The Great Debate
This is going to be a long post. I don’t know the URL, and I’d rather not give clicks to such claims this author makes. This was spam sent to me by a friend. It starts with the bio of the author. You’ll notice as I respond to her predictions at one point my tone significantly changes. It should be obvious why. The sad part here is that Kit Lange apparently has many talents and an eagerness to learn, but has used a significant part of both attributes to dive into what seems outright paranoia. If she’s right in all her predictions, I’ll apologize for that assessment. But I suspect she would never apologize for her more outrageous comments; or even be able to see just how off-base she was.
Kit Lange is an Air Force veteran and military writer who specializes in investigating murder cases stemming from actions in combat. Her work was used as evidence in the Lt. Ilario Pantano case, and has been quoted extensively in other news publications for other cases. In 2005, she co-wrote a 10-part series disproving war crime allegations against an elite Army unit;
her blog, EuphoricReality.com, was named as one of the top 10 milblogs of the year. She is also the National Web Coordinator for Gathering of Eagles, a nationally-recognized troop support organization. Kit holds a degree in Aircraft Maintenance Technology from Spartan College of Aeronautics, and is currently working on a second degree in Aviation Technology Management. She resides in
Tulsa , Oklahoma .
INTERESTING COMMENTARY FROM A FEMALE AIR FORCE VETERAN WHO IS NOW A TALK SHOW HOST.
(Note: I took her predictions regarding the Obama administration and immediately countered them with another comment. If you wish to read her commentary first then review my comments, just read the blockquotes below.)
“Websites and mass emails offering ‘free grants,’ courtesy of the government and ‘Obama’s wealth redistribution.’ Actually, this one’s a freebie, because I have an email with a date and timestamp of literally minutes after Obama was declared the winner, offering exactly that.”
Ironically I have been staring at ads on Volconvo: a debating site, that offer free grants to Republicans ever since Bush took office. As far as I’m concerned no one should get grants because of their political skew, but if Dems do this, it won’t be limited to them. Seems Republicans got there first.
I really wish some Republicans would stop claiming everyone who disagrees with them is going to do what they have already done.
“Israel will understand this election was the end of any type of assistance, military or otherwise, from the U.S. , and will stop holding back their defense at the request of the American administration. Look for a first strike on Iran soon, as well as increased activity by the Israeli military in general. Israel is on her own now, and God help us all because of it.”
I really doubt this one. Any pol who attempts to hold Israel to anything much less than most favored status in the region would be a damn fool, and Obama is no one’s fool: no matter what anyone thinks of him. You would think after the past election the Right would recognize this. If not, it’s their Achilles heel.
Iran hit? I doubt it, but the Bush administration was pushing for this. Now if the writer actually means Israel will strike, I suspect if they do they would have no matter who was in office. But they have “disappointed” those of us who have predicted such things from time to time.
“Look for Iranian retaliation–against American targets. That goes doubly for other terrorist organizations. We just elected a man with the full endorsement of every major terrorist group in the world as leader of the free world. It’s the political equivalent of hiring a child molester to babysit your kids while you leave for the weekend. Not only is HE going to have fun with your child, but he’ll probably sit and watch while his friends come over and do it too.”
I’m sorry, this is not only a load of crazy bat crap: as polite as I can be in this regard… but intentionally inflammatory guano; and plain stupid, rhetoric. She has every right to make such predictions, of course. This is what’s called “free speech;” something I suspect she would have far less respect for than I have if she were commenting on my writing.
The full endorsement of every terrorist organization? OK, she is a proven molester of little children and then eats them with rancid tartar sauce. I have as much evidence of that as she has of “every major terrorist group.” And what does she do after making this unproven, absurd, outrageous, slanderous claim? Follows through with similar rhetoric like I just used as an example.
“Look for far-left justices appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively tying up the entire government in a trifecta of liberal humanism, the buzzwords of which remain empty platitudes like “hope and change,” and the ultimate goal of which is socialism–and soon, sharia law.”
Well, of course, this is what happens when elections are lost and won: just like when Bush supposedly won in 2000 and 2004. “Far”-Left to her seems to be a pretty extreme relative statement considering the previous comments. “Socialism?” BOO! I’M SCAAARRREEEEDDDD! But wait, there have almost always been at least some socialistic and capitalistic elements in our society. We have never been pure either. This type of argument preys on ignorance. Will Obama make us more socialistic? Well, when it comes to helping the poor and the middle class, probably so, in my opinion. For the very rich? Less so. And he will most likely make it less like National Socialism; which combines quite well with skewing tax laws and regulations away from the rich paying their fair share. In every tax system there are losers and winners, just like with regulation and deregulation. Those who scream socialism usually do so according to whose ox is being slaughtered.
On the bright side, I suspect Corporations; especially the largest, will no longer be treated as if the have more rights than individuals do; have to stop living on the tax break/eminent domain dole and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Or at least I hope so.
If we must have one or the other, not a bad trade off, between Bush and Obama, in my opinion.
And sharia law and socialism have nothing to do with each other. Another example of, “Obama’s an extreme, terrorist loving, Muslim. BOO!”
“Military cases of troops being tried and convicted for killing the enemy in combat will continue to rise–and the conviction/plea-bargain rate will stay at nearly 100%, as the government seeks to use the best men and women this country has to offer as sacrificial lambs on the altar of global appeasement. Those brave and honorable men who currently reside in prison cells across the country, stripped of their rank, their careers, families, and their good name, will not taste free air again for many years. Their sacrifices and their stories will be forgotten by the general public, remembered only by those of us who continue to fight for them.”
Well, depending on what they did, and how she defines “enemy,” my response will vary. Someone is shooting at our troops and is killed? I have a problem with prosecuting that. But, of course, that’s not what she’s talking about I suspect. She’s talking about those who barge into a house and kill the family in retaliation, or just to find some suspected insurgent. I understand conflicts are difficult times and soldiers need some leeway in their responses, but even the Bush administration was prosecuting a case like this. I’m all for it. We’re supposed to be the good guys, not act like terrorists or the Cong.
If the writer was so interested in the stories of soldiers maybe she should have been protesting the ban on photographing coffins coming for the conflict and the silence of the media regarding the stories of the soldiers. Or perhaps if the public heard the true stories and how some died: like Pat Tillman, maybe we’d be out of Iraq right now and that’s why the writer doesn’t seem to object to any of this?
Plea bargain and conviction rates tend to be high when the government in any system of justice can bankrupt the innocent. This is something I’d like to change, but I suspect the writer would scream, “Socialism!”
– “Look for the slow but steady erosion of rights you have enjoyed for your entire lives–all the while being told it’s ‘for your own good.'”
“Restrictions on gun ownership, home schooling, encouraged dependence on the ever-growing federal government. More nanny-state provisions will be put into place to protect the “disadvantaged” and the “poor,”
(read: lazy, uneducated, unwilling to better themselves) even while groups like the unborn, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and terminally ill are slowly pushed toward euthanasia. Of course, this will be done with feel-good phrases like ‘death with dignity, ‘not wanting to be a burden,’
and ‘merciful release from suffering,’ all of which ignore the basic fact that we are killing people without their consent for the ‘good of the people.’ Before you tell me I’m crazy, let’s just remember that Barack Obama was the ONLY senator in the Illinois state senate to vote against providing medical care for babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive an abortion. Also, look for taxes to go up. Yes, they’ll go up.”
As opposed to fast gutting of rights for the past eight years? This is such low hanging fruit I’m surprised she insists on pulling the branch down to make it more accessible.
To repeat. I wish writers like this would stop accusing Dems of attempting to do what has been done by Republicans. Of course, it’s a tactic; an intentional distraction… as much as “look over there” while I stomp on your foot is.
I don’t know for sure about guns, but Obama pushing much more than regulations that even the gun lobby would slightly whine about would probably be political suicide. As mentioned before: Barack isn’t stupid. But, we’ll see. There’s a lot of phony, over the top, angst to be had when this topic is dragged out on the public square and beaten like a dead jackass again.
Home schooling needs to come up to standards like any other form of schooling, except if you believe some children should be left behind for political and theological convenience.
“Nanny state” defines an administration that claims to believe in states rights until it doesn’t suit their needs: like Gay marriage, pot regulations, the Schiavo case… the list of Bush insisting the feds be “nanny” is pretty long. Once again, and again… accusing the opposition of doing what your homies are doing.
Now, to be honest, any country has some “nanny” to it, otherwise there would be no governance at all. Period. This is annoying and asinine framing of an argument is usually used at the the convenience of those who use it. That’s why both the Left and the Right use it when it suits their needs.
When it comes to ending one’s own life, I can’t think of a better example of a “nanny state.” Our lives do not, and should not, belong to the State. How much we should assist; or not… and let live on in torment, is a discussion we must have but refuse to have. That serves no one. Those who argue as the writer does always go for the extreme where the State is forcing people to kill themselves. It’s a nonsense argument because, to repeat myself over and over and… accuses all advocates they don’t agree with… well, you know what I was going to type if you’ve read this far, don’t you? This is what those who are against the right to terminate one’s own life under all circumstances are advocating: the State essentially owning us and telling us when we can, and must die: A NANNY STATE. Does she really that? I wonder.
Taxes will go up. For the rich and the well to do. About friggin time.
– “You think the economy is bad now? Just wait. You’ll have the most expensive ‘free’ health care ever. Bread lines aren’t just for Russians anymore.”
Yup, Canada, Great Britain… all have long bread lines and we’re so economically superior to them because we don’t have single payer health care? Their economies have been where ours is now for years because of health care: NOT. Isn’t it bloody obvious that the writer: being no one’s idiot, probably knows that and is lying to you?
“We have traded experience for color, freedom for slavery–and the irony is that the average American sheeple thinks their vote somehow righted an ancient wrong, somehow ENDED the spectre of slavery and ushered in some beautiful era of liberty. In reality, we are about to be less free than you ever thought possible.”
Ah, yes. The old experience canard with a Blazing Saddles dash of, “damn it, can’t you see he’s a n…ger?” I did have problems with his inexperience, just like I did when George Bush ran in 2000: a man whose only true executive experience was in a state where Gov. was more more ceremonial that actual governance. (Don’t even start with all his failed CEO experience, if you want to use that one.)
“I watched the faces of those crowded into the mob (excuse the pun) in Chicago . They stared at Obama like he was a god, an idol, a panacea to their every want and need. We have truly failed as a nation if we are at the point where we feel we must look to one man to take care of us all, to be our father figure and our sugar daddy. We have lost not only the ‘can-do’ attitude of past generations, but the ‘MUST-do'”
How does one “crowd into the mob?” That’s not a “pun.” It’s redundant.
Just like Cons worshiped Saint George and Saint Reagan? PLEASE.
“The eyes of Obama and McCain were also telling. McCain acted with class and grace in his concession speech , offering the most honorable response I’ve seen yet. I don’t agree with all of McCain’s positions, but it cannot be denied that the man has served his nation–at permanent and severe detriment to himself–for half a century.”
“His eyes were clear and sincere, honest. His speech underlined the very reasons why, of the two men offered, he was hands down the best choice.”
Of course we all have our sense of what we see in the eyes of others. A freshman student of communications theory knows judging anyone by this “sense” means nothing. When I look in the eyes of our last president I see a little sadistic bully-boy whose idea of freedom is being able to do anything to anybody he hates: always defined as those who dare to disagree with him. Someone who has more in common with bin Laden than Jefferson or Washington. But my assessment scientifically is of equal value to hers. Essentially: none.
I was a semi-fan of McCain in 2000. If he had won I might have had a problem deciding. But it was obviously either pure image or he decided “screw that. Let’s slime.” But his concession was pretty damn good.
“On the other hand, Obama’s eyes were cold, calculating. His manner was smug and still carried the arrogance he has always had.”
Ditto. (See my last comment.)
Ah, the mind reader. Sure you weren’t somewhere else? But… then to expect her to say anything else by now would obviously be idiotic. Nothing Obama could do would ever convince her he’s other than Satan incarnate, anymore than anything George Bush could have done would convince me.
Now, a few more comments followed by my own predictions…
I actually thought maybe I’d get more of a professional, analytic assessment, considering the credentials. But if we’re allowed to use our “sense” of others we don’t agree with as “gospel,” well all I sense here is partisan hackery, but as with all things regarding opinion, just like Ms. Lange, I could be wrong.
I doubt she’d offer the same admission.
I’m guessing if Ms. Lange reads this, and responds, she’ll might use the phrase “liberal” as if it were a curse word, and “treasonous” or “treason,” in reference to me. Communist and Socialist will probably be included with the same sense of name calling, maybe even as if they were always the same thing.
But I won’t respond in kind.
You see Ms. Lange has a right to her opinions, her predictions and even her partisan hackery, if that is what it was. That’s what we fight for when we must sacrifice our soldiers for a cause: freedom.
God bless America.
Not the phony patriot one; where God or Allah tells us to attack others, that we have the right to torture and torment those because we suspect someone may be guilt. That’s the kind of “patriotism” a terrorist would be interested in, or a unitary power seeking president. Not the kind Jefferson, Washington, Patrick Henry and Nathan Hale, Thomas Paine fought, argued and died for.
Which one do you fight for with your words, Ms. Lange?
I’m not sure.