August 26, 2009

Dear AARP:

I will not join your organization because of your support of the Obama health care plan. I know that you claim to not be in support of any particular legislation, but your actions speak louder than your words. You have become a pawn of the Democrat Party instead of a voice for your members.

I recently attended a town hall meeting here in St. Louis with Representative Russ Carnahan. The subject of the meeting was senior services and aging. The first speaker, who was a local leader of AARP, gave an in-your-face diatribe in favor of Obama health care reform. It was not only off the subject of the meeting, it was a provocative presentation that incited the crowd to jeer and cheer and disrupt the gathering. This type of representation by your employees gives credence to the fact that your organization is not impartial in this debate. You are, in fact, hip deep in the court of the Democrat Party and a partner in the attempt to foist politician-run health care on the American people. You should be ashamed of your constant regurgitation of the talking points of the Democrats. Supporting a plan that will cut $500 billion from Medicare over the next decade is a despicable thing for an organization that claims to be an advocate for senior citizens.

• May 21, 1970 – The WUO releases its "Declaration of a State of War" communique under Bernardine Dohrn's name.

• June 6, 1970 – In a letter, the WUO claims credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice, although no explosion has occurred. Months later, workmen locate an unexploded bomb.^{[citation needed]}

• June 9, 1970 - The New York City Police headquarters is bombed by Jane Alpert and accomplices. The Weathermen state this is in response to "police repression."^{[citation needed]}

• July 23, 1970 – A federal grand jury in Detroit, Michigan, returns indictments against a number of underground WUO members and former WUO members charging violations of various explosives and firearms laws. (These indictments were later dropped in October, 1973.)

• July 27, 1970 - The United States Army base at The Presidio in San Francisco is bombed on the 11th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. [NYT, 7/27/70]

• September 12, 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary escape from the California Men's Colony prison.

• October 8, 1970 - Bombing of Marin County courthouse. WUO states this is in retaliation for the killings of Jonathan Jackson, William Christmas, and James McClain. [NYT, 8/10/70]

• October 10, 1970 - A Queens traffic-court building is bombed. WUO claims this is to express support for the New York prison riots. [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

• October 14, 1970 - The Harvard Center for International Affairs is bombed. WUO claims this is to protest the war in Vietnam. [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

• December, 1970 – Fugitive WUO member Caroline Tanker, who fled the country for Cuba, is arrested by the FBI in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Fugitive WUO member Judith Alice Clark is arrested by the FBI in New York.

• March 1, 1971 - The United States Capitol is bombed. WUO states this is to protest the invasion of Laos. President Richard M. Nixon denounces the bombing as a "shocking act of violence that will outrage all Americans." [NYT, 3/2/71]

• April, 1971 – FBI agents discover an abandoned WUO "bomb factory" in San Francisco, California.

• August 29, 1971 - Bombing of the Office of California Prisons, allegedly in retaliation for the killing of George Jackson. [LAT, 8/29/71]

• September 17, 1971 - The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, New York is bombed, as per the WUO to protest the killing of 29 inmates at Attica State Penitentiary. [NYT, 9/18/71]

• October 15, 1971 - The bombing of William Bundy's office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

• May 19, 1972 - Bombing of The Pentagon, "in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi." [NYT, 5/19/72]

• May 18, 1973 - The bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York. WUO states this is in response to the killing of 10-year-old black youth Clifford Glover by police.

Let me ask you two hypothetical questions. Would you put your wife and children on an airplane piloted by Barack Obama? Would you put your spouse and children on an airplane piloted by John McCain? If you answered “yes” to either of these questions, I must question your commitment to the continued survival of your family. We know that Obama has no experience as a pilot and although McCain was once a pilot, I seriously doubt that he is current in flight proficiency.  

I remember the comedic movie “Airplane” where the pilots of an airliner in flight become disabled by food poisoning and a former pilot riding as a passenger is summoned to the cockpit to bring the plane to a somewhat safe landing. Innumerable jokes and gags permeate the story but one gag that isn’t explored is to ask a non- pilot to the cockpit to bring the plane in safely.   In the sequel to the movie “Airport” titled “Airport 1975”, which is an unintentionally funny movie, the pilots of an airliner are disabled by a midair collision with a light aircraft. Unfortunately there are no pilots aboard and a ridiculous air to air transfer of a pilot is accomplished to bring the plane home safely. In both cases, a real pilot is written into the story to bring the plane home safely. The reason for this is obvious: Even in a comedy, no one in the audience with half a brain is going to believe that an inexperienced non-pilot could bring a big airliner into an airport safely.

What if the above situation occurred in real life and the pilots of your flight were disabled. McCain and Obama are the only ones on the flight available to fly the airplane.  You must choose one of the two to pilot the plane. Who do you choose? Would anyone in his right mind choose Obama?  He’s never flown an airplane. He wouldn’t have a clue as to how to safely put an airliner on a runway. McCain was a Naval Aviator and a proficient pilot in his past. Although he has no experience flying an airliner, he could at least keep the plane right side up and would have a decent chance of bringing the plane home safely. Experience here is the key to making your choice.

One of the primary jobs of the U.S. President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.     What kind of experience do the two candidates have with respect to the Armed Forces?

John McCain

 McCain grew up in a military family. His father and grandfather were both four star admirals in the U.S. Navy. He lived the Navy life from birth to his retirement from the Navy in 1981. McCain spent 23 years in the Navy as a commissioned officer and retired with the rank of captain which is equivalent to a colonel in the Army. He was a decorated naval aviator and a prisoner of war. He was the commander of a naval training squadron that won a Meritorious Unit Commendation. He attended the National War College.   He served as the U.S. Navy’s liaison to the U.S. Senate. McCain is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Much more can be said about McCain’s military experience but it is indisputable that he has a well rounded perspective having spent more than 45 years on the inside of the military as a navy dependent and a member of the navy, and more than 26 years as a civilian legislator participating in crafting legislation and reviewing policies affecting the military. 

Barack Obama

Obama serves on the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee. Obama has no direct or indirect military experience.

Some say that McCain has an edge in this category. This isn’t just an edge; it’s more like the New York Yankees against the worst middle school girls softball team in the country.  It’s difficult to understand how anyone in their right mind could say that Barack Obama is remotely qualified to be Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. Obama and his supporters may talk about how smart he is and what a quick study he is and what a great organizer he is, but when it comes down to experience, he is less than a neophyte on military matters. Generals like Wesley Clark may endorse him but he is still stuck with a deficient background.  Our military service is an all volunteer force but he chose to serve elsewhere. I might say that if you had a non-military person who had served in the houses of Congress for twenty-five or thirty years on military oversight committees, you might make an argument for that person for the position of Commander-in-Chief. Obama hasn’t even completed one term in the Senate. His bid for Commander-in-Chief is a bridge too far and a potential disaster. I don’t care who his Vice President is or who his Defense Secretary is. The President will be the commander and the last word on all things military. The Democratic Party has irresponsibly nominated an incompetent person for the job. We cannot allow this man to become Commander-in-Chief any more than we could allow him to fly an airliner with our family aboard.

Would someone please enlighten me as to how anyone can declare Obama correct about Iraq without laughing out loud? Here is a guy who introduced legislation back on January 30, 2007 that would have withdrawn all combat troops from Iraq to be completed by March 31, 2008. That computes out to 16 months. He has, to the best of my knowledge, not wavered from that number since. So, from where did this military genius pluck the number 16, and why, with all that has happened since January 30, 2007, has the number not been adjusted?

 A stopped clock reads the correct time twice a day. The alleged  agreement of Prime Minister Al Malaki to the 16 month withdrawal number is no more than a stopped clock coincidence. Six months ago when Oback was declaring a 16 month withdrawal, was he correct? NO. Was he correct 5 months ago, or 3 months ago, or 8 months ago or 4 months, 5 days, 13 minutes and 12 seconds ago? NO. Please deliver me from these pompous goofy liberal pundits who say that McCain, Malaki, and others are following Obama’s lead and endorsing his withdrawal timetable. The clock has been running ever since he introduced his irresponsible piece of legislation back in 2007, and he has been consistently wrong every moment since then, including right now. The time for withdrawal will come when the conditions on the ground and the political situation in Iraq dictate withdrawal, not when an inexperienced community organizer from south Chicago plucks a number from a place where the sun don’t shine.

You Americans just don't know what's good for you and the country.  We cannot continue our addiction to carbon based energy.  We don’t have a supply problem in the US, we have a consumption problem.  Americans are using too much energy, far more than their share of the world’s supply.  The United States Congress, under our leadership, is going to encourage America to use less by continuing to block development of oil reserves in the outer continental shelf off the east and west coast.  We will continue to block additional drilling for oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  We will continue to protect ANWR from oil production.  Nuclear power plants will also be blocked, although we may study that energy source for a few years before we decide not to allow their development. 

To control our excessive consumption we will mandate the following measures: an emissions cap, hybrid and flex fuel cars, 25%-30% renewable fuel electricity, zero emissions buildings, reduction of speed limits, personal carbon limits, and decreased development in suburban areas. 

All of these mandates will most likely keep gasoline prices below $10 per gallon.  That’s our energy plan for the future. The result may be massive unemployment, freezing poor people, and a chaotic economy but we're willing to impose those sacrifices in order to cure this unhealthy addiction.  Call it a cold turkey solution if you like, and we're not referring to lowered thermostats, but we, with our vast experience and wisdom know that this is the best medicine for our country. Vote for the Democrats and Oback Arama in November and you can count on it.