Of Samurais and Politics

In the Japanese comic, Ruruoni Kenshin, Kenshin is a late 19th century Japanese swordsman who has abandoned a dark past as a wanderer on a path to redemption. Adopted by master swordsman Seijuro Hiko, Kenshin has mastered the most powerful techniques; ones that could change the tide of any conflict. During his training, Japan is split into to rival factions: the shogunate, whose members supported one supreme warlord in power (i.e. the shogun), and the Ishin Shishi, whose members sought to overthrow the shogun and replace it with an egalitarian government that could rebuff Western encroachment.

The comic initially portrays the shogunate in a harsh light, a government that locked people in a repressive and unjust caste system; while the Ishin Shishi are shown to be a rag-tag group determined to bring freedom to all. Kenshin, orphaned by the shogunate's violence, is compelled to use his incredible gift to help the Ishin Shishi. His master vehemently opposes, explaining that their swordsmanship style was intended to be a way to bring justice independent of any allegiance, not be a tool of a political movement or military authority.

After the civil war, the Ishin Shishi have won in great part due to Kenshin's work, he finds that the government he helped install is no better than the previous one. Wracked with guilt, he spends the entirety of the series atoning for past sins as a wandering swordsman with no allegiance to anyone.

As I mused on one of my favorite comic series, I find that it provides a good analogy to the dangers of a growing federal government. Government can be a powerful instrument to ensure justice and peace; but there are those who place too much trust in its abilities to do it. The same power we give it for just causes can easily be redirected towards more nefarious purposes.

For example, loan forgiveness is being built into the recent healthcare legislation for medical students planning to become primary care physicians. "Finally," we think, "the federal government is stepping in to address this shortfall in providers to maximize access to care. They found the way to attract future physicians to primary care and take care of us." But we fail to stop and think of the consequences of the federal government's actions. Few ask the tough questions: What good will loan forgiveness do when specialists still end up making 3 to 5 times their salary? What will these future primary care physicians do when Medicare reimbursements continue to fall short causing them to hemorrhage cash and to make an early departure from medicine? How will hospitals with primary care clinics raise their fees in other services to compensate for their loss? We think that issues like these are so easily fixed by the government and fail to see a situation's complexity. Like Kenshin, we are so convinced of the justice of our cause that we forget that the power we give can result in harm.

In the hotly debated intervention in Libya, we see a people desiring freedom from an oppressive, autocratic ruler. We are apathetic and give tacit approval to our government to intervene in what seems like a black-and-white issue, but we don't think of the unintended consequences. The anti-Qaddafi faction is said to be peppered with al-Qaeda operatives, and reports are emerging recounting tales of abuse by rebels against the black African minority. Soon, we may find ourselves on a path to absolve us of defending and supporting people who may be as corrupt as Qaddafi himself. This isn't to say that Qaddafi is good ruler but rather to warn of our haphazard surrender our power to a federal government that is capable of doing great, unintended harm. We are quick to forget the support and arms we gave the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s to repel Soviet growth and influence. The serpent we fed eventually turned around a bit us too, providing safe haven to al-Qaeda and other extremists.

I have little doubt that the current administration has mostly good intentions; but the road to hell is paved with them. Obama and his administration aggressively seeks to expand the role and power of the federal government for the good of the people, but it only takes a handful of appointed bureaucrats to tilt the scales out of balance causing harm to the people it was designed to protect.

The Absurdities of Leftism

The title of this post is the best way to characterize this recent announcement by the head of NASA:

"When I became the NASA administrator, [Obama] charged me with three things," NASA head Charles Bolden said in a recent interview with the Middle Eastern news network al-Jazeera. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

For the moment, let's ignore the massive stupidity of this agenda, especially coming from the National Aeronautic and SPACE Administration, whose primary mission has always been the exploration of space. Let's also ignore the fact that Obama has reduced NASA into a self-help advisor for Islamic nations, "Because you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you." Nevermind how pandering and elitist this entire mindset is, it's remarkable that the Obama administration feels it needs a special cheerleader for the Arab world. I guess this also helps explain why Obama cut the budget for NASA and cancelled all its future space exploration programs - and the thousands of jobs that went with it.

So, the question that must be answered is why NASA, and why now? I think Jonah Goldberg at National Review gives a great answer:

"In my book, Liberal Fascism, I called this phenomenon the “liberal Gleichschaltung.” Gleichschaltung is a German word (in case you couldn’t have guessed) borrowed from electrical engineering. It means “coordination.” The German National Socialists (Nazis) used the concept to get every institution to sing from the same hymnal. If a fraternity or business embraced Nazism, it could stay “independent.” If it rejected Nazism, it was crushed or bent to the state’s ideology. Meanwhile, every branch of government was charged with not merely doing its job but advancing the official state ideology.

Now, contemporary liberalism is not an evil ideology. Its intentions aren’t evil or even fruitfully comparable to Hitlerism. But there is a liberal Gleichschaltung all the same. Every institution must be on the same page. Every agency must advance the liberal agenda.

And this is where the Catch-22 catches. The dream of a nimble, focused, problem-solving government is undone by the reality of hyper–mission creep. When every institution is yoked to an overarching philosophy or mission, its actual purpose can become an afterthought. In 2005, volunteer firefighters from all over the country offered to help with Katrina’s aftermath. But FEMA sent many of them to Atlanta first to undergo diversity and sexual-harassment training (which most already had)."

The leftist believes that all arms of the state must be in harmony, driven by the same ideological and political agenda, while using all available means to achieve this agenda. This would explain the ludicrousness of having the National Aeronautic and SPACE Administration partake in a role that has nothing to do with its intended purpose and very reason for existence.

Charles Krauthammer sums up the ridiculousness:

Imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy indeed.

The Obama Agenda: Amnesty

After a few months of accusations, speculations, and threats, the Obama Justice Department has filed suit against the new Arizona immigration laws that are meant to enforce current federal immigration guidelines and regulations.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the federal lawsuit is the fact that it does not challenge the Arizona law on the basis of discrimination, in fact, discrimination is not mentioned once in the entire legal brief, but on the basis of a usurpation of federal authority by the states. In other words, for the last few months Obama and his cronies have been shouting "discrimination, discrimination!" at the top of their lungs for expressly political purposes, and now when the suit is actually filed, it is over the federal government's desire to exercise its authority, or lack thereof.

This is my summation of the motivations and desires of the Obama regime:

Obama is against the Arizona law for two main reasons. The first is that he sees Arizona's actions through his leftist prism of the inviolable right of large bureaucratic government to heal all the nation's problems. He also views the issue through his cultural Marxist, multi-cultic belief in the universal repression of minorities, and the notion that all actions are motivated by a desire to hurt "disadvantaged" groups. This helps him to comfortably oppose the law on ideological grounds in order to reap the political benefits.

The political benefit would be the enticement of Hispanics to vote Democrat in the fall elections. Let's face it, according to all the polls and public opinion, the Democrats are looking at historic electoral losses this fall. In order to possibly salvage Democratic victories, Obama and his cronies will do whatever is possible to secure votes this fall. If that means playing to an issue and a constituency, which is what the Democrats do best, then so be it. Does Obama really care about illegal immigrants? Perhaps he does, but you can rest assured that he cares about the Hispanic vote and turning them out by any means possible, including by creating a divisive issue and increasing his rhetoric towards it in order to foster anger and its subsequent actions.

The second reason why Obama and his regime are against the Arizona law is because if it is successful, it will lead to other states adopting similar legislation. As I previously noted, the Arizona law simply mirrors and enforces federal laws already on the books and which the federal government has refused to enforce properly. If the states enforce these laws using their resources, the border and illegal immigration problem will gradually subside. But this would be a huge defeat for the Democrats. Why? Because the Democrats and Obama want AMNESTY. Amnesty will provide Democrats with what they believe to be 10 million-plus votes. (They believe former illegal immigrants will all become Democrats if the Democrats push the legislation through congress.) The Democrats and Obama know that they will be unable to pass any kind of amnesty bill unless it has border security provisions attached to the legislation. This is why Obama actually told a Senator that he would not secure the borders before he attempts to push an amnesty bill through congress:

Sen. Kyl Claims Obama Told Him: “If We Secure the Border, Then You Won’t Have Any Reason to Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (Video)

And in Obama's own words:

If Arizona, and other states, successfully secure a majority of the border and cut down on illegal immigration, the political expediency of passing any kind of amnesty legislation disappears, therefore eliminating what Democrats believe to be a chance to add 10 million-plus voters to their rolls. You see, Obama and the Democrats are drunk with visions of power, and they desire this power in perpetuity. Their belief in the supremacy of the state to manage the affairs of its citizens, of leftist government to "correct" the "sins" of America, and their desire to redistribute wealth and resources to its "rightful" owners, has led them to embark on a crusade that is in its end result tyranny.

Everything I have just mentioned is perfectly shown in this exchange with Robert Gibbs:

You see, he can't answer because the truth is that opposition to sanctuary cities does not fit the political and ideological agenda of the Obama regime.

"This is my rifle..."

I remember it fairly well. I was 19 years old and a brand new cadet in the Army ROTC program at UNC. The doors to the Armory were flung wide open, and some of the junior and senior cadets were carrying in locked weapon racks off of a truck into the drill deck. My eyes grew wide as I finally saw real M-16A2s for the first time in my life. They looked lighter, more detailed, and just plain cooler than the fake M-16s we trained with for squad tactical exercises. The slightest scent of weapons lubricant began to fill the air, a scent I'd grow to love. I remember taking the weapon and being given instruction on proper assembly and disassembly of the weapon; I marveled at its simple and elegant design that would propel a live round out of its casing. I recall being filled with a feeling that I can only describe as a solemn respect and weight responsibility for the power that I held.

Unlike the perception that most have, owning or holding a weapon does not change a person into a power-crazed maniac or an off-kilter, gun-toting hillbilly. Sure, we have that in America, but those who still have a sense of reason and a conscience won't undergo some Edward Hyde-like transformation from a thin, nervous, Starbucks-sipping artist to Darth Vader. I was a socially awkward, nerdy, Korean American teenager who grew up in a small Southern city suburb. Crime, weapons and warfare sat in the furthest periphery of my mind while growing up. I am still a socially awkward, nerdy, Korean American guy who against all reason donned a green suit and went traipsing around the world for a few years. A firearm doesn't transform a person into a raging maniac fueled by blood lust and power. Weapons, in the hands of moral, law-abiding citizens, can be a wonderful, useful instrument.

The Supreme Court recently ruled against the handgun ban pushed by the politicians in Chicago. Fully committed to the idea that a firearm somehow corrupts and inevitably creates more violence, they pushed this case to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, this highest court ruled in favor of not only of gun owners but the Constitution. I, for one, and greatly relieved and still somewhat nervous that it was still a 5-4 ruling.

With Second Amendment rights secure for a little while longer, I hope my friends will rediscover an aspect of their common, American heritage - the liberty to protect oneself. I hope to see more firearms in the hands of moral, upright individuals, ready to protect themselves and their loved ones. Imagine the beautiful possibilities.

The Fate of the COINdinistas

It's the way no military officer would want his or her name in lights. General Stan McChrystal has been recalled to Washington to be dressed down by the Commander-in-Chief for remarks he made as reported in the soon-to-be published edition of the Rolling Stones. You can find the article here for your reference.

On all the major news outlets, journalists, political commentators, and news junkies are out in full force to express their opinions. They've typically fallen along party lines - those who lean right condemn the remarks but want McChrystal to stay on as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Those who lean left are immediately calling for his resignation. Though the case against General McChrystal is straightforward, the factors surrounding this legendary commander tends to murky what would be an easy call.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a punishable offense to display any sort of contempt against public official by a commissioned officer. Sounds straightforward to me. The only exploitable loophole a lawyer could argue would probably be the fact that General McChrystal may or may not have said these words in the United States or U.S. territory. Semantics aside, the commander is guilty of a punishable offense.

Yet there are two peculiar dimensions regarding the punishments of flag officers. The first of which is how evenly a standard is applied between higher ranking officers versus the lower ranked ones. It's a common Soldier complaint that a young private can be bitterly punished for a minor offense while an officer may get a pass for the very same. This unfortunately happens on a routine basis. I recall a senior officer making some rather unsavory comments about another over email. She served on my commanding general's staff but her actions went largely ignored. No one would extend me the same mercy. I found myself repeatedly dressed down after having made a smart-aleck comment at the logistics officer. To this day, I still bristle with anger when I hear his name, but that's another story for another time. What will happen to the general? Will the commander-in-chief send him to a court-martial, drum him out unceremoniously, or let him delicately resign from his post? The nation will soon find out. The second dimension is the wisdom of taking a wartime commander from his post while he is active engaged against the enemy. This more or less speaks for itself, and it will be up to Obama to make that determination.

However the confounding factors are not limited to these two. There are countless more that will make it difficult to render a clean decision. This is the man who reportedly tried to cover up the true cause of death of Corporal Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL star. This is the man who had command responsibility over allegedly abused detainees in Iraq. This is the man who made a bold and honest recommendation to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, a move that lacked political decorum but expected in the military culture. He is a devout acolyte of counterinsurgency operations á la Petraeus (or would that be au Petraeus) - determined to minimize civilian casualties but maximize victory. These rules of engagement draw the ire of young infantrymen but the applause of senior policymakers - is this Stan McChrystal's style or the political pressure on an otherwise gung-ho general? Unlike most commanders though, he does not hesitate to go out on patrol with his soldiers and to suffer alongside them, but he's obligated to report to demanding superiors.

The list goes on and on, and I find my emotions cloud my more rational judgment. One part of me respects him as a tough but wise military leader. A man, I believe, who should not be restrained by politics and petty egos bruised by a straightforward personality. But another part of me worries when the tables may turn one day when an unwise commander is pitted against a more experienced commander-in-chief. If McChrystal gets a pass, would that set a precedent that would keep a less qualified military commander in place? Perhaps my emotions do cloud my judgment, but I would recommend only a verbal reprimand without resignation / firing. Regardless of what happens, I hope someone will take good care of those young men and women in Afghanistan; I know what a harsh place it can be.

Arizona vs. ...Mexico??

As a preface to this post, it would only be proper to review the hypocrisy of the corrupt ruling class of Mexico, and how they will use the useful idiots in America (and their dear leader Obama) in order to oppose the Arizona immigration bill - a bill that simply enforces the current U.S. immigration laws, which are not being enforced by the Obama administration.

First is the Mexican immigration laws, and sections of the Mexican constitution that deal with immigration and foreign citizens:

"MEXICO VS. UNITED STATES: MEXICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE TOUGHER"

It should come as no surprise that Mexican laws are much tougher (illegal immigration is a FELONY), and that foreign immigrants are treated as second-class citizens. For those of you who don't know, much of the world outside of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe - i.e. the West - treats immigrants as both ethnic and national outsiders, no matter how long they have lived in the country. Tribalism is very much alive, as it always has been, and it is in fact growing stronger in most places (i.e. China).

What the corrupt oligarchs in Mexico City won't admit is that the 11-18 million illegal immigrants in America remit vast portions of their wealth to Mexico, which is a sizeable portion of Mexico's GDP. And what better way to keep a handle on the vast underclass of your country, than by "allowing" millions of this said class to cross illegally into the United States. Not only does it now become America's problem, but you no longer have to worry about a sizeable number of your constituents who are unhappy with your governance and could become a potential liability.

"How Mexico treats its illegal immigrants"

"Getting Lectured on Human Rights by Mexico"

The following video is pretty damning. Not only does it reveal the rank hypocrisy of Senor Calderon, but it also reveals, straight from his own mouth, that Mexico's immigration policies are tougher than America's, and are a real version of the worst unfounded accusations against the Arizona law.

(Mexican President Felipe Calderon admits that Mexico has tougher immigration laws than Arizona or the USA for that matter. He admits that Mexican police profile and look for people that might be illegals; he also makes it clear that you have to have "proper" papers to enter the country, and if you lack papers, you will be jailed and deported.)

What instigated this post was the recent report that Mexico will be supporting an AMERICAN lawsuit in an AMERICAN courtroom to reject the Arizona immigration law.

"Mexico asks court to reject Ariz. immigration law"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not qualify as an unlawful intrusion into the sovereign affairs of another country? As has been demonstrated, by the very fact of the amount of GDP generated by illegal immigrants' cash remitances to Mexico, and the political benefits of the migration of a large portion of your electorate, should not the Mexican government be barred from any influence in any American courtroom? The entire situation is one that mocks the rule of law, American sovereignty, and democratic values.

Finally, to reinforce the rightful and lawful aims of the Arizona immigration legislation, here are two reports from June 22 (Let it be clear that the drug wars and lawlessness of Mexico have been spilling over our border, are increasing, and will continue to do so unless our borders are enforced. Obama and the Democrats are creating a national security disaster.):

"Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona"

"AZ COPS THREATENED BY DRUG CARTEL SNIPERS AT BORDER"

Connecting the dots...

Receive bundles of money:
"Surprise! Obama Was Top Recipient of BP Donations in 2008!"

Allow the government agencies you control to approve construction, fail to inspect properly, and bypass regulations:
"Deepwater Horizon Inspections: MMS Skipped Monthly Inspections On Doomed Rig"

Fail to respond to the disaster until weeks later, when you are forced to by plummeting approval ratings:


Then punish BP to score political points, while filling your government coffers with billions to use as you deem fit:
"BP, Joe Barton, Obama, and the Shakedown"

Related:

"OFF-SHORE OIL-DRILLING, OBAMA, SOROS, PETROBRAS: CONNECTING THE DOTS"

Toss the Skeptic a Bone

A friendly, "Hello," to all. James, here, the new contributor to this fine blog. More on my (sleep-inducing) background later. You'll find fairly quickly that I'm less well-read or erudite as my fellow writer, Secundus Paulinus (whom I will refer to as SP from this point forward - at least until he berates me for arbitrarily pulling acronyms from thin air). I don't even have as slick of a handle as he does. Nevertheless, I hope to contribute for a long time and start with this humble piece just to get my toes wet. SP can then chase me around with a steel bat for taking forever to write something.

I turn our attention to climate change. It's a popular topic receiving coverage in many of the media outlets whether televised, blogged, or published. There is an international panel devoted to this phenomena as a branch of the United Nation's Environment Program(me). Would-be prophets like Al Gore regularly tour the country on a regular basis warning all of the impending doom of climate change.

But has anyone ever stopped to think, "Is this right?"

Opponents, skeptics, and even individuals who aren't completely sold on climate change are made out to be fools, lunatics and "Holocaust-deniers". Harsh words for ordinary people who approach it with a dose of healthy skepticism! To liken these people to someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who believes the Holocaust to be nothing but the product of Zionist conspirators is just a bit of a stretch, no?

My point is simply this - it would be worthwhile to hear out the climate change skeptics in the arena of scientific research and public debate. Marginalizing or minimizing the legitimacy of their arguments is unwise and scientifically unhealthy. SP has written (quite extensively) on the holes appearing in the climate change proponent arguments. The leak from the University of East Anglia has only punched through the chink in their armor and has shown that the discussion is not over. Patience, time, respect, and more research is needed before we can come to firmer conclusions.

Global Warming, R.I.P.

Whatever happened to Global Warming? Oh yeah, the international left is all worried about "Global Cooling" now.

2010: Global Warming, R.I.P.

And as the movement slowly dies and transforms, the rats are bailing ship:
According to a top IPCC scientist, there never was a consensus on Global Warming; it was just a few dozen dudes (what happened to the "THOUSANDS" of experts?).
"The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider":

'The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,”...'

Oh, and for all the dingbats who believed islands would sink under an onslaught of melting ice, yeah, no dice on that also.

"EDITORIAL: Pacific islands not sinking from global warming; New study debunks Al Gore's hysterical fairy tale":

'...researchers from the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji documented changes in 27 vulnerable, low-lying reef islands in the Central Pacific. Using aerial photographs taken as early as 1944, the areas were carefully mapped and compared with modern satellite images.

It turns out that the islands did, in fact, change over time, but they are hardly sinking. Overall, 20 grew or remained stable. The island of Funamanu, for example, expanded from 7.4 acres to 9.5 acres in size - a 28 percent growth. Only seven islands shrunk, with the biggest percentage change occurring on Tengasu, which dropped from a tiny 1.7 acres to 1.5 acres - a diminishment of 9,670 square feet, the size of Mr. Gore's Tennessee mansion.
...
So the islands aren't sinking, the Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked, the Himalayas still have snow and the polar bears are alive and well. As just about every tenet in the Church of Global Warming has been debunked, it's time for the movement's high priest, Mr. Gore, to offer a refund to those from his flock who bought his work of fiction.'

I'm willing to go ahead and call this one: Victory from idiocy. Now to combat the left's next disaster-scare agenda...

Obama is in Control

One of the most common tools of calculating, devious politicians and leaders is the use of surrogates and underlings to take the blame for perceived and real failures, while always taking full credit for any successes, whether or not it has been due to their own actions. Nowhere has this behavior been more apparent than with the Obama administration.

According to Obama, failures and problems are never the result of his orders or actions, but instead are the result of incompetence or bad judgement among his various cabinet officials or unwise Democrat congressmen. Awarding KSM a civilian trial in NYC? Why, that was the idea and plan of Attorney General Eric Holder; we are supposed to believe that Obama new nothing about it and it was all Holder's doing. In other words, a major legal and security issue was decided without the approval or advice of the president? I'm sorry, but the American people are not all idiots.

From the "health" care legislation, to the Honduras debacle, to numerous other events, Obama has claimed ignorance of failures and unpopular policy. If there are noxious sections to a piece of legislation, like the Cornhusker kickback or the Louisiana Purchase, Obama claims ignorance and blame rests solely on Democrat senators. Regardless of how much back room "persuading" his chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel partakes in. We are supposed to believe that Obama, as the head of the U.S. government and his political party, does not direct or control affairs that crucially affect America.

That's what makes videos like this one so special; because they lift the mask off of the charade and show Obama in all his devious, narcissistic glory. Perhaps the only shocking part of the whole testimony is the fact that a few Democrats were working with Republicans to attempt to draft truly bipartisan legislation. But a visit to Obama got that silly notion of "bipartisanship" cleared up real quick, while adding the necessary radical elements to appease his union and leftist base while gratifying his desire for power. That the bill became the government power grab and crony capitalist piece of garbage it is now shows the true nature and agenda of Obama, and how his ideological beliefs and policy plans are vile in their disregard for working citizens and dangerous to individual liberty.

If any more proof is needed to show Obama's callous disregard for the people, his belief in his utter superiority above any kind of moral and ethical standard, and his full embrace of the postmodern leftist belief that the ends are the only real truth, look no further than his recent comment to reporters about new middle-class taxes. When asked if he would renege on his promise not to raise "any form of tax" on Americans making less than $250,000 a year, Obama replied that he wasn't going to play that "old Washington game," and that everything is on the table when it comes to reducing the deficit (that he created).

Tyrants throughout history have shown that they will promise constituencies the world in order to grab power, and once they have it, they will do anything to keep it. The socialist ideological programs of the twentieth century both exercise the totalitarian power-consolidating impulse while effectively fulfilling the vain desire to control and engineer society due to belief in intellectual and moral superiority. Studying the words, actions, past history, and character of Obama, one finds that this picture fits, and all that is required to turn him into a truly historical tyrant is an increase in the power that he currently now holds. And if you review his stated agenda, this power is what he now seeks.