Posted by Tina
While OWS protesters behave like unsupervised eight year olds and the President and progressive democrats are busy dismantling our military, dangerous drug cartels continue to take over in Mexico and have stepped up plans to gain control in certain counties along our Southwestern border. Americans have been warned by this administration to stay out of at least one national park because it is now too dangerous for Americans to enter. Efforts by local media to inform the public about the growing danger and threat of war on American soil are being largely ignored by main stream media.
An editorial in Investers Business Daily informs of recent events that bode ill for Mexico and America:
Border: The helicopter crash Friday that killed Mexico’s top Cabinet official, Jose Francisco Blake, couldn’t have come at a worse time. Cartels are acquiring heavy arms to challenge the state and to move their war to the U.S.
The Attorney General of Texas has been warning President Obama of the growing threat for at least a year sending a follow up letter this month:
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter today asking President Barack Obama to “immediately dedicate more manpower to border security,” especially along the Texas-Mexico border.
Abbott claims gunfire that struck El Paso City Hall from Jurez is among examples of drug cartel violence spilling over into the United States from Mexico.
The letter begins as follows:
“Over a year ago, I wrote to you warning of the increasing threat of cartel-related violence spilling across our border with Mexico. At the time, gunfire from cartels in Juarez had crossed over the border into El Paso. Fortunately for El Pasoans, those bullets struck only buildings, rather than bodies. But as I warned back then, we cannot simply rely on good fortune to protect American lives from the ever-present threat of cartel violence on our southern border.”
Two retired generals are taking this problem very seriously even if the federal government is not:
AUSTIN – Two retired generals say the cartels are building safe zones along the Texas-Mexico border. They’re going to operate on whichever side offers the best security. The more the Mexican government cracks down, the more cartel will need to operate out of the Rio Grande Valley.
Retired generals Barry McCaffery and Robert Scales say the cartels have a clear plan to build a sanctuary zone one county deep inside the state of Texas. They want safe spots in every Texas border county where they can control operations.
Retired General Robert Scales says the plan it “to use Texas as a launch point into the heartland of America for their distribution of drugs.”
Meanwhile, the President continues to take it under advisement:
“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama told reporters from regional newspapers on Wednesday, as reported by the Dallas Morning News and McClatchy Newspapers.
“I’m not interested in militarizing the border,” Obama said.
In his most direct comments so far on the drug fight that has killed 7,000 people in Mexico since the beginning of 2008, the president praised Mexico President Felipe Caldern for “taking some extraordinary risks under extraordinary pressure” to fight the cartels.
Obama said he will present a plan “within a few months” to counter the southbound smuggling of guns and cash that support the cartels.
If the President is “unwilling to militarize the border” the question arises, is the President willing to protect the American people by whatever means necessary? Surely a military presence assembled on our own border would present a show of strength and determination. Will the President wait to make a bold decision based on politics…sometime next summer perhaps? He’s been aware of this growing problem and threat for his entire presidency and still he is undecided. This only makes the investigation into Fast and Furious, enacted under his watch, more compelling.
Please, vote wisely in November 2012. If ever there was a need for strong leadership in America it is now!
Tina: “the President and progressive democrats are busy dismantling our military”
I am sorry, what do you mean by this?
So, you’re letting Quentin post again? Under what conditions?
Chris, progressive Democrats dont have a problem cutting defense spending while increasing the number of entitlement programs and the size of government. This is a foolish prescription not only for the defense of the nation but also in terms of our future prosperity.
Defense of the nation is the one thing that is constitutionally required of the federal government. The world is an ever dangerous place, including on our own borders. This administration has grown government bureaucracy and entitlement programs that will require increased funding and put greater pressure on the availability of funds for defense in future.
It has been the aim of this President and progressive Democrats in Congress to cut military spending. Except for resistance from moderate Democrats and Republicans greater cuts would have been made. The following are examples of budget proposals and the intent to cut our military. The objective, I believe, is not to balance the budget or bring down the debt but to pay for increased entitlement and redistribution projects.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/barney-frank-obama-cut-military-spending
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/08/obama-budget-cuts-target-military-funding/
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/14/news/economy/obama_budget_spending_cuts/index.htm
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/04/obama-seeks-more-longterm-cuts-military-spending
Obama has little interest in defending the nation; his efforts are showcased more than dedicated, in my opinion. His purpose remains entitlement and redistribution of wealth by every means possible.
Ron Paul has this to say about the War on Drugs:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-30/ron-paul-end-the-war-on-drugs/
Paul compares the procurment and use of drugs today with the prohibition era: “Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality.”
In principle I agree with Paul profoundly that illegality of the product creates a lawless underground. But there is a profound cultural difference that we face today that was not present during prohibition. When prohibition ended and the sale of alcohol came “into the sunlight”, as Paul puts it, the people of the United States were, generally speaking, much more law abiding and moral.
The OWS gatherings include the types of characters that would hang out around “coffeehouse style drug dispenseries”. There is a culture within the drug community of dangerous behaviors and social unaccountability that did not exist in the majority of American society in the 1920’s. How many of the people who want drugs made legal would also be in favor of teaching civic morality and responsibility in our schools? How many of them, in fact, would adhere to a higher sense of civic responsibility and morality?
Pauls ideas about both drugs and foreign policy assume an ideal that doesn’t exist in todays world. Unfortunately the drug cartels are not just in the business of selling drugs to stupid Americans who waste their precious lives and destreoy the lives of those around them…now they are involved with terrorists.
The enemy at the gate must be defeated one way or another or we will cease to exist as free people.
Tina, there is a big difference between cutting defense spending and “dismantling our military,” and you haven’t really made a case that the latter is happening. Do you really believe that these (modest, IMO) cuts will significantly hurt our nation’s ability to defend itself? We’re still the most powerful military in the world.
It’s also important to note that President Obama has spent more on enforcing the border and immigration law than any other president in U.S. history.
His take-down of Osama bin Laden, who was not considered a priority by his predecessor, also speaks to his commitment toward defending our nation.
Chris, re bin Laden…. surely deep in your heart you must know he was always a top priorty, how could it have been otherwise given what he did to us? We had more reward money on his head than anyone else.
However, because we couldn’t find him during the Bush years, they put a spin on it saying bin Laden was not really a top priority. BS!!! He was ALWAYS the top priority. They felt they had to make the most of a bad situation and so they alleged that bin Laden had been hunted to the point that he had become more of a bit player and they pointed out there were bigger fish to fry within Al Qeada… not BS. And they did get those big fish! So this “spin” about bin Laden was essentially true, he had been hunted into a non-control role for AQ, but we didn’t want to emphasize our inability to find him and instead they tried to make themselves look better given the unfortunate circumstances.
Make no mistake, the Bush Admin would have moved just as fast as Obama’s, if they found him. Fate was on Obama’s side for this one and so he gets the credit, but Bush wanted Osama just as bad as Pres. Obama.
I am always amused by politicians that try to take credit for great things that happened on their watch, but were in fact a chance of fate or something beyond their sphere of control. This tendancy is I suppose human nature, and it’s darn sure the way of politics. Never miss a chance to pat yourself on the back! Only the very naive would think otherwise.
Next point, you’re not going to convince me that Obama has a greater sense of defending America than previous presidents because he spent more on the border (most of that money allocated before he was in the White House).
Obama has done more to weaken America by his incompetence than most of his predecessors, including Bush!
Obama blew it on the corp. bailouts, he blew it on the stimulus money, he blew it on home mortage bailouts, he blew it on foreign policies, he blew it on not producing a budget and leaving it up to dems in Congress. He blew on his stupid choice for the fed. reserve boss, he blew it on relieving our debt (now up 41% for his time in office). He totally blew it on Iran’s nuclear development then he blew it on our relationship with Israel!!!! He blew it on his transparency promise, he blew it on Solyndra and others, he blew it on his election reform primise and this was because of his conflict of interest with his union pals. He has even blown it by allowing his wife’s reckless and excessive travel expenditures – that BS insulted millions of Americans that are suffering without jobs and the list goes on and on.
Obama is still an amatuer in training, worse, he’s a big gov. socialist and that makes him a very poor choice for president in these hard times, even most liberals I know now agree with me.
Obama has not been good for America and the sooner we get rid of him the better. The man is in over his head and as long as he is in the White House so are we. Anybody who supports Obama at this juncture does so by a gross error in judgment and a severe lacking of facts. Chris is that you? You are smarter than that aren’t you?
Chris: “Tina, there is a big difference between cutting defense spending and “dismantling our military,” and you haven’t really made a case that the latter is happening. Do you really believe that these (modest, IMO) cuts will significantly hurt our nation’s ability to defend itself?”
I think both the policies and cuts have put us in greater danger. the cuts continue on into the future unless reversed. There is no question that the military takes a back seat for progressive adminitrations. Obama discovered once he was in the WH that “ending the war” would be more difficult than he thought but it has been his intention all along. He wants those military dollars spent elsewhere!
If the deficit-reduction supercommittee fails to reach a deal, $600 billion in automatic cuts to defense programs will go into effect and this would be in addition to the Obama administrations pledge to cut $450 billion from the Pentagon budget over the next decade.
His intention has always been to cut our military and push them into the background. His plan rested on his belief that diplomacy under him would bear peaceful fruit. Hes an appeasement wonk of the sixties progressive eraall we are sayingis give peace a chance.
He made the first moves to establish this policy by reaching out to known hostile entities like Iran, snubbing our allies in Europe, and breaking agreements that Bush made for missile defense of Europe.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44503
http://policystudies.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=228&Itemid=27
He, and Pelosi/Reid, continued to make decisions that weaken our defense capabilities now and into the future:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Obamas-2010-Defense-Budget-Top-Five-Worst-Choices-for-National-Security
If Congress ultimately gives the Administration what it wants, America’s armed forces will lose capabilities that its leaders and citizens have come to take for granted. Those capabilities include, but are hardly limited to:
Strategic defense;
Control of the seas;
Air superiority;
Space control;
Counterterrorism;
Counterinsurgency;
Projecting power to distant regions; and
Information dominance throughout cyberspace.
And this decreased capability will happen in the absence of any careful reevaluation of America’s global mission.
The Obama Administration, by its own admission, is recommending fundamental changes for the U.S. military without having conducted a strategic review of defense or foreign policy.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-military-budget-cuts-now-official_557407.html
Hillarys Smart Power diplomacy includes building more bureaucracy and the use of civilian powerthats Democrat diplomatic speak for increasing the size of government payrolls. (I love that the plan is couched in a pledge to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently) What a sham from an administration that has eschewed private sector employment and encouraged government work. It’s a sham given this administration has already increased government employees by 11.7 percent or over 230,000 employees excluding census and postal workers)!
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1215/Hillary-Clinton-s-vision-for-foreign-policy-on-a-tight-budget
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0922/Obama-at-UN-summit-foreign-aid-is-core-pillar-of-American-power
This represents both an emphasis on redistribution internationally and a decrease in military rediness and defense capability. It may not seem like a dismantelling to you but it does to me. Once again…defense of the nation is the ONLY thing called for in the US Constitution for the federal government to do. I don’t think it should take a back seat to foreign aid and assistance.
Jack excellent points all!
There isn’t an adminstration that has performed perfectly or always made the right decisions and I don’t expect that of any president. What I want is a president that understands the world in real terms and doesn’t deny the existance of those who, as Romney indicated in the debate last night, would kill Americans by any means possible at any time.
Our southern border is targeted for invasion and control by drug cartels that are in bed with terrorists! America is a ripe plum, weakened by the financial crisis and the incompetence of this administration to revitalize the economy and defend the nation.
You’re right Tina, no president can hit a home run every time at bat. But, Obama is the strike out king! As part of owner of this ball club I vote to send him back to the minor leagues where he came from! He’s not ready for the majors.
Jack, if it was just “spin” for the Bush administration to say that Osama was not a top priority, then I have to say, they were doing spin wrong. Spin is supposed to make one look better. It would have looked better if Bush had maintained that his administration was determined to find bin Laden, but that they just couldn’t find him, then to say he was no longer a priority.
Another reason I believe that bin Laden ceased being a top priority is our needless foray into Iraq. That was a total distraction of military resources that should have been spent on fighting the war on terror, which barely existed in Iraq until we drew them there like a moth to a flame.
“Next point, you’re not going to convince me that Obama has a greater sense of defending America than previous presidents because he spent more on the border”
I’m not trying to convince anyone that he has a greater sense of defending America than previous presidents, just that Tina’s claim that he has “little interest in defending America” is unsupported.
“Obama blew it on the corp. bailouts,”
Remember that the corporate bailout phase was started by Bush and supported by both McCain and Obama during the campaign. I have mixed feelings on the bailouts but I don’t think things would have been any different under a Republican president.
“he blew it on the stimulus money,”
The stimulus money did not have as great an effect as projected, but it did have a positive effects on job creation and unemployment, as you know.
“he blew it on foreign policies,”
How?
“He totally blew it on Iran’s nuclear development”
Once again, I don’t see how this would have happened any differently under a Republican president.
“then he blew it on our relationship with Israel!!!!”
Obama is just as deferential to Israel as every other past president. The notion that he is somehow anti-Israel is absurd. He refused to condemn the nation for their use of excessive force on board the Mavi Marmara, which resulted in the death of a 19 year old American citizen. He is so against Palestinian membership in the UN that he has even promised to defund UNESCO because of their acceptance of Palestine. This is, in my opinion, a petty and stupid move that will be extremely unpopular internationally. But it’s a clear showing of solidarity with Israel.
If you ask me, Obama could stand to be a lot more critical of Israel and their illegal occupation of Palestine, but I fear we will never get a U.S. president who is willing to do that.
If Netanyahu still feels that Obama has not been deferential enough to Israel than his demands are unrealistic.
“He blew it on his transparency promise,”
On that, I agree. Obama has declared an all-out-war on whistleblowers, as we saw in the case of Bradley Manning, a U.S. soldier who was wrongfully detained in solitary confinement without trial for months.
“he blew it on Solyndra and others,”
That’s possible. We’ll see how that turns out.
“He has even blown it by allowing his wife’s reckless and excessive travel expenditures – that BS insulted millions of Americans that are suffering without jobs and the list goes on and on.”
I haven’t seen any reliable evidence that Michelle Obama travels any more than any other past first lady, so I’ll withhold judgment on this one.
“Obama is still an amatuer in training, worse, he’s a big gov. socialist”
A big government socialist who can’t even commit to getting taxes raised on the top 1% by three percentage points…if Obama’s trying to be a big government socialist, he’s really bad at it.
“Anybody who supports Obama at this juncture does so by a gross error in judgment and a severe lacking of facts.”
I continue to support Obama because of a severe lack of viable alternatives. I have plenty of issues with this president, but I can’t think of anyone running against him that would be better. I used to like Romney, but he’s never held a position that he didn’t change when it was politically convenient. Huntsman seems like the most reasonable and principled guy, which is why almost no Republicans actually want to vote for him. Paul has good points of foreign policy and social issues (except for abortion) but he’s a loon on economic policy and even on the issues we do agree on, I find him too much of an unflexible ideologue. As for the other candidates, I’ll just say they are proudly ignorant in the vein of Sarah Palin.
I wish we had more options…but we don’t.