I’ll start it off.

Its very apparent, Mr. President, that you really don’t understand what this job is about, nor do you have any appreciation what so ever, it seems, for the history behind that desk you are using as a foot rest.

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles, so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.

I’m pretty sure they will do a great job with health care though…

We’re in the best of hands.

Yep, you read right. That’s what he called this. A “tragedy”. A rogue and crazy officer pulls out a couple of handguns, massacres 13 people (14 when you count the unborn child carried by 21 year old Army PFC Francheska Velez), and this is a “tragedy”.

A “tragedy” that would be more horrific if….if what? If Political Correctness is not brought to the forefront? If we make it politically difficult and professionally suicidal to call foul on someone, like Hasan, who raised so many red flags (see below)?

No sir. The tragedy is the acquiescence and surrender of our leadership – political and military – to an indefensible position of moral and ethical relativism where the brutal cold blooded and calculated murder of 14 human beings in an act of terrorism takes second place to ensuring religious diversity remains in our military.

Much has been made if Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, should be called a terrorist. Some say the moniker is moot – he murdered 13 people in cold blood and needs to be dealt with on those matters alone. Others eschew such semantical parsing and believe it is essential to label this event for the terrorist act it appears to have been.

The fact that Hasan was an Army officer on active duty and allegedly (the word “alleged” is used in the strictest legal sense since he has not been tried nor convicted) gunned down his victims on an Army post means that he will be tried under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ does not define nor delineate “terrorism” as a charge so why are we concerned about calling this an act of terror?

Was it? To take a critical look at this, we need to examine what exactly is the definition of terrorism. What makes up an “act of terror”?

The Department of Defense definition, coming from the Dictionary of Military Terms, defines “terrorism” as the following:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological (1)

Take a close look at some of the words and phrases in that definition and see if they apply in this case. Calculated? Politically or religiously motivated? Inculcate fear? All are present, all appear there by design.

Calculated and unlawful because it is against military relations to bring not only one, much less two, personal handguns on post. Hasan carried his newly obtained weapons to the Soldier’s Readiness Center in a personal carrying bag where hundreds of soldiers were mustering for pre-deployment events.

Religiously motivated? Certainly. According to those present, Hasan screamed “Allah Akabar!” before he opened fire. Business cards found in Hasan’s apartment had the acronym “SoA” printed on them, well known shorthand for “Soldier of Allah”. In addition, Hasan’s own brief to senior Army medical personnel at Walter Reed in June of 2007 extolled the virtues of Islamic suicide bombers, underscoring that point with the comment “We love death more than you love life!” Note the collective “We”.

Inculcate fear? One cannot imagine the fear that was present when the shots began to ring out. Most soldiers are used to the sound of gunfire, but not on their home base, not in a pre-deployment medical and awards event and certainly not with families present.

One of the additional characteristics of terrorism or a terrorist act is the randomness of it. Terrorists don’t care who they kill, so long as they achieve their goal of killing. Hasan indiscriminately opened fire into a group of hundreds of soldiers and civilians. He wasn’t gunning for someone who was responsible for assigning him deployment orders. He didn’t care who he killed.

Why is it important? To call it what it is. To not trivialize such an event. To not let this mass murder by a radical Islamic jihadist be consigned to being a mere criminal offense. To not shy away from addressing an act for what it was, specifically a self-described “Soldier of Allah” pulling out a FN Herstal Five-seveN 20-round pistol and a magnum handgun, shouting “Allahu Akbar!” Hasan is accused, in a calculated, premeditated act of terror, of using unlawful violence on a group of unarmed Americans, killing 13 people, including a pregnant woman.

Not wanting to call this a terrorist act is yet another step down the slippery slope of mainstreaming terrorism – making it nothing more than a routine murder or violation of a codified law. Choosing not to call this a terrorist act displays an alarming ignorance of what these displays of hatred and killing are meant to do.

Have we seen this reluctance from some on the political spectrum to call something exactly what it is? Of course. Think back to April of 1994. The African nation of Rwanda was in the midst of what could only be called a genocide. Throughout the summer of that year an estimated one million ethnic Tutsi were starved, hacked, shot, strangled, clubbed and burned to death by the Rwandan army in what could only be called ethnic cleansing. Where is the tie in? Michael Barnett, a member of the United States mission to the UN in 1994 provides some context:

By mid to late April, people in the Security Council knew it was genocide, but refused to call it such because, ultimately, one understood that if you used the term genocide, then you might be forced to act. And when someone suggested that maybe they should call a genocide a genocide, they were quietly reminded that perhaps they should not use such language. (2)

Not calling this a terrorist act and not learning from all that will be learned from the facts that are found is nothing more than the politically-correct ostrich sticking its “I don’t want to deal with this” head in the sands of ignorance.

Looking at why Hasan was not red-flagged at any time by the Army or other authorities in the last 2 years when his radical tendencies began to emerge and coalesce is a discussion for another day.

For right now, however, if this isn’t “terrorism” in its most classic form, what is?

1.” DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.” Defense Technical Information Center. 17 March 2009. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/7591.html [14 Nov, 2009]

2. Richard J. Norton, “Case Study: Rwanda,” Navy War College Policy Making and Process course material. (16 Nov 2004)

Flight Canceled After 2 Flight Attendants Get Into Fight

Friday , February 26, 2010

A Pinnacle Airlines flight from Rochester, N.Y., to Atlanta was canceled after two flight attendants got into a fight, AJC.com reported.

Two female flight attendants got into a verbal argument and the pilot decided to cancel the flight, Amy Howell, owner of Howell Marketing Strategies, which represents Pinnacle Airlines, told FoxNews.com.

“They told us we had to get off the plane because stewardesses were fighting,” said passenger Corey Minton.

The Delta Connection flight was operated by Pinnacle Airlines, which has suspended the two women while an investigation is conducted, the site reported.

“The acts described are not acceptable,” said Joe Williams, a spokesman for Pinnacle Airlines.

Passengers were reportedly placed on other flights.

In his acceptance speech on election evening in November of last year, President-elect Obama uttered these words:

“To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices,” he said. “I need your help, and I will be your president, too.”

A year later those words ring more hollow than most campaign promises have in the past.

From the very beginning of his administration President Obama has chosen to ignore those whose vote he “may not have won”.   Beginning with one of his very first acts – an executive order closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – President Obama served notice that “bipartisanship” means nothing when it comes to exercising presidential power.   Concerning Guantanamo Bay, a Gallup poll taken last summer showed 65 percent of respondents opposed closing the military prison while a mere 32 percent supported it. Moving the facility to the hinterland of Illinois, as has been suggested, is a prime example of the politically tone-deaf affliction of this administration. Indeed, a great campaign sound bite when pandering to the radicals of your party, but if Gitmo is really the “terrorist recruiting tool” that it is made out to be in the press, the Obama administration is doing nothing more than moving this “recruiting tool” from a safe and benign and easily defended location on the southeastern shore of Cuba to a location in the heartland of the United States. Those Americans who opposed such a short-sided decision were ignored.

“…I will be your president, too”.

Next came President Obama’s first forays into the financial health of America, including the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”, better known as the Recovery Act. Borrowing and printing enough money to choke a donkey and an elephant AND the Chinese dragon we sold US Bonds to added over a trillion dollars to the deficit with a single stroke of his pen. Keep in mind this is before the Obama administration even submitted its first budget to congress.

Bipartisanship? The total number of congressional Republicans who signed on to this monstrosity was 3 – out of 218 (178 representatives and 40 senators). Any vote that lopsided has nothing to do with “bipartisanship”.
Polls shows this was yet another one-sided, Democrat- only, anyone-else -need-not-apply, effort. A mere 37% of Americans polled favored the legislation, 43% were opposed, and 20% remained neutral. A little-known proviso of this act that had little attention paid to it was the “Make Work Pay” provision where employers were directed to reduce federal withholdings on employee paychecks, ostensibly to get more spending in the economy. What was not emphasized, however, is that all those employees were still liable for the taxes those reduced withholdings would have gone towards. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration estimates up to 15.4 million American taxpayers will unexpectedly owe taxes this year because of these withholdings shenanigans.

“…I will be your president, too”.

The latest example of President Obama’s sticking it to a majority of Americans is the bloated and corpulent Health Reform Act. This attempt at corralling over a trillion dollars of US taxpayer’s money each year and making yet another generation of Americans dependent on government largess is a classic example of the Obama Administration not listening to citizens. After losing the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, both states that had either trended Democratic or had been solidly democratic for decades, Democrats rationalized these events as outliers – outside the norm – “Oh, those are local elections. They don’t matter”.
Last month’s election of Republican Scott Brown to fulfill the term of the Massachusetts senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy, however, should have been the wake-up call for Big Democrats that all is not what they say it is. Senator Brown’s campaign featured a strong emphasis on being the “41st vote”, or the vote that could deny the Democrats the filibuster-proof super-majority needed to ensure passage of this incredibly bad bill. Brown was, in essence, the firebreak on this and everyone who voted in the Massachusetts special election knew that. His victory – convincing, crushing, complete – should have told the Obama administration and the democrats in congress to slow down – what you have is a bill that is not wanted by the American people.

There is little doubt our current health care system can be improved and needs to be in many areas. Trying to solve all the problems at once, however, with one humongous, gargantuan bill that will break the budgetary bank and create a deep, dark, confusing Byzantine maze of bureaucratic inefficiency coupled with a nightmare of paperwork and higher taxes is not the answer, and most Americans know this. The old saying comes to mind: If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it’s free.

President Obama’s reaction to this, along with congressional democrats, has been to block any negative or contrary concerns about this bill. Immediately after Brown’s senate victory, talk of using the obscure and rarely-used “budget reconciliation” path to a presidential signature cropped up, effectively shutting Republicans and their filibuster plans out. Next came an artificial and contrived one-party ad-hoc conference committee hosted by the White House, a maneuver done without the input of one congressional Republican. Not one. The latest effort is a health care plan drafted by the President himself – again, with no input whatsoever from those opposed to this path to a government-run health care program.

“…I will be your president, too”.

Today, President Obama and congressional Democrats are further muddying the “bipartisanship” waters by going full-steam ahead with a schedule and plans for a “reconciliation” path to enactment while at the same time promising congressional Republicans a “summit” on health care later this week.
By a 61%-28% margin (Rasmussen, 11 Feb 2010), a huge majority of Americans favor a brand-new start on health care reform. Rather than finding ways to make the existing bill better, though, President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership are doing everything they can to simply get what they have passed.

No wonder “…I will be your president, too” rings hollow.

Borders, Woodbridge, VA.  10:12 am

I don’t know if it is the distractions at home or the familiarity of the old messy desk there, but for some reason I find it difficult to get into any writing groove at home.  Sometimes I can, but it seems easier sometimes to just get the heck out of Dodge and head down here or some place different for a while.

What’s *really* funny is that I’m talking like I know what I’m talking about.  I’m taking a page from the “If you want to be successful, dress like you are” book.

Later all.

What is interesting about this is that while Sestak mentioned this offer during a media interview, the White House “vociferously” denies anything of the sort happened.

Notwithstanding where the truth may end up, as things stand right now, someone – the White House or Sestak – is lying out their ass.  How does that make you feel, Hope and Changers?  If I had to pick, I’d put my money on Sestak, and not only because I worked for him briefly in the Pentagon. The Obama White House has given Specter a ton of support and backing so it would be in their best interest to get Sestak out of the way. Plus, after a year of nothing but lies and half-truths and cheating and more lying, I don’t believe a word coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. If they said “Good Morning”, I’d peek out to see if the sun was rising or setting and then make my own determination if anything was good.

I know, I know….the Obama White House lying like a sack of manure.   So what else is new?

Sestak: White House Offered Me Federal Job to Drop Out of Senate Primary

Rep. Joe Sestak , a Pennsylvania Democrat, says the White House dangled a federal job in front of him to convince him to drop his primary challenge against incumbent Arlen Specter, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Friday.

Apparently it was an offer he could refuse.

Rep. Joe Sestak, who is causing heartburn for Democratic leaders by running against Arlen Specter for a Senate nomination in Pennsylvania, says the White House dangled a federal job in front of him in an attempt to entice him to drop out of the state’s Democratic primary, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Friday.

But the White House “vociferously” denies Sestak’s accusation, which came during a taping on a local Sunday news show. A White House official told Fox News that Sestak is expected to “clarify” the allegation.

Sestak, however, stood by his statement on Friday.

“I was asked a direct question yesterday and I answered it honestly,” Sestak told Fox News. “There’s nothing more to go into. I’m in this race now.”

Sestak didn’t elaborate on the circumstances during the Sunday show interview either, the Inquirer reported, but acknowledged that the job was a high-ranking position. Sestak told the show’s host that he would “never leave” the Senate race for a deal, the newspaper said.

Sestak later he said he recalled the White House offer coming in July as he was preparing to formally announce his Senate candidacy in August, the newspaper said.

During the same period this summer, the White House played an active role in clearing the primary for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the New York primary. President Obama persuaded Rep. Steve Israel not to challenge Gillibrand, and the White House may have figured prominently in Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s decision to stay out of the race. Harold Ford, who is mulling a challenge against Gillibrand, has warned the White House not to bully him.

__________________________________________________

I fully expect to get kicked off the “John Mellencamp For Senate” Facebook pages in record time for opining on Johnny Cougar’s vast political experience, acumen and good judgment. What do you expect from a guy who, back in 1987, talked about how much he could care less about the renovation of the Statue of Liberty (for its 100th centennial birthday celebrations) and would rather have seen the $$$ be spent on other what he believes were more “important” things (the old zero-sum game the Libs love to love – why can’t we challenge ourselves and do both?) – “I can live without [that] landmark…Who gives a sh*t? I don’t care if it falls down…doesn’t mean anything to me.”((link here, fast forward to 7:30 mark)?

And don’t forget the 12 people named “Mellencamp” in Johnny’s hometown of Seymour, IN getting $1.14 million in farm subsidies. Yay, Big Government Farm Subsidies! Thanks to Nick Gillespie at Reason Hit and Run

Cool music….crappy politics. Another pet peeve of mine…simply because some people have some sort of talent – the ability to speak into a microphone, to assume a character role, to emote in front of a camera, to write catchy little musical arrangements or put together a number of words in an intellectually or emotionally pleasing way – they (or others) believe they have some innate ability to forge municipal or state or federal governmental policy. Citizen politicians – as opposed to professional politicians – do have a role in our government, but for Pete’s sake, apply at least a *modicum* of intellectual rigor when voting for or against them!

Case in point…Al Franken. I don’t know what reflects worse…the people of Minnesota who voted for that moron or the Senate who accepted him into their ranks. The former I can understand…there are idiots in every state. The latter? I suppose I understand as well since the collective political goodness (and political effectiveness, thank goodness) of that upper chamber is in the toilet, as well.

And let’s say it snows two feet or so in an area that rarely gets more than a handful of inches most every year.

And let’s say one side of the roof of your hangar collapses.

And let’s say you want to see a picture of what it looks like.

Dulles International Airport (IAD).

Ouch.

Thanks to the Old Man and his buddy Ken from South Africa.

It is considered impolite to speak ill of those who have passed away, so I will refrain from any comments at this time.