Sunday, June 28, 2015

Supreme Court Decisions Show Conservatives Willing to Compromise. Liberals NEVER Do!

And it's not just the Supreme Court. The same can be said of political leaders too!

Andrew McCarthy, former Asst. U.S. Attorney for New York had the following comments on recent Supreme Court justices:
Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote? There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.

How can that be? Jurisprudence is complex. Supple minds, however likeminded, will often diverge, sometimes dramatically, on principles of constitutional adjudication, canons of statutory construction, murky separation-of-powers boundaries, the etymology of language, and much else. Witness, for example, the spirited debate between the Court’s two originalists, Scalia and Clarence Thomas, over a statute that, in defiance of Obama policy, treats Jerusalem as sovereign Israeli territory.

But not the Court’s lefties, not on the major cases.

And it is not so much that they move in lockstep. It is that no one expects them to do anything but move in lockstep — not their fellow justices, not the political branches, and certainly not the commentariat, right or left.

It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards. Guiding precedents are for the quaint business of administering justice. In the social justice business, the road never before traveled will do if one less traveled is unavailable.
It's just another example of how much more conservatives care about the rule of law than liberals who see everything from the lens of a more extreme social justice/progressive political agenda.

And as McCarthy points out it's bad news for the future as institutions like the Supreme Court become more corrupted by politics and conservatives continue to play by the old rules while the ship sinks!

Islamic Gunman Massacres 38 on Beach in Tunisai. Someone Please Tell Obama

Not only is Obama clueless about the murderous spread of radical Islam, he's cluess about gun crime too!

In the wake of the Charleston church shooting where nine were murdered by Dylan Roof with a handgun, Obama said this:

OBAMA: "We as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries."

Had he attended the rally of world leaders in Paris last January to show solidary in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo and related attacks he might have recalled that 17 people were killed by gunmen. Now, this latest attack in Tunisia reminds us that gun crime isn't just a U.S. problem and neither is terrorism.

Obama left it to his Press Secretary to put out a statement decrying the Tunisia attack as well as other attacks in France and Kuwait. He was too busy to do the job himself. Spiking the football over the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare and fanning the flames of racial division at a funeral for one of the deceased in Charleston was more important.

The story of the Tunisia attacks where beach goers were mowed down by a lone gunmen doesn't seem noteworthy to Obama or to much of the U.S. media. No way to score cheap points about gun control or racism with this one. They are all to happy to ignore the human tragedy that occurred.

Here's just one of the stories:

Owen Richards (left), 16, from Great Britain survived the attack with a minor gunshoot wound.
His uncle, grandfather and brother did not. Heroically, Owen 

From the Daily Mail:
A British schoolboy heroically comforted a victim of the Tunisian beach massacre despite losing three family members – and being wounded himself.

Owen Richards, 16, was grazed on the shoulder by the bullet that killed one of his relatives, believed to be his uncle Adrian Evans, when it struck him in the side of the head. Nearby, his 19-year-old brother Joel and his 78-year-old grandfather Patrick Evans lay slumped in the sand, already dead.

In all, the atrocity claimed the lives of 15 Britons, although that figure may well rise. Another five remain critically ill in hospital.

Astonishingly, after fleeing the beach in the resort of El Kantaoui near Sousse, Owen went to the aid of a wounded woman outside a hotel.

When Owen was later found by a medic he was ‘shaking and crying’ and he said simply: ‘I have to call my mum.’

Doctors spoke of their admiration for the heroic way that, despite his own massive loss, he risked his life to comfort the woman.

Yesterday Owen’s mother, Suzanne Richards, who had remained at their home in Wednesbury, West Midlands, flew to Tunisia for a reunion with her son. ‘She’s gone out there to bring Owen home,’ a neighbour told The Mail on Sunday last night.
More information at the Daily Mail.
These attacks, all on the same day, may signal a new and broader offensive by ISIS and their adherents around the globe. It's only a matter of time before they strike in the United States. Too bad Obama couldn't be bothered coming up with a strategy to defeat them in Syria and Iraq before they reach our shores. He's too busy playing politics!

UPDATE: U.S. Terrorist Threat Explodes During Obama Years!

From the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee:

Thanks Obama!

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Hillary Clinton's Confederate Problem

Her past, even recently, has as many confederate skeletons in the closest as a KKK rally!

Gov. Niki Haley (R-SC) and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) embrace after
declaring that the Confederate flag must be removed from the
Capitol grounds in Columbia, SC
South Carolina politicians, led by Governor Niki Haley, the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India and Tim Scott, the first African American to be elected to the U.S. Senate in South Carolina since Reconstruction joined other lawmakers on Monday to request that the state legislature approve the removal of the Confederate flag from the Capitol grounds. Both Haley and Scott are Republicans who have been the target of vicious, racist attacks from Democrats. Oh, and did we mention that it was DEMOCRATS who put the flag up on the SC Capitol building in the first place?

South Carolina solved it's Confederate problem but what about Hillary Clinton?

As Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton signed the following:

Arkansas also observed "Confederate Flag Day" during Bill's tenure as Governor and he did nothing to change the law.

Bill Clinton went on to use Confederate symbols in his first race for President:

And when it comes to Hillary, she's no stranger to using the Stars and Bars in more recent political imagery:

Today, when Hillary Clinton talks about "institutional racism" she may just be recalling her own efforts and those of her husband and her party over the years to stoke racial tension for political gain. After all, she and Democrats are STILL DOING IT!

Oh, and do we need to remind readers that the Ku Klux Klan was a creation of the Democrat Party and served as their "terrorist arm"?

UPDATE: Mona Charen has a column detailing racism in the Democrat Party past and present!

ISIS Monsters Stage Ever More Brutal, Inhuman Executions

Perhaps Obama could tell us again how Christians are just as bad?

A new video by the terror group ISIS shows how evil they have become. Lost is any sense of humanity. The video link is at the bottom of a post at Right Scoop. More images are at the Daily Mail.

In the first clip men in an metal cage are lowered into a swimming pool and drowned. Underwater cameras capture their gruesome final agony.

In the second group several prisoners are lined up and have explosive cord placed around the necks before detonating.

Finally, prisoners shut into a car while one jihadi fires a rocket propelled grenade.

Imagine the horror these monsters will unleash if they ever get weapons in an American city. Are we ready to wait until that happens before we do something about it? Apparently Obama is!

UPDATE: ISIS War on Women. Where is Hillary Clinton?

From a report in the Daily Mail. The sex slaves of ISIS including girls as young as NINE years old! Why are U.S. women's advocates silent?

ISIS sex slaves chained and on their way to be sold!

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Reverse Robin Hood: Bill and Hillary Took $11 Million from Charities For Their Own Purposes

What's the big deal? Dems like Bill and Hillary always think they know better what to do with your money than you do. Even if it's a charity!

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long been supportive of charity. Going back to the days when Bill was Governor of Arkansas, they deducted $2 from their tax return for the donation of used underwear to charity. Not exactly in the same league of Monica's Blue Dress (whereabouts unknown) perhaps the charity should have held onto the undergarments for a later auction.

Since leaving office Bill and Hillary have maintained their support of charity. This time with a higher price tag. From Politico:
When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.

Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.

Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which has come under scrutiny for its fundraising and fiscal management, has taken in as much as $11.7 million in payments from other nonprofit groups. The money was paid for speeches given by Hillary Clinton; her husband, the former president; and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, since the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 2001, according to a POLITICO analysis of a list of speeches voluntarily released last month by the foundation.

The groups range from smaller charities like Long Beach’s Boys and Girls Club and an AIDS service provider, Chicago House, to public policy advocacy groups, large universities and trade associations.
Another example comes from 2014 where Bill Clinton was awarded a "lifetime achievement award" from the Happy Hearts Fund which builds schools in areas ravaged by natural disasters. The presentation took place at a fundraiser in New York City where Bill Clinton insisted on a $500,000 speaking fee.

The Clinton's defend this greed by suggesting that it enables the Clinton Foundation to do good works for similar groups. But only after the Clinton's take their cut. Imagine the media hell if ANY Republican did the same thing!

Curious Odyssey of Black/White Rachel Dolezal Shows Why Some on the Left Have Become Strangers to Reality and the Truth

When the sense of grievance become so overwhelming, truth is often jettisoned in support of the cause. How many Rachel's have self-inflicted psychological wounds as a result?

We saw what happened in Ferguson Missouri where the lie took hold that teen Michael Brown had his hands up and was surrendering when he was shot. Despite the fact that the Department of Justice report under the command of Attorney General Eric Holder could not find any evidence to support that claim the lie persists.

And readers may recall the infamous rape hoaxes. Most recently the hoax by actress Lena Dunham and another at Amherst show that lying about rape, or believing you were raped despite clear evidence to the contrary is another left wing shibboleth.

Then, there's the environment. Some on the left claim that fracking for oil and gas causes methane to pollute drinking water. One judge found that a proponent of that theory went so far as to attach a propane tank to a kitchen faucet then lit the water on fire to make the case. Then there's climate change where we are told the "science is settled" yet scientists recently "adjusted" past temperature records in an attempt to show that there was no pause in warming.

Let's not forget NBC News anchor Brian Williams and the whoppers he repeatedly told.

In all these examples, if the case for the left was so strong why do they have to lie about it?

Enter Rachel Dolezal. She is the child of white parents. A genealogical study going back 350 years shows NO African bloodlines. Yet Rachel claims she is black. This despite the fact that she once sued Howard University for discriminating against her because she was white. Rachel later decided she was black and changed her hairstyle and makeup.

Rachel Dolezal. The white girl who turned black!
Now, we've seen people make changes in their appearance before. The late Michael Jackson is a good example. But I don't recall Jackson ever claiming he was white.

Michael Jackson as a child and adult
And if Bruce Jenner can put on a dress and call himself Caitlyn what's the big deal?

Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn
Rachel's lies reveal left wing pathology

Rachel went on to become the head of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the National Association of Colored Persons. No big deal. White people can support, even lead that liberal group if they want. But besides Rachel's outward transformation there is so much else about her that is a lie.

So much of what Rachel has said about her past is a lie. She has attempted to co-opt other family members to support those lies. It's obvious that Rachel has a problem.

But like so many of the examples cited above Rachel's problem isn't unique on the left. There appears to be an epidemic of what writer Stanley Kurtz called "The Wannabee Oppressed" where "a cult of victimization" seems to be the driving factor. Where did this virus orginate? On the college campus of course. You know, the place where only left wing thought is tolerated and any deviance from that rule will find the perpetrators shouted down or charged with hate crimes.

We should feel sorry for Rachel. She is a victim. Not of white society, but twisted left wing group think that insists that if you are not a victim, you are an oppressor. Rachel has been oppressed by the left. Can we know charge the left with hate crimes?

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Jeb Bush Announcement Shows Why It's a Mistake to Underestimate a Bush!

But will Jeb be able to persuade conservative primary voters that he will fight for THEM and not for the DC establishment?

I haven't blogged much on the GOP 2016 presidential nominating race as yet. When other candidates have made their announcement speeches I've passed on commenting. I liked Marco Rubio's announcement address in April when he said "yesterday is over." But maybe April was still too early to pique my interest in a wider discussion. The time has come to begin the process of examining the candidates more closely.

I wasn't planning to do much with Jeb's announcement either but his speech was so strong and well written I couldn't pass up the opportunity to post some excerpts and comment.
Jeb Bush Announcement
Miami Dade College
June 15, 2015
Jeb 2016

We are 17 months from the time for choosing. The stakes for America's future are about as great as they come. Our prosperity and our security are in the balance. So is opportunity, in this nation where every life matters and everyone has the right to rise.

Already, the choice is taking shape. The party now in the White House is planning a no-suspense primary, for a no-change election. To hold onto power. To slog on with the same agenda under another name: That's our opponents' call to action this time around. That's all they've got left.

And you and I know that America deserves better.

They have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress. They are responsible for the slowest economic recovery ever, the biggest debt increases ever, a massive tax increase on the middle class, the relentless buildup of the regulatory state, and the swift, mindless drawdown of a military that was generations in the making.
So many challenges could be overcome if we just get this economy growing at full strength. There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of four percent a year.

And that will be my goal as President – four percent growth, and the 19 million new jobs that come with it.

Economic growth that makes a difference for hard-working men and women – who don't need reminding that the economy is more than the stock market.

Growth that lifts up the middle class – all the families who haven't gotten a raise in 15 years. Growth that makes a difference for everyone.

It's possible.

It can be done.
Bush went on to cite his record in turning Florida around as proof he had not just the right plan but the ability to get it done. He said "if I am elected President, I'll show Congress how that's done." I like the focus on the Middle Class. You know Obama talks alot about the Middle Class yet the policies of his Administration will leave a lasting legacy of damage and setback for that group.

Bush also cited another key to restoring focus on the Middle Class as opposed to rich established elites when he declared:
We will also challenge the culture that has made lobbying the premier growth industry in the nation's capital.

The rest of the country struggles under big government, while comfortable, complacent interest groups in Washington have been thriving on it.

A self-serving attitude can take hold in any capital, just as it once did in Tallahassee.

I was a governor who refused to accept that as the normal or right way of conducting the people's business.

I will not accept it as the standard in Washington.

We don't need another President who merely holds the top spot among the pampered elites of Washington.

We need a President willing to challenge and disrupt the whole culture in our nation's capital.

I will be that President because I was a reforming governor, not just another member of the club.
Strong words and ones that will appeal to the GOP base. But can Bush deliver? More specifics are needed on how he would tame the Washington elite beast!

After discussing his credentials in education reform Bush went on to discuss religious freedom in a way that will appeal to the GOP base:
We made sure of something else in Florida – that children with developmental challenges got schooling and caring attention, just like every other girl and boy. We didn't leave them last in line. We put them first in line because they are not a problem. They are a priority.

That is always our first and best instinct in this nation filled with charitable hearts. Yet these have been rough years for religious charities and their right of conscience. And the leading Democratic candidate recently hinted of more trouble to come.

Secretary Clinton insists that when the progressive agenda encounters religious beliefs to the contrary those beliefs, quote, "have to be changed." That's what she said, and I guess we should at least thank her for the warning.

The most galling example is the shabby treatment of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Christian charity that dared to voice objections of conscience to Obamacare. The next President needs to make it clear that great charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor need no federal instruction in doing the right thing.

It comes down to a choice between the Little Sisters and Big Brother, and I'm going with the Sisters.
Transitioning between religious freedom and foreign policy:
It's still a mystery to me why, in these violent times, the President a few months ago thought it relevant at a prayer breakfast to bring up the Crusades.

Americans don't need lectures on the Middle Ages when we are dealing abroad with modern horrors committed by fanatics.

From the beginning, our President and his foreign-policy team have been so eager to be the history makers that they have failed to be the peacemakers.

With their phone-it-in foreign policy, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed, enemies unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling.

This supposedly risk-averse administration is also running us straight in the direction of the greatest risk of all - military inferiority.
I'm certainly not ready to get on the Bush bandwagon but if he is the eventual nominee I will be happy to vote for him. I expect the same from every member of the GOP primary base that may support another candidate. If you can't promise to support whoever the eventual nominee is, you dilute any appeal you may make on behalf of your preferred candidate. Those are the rules and I'm sticking with them.

Bush's candidacy is not without problems, both tactical and strategic. But he had a good launch with this speech. But as we've learned over the past six years of Obama a great speech isn't the same thing as effective, competent government!

Friday, June 12, 2015

Bipartisan House Votes Show Reps. Don't Trust Lame Duck Obama on Trade!

And for some House Dems, it's personal!

Obama pulled out all the stops to try and save his secretive trade bill. He went to the unprecedented step of showing up at the Washington Nationals baseball game on Thursday to personally plead with Nancy Pelosi.  The former House Speaker stunned House colleagues by coming out against the bill.

On Friday Obama made another direct attempt by showing up on Capitol Hill Friday morning before the vote. Unfortunately, he couldn't break the habit of a lifetime in attacking the motives of those who disagree with him. From CNN:
"The President tried to both guilt people and impugn their integrity. I was insulted," Rep. Peter Defazio, D-Oregon, told reporters after the meeting.

One House Democrat told CNN on the condition of anonymity that in Friday's meeting, Obama "was fine until he turned it at the end and became indignant and alienated some folks. Bottom line, he may have swayed some Ds to vote yes, but Pelosi sealed the deal to vote no."

Another House Democrat said Obama's last-minute lobbying effort "absolutely" hurt the bill's chances.
So, imagine the irony when establishment House Republicans, who are routinely demonized by Obama when they don't support him, were left in the position of trying to save him from this monumental defeat.

Do you suppose Obama will thank those GOP leaders and drop future attacks on their motives as a reward? Don't hold your breath!

The New York Times headline on this defeat describes how "Democrats desert their President." You can't have a clearer definition of a lame duck!

P.S. Hillary Clinton, the self styled people's champion and fighter, recently headlined in the Washington Post as candidate who "won't back down or go away" was nowhere to be seen. Some fighter!

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Why is Marco Rubio's Fishing Boat Newsworthy but John Kerry's Yacht or Hillary's Book Deal Not?

Just shows how far the left wing media will go to trash Rubio while perpetuating the myth that Dems are men, or women, of the people!

Bad enough the New York Times thought it was newsworthy that Marco Rubio got 4 traffic tickets in 20 years.  Next, they went after Rubio's lifestyle and finances. Apparently Rubio got an $800,000 advance in a book deal to tell the story of his Cuban heritage. From that he spent $80,000 on what the NY Times called "a luxury speedboat."

That conjours up images of some fast cigarette boat zipping over the waters of the bays around Miami. Here's what the boat looks like:

A "luxury speedboat?"
The Times report suggests Rubio's purchase was "inadvisable." Did you ever read the New York Times remarking on the advisability of 2004 Democrat presidential candidate and Secretary of State John Kerry's $7,000,000 yacht? Did the Times ever complain that Kerry keeps his yacht moored in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes which would be levied if the boat were in Massachusetts?

And have you heard the times complain that Kerry's yacht was made in New Zealand whereas Rubio's boat is made in the USA?

John Kerry's $7,000,000 yacht
But the Times wasn't done trashing Rubio. Next they went after his house. In 2005 the Rubio's bought a house which the Times describes as "among the more expensive in West Miami, stood out from the aging homes nearby: It includes an in-ground pool, a handsome brick driveway, meticulously manicured shrubs and oversize windows."

Here's Rubio's house on top followed below by  Hillary Clinton's New York home. Who do you think is more in touch with the common man?

By the way, did the NY Times ever decry the $14,000,000 advance Hillary Clinton got for her book?

Isn't it ironic that uber rich Democrats get a pass on their wealthy lifestyle while hard working up and coming Hispanics like Marco Rubio get attacked for their modest gains? And did the Times ever wonder how Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat leader in the U.S. Senate got rich earning a top salary of less than $200,000 a year? No, instead they go after Rubio and his boat!

Monday, June 08, 2015

Obama at G-7 Summit: "We Don't Yet Have a Complete Strategy" To Defeat ISIS

How long has he dithered about this? And why is he spending so much time on global warming instead?

ABC News has the story. Obama blamed the lack of strategy on the Pentagon which stretches credulity beyond the breaking point since this issue has been front and center for several years.

Meanwhile, thousands more innocent men, women and children die in horrific circumstances because Obama cannot lead!

UPDATE: Obama Ignores Iraqi Prime Minister at Summit!

Is there any better visual evidence of Obama's indifference to the Iraqi crisis than the video shown here where the Iraqi Prime Minister sits down next to Obama at the G-7 Summit and Obama totally ignores him? Finally, the Iraqi leader, whom Obama sought out as part of what he hoped would be a solution to the problem looks at his watch and walks away!

You just have to wonder what is going on inside Obama's head? Is he so oblivious to what is going on around him? Or so indifferent? or both?

Sunday, June 07, 2015

After Five Years of "Study" Obama's EPA Declares Fracking for Oil and Gas Represents No Direct Threat to Drinking Water

So naturally, environmental zealots want another study!

Democrat attempts to appease environmental zealots follows a predictable course. First, the envirowhackos raise outrageous and wholly unsubstantiated charges about some energy project. If they have to, they will even fake evidence as they did when they hooked up propane tanks to a kitchen faucet then lit the water on fire as if fracking was the cause.

Of course their Democrat allies will react to these lies by declaring we must study the problem to get the facts. Then, when one study by government agencies proves there is no environmental threat, Democrats will demand another and another. If that doesn't work, environmental zealots will move to the courts where again they will use any tactics, any lie, to stop energy projects.

It's been the same with the Keystone Pipeline and fracking.

But after years of having their scare tactics exposed as empty lies the truth does finally come out:
Fracking does not pose a direct threat to drinking water supplies, the Obama administration said Thursday in a major study that represents a serious blow to environmentalists and other vocal opponents of U.S. oil and gas production.

The landmark Environmental Protection Agency report, nearly five years in the making, found that the drilling technique had no "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water." The conclusion casts doubt on the wisdom of President Obama's latest regulations for governing fracking on public lands and undermines the claims of environmentalists, many Democrats, some liberal media outlets and others who have led the charge against fracking.
"Hydraulic fracturing has brought cleaner air, significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, created millions of jobs, reduced energy prices, strengthened national security, and turned the American economy around," said Katie Brown, a researcher with Energy in Depth, a project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "With this new report, it couldn't be clearer that shale development is occurring in conjunction with environmental protection — and the claims by anti-fracking activists have been thoroughly debunked."

Several lawmakers say the findings highlight the foolishness of the administration's latest regulations controlling fracking on federal lands. The rules, released by the Interior Department in March, specifically call for enhanced measured to protect drinking water supplies, such as requiring stronger boreholes to stop any leakage.

"After five years of study, the EPA learned exactly what the states, industry and even some of the more competent bureaucrats in the Obama administration have known for some time — hydraulic fracturing is not a threat to drinking water. This report is damaging for the administration and contradicts a predominant claim the White House has used to justify a federal fracturing rule," said Rep. Rob Bishop, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Sadly, this isn't the end of the environmental charade. Democrats and their allies will insist on MORE studies hoping to find something to validate the lies they have told.

But like global warming where scientists have to "adjust" temperature data to make the past appear cooler than it actually was or fracking or Keystone, we have to wonder that if the case environmentalists had was so strong why do they have to lie about it?

Democrats, environmental zealots and their media allies have become the new "deniers" and anti-science. But that won't stop them from continuing with their propaganda campaign. After all, there's too much money at stake and hasn't that ALWAYS been their motivation?

Friday, June 05, 2015

At 71st Anniversary Bold Lesson of D-Day Lost on Current Leaders

If Obama had been President in 1944 instead of FDR we'd be speaking German now!

Saturday marks the 71st anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy France. It was among the most complex military undertakings ever and was fraught with the possibility for failure. Commanding General Dwight Eisenhower had even prepared short remarks explaining failure to the public.

There were failures on D-Day. Air and naval bombardment failed to dislodge hardened German positions. Civilian and military casualties were much higher as a result. But overall, the massive plan succeeded in gaining the foothold required to invade France and eventually push back the Nazis.

Here's the original battle plan showing the complexity and the forces American and allied troops faced on landing:
D-Day Battle Plan. Full size image here.

The Atlantic has a great photo spread from D-Day. Time Magazine has color photos. More at Virginia Viper.

And, as Mike's America observed on the 67th anniversary of D-Day, President Reagan's moving tribute to the veterans of D-Day remains a classic!

On D-Day American troops stormed ashore never doubting the rightness of their cause. They knew who their enemy was and were not afraid to call them out by name. And most important, they knew they had a Commander in Chief who supported them no matter what. American and British leadership and clear eyed vision were as important as battle plans and bullets to winning D-Day and World War II. Sadly, these lessons from history appear to be lost!

Generals Say We Are Losing War Against ISIS and There Appears No Urgency by Obama to Change Strategy

Don't say we didn't warn you!

Former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus, who has commanded U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, gave an interview to Charlie Rose on CBS News this week where he talking about ISIS he said: "These are fights where if you're not winning, you're probably losing, because time is not on your side."

After the fall of Ramadi is there any doubt that we are not winning? Two weeks earlier, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing with military experts. One of those who testified was Gen. Jack Keane, a key architect of the successful Iraq surge in 2007 said: “We are not only failing, we are in fact losing this war. Moreover, I can say with certainty that this strategy will not defeat ISIS." Others at the hearing had similarly gloomy assessments of the current strategy as well as offering alternatives.

U.S. Bombers That Don't Bomb!

One of the biggest problems is that Obama's pinprick bombing strategy has so handcuffed pilots and military planners that of the few sorties that are sent out (a number far below any previous air campaign) 75% return without dropping ANY bombs! 

Obama's rules of engagement are so constrained that obvious ISIS targets are not hit because of fear of civilian deaths. The New York Times reports that after the fall of Ramadi, ISIS fighters paraded triumphantly through the streets without any fear of American bombs. As the Times points out
"American and allied warplanes are equipped with the most precise aerial arsenal ever fielded. But American officials say they are not striking significant, and obvious, Islamic State targets out of fear that the attacks will accidentally kill civilians." 
Meanwhile, ISIS murders thousands of civilians in every city they capture. Off limits targets include the headquarters of ISIS in Raqqa Syria but they have never been bombed or attacked with ground forces.

Forward air controllers would help minimize civilian casualties but Obama fears what would happen to Americans if they were taken prisoner. But why hasn't Obama pursued opportunities to partner with other Arab nations who might take on that job? Or why not a trusted group of Iraqis?

The lack of urgency by Obama and the timidity of his strategy can only bring a negative result. On this 71st anniversary of D-Day it's useful to ponder what would happen if Obama were in charge on D-Day. My guess is that we'd be speaking German now!
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator