Shades of Gray

Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

Posted in General, Homeland Security, Revolution, United States of America by Wayland Abernathy III on March 22, 2009

How does this 130 year old piece of legislation have bearing on our current political situation? I’m glad you asked.

I found a great posting about the subject here, by one Tom King, at his blog – Just One Man’s Opinion. This Act supposedly prevents the U.S. Military from being involved in homeland law enforcement.

Read more and you will learn more…

Homeland Insecurity

Posted in Homeland Security, White House by Wayland Abernathy III on March 18, 2009

Guess who really is making our Country a bigger target to the world? Dick Chaney may be throwing around some sour grapes but a few of them stuck to the wall.

The Russians and the Chinese have just both announced military buildups, and the Iranian nuclear threat was described as, “real” — “dangerous.”

Venezuela offered an island off its Caribbean coast as a support base for strategic Russian bombers.  Cuba could be used to base Russian aircraft, too.  North Korea threatened war.

Osama bin Laden called for a renewed jihad.

What did Obama do?

He ordered the Secretary of Defense to prepare for the most far-reaching reduction in the Pentagon’s weapons portfolio since the end of the Cold War, according to aides.

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Robert M. Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month.  Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the officials said.

More cuts are planned for later this year, after a review that could lead to reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the officials said.

He’s only doing what he promised he’d do (video).  Sometimes, about some things, you can take this guy’s word to the bank.

And then:

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries.  The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion.  “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies.  I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Talk about a kick in the gut! Is Obama going to go to the ‘other’ wing of Walter Reed and talk to recovering soldiers about his plans? Obama would certainly see some change he could believe in there. This policy is the most morally offensive action Obama has championed. He is looking to generate $540 million? Why must our injured military be forced to bear yet another burden? Obama has no shame.  

And witness how the Obama administration portrays themselves to the country (and the rest of the world.)

“The country looks to the President on occasions like this to be reassuring to the nation.  Some Presidents do it well, some Presidents don’t.”

That’s how ABC’s Peter Jennings assessed President George W. Bush’s performance on Sept. 11, 2001.  The criticism was superficial, shortsighted and unfair, given that President Bush’s finest moments came in rallying the country after 9/11 — not scapegoating the previous administration.

Bush didn’t spend the next few months claiming that he “inherited” a national security mess, nor did he complain about the economy which faltered in two of the final three quarters under President Clinton before contracting again in Bush’s first year.

Likewise, President Reagan didn’t whine about the soaring unemployment and burgeoning inflation that awaited him after President Carter’s tenure.

These men understood that they campaigned for the opportunity to serve as President and to lead by making difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions.

That’s why Obama’s transformation from a candidate of hope and change to a president of gloom, blame and opportunism is so disappointing — even for those who didn’t buy what he was selling as a candidate.  His ability to truly inspire 53% of the voters seemed, at least, refreshing.

Now, the Obama team takes every opportunity to complain that they “inherited” a deficit, an “economic crisis,” and “a big mess.”

No hope, just bellyaching.

Does anyone still think this guy knows what he is doing? It seems that since he has nothing to campaign for – other than his ill-conceived and hackneyed policies – he is spinning his wheels trying to look busy. Will Bush be blamed for the failure of Obama’s policies? Do not doubt for a moment that he will not. President Obama has no problem standing before our nation and ‘reading’ a good speech. He does, however, have a problem speaking the truth. He is certainly not being upfront about his radical upbringing, his 20 year ‘active’ membership at a radical church, his working relationships with radical terrorists, and his continued radical friendships.

Anyone care to guess what will come out of the Oval Office next?