Leaked Report: More Forces in Afpak War or 'Mission Failure'

No matter how you slice this; this report does not look good at all.

Now before I quote this; let’s be really clear here. Bob Woodward is not known for telling the truth. Some of the tall tales told in his books, even made the harshest Bush critics wonder, if he was not making stuff up.

Anyhow, Quoting the Washington Post:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”
His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.
McChrystal concludes the document’s five-page Commander’s Summary on a note of muted optimism: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”
But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

However, there are some problems in that region and they are:

The assessment offers an unsparing critique of the failings of the Afghan government, contending that official corruption is as much of a threat as the insurgency to the mission of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, as the U.S.-led NATO coalition is widely known.
“The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government,” McChrystal says.
The result has been a “crisis of confidence among Afghans,” he writes. “Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.”
McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.”
McChrystal continues: “Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population.”
Coalition intelligence-gathering has focused on how to attack insurgents, hindering “ISAF’s comprehension of the critical aspects of Afghan society.”
In a four-page annex on detainee operations, McChrystal warns that the Afghan prison system has become “a sanctuary and base to conduct lethal operations” against the government and coalition forces. He cites as examples an apparent prison connection to the 2008 bombing of the Serena Hotel in Kabul and other attacks. “Unchecked, Taliban/Al Qaeda leaders patiently coordinate and plan, unconcerned with interference from prison personnel or the military.”
The assessment says that Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents “represent more than 2,500 of the 14,500 inmates in the increasingly overcrowded Afghan Corrections System,” in which “[h]ardened, committed Islamists are indiscriminately mixed with petty criminals and sex offenders, and they are using the opportunity to radicalize and indoctrinate them.”

and….:

McChrystal identifies three main insurgent groups “in order of their threat to the mission” and provides significant details about their command structures and objectives.
The first is the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) headed by Mullah Omar, who fled Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and operates from the Pakistani city of Quetta.
“At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Omar announces his guidance and intent for the coming year,” according to the assessment.
Mullah Omar’s insurgency has established an elaborate alternative government known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, McChrystal writes, which is capitalizing on the Afghan government’s weaknesses. “They appoint shadow governors for most provinces, review their performance, and replace them periodically. They established a body to receive complaints against their own ‘officials’ and to act on them. They install ‘shari’a’ [Islamic law] courts to deliver swift and enforced justice in contested and controlled areas. They levy taxes and conscript fighters and laborers. They claim to provide security against a corrupt government, ISAF forces, criminality, and local power brokers. They also claim to protect Afghan and Muslim identity against foreign encroachment.”
“The QST has been working to control Kandahar and its approaches for several years and there are indications that their influence over the city and neighboring districts is significant and growing,” McChrystal writes.
The second main insurgency group is the Haqqani network (HQN), which is active in southeastern Afghanistan and draws money and manpower “principally from Pakistan, Gulf Arab networks, and from its close association with al Qaeda and other Pakistan-based insurgent groups.” At another point in the assessment, McChrystal says, “Al Qaeda’s links with HQN have grown, suggesting that expanded HQN control could create a favorable environment” for associated extremist movements “to re-establish safe-havens in Afghanistan.”
The third is the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin insurgency, which maintains bases in three Afghan provinces “as well as Pakistan,” the assessment says. This network, led by the former mujaheddin commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, “aims to negotiate a major role in a future Taliban government. He does not currently have geographical objectives as is the case with the other groups,” though he “seeks control of mineral wealth and smuggling routes in the east.”
Overall, McChrystal provides this conclusion about the enemy: “The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of ISAF presence. . . . “
The insurgents make money from the production and sale of opium and other narcotics, but the assessment says that “eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits — even if possible, and while disruptive — would not destroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact.”

While the insurgency is predominantly Afghan, McChrystal writes that it “is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan’s ISI,” which is its intelligence service. Al-Qaeda and other extremist movements “based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.”

McCrystal’s Plan is:

The general says his command is “not adequately executing the basics” of counterinsurgency by putting the Afghan people first. “ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army,” he writes. “Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages.”
He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending “as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases.” Strengthening Afghans’ sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, but the coalition “cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people.”
McChrystal warns that in the short run, it “is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase.”
He proposes speeding the growth of Afghan security forces. The existing goal is to expand the army from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011. McChrystal seeks to move that deadline to October 2010.
Overall, McChrystal wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached.
He also calls for “radically more integrated and partnered” work with Afghan units.
McChrystal says the military must play an active role in reconciliation, winning over less committed insurgent fighters. The coalition “requires a credible program to offer eligible insurgents reasonable incentives to stop fighting and return to normalcy, possibly including the provision of employment and protection,” he writes.
Coalition forces will have to learn that “there are now three outcomes instead of two” for enemy fighters: not only capture or death, but also “reintegration.”
Again and again, McChrystal makes the case that his command must be bolstered if failure is to be averted. “ISAF requires more forces,” he states, citing “previously validated, yet un-sourced, requirements” — an apparent reference to a request for 10,000 more troops originally made by McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan.

The most sobering part is this:

Toward the end of his report, McChrystal revisits his central theme: “Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.”

There is doubt about it; this war is not going to be a cakewalk, just like Iraq was not. The question on everyone’s mind is this, will President Obama have the political nerve to keep fighting this war? To defeat all of these groups and the ultimate goal —– Al Qeada.

Peter Feaver over at Foreign Policy’s Blog Shadow Government offers the following assessment:

1. It is not good to have a document like this leaked into the public debate before the President has made his decision. Whether you favor ramping up or ramping down or ramping laterally, as a process matter, the Commander-in-Chief ought to be able to conduct internal deliberations on sensitive matters without it appearing concurrently on the front pages of the Post. I assume the Obama team is very angry about this, and I think they have every right to be.
2. A case could be made that the Obama team tempted fate by authorizing Bob Woodward to travel with General Jones (cf. “whisky, tango, foxtrot”) in the first place and then sitting on this report for nearly a month without a White House response. You cannot swing a dead cat in Washington without meeting someone who was briefed on at least part of the McChrystal assessment, and virtually every one of those folks is mystified as to why the White House has not responded as of yet. The White House will have to respond now, but I stand by my first point: leaks like this make it harder to for the Commander-in-Chief to do deliberate national security planning.
3. Without knowing the provenance of the leak, it is impossible to state with confidence what the motives were. For my part, I would guess that this leak is an indication that some on the Obama team are dismayed at the White House’s slow response and fear that this is an indication that President Obama is leaning towards rejecting the inevitable requests for additional U.S. forces that this report tees up. By this logic, the leak is designed to force his hand and perhaps even to tie his hands.
4. The leak makes it harder for President Obama to reject a McChrystal request for additional troops because the assessment so clearly argues for them. The formal request is in a separate document, apparently, but it is foreshadowed on every page of the Initial Assessment. Presumably, the McChrystal assessment and request is shared by Petraeus and, I am told, also by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That does not make it irrefutably correct, but it does make this issue now the defining moment in civil-military relations under President Obama’s watch. Obama has the authority and the responsibility to make a decision that runs counter to what his military leaders are requesting, but it is a very difficult thing for him to do.
5. The toughest part in the report from the point of view of the Obama White House is the twin claim that (i) under-resourcing the war could cause the war to be lost, and (ii) the resources need to show up in the next year. The former puts the responsibility for success/failure squarely on the desk of the President and the latter, because of the long lead times needed to send additional resources into the theater, says that failure could result from choices made or not made in the next few weeks. And it said that a few weeks ago.
6. Paradoxically, however, the report does not make it impossible for President Obama to reject the likely military request for additional forces. Because the report is so candid about all of the challenges we face in Afghanistan, many of the arguments against additional forces are substantiated somewhere in the report: the myriad failures of the Afghan government, the self-defeating restrictions imposed on NATO forces, etc. The only anti-surge argument that I have not seen substantiated (though I read this quickly, so I may have missed something) is the extraordinarily seductive one that suggests we can afford to simply walk away from Afghanistan and conduct “off-shore-counter-terrorism-operations” indefinitely.
7. This document will remind anyone who worked on the issue of the internal debate over the surge strategy in Iraq circa Fall 2006. While the Bush administration Iraq Strategy Review did not produce a 66-page report that leaked, we covered much this same terrain and wrestled with many of the same thorny trade-offs and uncertain bets. The report is basically calling for an Iraq-type surge gambit, asking President Obama to do more or less what President Bush did in 2007: (i) change the strategy, (ii) adequately resource the new strategy, and (iii) overcome the strong domestic political opposition to doing (i) and (ii). If successful, the McChrystal assessment claims that this will buy time to allow for a safer eventual shift back to a train and transition strategy. It will not win the war in the short-run, but it will shift the trajectory of the war and allow for the possibility that our side can prevail in the long run. This is eerily similar to how the pro-surge group within the Bush team thought of the Iraq surge.

The question that one must ask. Is this all really worth it? The normal reflexive answer would be yes. Because we must acknowledge that those people that died in those Trade Centers, The Pentagon, and in PA; died because our Government’s attitude towards Terrorism and National Security had become lax. —– In other words, we were caught with our proverbial pants down.

My question to the President is this; are you sir, going to allow a group of far left wing, socialists dictate your foreign policy? Are you going to allow the Nation to drift back into a September 10’th mentality? I mean, because the FBI has already nabbed a group of people in New York; that had intentions to make another strike. Because I can tell you right now, Mr. President; If you abandon this fight, they will strike again, and next time, it will not be with planes. It will be much worse. That is not Neo-Conservative hype; that is, my friends, reality of the situation at hand.

What needs to happen is this; President Obama needs to wrap up in Iraq; as soon as possible. Once this is complete, President Obama needs to refocus his strategy on this war. It is not going to be easy. Some say this could be President Obama’s Vietnam. Which I happen to think is a line of balderdash. Vietnam failed; for one, because the media outright LIED about our progress in the Tet offensive and because President Johnson did not have the gonads to stand up to the left wing of the Democratic Party and inform them, that they did not run the White House and that he did! Instead he folded and said he would not run for reelection. This gave way to embarrassing defeat of the South in Vietnam and caused us to have to leave in shame.

President Obama must stand up and lead. He must shrug off the left wing of his Party and fight this war, until these issues are resolved. Yes, there will be casualties; this happens in war, get used to it people. We must stand and fight; other wise, the 2,996 people who perished, will have perished in vain.

Others from all sides of the political area: ABCNEWS, The Cable, Marc Lynch, The Atlantic Politics Channel, Swampland, New York Times, Salon, Guardian, msnbc.com, The Washington Independent, The Daily Dish, FiveThirtyEight, Counterterrorism Blog, David Rothkopf, Hullabaloo, Registan.net, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Mudville Gazette, The New Republic, Newshoggers.com, MoJo Sections, Foreign Policy, BBC, The Washington Note, At-Largely, Achenblog, Daily Kos, Classical Values, Think Progress, The Atlanticist, The Foundry, Danger Room, Weekly Standard, LiveWire, Wonk Room, democracyarsenal.org, Below The Beltway, SWJ Blog, PoliBlog, The Anchoress, The BLT, Hot Air, Flopping Aces, MoJo Blog Posts, Center For Defense Studies, Christian Science Monitor, The Faster Times, EU Referendum, The Opinionator, Crooks and Liars, Outside The Beltway, BLACKFIVE, QandO, Political Punch, Commentary, Shakesville, Truthdig, Firedoglake, Washington Monthly, Don Surber and Taylor Marsh and more via Memeorandum

Harry Reid to get his ass tanned in 2010

This can only be a good thing. Go here to read.

Two Movies on Liberty

First up is The Most Incredible Challenge from 1965.

Synopsis: This film, narrated by Luis Van Rooten and directed by Robert Braverman, was produced by the Radio Liberty (RL) Committee, the parent organization of Radio Liberty, to publicize RL in the United States. The film features RLs production center in Munich, its news-gathering operations around the world, and its transmitter facilities in Germany, Spain, and Taiwan.

For the Licensed Amateur Radio operators that happen to read this blog; who also happen to be fans of old “Boat Anchors” as they are called, see if you spot the old Rockwell-Collins and other such gear in this piece. The place to see it really good, is at the 18:14 mark. Some really nice gear there from Amateur Radio’s greatest era. 😀

The Second is “This Is Radio Free Europe” from 1964:

Synopsis: This film, narrated by Polish broadcaster Andrzej Kzeczenowicz, gives an overview of Radio Free Europes news-gathering and audience research, its production center in Munich, and its transmission operations in Germany and Portugal. Produced by the Free Europe (RFE) Committee, the parent organization of Radio Free Europe, the film helped publicize RFE in the United States. It thus includes solicitations for contributions to the RFE Fund, successor to the Crusade for Freedom, which helped finance RFE.

Folks, I simply offer these videos with this question: Were these station employees, the political bloggers of that era? Are we now the voices of liberty? I like to think that we are the newspaper writers; the ones encouraging the dissent and the debate. Is Russia of old, just a future picture of America? Those are the questions that we must ask ourselves come 2010.

Remember my follow Americas, dissent is not, not has it ever been unpatriotic. The socialist left calls us racists, tea-baggers, rich people with attitudes; we know the truth and we will not stand by idly and allow a socialist oligarchy defeat us or the Nation and the principles in which it was founded upon. We must fight, not with guns or weapons; this is a battle of ideas and information. The Media, except for perhaps Fox News, is basically carrying water for the establishment. We are the new fifth estate or even possibly the sixth Estate; if there was such a thing. Being in this position of the minority; we must get our collective act together. We need to, as Bloggers and Conservatives, try to stay away from the stupid and the petty. We need to distinguish ourselves from the Alex Jones Conspiracy theory crowd and stick to the mainstream news and offer a counter-view to the main stream media’s view.

I leave you with this Bible verse:

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5 King James Version)

and this timeless quote from The Lord Jesus Christ himself:

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (John 9:1-5 KJV)

Why would we as Christians, as Conservatives want to be any different?

In Liberty,

-Pat

Lies, Damned Lies and more Lies

I notice in the Blogosphere today that the Liberals are accusing Conservatives of lying about the turn out in Washington D.C.

How ironic that the Socialists are crying foul about lying; seeing that their own dear leader is quite the liar himself.

Let’s review, shall we?

My that’s quite a bit of lying.

I think his nose should be growing…

Remember this little whopper of a big lie?

…and the Kool-Aid Drinkers bought it; hook, line and sinker.

So, perhaps…. Joe Wilson; was right?

Of course, the bill was changed, after Joe Wilson called the President on it. But still, are not these other lies legit? I think they are.

Exit Question: If a Republican lied like this man has, would not he be held to a higher scrutiny? But because he is a black liberal, he skates for free? Isn’t that the honest truth?

Former Leftest turned FBI informant exposes ACORN for what it really is

This is quite the interesting read.

The Money part:

In the following weeks, I was made aware of the fact that ACORN had reopened its New Orleans office (several months after the storm). Various groups from around the city informed me that Acorn was upset with us because we were in “their” community and had not sought approval from ACORN to operate there. I was told that ACORN said that we were “privileged white people who had come to a Black community as saviors and we refused to work with local Black leadership.”
The more I pondered the matter, the more I realized what was happening. As usual in marginalized and impoverished communities, a small group of radical self-proclaimed leaders was insisting that all local aid and relief came through them—even if they were AWOL for several months. Though the majority of residents either hadn’t heard of ACORN or simply disagreed with their politics- ACORN insisted that they were THE Black leaders. This was upsetting to me. Sure, the local pastor we worked most closely with was Black; but that didn’t matter to ACORN. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t evoke the name of Elijah Mohammed or Malcolm X. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t submit to ACORN’s mandate that ACORN was the sole leadership of Black New Orleanians.
As then director of Common Ground Relief’s 9th Ward project, I was warned by many that ACORN would ruin me politically if I didn’t submit to their leadership. I believed in what I was doing and how I was doing it. I refused to submit. The political fallout was almost unbearable. I just kept my eyes on meeting the needs of the community. When confronted by adherents to ACORN’s brand of race analysis, I pointed out that ACORN was not there immediately after the storm, so I could not have sought their leadership even if I had wanted to.
Over the following years, that particular style of political attack was prominent in New Orleans. Anytime that ACORN was displeased, the other party was deemed a racist. If the other party disagreed with the label or with ACORN’s agenda- they were met with “of course you feel that way. You are a racist.” Though it is clearly woefully inaccurate and unethical to use such an accusation as a political attack and as a means of shutting down philosophical debate and discourse, some at ACORN didn’t let that stop them. I refused to submit to it. I believed in listening to the majority of the community, who were desperate for our help, and not only to the self-proclaimed leaders. I paid a dear price for it.
via Big Government » Blog Archive » Former Leftist Activist, Turned FBI Informant, Pulls Back the Curtain On ACORN.

Wow…. Just wow… No wonder the census bureau cut these people loose. My question is this here. Why in the heck were these chuckle-heads involved with the Government, in the first place? I mean, who was the brain-dead fool, who decided that the US Government should be involved with them?

Many questions arise here; and I will bet you that none of them will be answered, until President Obama is safely out of office and living back in Kenya Chicago.

Updated:A Million people attend 9/12 project protest in D.C. – Think Progress goes out of thier way to find "Offensive" signs

Well, it looks like the 9/12’ers met in Washington D.C.

If these pictures are an accurate representation of what happened up there and what is happening in America:

dcteaparty0912mkhsm

(H/T to InstaPundit – Photo Snapped by Mary Katherine Ham)

Here’s another:

live912

(H/T Michelle Malkin, it’s a screengrab from here)

….then the Democrats are in DEEP and I do mean, DEEP doo doo come 2010 and even possibly 2012. I mean, WOW. Just WOW. 😮 😯

You can read the round up of MSM and Blogger reactions by going Here, Here, Here, and Here (whew!)

Best sign photo yet: (H/T to VodkaPundit)

racismanyway

and, there’s this very cool video that comes via JammieWearingFool:

The only objection I have to this video is this. At the part where it says, “New Boss, same as the old boss”; I would have a picture of George W. Bush, and then faded in a Picture of Obama and not Karl Marx. Because whether we want to admit it or not. Obama is just continuing the policies of Bush. The stuff that he promised to change. He has not. He is doing the same stuff.

Anyhow, it was a great protest. Even if I did sleep through most of it. 😳 😀

Update: ….and of course, Think Progress goes out of their way to find “offensive” signs and of course blame the Republicans for it. Nuance.

Update #2: Liberals accuse Michelle Malkin of faking a photo and of course, she schools the idiot bastards….again.

Well, it is nice to know that the UAE has our backs… I think

Although, many people do not know this or do not want to hear it. But much of the financing for 9/11 came out of the UAE.

Anyhow, there’s this:

The United Arab Emirates has seized a ship carrying North Korean-manufactured munitions, detonators, explosives and rocket-propelled grenades bound for Iran in violation of United Nations sanctions, diplomats said.
The UAE two weeks ago notified the UN Security Council of the seizure, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition they aren’t named because the communication hasn’t been made public. They said the ship, owned by an Australian subsidiary of a French company and sailing under a Bahamian flag, was carrying 10 containers of arms disguised as oil equipment.
The council committee that monitors enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea wrote letters to Iran and the government in Pyongyang asking for explanations of the violation, and one to the UAE expressing appreciation for the cooperation, the envoys said. No response has been received and the UAE has unloaded the cargo, they said.
The UAE and Iranian missions to the UN didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The Financial Times reported the weapons seizure earlier today.
via UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran (Update2) – Bloomberg.com.

This is what happens when you do the whole “Carrot and Stick” approach to countries like North Korea and Iran. They simply find ways to go around you. I really believe that the United Nations really needs to rethink their strategy with Iran. Because it is obvious to this Conservative writer, that Iran has no intention of abiding by the rules. I am not saying that it is time for war with Iran; not at all. At least not with our Country leading the charge. Because, in case anyone has not noticed, We are a bit occupied ourselves. I believe some of the other countries in that region need to step up and put a stop to this nonsense, once and for all.

Blackfive asks some very important questions:

Now this brings up all kinds of questions. How did the UAE find out? Did we know? Did we tell them? Inquiring minds want to know. Also how does this affect our global tyrant outreach project? Clenched? Unclenched? Hmmm

Those are some good questions. I would also like to know, who tipped off the Financial Times people? I also wonder, what will our feckless fearless leader’s next move will be? Because you know good and well that the Liberal base is not going to approve of him going into Iran or North Korea; even if Obama ordered a small support group to go in and assist any other countries that wanted to invade either Country, the base would totally turn on him. I mean, hell, the left is desperately wanting to pull us out of Afghanistan and Iraq; before the job is even done. They have been trying to do that for years. Do you think they would just sit idly by and allow President Obama to take us into another Military conflict? I do not think so. I mean, “Hope and Change” can only get a man so far. Especially when it comes to the very far left. I mean, they’re already calling Obama a fascist in some quarters of the left as it is already.

Either way this is going to be a very interesting development and it will be interesting to see how Obama handles the situation and it will be interesting to see how the far socialist/liberal Left reacts to Obama’s actions. I also would like to see what the Liberal Media’s reaction will be to this story and to how Obama reacts to it as well; will they be just as critical to Obama as they were Bush? or will they continue to give Obama the “free ride” that they have given him so far? It should be very interesting.

Updated! It has started: Black Virginia Police Officer threatens to arrest White Man if he holds up Anti-Obama sign Officer Cheeks works for the SCHOOL and NOT the City Police!

…..and they said that this President would be post-racial… I call BS!

The Video: (Via HotAir)

There is a word that comes to mind to describe this fat turd. But I will not utter it here.

I knew this was coming. I just knew it.

The one the really got me was the exchange of:

Man: “This is America!”

Black Cop: “It ain’t no more, okay?”

Folks, something is seriously wrong...

BIG HUGE UPDATE! EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS!

I contacted the Fairfield County Police in Virginia and I received this reply:

Wesley Cheeks is NOT a Fairfax County police officer; he is a security
officer employed by the Fairfax County Public Schools. You may go to
http://www.fcps.edu to contact the School’s Department of Communication
and Community Outreach concerning this matter. They may also be reached
by phone at 571-423-1200.
Thank you.
Patti Smylie
Administrative Assistant to Chief Rohrer
Fairfax County Police Department

So, everyone STOP calling the local police down there and call the School and complain!

Here’s the correct dept. to contact:

8115 Gatehouse Road
Suite 5100
Falls Church, VA 22042
Phone: 571.423.1200

Barbara Hunter
Assistant Superintendent

Remember, Be civil, NO THREATS! Just ask if they know about the incident and if they have seen the video. Click o Barbara’s name to e-mail her.

Jack Hunter makes a good point

At one point, I had written that I was not going to publish this man’s videos anymore; and I do not make a habit of it. His comment about our Military over on The American Conservative‘s Blog called “Post Right” was the end for me.

However, this video does make a good point and so, I will post it; with a comment at the end.

(Source)

I posted this, because I happen to agree with Jack’s stance on progressive policy on economics. But because I am “Fair and Balanced”, I will tell you, what others will not about the “Paleo-Conservative” or the “Taft” wing of the Republican Party as it is called by some. If it were left to these guys; such as Jack Hunter and his two hero-like personalities like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul —- America would have never went to war with Germany, at all. Hitler would have allowed to exterminate the Jews. Something that I am told Pat Buchanan has said that he wished happened, when he was around some friends once; which goes back to the old school catholic hatred of the Jews and their religion. Further more, most people of the Paleo-Conservative strand believe that Abraham Lincoln was a traitor. Not only to the White Man; but also to the South for the way he conducted the Civil War. Which Jack claims was not about race. (Wink Wink) But rather about Centralized Government.

So, while Jack might be correct about his thesis on the economic policy; his association with the bigoted “Old Right” is to be noted and for this, I feel, his credentials are marred.

Guest Voice: Dismanteling Our Christian Heritage by Derry Brownfield

I present this with the usual disclaimers. But I believe this man has a point; please read it with an open heart and mind.

—–

(Source)

“Behold, the days come, says the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water but a FAMINE for hearing the words of the Lord. And the people shall wander from sea to sea; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, but shall not find it. By the life of your god (idolatrous golden calf) they shall fall and rise no more.” (Amos 7:11-14)

George Washington, the Father of our Country, required all Officers and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance of Divine Services, to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense. “The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a “CHRISTIAN” Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”

John Adams stated in his March 4, l797 Inaugural Address: “With humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves “CHRISTIANS” among the best recommendations for the public service.” He also said: “The Declaration of Independence ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” The primary author of this Document mentioned God’s name four times within the Declaration.

On January 21, 1810, John Adams said: “The “CHRISTIAN” Religion, as I understand it, is the brightest of the glory and the express portrait of the eternal, self-evident, independent, benevolent, all-powerful and all merciful Creator.”

It is often stated that Thomas Jefferson was a Deists, however on April 21, 1803 he wrote the following: “My views are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the ANTI-CHRISTIAN system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinion. To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus Himself, I am a “CHRISTIAN” in the only sense in which He wished any one to be – sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.” Jefferson, along with the majority of America’s founders knew that freedom was the gift of God, not the accomplishment of men.

James Madison (our 4th President) called for a National Day of Prayer: “If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy of the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be guided only by their free choice. By the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all “CHRISTIAN” nations as proving that religion, that gift from Heaven for the good of man…”

John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary in 1810: “I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in a course of every year.” December 24, 1814 after negotiating the TREATY OF GHENT he stated: “You ask me what Bible? I answer, the Bible containing the Sermon on the Mount – any Bible. The New Testament I have repeatedly read in the original Greek, in the Latin, in the Geneva Protestant, in Sacy’s Catholic French, in Luthur’s German, in the common English Protestant and in Douay Catholic translations. I take any one of them for my standard of faith. My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of “CHRIST.”

Andrew Jackson wrote his wife Rachel: “I trust that the God of Isaac and of Jacob will protect you and give you health in my absence…” Jackson apparently knew that there were some people that worshipped foreign gods, and wanted to make the point he worshipped the God of the Holy Bible. In referring to God, our early politicians used other descriptive terms, such as: “The unerring hand of Providence” – “All-merciful Creator” – “Supreme Author of All Good” – “Supreme Ruler of the Universe”.

Apparently President Barack Obama has not studied American History, because he recently said while in Turkey: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” “We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” Whether Obama understands the early writings of those great men who founded this nation, or not, perhaps he is correct, because America has become a “post” Christian nation. Once was – not now! Liberalism and political correctness have successfully dismantled our Christian heritage. Our moral and spiritual foundation is practically gone. America no longer acknowledges the one true God of the Bible, the God of Isaac and Jacob.

Students at Bradley University found an anti-abortion display featuring a cross to be offensive to non-Christians, and it was removed. — Small towns around the nation that once said prayers in the name of Jesus before holding city council meetings have abandoned the practice. — A flyer promoting a YMCA basket ball camp in Bakersfield, California was not allowed to be distributed in public schools because the text mentioned Christian principles. — The owners of an A & W Root Beer restaurant in Colorado were ordered to remove the Bible Scriptures from the sign in front of the store because the phrases offended some of the customers. — Schools all across the land are changing to an all secular holiday calendar. — The Christmas holiday has now been changed to “Winter Break.” — A man on death row for murder and rape wants his conviction thrown out because some of the jurors cited Bible verses during their deliberation. — The City Attorney in Sparks, Nevada took the words “God Bless America” out of the signs around city hall. — Three plaques quoting Biblical Scriptures posted at lookout points at the Grand Canyon have been removed, following complaints from the ACLU. — The National Park Service was forced to put a tarp over the 70 year old land mark cross at the Mojave Desert. — A Bible enclosed in glass that sat in front of the Harris County Court House in Houston, Texas for 47 years was removed because it was offensive. — Staffers of the Governor of Michigan removed the phrase “of the year of our Lord” because it was deemed insensitive to non-Christians. — A district court judge in North Carolina said religious references including the oath that ends “SO HELP ME GOD” must be removed because not all court cases are for Christians. — Officials in Stanislaus County, California removed a 40 year old memorial because the monument included a cross that might infringe on rules of the “Separation of Church and State.” If you read the Constitution from cover to cover you will find no mention of the “Separation of Church and State.” Those remarks were in a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson, responding to a letter sent him by a Baptist Association concerned that the Government was going to interfere with the free and open practice of the Christian religion. Jefferson wrote the letter to assure them that would not happen – that the government cannot do such a thing. Today that phrase is being interpreted to mean the exact opposite of its original intent.

Today our Universities, Hollywood, liberal politicians and homosexuals in the nation’s Capital are hostile to the Holy Bible. The Book cannot appear on a desk in a government office, nor can it be studied in our nation’s public schools. Every effort is being made to eradicate any public reference to the Bible, or the name of Jesus. To even mention the name of Jesus or quote Biblical scriptures in public is considered insensitive. This conspiracy is being promoted under the lie that it was the original intent of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution.

God once blessed America – from it’s founding for over 150 years. Since the early 1960’s God, Jesus and the Holy Bible have been kicked out of our government, our courts and our schools. When public school children can no longer sing God Bless America, how can God bless America?

Is there a possibility that God has already begun to withdraw His protection from the United States? God tells us in Deuteronomy 28:45, that curses shall come upon us until we are destroyed, because we did not hearken unto His voice and keep His statutes which he commanded. He tells us in very uncertain terms how we as a nation will be overcome. (1) The stranger shall rise above us and we shall come down very low. The stranger shall lend to us and we will not lend to the stranger. The stranger shall be the head and we shall be the tail. (Deuteronomy 28:43-44) (2) The Lord shall bring a nation against us from far; a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young, which also shall leave us no corn, wine or oil. (Deuteronomy 28:49-51) (3) If you shall despise my statutes and abhor my judgments, so that you will not do all my commandments, I will appoint TERROR over you, and your enemies that hate you shall reign over you. (Leviticus 26:11) (4) I shall break the pride of your power and your strength shall be spent in vain. (Leviticus 26:19-20)

As our nation’s sins have become many, so are God’s judgments many. These are just a few that I can see taking place as each day goes by. These judgments didn’t start coming upon us prior to the Supreme Court’s deciding that the God of Isaac and Jacob was no longer welcome in America. Will God reconsider and return to us our once free nation? YES! But only if we totally submit ourselves to Him, impeach the Supreme Court judges that voted Him out of our lives, rescind their decisions and put the Bible back in our schools, courts and lives of our politicians, administrators, judges, teachers and the general public. I don’t believe it is going to happen!

—-

Derry Brownfield was born in 1932 and grew up during the depression. He is a farmer and a broadcaster. Derry attended the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri where he received his B.S. and M.S. degrees. He taught Vocational Agriculture several years before going to work as a Marketing Specialist with the Missouri Department of Agriculture. Derry served as Director of the Kansas City Livestock Market Foundation at the Kansas City Stockyard prior to establishing himself in farm broadcasting.

Derry started farming when he was 16 years old and received the Future Farmers of America State Farmer degree in 1949. Since that time the Brownfield Farm has grown to over 1000 acres maintaining a herd of 200 registered Charolias cows.

In 1972, Derry and his partner established the Brownfield Network which now serves 250 radio stations throughout the Midwest with news and market information. In 1994, Derry started his own syndicated radio talk show and he is one of the most popular radio talk show hosts in America. The Derry Brownfield Show can be heard on approximately 80 radio stations in 23 states. With his entertaining sense of humor and witty commentary he has captured audiences for over 30 years. His ability to present an informative talk show while being light and colorful is why he has a large loyal listening audience.

Derry Brownfield is a practical farmer, a practical business man and a very entertaining speaker. He travels extensively throughout the country speaking about his common-sense point of view.

Web Site: www.derrybrownfield.com

E-Mail: derrybrownfield@learfield.com