The Man In Charge

No matter how the mainstream media spins it, the recent plague of “Occupy Where Ever” protests is a referendum not on Wall Street, or income inequality, or joblessness, it is a referendum on Barrack Hussein Obama, his administration and the “do-nothing” Congress, half of which, the Senate is controlled by Harry Reid and the Democratic party.

Since the call for “Hope and Change” ushered in a new era in history by electing Mr. Obama, the first African (literally) American President, nothing has changed for the better. More people are unemployed, more people are losing their homes, both wars are still going on, America is weaker on all fronts, the economy is tanking despite phony and manipulative control measures by the Obama Administration, and the Federal Reserve; in the name of economic stimulus we have bailed out Union after Union, and seen no stimulus growth; and even the chosen one has admitted that people are worse off than they were when he took office, and it’s still George W. Bush’s fault.

Local Connecticut NPR affiliate had program the other day, I believe it is called “Where We Live,” which discussed the new movement that is afoot, where peaceful people are taking to the streets across the country to demand equality on all fronts, redistribution of wealth, and a call for the great society. The picture painted harkened back to anti-war, and peace marches of the sixties… peace and love man, peace and love. What is not being reported is that most of the “Occupy” sit-ins, sleep-ins, are actually unemployed people looking for something to do, looking for free food, or a place to buy some “good weed.” Of course there are also the Hollywood elite that roll up in their limousines, parked out of camera shot, and join the crowd for a photo-op, or a PSA opportunity, claiming that they are there for the long haul to show their support and bring down the greedy, super-rich. Until their agent calls and they rush of with a first class plane ride to an exotic location, where they too are under paid, just like the rest of the 99%.

The program suggested that this type of movement was something new, and unique, when in fact similar movements have been going on since the original Tea Party back in 1773. More recently, the new Tea Party movements have been going on for the last few years, and they never get the kind of positive press coverage that the “Occupy” movement is getting. No, the mainstream media, and multiple left-wing pundits have described the Tea Party movement as “hateful, racist, extreme, homophobic” and the list goes on and on. The Tea Party movement, though not a political party, despite the media’s attempt to describe them that way, was organic, and has no central leadership, but unlike the “Occupy” movement has a mandate of smaller government, fair taxation and real representation. The “Occupy” movement is just the opposite. The movement is not organic in nature at all but is the creation of left-wing anarchists supported by organizations like AdBusters, and several offshoots of the disgraced and supposedly defunct ACORN organization.

We find ourselves in a strange place. We have a President whose rhetoric implies that he is pro-America, pro-growth, and pro-capitalism, but his actions say the opposite. Everything that Mr. Obama and his administration have done has created this hostile environment, pitting the “haves” against the “don’t have enough’s,” the “poor” against the “rich,” the “producers” against the “consumers,” the “99%” against the “1%.” Is this intentional? Is this part of a new socialist revolution? Or, is this the result of an amateur idealist, who was rocketed to power because of the color of his skin, and given the mantle of power before he was capable wielding, or appreciating this power. Is Barrack Hussein Obama Tyler Durden?

Hopefully, this is not the start of a new socialist revolution; hopefully it is like the election; the masses of malleable minds looking for something to do, looking to be part of history. We shall see. I am betting that once the free food runs out, the port-o-potties begin to overflow, and all the pot is smoked, like a four day rock concert all that will be left is a huge, stinking mess. But hey, there are some shovel ready jobs there, so I guess it won’t be a total loss. I wonder if any self-respecting American will be willing to do them, or will we have to find some hard working “undocumented workers” to do the job.
Obama has created this mess, and don’t bring up George W. Bush. He wasn’t perfect, but things were never this bad when he was the man in charge. Obama has had almost three years to make things even slightly better, and he has failed on all fronts. So, unless Obama is an “evil genius”, which I doubt on both accords, he is simply an epic failure.

So, to the people occupying Atlanta, New York, D.C., Chicago, Toledo, etc… let’s direct our voices to the source of the problems, and don’t be misdirected by the sound bites, slogans, bumper stickers, and tee shirts. Change can begin from the bottom, but it has to be implemented from the top. Look to the man in charge.


A very privileged protest:


McChrystal was talking to you

by Peter Heck – Guest Columnist

The ink had not yet dried on my last column that discussed the fact that Barack Obama was woefully unprepared for the presidency and as a result is making deadly missteps in the execution of that role, when news broke of General Stanley McChrystal in essence saying the exact same thing to Rolling Stone magazine. This isn’t just a story to be brushed off. This is a bombshell.

Don’t be distracted by the media comically chastising the General for daring to speak out against “The One” (yes, the same media that hailed military officers who were willing to “speak truth to power” in criticizing George Bush). That isn’t the story.

The true meaning of the McChrystal episode is titanic, because it is quite apparent the General was sending a stern message directly to the American people.

For more reasons than I can count, it is beyond obvious that McChrystal’s public criticism of Obama was not a lapse in judgment or a mistake. It was unquestionably intentional. First, four-star generals have not achieved that rank without knowing the chain of command and the expectation of subordination to superiors. Second, all of McChrystal’s advisers were touting the same message, demonstrating this was no fluke, nor an offhand comment taken out of context. Third, McChrystal spoke the inflammatory words to Rolling Stone, a well known anti-war, anti-military magazine. Fourth, reports are that McChrystal actually saw the piece before it went to print and offered up no objections to its content.

If all that is true, then it naturally begs the question: Why did he do it?

McChrystal is one of the lead authors of the “counterinsurgency” strategy that, despite the nay saying of liberals like then-Senators Obama and Biden, transformed Iraq from a quagmire into a success. He knows the strategy works. But as its architect, he also knows this new military policy requires two vital elements: lots of troops, and as much time as necessary for them to do their job.

While other factors are important (cultural bonds, regional partnerships, financial investment, troop morale, etc.), the two most crucial ingredients to making counterinsurgency work (in Afghanistan or anywhere) is a massive amount of troops on the ground to overwhelm the enemy and live among the people, and a commitment to stay as long as necessary to break the will of the enemy.

This is precisely why counterinsurgency worked in Iraq . Over the ignorant objections of both Obama and Biden, then-President Bush listened to his military commanders and ordered the troop surge. And while being pummeled by the media and Democrat political opportunists for not setting a hard deadline for withdrawal, Bush committed to stay in Iraq until the job was finished. The result speaks for itself.

As the Afghan war began to deteriorate, Stanley McChrystal was put in charge to implement that effective strategy there. But he quickly found that Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. First, Obama – having championed himself as the anti-war candidate – cut the number of troops McChrystal requested. And then, in what has to be one of the most foolish wartime moves in history, he announced an arbitrary date for the beginning of American troop withdrawal.

This may please the ex-hippies in the anti-war crowd that Obama courted during the 2008 campaign, but it has emboldened our enemy, imperiled our troops, and created a giant mess of our counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan .

Having pressed his case privately with Obama’s war team in Washington , McChrystal certainly saw the handwriting on the wall, and as a final recourse, pled his case to the American people.

Were his actions a breach of protocol? Yes. Did they rise to the level of insubordination? Probably. Was Obama justified in removing him from command? I think so. But after we’re done hammering McChrystal for going over the President’s head, we better give some serious thought as to why he was so willing to put his career on the line like that.

The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless. And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers.

General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it. He was talking to you.