I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the daily sacrifices of our men and women in the armed forces and their families as well. In the celebrity-obsessed U.S. culture at least, we too often take our freedoms for granted and don’t understand they come at a price. I often think back to the days immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks and recall how silly our obsessions were with pop culture icons, musicians and celebrity gossip. Remember how the cult of personality media coverage disappeared for a year or so as we understood who the real heroes and people to be looked up to were?

Thank you to our troops and their families. Some of us think about you daily.

Sincerely,
Denny F.
Massachusetts

Times Are Tough, But An Upbeat Outlook Will Prevail

To the Editor:

Today, the news is dominated by the story of 33 Chilean miners being rescued after 69 days trapped more than two thousand feet below the Earth’s surface. It’s a profound story of love, faith, redemption, and of the bright side of human nature. Look at what we can do for each other when we put forth our best efforts!

Metaphorically speaking, we are all trapped underground at different times in our lives. Maybe there was a time when your job, for instance, made you feel like a king in a castle… but now (after things went badly and shook your confidence) you feel trapped under the rubble of it all. Perhaps you are feeling your age, and what was once a strong body that would obey your every command now feels trapped under years of fat-building sloth and avarice. Maybe you used to wake up with smile on your face and a song in your heart, but now, after a steady diet of bad news and setbacks, you feel like you’re trapped in a funeral procession. On bad days, it can even feel like your own!

They say you are what you eat… I think the same is true of your mind. You want to be informed and engaged, but with so much bad news out there, it’s hard to feed your mind anything like a balanced diet, and it’s easy to slide into negativity, anxiety, even depression. Great, positive stories like today’s report on the miner rescue do seem to come by too infrequently – so take some time today to absorb it. Reflect on how heroic the rescuers have been, and how patient and faithful the miners must’ve been. Is there a lesson in all this for you? Like the miners being pulled back to the surface, see if you can pull something up out of yourself that will help you escape whatever’s trapping you. It may be as simple as the realization that, for all your troubles and woes, you have it good. You are lucky. You’re blessed. You’ve been sleeping in a bed for the last 69 days, not in a smelly hole half-a-mile below the ground.

Then, take action. Action is the best prescription against the greatest threat to your well-being (worry). If your job is crumbling, make a new one for yourself. Starting a home-based business could be like drilling a hole to the surface through which you can escape if things go badly. If you’re feeling fat and lazy, make a change… you can at least start drinking more water, taking a good vitamin, and refusing some of the processed food-garbage you sometimes find within your reach.

And you can seek out the good news. Upbeat, “feel good” stories are hard to find these days (and you REALLY want to mute those campaign commercials)… but if you dig around, occasionally you find a nugget of pure gold.

by Michael D. Hume, M.S. 

-
About the Author:
 
Michael Hume is a speaker, writer, and consultant specializing in helping people maximize their potential and enjoy inspiring lives. As part of his inspirational leadership mission, he coaches executives and leaders in growing their personal sense of well-being through wealth creation and management, along with personal vitality.
Those with an entrepreneurial spirit who want to make money “one less thing to worry about” can learn more about working with Michael at http://oneyearplan.net/michaeldhume
Anyone wanting to jump-start their vitality can browse through the best (and most travel-friendly) nutraceuticals on the market at http://shop.enivausa.com/239824
Michael and his wife, Kathryn, divide their time between homes in California and Colorado. They are very proud of their offspring, who grew up to include a homemaker, a rock star, a service talent, and a television expert. Two grandchildren also warm their hearts! Visit Michael’s web site at http://michaelhume.net
Article Source

Remember that story that consumed our news media three months ago about the U.S. Department of Agriculture manager who was accused of being a racist? Yeah, remember, she was caught on tape saying she wouldn’t be zealous in helping a farmer because he was white? And it turns out those quotes were taken out of context from a speech in which she was talking about something that happened years ago, a story she was using as an exhortation to her audience never to act that way?

Yeah, that was crazy. People trying to drum up more racism in America. While that was going on, another group of “media journalists” were asserting that the “tea party is full of racists” – never mind the troubling facts that the “tea party” is a large, non-centralized movement with no clear identity (“journalists” hate anything that isn’t centralized) and that there was absolutely no evidence anywhere that anyone in association with any tea party event or group ever exhibited any racist behaviors.

No evidence? No problem. Not in this age of what passes as “journalism” in this country.

Here we are now, three weeks before the mid-term U.S. elections, and it’s Stupid Season. Judging from the ads we see and hear in a constant daily bombardment, we are supposed to be stupid enough to believe anything, and evidence would only confuse us.

A commercial in Florida pulls sound-bites from a candidate’s speech that makes him sound like a right-wing Christian zealot who expects his wife to obey him… he was giving a speech in which he was making exactly the opposite point.

A major governor’s race is mired in an accusation that one candidate employed and then heartlessly fired a self-proclaimed illegal immigrant. The candidate’s opponent (who happens to be the state attorney general and has done nothing to prosecute the only sure criminal in the case – the illegal immigrant) asserts that the other candidate knew she was employing an illegal when it was to her economic benefit, and then quickly scrapped the poor unfortunate when she decided to run for governor because it would look bad, of course. There are absolutely no facts to substantiate any of those assertions; in fact, there are a few facts that refute them.

A national ad proclaims that one party’s supporters are taking “secret foreign money” – it even shows a ruffling stack of Chinese yuan bills – and paints the picture for Us Stupid (U.S.) Dummies that, basically, the Chinese are putting forth that evil party’s candidates to take over the country and do their bidding. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is implicated (those capitalist pigs!). David Axelrod, the president’s longtime friend and advisor, appeared on a “media journalism” program over the weekend and was actually asked if he had any evidence of this serious charge – in reply to which Mr. Axelrod asked the “journalist” whether he had any evidence that it WASN’T true.

No evidence? No problem.

These are supposed to be our leaders. Oh, boy. I suggest you not wait around to be led by these people, because you don’t want to go where they’re going! Start a business of your own so you can build your entrepreneurial skills and have an income of your very own… don’t expect your employer to take care of you. Start a health-kick so you can keep yourself energetic and vital… not just because you’ll need that energy to drive your business and run your household, but because you can’t expect the government’s health care program to take care of you. And start getting a real education about the global conspiracy against your money, before it’s too late.

It’s Stupid Season. Let the stupid have their season… meanwhile, take this time to quietly build a future around personal responsibility and personal values. After all, if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Hume, M.S.
-
About the Author:
 
Michael Hume is a speaker, writer, and consultant specializing in helping people maximize their potential and enjoy inspiring lives. As part of his inspirational leadership mission, he coaches executives and leaders in growing their personal sense of well-being through wealth creation and management, along with personal vitality.
Those with an entrepreneurial spirit who want to make money “one less thing to worry about” can learn more about working with Michael at http://oneyearplan.net/michaeldhume
Anyone wanting to jump-start their vitality can browse through the best (and most travel-friendly) nutraceuticals on the market at http://shop.enivausa.com/239824
Michael and his wife, Kathryn, divide their time between homes in California and Colorado. They are very proud of their offspring, who grew up to include a homemaker, a rock star, a service talent, and a television expert. Two grandchildren also warm their hearts! Visit Michael’s web site at http://michaelhume.net
Article Source

The mainstream German media (newspapers, radio, and motion pictures) had, by 1936, been forcibly intimidated by the Nazi government into publishing and broadcasting only Nazi propaganda to the German people. The publishers of the smaller newspapers and magazines in various German cities, who refused to go along with the fascist Nazi agenda, were harshly seized by the brown-shirted SA and, eventually, the SS, and shipped-off to concentration camps. Yet, despite the attempts of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, to indoctrinate the entire German populace with Nazi lies, approximately 18 percent of all the adult Germans had, and maintained, a silent but adamant assurance that Adolf Hitler was not the Christian that he had claimed to be, but, rather, an atheistic megalomaniac. From 1933 until 1945, around 43 percent of the adult Germans remained unsure about Hitler’s Christian principles, while fully supporting the Nazi regime politically and militarily. It was actually the 39 percent of the adult German citizens, and 99 percent of the German soldiers, sailors, airmen, and the Gestapo, who fully believed in Adolf Hitler, that constituted the means of monitoring and controlling the behaviors of the German dissidents and eventual doubters throughout the course of the 2nd World War.

Do these percentages from the past sound recently familiar? In the Friday, August 20, 2010, edition of the “Washington Post,” a Pew Research Center poll was published showing that 18 percent of the American poll-sample firmly believed that Barack Obama is not a Christian, but a Muslim. A surprising 43 percent of those polled reported that they were unsure whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, and only 34 percent of the respondents reported a firm belief that Obama is Christian. Interestingly, in 1936, the dissident 18 percent of the population were absolutely correct in their belief about Hitler not being a Christian, despite what the controlling majority proclaimed. Beneath the current Pew poll results was the article written by Jon Cohen and Michael D. Shear, which seemed to reflect the words of Joseph Goebbels strongly worded 1934 German press release, “Adolf Hitler is, without a doubt, the Christian ambassador for God.” Cohen and Shear disputed the unbelieving 18 percent of the recent Pew poll by saying, “Americans increasingly are convinced – incorrectly – that President Obama is a Muslim, and a growing number are thoroughly confused about his religion.” If, perhaps, the “Washington Post,” the “Los Angeles Times,” the “Chicago Tribune,” “The New York Times,” “The Wall Street Journal” and other major U.S. newspapers readily dispute the growing belief among adult members of the American electorate that Obama is not a Christian, but a Muslim, there will be a desperate clamor in the Democratic Party leadership to assert that the voters are absolutely wrong. This might also be the case if CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and even PBS weigh into the controversy by calling the voters ignorant of the facts.

Nonetheless, if the American voters go to the polls in November 2010, with an increasing number of them saying, “If Obama looks like a Muslim, talks like a Muslim, and acts like a Muslim, he must be a Muslim,” the Democratic Party is in for a big shock, when Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority of the infamous Democrats who voted for fascist Obamacare, and the economically disparaging Stimulus Bill, are voted out of Congress. But it’s much more of a crying shame when a standing U.S. President has gone to the unscrupulous lengths that Obama has gone to keep his long form birth certificate and educational records away from public disclosure, in order to keep from being exposed as a person basically ineligible to be President. A good point to remember, and ponder, about Barack Hussain Obama is that when he was under Islamic instruction as a young person in Indonesia, he had a different name and had taken upon himself a Muslim bond and obligation that, according to the “Koran” and Islamic tradition, cannot be broken. And a noted scripture in the “Koran,” endorsed by Mohammed himself, is that Muslims are allowed, and encouraged, to deceive the infidel by lying, in order to subdue and control that infidel. This fact, in and of itself, is enough to create reasonable doubt about Barack Obama’s Christian faith in the minds of reasonable

-
About the Author:
Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler plus one year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California.  He also holds an ABA-approved paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, is a 1985 graduate of the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff’s Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, and worked professionally as a California peace officer. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Nowlin’s educational prowess extends 70 semester hours beyond a master’s degree in sociology, history, and law. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal, free-lance writer, and political commentator/journalist. He is a published op-ed essayist for the “Seattle Times,” while also a freelance fiction writer and published poet. He is married, the father of three grown children, and resides with his wife, the renown math and science tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats, in Northern Virginia.`
Article Source

This is a prime opening for the Republicans, yet in many ways it’s the Republicans who truly seem at war with one another.  From the media’s perspective, the party or Reagan now seems to view “moderate’ as a term only surpassed in distain by that deadly label – “liberal”.

The Democrats are doing their best to portray Republicans as the party of ‘no” and unless they begin to propose workable alternatives to the Democrat’s agenda, they run the risk of being viewed mainly as obstructionists, as opposed to problem solvers.  Whereas the county does seem to be veering to the right, any true success will most likely not come by making a hard right.  Britain tried that and their Conservatives paid for it.  It took a centrist, David Cameron, to begin to bring Britain’s conservatives back to the forefront.

Michael Steele doesn’t seem to be the chairman that the RNC needs at this time.  As Obama’s ratings nosedive, the Republicans need a strategic co-coordinator to rally the troops and come up with a strategic unified message, as opposed to several splintered messages. The party also needs to develop some strong presidential front runners.  Sarah Palin is definitely a strong brand name, and a wealthy one.  ABC new estimated that Palin had made in excess of $12 million since stepping down as Alaska’s governor. Yet a recent CNN pool has Obama beating her by 55% to 42% in a head-to-head battle.  More worrisome for the Palin camp, 69% stated she was not qualified to be president.  Obviously much can change between not and 2012, but at present there seems to be no urgency to develop a strong conservative platform with room for moderates.

For now, many view the Republicans as the party of obstructionism, with an intolerance that seems to view any form of cooperation or compromise as a type of blasphemy not to be tolerated.  The Tea Party could become a truly influential movement, but without a true agenda apart from big government being a bad thing, chances are it will eventually implode or begin to splinter into various factions.

This is a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to swoop in and capitalize on the current anger and dissatisfaction in the country, but without a strategic media campaign that reaches out to and resonates with the voters; it could well be a missed opportunity

Copyright © Anthony Mora 2010

-
About the Author:
Anthony Mora began his media career as a freelance journalist for such publications as Us, Rolling Stone and other local and national publications. He served as editor-in-chief of two Los Angeles-based entertainment and lifestyle-oriented publications, and co-founded Phillips & Mora Entertainment, a public relations and personal management company, which ventured into video and film production. In 1990, Anthony formed Anthony Mora Communications, Inc. a Los Angeles-based media relations company that specializes in media placement, image development, and media training. AMC Inc. has placed clients in: Time, Newsweek, 60 Minutes, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Oprah Winfrey Show, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other local, national, and international media outlets. Anthony has been featured in: USA Today, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The BBC, CNN, Entrepreneur, Fox News, MSNBC, and other media. He has written three books. The most recent, \”Spin to Win,\” is a step-by-step guide on how to define goals and utilize the power of the media to achieve success in any field. Practical and user-friendly, \”Spin to Win\” can be utilized by heads of major corporations, small business owners, and entrepreneurs.
Article Source

So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can’t leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We have failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can’t count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can’t capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source — the moral source of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

US President Obama spoke Tuesday night at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, about the future of the U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. The following is a transcript of his remarks:
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans. I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here at West Point where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — Gen. McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010 — so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

<form accept-charset=”UNKNOWN” enctype=”application/x-www-form-urlencoded” method=”get”>

Source: The News

</form>

-
About the Author:
Mohsin Ali Farhad
Islamabad Pakistan
Article Source

Since before his election, in 2008, Mr. Obama has fought litigation efforts of plaintiffs in several U.S. District Courts, to the tune of nearly 2 million dollars, to judicially mandate the disclosure of his original long form Hawaiian birth certificate. In this exclusively private endeavor to keep from publicly disclosing his long form birth certificate, and, apparently, all of his educational records, Obama has illicitly used federal tax money in the form of legal services provided by the US. Department of Justice, in addition to Democratic Party campaign contributions used to retain the very expensive services of the DC office of Perkins Coie Law Firm, in order to oppose the just attempts of plaintiffs, like Alan Keyes, to force him to prove that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, and not an American citizen born in Africa. And after a little of the dense smoke has dissipated from the legal battleground, a very simple question remains. Why doesn’t Obama enlist the trust of the millions of the electorate who distrust, and regard, him as an interloper, by simply disclosing his long form birth certificate for public scrutiny?

Perhaps, the loose use of the term “misrepresentation,” in regard to the allegations and statements made by the media supporting Obama in this constitutional controversy, has not been so subtly changed to that of “lying” by those opposing Obama’s credibility on network television and Internet news broadcasts. What does it actually take for a media misrepresentation to equate a lie? Well, according to the great late American humorist and satirist, Will Rogers, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, don’t you dare call it a dog.” If professional television journalists know substantially that the correct facts do not support the content of their statements on network broadcasts, then what might be innocent misrepresentation through honest ignorance becomes deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation, or an intentional lie.

In the most recent edition of the Internet’s “World Net Daily,” the Western Center for Journalism’s July 21, 2009 publication, of a report of an investigation commissioned privately by an unnamed retired CIA officer in December 2008, was republished for public benefit. In this report, as I read it, the most disturbing two facts which emerged from its words were, (1), that the many American voters who regularly watch CNN were probably duped by the assertion (lie?) of television journalist Katy Pilgrim, when she stated, on July 17, 2009, that “the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate.” The (2nd) disturbing fact was the February 23, 2009 assertion (lie?) of Jonathan Alter, MSNBC Political Analyst, in response to the question by MSNBC’s “Countdown” host, Keith Olberman, of “But as long as you feed that community that is looking for some excuse to question the legitimacy of a presidency, have you not-to some degree-done your job? I mean, has Alan Keyes not-to some degree-done his job in this?” Alter’s response was, “Well, you know, I don’t really think so, because I think it’s just sort of makes him and the other Clinton critic-the other Obama critics look ridiculous. And so, that doesn’t really, you know, help their cause in the debate. They are a party that is out of ideas, so they have to resort to these lies, you know, about the fact that he is not a citizen. You know, this came up during the campaign, Keith, and the Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”

Were the millions of American citizens who religiously watch CNN as their valid, truthful news source falsely told, on February 23 and July 17, 2009, that Obama’s original long form birth certificate was published on the Internet by an unnamed Hawaiian hospital? If so, it was much more than negligent misrepresentation, because those individuals making the statements, news professionals, knew beyond a reasonable doubt that what they were not stating the truth. The only type of Obama birth certification that has, to date, been published on the Internet, by the President’s own wishes, has been that silly green thing called a certificate of live birth, which would not be suitable, as a birth certificate, to obtain an official identification card from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So, the prevailing situation is very much like the ludicrously absurd 9/11 mass murder investigation that was called “The 9/11 Commission,” by which authority the federally supportive powers-that-be (the media) urged, if not demanded, that a very large segment, over 80%, of the American public surrender its suspicions that the federal government surreptitiously orchestrated the mass killing that occurred on that awful day in 2001.   The mainstream electronic media, presently allied with the U.S. Executive Branch, the standing Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Senate Majority Leader are currently urging, if not demanding, that every American voter quietly accept, without authoritative proof, that Barack H. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.  In the name of all that’s sacrosanct, I cannot, and will not, do such a thing, and I hope that the bulk of the American electorate will follow suit.  Perhaps the mid-term congressional elections will serve to remove from Congress the incumbent legislators who don’t support constitutional government.  Without a legislative majority, the Obama administration and its unconstitutional policies will certainly fade into obscurity with no chance of regaining a governmental momentum and the confidence of the American people.

-
About the Author:
Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler plus one year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California.  He also holds an ABA-approved paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, is a 1985 graduate of the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff’s Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, and worked professionally as a California peace officer. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Nowlin’s educational prowess extends 70 semester hours beyond a master’s degree in sociology, history, and law. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal, free-lance writer, and political commentator/journalist. He is a published op-ed essayist for the “Seattle Times,” while also a freelance fiction writer and published poet. He is married, the father of three grown children, and resides with his wife, the renown math and science tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats, in Northern Virginia.`
Article Source

History speaks for itself. Chamberlain neglected up-in-your-face reality and millions died due to his ignorance. FDR was “in love” with Stalin and gave him the Eastern Europe. He was totally responsible for a long and expensive “cold war” that could have been avoided which included the Korean and Vietnam wars where people died for no good reason.

Pay attention to the present administration. It will take us the FDR path.

The following is a piece of history of political misgivings. Let’s not repeat it.

Socialism Is Deadly

Socialism is not self-sustainable. It needs a leader to employ the power of the state to achieve its goals.

Soviet Union was established in 1922. It called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It added in short order Soviet Socialist Republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia (now Belarus), Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgiziya (now Kyrgyzstan), Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia (now Moldova), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. They were all called “Socialist”.

Hitler raised to power by building the German Workers’ Party. The name was changed by Hitler to include the term National Socialist. Thus the full name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) called for short, Nazi.

After the war, Soviet Union retained Eastern Europe and installed communist governments. They all became “Socialist”. Czech Socialist Republic, Socialist Republic of Romania and so on.

Socialism is defined (Merriam-Webster) as:

1 Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

2 a. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

3 A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Hitler was a socialist

By the autumn of 1937 Hitler had held three plebiscites. One asked vindication of his departure from the League of Nations, and he received a 92.3 per cent vote of confidence. The second sought acceptance of his combination of chancellorship and presidency after the death of Hindenburg; the affirmation vote was 88.3 per cent. The third followed the Rhineland crisis in March, 1936; the vote was 98 percent in support.

Hitler and his speeches

Hitler in his speeches, suggested to the German people first that they were sick, second that he alone could make them well.

His arguments were passionate:

“You are humiliated. You are degraded. Germany is a sick nation. Admit it. Concede the extent of your misery. You have been trying to persuade yourselves that you are content with this miserable republic.”

“Those who stabbed you in the back, the Jews and the Marxists, are ruling you today. They prevent you from recovering your self-respect. They are the spiritual death of your nation. And your own spiritual death too. For you are Germany. We are Germany. Be men! Out with the traitors, the Jews, the pacifists, the republicans….” And so on.
These speeches had an immense emotional effect. Women, especially, were overcome by them. If the audience was full of women, Hitler would shriek out, “You are mine, and I am yours, as long as I live!”

For the Germans, suppression of liberty was the price they were willing to pay for his leadership. Hitler was a socialist.

Hitler was in a mission

In a speech at Nuremberg in 1936, Hitler said, “If we could command the Urals (Russia Eastern Mountains) with their incalculable wealth of raw materials, and the limitless plains and fields of the Ukraine, the country (Germany) would swim in plenty.”

Hitler, in his speech at Nuremberg on September 9 said that Germany should no longer fear a blockade in the event of war. Acquisition of Czechoslovak industrial areas and consequent opening up to Germany of the grain of Hungary and the oil of Rumania would, indeed, make Germany very nearly self-sufficient.

Hitler openly stated in 1936 that he intended to attack Russia, annex Ukraine and eastern Russia up to Urals, and of course the Eastern Europe in between: Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and so on, for the benefit of German people.

Hitler promises – He broke them all

He promised to respect the Treaty of Locarno; and violated it. He promised not to fortify the Rhineland; and fortified it. He promised not to annex Austria; and annexed it. He promised not to invade Czechoslovakia; and invaded it.

Stalin perfected Socialism. It is called Communism.

Under communism, dictatorship of the Proletarian is the rule. Anyone who is against the rules established by the communist rulers, is an enemy of the state and must be liquidated. By 1938, Stalin was still busy exterminating state enemies, by now in the millions.

The Soviets, under Stalin’s chairmanship, even had a constitution. “The Constitution guarantees paid employment, leisure, and free education to all the inhabitants of the country.”

All governments rule by force. In Soviet Russia force is applied directly, and with social aims in view which are intended to benefit not only 165,000,000 Russians, but the whole human race. The end justifies the means, in the Soviet style. Stalin was perfectly frank about this. Lady Astor asked him, “How long are you going to go on killing people?” Stalin replied, “As long as it is necessary.”

Just like Hitler, Stalin had a similar, but somehow a different mission.

In 1938, Stalin was the leader of the Communist International, which had roots in ALL countries. He was confident, that the Communism will rule the world without any military intervention. Stalin had no reason to go to war. The only purpose of his army was to defend the new and young communist society he was building. In 1938 Stalin had no fighting army to speak of.

Roosevelt and Yalta Accord

Roosevelt was a socialist at heart. Had he had the power, he would have turned USA into a socialist country. Well, he couldn’t do it. USA is structured unlike any other country, so he failed, and it wasn’t for lack of trying.

The New Deal describes the program of US president Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1933 to 1939 of relief, recovery, and reform. These new policies aimed to solve the economic problems created by the depression of the 1930′s. When Roosevelt was nominated, he said, “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.”

The New Deal included federal action of unprecedented scope to stimulate industrial recovery, assist victims of the Depression, guarantee minimum living standards, and prevent future economic crises. Many economic, political, and social factors lead up to the New Deal. Staggering statistics, like a 25% unemployment rate, and the fact that 20% of NYC school children were under weight and malnourished, made it clear immediate action was necessary.

Roosevelt, promising to deliver The New Deal, sounds very much like Hitler and Stalin. “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.” The promise was well intended and certainly was sincere coming from Roosevelt. But so was Stalin and Hitler.

Roosevelt signs Yalta agreement

Roosevelt by signing the Yalta agreement with Stalin, did more damage to the world than the war itself.

By 1943, Roosevelt had come to the view that the independence of small states was an obstruction on the road to peace, and that the Great Powers had the right to impose governments on states without the consent of their populations. Roosevelt was entranced with a vision of a world peacefully directed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

The arrangements made in Yalta furthered the collaboration with Stalin, whose joint dismembering of Poland with Hitler started World War II in Europe. The war that Britain and France ostensibly entered to free the Poles ended with the West helping lock the shackles on Poland for decades, as well as on most of Eastern and Central Europe, and set the stage for China’s takeover by Mao.

It was Roosevelt himself who offered up eastern Poland at Yalta, the portion east of the so-called Curzon Line.

Stalin did not worry about breaking deals when it suited him. By late March of 1945, even FDR was forced to admit that the Soviets had no intention to allow free elections in Poland, saying: “We can’t do business with Stalin. He has broken every one of the promises he made at Yalta.” That wasn’t exactly so. Stalin often did just what the Big Three agreed upon, including dragooning legions of slave laborers as “reparations,” forcibly repatriating millions of refugees to the gulag and worse, uprooting millions of others from their homes.

And to add insult to the injury,

Washington and London kept fueling Stalin’s war machine even as it was enslaving much of Europe. “Soviet preponderance in Europe,” noted Churchill’s official biographer Martin Gilbert, did not stop more aid to Stalin, code-named Milepost, including a delivery agreed to on April 3, 1945–after FDR’s above comment. “Under this agreement, Russia was to receive, and did receive, more than a thousand fighter aircraft and 240,000 tons of aircraft fuel, as well as 24,000 tons of rubber from Britain, and more than three thousand aircraft, three thousand tanks, nine thousand jeeps, sixteen thousand weapons carriers and 41,436 trucks from the United States, as well as nearly two thousand million dollars worth of machinery and equipment.”

From there on: The Cold War, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and so on. The free world is still paying the price today.

From 1924 to 1936, John Gunther was assigned to the London bureau of the Chicago Daily News. Well known author of several “Inside” books. Inside Europe is the source for my information.

Inside Europe by John Gunther, 1938 edition.

Tr Cojoc

-
About the Author:
See the full blog at: Socialism is Deadly http://superhometheater.com/forex/socialism-is-deadlyLearn more at Inside Europe by John Gunther, 1938 edition.Tr Cojoc is a financial and political analyst. For more information go to  Loan Modification Made Easy http://superhometheater.com/Politics/loan-modification.html
Article Source

So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can’t leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We have failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can’t count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can’t capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source — the moral source of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

US President Obama spoke Tuesday night at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, about the future of the U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. The following is a transcript of his remarks:
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans. I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here at West Point where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — Gen. McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010 — so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

<form accept-charset=”UNKNOWN” enctype=”application/x-www-form-urlencoded” method=”get”>

Source: The News

</form>

-
About the Author:
Mohsin Ali Farhad
Islamabad Pakistan
Article Source

I am sure you have heard or read this dialogue several times a week, either from family, friends, or online blogs. In fact, you may even have the same ideologies as John, or perhaps even Scott. Regardless of which group you belong to, even if you are apathetic, we can ALL agree that no one seems to have the answer! Who do you believe? That is the big question.

In this article, I will try to present examples from past economic events, compare and contrast those with today’s crisis, and explore that ever lingering question in the back of everyone’s mind, “Should I prepare for the future, or live life as usual?”

Many individuals ask this question on a daily basis. In fact, many are so bold as to predict when this collapse may happen, and to prepare accordingly. However, have you really thought about what a global economic collapse involves?

The most predominate economic collapse that everyone thinks of, when the subject is brought up, is the Great Collapse of Wall Street during the 1920′s and 1930′s and the subsequent “Great Depression”. Yet, little does anyone take into account that more damaging, previous collapses took place.

Previous collapses within western societies trace their roots all the way back to the age of antiquities within the Mediterranean. Many historians regard the collapse of the ancient Roman Empire, within the fourth and fifth centuries, a result of poor leadership. Although it is difficult to reach a conclusive verdict on why the Western Roman Empire fell, suffice is it to say that it was a long and complex process, made more difficult to understand by the patchy nature of proceeding decades of turmoil (War with Goths, Franks and Alamanni).

If there was a simple answer, the Romans would surely have found it. The institution itself was not at fault, but the support it received from its commanders-in-chief, the Emperors, was often lacking.

It is interesting to note that our “commander-in-chief”, President Barrack Hussein Obama, along with our nation’s most important institution – Congress, have often been lacking and have failed to support their constituents (as of March 15th, 2010, Rasmussen reports that 71% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a good job, while only 26% of Americans strongly approve of President Obama’s decisions).

Our “modern-age” is no different when juxtaposed with the nadir of the Roman Empire. The French Revolution of 1789, the economic collapse following the War of 1812, the Panic of 1873, etc. can all be attributed to one commonality – debt exceeded revenue. The only factor that was missing from those eras, which our modern society is at the mercy of, is globalization. Thus, if one country falters a ripple effect can and will affect all others, including the so called “prosperous” nations.

If we take a look at global debt it is truly shocking. Spending our way into prosperity first and foremost will not work, and will in fact lead to decades of pain. In fact, for year’s world renowned economists such as Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Nouriel Roubini, and others, have been warning us of fiscal implosion due to Federal debt monetization with subsequent government controls in the form of Treasury bond interest, manipulated COMEX markets (recent former Goldman Sachs employee, turned whistleblower, has indicated for every ounce of tangible Silver, 100 ounces of paper has been issued – they simply cannot meet the demand if a large scale “call” was made), and other forms of capital control. Many may question the validity of this argument and the accuracy of the aforementioned economists. Yet, a simple browsing of Main Stream Media will show that they have been correct.

Foreclosures on the rise, insolvent banks, third party bond and market “pumping” through the Fed, and un-employment are just a few aspects that they have correctly forecasted. This is especially true with un-employment. A country cannot regain prosperity if no one is working to buy the commodities that are either produced locally or are imported in.  Job cuts accelerated in March of 2010, surging to 61% with employers announcing plans to cut 67,611 jobs in March, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. Simply put, without tangible “jobs” America CANNOT rise out of the ashes and once again lead her people to prosperity.

What is even more disturbing is that the government has now taken control and ownership of auto manufacturers, national health care, and the student loan industry effectively removing banks and cutting revenue at around $68 Billion dollars. However, the governments take over and control has not ended there. No, recently enacted Treasury laws have now closed the loop hole on expatriated money. Newly altered Internal Revenue Code, Chapter 4, Sections 1471-1474, has effectively implemented Global Capital Control enforcement for United States citizens.

So severe is the current regimes law changes, that some pseudonym financial correspondents, such as “John Galt”, have indicated the following, “The precursor to most major shifts within western civilization have always been the restrictions placed on the flow of capital. Without going off into woo-woo land on you, all I can say is that this is a warning shot that something major is about to occur which further restricts the freedoms of the citizens of this once great nation. When I did my radio show, I warned that this one event, a key moment or marker in any nation’s history was something to be taken deadly seriously. In my opinion it means that a currency realignment or change or outright revocation of rights taken for granted was certain with a 90 day, maybe if we’re lucky, 180 day window.”

As previously mentioned globalization is the “monkey wrench” in the economic machine. Historically, when a nation falters or defaults on its debt, the butterfly effect is tremendous, and defaults occur in waves.

Let’s return to the question posed at the outset of this article, “Who should you believe, and should you be concerned?” The answer to this question is, “Yes” – you should be concerned, and believe the data as presented by key financial institutions and watch groups. With this in mind, preparing for the future is not only a wise but sound decision.

How do you prepare? This question is tougher than one may think. An immeasurable amount of combinations are at play within a SHTF scenario. Should I invest in Gold or Silver? How about weapons, food, seeds, fiat money, and on and on this scenario plays out. A wise decision would be to have a small segment of each of the aforementioned items. Here is a small, but essential, list presented that you may find helpful from a Sarajevo war survivor, and though things may not deteriorate to this extreme, you must remember that anything is possible:

From a Sarajevo War Survivor:

Experiencing horrible things that can happen in a civil war, or economic deterioration – death of parents and friends, hunger and malnutrition, endless freezing cold, fear, sniper attacks.

1. Stockpiling helps, but you never know how long trouble will last, so locate

near renewable food sources.

2. Living near a well with a manual pump is like being in Eden.

3. After awhile, even gold can lose its lustre. But there is no luxury in war

quite like toilet paper. Its surplus value is greater than gold’s.

4. If you had to go without one utility, lose electricity – it’s the easiest to

do without (unless you’re in a very nice climate with no need for heat.)

5. Canned foods are awesome, especially if their contents are tasty without

heating. One of the best things to stockpile is canned gravy – it makes a lot of

the dry unappetizing things you find to eat in war somewhat edible. Only needs

enough heat to “warm”, not to cook. It’s cheap too, especially if you buy it in

bulk. Spam shelf life is 50 years.

6. Bring some books – escapist ones like romance or mysteries become more

valuable as the war continues. Sure, it’s great to have a lot of survival

guides, but you’ll figure most of that out on your own anyway – trust me, you’ll

have a lot of time on your hands.

7. The feeling that you’re human can fade pretty fast. I can’t tell you how many

people I knew who would have traded a much needed meal for just a little bit of

toothpaste, rouge, soap or cologne. Not much point in fighting if you have to

lose your humanity. These things are morale-builders like nothing else.

8. Slow burning candles and matches, matches, matches.

As economic conditions continue to worsen, you can also expect an increase in desperation among your fellow humans. Protection in the form of weapons, money, food, and supplies, no matter if life continues as normal, is not a bad investment. Food and supplies continue to go up in price each day. So in reality buying a little extra today could actually save you money in the future. Plus, in the event that a catastrophic storm or even global economic meltdown occurs, you will have the necessary supplies to continue to live in the event of looting and mass chaos, as was seen in recent years – Katrina.

So, how will you cope with the global economic collapse? It is our hope that you hope for the best, but prepare for the worst!

Here are 100 items that Guns, Grub and Gold recommends that you have available to you, in the event that an “unforeseen” incident takes place. Regardless, preparation and reliance on yourself should remain key and within the forefront of your families survival within ANY event.

1. Generators (Good ones cost dearly. Gas storage, risky. Noisy…target of thieves; maintenance etc.)

2. Water Filters/Purifiers

3. Portable Toilets

4. Seasoned Firewood. Wood takes about 6 – 12 months to become dried, for home uses.

5. Lamp Oil, Wicks, Lamps (First Choice: Buy CLEAR oil. If scarce, stockpile ANY!)

6. Coleman Fuel. Impossible to stockpile too much.

7. Guns, Ammunition, Pepper Spray, Knives, Clubs, Bats & Slingshots.

8. Hand-can openers, & hand egg beaters, whisks.

9. Honey/Syrups/white, brown sugar

10. Rice – Beans – Wheat

11. Vegetable Oil (for cooking) Without it food burns/must be boiled etc.,)

12. Charcoal, Lighter Fluid (Will become scarce suddenly)

13. Water Containers (Urgent Item to obtain.) Any size. Small: HARD CLEAR PLASTIC ONLY – note – food grade if for drinking.

16. Propane Cylinders (Urgent: Definite shortages will occur.

17. Survival Guide Book.

18. Mantles: Aladdin, Coleman, etc. (Without this item, longer-term lighting is difficult.)

19. Baby Supplies: Diapers/formula. ointments/aspirin, etc.

20. Washboards, Mop Bucket w/wringer (for Laundry)

21. Cook stoves (Propane, Coleman & Kerosene)

22. Vitamins

23. Propane Cylinder Handle-Holder (Urgent: Small canister use is dangerous without this item)

24. Feminine Hygiene/Hair care/Skin products.

25. Thermal underwear (Tops & Bottoms)

26. Bow saws, axes and hatchets, Wedges (also, honing oil)

27. Aluminium Foil Reg. & Heavy Duty (Great Cooking and Barter Item)

28. Gasoline Containers (Plastic & Metal)

29. Garbage Bags (Impossible To Have Too Many).

30. Toilet Paper, Kleenex, Paper Towels

31. Milk – Powdered & Condensed (Shake Liquid every 3 to 4 months)

32. Garden Seeds (Non-Hybrid) (A MUST)

33. Clothes pins/line/hangers (A MUST)

34. Coleman’s Pump Repair Kit

35. Tuna Fish (in oil)

36. Fire Extinguishers (or..large box of Baking Soda in every room)

37. First aid kits

38. Batteries (all sizes…buy furthest-out for Expiration Dates)

39. Garlic, spices & vinegar, baking supplies

40. Big Dogs (and plenty of dog food)

41. Flour, yeast & salt

42. Matches. {“Strike Anywhere” preferred.) Boxed, wooden matches will go first

43. Writing paper/pads/pencils, solar calculators

44. Insulated ice chests (good for keeping items from freezing in Wintertime.)

45. Work boots, belts, Levis & durable shirts

46. Flashlights/LIGHTSTICKS & torches, “No. 76 Dietz” Lanterns

47. Journals, Diaries & Scrapbooks (jot down ideas, feelings, experience; Historic Times)

48. Garbage cans Plastic (great for storage, water, transporting – if with wheels)

49. Men’s Hygiene: Shampoo, Toothbrush/paste, Mouthwash/floss, nail clippers, etc

50. Cast iron cookware (sturdy, efficient)

51. Fishing supplies/tools

52. Mosquito coils/repellent, sprays/creams

53. Duct Tape

54. Tarps/stakes/twine/nails/rope/spikes

55. Candles

56. Laundry Detergent (liquid)

57. Backpacks, Duffel Bags

58. Garden tools & supplies

59. Scissors, fabrics & sewing supplies

60. Canned Fruits, Veggies, Soups, stews, etc.

61. Bleach (plain, NOT scented: 4 to 6% sodium hypochlorite)

62. Canning supplies, (Jars/lids/wax)

63. Knives & Sharpening tools: files, stones, steel

64. Bicycles…Tires/tubes/pumps/chains, etc

65. Sleeping Bags & blankets/pillows/mats

66. Carbon Monoxide Alarm (battery powered)

67. Board Games, Cards, Dice

68. d-con Rat poison, MOUSE PRUFE II, Roach Killer

69. Mousetraps, Ant traps & cockroach magnets

70. Paper plates/cups/utensils (stock up, folks)

71. Baby wipes, oils, waterless & Antibacterial soap (saves a lot of water)

72. Rain gear, rubberized boots, etc.

73. Shaving supplies (razors & creams, talc, after shave)

74. Hand pumps & siphons (for water and for fuels)

75. Soy sauce, vinegar, bullions/gravy/soup base

76. Reading glasses

77. Chocolate/Cocoa/Tang/Punch (water enhancers)

78. “Survival-in-a-Can”

79. Woollen clothing, scarves/ear-muffs/mittens

80. Boy Scout Handbook, / also Leaders Catalog

81. Roll-on Window Insulation Kit (MANCO)

82. Graham crackers, saltines, pretzels, Trail mix/Jerky

83. Popcorn, Peanut Butter, Nuts

84. Socks, Underwear, T-shirts, etc. (extras)

85. Lumber (all types)

86. Wagons & carts (for transport to and from)

87. Cots & Inflatable mattress’s

88. Gloves: Work/warming/gardening, etc.

89. Lantern Hangers

90. Screen Patches, glue, nails, screws,, nuts & bolts

91. Teas

92. Coffee

93. Cigarettes

94. Wine/Liquors (for bribes, medicinal, etc,)

95. Paraffin wax

96. Glue, nails, nuts, bolts, screws, etc.

97. Chewing gum/candies

98. Atomizers (for cooling/bathing)

99. Hats & cotton neckerchiefs

100. Goats/chickens

Guns, Grub and Gold March 2010 News Letter

https://www.gunsgrubandgold.com/forum/index.php

–
About the Author:
Financial planner / writer / computer scientist / survivalist
Article Source