Stay Strongand thanks for watching.
 

At least you guys are "watching". Could be your short hairs are standing up? Maybe it's the strong turn toward Socialism that grates against the Constitution and the help the POTUS has to pull this off. I don't watch MSM so maybe I'm missing something. Thanks for watching, it's just some of us are taking greater steps in preparing. By all means alert the rest of us when this assault on the US Constitution is off.

I too believe in the power of the Constitution, but any attempt to "fix" it after the 2nd amendment is negated, will not be as possible, because the Government will no longer fear the people.
Richard I have always enjoyed and respected and still do respect thoughts through your posts. Blitzzz

Remember...
 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that "they" aren't really out to get you.

That depends. If you want to keep out the Bertol rays, then yes.

Another Perspective
 

Given the tenor of posts on this thread, I thought this article was timely.


David Horowitz :: Townhall.com Columnist <http://wntp.townhall.com/columnists/DavidHorowitz>
Obama Derangement Syndrome
by David Horowitz

I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the right which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the Bush Is Hitler crowd on the left.

<http://magazine.townhall.com/coulter>

(Speaking of this Bush is Hitler crowd, have you see any "I am so sorry” postings from that quarter as Obama continues and even escalates the former president's war policy in Afghanistan and attempts to consolidate his military occupation of Iraq?)

Conservatives, please. Let's not duplicate the manias of the left as we figure out how to deal with Mr. Obama. He is not the anti-Christ, although a disturbing number of people on the right are convinced he is.

I have recently received commentaries which claim that "Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history" and "never has a politician in this land had such a quasi-religious impact on so many people" and "Obama is a narcissist" which leads the author of to then compare Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Excuse me while I blow my nose.

These fellows have failed to notice that all politicians are narcissists – and that a recent American president was a world class exponent of the imperial me. So what? Political egos are one of the reasons the founders put checks and balances on executive power. As for serial lying, is there a politician that cannot be accused of that? And once, the same recent president set a pretty a high bar in this category, and we survived it. As for Obama's speeches, they are hardly in the Huey Long, Louie Farrakhan, Fidel Castro vein. They are in fact eloquently and cleverly centrist and sober. So what's the panic?

It is true that Obama has shown surprising ineptitude in his first months in office, but he's not a zero with no accomplishments as many conservatives seem to think --- unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing. But in doing this you fall into the Bush-is-an-idiot bag of liberal miasmas.

It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this? After all, Bush and McCain both proposed (and in Bush's case pushed through) massive government giveaways (which amount to government takeovers as well). This is bad but it doesn't make Obama a closet Mussolini, however deplorable conservatives among us may regard it. Moreover, he's already run into political resistance even within his own party. Charlie Rangel has made it clear that the itemized deduction tax hike is not going through his committee – and that should tell you that the American system, the one the Founders created, is still in place.

Even as astute a conservative thinker as Mark Steyn has been swept up in the tide that thinks Obama is a “transformative” radical. But look again at his approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, as noted, he is carrying out the Bush policies – the same that he once joined his fellow Democrats in condemning. And that should be reassuring to anyone concerned about where he is heading as commander-in-chief.

In other words while it's reasonable to be unhappy with a Democratic administration and even concerned because the Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the anti-Christ. A good strategy for political conflicts is to understand your opponent first -- not to underestimate him, but not to overestimate him either.

Once conservatives do that they will find some silver linings in the first moves of the Obama Administration. Through a combination of ineptitude and zeal, Obama has in two short months locked down the conservative and Republican base. On fetal stem cell research, on borders (e-verification), on spending, on unions, on shutting down talk radio, Obama has flexed the leftist muscle so nakedly and unmistakably that there isn’t a conservative left who will vote Democratic in the next election (and there were many who did so in the last).

As we move forward, Obama faces increasingly tough choices in the wars against Islamic fascism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza and Iran. Hopefully he will make the right choices, and should he do so conservatives will need to be there to support him. If he makes the wrong choices, conservatives will need to be there to oppose him. But neither our support nor our opposition should be based on hysterical responses to policies that we just don't like. Let’s leave that kind of behavior to the liberals who invented it.


My own opinion, is President Obama the anti-Christ? No. Do I agree with the path he is leading this nation down? No. As many have stated on the MSM, they believe the POTUS is trying to do too much too fast. If I was in his position I would be doing the same; pushing my agenda as quickly as I could, given the political environment. People are still willing to cut him some slack on the economy, but that is going to start waning very soon. He realizes his party is going to lose, and loose big in the 2010 mid-term elections. So he better get done what he can now.

With that being said, I still believe there are enough centrist minded democrats that will vote with the republicans when push comes to shove on many issues. They know if they don't, they will be voted out.

I also believe a good deal of harm will come to this nation, due to current policies. But I do believe in America and Americans, and don't believe it will be irreparable harm.

Grief!
 

Please by all means believe in America and the American people after all a little over half voted for this, not knowing what "this" is. You mean to believe the same DEMs that have allowed a 3 trilion debt and still want to give more will stop what? Gun control, You do know better. The part about moving too fast too soon is correct but for the wrong reason. Obama didn't expect to move this fast and much of the timing of his distruction of America has been noticed by too many and honestly scares many. The MSM folks will always try to denigrate the Right. As I said the Constitution is a CONSERVATIVE document, a recipe for a great stew, which will be saurered by changing the recipe. Obama is no Chef, at least not enough to rival the founding fathers.
Blitzzz

I do believe in America and Americans. Every day I talk to people who have families, just like I do, who have the same worries I do, who get up in the morning and work their butts off, just like I do. The only difference between us is that they may be of a different political party than I support. Gee, let me stop being friends with them because they are "enemies of the state". They voted for Obama, so that means they do not care about this country as much as I do.

If my brother in law, who is the end all be all left wing liberal, who at one point believed Obama is the savior, can sit down and talk to me this past week about how he deplores the recent decisions of the current administration; then there is hope for us all. Yes there is a lot of buyers remorse out there. If the republicans can harness it in a way that does not rub their faces, and say "I told you so", so as to alienate them, then maybe we will be able to bring them a little closer to a different way of thinking.

If you don't believe the looming mid-term elections has anything to do with the President's time line, there is nothing I can do to change you mind. But having been in the legislative world for a short bit of time, I can tell you through experience it has a huge impact. Much the same as it did after the 2004 election, when President Bush knew he would have a huge fight after the 2006midterm elections.


As for me, I have never been, and never will be and Us vs. Them type of person when it comes to politics. Just because someone does not sign themselves up to the same political philosophy I espouse does not make them any less American than I am, and in the end, if I can be a good steward of my political philosophy, then maybe, just maybe I can get them to stand in my shoes some of the time and see things my way. They can expect the same of me. Bashing them in the nose only alienates them, and drives them further away, and thereby ending any kind of discussion before it starts.

JMHO.

Is Martial Law a possibility?

In my personal and professional opinion, no.

It would not be tolerated by that 10% of Americans that have actually defended this country and it's Constitution.

I too will sit patiently and keep the faith as long as I keep my guns.;)

Team Sergeant

Blitzzz--

I understand that you take exception to my posts in this thread and, perhaps, my line of argument more generally.

I've been labeled many things by many people: fascist (by at least one professor), hard line right winger (by colleagues and friends), right wing apologist, militarist (in fact I'm a navalist), revisionist, intellectual elitist, post-structuralist, post-modernist, racist, redneck, libertarian, lefty, social democrat, and socialist.

Yet, to my knowledge, you are the only one who has suggested that I'm not thoughtful. On the contrary, on many occasions, I've been asked and told to not speak my views so that I'd not make colleagues, bosses, and clients feel stupid.

What I've actually said is that I do not see contemporaneous events unfolding in patterns similar to historical reference points including the Great Depression, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the many events of labor and social unrest between 1865 and 1970, or, for that matter, the first or second Red Scare, or the Vietnam War.

Do these views make me a leftist? Or, as you suggest, does my reading of the past make me an unthinking advocate of decades of peer reviewed historical scholarship tainted by political bias. In regards to the former, I'll leave it to interested parties to draw their own conclusions as to where I fit in their political spectrum.

As for the latter, I am confident that I've been clear and consistent in my criticisms of the profession of academic history <<LINK>>. If there's a doubt as to where I fit in with that cohort, I'll share this. Several weeks ago, I had a long talk with an established professor. As we sipped our caffeinated drinks, he started laughing. He looked at me and said "If you'd been born ten years earlier you might have been able to get a job [as an academic historian]...maybe."

Bluntly, and with respect, I disagree with your analysis of the Constitution based upon a political left, middle as left, and right schema. As an undergraduate, I had to sit through a mind numbingly boring class in which Charles Sellers, no friend to the political right, read from a manuscript, parts of which became The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 and made essentially that same argument. At the end of each lecture, we'd cap our pens, shut our notebooks, and file out of the classroom, some of us sharing conspiratorial eye rolls that asked alternatively "How is it possible for one guy to make both Jeffersonian AND Jacksonian America so boring?", "Hasn't anyone told this guy that the sixties are over and that diatribes centered around dialectical materialism against capitalism are soooo played?"

Moreover, as ratified, the Constitution codified the disenfranchisement of significant numbers of Americans. Over time, that, and other, defects have been 'patched' and 'upgraded.' It is difficult to support the contention that some of the beneficiaries of those changes, including Gov. Sarah Palin, Jackie Robinson, and Condoleezza Rice as leftists by any definition of that term in American political discourse.

Sigaba:

I find your comments polite, respectful, well-reasoned, well-documented, and well-presented.

Continue to post them, I find the reading of merit and intellectually stimulating. Dissention is not a crime here.

I look forward to professional discussions and disagreements with you in the future.:D

TR

Where do I start?
 

Sigaba, Reaper's right without a darkside there would be no light, so conyinue your swell posts. I shant ingage your mentate again as I am obviously unarmed. It has been suggested to me by a Harvard Historian the "Sigba should read more history..."

Afchic, what are you spouting about not liking any other people in other parties? NOT what I said.
I'm not a Republican. I am a Constitutionalist, and it is a way of life, not a party.
I can only vote for those who will hurt the constitution least. Very rarely are they Dems. As for you, cunmbahyah and hope all will work out for you and what I fear never happens.
I in no way ask you or anyone else to Hate any party, that is some assumption of yours. not a good way to make an arguement. Beware of the enemys of the Constitution, Party regardless.
By all means enjoy America, someone has always paid for it. BLITZZZ

There are a lot of us that have paid for it. Thank you for your service.

Sigaba, I wonder if I might ask two questions. I lack your background in history, so the questions may be poorly crafted.

1) You mentioned "E.P. Thompson, the Frankfurt School, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci". It's my understanding that they were notably socialist, if not true Marxists. And, it's also my understanding that they specifically and intentionally set out to transform America through the higher education system. Supposedly, over the decades, they have succeeded.

So - is this true? Have they shifted the political orientation of the American population over the past 60 years or so?

2) You mention (if I may attempt to summarize) that conditions are not right for a shift toward totalitarianism, if we consider events in past societies. As you may recall, one central premise I consider is a rapid, substantial, wide-spread, and enduring decline in living standards, both globally and domestically. In recollection, German society changed substantially after hyperinflation and the subsequent crash. Of course, one reason for the hyperinflation was an attempt to offset WWI reparations payments. I note in passing that the U.S. may have debt issues to.

Therefore - would your views change if the U.S. economy were to degrade a lot?

Blitzzz--

I understand that my posts do not strike you as thoughtful or well reasoned. Although you're clearly being ironic, I want there to be no mistake or misunderstanding. I hold your intellect in high regard. I find your thought subtle. Your humor is infectious. Your courage is inspirational. I have profited from reading your posts and I shall continue to do so regardless of what ever differences we may appear to have.

I think we do agree that the current president wants to take the country in a direction that has the potential to be catastrophic. I think we differ on the direction. I think we differ on how we should engage the issues and our political opponents.

In regards to the unnamed Harvard professor, his view may center around the fact that he may sense that I'm drawing on the scholarship of some of his colleagues (Charles S. Meier, David Blackbourn, Nancy F. Cott, Lizabeth Cohen, Drew Gilpin Faust, and the legendary Akira Iriye) with whom he may have some disagreements with of his own.

If this unnamed professor is the venerable Ernest May, I would say, with all due respect to his contributions to our understanding of how an understanding of domestic politics can inform the study of foreign policy, to his service to at least one government agency, and his to guidance on 'thinking in time,' I have some feedback on how he trained and professionalized one of his graduate students.

If this unnamed professor is Niall Ferguson, I would point to B.H. Liddell Hart and A.T. Mahan as cautionary tales of what happens to the professional reputation of historians who endeavor to be celebrities and prognosticators. We serve Klio, not Urania.

In any case, I welcome this unnamed individual's recommendations provided the person disclose to me an email address and his (or her) name, especially if it is Peter Gordon and he wants me to read works by Martin Jay.

And yet the services still use their works as solid historical references.

Are you referring to their professional rep among their peers, their critics, or their students?

TR

Although these questions weren't directed at me, I would like to offer the following for consideration here:

Minding the Campus

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/

University Diaries

http://www.margaretsoltan.com/

Students for Academic Freedom

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

One-Party Classroom
David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine our Democracy.

Indoctrination U. The Left's War Against Academic Freedom
David Horowitz

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America
David Horowitz (e.g., Angela Davis is a professor at UC-Santa Cruz)

IMO - the fact that America has known several centuries of successful democratic republicanism and is not a post-war and post-empirical ad hoc republic (e.g., Weimar) are KEY facts bearing on any supposition we posit in regards to this debate. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Thank you, Sir. I always value your perspectives.

It appears that there is a pro-socialist orientation on campuses, although there is also some resistance. And the U.S., unlike the Weimar Republic, has strong traditions that oppose authoritarian rule.

Therefore, if I understand correctly, your perception is that we will drift toward socialism, but not totalitarianism. It that right?

Or maybe we won't drift too far towards either, but towards a compromise we just can't imagine yet.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

TR--

This post answers your question in relation to Mahan.

Mahan's reputation among historians has gone through three overlapping phases. The first phase went from roughly 1901 to about 9 May 1969. The second phase, began in 1963 and continues to this day. A third phase, overlapping the second phase, began around 1980 and continues to the present day. (References available on request.)

In phase one, in no small part thanks to his own efforts at self-promotion, Mahan was viewed as an intellectual giant and a prophet of sea power. In 1943, Margaret T. Sprout titled her panegyric essay, “Mahan: Evangelist of Sea Power” for the original version of Makers of Modern Strategy. The essay argues (on page 436) "[f]ew persons leave so deep an imprint on world events as left by Mahan, and fewer still live to see so full a realization of their life's work. When Mahan died...the impact of his writings had been felt in every admiralty; his views had profoundly affected civilian thinking and public policy in America, in Europe, and even in the Far East."

From there, the man's reputation had no where else to go but down. During the second phase, historians have taken a sustained critical look at the influence of Mahan on sea power and on naval affairs. Some of these works, best represented by Walter LaFeber's The New Empire (1963) situates Mahanian theory at the foundation of America's predatory imperialism.*

Others works published in this second phase explore the historical basis of Mahanian theory; point out that Mahan was not the only navalist advocating an ocean going fleet; that he had limited influence on the development of foreign navies; and demonstrate that his views were often at variance with those whom he allegedly influenced. Some of these works were produced by former armed service officers and were published under the auspices of the Naval War College or the U.S. Naval Institute. These works are part of larger debates over the efficacy of Mahanian theory as a basis for naval strategy during World War II and a potential general war against the Soviet Union. The most accessible of these works are Ronald Spector's Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan (1985) and Kenneth Hagan's This People's Navy: The Making of American Sea Power (1991). The most important piece of scholarship from this phase is Robert Seager, Jr.'s, Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Man and His Letters (1977) and the three volume collection of Mahan's letters that Seager edited. My own two cents are that Mark Shulman's Navalism and the Emergence of American Sea Power, 1882-1893 (1995) is under appreciated.

Works produced in the third phase incorporate the findings of works produced in the second phase but are close to the works of the first phase in their appreciation of Mahan and Mahanian theory. This is to say, they accept the findings presented in Seager's warts and all biography but demonstrate that Mahan and his theories of sea power were relevant and remain a sound foundation for American naval power. The crown jewel of this phase is Edward Miller's War Plan ORANGE: The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897-1945 (1991). In my estimation, the most intriguing example of this phase is Michael Vlahos, The Blue Sword: The Naval War College and the American Mission, 1919-1941 (1980)

The ongoing debate over Mahan and Mahanian theory illustrate the difficulties that can arise from the tensions between the sensibilities of professional historical scholarship where definitive answers to big picture questions are far and few between (we still don't know the answer to the question "Was the American Civil War the first modern war?") and using history as the basis for policy and strategy (where there's a 'need it yesterday' desire for the 'lessons of history').

If the navy argues that it needs a 600-ship fleet so it can have enough carrier battle groups to sail into the Soviet Union's home waters to attack their ballistic missile submarines, the question "Will the Maritime Strategy work?" can quickly become complicated by the ongoing historical discussions about Mahan (the man had some gruesome 'warts'--his views on racial difference have not aged well), his theory of sea power, the influence of Jomini, the alleged elitism of the naval officer corps, the lessons of the Battle of Guadalcanal, and a whole range of issues. These issues can merge with the 'here and now' debate over ships, nuclear propulsion, stand off weapons, range of air craft, reliability of Aegis cruisers and destroyers, just how much is all of this going to cost, and what happens if the captain of a ship or a submarine that is about to get sunk decides to go 'to hell with it' and use nuclear weapons?

Thankfully, the question "will it work" is, for now, mostly a matter of interest to historians. Unless you're one of those historians trying to answer that question...in which case, you're learning to embrace the joy that comes from trying to figure out the influence of Mahan the person, the cultural legacies of navalism, and his theories on the maritime strategy debate.


____________________________
* It is worth noting that LaFeber's interpretation was taken to task. Paul S. Holbo, “A View of The New Empire” (paper presented at a meeting of the Organization of American Historians, New Orleans, LA, 16 April 1971), 1-13; William H. Becker, “Overseas Markets for Textiles and Steel, 1893-1920” (paper presented at a meeting of the Organization of American Historians, 19 April 1974), 1-19. FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with James A. Field, "American Imperialism: The Worst Chapter in Almost Any Book," American Historical Review 83 (June 1978): 644-668.

I honestly believe no American soldier will not defend our Constitution.
I also believe that the vast majority of our military have a sense of honor and duty to this country that will require them to not take or obey orders that would have them harm fellow Americans on the soil they are oath bound to defend. I just refuse to believe otherwise.

You know times are tough though when you have 90 yr old women stockpiling ammo and buying thier dtrs glocks for birthday presents.
When you see people like me who are not againts guns, just have not recently needed to have them around.. are looking at figuring out how to get in a tactical gun course only open to military and LEO's... because we do not want to be a liability to our other half if anything does go down.









The rapidity of the ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED spending of the taxpayers money will burden my children, grandchildren, and perhaps even an additional generation. There will be no "standard of living" for the American people. Simply survival. When the Armed Forces of the United States are turned against it's own citizens in order to support an agenda from the Executive Branch - true Patriotism will be tested.
The question was posed "what happens when those services run out?" You need look only to Katrina -
The masses: looting, robbery, preying upon the weak, mob mentality
The few: defensive measures, personal and family protection, survival
The government: remove the ability for the few to survive against the masses, take away their guns, raid their stockpiles, remove them from their personal shelters, perpetuate fraud, waste what little dollars we have on people who refused to listen in the first place.

The Jihad is again on American soil. The word "Patriot" is now more important than ever.

Eagle[/QUOTE]

Your questions are always well phrased and intricate.

I would argue that they have not significantly impacted the trajectory of American politics. Between 1968 and 2008, how many genuinely liberal presidents have we had? By my tally, just Carter.*

What they have accomplished is to alter fundamentally the way many scholars view history. I don't know if scholars have been able to translate these new methods and practices into a coherent, workable agenda for political change even in their own departments. At its heart, 'publish or perish', the guiding principle of all academics who want to achieve tenure, is a validation of market capitalism. It says "You want a raise, buddy, earn it." It is my observation that the mandate to publish**, combined with the insecurities endemic to the craft, and other professional demands, really limit a scholar's ability to advance a political agenda among undergraduates.

Graduate students, and undergraduates majoring in history are a different story. Yet, even when a professor has the opportunity to shape the intellectual and professional development of a student, what are you going to get but yet another overspecialized intellectual who has spent so much time at the "cutting edge" of the field that she (or he) is going to have a very difficult time communicating even with her (or his) colleagues to say nothing of social peers, friends, and family. (When undergraduates would ask me about getting really serious about history, e.g., going to graduate school, I'd let them know they needed to prepare themselves for the possibility that every relationship in their lives would irrevocably change--and rarely for the better.)

Where they've made the most advances (or done the most damage) is in how we look at culture. Yet here their success is also limited. In laying siege to our understanding of traditional American mores, by questioning the legitimacy of all forms of cultural practice, they have helped to broaden some horizons and help to improve some of these practices. Woman on top is not necessarily a bad thing.

But they also let open Pandora's box and haven't figured out how to shut it. Along with their discussion of the culture industry, of base and superstructure, and of cultural hegemony, they altered the arena as they pushed out traditional-minded historians. Into the resulting void have rushed who are proving to be their scourge. Namely, cultural historians who speak of post-structrualism, post-modernism, deconstruction, the linguistic turn, intertextuality, intersubjectivity, and a whole host of associated terms in books that are often very badly written. (Some are brilliant and ignored at one's own peril.)

Now, you have job talks in which the faculty members who are going to make the decision to hire a prospective professor can not understand what the applicants are talking about. Flip a coin and hope for the best--resistance is futile.

And if you really want to see how radical professors are, how eager they are to stick it to the man and give power to the people? Suggest that they should not have parking that is both free and reserved. Suggest that such a change in policy can help a school save hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of dollars that can be used to serve better the needs of the student body. Empty your inbox; you're about to get some hate mail, maybe a death threat. I am not kidding. Nor am I bitter.

The key difference in our outlooks is where we place economics in our matrices of causal factors. For me, economic factors are subordinate to other factors. This is one of the reasons why I read your posts so intently (though rarely with as much comprehension as I'd like).

IMHO, we're living in an age where culture is the dominant force for historical change. I think that the strength of American culture is what the jihadists both fear and desire. At the core of this strength is an enduring faith in the power that comes from our diversity. Right now, we've got some cultural issues that keep me up at night, not the least are:

• a deepening infatuation with mediocrity,
• the appropriation and corruption of the concept of 'strategy' from the armed forces. This appropriation began during the closing stages of the Second World War, intensified throughout the Cold War, took another turn to the south after Vietnam, and is absolutely running amok today.***
• the re-emergence of America's long standing anti-intellectualism,
• a misplaced faith in an intellectually bankrupt interpretation of what it means to be 'enlightened'
• uncritical acceptance of vacuous buzzwords (change, transformation, historical crossroads)
• what Richard Hofstadter termed the 'paranoid style'
• really crappy television (reality television is going to destroy the entertainment industry, which is going to piss off the most charismatic people in the world, if this anger turns to political radicalism, I will be really worried. The face of Helen launched a thousand ships, I dread to think what Ms. Jolie and Ms. Roberts can start up if they hold up signs saying "UNION, NOW!")

Moreover, at this moment, we have an appreciation for those among us who protect us from our enemies. If some citizens were to despair utterly and raise up in rebellion, I don't know they'd find it in themselves to press or if they'll unball their fists and go home. Not every civilian has forgotten that we are guarded by men and by women from wolves and jackals that walk on their hind legs disguised as human beings.
____________________________________
* Lewis L. Gould once sent a room full of graduate students into a funk after someone spoke of the rise of American liberalism in the 20th century. He had us go, president by president, from McKinley to Bush the Elder, to answer the question "liberal or not?" When the usual suspects were mentioned, he patiently through each year of their presidencies, pointing out this piece of legislation or that executive decision. Faces got longer and longer--at least for some--as out of ninety two odd years of modern American political history we could point to ten--twelve on the outside--years that were truly liberal in terms of what actually got done. The heartbreak in that room at that moment was, at least for one grad student, hilarious.

**If you ever want to jerk an academic's chain really hard, ask repeatedly "How's that manuscript coming?" If you want to see acts of contrition, read the dedications and acknowledgments in scholarly works. Sometimes, these apologies aren't enough--a copy editor for the previous book sometimes becomes the spouse named in a subsequent work.:eek:

***For god's sake, you're a four person IT department. You don't have a 'strategy'. You have a list of bugs to fix (many of which are widespread if you just cross referenced the trouble tickets) and a restrictive security policy that treats your coworkers [including the folks who are making the product that puts food on your table] as if they were threats. Oh, but let's not lay any of these guys off.

While not the US
 

While not the US.....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Fixing this will cost us (US) lots of resources or lots of money - that we don't have.

Tireless.
 

There are obviously serveral different sets of views here on the real threats are and to think only 12 years of the last 92 were liberial is a false impression based on some contribed ideas that those years were probably encompassed by Roosevelt alone not to mention the likes of CLinton. That arguement can go back to that classroom. Any President acting against the Constitution and Ammendments is to be considered such, and not limited to Fiscal Preference.

Sigaba,your vast knowledge of history should avail to you that the intelligencia of a free society are the targeted enemy of the proletariat. Totally wiped out in many leftist take overs, oops..that would be you. Yes I agree that "We differ on how we should engage the "issues" and our Political opponents.".
You, I assume, would prefere to "engage" intellectually. Thus far that has never stopped a war in the end. Most of us here would prefere to Identify the Opponent's Agenda, their tactics, breakdown their short term goal, interrupt their recruitment of menions, but in the end probably ...warfare. we need to study , act with quick counters, break the chain of of short term goals.

while your posts are informative I quess I would respect your posts more if they were "yours" and not a list of other people's work. What "you think may be more informative to us than a litany of others. At least they would be more reader friendly add more to the point of your thoughts. Blitzzz

One has to wonder:

How much of Mahan’s popularity through most of the 20th Century was not only supported - but enhanced - by the fact that both Churchill and the Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) were navalists, and that world events seemingly dictated the necessity of such forces among the great competing industrial powers of the time?

In October of 1929, Churchill, who had served previously as First Lord of the Admiralty, was on a multi-city speaking tour in the US praising big navies, large weapons programs, and Anglo-American cooperation.*

In 1934, President Roosevelt was using money from the National Recovery Act - part of the New Deal - to build thirty-two warships.**

On 28 Jul 1934 Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor and praised the efficiency and spirit of the military forces stationed there. This event was accompanied by the Navy League’s lobbying in favor of vast American fleets.***

On 3 Apr 1938, the Sunday Magazine section of the NYT published a long article on Roosevelt’s fascination with the navy. “The navy is being run from the White House these days,” wrote Hanson Baldwin, the Times’ military affairs correspondent. Roosevelt, said Baldwin, was “the power behind the gradual extension of our naval strength across the Pacific.” He took a personal interest in questions of ship design, armament, and officer promotion; he was more enthusiastically and knowledgeably “big navy” than the admirals themselves.

In the president’s office, according to Baldwin, were an ashtray with a ship on it, a cigarette lighter in the shape of a ship’s wheel, a barometer, a ship’s clock, paintings of sea scenes and battles, and a model of the four-smokestack flush-deck destroyer - a craft produced under Roosevelt’s supervision during the Great War. In nearly every room of the White House were paintings and lithographs of boats and naval engagements, and there were many ship models on display, too - so many that the White House chief usher was, said Baldwin, “almost at his wit’s end to know how to dispose of all this fleet.”****

Technology and the ability to quickly project power globally though a myriad of methods has changed this focus - somewhat - but on-going events occurring on the 'high seas' today may yet preclude our dismissing all of Mahan's ideas on sea power. I personally think the Mahan debate will go on for a very long time and, because it is so situationally interactive, will have a difficult time finding that singularly conclusive, 'bottom-line' answer (When all else fails, mark 'C') we Americans tend to want for such questions. ;)

Richard’s $.02
_____
*Baker, Human Smoke, p.18
**ibid, p.51
***ibid
****ibid, p.82
NOTE: Mahan and Teddy were also close personal friends.

Sir, if I may be permitted to offer an opinion...

In academia, there is an enormous emphasis on "the literature". My strong impression is that one can hardly get away with writing "The Sun comes up in the East" without at least two references.

As an example, I am in the middle of the comprehensive exams for my latest effort. One question has already required 26 references - and that was for just 16 pages.

Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way.

No offense meant to anyone.

"Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way."
No offense taken.
This is very true, but this is not Academia. Post a Bibliography and then state your mind.
wouldn't hurt to be more personable. Blitzzz

We commonly refer to it simply as tactical vs strategic thinking...and find it unnecessary to consistently qualify a 'given' such as your example. Remember that although many here do consider the strategic implications of matters, QPs are - by nature - pragmatically inclined towards tactical action rather than passive strategic observation.

Here is an oft used phrase instilled in SF soldiers:

Do something. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way...but do something.

BTW - no offense taken. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Armymom,
I will try and answer your assumption, and address the overall post
This post started out with Penn’s Question of “will there be martial Law”, and has devolved into discussion of political parties, patriotism, and knowledge of history.

On the original question, I am a strong Maybe – leaning towards absolutely. I have had a queasy stomach about this for a long time. Here is my rational.
We have an “all volunteer” military, led by GO’s who appear to be more interested in pleasing the sitting SecDef, Senator, or POTUS than standing on strong moral principal. Starting with Jimmy Carter, and continuing to 0Bama, there have been (to my knowledge) NO General Officer that has said this is wrong (slashing Budgets, ill-equipping troops / missions, dangerous ROE, public humilitation), and in protest, offered their resignation.
After they leave AD, there is a whole bunch that say “I never really agreed with that” (whether it’s Waco, Bosnia, or Iraq). Well fella, you had the rank and responsibility to vote with your feet, and you didn’t.
Now imagine an ever-grasping Federal Government that finally commits to some legislation, tax, or treaty that a segment of the populace finds intolerable. They rise up and resist, and we have a set of Joint Chief’s that really want the Military to be relative with the POTUS, and congress, and presto, Federal Troops are dispatched.
Forget “Posse Comitatus”, like the constitution, it’s an outdated concept.
Now the question becomes, will the American Federal Troops, in an all-volunteer American Army, fire on American Citizens.
I cite a 1994 survey that was undertaken by Navy Lt Cmdr. Ernest G Cunningham, for his masters thesis. - “Question 46
This is how the question was posed to the Marines:

"The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."
Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens."
Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they "strongly agree."
A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens.”
Also of concern is the fact, as reported by Cunningham in his thesis, that 97.67 percent of the Marines responded to a question an overwhelming 85.33 percent in the affirmative-that they would be willing to "participate in missions under a U.S. National Emergency Police Force..."
http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/shootus.htm
Survey Questions - http://www.israelect.com/reference/W...rtin/FIRE-1%20[A].htm

SnT

Well - I think we can all pretty much agree that martial law is always a possibility - but whether or not it is a probability is another matter. :confused:

As far as citing a generation old survey of some Marines done by a naval officer regarding a volunteer Army's potential actions - well, I see some issues with that one if nobody else does. :confused:

I also think there is an erroneous trend to undersell our officer corps, too, our GOs included, who - for the most part - actively go about their business while purposefully shying away from the political spotlight and striving to make the system work from the inside. Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote:

Soldiers. We are protected by the most competent, judicious — and lethal — military in the history of civilization. The great tragedy of Iraq is that no one really credits our soldiers for doing the near impossible: they went into the heart of the ancient caliphate, took out a genocidal monster, stayed on to foster consensual government, endured often poisonous attacks from critics at home (Cf. Harry Reid’s the war is “lost”, the slurs from Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Murtha that our boys were terrorists or analogous to Baathists, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.), and triumphed at a cost less than during a major campaign in World War II (e.g., far less than say Iwo Jima, the Bulge, Okinawa, etc).

Today Obama was boasting that he could redirect soldiers to Afghanistan now that Iraq was quiet — as if in his mere 70 days he had anything to do with the bravery and skill that brought Iraq to its improving state, as if we’ve forgotten that he wanted all troops gone by March 2008, declared the surge a failure, and voted to cut off funding for the war. Iraq was won despite the politicians, contrary to the conventional wisdom, and largely due to the ingenuity of our soldiers.

What is the key to the success of our military, other than the traditional civic militarism as outlined in the Constitution and honed over two centuries of fighting? I can think of five reasons why the 21st-century American military is so successful.

1) There is an officer corps whose members are, to be frank, relics of an American past. They are ossified in amber as it were, and really do believe in passé things like honor, duty, country, God, sacrifice, and the continuation of the American experiment. Meet a Marine colonel, an Army major, an Air Force one-star, or a Navy captain and it is often as if you are talking to a younger version of your grandfather, as if we packed thousands of our best in ice around 1945, and then thawed them out in the 21st century. These odd men and women of the old breed will do almost anything as outlined in the Constitution to ensure that their country — you and I — is safe and continues on in perpetuity.

2) Our enlisted men have a rambunctious, upbeat attitude, if you will. This generation of youth seems unafraid, reckless even, and — despite the demonization in popular culture of the military, the male, physicality, etc. — seems to pride in being on the cutting edge of danger. They are superb fighters. Few would wish to test the U.S. Marines; the Marines or Rangers I had met in two visits to Iraq seemed to me far scarier than a masked al-Qaeda terrorist rambling on videos waving his scimitar. Indeed, they were scarier. Talking to a 20-year old Marine in Ramadi with bulging biceps, loaded down with 70 pounds of gear and weaponry, smiling as he lets on that he’s been up for 30 straight hours is a surreal experience.

3) The military has married intellectual life with command. Some of the brightest PhDs I have encountered are Army officers at the LTC and colonel level. The service’s recent efforts to send its best and brightest to graduate history and political science programs are paying real dividends. During the Anbar awakening, I watched a number of presentations by Army colonels on the Iraqi tribal system; they were often more sophisticated and astute talks than what I had usually heard as an academic at scholarly symposia. In short, we have some brilliantly educated and inquisitive — and outspoken — officers who do not see “book” learning at odds at all with Pattonesque audacity. (Now let us hope we can promote this new generation of colonels to generals.)

4) Technology. Something is changing with military technology. New applications and tools seem to be evolving at warp speed. The easily caricatured, clumsy massive industrial complex seems to be outmatched by near instantly created decentralized efforts involving innovative new drones, body armor, and munitions. The soldier adapts to battlefield electronics as he does video games and the internet. For all the slander directed at Donald Rumsfeld, few realize very early on he tried to articulate how new high-tech weaponry had added enormous lethality to military units, without a commensurate increase in manpower. When 90% rather than 10% of bombs and artillery shells hit the intended target it really does mean that in some situations (tragically not always in boots-on-the-ground counterinsurgency), technology can substitute for mere numbers. Technology has not redefined war — itself a human enterprise that stays constant as long as human nature remains the same — but it has surely accelerated its processes, and so far Americans have mastered it like none other.

5) The sinews of war. Someone at Wal-Mart must have taken over the logistics of the U.S. military. Our troops are drowning in “stuff”. Mountain-high pallets of bottled water in the desert. Cat scanners in a tent city. On-line “cafes” amid the IEDs. 3,000-calorie dinners in the middle of nowhere. Bar-codes on everything from ammo boxes to boxes of plastic forks. We joke about this surfeit of things, and how it makes our military slow and plodding. In truth, they can go almost anywhere in the world, and in hours clone almost any landscape in America, from the sewage and power systems to the communications and food. There has never been any logistics remotely comparable to that of the present-day American military.

The real story of the last eight years is not really the political blunders in Iraq, but the ability of the military to adapt, change, and find victory when all said it was lost. In the dark days ahead, I suspect President Obama, once his soft-power initiatives to find peace with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, radical Islam, and Syria, begin to falter (I hope they do not, but suspect they will), will thank god he is commander-in-chief of the military we have. In his accustomed Novus ordo seclorum fashion, he talks always of the “mess” he inherited, never of the rare military he also inherited.

Bottom line for me - my angst is not to the Xanex prescribing stage - yet - so I'll just continue to watch, wait and see - and keep my powder dry and within arm's reach. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

And, just maybe, I'll get more powder while I can... just in case. :lifter

Blitzzz, I thank you for your suggestions. In all candor, I'm trying to find my voice on this BB--a way in which I can communicate my views in a way that aren't jarring to the culture here. (I've read the rules and stickies and visited some of the threads where guests ended their stay by drifting from their lanes.)

I can be quite blunt and that is at times a liability. Last fall, during a discussion of politics with a person IRL over coffee, I offered my view of the Democratic Party. An edited version of the response I received follows.
After that 'discussion', I've been emphasizing a lower key approach. (A reason I joined ps.com is to practice that lower key approach.)

Richard, that is my view as well. What he did was to gather together and synthesize various streams of thought into a package that people could point to and say "That's what I'm talking about." The question though, is when people say "That" what do they mean? And from there, just because we agree on the "That", does that necessarily mean we need battleships? Why not cruisers bristling with torpedoes screened by destroyers bristling with torpedoes? Put the opposition in the position where they can't hold their formation long enough to aim their guns without getting hit?

nmap-- this is part of what is going on with me. I may have mentioned an anecdote in which a history professor came to a dorm in the early morning hours to demand from a student his notes and his sources. The student he came to visit was a classmate of mine. From that point forward, I've been of the better safe than sorry school of documentation: I made a commitment not to offer a historical interpretation without a road map of how I got there.

Twenty years later, a different professor suggested that I didn't really need to have multiple footnotes per sentence and multiple sources per footnote. I laughed nervously, thinking "Don't I?" We reached a compromise in which I didn't have more than one note for a sentence.

To an extent, my approach has been vindicated. Some historians, in their eagerness to achieve popular acclaim, fell into bad documentation practices. Some of their works are hugely important and now the legitimacy of those works is suspect.

An irony here is that my posts of late are the short, personable versions. Most of what I draft gets cut before I hit 'submit reply.'

And here's the rub. I read, think, and write about military affairs but I'm a civilian--high drag, no speed. You BTDT guys have credibility because of where you've been and what you've done. My credibility I must earn every time I step in your house. How do I do that? By doing what I do best--I sure as heck can't come close to doing what you guys do or have done.

One last point, I don't agree that we're at war with our fellow Americans. Things are tense but it isn't war. Doom is not at hand. I am patient not simply because I have an academic background but also because I'm a descendant of African slaves. The president likes to talk about the dreams of his father? Well, if that guy thought about the dreams of his mother's father he'd have a different set of tools. What are those tools? The aforementioned patience; a tireless indefatigable will to resist; a hunger born of rage to defeat your opponent. (If it comes to 'by any means necessary'....)

But before things get to that point--no need to play 'burn, baby, burn'---I'll stick with the tried and true. That includes: learning the opponent's rules, how he thinks, how he feels, what he fears. (They fear Sarah Palin and, based upon their repeated refusals of my invitations to come here and to see the diversity of American thought, they fear you.)

I say, let's lure these self satisfied, self described intellectuals into the parts of the libraries that they should know like the backs of their hands. Let's get in their heads and talk about the meanings of their words. Ask them what they think of this book and that book. Chances are, many won't know. They were playing "Puff puff pass" with a joint over a bag of nacho cheese Doritos.

If they say, "Hey, I'm not as familiar with this as I should be," they may learn a little humility. Then, they'll be ready to have an actual conversation. The conversation will continue over cans of double shot. At the end of the day, we'll go our separate ways. Someone will be thinking "You know, I never really thought of the Second Amendment as a civil right" or "Yeah, I can see why many Americans see us as being in a war...those jihadists write and say some scary shit." And maybe we'll have something to think about as well.

If they stone wall? Drop the library on them, flush their joint down the toilet, take the bag of Doritos.

Richard, thanks for that post. As a loggie, I was pleasantly surprised to see someone refer to the "Sinews of War". Great book if you ever get the chance to read it.

AFChic - I have. Did I ever tell you that I was with the DAO AmEmbassy-Bonn during GW1 and worked for LTG Gus Pagonis as a FAO in his Civil-Mil Ops section (ACSCMO) following that? There were two of us SF types on his staff and life was seldom dull for us in the 21st TAACOM. Have you read Moving Mountains? ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Just another stepin the wrong direction.
 

For those of you who don't feel activated because there's not enough to awaken those feelings try this one.
The President of the United States wants a 7 million person civilian volunteer service "army" planned to have training in weapons and policing work and be given "block warden" orders. It should by noted that a "service" this large would vastly out number the active combat forces., and be in parity with the Militia. They will of course have some other oath to pledge allegiance to the POTUS. That should remove the dilemma of deciding weather to defend the constitution or not.
This won't take full force until most of the guns are secured.
"Disarm the Militia and develop a youth army to do his bidding.

Oh boy, I must be a Loon...
certainly don't research Obama's volunteer service proposals. Blitzzz

Addendum: The plan also calls for a 4 year undergraduate school for "future public sector Leaders for national Service." Basically a achool for "Cadre". Scared yet?

TR--

This abbreviated post addresses the historical reputation of Liddell Hart.

He is, in a way, in the same boat as CSM Haney. Like Haney, he overstated his influence. Like Haney, he stretched the margins in describing his own experiences as a soldier. Like Haney, he disappointed members of his brotherhood.

In Liddell-Hart's case, the brotherhood he let down were his academic colleagues and students, in particular Sir Michael Howard, and his former student, Brian Bond.

Like Haney, Liddell Hart places his readers in a tricky situation. "Did this happen this way?" "Is this interpretation reliable?" "Can I used this to support a critically important recommendation?"

In Liddell Hart's case, these questions came to a head in the 1980s. At that time, the big debates centered around the efficacy of AirLand Battle, various notions of "deep battle," the maritime strategy, and escalation dominance. A group of political scientists sought to derail these discussions. (Their counter points can be found in most issues of International Security published during the Reagan years and in many of the books in the Cornell Studies in Security Affairs series.)

One effort focused on discrediting Liddell-Hart. The inconsistencies of his scholarship had received attention at least as early as 1970 (once again, Michael Howard beat everyone to the punch). But in 1989, John J. Mearsheimer--yeah, that guy:rolleyes: --went to town. He cataloged every sin of omission and commission he could find on Liddell-Hart, up to the point where the reader is watching Liddell-Hart serve his students tea as he bends them to his will. (If he could, one senses that Mearsheimer would have exhumed Liddell-Hart's corpse, taken the body to the pet cemetery, reanimated it, given it an eight hour oral exam, and then killed and dismembered the zombie, burnt the remains, and scattered the ashes to the sea.)

The argument went like this: Liddell-Hart is regarded as the father of blitzkrieg, AirLand Battle and deep attack are presented as updates to blitzkrieg. But, if Liddell-Hart is a fraud, how do we really know what blitzkrieg is about and can we trust it as a model for how we plan to fight our next war?

(The conclusion of these political scientists: you can't trust Reagan or the professional judgment of the American armed services, so let's stick with detente, please.)

Historians are still trying to figure out Liddell-Hart. In the January 2009 issue of the Journal of Military History, Brian Holden Reid looks at Liddell-Hart and J.F.C. Fuller as military reformers. The essay points out:
HTH.

I would agree with Blitzzz that things are getting a little freaky. The populace can develop some strange ideas especially when they are enjoying the entitlement programs. I think that, in ways, academia is another form of entitlement program( kind of joking on that one.) I was subjected to for almost 22 years but managed to retain by identity. A lot of people would support whoever and whatever to keep the free stuff coming.

I think HR-1444 is what Blitzzz is referring to in his last post. Is there an attorney online who could give an opinion on whether or not this would violate the 13th amendment?

I would like to state that I was not trying to go off subject by posting about HR1444. I just think that if it comes out of committee and becomes law that it will provide a mechanism for government to exert huge control and disseminate and imprint the polices of the current regime on the afflicted generation.

I think this is article from an independent forum which is no friend of O-bee's 'visions' gives a better overall view of what is actually being considered. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Obama's Civilian National Security Force
Lee Cary, American Thinker, 2 Apr 2009

Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.

He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.

So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.

The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.

Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,

"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."

Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.

It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."

That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.

Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.

The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.

Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.

In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...nal_secur.html

Pass the ... er... what is that thing called?
 

IMHO, the president strikes me as one of those types who wants everyone to hold hands and say grace before a group of people sit down to a nice meal.

He's not doing it out of piety but just so he can get people to jump through his hoops. Many of the people who clasp hands and bow their heads join in for the right reasons and he thinks they're doing it because of his organization and leadership.

Others are aghast because they see the guy for what he is. Some of these still join in the prayer for the right reasons. A few dissent by not joining hands or by keeping their eyes open through the prayer.

The dissenters and the participants sit down, maybe eying each other. The charlatan at the end of the table smiles to himself as he piles food on his plate--taking the best of the potato salad, the chicken, and the brisket. No one notices his lack of manners as he serves himself before the honored guests have gotten their share. Almost no one.

Big fun until desert is served. That's right, Dozer's Chocolate Cookies. "No, no, those are semi-sweet chocolate morsels. You're probably used to cookies with milk chocolate chips...these are better." You first, Mr. President, you first. (D, at the meet up, I hope you don't mind if I bring baklava.;))

Richard:

Thanks for the reality check.

Sigaba:

Good arguments, but many in the military who are well-read still hold Mahan and Liddell-Hart as experts, and their works as valid. I would pose that sound debate could be made either way. I like your analogy above.

Break, some of the rest of you may want to stop looking for Oliver Stone and Michael Moore grade conspiracies behind every shrub and do some serious studies of the stuff that is out there staring us in the face. The blue helmets do not need to take the black helicopters to your house to destroy America. From the weird, crackpot theories some of you are buying into, I guess you believed that Operation Tailwind, 20th Group's involvement in the King assassination, and the Bush OERs were real as well.:rolleyes:

For the record, I have serious concerns about the future of my country, my rights, and my children's rights. I think we may be on the path to destrruction. I do not think that we are going to see a group of Obama's browwnshirt volunteers riding M1 Abrams to come take our .22s away.

I would suggest that we strive to research our positions, discard the worst of them, present our points in a logical, unemtional manner, and accept that not everyone is going to agree with everything we say.

TR

I have been watching this thread and thought clip from Judge Andrew Napolitano might be of interest in this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDv_f...layer_embedded

Incidents like this lend credence to the so-called Tin Foil Conspiracies and the downward trend to personal freedoms.