Thoughtful Entertainment: Kanye West, "Diamonds from Sierra Leone"

Video from Kanye West...seemingly seeking to encourage folks to think about where some diamonds come from.

What a great opportunity to encourage people to consider broader geopolitical realities.



Lyrics from:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kanyewest/diamondsfromsierraleoneremix.html

"Diamonds From Sierra Leone (Remix)"
(feat. Jay-Z)

[Intro]
Diamonds are forever
They're all I need to please me
They can't stimulate or tease me
They won't leave in the night
Have no fear that they might
Desert me

[Hook]
"Diamonds are forever forever forever"
Throw ya diamonds in the sky
If you feel the vibe
"Diamonds are forever forever forever"
The ROC is still alive
Everytime I rhyme
"Forever and ever!"
For ever ever? for ever ever? ever ever?
Ever ever? ever ever? ever ever? ever ever?

[Verse 1]
Good Morning, this ain't Vietnam still
People lose hands, legs, arms for real
Little was known of Sierra Leone
And how it connect to the diamonds we own
When I speak of Diamonds in this song
I ain't talkin bout the ones that be glown
I'm talkin bout Rocafella, my home, my chain
These ain't conflict diamonds,is they Jacob? don't lie to me mayne
See, a part of me sayin' keep shinin',
How? when I know of the blood diamonds
Though it's thousands of miles away
Sierra Leone connect to what we go through today
Over here, its a drug trade, we die from drugs
Over there, they die from what we buy from drugs
The diamonds, the chains, the bracelets, the charmses
I thought my Jesus Piece was so harmless
'til I seen a picture of a shorty armless
And here's the conflict
It's in a black person's soul to rock that gold
Spend ya whole life tryna get that ice
On a polo rugby it look so nice
How could somethin' so wrong make me feel so right, right?
'fore I beat myself up like Ike
You could still throw ya Rocafella diamond tonight, 'cause

[Hook]

[Verse 2]
[Kanye From Original Song]
People askin' me is I'm gon' give my chain back (uh)
That'll be the same day I give the game back (uh)
You know the next question dog 'yo, where Dame at?'(uh)
This track the Indian dance to bring our reign back (whoo!)
'wassup wit you a Jay man, are ya'll okay man?'

[Jay-Z]
Yep!
I got it from her 'ye damn!
The chain remains, the game is in tact
The name is mine, I'll take blame for that
The pressure's on, but guess who ain't gon' crack? [laughs]
Pardon me I had to laugh at that
How could you falter when you're the rock of gibralter
I had to get of the boat so I could walk on water
This ain't no tall order, this is nothin to me
Difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week
I do this in my sleep,
I sold Kilos of coke, (so?) I'm guessin' I can sell CD's
I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man
Let me handle my buisness, damn!
Kanyeez you got me, Freeway and Foxy
YG', Teairra Mari, Petey watch me
Bleek could be one hit away his whole career
As long as I'm alive, he's a millionaire
And even if I die, he's in my will somewhere
So he can just kick back and chill somewhere, oh yeah
He don't even have to write rhymes
The Dynasty like my money last three lifetimes
Shirley Bassey was in the rear sayin exactly
What I was sayin practically me whole carreer
The diamond is forever, I been mindin' this forever
Now the Louis Vuitton Don's timin' couldn't be better
People lined up to see the Titanic sinkin'
Instead we rose from the ash like a phoenix
If you waitin' for the end, the dynasty signed
And what seemed like forever is a mighty long time
I'm young bitches [laughs]
Goodnight!

[Thanks to Miss713south@yahoo.com for these lyrics]
[Thanks to Codac21@msn.com, crazyman11@fuse.net, wordsworth82@hotmail.com, LilSmileigh@aol.com for correcting these lyrics]

Thoughtful Entertainment:"Vanilla Sky" (Take Stock, Open Your Eyes)

Vanilla Sky (2001)

I first saw this movie while serving on the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) during our OEF, OSW, OIF deployment.

The first time I saw "Vanilla Sky," I caught it at about midpoint and I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on. So, I waited for it to be replayed and watched it again. Once I saw it all the way through, it made sense; especially to a guy on a military deployment that had been "indefinitely extended."

Some movies entertain; some educate. This one made me think. In fact, I felt bad watching the movie without my wife, as I usually like to share "thinking moments" with her.

One of the first things I did when I got home was buy the movie and watch it with my wife.

I recommend it. Especially for folks needing to really consider what matters in life.

My take: Take Stock in the little things (both the good and the bad); make a choice - take a leap even. But, wake up and live life conscientiously, in the world out there.

So, if you want a thinking movie for tonight's entertainment - check this one out.

"Vanilla Sky" Trailer



Grammy Performance by Paul McCartney (2002)
"Vanilla Sky"

Insightful Video on National Security, Blackwater

Inspirational Campaign to extend freedom to All Americans

Spread the word.

If we should care about the Iraq Elections, we should also care about Americans whose civil liberties are curtailed by religious zealots here!

Maybe we should make people put purple ink on their fingers after they get married to draw attention to this cause.

Get out, get involved. We have got to fix this.

Our military and diplomatic men and women are deployed around the globe defending freedom for people abroad - let's make sure our citizenry can exercise those freedoms here!

http://www.gettoknowusfirst.com/

Come on Folks! GOP has no strategists whatsoever - no economic strategy, no war strategy, no homeland security strategy, no healthcare strategy,...

Another example of how the "liberal" media elite on MSNBC shower the President with liberal praise...(yeah, right)




What this ideologue doesn't get is that giving tax cuts to the top 1% is also like buying ones constituencys' votes, and that giving tax cuts to the rich does not lead to the creation of jobs.

Here's my evidence (look outside folks!): If tax cuts for the rich did work, we would have jobs a plenty right now and John McCain would have been elected to continue with George W. Bush's policies.

We have had 8 years of this "trickle-down" theory and it has us where we are now - just as it did under Ronald Reagan.

Here's another recent and stinging argument, the outgoing Administration's no strings attached bailout allocations led to the first $350 Billion (of the $700 Billion) dollars in tax payers money not trickling down and enhancing the "average joe's" ability to run his small business by attaining access to money, but instead to $40,000 corporate executive parties, multi-billion dollar CEO bonuses, record corporate gas profits (and record gas prices) and record inflation.

These guys aren't bringing anything to the table but non-substantive arguments and "socialist" rhetoric. They are doing what any dying dragon would do, flail about and snort fire at the knight who slayed them.

Did you enjoy the Super Bowl folks? The real world is still here, isn't it?

"What I've Done" by Linkin Park

Albeit they were one or two scumbags away from being up to date, the video and song can project the progress that can be made by a new generation that gives a damn...I guess only time will tell...

Great lyrics, great sound, and a great video. The album, "Minutes from Midnight" is an entirely thoughtful album. I recommend it.

The Commander In Chief Addresses the US Military

I must say, I think our new bosses get it.

A new generation of leadership, for a new generation of Military personnel.

Hoorah Sirs!

The Vice President, Joe Biden



The President of the United States, Barack Obama

SNL as a Political Crystal Ball, eerily foreshadowing the repercussions of elections

Take a close look at the map..."New Iraq," the effects of global warming and excessive pollution....not to mention the "New USSR" intimation.

Thank gosh SNL warned us about Palin's political "potential"...

Global Warming, Terrorism, and National Security

Both Terrorism and the Global Warming are threats to National Security and we need to consider both as we finally begin to move forward in the 21st Century.

Regarding Terrorism, we know we can withstand terrorist attacks so long as we do not turn on ourselves as a response.

But, our continuing to ignore the global warming problem could lead to serious challenges for our future.

Considering our terrorism efforts and moving forward, we could stand to have a thorough investigation and judicial redress of any policies that may have been pursued that are considered to be contrary to our Constitutional values and traditions - in fact these could actually serve to bolster our counter terrorism efforts. We could also stand to realign our foreign policy institutions to address the complexity of the terrorism issue. We seem to be doing both, to the chagrin of some on the domestic political scene.

Regarding Global Warming and the environment, which have been neglected both domestically and internationally, we need to pursue policies based upon science and aggressively push forward with both domestic and international strategies that have been ignored thus far. To do this effectively will mean that some folks will need to get over their ideologically based paradigms, and instead work to participate in the crafting of a solution. Here, our challenges are mainly domestic, and overcoming them will necessitate that we reshape our domestic political environment.

Collectively, we have a firm understanding of terrorism as a national security issue. But, global warming as a national security issue, may be hard for some to swallow. In this CNA video, is a summarized analysis provided by a collective of retired military leaders that outlines global warming as a national security challenge.

Both terrorism and global warming are considered to be equally weighted national security challenges by the foreign policy community.


You may also wish to read testimony provided by the ODNI on Global Warming.

To address both of these threats effectively, our domestic politics must evolve to reflect the challenges that are posed.

Despite their media posturing, Republicans have not proven themselves to be "leaders" when it comes to national security, especially considering the manner in which the Global Warming issue has been neglected over the last eight years. (Al Gore has been speaking to this issue for nearly thirty years.)

Specifically, this ODNI testimony came in June 2008, during GW's proverbial "watch." (this report even reminds me of the often mentioned presidential briefing from August 2001 - "Bin Laden determined to strike at US.")

It seems that some Republicans are having a hard time moving into the 21st century where multiple and complicatedly interconnected challenges are the reality facing public policy makers. It seems that they are having a problem moving beyond the divisive rhetoric of the past.

Less than two days after the realities of their flat-footed policy making came to fruition with the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the hard-core Republicans are already posturing themselves in a way that will allow for them to charge and blame the popular President for any potential terrorist attack that may occur in the future (because GW failed to "win" the "Global War on Terrorism" during his watch).

The silliness of such a claim notwithstanding, this "new" national security paradigm gives the Democrats equal footing to make such a claim using Global Warming, and maybe even stands on more legitimate footing, because they have been pushing for stronger environmental policies and international cooperation that addresses the issue. Allthewhile Republicans have had full control over counter terrorism policy and yet we still face the same, if not a stronger, terrorist threat than we faced prior to 9/11.

If the Democrats were to pursue the Republicans' terrorism logic and apply it to global warming, than they could legitimately claim that the next Global warming induced natural disaster's results were aggravated by the Republicans lack of preparation, or even consideration, of global warming over the last eight years?

These posturings do not fix the problems, and they only seek to create domestic turmoil.

Nevertheless, Republicans have already begun to dangerously posture themselves. Here, "Morning Joe" sets up the Republicans' new posture as the minority, laying the ground work for very dangerous rhetoric if the unthinkable were to happen.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This type of rhetoric could prove to be inciteful to Al Qaida, as they know they couldn't possibly defeat a unified America, but they could consider this environment a great opportunity to introduce events that encourage a chaotic unraveling. Maybe this type of event is what fed the recent release of a KGB sociologist's public pondering about America's political instability.

Despite the reality that a natural disaster could prove to be just as destabilizing domestically as a terrorist attack, you don't see Democrats delivering innuendo like the Republicans are. Maybe the Republicans are doing so to distract and intimidate because they are not sure how their intra-Constitutional policies over the last eight years would stand up in the light of domestic and international justice, and they would much rather see domestic turmoil, then own up and accept accountability for their actions.

We can only wonder aloud. But for now what will matter in the immediate time frame is how we prepare for both of these national security challenges and how we set ourselves up to respond, collectively, if/when such events occur.

We all need to get on the same team here. The President, the Commander-in-Chief, is moving in the right direction by trying to unite us and bring us together to face the challenges that lie ahead.

The question for Republicans right now is: Will they continue with their partisan, politically divisive, tactics, and pursue the path that makes their divisive behaviours our biggest threat, or will they come to the table bringing viable discussion and dialog?

No terrorist attack or natural disaster could singlehandedly lead to our country's end, but political posturing and dangerous rhetoric like this can be seen as a dangerous catalyst if such catastrophic and challenging events were to occur.

How does that Pledge of Allegiance go again?

I pledge Allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
And to the REPUBLIC,
for which it stands,
ONE NATION, under god, INDIVISIBLE,
with liberty, and Justice for ALL.

I'm the Lucky one, I was able to marry the one I chose.

Just because I am free to marry, doesn't mean I do not care when others are prevented from exercising the same right.

Happy ChristmaChanuKwanzaaStice - and Festivus Too!

I know it's too late for Solstice, Festivus, and Chanukah (still going)..But Christmas and Kwanzaa are just around the corner.

I hope everyone is doing well.

We're just a around the corner from a new beginning, and if we know anything about the winter holidays, it is that we can't get to the spring without going through the winter.

It may be dark and cold now, but if "We" just hang a little longer, our spring will come.

My best to you and your family, however it is "defined" for you and your loved ones, in this land of freedom, justice, and liberty for ALL (although we still have some work to do, together, to make this more true)!

Take Care and remember those that are struggling this year, at home and abroad.

V/r,

Publius

Great Insight From Retired General, CJCS, and Secretary of State

This Video from MODERATE Republican, and Retired Army General, Chairman Joint Chief of Staff (CJCS) and Secretary of State, Colin Powell on our country's unintentional accomplishment this year.

Hoo-rah, Sir. Hoo-Rah!

A Constitutional Argument for Barack Obama's Economic Strategy, via The Federalist Papers

After being prompted to dig by a conservative friend of mine, I found the following in the Federalist Papers amongst its numerous pages of dialog pertaining to federal taxes, political parties, and economic regulation.

Ahem,

Federalist Paper number 36: (Broken into chunks to facilitate your comprehension of colonial verbiage.)

"As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain.

The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another;

if by the authority of the federal government, then it will not be to remain done by that of the State government.

The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods;

and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means;

and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society.

Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression! "

Ahh, how a Constitutional Law Professor (Senator Barack Obama) can capture the essence of American Principles in his tax policy while he's running for President.

Oh yea...and then there's Federalist Paper Number 10, which talks about the history of political factions (parties) and how they generally divide ideologically between two general groups of people based upon the "unequal distribution of property."

Note: John McCain owns six houses: Barack Obama - one. John McCain is advised by the same folks who advise GW, who vacations in Maine, owns a Ranch in Texas, and used to own a baseball team and an oil company - both of which he ruined with his business "practices."

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.
A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?

And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good.

The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets."

The bottom line is this: Taxes must be paid to keep our society moving (to support domestic and international trade, education, the environment - at least if the word posterity means anything to you, - diplomacy, defense, economic and civil/social stability - remember, nobody likes to invest in countries that have regular coups or significant political upheavals....).

If the economic engine is to keep humming, then the middle class must be financially secure - which means, that when the economic system begins to work against the middle class, as they do when Reaganomics (see Bush and McCain trickle down economic policies for most recent example and Hoover for the 1920's variation) are applied, then circulation slows and we have real issues to overcome as a society (have you looked "outside" lately?).

If you are a real "Joe the Plumber," Barack Obama's tax structuring benefits you and the country.

If you are of an aristocratic merchant class (that is you - as a single person- make more than a Quarter of a MILLION Dollars a year), then John McCain's your guy - just as GW is/was - and you can identify the street signs that have been named for you - "ONE WAY." Your willingness to sacrifice for the country is truly inspiring - while many military families are scrimping, possibly sustaining themselves on government programs you would like to abolish, all the while sacrificing their personal freedoms, and potentially their lives or families. Meanwhile, "you" continually wish to line your own pockets and say that your role in this society is to make money. Your "patriotism" is astounding!

Remember, Abraham Lincoln, who pushed our society forward on civil rights and re-united a war torn country that had been badly self-brutalized, was a Progressive Politician; FDR, who's policies got us out of the Great Depression and defended the world from fascism, was a Progressive Politician; John Kennedy, who served in WWII, established the US Navy SEALS, and held his own with Kruschev, was a Progressive politician.

Many folks, of varying political stripes, feel that right now we need a Progressive Politician, and right now, that Progressive politician is Senator Barack Obama.

Desperate McCain Campaign proves itself self-serving, erratic, and unstable by pursuing the "Nuclear Option" with its insulting and divisive tactics

John McCain has decided to win the Presidency, or destroy the country. One could call it a slash and burn strategy.

His insinuating that Senator Obama is a terrorist sympathizer is a political tactic that seeks to divide, more sharply, the country between “patriots” and “terrorists,” with no room in between. This tactic isn’t one that a civil man running for the highest office in the World would use, as it doesn’t question Senator Obama’s governing strategies or priorities.

It instead calls into question Senator Obama’s – and thus his supporters as well - loyalty to the country.

In doing this, Senator McCain calls into question everyone who stands with Senator Obama in his campaign or supports his policy ideals and strategies. Senator McCain’s premise must be that the slight majority of the country is a collective of terrorist sympathizers. In this era of divided politics, this can only lead down a terrible road – continued division in the least, if not a new era of political-civil instability in this country. (This has been alluded to by political scientists over the past few years, and most recently this morning by Political Analyst, and Ronald Reagan speech writer, Peggy Noonan on Meet the Press.)

'Meet the Press' transcript for Oct. 5, 2008
Paul Begala, Mike Murphy, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, Gwen Ifill, Peggy Noonan and David Yepsen:

MS. NOONAN: ... —there’s something weird about it. But there’s also something, for me, concerning populism as a tactic is justified often in politics. “I need this program, the people want it.” Populism as a strategy, “We’re the good guys, you’re the bad guys,” is not good, and, and if that’s the road they’re going, that’s not a good road to be on. It’s not helpful to the country.

...

MR. BROKAW: And, Peggy Noonan, as you know, the McCain campaign has signaled pretty strongly they’re going to strain—change their strategy. We have a quote from The Weekly Standard. Bill Kristol, who is the editor, is, of course, in the College of Cardinals, he’s the Pope when it comes to writing about what’s going on in the conservative movement. He says in The Weekly Standard, “More important is the negative message. The McCain campaign has to convince 51 percent of the voters they can’t trust Barack Obama to be our next president. ... Character is a legitimate issue. Obama hasn’t shown much in the way of leadership or political courage, and he’s consorted with dubious figures. It’s fair to ask whether Barack Obama is personally trustworthy enough to be president, and the McCain campaign shouldn’t be intimidated from going there.”

We already heard on this broadcast, Senator Palin yesterday, raising the association that he had with William Ayers, who is a former member of the Weathermen, a very radical group from the ‘60s and ‘70s, who is now a school reformer in Illinois. Is this a smart strategy, in your judgment, for the McCain campaign?

MS. NOONAN: You know what, this has been a long campaign. We are in the last month. It is still close. Whoever’s rising or, or, or falling, it’s really close. And some part of me fears they’re going to open up the gates of hell on this one. It seems to me there is trench warfare out there. The left—there’s a huge middle in America, but there’s a left. They think they’re going to win, and they’re getting meaner than ever. The right fears they’re going to lose, they’re getting meaner than ever. I would hate to see this descend into this, this—“I’ll kill—I’ll tear your throat out” kind of stuff. I think that would be harmful. I think we are at a unique and dangerous...

MR. YEPSEN: But, Tom...

MS. NOONAN: ...moment in history, and it’s the last thing we need. And I don’t speak as a sissy; I’m trying to speak as an adult.

Here is the entire show:

John McCain is playing with fire by pursuing this manipulative and dishonest attack tactic. Because he is disconnected from the country at the grass roots level, he doesn’t understand that the country is in a very fragile position right now. Some political analysts believe that the country is due a Fourth Turning, if historical cycles are to be considered relevant.

Given McCain’s slash and burn tactic, what will happen when Obama is elected to the Presidency?

When Senator Obama is elected, the irrational half of the country that falls for Senator McCain's political shenanigans will have a President that they believe is a “terrorist sympathizer.” They will have no choice but to reject a President Obama from the get go – and given Senator McCain's militant rapture pursuing base, his campaign could mean the beginning of the end.

His “ME First” campaign doesn’t sound like a very good pivot point from which to usher in a new era of political bi-partisanship when the country so desperately needs it.

One would think that a clean campaign for the Presidency between two Senators that are seeking a new political tone in Washington D.C., who are trying to usher in a new “bipartisan era” through a change, would be in the best interests of both of them - especially the guy who is looking like he will lose at this point.

One would think that if John McCain were truly putting the “Country First,” he would be pursuing a rational campaign on issues - not uber-divisive political hack attacks - that way if he lost he could be positioned to be a Senatorial sounding board for an Obama Administration. You know, he could be someone who could work in a Bi-Partisan way with the political leadership in the White House. But naah, his current attitude at this point is, “if I can’t have it, no one will.”

This “nuclear option” style of campaigning shows that he is neither putting “country first” or that he stable enough to be the “commander-in-chief.”

His campaign for the Presidency is proving him to be dangerously unstable, and right now, the country, if not the world, cannot handle any more unstable ideologues at the helm of the Free World.

Well, at least we know why Senator McCain graduated at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy

In the debate on Friday, Senator McCain demonstrated that he does not know what role the “commander-in-chief” plays regarding military strategy - this despite his 26 years in the Senate. Additionally, he proved why he graduated 894 out of 899 in his class at the US Naval Academy: he cannot grasp simple military terms like "strategy" and "tactics".

For all his “qualifications” to be “commander-in-chief” he does not understand even the simplest description of what that role is. Why is that?

For you lay people out there, these terms are available to anyone who can read English, and the role of commander-in-chief is described in Federalist paper number 69. If you continue reading here, you may very well be considered more qualified than Senator McCain to be “commander-in-chief,” because you’ll at least have these two definitions under your belt, and an appropriate context in which to place them!

To be sure, his “goof” on Friday regarding these two simple military terms proves that he is not ready, or not capable, to be “commander-in-chief.”

First, the simple words straight from the “Rosetta Stone” of the American English language: Webster’s Dictionary.

According to Webster’s Dictionary the definitions for strategy and tactics are as follows:

Strategy: the science of planning and directing military movements and operations.

Tactics: the science of moving armed troops or ships about IN BATTLE in trying to get the advantage.

Now, for the simple description of the Constitutional role of commander-in-chief given in Federalist Paper Number 69:

“First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. [While] the king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions.

In this article [Article II of the Constitution], therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.

Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”

Do you see how the word “directing” is used in the federalist # 69?

That’s right, given the definition of the word “strategy,” doesn't it sound like Barack Obama’s usage was proper?

It should be clear to every one now that the term “strategy” applies to the “commander-in-chief.”

Now, let’s consider the term “tactics.” General Patraeus, as the senior military man on the ground in Iraq (because the commander-in-chief told him to go there), he is the military tactician. He uses the tactics he deems necessary to accomplish the strategic goals given to him by the Chain of Command, which starts with the “commander-in-chief.

It's important to note here, that the commander-in-chief can adjust their strategy at any time. "He" can re-design his strategy to suit the objectives he feels the Americans desire to be achieved. So if that means he must direct the military to implement plans for a redeployment of US troops from Iraq, than so be it. "His" strategy shift would be implemented by professional military logistical tacticians because that's what the new mission would be to do.

Thus, the military would follow the directions given to them, because the commander-in-chief is the boss, elected by "We the people." (We really should have some light bulbs going off here folks.)

Now, regarding the surge

It is interesting to note that Admiral Fallon, who was General Patraeus’ boss at CENTCOM, resigned because he did not think the surge would accomplish the necessary political aims that were required to be successful in Iraq – which still haven’t been accomplished by the way.

He also thought that the surge would further strain the military and leave the re-surging Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan unchecked - which has happened.

Demonstrating a professional military ethic and a respect for the US Constitution, Admiral Fallon resigned, showing that he respected that the elected leadership, chosen by the people, were the ones ultimately accountable to the people for setting the strategy, and his disagreement with that strategy would be a distraction from the people assessing whether or not they had elected an ideological and incompetent moron. (Which, sadly enough I wonder if "we" will ever catch on.)

Now, “strategery” in the broader sense.

To be sure, the military brass do set management strategies to ensure service readiness. The contextual breakdown of those strategies goes like this.

The President sets the National Security Strategy (it is a part of his role as the Executive Branch within the federal government - he is overseen by Congress through its committees), whereupon the Secretary of Defense, with the assistance of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, designs a National Military Strategy.

The services, given the National Military Strategy, develop their supporting service strategies to support the chain of command's policy goals in the National Military Strategy and the National Security Strategy.

To be sure though, the Commander-in-Chief is overall responsible for the successes and failures of the military, as he sets the strategy (there's that word again).

It all comes back to the Elected Leadership and the slumbering population that prefers to have a President that reminds them of a guy they would like to have a beer with.

Invading Iraq has proven to be a strategic blunder, and if anyone were to have failed there it would be the Commander-in-Chief, who called for the opening of an unnecessary second front in a conflict that should have been done and over with, many times over, by now.

Apparently, the W preferred beer pong to chess in college and in life and the military will wear his failures around their necks because of it.

The military is subordinate to that of the elected civilian leadership, and that’s why the buck stops on the desk in the oval office, and not with the loyal troops of the United States Military who willingly and voluntarily answer their country’s call.

The question is whether or not the public will wake up and hold their politicians accountable and get over their "he's too smart to be President complex."

No, Barack Obama doesn't talk like you, but that's a good thing.

You probably like to crush beer cans on your head, while he likes to read about the costs of manufacturing and distributing that beer and whether or not he can ensure the jobs needed to make that beer are sound and financially sustaining.

By the way, can't we create jobs by recycling that beer can? See, you didn't even think about that, did you? I bet he has!