Are you ready for this? "If elected president, the Illinois senator would require women to register for the military draft. As commander in chief, he would also consider assigning women to roles in close combat, also know as 'the point of the spear,'" according to World magazine:

"Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground," Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Oct. 13. "Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain."

...During a CNN/YouTube debate last year, Obama compared the role of women in today's armed forces to that of black soldiers and airmen in World War II.

"There was a time when African Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal."

What about this: A Civilian National Security Force?  Obama's militia? Waffen-SS:

Obama said, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that is just as powerful, just as strong,  just as well funded."

Is this new Civilian National Security Force and registering women for the draft what Sen. Joe Biden warned about? Is this the something their supporters wouldn't like in conjunction with that "major international challenge" if Obama was elected? Sen. Joe Biden said,

And he's [Obama] gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes. It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it.

Is Obama planning on a draft for both our regular military and his new civilian force?

How is Obama going to pay for this new Civilian National Security Force that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded? Pretty ironic coming from a guy who begrudged all the money we spend on Iraq.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Remember last week when Sen. Joe Biden predicted an international crisis if Obama was elected? "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" (Actually, Kennedy's test came 22 months after taking office.)

Although the idea that an Obama presidency would generate an "international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy" is troubling, yet the comparison of Obama being like John F. Kennedy is flattering. Unfortunately, there is no comparison.

Yes, both men were young, but that is pretty much where the similarity ends.

JFK was a war veteran. He was squarely behind defending liberty throughout the world. From his Inaugural Address:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

JFK did not spurn the use of technology to keep the world safe as Obama has. In fact, the technological breakthrough of the solid rocket fueled Minuteman missiles served as a deterrent to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We learned about the Minuteman deterrent when we visited an actual Minuteman II Missile Site while on vacation 2 years ago.

The National Park Service preserved this last remaining facility for its historic significance, and we were privileged to have Kerry Davis, a former Minuteman employee, as our tour guide.

(Photo is of huge bank style vault door)

Ranger Davis (pictured, but my family is photoshopped out) used to work in a Minuteman II facility just like this one. We were far below the surface of the earth in this vault-like bunker command station. Davis told us how he belted himself into the red rolling chair on tracks during his shift. They did this so in case of nuclear attack, he could still launch our missiles, God forbid, if needed.

He also told us why the Minuteman was nicknamed the Ace in the hole during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy knew he could launch in 5 minutes, if needed. Presumably Khrushchev and Castro knew it too.

No longer did our offensive nuclear missiles require time consuming fueling before take off. Prior to the Minuteman, the fueling process took so long that missiles from Russia would already be blasting America before our liquid-fuel rockets could get off the ground. The Minuteman was a solid rocket system--always at the ready in 5 minutes, hence the name Minuteman.

If you look at the Minuteman Missile History, you see that Minuteman I became operational just 8 days after the crisis began...

and 1 DAY before we went to DEFCON 2.

(My emphasis throughout) 

LGM-30A/B Minuteman I:  In the late 1950s advances in solid-fuel propellants enabled the Air Force to develop its first solid-fuel ICBM, the Minuteman I (LGM-30A/B). Formal development began in September 1958, and after an extraordinarily rapid development program, the Air Force put its first ten Minuteman ICBMs on operational alert at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in October 1962. Deployment proceeded at an equally furious pace, and within 5 years 1,000 of the solid-fuel missiles stood poised in their silos.

... On October 22, 1962, SAC placed its first flight of ten Minuteman missiles on operational alert.

On the night of October 23, the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed Strategic Air Command to go to DEFCON 2, for the only time in history. The message, and the response, were deliberately transmitted uncoded, (unencrypted), in order to allow Soviet intelligence to capture them.^[3] Operation Falling Leaves quickly set up three radar bases to watch for missile launches from Cuba.^[clarify] The radars were experimental models ahead of their time. Each base was connected with a hotline to NORAD control.

NORAD was the central control for the 10 new Minuteman I stations. America played a gut-wrenching game of chicken with the Soviets and Cuba. By the grace of God, the crisis passed.

 ...After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey on the border of the Soviet Union in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba.

If America did not possess the capability to launch before Russia or Cuba could, or if we had not developed new weaponry, would the Cuban Missile Crisis have resolved peacefully?

I doubt it.

Countries that were weak militarily in Europe were taken over by the Soviet Union.

I believe it was only Providence that caused the Soviets to believe America was a force to be reckoned with, that the situation resolved as well as it did.

Now contrast Kennedy's attitude toward military technology with Obama's on military spending and technology:

...I will cut 10s of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investment in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slop our development of future combat systems...

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on production of fissial material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMS off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Obama's naivete' on military technology and preparedness is frightening. Where would we be today if President Eisenhower and Kennedy had not embraced military technology? Maybe part of the Soviet Union?

President Kennedy might have been young and tested just 22 months into his presidency. At least he was realistic about the importance of new technology. Obama is not. 

After our tour of the Minuteman command bunker, the Ranger took us to an actual missile silo. We were told about how many warheads have been dismantled since the end of the Cold War and how the military was doing a soft standing down of Cheyenne Mountain/NORAD command center--they felt they didn't really need it anymore. Since North Korea had just fired a test long-range missile, I was not so sure a soft standing down was wise. Are there other Minutemen missiles I asked? Yes, the Minuteman IIIs are in service. I felt a little better. (Photo is of missile in glass topped silo)

The world is a much more dangerous place since our visit 2 years ago. North Korea and Iran continue to work on developing nuclear weapons. Russia is becoming more aggressive. Can we afford to "slow our development of future combat systems?" or "cut investment in unproven missile defense systems?" or "take our ICBMs off hair trigger," as Obama promotes? I would say, no, not in today's dangerous world. At least not if America wishes to remain a superpower.

P.S.--A serendipitous find: We stumbled on the ATK Corporation, out in the middle of nowhere in Utah. The T stands for Thiokol Chemical Corporation, the maker of solid rockets. Their entire front lawn held a collection of solid rocket history. Very interesting.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

One of my favorite lines from the 2004 presidential campaigns was John Kerry's,  “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”  His statement evolved into I voted for the war before I voted against it, and it became synonymous with the term flip-flop.

Most politicians do this to a certain extent. John McCain has changed his stance on domestic oil drilling. Barack Obama certainly is not letting me down! 

I really don't follow Obama's positions all that closely, but I did think he supported the war in Afghanistan, since he criticized President Bush for not stepping up our efforts there. I found this link on Mark Levin's website very interesting: From 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, 'Obama wrong from the start on Iraq'  says retires SF seargent,

The following is the bottom line of why one well known retired Special Forces NCO does not share Senator Barack Obama’s confidence in his own judgment:

Obama has not had any good ideas about the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. He threatened to invade Pakistan, run away from Iraq and redouble efforts to capture and not martyr the already-dead bin Laden. Now there is a resume for an aspiring Commander in Chief. — James Hanson (a.k.a. Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive.net), retired Special Operations Master Sergeant, July 21, 2008

Here comes Obama's Afghanistan voting record flip-flop on H.R. 2206: U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.

Last year, Obama repeatedly said the surge in Iraq would not work. In addition, Power Line’s John Hinderaker points out Senator Obama’s current rhetoric about Afghanistan does not match his past voting record:

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing on Afghanistan is a complete fraud.[Lots of Obama quotes on how the Surge won't work in that posting.]

Yet in an ABC News recent post Iraq tour 'Nightline' interview,

"I said a year and a half ago that we needed more troops in Afghanistan -- at least two brigades," Obama said.

So much for hindsight being 20/20!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Both parties' candidates just had a foreign policy briefing--a standard practice used to bring the next president up to speed. What isn't standard is a candidate shooting his mouth off after the briefing. Biden's warning: (My emphasis throughout.)

"Mark my words," Biden said in San Francisco last Saturday. "With the next, first six months of this administration, if we win, they're going to — we're going to face a major international challenge. Because they're going to want to test him, just like they did young John Kennedy. They're going to want to test him."

Was that just Biden being Biden? But then, he said it again! This time Biden piped up at a Seattle fundraiser: 

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." 

This part of his chat was really strange:

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." 

And this was the guy who was supposed to lend gravitas to the Obama ticket? He went on to give more cautions and warnings--both about the economy and international problems:

"Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my ... why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years..."

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."

When I first heard about Biden's remarks, I immediately thought about Iran blasting Israel off the face of the earth--after all, Iran has talked about it and Obama was vague about his response. 

If you were Iran, would you be more apt to attack Israel with McCain as president or Obama?

But after looking at the last section of quotes, I'm wondering was Biden hinting about needing a military draft? Bombing Pakistan? Who knows.

Speak softly and carry a big stick is usually thought to be a deterrent to foreign aggression. The big stick being military might and cutting edge military technology. It has served us well in the past.

Biden began his warnings by comparing Obama to JFK, but Joe forgot one very important thing about his running mate: Unlike JFK, Obama has stated he wants to put a end to that military technology.

The complete IBD Editorial is worth the read or listen--the link is on this page. It is very sobering.

I'm digging out some photos you might find interesting for a future blog: Obama, JFK, technology, and the Cuban Missile Crisis...chilling

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

If the liberal media wants to know why conservatives have pretty much given up reading their papers and watching their broadcasts, this may give them some insights. From Investor's Business Daily: (My emphasis throughout)

"Iraq War: We interrupt coverage of Bristol Palin's pregnancy to announce that the U.S. has turned over control of Iraq's wild, wild west to Baghdad. Memo to Barack Obama: Soon you will have nothing left to surrender.

On Monday, while Democrats waited to see if Hurricane Gustav would be another Katrina and the GOP juggled its convention schedule, U.S. commanders formally returned responsibility for security in Iraq's Anbar province to the Iraqi Army and police. [The Iraqis have actually been in control since April.]

Maybe you missed it. The New York Times Web page had three stories on Bristol Palin. The Washington Post's online magazine, Slate, is running a "Name Bristol Palin's Baby" contest. And Us Weekly has "Babies, Lies and Scandal" on its cover.

Victory in Iraq can't compete in an environment where Bristol's boyfriend is more thoroughly investigated than Obama's lifelong association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.

The media prefer to ignore how wrong Obama was on the major foreign policy issue of the Bush years. He opposed the war and the surge. He supported cutting off funding. He sponsored a bill to have U.S. troops withdraw in defeat by March of this year, their sacrifice in vain. His policies would have led to a humanitarian and strategic disaster.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence," he [Obama] said in 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse." When confronted by ABC News with the success of the surge, asking if he would have supported it knowing what he knows now, Obama's answer was "No."

Not only was Obama wrong about Iraq, but he selected a running mate who also was wrong. Remember Joe Biden's Slice and Dice solution to turn a sovereign Iraq into a sectarian sectioned country? 

I am thrilled that Iraq has made this progress, but I don't think it was due just to the increase in troops. IBD touches on this:

The extra troops allowed a take-and-hold strategy that convinced Iraqis that America wouldn't cut and run. It would later be called the "Anbar Awakening."

Sure, the extra troops helped reverse the dire situation in Iraq, 

In 2006, al-Qaida in Iraq declared Baqouba to be the capital of the Islamic State in Iraq, and said it controlled both Anbar and Diyala. In January 2007, CNN's Michael Ware described Ramadi, a city of 500,000 and Anbar's capital, as "the true al-Qaida national headquarters."

But more than that, the Surge told the Iraqis that we were committed to being there. Despite the end the war rhetoric from liberal politicians and media, the Iraqis were not in this alone.<.p>

My neighbor's son, a Marine, had been to Iraq on 2 tours. During the first tour, he said that the people were so afraid, it was palpable. He explained you could always tell when an attack or surprise bombing was going to occur because the residents would be very quiet and hide in their houses.

Since the people were usually friendly to the Americans, why wouldn't they warn them if an attack was imminent? Because they were afraid of repercussions from the terrorists. You see, they did not feel they could depend on the Americans to be there later. When you don't know who will hold the power later on, do you really want to cross them now?

The Iraqi people still remembered what happened in the first Gulf War when the Kurds in the north went out on a limb for America. After we pulled out, Sadam ruthlessly attacked them in revenge. 

But on my neighbor's 2nd tour of duty, he noticed the people were more willing to talk to the Marines. The people were more confident that America meant business and would see this through.

This phenomena was even noticeable during Brookfield's last mayoral race. Many people were for the opponent, but because of their job, city contracts, or their need to remain in favor with City Hall, they were fearful to take a bold stand against the incumbent.

People naturally like to be on the side of the winner. In Iraq however, it was a matter of life and death. 

If the Iraqi people had doubts about America's resolve to see things through, I think we can lay a good amount of that blame on the liberals and liberal media. Almost from the start they were determined to turn Iraq into a Vietnam.

Thankfully, some people, like John McCain (and others), were not about to let popular opinion sway them from what they believed was necessary.  Because of that resolve and Providence, we are edging toward victory.

"Not in our wildest dreams could we have imagined this," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who flew in from Baghdad. "Two or three years ago, had we suggested that the Iraqis could take responsibility, we would have been ridiculed, we would have been laughed at."

On Tuesday, General David Petraeus had another surprise, announcing that U.S. troops might be leaving Baghdad as early as next summer. Another defeat for the defeatists.

Is it any wonder the liberal media is ignoring this?

(AFP/Graphic)

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

It is becoming more difficult to ignore the threat of Iran and its long-range (see UPDATE at bottom) missile program. Yesterday they fired 9 missiles  and I heard 4* more overnight. I found the reaction of the candidates to this eyeopening.

Launch Brings Different Reactions: 

Tehran's testing of long-range missiles Wednesday drew  markedly different responses from U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as Iran develops into a defining issue for the campaign.

Sen. Obama cited the test as further evidence of why the U.S. must engage in direct diplomacy with Tehran, while his Republican opponent called for more forceful responses, such as the development of a missile-defense system to protect U.S. allies.

"History shows us that when nations are embarked on paths that can jeopardize the security of the region...other actions besides diplomacy have to be contemplated and taken," Sen. McCain ... 

From US News, Iran Tests Missiles Able To Reach Israel:

McCain Warns Against "Second Holocaust" The CBS Evening News interviewed Sen. John McCain, "The Iranians are testing these missiles not because of action on the part of the Israelis, in my view. This is part of a calculated plan, developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them."

McCain told NBC Nightly News, "Hopefully, this event, it will serve as a catalyst that will finally gel all of the different factors that have been out there that will allow us then to act with our friends and allies in a most effective fashion and modify Iranian behavior, but we cannot allow a second Holocaust."

Obama Calls For "Direct Negotiations" ABC World News reported Sen. Barack Obama said in reaction to the missile tests, "The United States has to gather up others in the region, as well as internationally, to apply pressure on Iran. But it's very difficult for us to do so when we haven't shown a willingness to engage in the sort of direct negotiations with Iran that would give them carrots and sticks for a change in behavior." The CBS Evening News reported Obama "said what is needed is direct diplomacy and the threat of tougher sanctions to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear program."

Obama wants to talk. Talk to a nation that says the Holocaust never happened and that has set their sites on eliminating Israel.

Neville Chamberlain thought he could talk the madman Hitler out of his designs to rule all of Europe and the United States too. We know how that worked out for Neville.

*Was it 3 or 4? Seeing is not believing. Check out Michelle Malkin's Fauxtography-fest 2008! and see for yourself. (H/T Fairly Conservative)

UPDATE: Test exhibits no long-range rocket 'Same old Boring Shahab 3'. Not only were the pictures not what they seemed, but the Iranians' story too! Be sure to read all of the linked article. Here are some highlights:

Iran's missile test last week did not demonstrate any new capabilities, said a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles Iran claims was among those launched.

Iranian officials said the tests Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated a new variant of the Shahab missile that had a range of 1,250 miles. Such a missile would put Iran in striking distance of much of the Middle East, including Israel - as close as 650 miles from Iran - as well as Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian Peninsula.

... Unless the Iranians built a larger missile with the same length-to-width ratio, dramatically improved the thrust of the rocket or decreased its internal structural mass, the missile could not achieve the range Iran claimed it did. Otherwise, it is the same knockoff of North Korea's Nodong-1, according to the blog.

..."Iran frequently exaggerates the capability of its missiles, and it appears it is continuing that tradition with [last] week's tests," said David Wright, co-director of the Union's Global Security Program.

..."We don't believe this exercise to have been an illusion," he [Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell] said Friday. Still, he added, "They were not testing new technologies or capabilities, but rather firing off old equipment in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors and escalate tension in the region. That is not the way to win the trust and confidence of the international community."

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: