Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (740136)	9/17/2013 11:51:57 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TimF Respond to of 1572505

‘If We Had the Ammunition, We Could’ve Cleared that Building,’ Son at Navy Yard Told Dad ............................................................................... September 17, 2013 - By Matt Vespa cnsnews.com Today, we celebrated Constitution Day, and Dan Joseph took to the streets to ask people how they felt about our founding document. He also asked people if there was anything they would change. In the wake of the horrific shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, one individual made an interesting point about yesterday's mass shooting at the Navy Yard in the nation's capital: "I know a lot of people are concerned about guns these days, but you know if everybody had arms, then there wouldn't be these problems. "My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition. And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it." The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying - and using - firearms on military installations. Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments "gun-free zones." As a result, the policy banned "military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that 'a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel 'may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan," according to economist John Lott. Additionally, Lott discovered that "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns." The answer is simple. Murderers pick places where they know their victims will be unarmed. It's time we debate having concealed carry on military bases. After all, there's no evidence showing that firearms owners are more irresponsible than the police, as Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund noted back in December of 2012: "According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That's about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with 'shall issue' laws." - See more at: cnsnews.com

To: FJB who wrote (740136)	9/18/2013 12:18:58 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1572505

Obama's Failed Stewardship ....................................................................... PolitiSite.com ^ \| 17 September 2013 \| Colonel Steven B. Vitali USMC (Ret) The stewardship of America under President Obama is a national embarrassment. Obama left adrift in a quagmire without a defined national security strategy and international support for his Syrian attack was locked floundering in sinking US polls and a Congress where he lost the support even of his own Democratic controlled Senate. Russian President Vladimir Putin, an old KGB thug, recognized the humiliating box that Obama clumsily entered and the sheer panic settling in his administration. Putin struck, seizing the opportunity to diminish Obama’s stature while providing him an opening to “save face” from a sure Congressional defeat. In return, Putin demanded that Obama denounce further intent on striking Syria or the removal of the Syrian President, Bashar al-Asad. Obviously impressed with his ability to run circles around Obama, Putin, in effect, took charge of US foreign policy in the Middle East while continuing to ship sophisticated, advanced military arms to the Syrian Army that reversed the momentum in the civil war in favor of the Syrian government. The surrender to Putin is the pinnacle point of Obama’s legacy of an appalling abdication of American leadership that will enshrine him as the most naïve and inept President in the history of the United States. Americans are faced with an astonishingly weak and feckless leader who wages a “take no prisoner” ground warfare against his political opponents in the US, but instinctively coddles international extremist such as the Muslim Brotherhood who are bent on America’s demise. To our allies, Obama’s timid and noncommittal support demonstrates clearly that Obama is a man not to be trusted. Obama praises himself for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and now Afghanistan. His short-sighted and feign focus on these former Al Qaeda strongholds recklessly destroyed years of pushing the Taliban on the defensive, wasted the lives and blood of our servicemen and as they say, “by his actions he is known,” our pathetically weak President’s decisions emboldened and enabled the terrorist to reconstitute their strength and activities in both these countries. In the twelve years of the Afghanistan war, 73% of US casualties have come under Obama’s watch. The Syrian debacle has set America’s influence in the Middle East region back decades. Middle East countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and even Israel fear for their survival under a nuclear Iran umbrella. Our friends in the Middle East are in shock and they are turning to Russia as the power broker in the region that can help protect them. Russian President Putin bracingly set himself up as the world’s Statesman and wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times where he lectured Obama and simultaneously smacked the face of all Americans as he attacked our expressed belief of “American Exceptionalism”. In a way, Putin only sounded the same chorus that Obama expressed in one of his speeches as he undermined “American Exceptionalism” with an exceptionalism that is contained in all nations. It is not! President Obama acquiesced to the Russian demands and withdrew his demand for a UN resolution granting a military option if Asad failed to turn over all his chemical weapons. Intelligence reports indicate Asad is currently secretly dispersing many of his chemical munitions in a fifty-mile radius and it will be almost impossible for UN Inspectors to identify and account for all of al Asad chemical weapons. The whole affair is a delay action similar to what we saw with North Korea and with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Now that the US has agreed to the Russian plan, Obama can spin about working with the international community to force Syria to surrender their chemical weapons all he wants, but Americans see through this ploy. Obama agreed to take any military consequence to Syria off the table if they failed to deliver. Obama offers all carrot but no stick. A year has passed of unencumbered weapons flowing into to the Syrian regime by Iran and Russia without any notable weapons aid given to the Syrian rebels by the US. “Leading from behind,” Obama now authorized the CIA to ship non sophisticated weaponry to the Rebels, but unfortunately, Obama’s hesitation allowed the best equipped and organized rebel groups to be controlled by Al Qaeda linked factions. Any sophisticated anti-tank or anti-air weapons the CIA delivers to the Syrian rebels stand a good probability of falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. Our enemies around the world have Obama’s number. The blinders are pulled back and the world sees Obama as another con-man void of gravitas, vision, and trustworthiness. In summary, the end result in Syria under Obama’s leadership is: al Asad remains in power, American influence and stature in the world greatly diminishes, Asad retains stocks of hidden chemical weapons, Middle East States seek Putin’s protection instead of America’s, and Russia becomes the dominate power broker in the region. Well done President Obama! In almost five years, your foreign policy leadership successfully decimated four decades of US diplomacy in the Middle East and significantly degraded our national security posture as well as the future safety of all Americans. Since Obama’s election, our military apparatus has steadily dismantled to pay for Obama’s redistribution welfare state. General Martin Dempsey stated in testimony to Congress that the military is “so degraded and unready, it would be immoral to use force.” Under Obama’s leadership, the US military program is on track to rapidly decline to pre-WWII capabilities. Our technological edge, advanced new weapon systems, platforms, and manpower are seriously eroding to extreme danger levels. For the first time, our military is no longer able to respond to two simultaneous conflicts. Chinese and Russian military budgets have grown extensively and they are rapidly building their military capability to confront America’s vital interests throughout the world. The clock is ticking on Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon program. The proliferation by Iran of nuclear weapons surreptitiously transferring to radical Islamic terrorist groups will happen. There is no mutual self-destruction deterrent for an Islamist religious zealot. Israel and the United States will bear the fruit of an apocalypse if Obama fails in his duty to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Unlike Syria, Iran’s nuclear weapons development is a vital national security threat to the United States, and the priority of our foreign policy objectives must be to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons at any cost.