On January 27, 1973, President Nixon signed the Paris Peace According ending the Vietnam War.  At that time the North Vietnamese had agreed to cease fire.  The Viet Cong also agreed, but by that time they were so weak they were barely recognizable.  The Viet Cong had been virtually wiped out as a result of the 1968 Tet Offensive.  The following article from Clemson is one of the more accurate accounts of the meaing of the Tet Offensive:

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/edmoise/viet8.html

Note:  When the population did not rise up to support them, and the ARVN did not collapse, a large proportion of these men were killed. This weakened the NLF organization in the countryside very drastically, and it never completely recovered.

Nixon promised U.S. Air Power support to our ally, South Vietnam, in exchange for their agreement to sign the treaty.  If you want to ready more on the treaty, the attached link is to the history.com link:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paris-peace-accords-signed

If this agreement had been honored, the United States would have been the victor.  Both sides agreed to withdraw from Laos and Cambodia and the DMZ at the 17^th Parallel remained the provisional dividing line.  There was a vague agreement to re-unify Vietnam, but the North promised to not use military force to achieve that goal.  This is similar to the agreement to unify Taiwan and China.

The main provisions are outlined in the following:

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Notes_Paris_Peace.htm

There was a new according signed in June of 1973, strengthening the agreement.  Following is the link to that agreement:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kissinger-and-le-duc-tho-sign-new-peace-agreement

At this point, the Democratic congress intervened and made sure our involvement in Vietnam ended and that no peace agreement could be successful.

On July 1, 1973 Congress voted to end all bombing in Cambodia after August 15, 1973

By December 31, 1973 our military contingent in Vietnam was down to 50 people

On August 9, 1974 Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States

On August 20, 1974 U.S. aid to Vietnam was cut from $1 billion to $700 million

On December 13, 1974 North Vietnam attacked the Phuc Luong province.  The U.S. failed to respond.

On January 14, 1975 Secretary of Defense Schlesinger warned congress that the U.S. was failing to keep its promise to support South Vietnam.

On January 25, 1975, President Ford sends a special message to congress warning them of the desperate need to support Vietnam and accurately predicting the consequences.  Following is a transcript of that message:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=5216#axzz1bpYcDJ6b

It was ignored.

Saigon fell on April 30, 1975.

The United States Military did not lose the Vietnam War.  There is zero evidence that North Vietnam thought a military victory was remotely possible.  It was lost by the Democratic Congress.  They not only refused to allow Gerald Ford to use our military force to enforce the peace treaty, they cut off all military aid to South Vietnam.  After a Democrat Congress and a Democratic President decided to fight the war in Vietnam, after a Republican President found a way to end it with honor, Democrats in congress threw it all away with little or no regard for the fate of our allies or the sacrifice of our troops.  The only thing worse than losing a war; is to win it and then throw it all away as if it never mattered.

Now we have a Democratic President who is prepared to throw away any chance at victory in Iraq.  Don’t be surprised if there are loud calls from Democrats to cut for cutting off all military aid to Iraq.  I expect Iran to challenge us in Iraq almost immediately after the last troops leave.  I expect Obama to ignore that challenge.  Unfortunately, I also expect similar results to what happened in Vietnam. 

Today the main stream media tends to blame the entire Vietnam War on Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, although it was Johnson, not Nixon who started that war.  And it was the Democratic Congress, not Gerald Ford, who lost it.  We can expect, after Iraq disintegrates, that the main stream media will blame it all on George Bush.  Barack Obama will be barely mentioned.  I also predict that 36 years later the main stream media will continue to lie about what happened. 

 Today the media contantly reminds us that the lesson of Vietnam is that we were caught in a quagmire in a war we could not win.  The real truth is that military superiority may win on the battlefield but that doesn’t mean a lot if congress is dominated by a bunch of spineless liberals who don’t seem to notice or care.

TDM

According to the following CBS News report, this is how Hillary Clinton responded to the death of Muammar Qaddafi:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html

If President Bush or any of the Republican candidates for President had said this the main stream media would have hyperventilated.  It is incredibly tasteless and irresponsible.   Obama himself traveled the globe apologizing for the U.S. allegedly interfering in other countries.  The hypocrisy and stupidity of the liberal left is jaw dropping.

Geraldo Rivera was so thrilled that he called this the Obama doctrine.  Apparently our new foreign policy is to just kill anyone who gets in the way and let someone else pick up the pieces.  In this case he is counting on good results from the French and the Germans.  They have both done so well in the past!

I am glad Qaddafi is gone.  But, in recent years, he was no longer a threat to us.  We basically waited until his political base collapsed and then bombed the remnants into submission.  It was a good demonstration on how sophisticated air power can destroy an inferior military, operating in a desert, with accuracy and precision.  However we are yet to learn what is left behind.  We are very good at killing people.  Is that the new American foreign policy?

It appears as if there are at least 13 different tribes ruling different parts of Libya.  These tribes pretty much agreed on getting rid of Qaddafi, but not much else.  Odds are very high that they will quickly turn on each other.  After the Tsar was over thrown in Russia, there was a provisional government promising freedom and democracy.  It lasted 8 months. The provisional government, made up of moderates, was never able to establish control.  The communists took over complete control after a bloody civil war.  The rest is history.  That is the problem with moderate governments.  They are quickly overwhelmed by people more than willing to resort to unthinkable violence. 

Libya is likely to go one of two ways, both bad.  It will either descend into lawless anarchy or a new strong man will come in and take over.  Any strongman is probably going to need support from the Muslim extremists.  The least likely result is freedom and democracy.  That is only possible if someone strong enough to take control and provide security takes over and then willingly relinquishes control to a democratic government.  That odds of that happening in Libya are very low.

The real lesson of Iraq was that democracy without security is anarchy.  The U.S. had to send in the surge to take control of the country before there was even a potential for a self-sustaining democracy.  Thanks to Obama’s run for the exits, Iraq too may descend back into chaos.  Unfortunately if that happens in Iraq, Iran will quickly try to step into the void.  They will be opposed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations.  Keep in mind that Iran allegedly tried to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. 

In Libya, Obama may have just unleashed a bloody civil war.  In Iraq, he may have turned a relatively stable situation into a violent regional war.  Most regional experts predict that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, so will every other major country in the Middle East.  The risk of a nuclear conflict will become extremely high.  The only thing certain is that things in Iraq are far more likely to deteriorate than to improve.

It’s a real shame the liberal left is so busy celebrating to realize that Obama is the polar opposite to the foreign policy they have been demanding for decades.  I wouldn’t exactly call this less interference by the U.S.  But where are the anti-war protests.  Whether you agree with the need for this operation or not, it was a blatant display of arrogant U.S. military force with little or no regard to the ultimate outcome.  Unfortunately, Hillary described the Obama foreign policy to perfection:  “we came, we saw, we killed.” 

TDM

Anyone who watches President Obama speak and does the slightest amount of research, quickly realizes that he is a habitual liar.  Sadly the main stream media rarely notices.  But Fast & Furious is a scandal that is not going to go away and this time we have some very serious people asking some really important questions:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/10/house-republicans-ask-obama-for-information-on-fast-and-furious/

In March, during an interview on Univision, when discussing Fast & Furious, Obama said that neither he nor Attorney General Holder authorized it.  That statement is creating serious problems for Obama.  The problem is that about a month later Erik Holder, testifying under oath before congress, said that he had only learned about Fast & Furious a few weeks ago.  We already know that there are e-mail copied to Holder discussing this program as early as July of 2010.  Obama could literally be called as a witness to show that Holder committed perjury.  Someone must have told Obama that Holder had not authorized Fast & Furious, otherwise how did Obama know that.  It’s pretty hard to believe that Obama will ever admit to knowing about it before Holder.  This is the kind of smoking gun statement that cannot be ignored.  According to this report, Representatives Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy wrote the following question in a letter addressed directly to Obama:

To that end, if you knew the Attorney General did not authorize “Fast and Furious” how did you learn that and when did you learn that?” Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., wrote. “If you knew Attorney General Holder did not authorize it, inherent in that response is knowledge of who did authorize it.”

There are numerous reports that Fast & Furious involved a lot more than the ATF. According to the following article, there was full cooperation between ATF, ICE, the DEA and the IRS.  They are described as full partners by William Newell, the former head of the Phoenix office of the ATF:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/video-atf-agent-who-implemented-fast-a

The main stream media is way behind the curve in reporting on this story, but that is likely to change.  The stench has become overwhelming and thanks to Obama’s interview on Univision, it is now tied directly to the President of the United States.  No news agency can continue to ignore a story of this magnitude.  No one from either political party is even hinting that Fast & Furious was a good idea. 

Keep in mind that Obama didn’t need to authorize this to have a problem; he just needed to have participated in the cover-up.  Suddenly, the question:  “what did the President know and when did he know it” becomes extremely important.  It is increasing clear that there has been a major cover-up of this fiasco.

Anyone who has ever worked for any branch of the Federal Government quickly learns one simple truth.  The agencies are loath to work together.  That is one reason for the success of 9-11.  It is extremely unlikely that the ATF, ICE, The DEA and the IRS just got together and created this puppy.  Instead this was such an obviously bad idea that a more likely outcome would be for any agency approached by ATF to recognize a chance for glory and blow the whistle.  This kind of cooperation, particularly for such a really dumb idea, is only possible when orders come from the very top.  At a minimum, that would involve both Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano.  Guess who both of them report to?

Keep your eye on the birdie.  The White House needs a major distraction and they need it now.  There are reports of our troops massing at the Pakistani border with Afghanistan.  Obama recently ordered troops into the Sudan.  The administration is suddenly making a lot of loud noise about Iran.  Gaddaffi’s death is convenient, but it won’t solve the problem.  If this administration was willing to authorize something like Fast & Furious to solve an embarrassing mistake, what would they be willing to do to escape the consequences?

TDM

In March of 2009, Hillary Clinton blamed the increase in Mexican violence on guns obtained in the U.S:

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/03/26/hillary-claims-that-the-us-is-reponsible-for-violence-in-mexico-and-obamas-plot-for-gun-control/

Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians

Obama repeated this charge on a visit to Mexico in April of 2009:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/17/obama-blames-us-guns-in-mexico/?page=all

Obama even claimed that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico came from the U.S:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/16/barack-obama/Obama-claims-90-percent-guns-used-Mexico/

The problem was that this simply was not true.  The ATF was forced to admit that in fact only 17% of guns recovered in Mexico could be traced back to the U.S.  The other 83% of guns recovered couldn’t be tracked at all.  This created a huge problem for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the entire anti-gun crowd.  They looked foolish when the real numbers came out.

Maybe it’s just me, but operation Fast & Furious looks like a really convenient solution to the problem.  The ATF allowed the guns to “walk” and be transported to Mexico.  It appears as though some of the famous stimulus money was provided to speed along the process.  One could make the argument that Fast & Furious did a lot more than ignore gun walking; it encouraged and enabled gun walking.

Why would anyone think this is a good idea?  It is hard to believe that some local ATF supervisor dreamed this up.  That makes no sense at all.  The Obama administration was on record complaining about the number of guns being shipped to Mexico.  Any ATF official in his or her  right mind would only recommend proposals to reduce gun trafficking.  That is what people do!  If your boss is upset about something, you find a way to fix the problem.  I can’t even imagine the logic that would cause an ATF official to propose something like Fast & Furious under the circumstances.

But what if someone needed evidence of guns being smuggled into Mexico?  What if, say, the President and the Secretary of State had both been embarrassed by making absurdly false accusations about the number of guns being smuggled to Mexico?  Wouldn’t it be great if there was a recovery of a lot of guns in Mexico that could be traced back to the U.S?  Wouldn’t that help show that the President & the Secretary of State were right all along?  Suddenly Fast & Furious makes sense. 

The only think we know for sure is that both Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama made absurdly false claims about the number of gun recovered in Mexico that could be traced back to the U.S.  We also know that Fast & Furious was implemented in September, 2009, just a couple months after their very public and embarrassing lie was exposed.  That sure seems like more than a coincidence!

The following article from the LA Times reveals some critical information:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/03/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20111004

The following excerpt from the memo is chilling:

Either way, he added that “it’s not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX, so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking.’ It may be more like, ‘Finally they’re going after people who sent guns down there’ “

Please note that they are not surprised to discover that a lot of U.S. guns are being used in Mexico.  Really?  If only 17% of the guns being recovered in Mexico could be traced back to the U.S., wouldn’t finding a “lot” of U.S. guns in Mexico be a big surprise?   There also doesn’t appear to be much surprise or concern over the gun walking.  The only concern was with regard to how to avoid the blame.  They decided it would be ok because “Finally they’re going after people who sent guns down there.”

This is far more consistent with an administration more interested in proving U.S. guns were walking to Mexico than slowing down the process.  There is not even a hint of a concern that guns originating in the U.S. are being used by murderous thugs to kill people in Mexico. 

Today Obama saId that the “People who have screwed up will be held accountable:”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-on-fast-and-furious-people-who-have-screwed-up-will-be-held-accountable

That was an interesting choice of words.  Did they screw up by allowing all those guns to migrate to Mexico, or did they screw up by getting caught?  Perhaps if Obama used a little of that stimulus money to install mirrors in the White House he might have more success in identifying the person responsible.

 TDM

The occupy wall street fiasco was probably inevitable.  After all, President Obama has been deliberately inciting class warfare.  He never resists the opportunity to point his finger at someone.  This is normally done right after he finishes giving a stern lecture about finger pointing.  It is similar to the way he preaches about the need for a bi-partisan approach right after he gets done blaming everything on Republicans.  Now, after demonizing Wall Street, the banking system in general and the Global Economic system, Obama tells the protestors they are right, then warns them not to demonize people.

 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/052226f8-f80c-11e0-a419-00144feab49a.html#axzz1b3aiZxIw

 The protestors are understandably confused.  This is so bad it has even been noticed by the New York Times:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-trying-to-settle-on-demands.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

 In the ultimate irony, after the NYT points out that these guys don’t have a clue, it reaches the following conclusion:

 The influence and staying power of Occupy Wall Street are undeniable: similar movements have sprouted around the world, as the original group enters its fifth week in the financial district. Yet a frequent criticism of the protesters has been the absence of specific policy demands.

 This movement will spread, for a while, because of support from the far left main stream media.  If you want to understand this world view, just read the words to Imagine by John Lennon:

Imagine

John Lennon

• Imagine there’s no heaven
• It’s easy if you try
• No hell below us
• Above us only sky
• Imagine all the people
• Living for today
•  
• Imagine there’s no countries
• It isn’t hard to do
• Nothing to kill or die for
• And no religion too
• Imagine all the people
• Living life in peace
•  
• You may say I’m a dreamer
• But I’m not the only one
• I hope someday you’ll join us
• And the world will be as one
•  
• Imagine no possessions
• I wonder if you can
• No need for greed or hunger
• A brotherhood of man
• Imagine all the people
• Sharing all the world
•  
• You may say I’m a dreamer
• But I’m not the only one
• I hope someday you’ll join us
• And the world will live as one

The problem is that Imagine does not describe utopia, it describes anarchy.  Someone has to plant the fields and grow the crops or we will all starve.  Someone has to build the homes or we die from lack of shelter.  Someone has to make the clothes or we are all naked.  The police are necessary, because someone has to use force to suppress criminals or they simply trample anyone who gets in their way.  Countries are necessary because history is full of tyrants determined to rule the world by force.  Religion reminds us of the difference between good and evil and right and wrong.  People without religion are too often people without moral restraint.  When I read and think about the world described in Imagine, I imagine a nightmare.

Things will change quickly.  There is a limited amount of time people can spend sitting around the camp fire singing “kum ba yah” before the sewage starts to back up and they run out of food.  I guarantee you there are some serious people who are already working overtime to control and exploit these protestors and the naïve media that is supporting them.  It is just the way things work.

President Obama and several top Democrats are openly embracing this movement.  It is a huge mistake.  They are foolishly comparing this to the Tea Party.  But the Tea Party is primarily composed of hard working citizens, including business owners, who know exactly what they want.  The want lower taxes, less government regulation and more adherence to the U.S. constitution.  The contrast between the two groups could not be starker.  Democrats tried this once before in 1968 and 1972 by aligning themselves with the anti-war protestors.  That is how Richard Nixon, perhaps the most unpopular U.S. President in our history, got elected twice.

Eventually this movement will run out of steam.  The main stream media will go back to singing Imagine still desperately searching for the impossible dream.

TDM

The alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States is more than a little strange.  Following is the latest report from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/iran-saudi-plot/index.html?iref=obnetwork

In another report, CNN reports that some analysts are more than a little skeptical:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/us/analysis-iran-saudi-plot/

Apparently Iran chose a used car salesman from Texas to reach out to the Mexican drug cartel in the desperate attempt to find someone stupid enough to do the deed.  This seems more than a little weird.  That doesn’t mean it isn’t true.  The CIA tried to hire the Mafia to off Fidel Castro and those clowns came up with some really weird and incredibly stupid plots.  None of them came close to working.

This guy was a U.S. citizen, but it does not appear that he was given all that much due process:

U.S. authorities arranged with Mexican officials for Arbabsiar to be denied entry into Mexico, a senior counterterrorism official said.

From there, he was placed on an airplane to New York, where U.S. agents interrogated him for 12 days, obtained a confession and compiled dozens of intelligence reports, the official said.

I wonder if he was given his Miranda rights.  It would also be interesting to know what interrogation techniques were used.  I sure hope no one deprived him of any sleep or asked him any tough questions.  I wonder if anyone in the main stream media even noticed.  And, by the way, his co-conspirator is missing. 

The only thing we know right now is that this is weird.  We also know it is a convenient distraction for Erik Holder who has been caught lying to congress about Fast & Furious.  Holder almost immediately used this as an excuse to avoid answering any questions during a recent news conference.  He was too busy keeping us safe to deal with trivial issues, like committing perjury.

This story is too juicy for anyone in the main stream media to ignore.  Odds are high there will be some very interesting and important developments.

TDM

My wife and I recently saw “THE HELP.”  It is a terrific movie and a stark reminder of the racism in our not-too-distant past.  One very interesting scene was when one of the most racist people in the story spots a pamphlet about the Mississippi race laws in her friend’s purse.  She warns her to be careful who sees that because: “there are real racists out there.”  It caused me to reflect on racism today.

I think most people would agree that we have come a long way since Mississippi in, 1963.  But sometimes I fear we have simply traded one form of racism for another, more subtle and, perhaps, more dangerous type.  As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “we should judge people not on the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”  Dr. King didn’t ask for preferential treatment, he asked for equal treatment.

The people most likely to be accused of racism are Republicans and Tea Party members.  I find that interesting when throughout history it was the Republican Party that fought against racism and it was the Democratic Party that was the party of racism.  The following rant from Jeneane Garofalo is typical of the lies and distortions by the liberal left that are sadly left unchallenged by the main stream media: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/29/janeane_garofalo_racist_republicans_support_herman_cain.html

 When you think about it, calling people racist for supporting a black candidate is pretty astonishing, even for someone as off the wall as Garofalo.

 But regardless of the spin by the Democratic Party and the main stream media, the Republicans have the facts on their side.  It is long past time to expose the racist past of the Democratic Party and the long history of Republicans standing up for civil rights against Democratic opposition.  I really think Republicans should be demanding that the Democratic Party finally recognize its racist past and apologize.  Democrats have no problem asking for everyone else to apologize, and we have a President who apologized for the entire country. 

 Following is from the Republican Party Platform of 1956:

 The Republican Party accepts the decision of the U.S.. Supreme Court that racial discrimination in publicly supported schools must be progressively eliminated. We concur in the conclusion of the Supreme Court that its decision directing school desegregation should be accomplished with “all deliberate speed” locally through Federal District Courts. The implementation order of the Supreme Court recognizes the complex and acutely emotional problems created by its decision in certain sections of our country where racial patterns have been developed in accordance with prior and long-standing decisions of the same tribunal

 The Democratic Party Platform of 1956:

 Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States relating to segregation in publicly supported schools and elsewhere have brought consequences of vast importance to our Nation as a whole and especially to communities directly affected.

Democrats “talked” about racial equality, but in reality they caved to the Southern Democratic coalition that was deeply opposed to both civil rights and desegregation.  While there were Northern Democrats, like Hubert Humphrey, who were civil rights champions, the party was dominated by Southern Democrats who were determined to keep segregation at all cost.

 It was Eisenhower who appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and it was the Warren court that ended segregation in our public schools with the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision.  It was Eisenhower who ordered Federal Troops into Little Rock Arkansas so nine black children could enroll in school.  It was Eisenhower who signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which was voted against by Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.  Both Kennedy and Johnson also criticized Eisenhower for ordering the 82^nd Airborne into Arkansas.  But if Eisenhower had not done that, the entire civil rights movement may have collapsed. 

 Civil rights legislation in this country was blocked by Southern Democrats, including party stars like Estes Kefauver and J William Fulbright.  This is ignored by the main stream media that has helped perpetuate the myth that all of the racist Dixiecrat Democrats became Republicans after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  That, like much of the Democratic Party history with regard to racism, is a lie.  Following are the Dixiecrats who remained in the Democratic Party after 1964:

 Orval Fabus

Benjamin Travis Laney

John Stennis

James Eastland

Allen Ellender

Russell Long

John Sparkman

John McClellan

Richard Russell

Herman Talmadge

George Wallace

Lester Maddox

John Rarick

Robert Byrd

Al Gore, Sr.

Bull Connor

Only two Dixiecrats switched to become Republicans, Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.  Both of them had to renounce racism before the Republicans would take them.  A lot of people assume Jesse Helms was a Dixiecrat, but he wasn’t.  He also didn’t vote against the Civil Rights Act, as was claimed in the following article for CNN by Roland Martin:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-09/politics/roland.martin_1_helms-lester-maddox-african-americans?_s=PM:POLITICS

Jesse Helms wasn’t even in the Senate in 1964.  However, Martin got it dead on when he wrote the following:

But when you stand in opposition to a bill that would, for the first time, give African-Americans from border to border the constitutionally guaranteed right to cast a vote, then I refuse to call you a stand-up person for the rights of every man, woman and child.

He just got the wrong political party.  He failed to point out that every Senator who voted against the Civil Rights Act, with the lone exception of Barry Goldwater, was a Democrat.  (To the best of my knowledge no one ever accused Goldwater of being a racist.  His opposition was based on States rights.)

 The real question is did all those Southern Democrats suddenly morph into anti-racism freedom loving Americans?  Or did they just change tactics?  Democrats only accept African Americans who are liberal Democrats.  Other African Americans, regardless of ability, are scorned.  Compare the way Clarence Thomas was treated when he was appointed to the Supreme Court to the treatment given Obama’s two extreme liberal appointments.  Thomas’s real crime was being black and being conservative.  If he had been black and liberal, the main stream media would have been outraged at the way he was treated.

 Look at the disrespect for Collin Powell who has been called an Uncle Tom, and the main stream media indifference to Condoleezza Rice.  Now add in the discounting of Herman Cain as a legitimate Presidential candidate.  Whether you like him or not, Mr. Cain is a very serious person who was CEO of two major corporations.  Yet he continues to be treated condescendingly by the main stream media.  Ms. Garofalo accidently said it right when she said in the minds of the liberal left, supporting a conservative black candidate is the moral equivalent of racism.  The message is clear.  It is ok to be black, as long as you are a liberal Democrat.  But if a black man dare raise his hand and say he is a conservative the wrath of hell will descend upon his head.  African Americans are only accepted if they tow the party line like loyal sheep.

 Perhaps this is just me, but I have a theory about this.  It is based somewhat on the following two (in)famous quotes from Lyndon B. Johnson.  (Keep in mind that it was the United States Senate, when Johnson was majority leader, which blocked any attempt at passing civil rights legislation for several years):

 I’ll have those (n word) voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” LBJ on Air Force One

 “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” — LBJ

 A lot of African-Americans view John Kennedy as a hero of the Civil Rights movement.  But 25 years after his death, Robert Kennedy In His Own Words, was released.  This contained several interviews given by Robert Kennedy before he was assassinated.  The following article illustrates some of the significant things said by Robert Kennedy that were totally ignored by the main stream media, by the Democratic Party and by African American leaders in general:

 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17550

 The pattern is clear.  Kennedy was more interested in politics that he was in civil rights.  He was more concerned about losing the support of Southern Democrats than he was about promoting civil rights.  It is impossible to reconcile the actual words of Robert Kennedy and the myth of Kennedy being a civil rights champion.  When you combine these interviews with the recently released Jacki Kennedy tapes, the picture comes into focus.  At best, John Kennedy was a reluctant “Johnny Come Lately.” 

 We did have a President who deserves credit for bringing about fundamental change with regard to civil rights in this country.  His name was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 I don’t think that the racists in the Democratic Partychanged their opinion of African Americans one iota.  Idon’ t believe they got a religious conversion and I don’t believe they dropped their racist outlook.  They just changed strategies by implemented programs designed to keep African Americans satisfied and under control, while avoiding having to ever treat them as equals.  Think about this.  What has been the impact of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society?  What has been the impact of his War on Poverty?   The following chart shows the poverty levels in this country since 1969, allowing 4 years for the “War on Poverty” to have full impact:

 Year       Poverty Rate

1969       13.7%

1979       12.4%

1989       13.1%

1996       13.7%

2000       11.3%

2007       12.5%

2008       13.2%

2009       14.3%

2010       15.1%

 When you consider the billions of dollars spent on anti-poverty programs over the past 47 years, we really haven’t made much progress.  It is significant to note that poverty dropped after Bill Clinton reluctantly accepted welfare reform in 1996.  It was also lower during the Bush administration than during the Clinton Administration.  It has obviously shot up significantly since Obama was elected.  Perhaps, instead of taking cheap shots at Republicans and the Tea Party for non-existent racism, it is time for African Americans to take a long hard look at real record of the Democratic Party.

 African Americans have supported the Democratic Party by wide margins for decades.  What have they gained, except for temporary hand-outs that did nothing to reduce the level of poverty, but did manage to destroy our economy?.   

When African American’s supported Republicans they got an end to slavery, an end to segregation, civil rights legislation and a Federal government determined to enforce it.  In spite of all the rhetoric, it was George Bush, not John F. Kennedy, not Lyndon Johnson, not Jimmy Carter and not Bill Clinton who appointed the first African American, Collin Powell to a major cabinet position.

 The Democratic Party was dragged kicking and screaming to the civil rights altar but they now try to claim all the credit for the legislation they had fought to the bitter end.  Sadly, it worked.  It is long past time for Republicans to set the record straight! 

 TDM

Hillary Clinton is the master at lying to congress, under oath, and still avoiding the perjury trap.  When confronted about the White House Post Office firing scandal, Hillary developed amnesia and said she couldn’t recall about 250 times.  Ultimately, the Special Prosecutor determined that Hillary’s answers were inconsistent with the facts, but he did not charge her with perjury.

Erik Holder apparently didn’t get the memo about how to lie without committing perjury.  When questioned by Darrell Issa, on May 3, 2011, Holder gave an evasive answer, but it wasn’t evasive enough.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/04/house-republicans-to-request-special-counsel-to-probe-holder-on-fast-and/

Here is the question asked by Darrell Issa on May 3, 2011 and Holder’s answer:

 ISSA: Mr. Attorney General, we have two Border Patrol agents who are dead, who were killed by guns that were allowed, as far as we can tell, to deliberately walk out of gun shops under the program often called Fast and Furious. This program, as you know — and the President’s been asked about it, you’ve been asked about it – allowed for weapons to be sold to straw purchasers, and ultimately, many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals. When did you first know about the program, officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?

HOLDER: I’m not sure of the exact date but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.

Last Friday, the White House pulled the standard Friday afternoon document drop of potentially embarrassing information, and finally released more e-mails.  These e-mails prove that Holder was lying.  It’s not just one or two e-mails, either.  There is a consistent paper trail.  Only a naïve fool, or a liberal Democrat, would believe that Holder wasn’t heavily invested in this sordid affair.  Holder is reduced to saying he did not understand the question!  Even CBS is not buying that:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

Republicans have formally asked President Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Erik Holder.  Don’t be surprised to see some Democrats start to join in on the chorus.  It is hard for anyone to spin this puppy away.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Holder pull out the race card, but that won’t work.  For one thing, Herman Cain will crucify the White House if they try that.  It sure looks like this story is going to go viral. 

TDM

I just got my first set of hearing aids this week.  It has been an ear opening experience.   My hearing has been terrible for years, but recently it deteriorated to a level I could not tolerate.  So, I finally made the plunge.  I quickly discovered a world of full of sounds to which I had been oblivious.   For example I now know that my computer keyboard makes a loud noise every time I hit a key.  I didn’t know that.  In many ways, this is a good thing.  I can certainly understand people better when they talk.  To be honest, there were a lot of times when I didn’t understand and was too embarrassed to admit it so I just nodded my head and hoped that worked.  If you combined a high female voice in a crowded room, I didn’t have a prayer.  But there are also sounds that are frankly annoying.  I scraped my fork on the dinner plate last night and jumped about three feet.  Now I know why my wife griped so loudly about a sound I could not hear.  I am still adjusting to the new world of sound.  Although sometimes I miss my world of silence, life is better when you can hear.

This morning, while watching the news, I heard something even more startling.  I heard a President of the United States admit to an unprecedented abuse of power.  No one is unhappy that Anwar al Aulaqi is gone.  The man was a terrorist and he was a threat to the U.S.  But he was also a U.S. citizen and that really matters.  If Obama had ordered a mission to try and arrest him and he was killed in the attempt, that would be perfectly acceptable.  But Obama never pretended that this was anything other than an assassination.  Obama has granted to himself sole discretion with regard to the execution of a U.S. citizen without even the pretense of due process.  President Obama has been very careful to avoid calling this a war on terror.  If it is not a war, then what exactly is the source of his authority to take this action?

There are several things he could have done.  He could have had Anwar al Aulaqi tried, in absentia, in a U.S. court or even a military tribunal.  He could have asked congress for authorization to eliminate a known terrorist.  He could have done a lot of things, but he did not.  He just decided Anwar al Aulaqi was a threat so he ordered him eliminated.  The problem is with regard to the precedent this sets for this President and for other Presidents in the future.  This time, most Americans agree with the decision to eliminate this terrorist.  But, there is a reason for the rule of law.  The rule of law is not designed to protect the guilty; it is designed to protect all of us.  Once we give this type of indiscriminate power to anyone, including a President of the United States, we are entering dangerous new territory.  If Obama can target Anwar al Aulaqi, he can target anyone.

President Obama was speaking at the retirement ceremony for Admiral Michael Mullen, who is retiring as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He referred to him as Mike.    This shows a lack of respect for the office held by Admiral Mullen.   It also shows a lack of respect for the office of President of the United States.  I couldn’t help imagining the following phone call:  “Hi Mike, Barry.  This  al Aulaqi guy is becoming a real nuisance.  Why don’t you go ahead and take him out!”  Really?

According to reports the ACLU is all over this.  Normally, I find the ACLU on the wrong side of every issue.  But in this case, perhaps we should pay a little more attention to what they say.  I don’t know what you heard this morning, but I heard abuse of power.  I also heard that a despicable terrorist is no longer with us.  The question is, which matters more?

 TDM

A lot of liberals believe that Jesus would support socialism.  At a minimum, they assume Jesus would support raising taxes on the rich and giving more money to the poor.  They like to use words like “social justice.”  But, social justice is found in the dictionary, not the Bible.  If one actually reads the scriptures, one can make a strong case that while Jesus did command us to help those in need, He most definitely  did not believe in redistribution of wealth. 

It is important to read passages of scripture in context.  Obviously, Matthew 25:14-30 comes before Matthew 25:31-46.  One would have to assume, being the Bible and all, that this was deliberate.  For that reason, we will go to Matthew 25:14-30 first:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=NIV

Note that the master gives money to people based on their ability.  He didn’t give the same amount to everyone.  The person who was considered to be more capable was given the most money.  The person who was considered least capable was given the least money.  Not much social justice there!  Then the big shocker:  when the master returned, the rich had gotten richer and the poor had gotten poorer.  This is quite similar to what happens under capitalism.  According to liberals, Jesus should have recommended taking the extra money away from the rich guy and giving it to the poor guy.  But Jesus did the exact opposite.  He took the money away from the poor guy and gave it to the rich guy.  Wow!

But the story did not end there.  Later, in the same chapter, Jesus reminded us that those people who are able to earn more have an obligation to help those in need.  Now read the rest of the chapter, verses 31-46:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

When you think about it, Jesus understood the difference between liberals and conservatives a long time ago.  Liberals want to raise taxes on those who earn money to give to those who are unable, or unwilling, to earn it themselves.  So a lot of people assume that liberals are more generous and caring than conservatives.  However, this is not necessarily true.  ABC did some research and ran the following story in 2008:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

It turns out that while liberals are generous with other people’s money, they aren’t necessarily generous with their own.  And while conservatives are definitely out to earn more money, they are much more likely to be generous. 

After reading these two passages, it is pretty hard to argue that Jesus was a liberal.  Actually, he would probably fit in really well with the Tea Party. He would give more money to those who are ready, willing and able to make a profit.  He would give less money to those who are less capable.  And he would take it all away from those who just want to sit on their buns and wait for a hand out.  He would also expect those who do well to help out those in need.  This looks remarkably similar to the Tea Party Platform.

TDM