HILLSBOROUGH, N.H. -- A Navy veteran is fighting to be able to show his patriotism by flying an American flag outside his apartment building. Joe LeVangie, 88, said he's upset after he and his neighbors were told to take their flags down because flying them was against management policy. He said there should be an exception for the flag.
LeVangie, a World War II veteran, said he used to fly his American flag outside his apartment at the Maple Leaf complex in Hillsborough. Ma, get me the phone book!
"In respect for all the troops serving overseas now and for those who never came back," he said.
But recently, his management company told all residents that their flags had to come down. The brackets for the flag poles were also removed.
"I was madder than hell," he said. "Come to find out, it was the maintenance man who was told to do so."
The same thing happened to Margery Kenney, who lives next door. Her brackets were taken down, and her flag is now rolled up against the wall.
"My whole family was in the service, and it's a shame something like this was allowed to happen," she said.
EJL Management said the flags violate a blanket policy prohibiting such displays. A letter sent to LeVangie said a letter sent to him by the company said it was part of a policy that also prohibits lawn ornaments and grills. The apartments are private property. I guess it's time to move out. Make sure to drop a sardine into the space behind each outlet cover as you leave.
#1
Under pressure, a New Hampshire housing complex has reversed course after banning a Navy veteran and his neighbors from displaying the American flag in front of their homes. - Fox
Its rare that I disagree with a mod, but moving is the last thing he should do. He needed to take a cue from the left and sue them for a civil rights violation. The real problem with the right is expressed in the mod comment. We on the right, do our damndest to respect others and their property rights and we dont want conflict. While, if I flew some flag at my home that offended some left winged nut I would get sued and in an effort to make everyone happy I would be force to take down the flag. It is time the right stands up to this type of action and fight back and not just slink away. We, the right, are partially responsible for the state we are in, in this country. We "moved away from the moonbats in Berkley, LA, NY and now they have gon crazy with power. They know they can chip away from the right until we are where we are now, where the police are wrong for asking a criminal for id. We need to get agressive or we will suffer another four years of the freak in the white house and the ultimate demise of our nation. It all starts with little things, like a flag.
rant off...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/21/2010 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
1) Gorb isn't a mod.
2) I think Gorb was being sarcastic (at Rantburg? No!)
3) I think the sardine is a fine idea if it comes to that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/21/2010 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
49 Pan: Those are my comments, not a mod's. If I had the power and authority of a mod-bat, I'd have sinktrapped most of the Obozo administration long ago and we'd be worried more about Britney's latest escapades here instead.
But my thought is that the apartment is the private property of some other jerk owner, not the private property of the tenant. So, you gotta live by the owner's rules.
If you could bring it to court under Freedom of Speech/Expression or something like that, but it seems that would have been tried by now. Maybe I'm wrong.
Looks like this guy was sharp enough to get it tried in the court of public opinion, thereby getting a summary judgment in the court of public opinion and short-circuiting the lawyers.
Maybe he did just what you suggested via the avenue that makes the most sense.
#5
I think Gorb was being sarcastic (at Rantburg? No!)
Not this time. Not even about the sardine. :-)
I just can't imagine what else to do other than to respect the property owner's rules. The owner should theoretically be able to get away with telling the guy that no dogs are allowed, no people with blue eyes are allowed to park on the street, no handicapped access will be provided, or whatever, or whatever else he wants. Otherwise, he wouldn't really be the owner, would he? There may be laws to the contrary though. If anyone knows about the law here, I'd appreciate comments about what authority the owner has in this situation. Is the owner private, or more publicly owned? Do things switch over only if government funds are involved? A certain number of tenants or apartments? Or by merely providing housing does the "owner" have to follow state rules regarding handicapped access, potable water, electricity, housing quality, parking, and maybe even displaying the flag?
Seems to me at least things like the latter ought to be unquestionably under owner control. Wouldn't want to violate the owner's rights if they happened to be anti-American, would we?
(That last question was somewhat sarcastic this time!)
#6
There are many examples of stupid people who get in to the position of decision making without knowing what the hell they are doing. In this case, the management people of that New Hampshire housing complex are the same kind of stupid for they forgot that they were stepping on the rights of American citizen to display the American flag on American soil. They forgot that they could be prosecuted for treason once they forbid their tenants, especially US Citizens to display American flag as their display of patriotism. Some stupid arguments the management could forward, that the American flag offend some or their tenets of foreign nations and these will also like to display their foreign flags on the rental property. Well, they can not. Fist of all, no flag of another sovereign nation is allowed to be displayed on US soil or US controlled land and properties except in compounds of foreign embassies and UN buildings which are considered temporary foreign territories in USA. Second, no court in USA will ever grant landlords the absolute control of their tenants for it is not acceptable under local, state or federal laws and third, the disfiguration of American flag not its display on American soil is prohibited. Those who do not like our National flag, have absolutely no right to impose their preference to those who express their pride for the sacrifices they have done for our nation and to each and every one of US citizens, who salute our national flag with hope and dedication. In my opinion, those New Hampshire housing complex management people deserved to be lynched in broad day light and in public.
#7
In my opinion, those New Hampshire housing complex management people deserved to be lynched in broad day light and in public.
Lucky for them they just took down all the flagpoles!
Got any references on these laws? They make sense, but are they for real? Are they law, or just custom? I would think that they would have been cited by some lawyer even on CNN or MSLSD by now.
#8
Make sure to drop a sardine into the space behind each outlet cover as you leave.
I dunno. There's nothing like the stink of a dead rat. Scares people when they find it too.
I think in general I'd be on the side of property rights and then let the market place settle it. You don't want American flags? You don't want to provide access for the handicapped? Fine. You might lose a few tenants but, hey, it's America.
#9
I was not sure who it was Gorb, thanks for clearing it up. If it was a gay flag ordered to be taken down, the left would have burned the complex to the ground, slandered the owner, and posted the tax returns of all the tenants to slam them. The left has no respect for the law, our government supports the left, look at AZ and the cross in the mojavie as examples. They dont care, we the white middle cass tax payer is the enemy to them. They slam us, call us bigots, dumbgun toting morons, and the whole time taking our tax dollars and creating more laws to support illegals and terrorists. We on the other hand hand wring and pander to the left, allowing them to twist and contort the laws to their benifit. The aprtments are not private property, no more than wall mart is, it is public domain. Im pissed and enough is enough.
Today the DOJ removed the cross from the Mojave desert, even after the supreme court said it could stand. Splitting hairs to find a reason they took it down. This country is on the road to failure.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/21/2010 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
A small slice of Limburger on top of the water heater, too.
#11
I've been a small-time landlord, are there are laws, both federal and state, that have to be complied with. Some examples: dwelling space and building comply with all building codes, a window in every bedroom, maximum occupancy, no discrimination against potential or current tenants on the basis of race, creed, sexual orientation. Landlords may discriminate on the basis of children or number of children, pets, behaviour -- drugs, drunkenness, loud parties -- and exterior decorations. We used to permit up to two children to non-master bedroom, and up to two cats/dogs, but charged $15/pet because of the extra wear and tear.
In this case, the owner made a rule about those decorative flags that some people are so keen on, exactly so they wouldn't have to fight about gay rights flags, Easter bunny flags, "If you don't recycle you'll go to hell" flags, etc, each of which would annoy some of the other tenants; the unthinking EJL Management clerk applied it to the Stars'n'Stripes as well. The right way to handle this was indeed publicity rather than going to court.
#12
The Congressional Research Summary of the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005:
Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 - States that a condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent an association member from displaying the U.S. flag on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use. States that nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with: (1) federal law or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag; or (2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium, cooperative, or residential real estate management association.
#13
Cool! There is very encouraging, with the exception that section (2) looks like it was written to invite a court case or three. Unless the apartments have enough money to throw at this probably losing cause, it looks good enough to make them back down.
A long piece from Reuters via Ariana Media. Not much here regular readers don't already know but it's a half-decent primer on why it's easier to kill a terrorist than to take him prisoner.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/21/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A cloud of war seems to be shadowing the Korean Peninsula. Amid the escalating threatening rhetoric and military alerts of the parties involved, the US has promised South Korea a nuclear umbrella.
North Korean media condemned the US "nuclear umbrella" and the South's request for nuclear armament as provocation for a nuclear war.
Any movements by the US and South Korea are naturally closely watched at this critical moment. But a hard-line stance is no help in solving the problem. The tension on the Korean Peninsula in the past months has demonstrated that toughening rhetoric only aggravates the situation. The Sunshine Policy was an outright failure, too. Conveniently ignored.
No doubt North Korea doesn't have a good track record of delivering what it has promised and has in the past broken agreements repeatedly. The North distrusts the US, which refused to engage with the North one-on-one.
But seen from another perspective, the inconsistent US policy on North Korea has also wasted several good opportunities to make a breakthrough on the issue.
The soft approach of the Clinton administration was reversed after the Bush administration resorted to a tough policy and labeled the North part of the so-called "axis of evil."
The North responded with a nuclear test in 2006, significantly heightening tensions in the region.
At the end of his second term, US President George W. Bush reversed some of his initial policies, but the promising signs didn't last long. When President Barack Obama overhauled the US' aggressive foreign policies, the North seemed to be left out of his new goodwill diplomacy.
North Korea, deeply worried about its security, sought attention from the US with a second nuclear test and numerous missile launches.
The inconsistent policies of the US have worn out the patience of the North. Behind all the policy flip-flop, the US never altered its hostility toward the North and its intention of instigating a regime change persists.
South Korea, a US ally that shares a cultural history with the North, plays a crucial role. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak ditched the nearly decadeold "Sunshine Policy," embracing a harder stance more in line with that of the US.
Reality shows that the hard-line policy didn't result in the desired effect. The US' guarantee of military protection is naïve thinking.
It's in the US' interests for the South to rely on it more deeply for a security umbrella, but it won't help long-term regional peace. The Obama administration needs to move forward talks with the North if it hopes to truly secure the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula.
Tension now is building dangerously, and the parties involved have less room to maneuver. The UN Security Council has passed a new round of sanctions against the North, which is not intended to corner the North but to bring it back to negotiations.
It's time for Washington to show more signs of goodwill.
#1
The next picture will be of Zereo bowing to Kimmeeeeee
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/21/2010 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The US should have pulled out troops out and provided Nuclear weapons to South Korea long ago. Let them defend themselves and let the Chinese realize what a dangerous game they are playing.
#4
Um, the S Kors demonstrated that they cannot defend themselves. Theye've repeated that demonstration down through the years and now that they're on the dole from the USA they're even softer and lazier than they ever were, a cream puff nation full of wimps, and we back them up
#5
Yes, South Koreans would be toast. Everyone would try to flee to the Southernmost area of the Peninsula. With the bottleneck of tiny roads for 53 million, the vast majority of SKors would be blown up on roadways and beside rice paddies as they flee. A few very lucky VIPS would leave the peninsula in Helicopters with their family. People with boats would try that as an escape route. But the remaining scores upon scores of the less fortunate...vaporized, blown to bits, mowed down. And the few left standing would literally be doing Tae Kwon Do in a yin yang North South Boogie.
#7
Huh, since when does China think it can tell the US what to do? Oh, yes, right...
Posted by: regular joe ||
05/21/2010 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hey China, don't worry, Obama will eventually run out of asses to kiss and make his way to the Norks. Between you guys and Mexico he's pretty tied up right now.
#9
While the typical Skor civilian may be jello, that is not unusual for civilians of all stripes. What matters is how the ROKA performs. They have 655k active duty and 3m reservists.
Much of the Nork artillery facing Seoul is worthless and decrepit, so they would likely initiate with a nuclear weapon. With the South covered by US PAC-3 missiles, about the only way this would work is as a EMP airburst, trying to fry all the electronics in the region, instead of turning Seoul into a smoking hole.
With, of course, whatever artillery they could fire at the city as well.
ROKA would go bananas, and throw everything they had at the North, and I doubt the USN would bother to wait for Obama to finish his hand wringing and to whine, "Why can't we all be friends?"
Quietly, the Pentagon would put out assurances to the Chinese military command that if they were to butt out, the US would be done in a couple of weeks, with little more than utterly wiping out the North's nuclear anything and every uniformed Nork officer and politician.
Nothing would ever be that clear however, so the reality would vary considerably in color and consistency. Some settling would occur during shipping and handling.
#11
GT, dead wrong. You're basically saying the ROKA and ROK Marines would not fight - and fight effectively? That, baldly, is utter bullshit.
Counterbattery has all those site plotted, and they would be shut down within the first volley. Remeber, only thier fixed heavy stuff has the 30km range needed to hit Seoul effectively ,and that stuff is shcked already and dialed in.
Secondly, and more importantly, the ROKs would fight liek wild animals to defend their own. Don;t mistake the political leaderships lack of will for that of e aROK soldier - and dont confuse ROKA with those useless politcal KATUSAs.
ANd finally, jsut how the hell do you expect the Norks to sustain their force? They dont have fuel or logistics past what they carry - that's 72 hours max, less if they manage to advance more than 20km from the Z. And right now they still move most of their stuff by rail due to lack of motor transport and fuel for it.
And finally you completely overlook the impact of air interdiction as well as deep strikes on C3I targets that will leave most NKor units headless from the regiment up as well as EW that porevent the survivors from communication except by wires. And Wires dont advance well.
If they cannot force a complete breach and a nearly unopposed breakout like the Germans did in France 40 or the US did in 91. And they need to do that in the face of massive air superiority on the other side that can interdict major intersections, logistical routes, and fuel depots, as well as command and control centers and HQ units.
It would be bloody, but the NKors would collapse. This isn't June 1950 with a prostrate and unprepared SKor laid bare against a hostile and well equipped NKor force with Russian "advisers" flying their CAP and commanding major units by proxy. This would be more like the NKor Army's collapse in the face of the Counteroffensive that rolled the NKors back to the Yalu.
#12
Umm, nice try OS but I am not taking that bait. Reread what I wrote before you get it twisted and start misquoting me. And btw, I doubt you have had a clearance level that I have possessed in South Korea in recent history.
#14
And you might consider I've probably been at this biz since before you were born. I might just have learned a thing or two and have been exposed to other programs and compartments... and that I may have a broader perspective than your paper tube view you had in a tac shop at Camp Humphreys
But don't let that stop you from spreading gloom and doom worst-case, factual or not, if that's what floats your boat.
Capitulation fever has swept global markets on triple fears of faltering recovery in the US, Chinese credit curbs and Europe's intractable escalating debt crisis.
#3
This is the scene from the movie where the climbers roped together start to fall, each one adding to the mass of the downward pull as the ones above them are ripped from the side of the mountain. Do you cut the line before it yanks you down too? So far the people in charge haven't and won't. They'll keep telling us that its for 'our own good' in the long run while protecting their position and power.
#4
Looks like dem expectations that the economy would be undeniably on the mend by November are not going to come to pass. Look for MSM stories about "unexpected" financial calamities to proliferate...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/21/2010 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Don't buy gold. It's not used as a backstop anymore, and is being run up due to panic selling by the dumbest investors in the market, ie small retail investors. Buy quality assets that are underpriced now: treasurys and blue chip, built to last, dividend-paying companies producing real stuff that people around the world desperately need, like oil, industrial metals, agriproducts, lifesaving pharmaceuticals, and above all, tobacco products.
#7
So do I cash out what's left of my 401k and buy gold
In bear markets the correlations between asset classes tend to approach 1 and this is more so due to globalization.
Certainly have some gold, probably no more than 10% and purchase on a dollar averaging basis(a certain amount per month, so you take advantage of ups and downs)
Don't forget ammo and food stockpiles as for the rest you're on your own.
#9
I recommend Ford Stock (F) it's the only PROFITABLE remaining auto maker in the USA, it's dirt cheap right now (Around $11.15 at the moment) I own a small holding (100 shares) and it's solid.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/21/2010 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Vote early and vote often!
The cynical phrase is attributed to three different Chicagoans: Al Capone, the famous gangster; Richard J. Daley (a famous gangster) and mayor from 1955 to 1976; and William Hale Thompson (a famous gangster) and mayor from 1915-1923 and 1931-1935. All three were notorious for their corruption and their manipulation of the democratic process.
HBO's 10-part series on the Pacific campaign of World War II just ended. That story of island-hopping was mostly about how the old breed of U.S. Marines fought diehard Japanese infantrymen face-to-face in places like Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Guam and Okinawa.
We still argue whether it was smart to storm those entrenched Japanese positions or whether all those islands were strategically necessary. But no one can question the Marine Corps' record of having defeating the most savage infantrymen of the age, thereby shattering the myth of Japanese military invincibility.
Since WWII, the Marines have turned up almost anywhere that America finds itself in a jam against supposedly unconquerable enemies -- in bloody places like Inchon and the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, at Hue and Khe Sanh during the Vietnam War, at the two bloody sieges of Fallujah in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan.
Over the last two centuries, two truths have emerged about the Marine Corps. One, they defeat the toughest of America's adversaries under the worst of conditions. And two, periodically their way of doing things -- and their eccentric culture of self-regard -- so bothers our military planners that some higher-ups try either to curb their independence or end the Corps altogether.
After the Pacific fighting, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson wanted to disband the Marines Corps. What good were amphibious landings in the nuclear age? Johnson asked. His boss, President Harry Truman, agreed and didn't like the cocky Marines either.
Then came Korea -- and suddenly the Pentagon wanted more Marines. The fighting against hard-core North Korean and Communist Chinese veterans was as nasty as anything seen in three millennia of organized warfare. The antiquated idea of landing on beaches proved once again a smart way of outflanking the enemy.
The Marines survived Korea, Louis Johnson and Harry Truman -- and continued to carve out their own logistics, air-support and tactical doctrine. Marine self-sufficiency was due to lingering distrust of the other services dating back to the lack of air and naval support in World War II, and to Marine paranoia that the other services liked their combative spirit but not their independence.
We are once again seeing one of those periodic re-examinations of the Corps. This time, the old stereotype of the lone-ranger, gung-ho Marines supposedly doesn't fit too well with fighting sophisticated urban counterinsurgency under an integrated, international command.
After all, America is fighting wars in which we rarely hear of the number of enemy dead, but a great deal about the need to rebuild cities and infrastructure. In Afghanistan, there have been rumors about a new medal for "courageous restraint" that would honor soldiers who hesitated pulling the trigger against the enemy out of concern about harming civilians.
The Marines are now starting to redeploy to Afghanistan from Iraq and are building a huge base in Delaram. They plan to win over southern Afghanistan's remote, wild Nimruz province that heretofore has been mostly a no-go Taliban stronghold. While NATO forces concentrate on Afghanistan's major cities, the Marines think they can win over local populations their way, take on and defeat the Taliban, and bring all of Nimruz back from the brink -- with their trademark warning "no better friend, no worse enemy."
So once again, the Marines are convinced that their own ingenuity and audacity can succeed where others have failed. And once again, not everyone agrees.
The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, retired three-star Army General Karl W. Eikenberry, reportedly made a comment about there being 41 nations serving in Afghanistan -- and a 42nd composed of the Marine Corps. One unnamed Obama administration official was quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "We have better operational coherence with virtually all of our NATO allies than we have with the U.S. Marine Corps."
Some officials call the new Marine enclave in Nimruz Province "Marinestan" -- as if, out of a Kipling or Conrad novel, the Marines have gone rogue to set up their own independent province of operations.
Yet once again, it would be wise not to tamper with the independence of the Marine Corps., given that its methods of training, deployment, fighting, counterinsurgency and conventional warfare usually pay off in the end.
The technological and political face of war is always changing. But its essence -- organized violence to achieve political ends -- is no different from antiquity. Conflict will remain the same as long as human nature does as well.
The Marines have always best understood that. And from the Marines' initial mission against the Barbary Pirates to the battles in Fallujah, Americans have wanted a maverick Marine Corps -- a sort of insurance policy that kept them safe, just in case.
#1
I served twice in Iraq during my 5 years in the Army; I love the Army and am proud of my service. I served in an artillery unit that took on the traditional roles of the infantry and MPs in 2003, and took on the task of base defense operations in 2005. I saw firsthand how badly the Army's hands were tied by politicians and fearful, self-interested leadership. I also got to experience firsthand the issues that arise when an artillery unit, ill trained in small unit tactics, is thrust into urban warfare. The Army is full of brave, tough men and women who have strived and sacrificed in OIF/OEF, and in doing so have won many victories for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Army does not possess the autonomy of the Marine Corps. It is their autonomy and unyielding, unapologetic claim to the right to wage all out brutal war on the enemy which makes the Marines so effective and essential. The Army is too big, and too politically motivated to be effective in the places where the Marines thrive. Just as the Marines are too small and focused to fill the broad role that the Army is able to assume.
Honestly, I think the Army could learn a few lessons from the Marines. If only wed had that kind of freedom to take it to the enemy, and the training to know how. Get rid of the Marines, huh, Id like to see them try.
#2
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Guam and Okinawa
As far as this adminstration is concerned, that's just six more places the One will have to visit and apologize to.
Personally, I think that any military organization that has a four-star general nicknamed "Mad Dog" (call sign "Chaos") has to be doing something right.
Posted by: Matt ||
05/21/2010 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Our family's Marine sergeant, as the company interpreter since he'd been there a couple times, routinely told the 'locals' throughout Anbar province that "If someone shoots at us or at anyone in the village we're in, we will hunt them down and they will die".
Many 'bad guys' tried, but were quickly neutralized. The locals respected our guys for that.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
05/21/2010 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Guam and Okinawa
WASHINGTON -- It is perfectly obvious that Iran's latest uranium maneuver, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, is a ruse. Iran retains more than enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. And it continues enriching at an accelerated pace and to a greater purity (20 percent). Which is why the French foreign ministry immediately declared that the trumpeted temporary shipping of some Iranian uranium to Turkey will do nothing to halt Iran's nuclear program.
It will, however, make meaningful sanctions more difficult. America's proposed Security Council resolution is already laughably weak -- no blacklisting of Iran's central bank, no sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry, no nonconsensual inspections on the high seas. Yet Turkey and Brazil -- both current members of the Security Council -- are so opposed to sanctions that they will not even discuss the resolution. And China will now have a new excuse to weaken it further.
But the deeper meaning of the uranium-export stunt is the brazenness with which Brazil and Turkey gave cover to the mullahs' nuclear ambitions and deliberately undermined U.S. efforts to curb Iran's program.
The real news is that already notorious photo: the president of Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, and the prime minister of Turkey, for more than half a century the Muslim anchor of NATO, raising hands together with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most virulently anti-American leader in the world.
That picture -- a defiant, triumphant take-that-Uncle-Sam -- is a crushing verdict on the Obama foreign policy. It demonstrates how rising powers, traditional American allies, having watched this administration in action, have decided that there's no cost in lining up with America's enemies and no profit in lining up with a U.S. president given to apologies and appeasement.
They've watched President Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran, as every rejected overture is met with abjectly renewed U.S. negotiating offers. American acquiescence reached such a point that the president was late, hesitant and flaccid in expressing even rhetorical support for democracy demonstrators who were being brutally suppressed and whose call for regime change offered the potential for the most significant U.S. strategic advance in the region in 30 years.
They've watched America acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine (pressured by Russia last month into extending for 25 years its lease of the Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol) and over Georgia (Russia's de facto annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is no longer an issue under the Obama "reset" policy).
They've watched our appeasement of Syria, Iran's agent in the Arab Levant -- sending our ambassador back to Syria even as it tightens its grip on Lebanon, supplies Hezbollah with Scuds, and intensifies its role as the pivot of the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. The price for this ostentatious flouting of the U.S. and its interests? Ever more eager U.S. "engagement."
They've observed the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands, its contemptuous treatment of Israel, its undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland, and its indifference to Lebanon and Georgia. And in Latin America, they see not just U.S. passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia. They saw active U.S. support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator seeking unconstitutional powers in defiance of the democratic institutions of that country.
This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum.
Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world. Hence his foundational declaration at the U.N. General Assembly last September that "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation" (guess who's been the dominant nation for the last two decades?) and his dismissal of any "world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another." (NATO? The West?)
Given Obama's policies and principles, Turkey and Brazil are acting rationally. Why not give cover to Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions? As the U.S. retreats in the face of Iran, China, Russia and Venezuela, why not hedge your bets? There's nothing to fear from Obama, and everything to gain by ingratiating yourself with America's rising adversaries. After all, they actually believe in helping one's friends and punishing one's enemies.
#5
Barry's the inverse Marine: "no worse friend, no better enemy."
This tour d'horizon is truly depressing:
Obama's humiliating attempts to appease Iran...
...acquiesce to Russia's re-exerting sway over Eastern Europe, over Ukraine and Georgia...
...appeasement of Syria
...the administration's gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falklands
...its contemptuous treatment of Israel...
...undercutting of the Czech Republic and Poland...
...indifference to Lebanon and Georgia...
...passivity as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez organizes his anti-American "Bolivarian" coalition while deepening military and commercial ties with Iran and Russia...
...support in Honduras for a pro-Chavez would-be dictator
Egyptian Expert on International Law Ahmmad Hassan Omar: Turky and Other Countries Should Use Aid Convoys to Transfer Weapons to Gaza and Returning Refugees to Acre.
#5
MOUD = KIMMIE = DO AN IRAN-VERSION OF THE "CHEONAN", AND WORSE???
* ARTIC > Charles says IRAN already possesses "MORE THAN ENOUGH" NucMats = Uranium for a NucBomb.
This schema in across from Iran in Oman, etc. could in theory remove Iran's most important bargaining chips as per an anti US-West blockade of oil tankers from the Persian Gulf.
IOW, 2010-2012 > UNILATERAL ESCALATORY ACTS OF WAR WHICH WILL BE FORMALLY DENIED OR MIS-DESCRIBED BY TEHRAN = MOUD + MULLAHOCRACY [Pyongyang] AS SUCH.
#6
VARIOUS NETTERS-BLOGGERS > argue NO BETTER TIME FOR RADICAL ISLAM + TERROR GROUPS TO ATTACK THE US WID NEW 9-11'S OR WORSE = TERR CAMPAIGNS THAN UNDER POTUS BAMMER???
On the matter of illegal immigration, ideally, people should be permitted to do whatever doesn't infringe on another's God-given rights. In fact, in most cases, this greater freedom results in greater benefits for everyone concerned.
Employers should be free to hire whomever they want. Employees should be free to seek work wherever they want. National borders impede this free-market concept by impeding immigration but that's not really the problem. Instead, our immigration problem stems from built-in institutional evils.
Milton Friedman made this point some years back: You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.'
It follows that you can't build a fence high enough, or round up enough illegal immigrants to deport, or punish businesses with fines enough to discourage billions of people from seeking something for nothing.
One of our colleagues yesterday made the obvious yet rarely confronted observation that the cost of providing just one student an education in California runs as high as $15,000 by some estimates. What father of four children wouldn't do whatever he could to provide his four children with the equivalent of $60,000 in free tuition every year rather than let them grow up in squalor and in a Third World country where they probably won't get any kind of an education?
What mother wouldn't prefer to have her child born in the U.S. with the guarantee of lifetime health care (substandard as it's likely to be under ObamaCare) rather than in some backward nation where it's as likely as not the kid would be dead by age 5?
When you add up everything the U.S. provides at no cost to people who don't have much income health, education, welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing - we're fortunate we're insulated by two massive oceans or else billions of people would be flooding across the borders to take advantage.
That doesn't even take into consideration the additional lure of jobs, which are vastly more plentiful here than in impoverished nations. Or the elevated comforts of paved roads, no sewage in the streets, relative safety from marauding criminals and all the other benefits of the U.S. lifestyle.
As long as we as a nation provide stuff for free, people who don't have that stuff will come here to get it.
You can't deport them fast enough, or build a wall high enough to discourage people lured by freebies paid for by the American taxpayer. The only way to permanently solve that problem is to permanently end the welfare state. Turn off the spigot and they'll stop coming here for free drinks.
#1
As long as we as a nation provide stuff for free, people who don't have that stuff will come here to get it.
It's been that way since man created towns and villages which attracted the nomads to rape, pillage, and loot show up. Soon the settled folk figured walls could keep them out, for a while. Then the raiders and pillagers would take everything outside the wall that wasn't secured inside. Usually they showed up around harvest time to avail themselves of stuff others had labored over. That's when people decided they had to control areas rather than settlements. That created territorial boundaries which neighbors worked out in some form of interaction often referred to as wars in which enough blood was spilled that either made someone respect limits or denuded the area of anything worthwhile. Thousands of years later, we're so enlightened and 'modern' that everything has changed. However, the pillaging, looting, and raping still seems to go on, but the villagers are told to shut up and get along by their betters living behind their own walls.
#2
There is a back burner federal law that may be quickly enacted at any time, called the "DREAM Act".
"The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (The "DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that was introduced in 2009.
"This bill would provide certain undocumented alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. as minors, and have been in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment (2005 or before, if the bill is passed this year), the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency.
"The alien students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge."
"Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated [according to the terms of the Act] shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional permanent resident status under this Act."
This would plug a major hole, in that there are a lot of fully assimilated illegal alien children who have lived in the US almost their entire life, and know nothing of Mexico.
Since they are de facto Americans, if not de jure Americans, this would grant them permanent residency status in the US, *not* citizenship, and they would no longer face deportation, *if* they behaved themselves and either got a college degree, or served in the military.
As permanent residents, they would not be able to vote, so would not upset any political apple cart, and could have their residency status revoked, and be kicked out of the US, if they broke any felony law.
This would mean that troublemakers and gang-bangers would be given the boot, and the police could focus on them, instead of those who are behaving and trying to improve themselves, who would want nothing to do with the bad ones, as it could cost them their residency.
I would imagine that, a few years down the road, the US would be able to lighten up on the "good character permanent residents", so they could expedite their citizenship process while continuing to live in the US.
#4
If they are here illegally, they should be either be deported, used as involuntary organ donors or executed as they are here in our country illegally, in a time of war.
#5
Naive libertarian bullshit about open borders. Completely ignores security concerns and the terrorists and weapons that would leverage such border policy.
They have a naive belief that trading with a nation will convince them to put down the military "stick: they hold, and give up control and power. Sorry, not going to happen in a lot of cultures.
They think that if everyone were left to their own, that nobody would decide to rob or steal their way, and that somehow miraculously, powermongers would no longer seek unjust power over others using unjust means and force, just to have power.
Fools. They're just as bad as the collectivists waiting for the perfectable "communist man" to emerge from government conditioning and programming, discarding profit and individualism for faith and sacrifice to the collective. The libertarian's foolish "perfectable man" if formed in the marketplace and somehow discards force and a thirst for power for mercantilism.
Control the borders first, then we can talk about the rest.
Bottom line: "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." -- Ronald Reagan
#6
What Spook said. Strife and chaos are the default order for man of woman born.
Especially in Mexico these days. Mexico is a failing state. We need our own state to be as strong as possible when it comes to securing us against this human Chernobyl that is the imploding Mexican state and its lopsided, poverty-producing, oligarch-ridden economy.
Secure the f***ing border, already, and spare us libertarian lunacy.
On May 17, 2010, the New York Times published a major story revealing how Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, has systematically misrepresented his military service. . . .
Everyone can agree that lies and exaggerations are reprehensible that such false tales divert attention from the men and women who actually sacrificed. But why do they do it? Are they uniquely terrible individuals? I don't think so. Some individuals like those mentioned above have done good things with their lives, even great things, yet they still lied. Why weren't they content with their life story?
I think their lies were an extreme manifestation of a feeling that most of us feel at some level. Put simply, we want to be better than we are. We want to be more noble. We want to be more brave. We want to be more selfless. Is it too much to presume that looking back Richard Blumenthal, Joseph Ellis, and Tim Johnson wished they had served overseas, that they wished they had the courage to face the enemy?
There was a time in my life when I faced a stark choice: to serve or to keep wishing that I was better more brave than I really was. I think back to a memorable law school conversation with a good friend. It was 1993, the Cold War was over, Saddam Hussein was defeated (or so we thought), and the horror of 9/11 was very, very far away. We talked about the military, why we had both decided not to join and how that decision haunted us just a little bit. After chewing on the issue for several hours, we made a rather casual commitment: We won't join now, but if the nation is ever attacked . . . then, we'd join. We shook hands on it.
And then I forgot the conversation ever happened. I lived my life with a pang of regret, a regret that only deepened as I watched the Twin Towers burn, as I watched our young soldiers parachute into Afghanistan, and as I watched many thousands of my fellow citizens march into mortal danger in the deserts of Iraq. Finally, I could take it no longer. I wanted to actually be the man I wanted to be. So I joined the reserves and volunteered to go to Iraq. A few weeks before I left, I ran into a soldier who knew my friend the one who'd agreed those many years ago to go to war if we were ever attacked. I'd lost touch with him and had no idea where he was living or what he was doing. Turns out, he'd kept his end of the bargain. As I was leaving for Iraq, he was returning from his own tour of duty, and he'd been fighting even before I'd mustered up the backbone to walk into a recruiter's office.
My year in Iraq was hard. Very hard. I lost dear friends, and I discovered that I'm a person of profound limitations, finite energy, and finite reservoirs of courage. I learned there are other men far better, far braver, than I will ever be. But I went. I served. And that fact has become one of the most salient aspects of my life.
Not everyone is called to fight, but we are all called to meet the singular challenges of our own lives and to serve our fellow man in a sacrificial way. Perhaps you're having to live courageously in the face of a daunting illness. Perhaps you're facing key questions about your marriage and family when the answer requires you to swallow your pride and take the hard road. Perhaps you're living in a community that is crying out for help and wondering if you'll be part of the solution. Only you truly know the challenge of your life and your time. There are some, like Richard Blumenthal and Joseph Ellis, who blinked when faced with the challenge of their time, and may very well live the rest of their lives with aching regret. There are others many thousands of others who did not blink, who do not live with regret, and who know at the very core of their being that they did the best they could do.
Do you want to be better than you are?
You can be.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/21/2010 09:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
HILLSBOROUGH, N.H. -- A Navy veteran is fighting to be able to show his patriotism by flying an American flag outside his apartment building. Joe LeVangie, 88, said he's upset after he and his neighbors were told to take their flags down because flying them was against management policy. He said there should be an exception for the flag.
