Redeploy This!

Over the past year or so the favorite phrase of the democrats regarding the war in Iraq usually has been a variation of “We are calling for a full redeployment of troops.”  The term redeploy (or  slight variations of it) as used by Democrats completely drives me up the wall and is the stupidest word I have heard used in a politics. And the funny thing is, the media never-ever calls them out it.  What a bunch of hacks.

Redeploy, especially to those of us with military backgrounds, implies sending a deployed troop from one deployment to a different one; something like redeploying a troop from Iraq to Afghanistan.  If it doesn’t conjur this view up, it makes us think a soldier is being deployed yet again after a short stint home.  But does any soldier actually hear the term “redeployment” and think, “hey, that means I’m going home?”  Probably not, at least not until it became a political buzz word for our anti-Iraq left.

Basically the term redeployment is a rouse.  It is a cover term that carries far less political baggage that saying we are going tuck our tails, retreat, and run home in the face of even the slightest opposition.  Certainly by using the term redeployment, it protects the dems politically.  Most Americans don’t pay attention to where candidates actually stand, nor do they care (just look at the success of Obama);  basically we allow uninformed ignorant people to choose our leaders.  So the average voter hears the term redeployment and thinks, “oh they care about the troops and are going to bring them home in an honorable and militaristic fashion”, for the word redeployment sounds militaristic.  What a bunch of suckers.

The thing that drives me nuts it that no one that I have seen, until this post, has called anyone out for it.  Am I the only one that notices this?  I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.   It reminds of how no one seems to notice that the phrase “I could care less” makes absolutely no sense”.   What is wrong with people?  Anyway,  let’s stop allowing the left a free pass for making up words (is redeploy even a word?) and then using them to try to con the people.  In fact, we should call out people from whatever persuasion for doing this.  We should demand that the lefties say what they mean and that is, “we need to surrender and bring are troops home now.”    Hold their feet to the fire.

Open Thread: Who’s Our Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, or Washington?

One of my favorite books is John Adams by David McCullough.  Last night on HBO a multi-part series began based on this book and the life of John Adams.   Whenever I study American history and the revolutionary period I am awe struck by the passion most of these men appear to have had for freedom and liberty; for doing what was best for the American people and not necessarily for themselves. 

This really struck home as I watched the show last night when the King of England decreed that any one in remote open rebellion against the crown would tried for treason and hung.  Each of the men in the continental congress knew this applied to them.  There was a somber and reflective mood amongst them as it sunk in that they were officially outlaws and traitors.  Yet rather than dispanding and sinking back into line with the British, they became united and the push for independence became stronger.

This got me to think about how fortunate we were to have such men at that time in our country.  I have no doubt that they were ordained by God from before the foundations of the world to be born when and where they were and to play such an important role.  Then I began to think about our situation today and compare our current crop of politicians and leaders with those whom I call the “big-4”.  The big-4 consists of George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson.  These four people set themselves apart from the rest as the key players in America’s independence. 

Sadly,  when I look at our prospects todayI only see one leader that I would call a modern-day (insert-name here), and that is Gen. Petraeus.    He could arguably be our modern-day Washington.  Not that he will go down with the same acclaim or has accomplished as great a work as Washington, but he is innovative, a strong leader, honest, and rescued our military from what seemed to be a hopless situation.

However on the political front, I see little of note.  It disgusts me that our current choices for the next President are McCain, Clinton, and Obama.  We have a guy who has a terrible temper, drops f-bombs on capital hill interns regularly, and dumped his first wife to marry into money.  We have a lady who can’t be trusted, has been in more scandals than can be counted, and is as dirty as mud.  And a no-experience senator who refuses to take a stand on any issue really and rarely votes;  when he does it is usually after everyone else to see what side is going to win.  Really, I am extremely disappointed with the options we are presented and see no reason for optimism for the next 4 years. 

One  of the reasons I was such an ardent supporter of Romney is that I really believed that he wanted to help the country, it wasn’t a quest for power or money.   This is a country that needs fixing bad, especially with the economy, and Romney was the guy to do it. Not only that, but he is a good person, honest and a man of integrity.  However, now we are stuck with a bunch of candidates that are terrible really. 

Nevertheless, to find a silver lining, I would like all of you to propose which modern-leaders would you put into the category of an Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, or Washington?  Why?    These leaders can and should be from both parties as no one party has the exclusive right to good leadership or, conversely, scandal. 

So I will begin and the first one I can think of is Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona.  Here is a guy who is principled and determined.  He does not sway with opinion polls and seems to genuinely care about the path our country is taking as opposed to lining his own coffers.   He may never become more prominent than a congressman, but I sure hope he does.    So who do you like?

Ruh-Roh Obama

This should throw yet another red-flag for everyone who supports Obama. I recognize that Obama’s preacher’s views are not necessarily his own, and I was a Romney guy so I am inclined to allow Religion to go by the way-side, but considering Obama has attended this particular congregation for twenty years and the preacher speaking in the video below married he and his wife. Watch and consider, let me know what you think.

There is some pretty crazy stuff in there. Now I don’t think that Obama believe much if any of what his preacher said in that video, but if he does, that should concern everyone.  Another thing that I know is that if a White candidate had a white preacher who said such things about both America and switched the White comments in the video for Black, there would massive outrage and indignation.  That candidate would either be laughed off the stage or forcibly removed due to shame.  The double-standard in our society is ridiculous, but I suppose that that is the way it is.

Anyway, I would highly encourage all of you who support Obama, but don’t really know much about what he stands for, to research and consider his stances.  They are not good, they are far more socialist than Hillary’s and are dangerous for our country.

Oh Please, Oh Please Go to Convention

Last night was a great night for American politics.  Over the last month, all we have been hearing is that Barack has it all but locked up and Hillary should drop out, despite the fact that results in Ohio and Texas looked positive for her and win in each of those could sway momentum massively.   Indeed, that is what occurred;  in one night the Democratic race went from blow-out to a neck and neck race, and this is great for we Americans.  Especially for people like me who like to witness historical events and new things that I may never get to experience again.

Last year in the NFL season I rooted for the Pats to win the Super Bowl just so that I could witness a team go undefeated, I cheered as Bonds hit number 756 because it was historical (partially because I am a die hard Giants fan), and I was enthralled with Kosovo declaring independence.   These events and many like it captivated me because of the historical nature both of the event and, in some instances, the circumstances surrounding it.  

In this same way I am praying that the Democratic race go to convention without a candidate.  I would love to witness a convention being played out in the way they are intended to, in a chess game of strategy and smoke-filled back room deals.  Sure, those kinds of things are shady and unfortunate, but the sheer excitement and historical nature of the whole idea of a brokered convention would be great entertainment and fun to watch. 

Sure, many of you will say, “Swint, this is serious stuff, Politics is not for your own personal entertainment”.  I agree with you, however, as long as Hillary or Barack come out of the convention with the nomination, the Democrats will have a legitimate nominee who is capable and has the support a solid chunk of the American electorate.  In other words, “no harm, no foul”.  On the other hand, the worst thing that could occur is if someone other than those two came out of the convention with the nomination, this would be devastating and unfortunate.  However there is no chance that will happen.  So why not enjoy this political season for the historical nature that it is?  Let’s keep it going.  The only way this could be better is if the GOP went to convention and Mitt came out on top, but that possibility dead, so I must settle on the hope that the Democratic voters will continue to split their vote. 

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership will likely never allow this to go all the way to convention. The convention is just too close to the general election.  So sometime in June after all the states have voted and if no one candidate has secured the nom, a back-room deal will be hashed out.  (And let me say, if it get’s to that, Hillary will be the nominee based upon the age of Barack.  Barack will be told that no matter what he will have the backing of the Party in the next go around).  That will be disappointing, but what can we do?  Anyway, here’s to hoping that we get to witness some history this Summer; besides the only way I spend more than thirty seconds caring about the Democratic convention is if it is brokered. 

My Obamania is Over

Well, not that I was ever an Obama supporter, but I certainly considered voting for him over McCain, especially if Huckabee were on the ticket.  However, now that I am actually looking at what Obama stands for and what he believes, any interest I had in him has completely dissolved. 

Sure, Obama is charismatic, a good speaker, and seemingly a good person but I need more than that.  Last week I discovered his, if not support, indifference for partial birth abortion something that is absolutely unacceptable.   Now, this morning I read an article by David Frum published by the National Post titled Hillary Has a Point.    This article mentions some troubling things about Barack that further diminishes him and potentially makes him my third choice behind both McCain and Hillary (How can that be?!).

The first thing that sticks out to me is that Obama has pledged unconditional and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  While I don’t believe he would actually be stupid enough to carry out such a pledge, it is still worrying.   Remember, conservatives demanded pledges from candidates regarding taxes and abortion, people take these things seriously.  With such a pledge, if Obama were to win the Presidency and then four years from now we still have a presence in Iraq his supporters are going to be up in arms and may likely revolt.  It could be comparable to Bush 41’s “read my lips” debacle.    Frum goes on to say that Hillary has “given every indication of being a more responsible commander-in-chief than Obama.”

Further, Obama has agreed to meet with such despotic leaders as Ahmadi-Nejad, Chavez, and Castro (Raul version).  And while I certainly think that our foreign policy can almost be childish regarding whom we will and will not talk to, these talks certainly should not be done without conditions and should not be openly encouraged. 

Obama has consistently demonstrated his weakness and a lack of judgement with foreign policy.  Perhaps he and Ron Paul should hook up.   I still have a lot to learn about each of the three candidates still remaining, but I will be honest, if I didn’t already know Hillary and know of her character (or lack thereof) and just went solely on her campaign rhetoric, she would be right up there with McCain on whom I would support in November.  However, she lost me well before the campaigning began, she is a bad person.  I don’t care how much I may agree with a person’s policies, character and honesty goes a long way and are essential for my vote.  

So while it appears that Obama is tops for character and integrity (but what do I know), he is third on policy and ideas.  So apparently my only option left is a “hold-nose” vote for McCain, but I don’t know if I can do it.  I may not be voting for President this cycle or will write in Mitt just for fun.

P.S.  Zen, it is time for you to stop your silly support for Obama :).