective and do not produce reliable results. However, it appears that the evidence in hand on that point tends to demonstrate otherwise.

This is a difficult question to answer, as Americans have always fought against regimes that torture and abuse people. Therefore to even consider such measures must place great strain on our core beliefs. Herein lies a question faced by many of our great leaders in the past, to what lengths can we go to protect this nation without destroying what this nation stands for? When President Lincoln was faced with the dissolution of the Union, he suspended the basic rights guaranteed under by Constitution under the Bill of Rights and marched a standing army against American citizens to preserve that Union. When President Truman faced the decision to invade Japan at the cost of millions upon millions of American and Japanese lives, or to drop tremendously devastating weapons of mass destruction on civilian population centers in an attempt to force a Japanese surrender, he chose the lesser of two evils and the lower cost of life. When President Bush was faced with another impending terrorist attack on this nation, he authorized what methods he thought legal and justified to extract the information from our enemies that allowed us to prevent these attacks. For none of these men were these decisions light, but they were easy ones to make. They did what they must to protect this nation in dire times of need. They chose the only path they could to save this nation or the lives of her citizens.

For me this question is simple. I for one do not consider water boarding to be torture, nor do I consider many of the other methods detailed in the memos that were foolishly released by the Obama administration to be above the uncrossable line. When dealing with a ruthless enemy who will slowly cut the head off of an innocent American contractor while filming it for propaganda purposes, I find it perfectly acceptable that we would pour water over his head until he decides to talk. When dealing with a people who believe it acceptable to murder their own children in ‘honor killings’ because they have not behaved in some particular way, I find no problem sticking them in a room with an insects that they fear. When dealing with a people that strap bombs on to women and children, teach that it is acceptable to beat your wives and kill indiscriminately innocent people who will not yield to their way of life, I do not see a problem with slamming them up against a wall and threatening to beat the information out of them.

Someone asked me a very simple question one day in an attempt to define what I saw as torture. If your children had been kidnapped and the man sitting before you had the information that would save their lives, to what lengths would you go to obtain that information? Where ever you chose to stop or whatever you decided you could not do, was your definition of torture. After contemplating the question for some time, I realized that it is not that difficult of a question for me to answer. This may make me a horrible person in some people’s eyes, but I could think of very little that I would not do to save the life of just one of my children, not mention all of them. If the person still possessed the ability to draw breath once they gave me what I needed, they should consider themselves very fortunate indeed. I would gladly water board him and his entire family to save my children and I would sleep well at night knowing I had done so. I would stop at nothing to protect my children. How could I think less of a nation that did likewise to protect her citizens?

Someone once argued with me that I would be sacrificing my morality by taking such actions, even in the defense of my children. I disagree. I feel that it would be a moral imperative to do anything and everything possible to save my children. Failing to do so would be the ultimate moral failure. These people have sworn to kill as many innocent Americans as the possibly can by any means that they can. We are at war with an enemy that knows no rules and respects no boundaries. Our citizens and soldiers are offered no quarter and are brutally murdered and hung in public as examples of their barbarism. How there are people in this country who have a problem with pouring water on these people to scare them into releasing information that will thwart their horrific plans is far beyond me. Failing to do so, to me, seems the ultimate failure of a nation and its moral obligation to protect its people.

There has been an awful lot of focus the past few days on the apparently scandalous bonuses paid out to AIG executives in the sum of $165 million dollars. There are thousands of news and opinion articles out there vilifying these executives and now our Congress is demanding the money be returned else they will tax the living hell out of it after the fact.

Now, I am not going to get into the blatant unconstitutionality and base immorality of Congress targeting individual private citizens and enacting revenge upon them with ex post facto (after the fact) laws. These acts are specifically prohibited under Article I of the Constitution and are just more proof that Congress is willing to ignore the basic founding laws of this nation whenever it suits their needs. I will also not dwell much on the fact that Congress knew of these bonuses and included specific legislation in the stimulus package allowing them. Even the fact that these bonuses were contractual legal obligations, made years earlier to these employees and that AIG had to pay them or face the legal consequences of not doing so, has not deterred the feigned outrage and innocence from Congressional leaders who are at the very least as responsible for this mess as any company or executive, if not more so.

I could not possibly care less that some executives received less than one tenth of one percent of the $170 billion dollars that Congress irresponsibly gave to AIG; turning their collective heads while AIG funneled huge sums of tax payer money to foreign banks.

This is all a distraction to the horrible injustices that are occurring in this nation on a daily basis and I would not doubt are designed to foster hostile sentiment towards the free market from the American people. Congress knew about these bonuses and allowed them to happen, even giving their consent in law by amending the stimulus package to guarantee that these bonuses would be paid. Now they pretend to be shocked and appalled when AIG follows the law and honors their obligations… Bullshit.

This is all an exercise to distract the American people so they will not notice things such as what has been occurring with the Veterans Administration in this country and the horrible, disgraceful actions threatened by our President and his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. Just a few days ago, word broke of a meeting between President Barack Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and eleven veterans’ service organizations where the President revealed his plan to expand funding of the VA healthcare system and its coverage to wounded veterans. Sounds good, right? You might think that until you hear what he planned to do to these brave men and women that have selflessly served this nation.

The Obama plan to expand VA coverage and increase its funding would have forced wounded veterans returning from war to use their own private insurance companies to pay for injuries received as a result of their service. This plan drew outrage from veterans across the nation, one of the most vocal of which was Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion as quoted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 after his meeting with the President:

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan. He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

By the end of that day it appeared that the groundswell of opposition to this abuse of our servicemen was beginning to wear on the White House and veterans were given until Thursday afternoon to come up with another way to generate the additional $540 million required or this is the plan they would get.

Really? How about our government stops wasting untraceable billions in all these frakking bailouts and takes care of our soldiers? How about Nancy Pelosi sits her arrogant ass on a commercial airliner and stops wasting millions by having the military dedicate resources to fly her all over the frakking place? How about we stop funding radical, corrupt activist groups line ACORN and actually care for those who fight to keep us safe? How about you go to frakking hell, Mr. President, if you think that the American public will allow you to propose a $3.5 trillion dollar Federal budget and then believe for one frakking second that you cannot find $500 million dollars, or a hell of a lot more if needed, to care for our wounded vets?

This is the utter height of bullshit and simply proves that his man cares nothing for this nation and the veterans that have served to protect it. This is a soulless act of a man with no moral conscience. As Cmdr. Rehbein noted, this would cause massive harm to the veterans, their employers and their families who would all be affect by having to meet the private insurance deductibles, facing higher premiums and maxing out coverage leaving the families unprotected.

This nation called upon these men to serve in battle and we owe them the best possible care available. We have a moral obligation to these service men, especially those sustaining wounds directly related to our government placing them in harm’s way.

Even if you look at this dispassionately, which I find hard to do myself, you can see that this is a clear admission from President Obama that the Veterans Administration, the only fully government run and funded national healthcare system, is incapable of providing adequate treatment of those it is charged with serving. Now he is suggesting that the only example of a government run healthcare system in this nation must turn to the private sector as the only viable means of proving the amount and quality of service required to treat our veterans. This is President Obama admitting that a nationalized healthcare system would be a horrible disaster if implemented on a large scale. The VA is only a small controlled segment of patients and they are incapable of providing the necessary care without forcing the free market to carry the weight.

Is this the healthcare system that you want governing your well being? Does the President really expect the American people to accept nationalized healthcare, when he is blatantly admitting by these disgraceful acts against out military veterans, that it is incapable of providing treatment for those whom we have the utmost morally commitment to care for?

Due to the massive swell of public outrage over this proposal, it has now been taken off the table and a meeting was held yesterday with the same veterans groups to discuss other options. No word on any resolution has surfaced yet, but I bet if you ask most American they could find that money somewhere in the trillions of dollars our Federal government has been wasting over the last six months to care for our soldiers.

I would not blame any serviceman for refusing to enter a combat zone until this issue is resolved. Even the suggestion that they should be fiscally responsible for wounds received in the service of this nation is a horrible betrayal to them and an affront to the honor, dedication and loyalty they have shown. Such a betrayal is far beneath an American President and he has brought shame upon the office by this unforgivable injustice. While I have been critical of his actions and fiscally destructive policies, this is the straw that broke it for me. I have absolutely no respect or use for this morally bankrupt excuse for a President after this absolute insult to those that have served or this complete farce of a government that would even consider such a thing.

In the short month since President Obama has been inaugurated he has made good on his promise to deliver change to this nation. We have seen a massive increase in Federal spending from the pork laden $820 billion stimulus package to the Omnibus appropriations bill filled with over 8,500 earmark projects. Earlier this week the President hosted a fiscal responsibility convention where political leaders from across this nation gathered to discuss our soaring deficit and struggling economy. At the conclusion of this summit, President Barack Obama stood before the nation and simply lied to our faces. He promised that the Federal government would operate on a pay-as-you-go program and ensured us that he would not spend any money that we did not actually have. He promised to cut non-essential programs in favor of those critical to the success of this nation, not raise taxes on any families making less than $250,000 annually and ensure that Washington did not leave a massive debt that would crush our future generations. Apparently, it was all a lie.Yesterday, Obama released his new fiscal budget to Congress totaling nearly $3.5 trillion dollars in a direct contradiction to his words just days earlier. Considering the $700 billion dollars already allocated to financial bailouts, the $820 billion dollars in the federal stimulus package, the $420 billion dollars in the Omnibus appropriations bill and not the $3.5 trillion dollars in the new Federal budget, within his first month in office, President Barack Obama has spent over $5.4 trillion dollars with promises of more to come. Our nation and our economy will be crushed under this massive debt. This is more money that any country has ever spent in such a short time in the history of this planet. This is the change we were looking for?

To show a fine example of more undesirable change, allow me to explain the new decision handed down by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Since 1991 it has not been permissible for the media to photograph fallen soldiers returning home from a war zone. President George H.W. Bush prohibited this practice in 1991 during Desert Storm as a means of protecting those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their nation from being politicized in the media. Acknowledging the dishonor that this nation did unto its servicemen in past wars by using them and their sacrifice as political tools to seed dissent, President Bush (41) decided that he would no longer allow the media to photograph fallen soldiers returning to military bases in this nation. Yesterday, Secretary Gates decided that the media’s desire to plaster images of dead soldiers on television, websites and periodicals across this nation in an attempt to discredit this war should be allowed. I will give him the credit for providing the stipulation that the families must give permission for this to occur, but I can just imagine what will come of this. The first time a media outlet convinces a family to allow them to photograph their fallen loved one so that they might honor their service and sacrifice and then turns around an politicizes the soldiers death as a means to further a political agenda, Gates’ resignation should be demanded.

The media claims that Americans have been sheltered from the real cost of war by not allowing them to photograph our returning dead. Bullshit. We know the cost of war. We know the sacrifice made by those that the media dismisses as murderers before a fair trial. We know the price paid by the returning dead and wounded. I know personally. I have a dear friend who fought willingly for his country and fell in battle to a sniper round. Luckily the brilliance of military surgeons saved his life in Baghdad, but he will never be the same. The round stuck him in one temple and exited the other doing serious brain damage along the way. By the skill of those surgeons and the grace of God he managed to live, but his life is forever changed due to his injury. We know the cost.

If the media were not completely biased and had shown willingness to report fairly about this conflict, this might be a different story. All we ever hear from Iraq and Afghanistan is negative. None of the good is ever reported. I still have friends serving there. I hear from them how the children run to them when they see them on the street and how civilians invite them into their homes to thank them for what they have done for their country. We hear of Marines who killed innocent civilians, but we do not hear of the ones that placed themselves in extraordinary danger to avoid civilian casualties. We hear of soldiers who violated their rules of engagement, but never of those who lost their lives because those rules so restricted them from defending themselves as they needed to.

I have another friend, a Marine. This is a good man, good father and fiercely dedicated soldier. He flies an F/A-18 Hornet for the Corps and I personally know he has taken innocent lives in this conflict. Were the incident left unto the media, my friend would be labeled as a murderer, a horrible example of American aggression, but he is so far from that it is not the least bit humorous. What was his crime? What drove him to kill several innocent civilians? The answer is very simple: bad intelligence. What he thought was a legitimate, approved target containing high level al-Qaeda leaders, was not. Was it his fault that the wrong vehicles were in the wrong place and the wrong time? Was it the analyst fault or the soldiers that collected the intelligence that they were sure was solid? Was it the commander’s fault who issued the strike order? Was it the fault of the ground crews that loaded his weapons or the tanker crew that topped him off on his ingress to his target? No. None of them deserve the blame as this was not an intentional attack on civilians. This was an unfortunate mistake; something that happens quite often in war. This does not make my friend or anyone else involved some horrible person who disregarded human life. It makes them all soldiers doing the best to serve their country with honor and integrity. Things such as these unfortunately occur in war, but left to the wiles of the media my friend, this good faithful soldier, would have been made out to be a murder instead of the hero that he is. They would not have cared about all the close air support missions he flew covering other soldiers and Marines that were pinned down. They would not have cared that at times he took out targets using only the cannon on his fighter to avoid collateral damage when he carried a full payload of much more destructive weapons that would have kept him out of harm’s way. They would not have cared that this incident tore him up emotionally; leaving him unable to fly combat missions for weeks until he stopped blaming himself for those innocent deaths and realized that it was part of war. They would not have cared that this strong, seasoned jarhead called his wife crying the day that it happened and was unable to even tell her why. To the media, he would just be a murder. We know the cost of war and we know where the intent of the media lies.

Now these people have the ability to photograph our fallen dead as they are returned in honor to an ungrateful nation and a mourning family. This is the change we can believe in? Well, this is the change that we got.

Today begins the fifth day of Israeli air strikes into the Gaza Strip. Earlier this morning, Israel rejected a United Nations proposed 48-hour cease-fire and continued its punishing air campaign against the militant terrorist. While the UN wrings its hands over the civilian casualties and humanitarian problems the Israeli air campaign is causing, Israel is building up ground forces to send into Gaza and finish the job. Good.

For starters, it was ignorant of the UN to suggest a cease-fire in the first place. This current conflict started when the previous cease-fire ended and Hamas started lobbing rockets into Israeli cities. What would be accomplished by agreeing to another cease-fire other that giving Hamas the time to regroup and rearm? No, Israel should give no respite to these violent thugs who prey on innocent civilians. They should obliterate them form the face of the Earth and take the Gaza Strip back into Israeli protection.

Gaza is no longer a Palestinian protectorate. It has been reduced to nothing more than and armed camp stockpiled with Chinese and Iranian made weapons and supplied through underground tunnels used to smuggle those weapons to Hamas.

Time and time again, Israel has capitulated to the demands of Hamas and Hezbollah. They have given land for peace, showed incredible restraint while under constant assault and painstakingly tried to avoid civilian casualties when it did retaliate against the aggressors. What has it gotten them? Shells and rockets raining into their major cities, terrorist blowing themselves up in malls and pizza joints and the condemnation of the insufferable and corrupt United Nations Human Rights Council.

I am sick to death of hearing people chastise Israel for her actions against Hamas and fortunately I seem to not be the only one. In a surprising change of heart, Egypt has placed its military on high alert and canceled all personal leaves, brining its military to its highest state of readiness. They are apparently supporting Israel’s prosecution of Hamas and have stated that they will seal off the southern border of the Gaza Strip if Israel sends in ground forces thereby preventing the escape of Hamas terrorist fleeing Israeli troops. Jordan also appears supportive of Israel and oddly enough, Hezbollah, who historically has joined her Hamas brethren in its terrorist assaults against Israel, has remained remarkably quite and still. This could have something to do with the warning issued from the Israeli Air Force that if it even suspected Hezbollah troop movements, it would immediately begin hitting their forces in the north. It seems that some of these countries in the Middle East are finally tiring of the endless violence caused by these radical terrorist organizations.

What needs to happen this time is nothing short of the complete destruction of Hamas. Israel needs to completely obliterate them and destroy their ability to regroup and rearm and all those people crying about the inhumanity of Israel’s actions, ask yourselves where were you when innocent Israeli’s were being killed by these terrorist barbarians. Did you protest and demand that Hamas stop their actions against a sovereign nation? Yeah, I did not thinks so.

So I cheer Israel on. Screw Hamas, screw the corrupt UN and screw an idiotic cease-fire agreement that would benefit no one but the terrorists.

Israel must be allowed to defend herself and her citizens. Would you not expect that we would do the same?

We now hear the chorus of the left proclaiming Barack Obama to be the new John F. Kennedy and lauding him as bringing a new Camelot unto the distressed masses. Now, I was not yet set upon this Earth when Kennedy took office, but I am a student of history and I do not recall very many, if any, similarities between the views of the former President and the views of the messianic hopeful.

Taking probably the most famous point of reference available for Kennedy, his inaugural address, let’s compare some of Obama’s views with the late, great JFK:

On Religion:

Obama: Small town Americans cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Kennedy: “For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago… … the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

“With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

Ok, so was Kennedy guilty of clinging to his religion?

On National Defense:

Obama: “I will cut investments in unproven missile technology. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems… … I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I seek a global ban on the production of fissile material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.

Kennedy: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

“Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. “

“We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.”

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it.”

On Social Issues:

Obama: He believes the government should provide you with health insurance, a living wage, a job and apparently wealth:

“In Washington, they call this the “Ownership Society,” but what it really means is that you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you’re on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You’re on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You are on your own. Well, it’s time for them to own their failure.”

Kennedy: His philosophy was simple and was a very much ‘you’re on your own’ approach to the matter. He knew to rely on the strength and ingenuity of the American people to solve not only their own problems, but the problems of our nation as well:

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

The differences are astounding. Barack Obama, we know John F. Kennedy. You, sir, are no John F. Kennedy. As a matter of fact, you stand as the antithesis to everything that Kennedy believed about this nation.

You stand opposite to his beliefe that America was the best vessel for delivering liberty to the world and that to do such things we must remain a superior nation when it comes to military strength and technological advances.

You stand as a disgrace to his belief that aggression must be met with overwhelming resolve and decisive strength.

You stand in opposition to his belief that to show weakness in the face of your enemy must never be allowed.

You stand diametrically opposed to the belief that Kennedy held in the strength of the American people to solve their own problems and face great challenges.

You want people to ask what your government can do for you, not what you can do for your government or for yourselves. The exact opposite of Kennedy’s philosophy.

We all woke this morning to a far different presidential campaign than we did just a day before. Last night at the Republican National Convention we were treated to the speeches of Mike Huckabee and a powerful representation by Rudi Giuliani, but it paled in comparison to the main show.

I am not often very impressed with politicians. Speeches are written by others and can be delivered with effect by a skilled orator, so they are not the final measurement that a candidate should be judged by. However, there are those that can take such a speech and craft it into a masterpiece that reaches out and connects with their audience in such a way to spurn a true emotional connection. We have seen this ability in the messianic visage of the Democrat’s presidential candidate. Even when the speech lacks a single substantive message, Barack Obama has the ability to spin the words into a moving oratory. He has now met his match in Sarah Palin.

With much anticipation and great expectations, Sarah Palin took the stage. She started simply by accepting the nomination and singing the praises of John McCain. Next she introduced her family and gave a little insight into the challenges that they have faced. She promised those families who had loved ones with disabilities that they would find an advocate in the White House in her. She then showed her love for and pride in her husband and thanked her parents for their role in making her who she is.

Then the gloves came off. She injected plenty of charisma and humor into the speech, but struck solid, stinging blows to the opposing ticket. The crowd erupted when she mentioned being a hockey mom. At the end of the applause, she commented. “You know what the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is? Lipstick.” The women in the place went nuts with the comment. She went on to describe her career as a small town mayor, playing up the importance of small town America and the quality of her people.

Next came the first strike: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.” Ouch. The follow up? “I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.” The crowd went nuts with that last statement, standing to their feet and cheering her on as she continued, “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”

After the convention settled down a bit she took aim at the media, “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

“But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” she defiantly stated, to thunderous applause and cheers.

Next she moved on to talk about eliminating wasteful spending and using the veto power to protect the American people by eliminating pork barrel projects. She highlighted how she had done away with executive extravagances in Alaska that she felt the people should not have to pay for. “That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.”

Moving on to energy, she highlighted the need for independence from foreign sources and gave pointed examples of why. She commented that while drilling will not solve all our problems it is no excuse for doing nothing. Then came the section that most liberal commentators in the media must have missed. All last night, continuing into today, many in the media have claimed that Palin’s speech held no substance and did not address any issues on job creation or energy at all. To that I offer, in her own words, “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more nuclear plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.”

“We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

Shifting back to the attack on Obama, like a prize fighter, she hit again and again in quick succession:

“We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights? Government is too big … he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much … he promises more.

Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.”

She followed with sharp contrasts between McCain and Obama, “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. “

“And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”
Finally, she took one more parting shot at the Democrat establishment and it was dead on accurate: “Harry Reid, the majority leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.”

“He said, quote, ‘I can’t stand John McCain.’ Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we’ve
chosen the right man. Clearly what the majority leader was driving at is that he can’t stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. “

She ended her speech by highlighting his journey from a 6 x 4 POW cell in Hanio to the presidency and calling on a story told by a fellow POW demonstrating McCain’s courage and dedication. While the crowd were cheering Tom Moe, McCain’s fellow POW, she gracefully blew the man a kiss from the podium proving herself to be a true class act.

If this woman played professional baseball, the commission would be investigating her today for steroid use, as she stepped up to the plate, her first time out, took a hard pitch and nailed a homerun clearly out of the park. Not just out of the park, but cleanly and clearly from Alaska straight to Washington, D.C.

I am tremendously impressed with this woman. She showed class, fearlessness, determination and confidence. She possessed charm and humor. She even seemed to have a defiance about her without approaching arrogance. This is the future of our movement, our party and our nation.

Not to mention, that for a 44 year old mother of five and soon to be grandmother, the woman is smokin’ hot.

Yesterday, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev recognized the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia as independent regions. Medvedev warned the West that Russia is ready for a long term conflict over Eastern Europe, stating, “We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War.” He warned the United States to back down on the anti-ballistic missile shield it is constructing over most of Europe, threatening once again to use military action in Poland if the deal progresses.

Reactions from the European nations and America were predictably terse. The international community immediately condemned the recognition of these regions and cautioned Moscow over escalating the tensions in Eastern Europe.

These statements coincided with reports from the Georgian government that Russian forces were staging a military build-up in Abkhazia in direct violation of the cease-fire reached earlier this month. Georgia reported that its forces had withdrawn after encountering Russian military units within their own territory to avoid additional conflict.

As the international community tries to respond with humanitarian aid to the hundreds of thousand of displaced Georgians, Russia continues to threaten the peace and stability of the region and encourage the rebellious provinces to continue to resist the legitimate Georgian government. Two United States warships loaded with relief aid cargo docked at the Georgian port of Batumi within the past few days. The USS McFaul (DDG-74) was reportedly diverted from the port of Poti on Sunday after report from the Georgian government indicated that Russia may have mined the sea lanes surrounding the port. The McFaul docked in Batumi later that day and began delivering 55 tons of relief cargo to help the Georgian refugees. She was joined to that by the USCGC Dallas (WHEC 716) carrying another 34 tons of blankets, food, water and general care supplies. The two relief ship are scheduled to be joined shortly by the USS Mount Whitney (LCC/JCC 20) one of the United States Navy’s most sophisticated Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence (C4I) loaded with additional supplies. I guess that the mighty Russian Black Sea Fleet is terribly intimidated by one Arleigh Burke class destroyer, a Coast Guard cutter and a command ship.

Russia’s response to the relief effort has been ludicrous but strong. Accusing the United States of employing ‘battleship diplomacy’ they are claiming that humanitarian aid is not delivered by battleships and that the ships are smuggling weapons to the Georgians. In response, Russia sent the Slava class guided missile cruiser and two smaller missile boats to the Abkhazian capital port of Sukhumi to counter and control the NATO military ‘build up’ in the Black Sea and warned the United States that its military has no business delivering humanitarian aid. I guess the Russians do not pay close attention to history. Our military has delivered more humanitarian aid to victims of war, poverty and natural disaster than any other force on this planet.

By the way, none of the US ship carrying the aid are battleships. As a matter of fact, all three ships combined have a total displacement of 30,850 tons. Far less than the 45,000 tons than the United States last Iowa class battleship displaced. Not to mention that the Mount Whitney is only armed with defensive weapons. The largest weapons on the entire ship are two 25mm Bushmaster guns. Not much of a threat against a real warship.

As tensions rise on the diplomatic front, a stand off between Russian and American naval vessels hearkens back to the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Many people have already started to compare the two situations directly hinting that the United States is attempting the very same thing that Russia did then. Some critics are suggesting that Russia should use the same tactics that the United States did back then and blockade the Black Sea until we agree to withdraw our missile bases in Easter Europe. There is one critical difference that cannot be ignored or explained away no matter how much the left wants to do so.

In 1962, the Soviet Union attempted to stage SS-4 Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) in Cuba. These are purely offensive weapons with a range of 1,300 mi (2,080 km) and carrying a nuclear payload of 2.3 megatons. Basing these missiles in Cuba would have given Moscow a first strike capability to strike most of the continental United States with little or now warning. It would only have taken about five minutes for the missiles to leave Cuba and strike their targets within the US.

The missiles we are deploying in Europe are purely defensive in nature with absolutely no offensive capabilities whatsoever. The Anti-Ballistic Missile (AMB) shield will be most likely composed of a variant on the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 that was used to knock USA 193 out of low orbit on February 14th, 2008 and MIM-104 Patriot PAC3 missile systems. These platforms are interceptors only. They are incapable of direct offensive actions against Russian territory and carry a conventional, non-nuclear warhead. The MIM-104F missile carries a 200 lb conventional M248 Composition B high explosive warhead while the RIM-161s use a purely kinetic Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) warhead.

There is an incredible difference between the situation and anyone who pretends not to understand that is either a moron or a leftist shill making excuses for Russia’s aggression.