Tag Archives: Hagel



The president, as commander-in-chief, directs the activities of the Defense Department. The secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs advise the president and send him recommendations. We all know that. Civilian rule over the military is a long-established and necessary doctrine. But what happens when the commander-in-chief is not capable of developing defense policy and providing the leadership to implement the policy? Are the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs still required to follow presidential guidance? The answer is a clear yes. We have a thing called the ballot box that settles who is our commander-in-chief.

President Barack Obama announces former Senator Chuck Hagel, second from left, as his nominee for Secretary of Defense.  Photo by Matt Compton, from whitehouse.gov.

President Barack Obama announces former Senator Chuck Hagel, second from left, as his nominee for Secretary of Defense. Photo by Matt Compton, from whitehouse.gov.

But that doesn’t mean that General Dempsey and the secretary of defense are powerless to resist dangerous policies or can’t argue forcefully against presidential (commander-in-chief) orders. We have a president who, to my memory, has not been right in a single foreign or military issue. His decisions always put his politics and image ahead of what professionals think/know is best for the nation. Just review the mess in Libya with Gaddafi’s regime looking better every day since he was ousted and central control over Libya vanished, ending up with Benghazi and weapons flowing to radical Islamic groups though out the Middle East and Africa. The president’s inability to see the world as it is has led to a dangerous situation in the Ukraine as Putin takes advantage of the absence of American power and resolve. The famous disappearing redline in Syria, the failure to aid moderate Islamic forces to overthrow Asad, the vacillation over the reformation of the Iraqi government, the plans to drastically reduce the armed forces, the constantly televised presidential statements telling our enemies what we will not do and when we are leaving the theater are some critical examples. It is too late for the moderate secular Muslims have now been killed or absorbed into ISIS.

Dempsey and Hagel have had ample opportunity to judge the effectiveness and wisdom of their commander-in-chief. Some of their statements indicate they disagree with President Obama. Even if their refreshingly strong recent statements are walked back within a day or so, it might be a start. They are required to follow President Obama’s lead by our founding documents but they also took an oath to defend America and its people. If they cannot convince the president to change or modify his orders, both need to resign and take their case to Congress and the public. They have a duty to do so. But maybe they think they are indispensable or that by remaining in office they are preventing a bad situation from getting worse. Or do they just want to keep their prestigious positions and titles? I hope both of these men who have honorably served their country will choose the right path.

At the very least they need to stop the disintegration of the Armed Forces back to pre-World War II levels and to invest in developing new weapons to ensure America’s ability to defend itself and its allies. Congress will cooperate, they know peace comes through strength. War thrives on weakness. Every historian, except those with a progressive political agenda, will agree.

Written by the author of “Insights: Transforming America — Is This What We Fought For?” available now as an ebook, in paperback or hardcover on Amazon.com or BN.com. Follow the author on Twitter @factsfictions80. If you think this message is important, please share it.


Filed under Barry Kelly, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, Progressives, Russia



THE STATE OF THE UNION IS NOT GOOD.  The Obama presidency is a clear danger to the American way of life. Now, be honest, you don’t believe his administration is dangerous. You don’t believe because every politician you have ever known  cared about issues. They ran on how they would handle the issues facing their voters. You and the media evaluated those office holders on how well they handled the issues important to you. You may not have liked their methods or the exact results, but they talked about your issues and worked on solutions.

President Barack Obama speaks with White House...

President Barack Obama speaks with White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod in the staff work room April 4, 2009, in Strasbourg, France. (Wikipedia)

Western thought is based on working on the parts or pieces of things and then bringing them together. Republicans and Democrats believe putting America back to work requires serious work  on a tax overhaul, reduced and prioritized spending, resource development, size of government, a retrained workforce, and increased exports to come together.  Granted, there is plenty of room here for disagreement, but that is our system and a solution will emerge. That is what we are used to. It’s how and why we chose our candidates. We expect work on the issues, vigorous debates, and a workable solutions.

We have elected a president who does not work to solve issues or to reach agreement through compromise. He uses issues to achieve one end, the transformation or socialization of America. Issues are the tools he uses to destroy opposition, in this case the Republican party, Congress, Wall Street, Big Oil, and the courts. He will and has taken shifting sides on most all issues according to his faithful following of the Alinsky plan, “The issue is never the issue.” The only issue for President Obama and his progressive left following is the acquisition of total power, a one-party political system with only ceremonial roles for Congress, the states, and the courts. Any means to achieve socialism in America he believes is justified. Lying, misrepresentation, switching sides, demonizing the opposition, and the constant use of class warfare rhetoric are there for you to see. But you must be willing to look. For you will not see any detailed proposals or plans or budgets from the Obama presidency. Written plans are a no-no. They make it too easy for the opposition to point out shifting positions, falsehoods, and deceptions. Even the media would jump on inconsistent or shifting plans. So no detailed written plans. Instead, an in-your-face series of speeches and sham press conferences. Even the State of the Union report to the nation is childish in its petulance finger pointing at everyone but the president. The Supreme Leader does not recognize his own mistakes.

Obama’s State of the Union address covered a number of issues he and his co-president, David Axelrod, plan to use to destroy Congress and the Republican Party. Don’t expect any real moves to solve issues. Take immigration: It is to most Americans a very important issue. Hispanics, how do you feel being pushed aside for Obamacare?  As long as you vote for him, he doesn’t care if you are unhappy. Remember the “issue is not the issue.” Immigration is a tool to use in the socialization of America.   To progressives/socialists, controlling the medical industry is more important than dealing with immigration. We need the border controlled and a path to residency, in many cases citizenship, for the Hispanics now here. We need them. Welcome! Mr. President, where is your leadership?

To President Obama: Immigrants are not people needing help. Just a way to embarrass and demonize the Republicans. He will take care of them after the transformation is completed. Just like the socialists/progressives took care of the people in  Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, and Germany. Do we have an all-of-the-above energy policy? If you think we do, stop drinking Obama kool-aid. What’s wrong with the Canadian pipe line through Nebraska? It would bring lower energy prices, give funds to a friendly nation, and create jobs. The private sector unions are even in favor. No real help here. Only words. It is easier to sell socialism to a jobless hurting population than to a economically thriving nation. Create a national crisis then use it against the opposition.

Another issue, the U.S. military. They are an obstacle to a socialist dictatorship. Weaken them by sending an incompetent former senator, who is anti-military, to manage our security. Why would any president do that? How about the nomination of a politicized former CIA officer to run CIA? Where was this champion of national security when all the monumental leaks of highly classified information occurred? Where was he during the national disgrace of Benghazi and the aftermath? I can’t think of a single issue where President Obama took the lead and solved an important issue. He blames the Republicans. Hell, they don’t even know what’s happening.  Are gun and climate control critical issues?

The issue is never the issue. Apply that principle to every issue of the last four years. Maybe it will help you believe we are in dangerous times.

Leave a comment

Filed under Alexrod, Alinsky, centralization, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, political solutions, totalitarianism