Conservative Rumblings

Love it. The Left is gearing up to eat its own.

Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals who are vowing to “spank” the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.

In a prime-time speech Tuesday from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama is expected to announce that he is sending up to 35,000 additional troops to Afghanistan beginning next year.

The figure is short of the 40,000 troops his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, requested — but enough to anger many congressional Democrats who oppose any potential troop surge, arguing that the mission is too expensive and lacks a clear objective.

“I think there will be some disillusionment within his base,” said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president’s announcement.

“We’re going to spank him for sending more troops,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also “thank him” if he announces a quick exit strategy.

This is amazing on two counts. First, it’s obvious the Far Left wants us to lose this war. Why, you ask? Simple: they’ll blame it on Bush. The deaths of American solders mean NOTHING to the radical left. They think nothing of using our brave soldiers as political capital. They want to see us lose, pure and simple.

Now, in their effort to ensure we lose the war, they want to make sure a troop surge (like the one that completely turned around the Iraq War in 2007) does not happen. If it goes through, there’s a very good chance we will NOT lose. In that regard, they are turning on Obama, which I find hilarious. He counted on the Far Left to deliver his win in 2008, and now that he’s alienated independents with his support for a public option in healthcare and obviously has no support on the right, if he loses the Far Left, well, there’s not many people left on the planet who are going to support this guy.

Keep in mind, I support Obama’s decision if he DOES send 35,000 more troops. Without these troops, it’s very likely the situation would degenerate beyond how bad it is now and we’d be in serious danger of losing control of the country.

Don’t get me wrong and think I’ve gone soft on the Ditherer In Chief. This decision is 3 months too late and cost American lives while he was whining and prognosticating, of course. It’s ridiculous to spend this long to make a decision that your generals recommended; that’s why the generals are THERE, because they are smarter than you when it comes to military decisions (when it comes to Obama this could not be more true). Our Commander In Chief’s entire military experience comes from directing militant union thugs while he was a community organizer.

It’s embarrassing.

Four Republican senators have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit senators to no more than two six-year terms in office, and representatives no more than three two-year terms. To become law, the amendment must be approved by two-thirds majorities of both the Senate and House, and by three-fourths of the states.

Senators Jim DeMint, South Carolina, Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas, and Sam Brownback, Kansas, are the co-sponsors.

The 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits presidents to no more than two terms in office. Fifteen states have term limits for various officials, as do many local governments across the country.

DeMint said the amendment is needed because the power of incumbency has grown so great:

“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power,” DeMint said.

If only this amendment had a chance of passing. Unfortunately, there are few selfless politicians; none of the entrenched lifetime politicians like Robert Byrd or Steny Hoyer would ever vote for a bill that would put them out of a job.

Term limits are completely necessary, of course. Congress has become a disgusting oligarchy filled with cronyism and wrapped in corruption. I actually have advocated in dozens of political discussions the necessity of term limits on Congressional representatives and senators, and the numbers in this amendment are exactly what I want to see.

Consider this…if these limits had been in place, who would currently not have a seat in Congress? These would be notable Senators who have served more than 12 years (i.e. more than two terms) and notable Congressmen who have served more than 6 years (3 terms).

Just imagine how great this country would be WITHOUT these people running it. It’s like a laundry list of socialists and big-government advocates.

Senators:
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
John McCain (R-AZ)

Congressmen:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
John Murtha (D-PA)

That’s literally the entire Democratic leadership. It should tell you something that their entire lead crew has been entrenched in Congress for years upon years (and in the case of people like Murtha, Dingell, Conyers, et al, decades).

Now, if term limits were put in place, would good members of Congress who actually help the country be kicked out of their seats prematurely? Absolutely, but unfortunately, we must sacrifice some time given by a few good apples to remove the hundreds of bad apples who are career politicians that care more about their personal agendas than their constituents.

Once again, foreign policy amateur hour is in full session. Barack Obama, in His Infinite Wisdom, has convinced South Korean president Lee Myung-bak that instead of being “mean” to North Korea and isolating them from the world, we should capitulate and offer them a ransom to give up their nuclear weapons program.

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea’s president says he and President Barack Obama have agreed to offer North Korea a “grand bargain” aimed at ending the North’s nuclear program.

Speaking at a joint news conference with Obama, President Lee Myung-bak said the deal would be similar to his proposal for a package of political and economic incentives in exchange for the one-step, irreversible dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program.

Lee’s grand bargain proposal stems from concerns that North Korea would continue to backtrack on promises after winning concessions in negotiations.

Obama said his envoy on North Korea, Ambassador Stephen Bosworth, will travel to the country early next month for the first bilateral talks with the communist regime since he took office.

North Korea has been pushing for bilateral talks with Washington to discuss the standoff over Pyongyang’s nuclear program. The U.S. has agreed to the talks but has stressed they must lead to the resumption of six-nation disarmament negotiations.

North Korea conducted a nuclear test and test-fired a series of missiles earlier this year.

I hope people realize that this is exactly what North Korea wanted. They held out until someone offered to give them what they were demanding. This is essentially negotiating with terrorists. Naive and dangerous, which is pretty much the hallmark of his apocalypticly stupid administration.

It’s a bad enough idea to close Gitmo. It’s a far worse idea to bring the terrorists currently imprisoned there to our shores. And it’s a monumental display of stupidity to bring them into Illinois and dump them off 150 miles from Chicago and hope for the best.

Of course, if the decision is between national security and appeasing terrorists, we know which direction the Obama administration is headed.

A prison complex 150 miles from Chicago has emerged as the leading contender to house detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, senior administration officials tell ABC News.

Officials from the Pentagon and the Federal Bureau of Prisons will soon visit lllinois’ Thomson Correctional Center to inspect the maximum security prison, which was opened in 2001 but has never been fully utilized because of state budget issues.

The idiocy of this dumbfounds me. Bringing terrorists to our shores will encourage terrorist attacks and create a hotbed of terrorism. It’s not safe. It’s not smart. It’s not good for national security. Gitmo is the ideal place for this prisoners of war, because that’s what they are.

These are not criminals that have been locked up for robbing a bank or stealing a car or killing someone. These are enemies in our ongoing struggle against radical global Jihad and should be treated as such. Prisoners of war are not placed in civilian areas. Prisoners of war are guarded by soldiers, away from the citizens of the country. There are reasons for this; terrorists are dangerous, and their compatriots are dangerous too.

If you put terrorists in a civilian prison, you risk the lives of the civilians near them. It’s the natural duty of any prisoner of war to try to escape. As well, it’s the natural reaction by the comrades of said imprisoned warrior to try and break them out.

Let’s say a terrorist breaks out or is broken out of Gitmo (not possible, but I’m speaking hypothetically). Where do they go? First, they have to fight their way through a U.S. military force. Then, they’re on an island called “Cuba” that is still not the United States mainland.

Now, since Obama is dead-set on closing Guantanamo Bay and moving the terrorists to our shores, if there is an attack or a breakout, guess what? We now have terrorists running amok in our country.

In the interests of full disclosure, I live in the Northern Illinois area and work in Chicago. I don’t want to see this area become infested with terrorists. Yes, I have a vested interest and I’m biased. If you bring these guys up here, this area will become ground zero for terrorist cells, with Chicago and the tallest building in the country (Sears Tower) just a quick jaunt down I-88 away.

This is another of Obama’s naive gestures designed to appease terrorists at the expense of our national security. It’s just another mark in the column of reasons why anointing a “community organizer” as the head of the nation was a tragically bad idea.

Anyone who knows me knows that I’m pretty much pro-military 24/7 and 365. I would never want to restrict the thanks our veterans deserve to just one day, so today, please make an extra effort to thank veterans even more for their service to our country.

Without their daily sacrifices, their hard work and the blood they’ve spilled, we would not enjoy the freedoms we currently do. America owes its very soul to our veterans and we should never forget it.

Home of the free…because of the brave.

Great article in the Telegraph about Obama’s reptilian-like detachment to the American people. The reason it exists, of course, is something that the writer hints at but doesn’t really say: Obama doesn’t see himself on the same level as the rest of us. He’s floating above us, and looking down on us, as the ’savior of the world.’ Obama really sees himself as THAT much better than all of us, because he ‘knows what’s best for us’ and is here to lead us into a new, “fundamentally transformed” America. Sort of like a god, right Newsweek?

Good reading at the Telegraph though (full article here).

During the election campaign, Barack Obama’s cool detachment was a winning quality, the “No Drama Obama” a welcome contrast with the “Mr Angry” John McCain, never mind the hot-headed “I’m the decider” President George W Bush.

A year into his presidency, however, Mr Obama seems a curiously bloodless president. If he experiences passion, he seldom shows it. It is often anyone’s guess as to whether an event or issue truly moves him.

He has spent more than two months considering a troop increase but do we know how he really feels about the Afghan war?

In a sign that the Obama honeymoon truly is over, I began to hear this week the first stirrings of a wistfulness about Mr Bush. “I never thought I’d hear myself say it,” one Democrat told me. “But Obama makes you feel that at least with Bush you knew where he was on something.”