The Real Problem with Liberals

I went to a restaurant the other day and was amused to find a car parked in a No Parking zone right on the curb in front of the eatery. Now, normally, I would be more irate than amused because I parked out in the parking lot, like we are all supposed to do. But, on this occasion I was amused because of what I saw on the car bumper and what it REALLY represents in the new, exciting, rarified atmosphere of American life and politics today.

You see, it was all okay because the car had an “OBAMA ‘08” bumper sticker.

Now, all through the campaign we heard all about “change” and that the days of “politics as usual” were over. I might have to assume that “change” meant the small metal pieces of money jangling in my pocket, and that “politics as usual” meant politics with Republicans in charge. Because, so far, what I have seen is standard operating procedure for liberals and Democrats. And this was never brought home so forcefully to me as when I saw that car parked in the No Parking zone.

I have been on this Earth nearly half-a-century. I still have a thirst for knowledge that rivals my curiosity as when I was a three-year-old. I still want to know and understand why things work and how they work. And in my time on this planet and all the inquiry I have made I have seen things and questioned and analyzed them over and over. And as I grow and grow older, one thing is painfully obvious. In the liberal world in which we live, liberals make laws and rules for everyone but themselves.

You may find that curious, but it angers me when the body of evidence increases daily. Now, while these sorts of things have a long history for liberals and democrats, the opposite is equally long on the conservative side. I will note only some of the most recent evidence to build my case, but they are stark and scream of a double standard.

The first example is Senatress Hillary Clinton’s cakewalk hearing in the Senate for her nomination as the Secretary of State for the incoming Obama administration. Clinton has a long list and litany of questionable issues that truly do make one wonder as to her ability to properly function as a true, unbiased representative of the United States. She and her husband’s myriad contacts and dealings with foreign nations having to do with MILLIONS of dollars going into their pockets and the pockets of their pet projects would quickly, undoubtedly and firmly derail any conservative in a similar circumstance. That nominee would be in the pocket of evil, Arab, oil barons.

Then there is Timothy Geithner, the man that President Obama wants for the new Secretary of the Treasury. This man blatantly evaded paying taxes, despite being told that by his employer, AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, that he was required to do so. He finally paid up when he learned he might be able to get a plumb political appointment. Would a non-liberal still be on the list? Much lesser things destroyed the nominations of Reagan and both Bush’s nominees.

New York 15th District Representative Charlie Rangel, a Democrat, after years of outrageous conduct and race-baiting, is suddenly found to have failed to report rental income on a beach house in the Dominican Republic, or even pay taxes on the income. He also claims to be living in at least three government-funded, rent-subsidized apartments in New York City, all while also claiming his primary home in Washington, DC for tax purposes. Additionally, he allegedly used congressional stationery to solicit donors for a City College public policy institute in his name, along with other alleged problems. Conversely, Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho was caught apparently attempting to solicit gay sex in a public bathroom. According to liberals, there is apparently nothing wrong with being gay. But, if you are Republican, conservative, white and gay, then there is a problem. He was skewered in the press and resigned. Rangel is still in congress, and has yet to be skewered by anyone in the press.

Bill Clinton pardoned felon Mark Rich. When all the truth came out, mostly that Rich had given money to certain Democrats, Clinton worked hard to explain it away. President George W. Bush on the other hand revoked a pardon he issued to Isaac Robert Toussie, whose father had donated money to certain Republicans. Bush REVOKED the pardon. Democrat patron Rich is no longer a felon. Toussie, whose father is a Republican patron, is still a felon.

Now that Barack Obama is the new president he promptly signed a new order establishing incredibly high standards for lobbying and government service. He then just as promptly was forced to consider a waiver for William J. Lynn III as the proposed Assistant Secretary of Defense. Were the standards just impossibly high? Perhaps, but more to the point, the idea that the new rule can be waived for a liberal administration.

Remember, liberal rules are really for non-liberals.

It would seem that liberals believe, with all their heart, that non-liberals (Republicans, conservatives, Christians, whatever they may be called) are evil, must be curbed and need rules. Liberals, on the other hand, don’t need such rules. They are kind, loving, good people who only want what is best.

So, if one of them breaks a little rule, like say parking in a No Parking zone or evading taxes that we must believe he really wanted to pay all along, it’s really okay. Really. It is. So, I guess I really should still be more amused than irate.

So how come I’m not?

A Prediction of Evil

When it comes to the Democratic Party of the USA, I am a virulent cynic. Their past three presidential candidates (Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama) would never be able to pass a standard US Government security investigation in order to hold a government job. And this is also true of many of their Federal office-holders in both houses of Congress.

Now they have nominated Barack Obama, who his so far to the left that his views line up as more socialist than the one Socialist member of Congress! I’m not kidding – this has been documented but totally ignored by the media. Frighteningly, they have been making huge attempts to convince us that this man is a moderate, middle-of-the-road politician! And the US media is lining right up behind this claptrap. It is truly amazing.

Ironically, he defeated a candidate whose sole claim to fame is the blatant attempt to nationalize and socialize one-seventh of the American economy. Hillary Clinton’s aborted attempt to take over American medical practice is still her dream. Unfortunately, the cabal of she and her husband still hold great sway over the Democratic Party, despite the overwhelming evidence of their self-centered and evil ways.

So, it was with much trepidation that I read that the Democrat’s Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden will drop out and that he will be replaced by Hillary Clinton. Of course, this would be a violent knee-jerk reaction to the nomination of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin. This is a frightening prospect, though, considering the fate of many of the Clinton’s political foes, and even friends.

With this in mind:

- If Joe Biden drops out;
- If Hillary Clinton replaces Joe Biden;
- If Obama-Clinton win the November election;
- And if they are sworn in:

I believe that Barack Obama will be dead before the end of his first (and only) term and that Hillary Clinton will become president in accordance with Constitutional succession.

Mark these words.

Could Obama Hurt Race Relations?

So, Barack Obama is the candidate of choice of the Democratic Party. All during the Democratic primary season, all I could think of was that the choices that the party had were unequivocated Evil (Hillary Clinton) and complete, total Naiveté (Obama). It’s a scary scenario, but what can you expect of a party that foisted the new Narcissus on America sixteen years ago?

Now a note on how I was raised. My father and mother were both Southerners born and bred. They came from a generation that still believed in the dignity, courage and righteousness of the Confederacy, and that believed blacks were a severe problem. Incredibly, though, my parents raised their three offspring that ALL people should be judged by nothing except their actions and character. I never heard them utter a single racist profanity during the time I was in their home, and was frankly surprised (maybe I was just naïve) at some of the actions I saw fellow Whites perform when I went to college.

It excited me to see General Colin Powell, a black man, become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because it showed me that Mom & Dad were right. And it distresses me to no end when we are continually bombarded today when such “firsts” as the recently-installed Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court being a black woman is considered newsworthy by the media. Why should it be? This is America, and the best person for the job should be placed in that job. Why should race be an issue today?

But, that is what has me worried. Barack Obama could very well become President of the United States. Yes, he is half-black (though in our Liberal nation that means he is “really” fully black), and he is considered by the Democrats to be the best person for the position. And that is part and parcel of what I find frightening. Why? you may ask.

Barack Obama is completely unprepared to perform the job. Except for less than one six-year term in the Senate, all his political background is local and populist. He has no military, foreign policy, administrative, or commercial experience of which to speak, except for “bringing home” the troops in Iraq. This does not bode well for a nation that leads the World in all those categories. Like President Jimmy Carter in 1980, he is running on nothing but rhetoric and sound bites. He has yet to elucidate a single sound policy on any issue, except to say that he will change America.

So, the problem? Every politician today touts “change.” And that is quite alright, though I’m pretty sure that “change” really means more of the same. What worries me is that a naïve populist, having not a single solid policy, being a “minority,” could be just as bad as President Carter and truly set back race relations in America twenty-to-thirty years.

A poor presidency by this man and you could have every racist kook and nutcase, egged on by a media who truly cares less about integrity than winning awards that they bestow upon themselves, gain some legitimacy and point to race as a factor. Can you see the next presidential race with a black candidate, regardless of party, being boiled down to what Obama did? That is not what America needs. It's not a good thing for our nation. What America needs is a capable, effective leader, regardless of race, who has vision, policies, moral integrity and the knowledge to do what the nation requires.

And I’m afraid Obama can’t do that today.

MILITARY CONTRACTORS

Over the past decade a lot of press has been devoted to the contractors supporting war and peacekeeping efforts. Most of this attention has been directed toward the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, or “KBR” as it’s known universally in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the military and contracting. The simple fact of the matter is that despite, or in spite of, the fact that Vice President Richard Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO before becoming the Vice President, KBR is the only company in the world today capable of handling the job that they perform.

There are many logistics, security, and service companies today that drool over the prospect of winning the sort of contracts that KBR have been awarded. Unfortunately for them, KBR got there “the firstest with the mostest.” When the US military of President Bill Clinton was looking for civilian assistance for the International Force (IFOR)/Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission in Bosnia, it was the deep pockets of KBR parent Halliburton that put up the money for then small KBR to perform the mission. And perform they did.

KBR’s business acumen and expertise built a relatively small subsidiary ready to fill the needs of the Clinton Administration’s military requirements into the powerhouse company it is today serving the military of the Bush Administration. Ironic, no? But, no matter the history, what can be said is that little KBR has learned what they needed to learn, built up a base of expertise second to none on this earth, and has performed quite admirably for America’s fighting men and women, and for its stockholders. THAT is how American capitalism works, and how it should.

In fact, the only organization in the world today outside Halliburton that is capable of performing the job they are doing is the US military. And despite what some in Congress and the media may say, outside of the US military only Halliburton’s KBR can ensure the successful performance of the support they perform under one umbrella. KBR trucks move cargo, KBR employees cook and serve the meals, KBR builds the infrastructure. The only thing that they don’t do is provide security.

And there’s the rub.

Contracting in support of the US military clearly has its place. Port-a-john maintenance and service is clearly a non-military profession that can be clearly filled by contractors. There are other jobs that could be filled with civilian personnel, but those jobs are highly specialized – manufacturers’ representatives and the like. But, the wholesale use of contractors is clearly becoming detrimental to the ability of the nation to fight wars.

This is a lesson that has been learned (and unfortunately forgotten) over and over by this nation and others. Rome’s army was essentially a mercenary and contractor army by the end of that empire and, with no loyalty to the command or nation, Rome’s army and navy fought poorly and the nation was lost. All the while Rome’s citizens all felt that serving in the military, and therefore defending the nation, was beneath them. Their job was commerce, and, of course, participating in the public debate of how to defend the nation.

America’s Continental Army utilized contract personnel, a large group being mule skinners and teamsters, early in our War of Independence to transport its equipment and goods. Those same contractors turned and ran when gunfire began. They were concerned that their investment in wagons, horses and mules, and equipment would be lost. Why should they care? The Continental Army was a pack of rebels to the British Crown, and if they lost, the contractors and their equipment could find other work. It wasn’t worth losing their property over. The Continental Army soon formed its own units to handle its cargo and transportation needs. And in a pinch, those Continental Army transporters could be put into the front lines to fight.

In World War II, US marines and sailors at Wake Island were assaulted by Japanese forces immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack. This was a full-scale air and sea attack by elite Imperial Japanese troops, steeled by years of fighting in China and other places in Asia. There were numerous civilian construction contractors on the island who soon found themselves armed and in the front lines with their military employers, totally ill-equipped and ill-trained to fight the battle-hardened invaders. Wake was lost and the tragic loss of those civilian construction contractors and the manner in which they were lost led to the formation of the US Navy’s Seabees.

History has taught that trained warriors are needed to fight wars. As the previous three examples of history demonstrate, contractors have not the training, expertise, or loyalty to properly function in a combat environment. And they can quit at any time. They are not required to have any loyalty to anyone but themselves and their wallets.

In Iraq and Afghanistan only specific contractors (those hired by such entities as the State Department) are allowed to carry weapons. Most contractors – those performing vehicle and aircraft maintenance, cooking and serving food, driving civilian trucks – are unarmed and are REQUIRED to be unarmed in the war zone! They are protected by soldiers and other contractors. In a fight, they are totally useless. And, just in case you didn’t know, there are big fights going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the largest US base is Logistics Support Activity (LSA) Anaconda, a large former-Iraqi Air Force base about forty miles north of Baghdad close by the Tigris River. Of all the personnel there, about one-in-three is a civilian. This ratio places an undue burden on the military personnel there.

The major reason behind civilian military contracting has been to place the soldier in jobs that the military specifically does well, such as killing the enemy and “blowing things up,” as GIs jokingly say. But at LSA Anaconda, with one-third of the personnel unarmed civilians, the responsibility of securing the perimeter and providing security FOR 100% OF THE PERSONNEL falls on the GI. Nearly all this duty falls on soldiers whose jobs are to perform paperwork, maintenance, transport, and any number of myriad jobs that a soldier may be required to perform in their regular duties.

Soldiers perform guard and security duty twenty-four hours at a time. Once their duty is complete, they are (generally) released from all duty for another twenty-four hours to rest and recuperate. So the unit loses the services of that soldier for two days. Now, normally a unit will have five, ten or fifteen soldiers on details on any given day. That of course means that there are the same number of soldiers resting from duty the day before. In many units this can be as much as ten percent of the unit! These soldiers are not maintaining equipment, repairing parts, performing maintenance, or doing any of the jobs they are regularly required to do. This burden would be reduced by fifty percent at LSA Anaconda if all those civilian contractor positions were filled by soldiers! The WHOLE burden of security falls squarely on the soldier.

There are other issues involved, too. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the rules of war as laid down by the Geneva Convention consider contractors as mercenaries, and as such are not covered by these rules. The military’s jurisdiction is non-existent. In one case in Bosnia, a contractor was found to be running a prostitution ring with some locals and a colleague. He was fired and shipped home. The Bosnians had no clear jurisdiction, nor did the US judiciary. The military could do nothing. A soldier would have been subject to military prosecution.
This is just one example of where the military and the contracting worlds collide.

In Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere, soldiers are required to wear their uniform and to wear certain equipment. Additionally, they lug around weapons, ammo and other items as required. Contractors technically are supposed to mimic the requirements of the military, except of course the weapons, but they feel no real need to do so. It aggravates soldiers to no end when in 130 degree heat they are wearing helmets, body armor, full uniform, weapons, ammo, canteens, and whatever else they may need, and then they see a contractor in sorts, a t-shirt and a ball cap with his helmet and body armor slung over his shoulder, “because it’s just too darn hot to be wearing that stuff.” Soldiers are being held to high professional and personal standards, and the very people who they are told are working for them, and who the soldier must protect, flaunts his freedom. It breeds a lot of resentment.

And the single greatest injustice to the soldier is the pay differential. A contractor who never leaves the base and does nothing but maintenance, may make twice-or-three-or-four times the pay of a soldier performing the exact same job. But, that soldier has to perform guard duty on the perimeter.

The bottom line is this. War is the business of the military. Contractors are mercenaries and should not be needed in a nation of citizen soldiers, the standards of which are the highest in the world. Contractors end up reducing the fighting power of the very people they support and are useless to those people if the situation were to spiral into a real fight. We need to keep contractors out of our military operations and get more troops into the military.

Period.