Well, here we go again….politics standing in the way of a good war strategy. Today, the U.S. war commander in Afghanistan was called to the White House for a meeting with President Obama after an interview in which he made some unsavory comments about the Obama administration. Now, allow me to be clear in saying that the General works for the President, and it’s usually good policy for anyone not to make disparaging remarks about the boss. It just doesn’t bode well in your annual performance review.

However, not everyone works for a boss…or bosses…that are as incompetent and incapable of providing leadership as the Obama administration. The health care debate, the Mexican border issue, and the Gulf oil catastrophe are prime examples of the incompetence of this administration. So with that in mind, I’m sure that General McChrystal could have said more things that accurately describe his bosses, though he chose not to.

In lieu of the General digging his hole deeper than it already is, it has come to my attention that I may have possibly been appointed to the position of spokesperson for the General. In that regard, I thought it proper to pen a letter to the President that properly explains the General’s actions in hopes that President Obama could gain a better understanding of how a warrior such as General McChrystal thinks and operates. So, I shall pen that for him here and forward it to him to endorse and send to the President.

Dear President Obama:
Having the same regard that many other Americans had for you and my country, I voted for you in the election and was elated when you won….right up to the point that I and the rest of America figured out what we got.

While it’s understood that you inherited two wars you didn’t start and didn’t vote for, you actively sought the role of Commander in Chief of our armed forces so these two wars are now your responsibility. Pointing the finger at President Bush will not get this problem solved, rather, listening to advisers who are much better versed on such matters, will.

When you assigned me to Afghanistan, I often wondered why we as Americans are even bothering with a war in a cesspool such as this. It would seem better logic to pull out our troops then monitor enemy developments with our drones and strike appropriately, but I digress.

I requested a level of troops I needed to complete my mission and you only met half that request. Your rules of engagement that are designed to make us look better to the Muslim world you bow to only makes it harder for us to win battles, and hence win the war. The interference by your incompetent cabinet members only makes my mission that much harder to accomplish. So again, I wonder, why we as Americans are even bothering with a cesspool as big as this?

My solution for this war is to withdraw all of our brave men and women; then deploy tactical nuclear weapons to solve this problem of terrorist activities, both in the Tora Bora mountains and the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Several sorties on the same day would bring an abrupt end to this conflict and the possibility of future conflicts. The real estate damaged by radiation is of no substantive value, since you have allowed the Afghan government to sell the mineral rights on this land to China. Our boys fought and died for this real estate, and you let Hamid Karzai and his corrupt cronies sell it to China…nice going, Mr. President!

Further, while I know you will demand my resignation, I will cheerfully submit it to you, as I am tired of working for a guy who never put on a pair of combat boots or picked up a rifle. It sickens me to know that our men and women are risking their lives at the direction of a community organizer that spends more time playing golf than he does running our country. Your lack of administration experience is overshadowed only by your lack of understanding of military strategy. This was evidenced not once, but twice when you gave pull-out dates for our troops on both combat fronts.

Good luck, Mr. President. With your keen understanding of politics, I’m sure you’ll appoint some other lackey to run your war in no time. The level of competence of this newly appointed general won’t matter to you any more than the lives of our soldiers, as long as he sails your political winds. But come judgment day, the creator you fail to worship will most certainly recognize that your incompetence has cost many lives in this battle, just as it cost the lives of many of God’s creatures in the Gulf. You stand by as blood spills, you stand by as oil spills, and I’m sure you’ll stand by as your “subjects” spill into the streets, ready to deliver the removal from office you so desperately deserve.

Sincerely
General Stanley McChrystal

General McChrystal….would you like to borrow a stamp?

VoteSmart.org is the web portal for the organization known as Project Vote Smart (PVS). PVS is comprised of a mostly volunteer force of Americans young and old, who take no money from special interest groups, and have committed themselves to providing their fellow citizens with the tools to empower themselves in the political process. They are best known for providing useful information to determine where a candidate stands on the issues that they will be representing you on before our law making bodies. 

One of the tools used to provide this information is the Political Courage Test. It’s a series of questions on issues from taxes to welfare, abortion to education, crime and health….you get the drift.   Some politicians won’t answer these questions, yet won’t supply a reasonable excuse for ducking this request. I see it as typical of some politicians to duck the issues, because most don’t have the backbone to stand firm on what and who they represent.  One of these weak-spine politicos is the ever-changing Charlie Crist. 

Charlie Crist was elected Governor in Florida in 2006. As Governor, he has several times refused to take the Political Courage Test, even when requested to by Senator John McCain and the president of PVS, Richard Kimball. This is no surprise for anyone, as he has worked hard to hide any position he might have on just about anything in the political spectrum.

However, while a Florida State Senator in 1998, he did answer SOME of the question on the Political Courage Test. Agreeing to take the Congressional test, I guess he had political ambitions other than State Senate back then.  Of course, he answered mostly those questions that were related to strong Republican talking points of the period, such as our presence in Bosnia and our role in United Nations peace-keeping missions.  However, he also answered some other questions that have sparked some curiosity in my brain.

On the issue of abortion, he DIDN’T check IN FAVOR OF  prohibiting public funding of abortions, and he DIDN’T check that ALL abortions should be illegal. So, Governor Charlie is pro-choice.

On the issue of budget and spending, Governor Charlie suggested eliminating arts funding and voted for a “slight decrease” in foreign aid. Otherwise, he voted to INCREASE spending in every other category.  A government spender…who would have known!

On the issue of the economy and employment, he DIDN’T vote in favor of eliminating federal programs designed to reduce unemployment. Those are called welfare programs. That sounds like a socialist concept to me.

On the issue of the environment, he voted IN FAVOR of imposing stricter national air quality standards.  Can you say, “Cap and Trade”?

On the issue of immigration,  Governor Charlie DIDN’T vote in favor of establishing English as the recognized language of the United States government, nor did he vote AGAINST allowing children of illegal immigrants to become naturalized citizens.

Of course, what politician wouldn’t want to lower the tax on alcohol? Governor Charlie voted to greatly decrease those taxes.  After all, a liar has to have a drink to relieve stress, doesn’t he?

Then there’s the issue of international trade. You know those trade agreements that have sent so many of our jobs over-seas and weakened our country and deteriorated our middle class?  Well, Governor Charlie says he supports the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Of course, he also supports the World Trade Organization (WTO). Imagine that! The very people that find in favor of the Chinese every time we discover the Chinese are cheating us.  I guess Charlie cares more about big business making a profit than he does about the American worker.

When it comes to welfare, Governor Charlie shows his liberal colors once again. He refused to vote IN FAVOR OF requiring that unwed teenage mothers live with a parent or guardian (if possible) and attend school to receive benefits. So I guess he thinks it’s OK for unwed mothers to drop out of school and stay on welfare their entire lives. I guess we should expect that from someone who has spent his entire life living on the public dole, bouncing from one elected position to the next.

All of the commotion about Governor Charlie switching parties was based on the unexpected decision to do this. Governor Charlie was behind in the polls, and his only hope was to dance around a primary election he was sure to lose.  So, the Republican Party made a show of calling Governor Charlie a traitor and a turncoat.  I find that amusing, because it appears….at least since 1998….that Charlie was well on his way to becoming the shining star of liberals everywhere, but nobody bothered to notice.

Although I am a registered Republican, I never really considered myself a party-line kind of guy.  Party-line people are concerned with the survival of the party, no matter the consequence. Although I realize that this isn’t the ideal situation or approach to political governance, party survival is critical if the party you are trying to preserve is representing your political values in the governing process.  However, I consider myself a conservative first, Republican voter second.

The basic core values of conservatism from a governance standpoint are less government, less taxes, more personal freedom.  Less government is good government because the less you have the more personal freedom you have.  Government is only needed when a problem exists in which different ideas exist to solve the problem and people need a method of developing a solution to that problem that will revolve around a compromise of ideas to form a solution that benefits everyone.  An example of this is our federal highway system. No one can dispute that we need highways for transportation, but you can bet that each state has a differing view of how these highways should be built and paid for.  A federal government can make a decision that may not be exactly what every state wants, but will benefit all states in an equal fashion and require all states to help pay for the solution. This would be an example of good government at work.

Our military is another example of good government. In order that the interests of all states and peoples of our nation are protected, the function of the military is controlled by the federal government so that the military doesn’t favor the interests of one state over another, while requiring all people to contribute to the operation of this protection.  The same holds true for many other services, such as national parks and law enforcement to control crime that reaches across states’ lines.

If this amount of government is kept to its intended limited roll, its size will remain limited and the taxes required to support it will remain limited.  This limited government roll will also result in more personal freedoms for all of us, although requiring more personal responsibility.  We will not be required to participate in as many government demands, thus granting more freedoms.  When problems arise, instead of asking government to grow to try and address those problems, we must take responsibility and address those problems ourselves. An example of this is experienced by all of us in our daily lives. We wouldn’t dare think of having a police officer on every street corner for fear of living in a police state; however we must equip ourselves to defend against those criminals that our limited police force can’t protect us against.  We take responsibility for our own safety.

Somewhere, somehow, the idea that the Republican Party was a conservative party has been lost.  If the Republican Party was a party of conservatives, they would practice the fundamental concepts of less government, less taxes, and more personal freedoms.  Examples of the abandonment of this concept are evident in both Washington, D.C.  and Tallahassee, Florida.  While it has become standard practice to label those Republicans that don’t follow the principles of conservatism Republican In Name Only (RINO),  it could be said that almost every Republican in office today is a RINO.

The Republican Party, my conservative party, has been hijacked by RINOs that don’t understand the three principles of conservatism.  Who hijacked it? Politicians who try to expand the role of Social Security and Medicare to cover those retirement needs which the recipients failed to plan for. Social Security , or SSI as it is known, was originally developed as a “supplemental” retirement plan, designed to “supplement” a person’s other retirement plan or pension.  Instead, it has been expanded to include prescription drugs and supplemental insurance plans that it was never intended to cover, all under Republican leadership. That statement might anger seniors reading this, but it is government expansion, which is not a conservative principle.

Although I am 100% against abortion, the insistence of the evangelical right to impose its pro-life beliefs on the nation is requiring the creation of new laws that have the ear of Republican politicians looking to expand their voter base. These laws in essence expand government intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens. This statement will anger pro-lifers, but is on point when discussing the conservative principle of less government.   It is the personal responsibility of each of us to live our lives according to God’s word, and those who don’t will be judged by the Creator. While I find abortion a sickening and disgusting substitute for proper family planning, imposing the will of the government on a woman’s body is an expansion of government and does not follow conservatism’s core principles.

The Bush administration tax cuts were another example of conservatism gone awry. Government costs money to run, money which is derived from taxes. While it is understood that letting people keep more of their money will stimulate the economy, the resulting decrease in tax revenue should have been accompanied by a decrease in government spending. The Bush administration and the Republican Party went out and sold people on the idea that government spending couldn’t be reduced because it was war spending and mostly military. They never looked at cutting social welfare programs. They never looked at cutting government agencies bloated to critical mass from the Clinton years.  Republican leaders just cut taxes and increased the deficits, resulting in a national debt that is unsustainable.  Many of these Republican lawmakers are still in office pointing their tainted fingers at President Obama for doing the very same thing.

What’s my point of all of this? It’s simple. The Republican Party has been hijacked by big business, evangelicals, and the military-industrial complex.  Conservatism is not about using government control to impose your beliefs on others. Conservatism is not about creating a tax code that provides breaks without breaking down spending and eliminating earmarks.  Conservatism is not about giving an open checkbook to the Pentagon with no accountability or logical spending plan.  Conservatism is about less government, less taxation, more personal freedom.  If the Republican Party is about conservatism and expects to survive with that philosophy intact, then it better start concentrating on and practicing its core beliefs, while weeding out the RINOs, because  it appears that there are more RINO’s than one might expect.

Those of us who are informed and educated have the ability to see that the current Obama administration is taking us toward a socialist society. Obama and his minions have a radical agenda to transform the way America functions, taking away freedoms and handing over control of our lives to the government.

Those who are still star-struck by Obama and his lying orations refuse to believe that the president and his administration are steering toward more governmental control over our lives. For these people, convincing them has been a lesson in futility, as they will not believe anything they hear from those of higher education, experience, and intellect. As long as they continue to get their free government handout, they are content with the government running their lives. Well, here is something that might change their mind, finally.

For those who do not think our country is heading toward a socialist society, look no further than the plate of food you have in front of you. U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. This will lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not yet set limits on salt.

Still not convinced?  The reason these limits are being set is due to a government agency report. This report states that eating too much salt is a major cause of high blood pressure, which the Institute of Medicine, one of the National Academies of Sciences, last month declared a “neglected disease” that costs the U.S. health system $73 billion a year.  That’s $73 billion that has to be cut so that some of the bogus math in Obama’s healthcare plan will pan out. If they can control what you eat in an effort to control government health care costs, they can save money to be spent on other pet projects.

This is called the social burden theory. Some activities and lifestyles are riskier than others. These activities and lifestyles end up creating more health care concerns and when treating those concerns cost the taxpayers’ money, the theory is to reduce those concerns and reduce the cost to the taxpayers. Simple, right?

Well guess what Mr. and Mrs. Welfare recipient…your food stamps will only be good for low-sodium foods and your government cheese will be of the low-sodium variety. That doesn’t sound like too bad of a trade-off, at least not if you’re not thinking about what you eat on a daily basis. Consider that a single serving bag of potato chips has more than half the government allowance of sodium, and pretty soon, you’ll realize that you won’t be able to buy anymore chips, mac&cheese, hot dogs….the list goes on. 

If you’re still not convinced that Obama’s socialism will take over your life, then think further about the social burden theory.  If they outlaw salt…and they will…they will then outlaw cigarettes, outlaw beer, outlaw red meat, and the list goes on. They will then look toward hazardous activities that are risky to your health. Motorcycle riding? No more. Skiing? No more. Swimming? Drowning is the number one cause of death for children in many states, so what do you think will happen to swimming pools?
The government has taken over the banking system. They are taking over the auto industry. They are now going to tightly control what you eat. If you can’t see the socialist road map being created by this, you’re not only in denial, you’re just plain stupid.