Much Ado about the Ukraine

Events in the Ukraine are now big headlines and the topic of a torrent of commentaries by experts on Russia, the European Union, NATO and related subjects. The whole thing began after protests forced its president to flee to Russia, followed by the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea as disputes between Eastern and Western Ukraine broke out.

 

 

At the time and still now I thought it was a predictable action and one that did not involve “invading” the Crimea since Russia has for many years had several thousand troops already stationed there to service and protect its military and naval facilities. Rather than wait around for the Ukrainians to resolve their conflict, the Russians took the reasonable, rational action of annexation. Crimea had been a part of Russia for hundreds of years and the Ukraine was as well. The national language there is Russian.

 

 

The problems the Ukraine has encountered began with public rejection of its president, Victor Yanukovycha, a fellow who preferred alignment with Russia than the West. Many Ukrainians thought this was a bad idea, but it seems now that many others had no objections. The main objections appear to have been the dismal governance of the nation, replete with major corruption.

 

 

The problem Vladimir Putin poses today is the problem that Russia has always posed for any nation on its borders. From the czars to the commissars, it has a long history of imposing control on its neighbors. They were regarded as a buffer zone. Russia had been unsuccessfully invaded by Napoleon and, after being betrayed by the Nazis with whom they signed a deal to split Poland, they wanted territory between them and Europe. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, those satellite nations declared their sovereignty once again, happy to be free and to embrace Western Europe.

 

 

NATO, a European mutual defense organization, was created to respond to what was seen as the potential for Russian aggression. As a member, the U.S. is committed to join in their defense. World War Two was followed by over forty years of “containment” by the West. When in 1992 the U.S. Senate ratified NATO expansion to include nations that bordered the former Soviet Union, it set up the present tense situation. Ukraine, however, is not a member of NATO.

 

 

Interviewed in 1998, George Kennan, the U.S. diplomat who was ambassador to Moscow in 1952 and who authored the “containment” policy adopted by the U.S., said the expansion of NATO was a very bad decision.

 

 

Presciently, he said, “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies,” adding “It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia and then (the NATO expanders) will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.”

 

 

On April 28, the Associated Press reported that President Obama said of increased sanctions on Russia, “We don’t yet know whether it’s going to work.” 

 

 

Nothing else in the Obama foreign policy regarding Russia has worked since the famed “reset” in his first term so he’s probably right. On a personal level, not just Putin, but most leaders of foreign nations have concluded Obama is too weak and too incompetent to be treated with anything other than the courtesy his office requires.

 

 

Thomas Graham, a former senior director for Russia on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2004 to 2007, recently expressed his view of the current situation in the April 28 edition of the Financial Times. He dismissed a new version of “containment” saying “It will not work. Nor will it advance U.S. interests. Economically, Russian is impossible to isolate.”

 

 

 

 

 

That’s true, but its economy is primarily dependent on oil and natural gas sales. If the prices of either were to fall, its economy would go with it. As it is, money is fleeing Russia, investment has halted, and its present threatening posture toward Ukraine may make Putin a hometown hero, but in the rest of the world, he is trouble with a capital T. As for Ukraine, its economy it’s even worse. But Russian pipelines runs through it to Europe. That is reason enough for Russia to show some concern for events there.

 

 

Whatever Russia does, the West can be counted upon to wimp out, doing little or nothing. In this case, staying out of the internal dispute in Ukraine may be the wisest course of action.

 

 

At home we have watched the influence of the United States decline from the day Obama took office. He has made matters worse by engaging in the reduction of our military capabilities. Until Obama leaves office, there is little that can be done to reverse this lamentable trend.

 

 

As the White House and the rest of us watch from the sidelines, we will hear a lot of empty rhetoric. Putin will be called a war monger, but he just wanted to protect Crimea. If he can covertly subvert Ukraine enough to gain more influence over its eastern half, he will try.

 

I cannot weep much for a nation with historic ties to the Nazis and one in which anti-Semitism is still virulent. This is hardly a nation to which the U.S. should be lending millions with loan guarantees for billions.

 

 

What happens to the Ukraine is a matter for the Ukrainians to address, not us.

Force

An interesting question came up yesterday.
During a conversation with an associate I was asked to define Socialism.  And, then explain why I think it’s bad.
My response was “Force”.
The issue is not that Socialism is difficult to define but rather that so many people demonstrate the mindset through their actions while calling themselves various other things.  Socialists intentionally try to keep you, and themselves, confused… if they didn’t you would see them for what they are.
It became clear during this conversation that a simple rule would be useful because the left changes their names with regularity and impunity. They figured out long ago that when people understand who they are and what they really stand for, those people don’t like them. So the solution was to keep calling themselves something different… often. It adds up to a long list, from stealing the term “Liberal” to using words like Progressive. You’ll find them labeling themselves Democrats, Moderates, Social Democrats, Republicans and even, hilariously, “No Labels”.  I prefer “Statists” because it lumps them all together… it’s easier for me as I have few brain cells remaining.
It becomes humorous when you think about it… how disliked must you be to have so many names?  Well, criminals do this everyday.  Count the times have you’ve watched the news and the police are looking for a guy with fifteen different “AKA’s”?  Criminals, and Liberals, understand that a name follows you around and really gets in the way of doing bad things.  Can’t have that.
So how do we identify these people?
The very first question you should always ask yourself is… does this person advocate force to be used upon U.S. Citizens?
An easy example of the above is:
Ask yourself, is the government forcing me to buy… a bible, a first edition of Audacity of Hope or health insurance?  If so, the person advocating the force is a Socialist.  It doesn’t matter what they call themselves.
And, the law used to force you to do so is Socialist in nature and therefore extra-constitutional.  (OK Lefties – Car insurance does not apply here as you are not forced to buy a car… and even if you choose to, as long as it resides on your private property (say a ranch) you are not forced to have insurance for it.)
If you’re still not sure, then the second question is; does this person desire to use this force to “nudge” you to the “right” decision, in other words quicker than you might have arrived there on your own…  This is done because the Leftist wielding the force already knows (believes) their answer is the right one and you’re too inept to make the correct decision on yourself.
Some examples are skyrocketing gas prices forced upon us through Federal taxes, and a refusal to utilize our own natural resources, so we can get those cars that run on algae which we have all been dreaming about.  Or, forcing banks to lend you money even though you don’t have a job and you have a history of not paying your bills… this way you can have a house BEFORE you can afford it subsequently causing a GLOBAL financial meltdown.
It just doesn’t matter what the consequences are because these people are brilliant and full of only the best intentions… like forcing people to buy crappy fluorescent light bulbs from a company that donates millions of dollars to their campaign coffers.  Thank God we have such smart folks to take care of us stupid people…  it’s all for our own good.
It really is that simple and this “force” rule can be applied hundreds of times a day. Now that you realize this, you’ll be amazed on how it changes the way you see the world. You will also be amazed at the change in how you view people you previously thought you agreed with.
So instead of allowing yourself to succumb to the intentionally confusing and overwhelming number of names and supposed “good intentions” the Left hides behind, you now have an easy way to identify them and their behaviors immediately and clearly even through the denials.  When applied, this rule will identify those Socialists on both sides of the aisle.
In contrast, Free-Market Capitalism requires no force.  None.  All it requires is you making the decision you think is best for you.  Rugged Individualism takes into account that we are all in this together, but it allows YOU to determine if coming together as a group to accomplish a goal is the right thing for you to do… it does not allow for some other person to force you to come together  and accomplish a goal you disagree with but they think is the right one.
Make no mistake… there is a war going on.  It’s a battle between two very different governing theories… two very different Ideologies.
One is Collectivist in nature.  It’s a number of ideas that sound nice when said aloud but have a very long, sad history of oppression, poverty, death, destruction and failure.  It’s called Democratic Socialism. It’s Force.  The entirety of the Democrat Party, and many in the Republican Party promote this ideology through their actions while denying it to your face.  They work “around” the U.S. Constitution because it is anti-socialist by design.  They call it a “living, breathing document” or “outdated”.  Of course they do, it’s in the way.
The other theory is Enlightened and what this country was founded on.  It’s Liberty and Freedom of the Individual to choose.  It’s a Federal Government Limited by a Constitution.  It’s Free-Market Capitalism that protects not just the Individual, but the Economic health of all of us… together.  There are a few politicians promoting this ideology but their numbers are increasing as the citizens begin to actively pay attention.  With the Education of the population in regard to these two theories the voters find their way.  Sadly, the contrast is not being taught in our Government School System and must be sought out.
What should be understood is these two ideologies are mutually exclusive.  Compromise has no place here.  The fact that we have tried to compromise ( link to: Bipartisanshitt) over the last 100 years is exactly what has brought us to the fiscal cliff.  We have strayed far from our original intent.
It’s time to admit it, double back, and find the right path before it’s too late.
We are very close to “too late”.

Government Lexicon

Words no longer mean anything stable and therefore laws mean nothing stable at the highest level of U.S. government. The government is the master of words now. It creates threats when none exist. It defines and names them according to its pleasure. This in turn justifies it in creating a national emergency when there is none.
There is no restraint, no constraint, no boundary on what a president can do when and if words fail to provide such constraints. When a president uses words to mean things they do not in fact mean, that is, when he uses bald-faced lies as justifications for his actions, then any so-called law can be issued by a president. He can do anything by declaring that the situation demands it, even if it doesn’t. At that point, words mean nothing of what their conventional content gives them. They become what authority says they mean. At that point, we are in an Alice in Wonderland world.

Alice is talking with Humpty Dumpty:

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
“‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
“‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’”

Who is master, the word or its user, in this case Humpty Dumpty? Humpty tells Alice he’s the master.

Obama is now the master. Here is Humpty Dumpty Obama speaking. Obama issued an executive order that says:

“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:”

What national emergency? There isn’t any. I defy anyone to prove that there is an actual national emergency because of relations between Crimea and Ukraine. Obama finds “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” What threat? I defy anyone to prove that there is a threat to the security of Americans arising from Crimea’s relations with Ukraine.

What danger is there to Americans if Crimea holds a referendum? What danger if it decides to alter its political relations with Ukraine and Russia? What actually is the “Government of Ukraine” of which Obama speaks? What are its democratic processes being undermined? How can a vote in Crimea cause an emergency to Americans? How can such a vote cause an emergency to Americans while riots in the streets, snipers and thugs can cause a change in government in Ukraine and that is no cause for Obama to declare an emergency, indeed that becomes a cause for approval?

In Obama’s dictionary, if he thinks something has happened in Crimea having to do with its government that another government (in Ukraine) has not authorized, then this constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” This constitutes an “emergency”.

If the foreign policy of the United States is unlawful to begin with and if it is thwarted by Crimeans or a Crimean vote to separate from Ukraine, does that give rise to a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S.? Even if it does, which it doesn’t in this case, is it so serious as to declare that the U.S. foreign policy faces an emergency?

A national emergency arises from a threat to THE NATION, that is, to Americans regarded as a people. If there is a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S., and I deny that a vote among Crimeans is a genuine threat even to that, this is not the same as a threat to Americans. There is no national emergency.

How can a vote in Crimea be viewed as a threat to U.S. foreign policy and the overturning of the government of Ukraine by violent means not be viewed as a threat? Only if the U.S. is content with the latter but unhappy with the former. In other words, to the U.S. government, a threat is that which frustrates what it desires. It is not based on something objective that endangers Americans but on an impediment to U.S. foreign policy. This impediment is declared to be a threat so that then a national emergency can be declared when none exists. That in turn then is used to justify taking actions in the form of sanctions.

Is the frustration of a want to be called a threat? If I want a Mercedes-Benz in a showroom but can’t get it without paying for it, is the dealer a threat to my “foreign policy”? Do I then declare that the dealer has threatened my family? Do I declare a family emergency? Do I then use my power to blockade the showroom or to prevent the dealer from accessing his bank account or to stop trailers from delivering new cars to him? Yes, this all sounds very far-fetched but so is it far-fetched for Obama to see a threat to this nation from a vote in Crimea and declare a national emergency.

Obama’s executive order is a raw exercise of power dressed up to give the appearance of legality.

Is Obama Stupid?

No one gets elected President by being stupid, unless of course the election is stolen in cities controlled by the Democratic Party, but one must also factor in the intelligence of nearly half of the voters who pull the Democratic Party lever no matter who the candidate may be.

America is seriously divided between liberals and conservatives, but there are indications that even those who self-identify as liberals are having second thoughts as the result of the havoc Obamacare has inflicted on their lives and the economy. Voters who self-identify as “independents” are the deciding factor in most elections. They reflect disenchantment with both parties.

I have been thinking about whether Obama is stupid because he has been in Europe with the leaders of the nations who are grappling with the seizure of Crimea by Russia. I keep wondering, given his record at this point, whether they too think he’s stupid. He has taken the most powerful and respected nation in the world and reduced it to ridicule and disdain. When he leaves the room do they shake their head and roll their eyes?

The question of whether Obama is stupid would seem to be disputed by the fact that he is a Harvard Law School graduate and one has to have some degree of intelligence to navigate that. His undergraduate college is Columbia University, one of the most liberal in the nation. In neither case do we know how Obama did academically because he took care to have his records kept from public review.

Indeed, most public records regarding his life, including his birth certificate have been kept hidden. The one he provided has been deemed a forgery. There are claims as well that his Social Security number is questionable.

So, one could argue that he was not stupid enough to let people know the truth. What we do know is that he is a complete stranger to the truth, uttering lies on a daily basis. That is a serious character flaw in anyone, but in a President it is a threat to the nation.

What we do know is that Obama is so devoted to a Marxist ideology that it warps his view of the world and that he has devoted his two terms in office to the “transformation” of America; another way of saying that he embraces issues, foreign and domestic, that do not reflect the history or values of the nation.

America has now twice elected a Communist to its highest office and the result has been a failure, deliberate or the result of his ideology, to lift the nation out of a recession by lowering taxes, reducing spending, and other means well known to previous presidents.

The result has had a cataclysmic effect on the lives of millions of Americans. What growth has occurred has not been due to anything the White House or Congress has done, but in spite of both.

The overthrow of tyrannical governments in the Middle East and most recently in Ukraine reflects a desire for democracy and justice in these nations. Obama sided with the Muslim Brotherhood during the Egyptian uprising.  One has to wonder what the king of Saudi Arabia has to say about that. His nation and others in the Middle East have banned the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. There is no nice way of describing his action or inaction regarding the Middle East and elsewhere.

The opening of negotiations with Iran and reductions of sanctions against it simply gave it more time to pursue its intent to create its own nuclear weapons. This isn’t just stupid, it’s insane. The time wasted on securing peace from the Palestinians after decades of their open hatred of Israel is also stupid.

Obama’s failure to work closely with Congress reflects his indifference to the Constitution and, having lectured on it, it cannot be said that he is ignorant of its limits on the executive office and its division of power between the three branches of government He doesn’t seem to care much what the Constitution says. That’s stupid. The result has been a very meager legislative record and that is a good thing given his ideological inclinations.

We all know of men and women in high office or CEOs of major corporations that offer ample evidence of stupidity, but the latter can be removed by their board of directors. Americans have no options for the removal of Obama. Impeachment will not likely occur even if the GOP gains control of both houses of Congress. Obamacare and the economy have been his greatest gift for their renewal of political power.

Obama’s “war on coal” and other efforts of his administration to keep America from tapping huge reserves of energy that would greatly improve our economy with jobs and exports is both stupidity and ideology. You have to be stupid to keep talking about “climate change” aka “global warming” when the only change of the past 17 years has been a planet that is cooling,

The danger the nation faces is real and present. The reduction of our military strength has not gone unnoticed by totalitarian and rogue regimes. Obama’s deliberate withdrawal of the nation from its position of global leadership is a threat of major proportions.

History hangs on questions of leadership and Obama has shown none, nor evidence of caring about the results of his failures. That’s a pretty good definition of stupid.

Where Are The Carriers?

I remember Ronald Reagan and his 600-ship Navy.

Chiding critics of his military buildup and renewing his pledge to have a 600-ship Navy by the end of the decade, President Reagan told U.S. Naval Academy graduates Wednesday that "it is too costly for America not to be prepared" for hostilities and that "the way to prevent war is to be prepared for it."

"It is about time," Reagan said, "that those who place their faith in wishful thinking and good intentions get the word."

Obviously, obama has not gotten the word.

Not only has he shrunk the Navy to less than 300 ships, but now he's 're-defining' what constitutes a warship.

Americans may be war-weary after Iraq and Afghanistan. But the world is still a hostile place, and the U.S.Navy is stretched too thin. And in a new sleight of hand, the Obama administration has changed what it considers a warship when reporting the size of the Navy's "battle force." From now on it will include the two hospital ships, Mercy and Comfort, 10 small coastal patrol vessels and a high-speed transport. Add those, subtract a few minesweepers, and voilà—the Navy fleet has grown to 293 from 283 ships.

Most of the new additions are lightly armed coastal-patrol craft and not true oceangoing ships. Originally designed to carry Navy SEALs and other special-operations forces, these 179-foot ships turned out to be inadequate for that role. Instead, armed with machine guns, they can be used to support "low intensity conflicts." They were launched in the early 1990s and recalled in 2010 to deal with fatigue damage to their hulls. Their military role is questionable and they're well past their expiration date, yet they sail on for public-relations purposes.

The bad news doesn't stop there.

...With the U.S. Navy arguably at its smallest since 1917, we don't have many ships that are actually at sea. Only 35% of the Navy's entire fleet is deployed, fewer than 100 ships.

But what about the carriers? They're certainly capable of handling any immediate threat, right?

In a briefing before the flight to the carrier, I asked how many carriers the Navy had deployed world-wide that day, and how many it could deploy within 30 days. A Naval officer said three were deployed that day, and one more could get under way within a month—a far cry from the 11-carrier fleet mandated by Congress.

IMO the blame for this doesn't rest solely with obama. If congress has mandated eleven carriers, then it should by God man up and demand that there be eleven of the damn things available. It's not as if there's a shortage of places where they're needed.

Presidents facing international crises have long asked, "Where are the carriers?" Calling hospital ships warships may satisfy Washington bean counters but it won't deter creative adversaries. Counting support and coastal vessels as capital ships that can project real power has serious consequences. America's ability to join coalitions, lead them, or take independent action is compromised. No commander in chief should be deprived of these meaningful options—even if the president has little intention of using them.

Keep in mind the long lead time for refitting, refurbishing, and redeploying warships. It's bad enough that obama and congress have allowed our Navy to sink to its current state. But what's worse is that the next president -- and please God grant us one with the brains to realize the need for a strong military, and the balls to use it if necessary -- will be deprived of a very powerful foreign policy tool.

That will be to our detriment, and the detriment of the world...

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The longer obama is in office, the more he brings to mind Jimmy Carter. For example, under Carter we were plagued with high unemployment, a mounting deficit, and stagflation. Under obama we've endured high unemployment, a mounting deficit, and his 'shovel ready' stimulus and jobless semi- recovery. But where the comparison really gains traction is in the realm of foreign policy.

The parallels between Obama and the early Carter are plain. Like Obama, Carter came into office convinced the United States and its “arrogance of power” was the problem in the world, not the solution.

Like Obama, Carter believed that an America that reduced its military, cut back on its commitments abroad and abandoned what Carter called our Cold War “inordinate fear of Communism” would make new friends and heal past wounds.

And just as Obama tried to “reset” relations with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Carter unleashed a furious charm offensive on the Soviet Union, even embracing and kissing Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev in public, and pushed the Senate to ratify a landmark nuke treaty, SALT II.

Instead of seeing American retreat under Carter as restraint, however, friends and foes alike saw it as weakness; instead of making new friends, his policy only empowered the world’s thugs.

One was the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whose student followers took the US embassy in Tehran hostage on Nov. 4, 1979. Another were the Soviets, who invaded Afghanistan the day after Christmas the same year.

Sound familiar?

But there is a difference. Jimmy Carter learned from his mistakes. obama shows no sign of doing the same.

Carter realized he’d been wrong: The world really is a dangerous place, especially when America decides to sit on the sidelines.

His response took three dramatic steps that set the stage for an American comeback in the 1980s — so much so that Reaganites would try to claim credit for them.

The first was pledging that US defense spending would rise by 4.6 percent per year, every year for five years, starting in 1980. This shocked and infuriated his fellow Democrats — and greased the wheels for President Ronald Reagan’s military buildup. (In the event, Reagan wound up increasing defense outlays less than Carter had planned.)

The second step came in the 1980 State of the Union Address, with announcement of the Carter Doctrine: The United States would use military force if necessary to defend our interests in the Persian Gulf.

To back this up, the president authorized the creation of the first Rapid Deployment Force — the ancestor of US Central Command or CENTCOM, the wheelhouse from which the United States would direct Desert Storm in 1991 and the fall of Saddam Hussein a decade later, and which keeps the Straits of Hormuz, vital to global energy markets, safe and open today.

The last step was authorizing the first covert military aid to Afghan guerrillas fighting their Soviet occupiers. That marked the start of the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan — a major landmark in the ultimate undoing of the Soviet Union.

No one seriously thinks that obama will do anything remotely like those three steps. Increase defense spending? Hell, barry's latest budget slashes the military to pre-WWII levels. An updated version of the Carter Doctrine? Just the phrase "the obama Doctrine" would cause our enemies to fall over laughing. Covert aid to Ukraine (or elsewhere) guerillas? Never gonna happen.

And now obama is poised to duplicate one more of Carter's less-than-stellar acts. In 1977 Jimmy Carter signed away the Panama Canal to Panama.

As we look back from this 100th year anniversary of the Panama Canal, it’s clear that America was synonymous with greatness back then. The country was forging ahead with bold ideas carried to fruition by bold leaders.

Men like Teddy Roosevelt, who innately understood what was in America’s strategic interests and pursued those initiatives with a gusto that made success a foregone conclusion. Failure wasn’t in the lexicon.

But how things have changed. That nation somehow morphed into a timid, risk-averse politically correct shell of its former glory that too often tries to be all things to all people, so long as those people aren’t its own citizens.

And there is no better example than the giveaway of the Panama Canal.

The canal’s history seems to far-fetched to be true:

• Thousands die trying to connect the oceans. Project declared impossible.
• America defies the odds, constructing canal ahead of schedule and under budget.
• America eradicates yellow fever and discovers the cause of, and thus controls, the ultimate killer: malaria.
• America operates canal not for profit but to facilitate international commerce.
• America, in 1999, freely gives the canal to Panama in exchange for nothing, netting a zero return on investment.
• American ships now pay massively increased fees (passed on to consumers) while Panama laughs all the way to the bank.
• America continues to guarantee Panama’s security in perpetuity.

If this story weren’t so tragic, it would be comic, because giving away the canal made America’s strategic vision a complete joke.

The list of giveaways in President Jimmy Carter’s 1997 treaty is substantial: the canal, Gatun Lakes dam, hydroelectric plant, isthmus-wide railroad, and the 10-mile wide Panama Canal Zone. Even Titan, one of America’s largest cranes (war booty from Hitler’s Germany) was given to the Panamanians in 1999 after 50 years of operation in California. All invalidate the blood, sweat and yes, deaths, of the Americans who worked so proudly on the canal.

Perhaps most startling, no consideration was given to America, despite it being the largest user, by far, of the canal. Virtually all the new equipment, from the “mule” trains that guide the ships to the massive steel doors going into the enlarged locks under construction, is made everywhere but America.

America is not part of the consortium building the new locks, nor does America manage the ports on either side of the canal. Instead, that honor goes to China. Naturally.

Not only does Panama rake in $2 billion annually from its fees, but it doesn’t spend a penny on an army, because thanks to Uncle Sam, it doesn’t have one. So if Nicaragua becomes belligerent, American men and women will fight and die solely for Panama. Help me out on that one.

So what is obama planning to give away that could possibly rival Carter?

The Internet.

The U.S. Commerce Department announced late Friday it would relinquish control of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) — the organization charged with managing domain names, assigning Internet protocol addresses and other crucial Web functions — after its current contract expires next year.

The U.S. government’s plan to give away authority over the Internet’s core architecture to the “global Internet community” could endanger the security of both the Internet and the U.S. — and open the door to a global tax on Web use.

“U.S. management of the internet has been exemplary and there is no reason to give this away — especially in return for nothing,” former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told The Daily Caller. “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal — only with possibly much worse consequences.”

“While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” Whiton said. “If the U.N. gains control of what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes.  It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there.”

The greater danger posed by the giveaway lies with the security of the Internet itself. While the U.S. has never used ICANN in a war or crisis situation, the potential exists for it to obstruct Internet commerce or deter foreign cyber attacks – powerful tools in the globalized information age.

“Under invariably incompetent U.N. control, it could mean a hostile foreign power disabling the Internet for us,” Whiton said.

The Internet grew out of the U.S. designed-and-developed ARPAnet. It is now an indispensable part of our lives, as well as a matter of national security.

And obama wants to give it away to an international conglomeration of imbeciles and bureaucrats, most of whom envy, despise, and hate us.

What could possibly go wrong...?

Notes of a Fed-Up Southerner

Coming up as I did a Southern boy, usually barefoot, lots of times with a cane pole and a string of bream I caught in the creek, and other signs of higher civilization, I believe I could get tired of Northerners huffing and puffing about how moral they are. Ain’t nothing like a damn Yankee for smarmy hypocrisy. They can spit it out in chunks like saw logs. A Yankee can’t open his mouth without preaching about how everybody else ought to do something he won’t do himself.
It’s always the same thing, about how the South keeps blacks in poverty and has lynch mobs. (Actually, it’s been at least three weeks since I was in a lynch mob.) To listen to these pious frauds, you’d think Northerners just loved black people and spent most of their time with them at the country club, talking the stock market. Why, how else could it be?
I couldn’t lie so much if you gave me a bird dog and a buzz saw. It ain’t in me. The worst schools in the country are in Mississippi, which doesn’t have any money, and the second worst in Washington, DC, which has all our money. Yes, Washington, so virtuous it makes your teeth curl.  How many white kids are in those schools? Uh-huh. It’s you and him integrate, not us.
You’ve heard about white flight. In nearly about every city in the North white people streak for the suburbs so’s not to be near black people, and then they talk about how bad Southerners are for doing the same thing. I guess talking moral is more fun than being it.
Fact is, you can see more social, comfortable integration in a catfish house in Louisiana than you can in probably all of Washington.
Now, sometimes I have to yield to the truth. I don’t like to, but it’s forced on me. Blacks do live miserable in Southern cities.It can't be denied. There's a shameful list of awful cities and it hurts me to write it: Newark, Trenton, Camden, Detroit, Flint, Chicago, and Gary. Pretty much the entire South.
Facts is, the South itself was always poor, dirt poor, pea-turkey poor, especially after 1861, and a lot of what it was and how it felt came out of that. Songs like Ode to Billy Joe to Yankees are funny, the kind of thing you’d expect from those hicks down there. But they tell how it was for a lot of folk. Red dirt hills where nothing much wanted to grow, and there was nothing much to do and sometimes nothing much to eat. It was ugly, Tobacco Road, and the North laughs it. Even in the mid-Fifties you saw—I saw—kids from the countryside of Alabama with their teeth black from decay, and in some regions school vacations came at cotton-picking and cotton-chopping time. You could easy find people living in fall-down shacks, white people too. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.
Piety quiz: Everybody take out a sheet of paper. Who said the following: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people….” (1) Mahatma Ghandi (2) Mother Theresa (3) Tinker Belle or (4) Abraham Lincoln. Hint: It wasn’t any of the first three.
Let me remind us that the South has generally had to bring to the North the benefits of culture. It figures. Industrial society is so full of stench and soot and misery and crowding that people can’t even do a good job of being unhappy. That’s why the great blues men like Mississippi John Hurt and Lightnin’ Hopkins came out of Dixie. So did jazz, and country music, and Dixieland jazz, which is different, and bluegrass, and rock’n’roll thanks to Big Boy Crudup and Elvis. Yankees can play long-hair music pretty good, but they stole it from Europe.
The South, though. It was a different place, mostly kind of sad I guess if you looked close, but it could grow on you. Those hot, quiet cotton fields in the Delta, where time passed sweet and slow like sorghum syrup dripping on busted china, and it was so peaceful and the air so soft you figured maybe there was a God after all.  At the time you could stand there and think that it would go on forever, that there was something comfortable and familiar that wouldn’t turn into something else you didn’t want. But it did. Nothing lovely can last when next door you have an infernal industrial smoke pit.
There was a wildness to the South, a sense that anything could happen. It didn’t feel controlled. Maybe it wasn’t obvious. People talked soft and slow like the Good Lord intended, instead of honking through their noses the way they do in Brooklyn, and they were polite and friendly. You didn’t want to lean on them, though. That wasn’t a good idea.
If you knew the place, it wasn’t surprising the moonshine runners came from there, and later turned into NASCAR. Hopped-up flathead mill, tank of bust-head corn in the trunk, flying through the Tennesse night with the dam federals after them. Back then, like now, Washington didn’t want people to drink what they wanted or smoke what they wanted. They was always sticking their long possum noses where they didn’t belong. And not just in the South. They’d invade anybody they’d ever heard of. Mexico in 1846 and 1916, Spain in 1898, Europe in 1917, on through Iraq and  Yemen, wherever that is, and Afghanistan and I don’t know where all. Anything but mind their own business.
And now we got another Yankee president from Chicago messing with the whole country, turning America into Russia. That sort of thing never did set too well below Mason and Dixon’s Line.
Piety quiz: Which of the following in the decades surrounding the Civil War said over and over that he wanted to send all the black folks to Africa? (1) Susan Anthony (2) Pallas Athena (3) Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst (4) Abraham Lincoln. Hint….
But enough about Washington, the world’s central deposit of oleaginous purity. Let’s talk about cars. Dixie was a car culture from when it first got the chance. It still is. I remember when, come summer, at umpty-dozen tracks the night howled and yowled and roared as muscle cars raced, taching high and sometimes blowing rods but things don’t always turn out perfect.  In the stands they drank beer out of paper cups and hollered for Jimmy Jack or Joe Bob to take the lead. It was their place in the world and they were doing what they liked with people they liked and there were no dam feds telling them they had to put catalytic converters on the race cars. Yet.
That was something the South always liked. Being left the hell alone.
On the weekends of races at Road Atlanta, from all over the South, from little towns like Farmville, Virginia, trailers and motor homes towing race cars streamed in. They’d set up and bring out the tool boxes and start prepping for the races the next day. Wives and girlfriends would help and everyone hollered greetings at new arrivals.
The wives and girlfriends were real women, and seemed to think being a woman was a good thing. Men thought it was a good thing, that’s for sure. It was like there were two kinds of people, men and women, instead of just one. It’s a novel concept, I reckon. But we liked it. And they were just nice. You could easy tell a Southern gal from a menopausing crocodile. Up North, you’d need a DNA test.
Anyway, half the crowd already knew each other and the others didn’t have to because it was a coomon culture and if you had a race car, you were in.
Greasy-purity quiz: “I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (1) George Wallace (2) David Duke (3) Nathan Bedford Forrest (4) Abraham Lincoln
Uh-huh. The Great Emancipator. Himself. How I do love goodness.