LAST POST : The American Solution

To all our readers,

Folks, it's been wonderful writing this blog. However, after careful consideration we have decided to shut down The American Solution.

Thank you to all of our loyal readers. You've been great.

I will leave the site up for archival purposes as we are not ashamed of anything we did or said here. Hopefully someone will find some knowledge about the truth in America by reading what we posted.

I will leave you with America the Beautiful and a special rendition of The National Anthem & by Faith Hill.

"This is Chase Morgan, and it is my job to make sense of it all. Goodnight!"

America the Beautiful - Ray Charles

america the beautiful songs
   Mp3 download | Music download

The Star Spangled Banner (National Anthem) - 9/11 Faith Hill

star spangled banner songs
   Music downloads | Mp3 downloads

The State of the U.S. - Chase Responds

Wow Laura, I thought maybe we had lost you to recruitment in the Foreign Legion! Welcome back.

As for JFK's legacy, as a man and as a president, the argument continues unabated. After JFK's death, Jackie and JFK's aides helped "mythologize" his presidency as a golden age, a second "Camelot." For many Americans, especially those who came of age with his administration, an air of nostalgia and lost idealism still hangs about JFK. More recently, though, revisionist historians have emphasized his flaws - his foreign policy blunders (Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs), to the extent in which his career was buoyed by his father's money and connections, his endless affairs and willingness to hide the state of his health from the American people, and the way he and Robert Kennedy skirted the law while in office by using wiretaps and intimidation against their political enemies. You, of all people Laura, should despise the wiretapping.

A balanced assessment of JFK's time in office must recognize his errors, while crediting his few undeniable accomplishments. He fouled up the Bay of Pigs, but staved off nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Cuba, and parlayed this détente into important agreements such as the nuclear test-ban treaty. He may not have done all he could for civil rights, but his symbolic support for blacks was important in the fight against segregation. However, it created a thorn bigger than one's finger in regards to "affirmative action" which stemmed from his efforts.

One can argue that had he not been assassinated, JFK might have made the same blunders in Vietnam that ultimately dragged Lyndon Johnson down. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, through his rhetoric to unite the country he ultimately only inspired a generation of "Gimme Gimme" Americans in a way that has now turned into a Welfare nightmare.

I am also aware of (and knew personally) a true patriot and founder of The Flying Tigers, named William D. Pawley (who was a special adviser on foreign affairs to JFK) who personally raised millions of dollars - some of which was his own personal money - to liberate hundreds of Cuban Rebels from Fidel Castro's prisons after they were betrayed by John F. Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs. Pawley's detest of JFK has never been a secret. He went head-to-head with Kennedy on many issues between 1961 and 1963. Pawley is known as a sort of "Godfather" to the Cuban people still today.

I am also quite aware of Dwight Eisnehower's 1961 speech. I am going to post one section of it here to back my comparison of George Bush (Sr. & Jr) to Eisenhower's own theory on military needs:

IV.


A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. 

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. 

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.


It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. 

*For notation sake - William D. Pawley was a close personal friend of Eisenhower.

As for Obama being handed a "partial victory": I think you are confused in thinking that Guantanamo Bay (and it's naval base of the same name) will ever be returned to Cuba.

Contrary to popular belief, The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area (It was offered February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, the first President of Cuba) to protect Cuba from the Spanish. The newly-formed American protectorate incorporated the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution. The Cuban-American Treaty held, among other things, that the United States, for the purposes of operating coaling and naval stations, hashe Republic of Cuba is recognized to retain ultimate sovereignty.

In 1934 the Avery Porko treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and its trading partners free access through the bay; modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars; and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it, or the U.S. abandoned the base property.

After the Cuban Revolution, then-President Dwight Eisenhower insisted the status of the base remained unchanged, despite Fidel Castro's objections. Since then, the Cuban government has cashed only one of the rent checks from the U.S. government, and even then only because of "confusion" in the early days of the leftist revolution, according to Castro. The remaining uncashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (a title that ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer. The United States argues that the cashing of the single check signifies Havana's ratification of the lease — and that ratification by the new government renders moot any questions about violations of sovereignty and illegal military occupation.

It is countered, however, that the 1903 and 1934 lease agreements were imposed on Cuba under duress and are unequal treaties, no longer compatible with modern international law, and voidable ex nunc pursuant to articles 60, 62, and 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prohibits retroactive application of said Convention to already existing treaties, such as the ones concluded between the US and Cuba in 1903 and 1934.

The detention camp at Guantanamo Bay (called "Camp Delta" : constructed February 2002 - April 2002) is the only thing on Guantanamo Bay (specifically the naval base) that Obama has ordered closed. Is this really going to solve the problem? The prisoners who are currently housed there will just be moved to another location (most likely now in your backyard). It's no-win situation for anyone. It was a poorly thought out decision on Obama's part and will come with it's own set of repercussions.

The State of the U.S. – Laura's Final Response

I think I gave-up a while back Chase, but thanks for the patriotic advice. I cannot imagine where you are coming from by stating what you did about JFK – he was certainly not an idiot, and the country has changed since he made his inaugural speech; something he learned the hard and final way his last year alive. See Operation Northwoods if you haven't a clue, but make sure that you see the documents from the National Security Archive, and not some web crap, okay?

So much liberty? Come on Chase. Wake-up! And please do not place George Bush (Sr. or Jr.) at the same level as Dwight D. Eisenhower. At least Eisenhower recognized that military industrial complex and gave the American people fair warning of the changes that had taken place in his time. Consider reading Eisenhower's speech made in 1961.

We certainly differ in our thoughts and in our knowledge of U.S. history Chase. The U.S. is indeed in need of change, and Obama was finally handed a partial victory in his intentions and efforts to shut down Guantanamo Bay camps forever. I said it before and I'll say it again: Close this atrocity-riddled gulag that is a remnant of the Bush administration and return the land to Cuba!

It is time that the people took the country back.

Chase's Response to Laura's Thoughts

LOL. Well, let's not give up on the good ole' U. S. of A. yet!

Sure we have our problems. But everyone seems to think that this country "owes" them something. It doesn't. John F. Kennedy (even being the idiot he was) said something intelligent, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

Everything in life has two ends, no matter what it is:

Up : Down
Left : Right
Inside : Outside
Top : Bottom
Good : Bad
Front : Back
etc...

Well, America has the same. We created a country with ideals that made sense and we created a Constitution to guarantee protection and rights regarding those ideals. They were good ones too. Freedom of Speech, Rights to bare arms, etc. etc.

However, along with all of these rights comes the pitfalls to go with them. We gave so much liberty to individuals and groups that it opened a door for abuse. And when people like Madalyn Murray O'Hair came along and destroyed many of the infrastructures that this country was founded on, this country's slow demise began.

The original principles adopted by our forefathers were not abandoned by people like Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower or George Bush. The United States (like most other countries) was founded on a religion. And religion (in this case Christianity) played a key role for years in maintaining morality and family unity (both are key things to maintaining a strong nation). Because when you allow for "too much" diversity, you open the door to rebellion. This rebellious attitude spreads like wildfire, and soon people think that they "should be able to do whatever and whenever they want". The infrastructure crumbles and a nation weakens.

Now, I am not talking about allowing people the freedoms to do what they please in their own lives. I am referring to those who then take it too far and think that the government should not have its own standards and ideology (the ones our forefathers also wanted to protect).

I agree that the U.S. has "fallen from grace" so to speak. Obama was right when he said this is a time for change. However, the change he proposes is not what this country needs. We don't need new ideology. We need to revert back to what worked.

My Father always told me, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it!" Too many times this country has been "fixed" when it wasn't broken to begin with. So, now we have duct tape holding it together where it's not needed and it's strangling the life right out of it.

It's time to take the duct tape off, clean up the gummy residue it has left and polish America to it's original luster.

Laura's Thoughts

It has been a week since my last post and I would like to tell you, the readers of this blog, why.

As hard as it is for me to say this --- I feel that the U.S. is a lost cause and there is no American Solution anymore. Don't get me wrong – I am glad that President Obama won the vote – however, he has yet to accomplish anything notable; not that he hasn't tried, and more that this is a country divided.

There will never be decent health care in the U.S. I exited what could have been a decent job back in 1992, when I was denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Today most employers do not offer employees health insurance anyway, except at the management level. Face it – everyone can't be the manager. In my opinion if an employer cannot afford to cover employees, then that employer shouldn't be in business. The employers of today are an entire forest away from the employers of the mid to late 20th century. No more job security or real benefits are available to Americans, unless one works for the government. I know that I will pass on that one.

Too many Americans do not give a crap about their fellow citizens or the rest of the world. It is all me, me, me, me, and me. I need, I want, I must have – seem to be instilled in the early years here. In many cities those that do care enough to distribute meals to the homeless are arrested and prosecuted. Orlando is one of those cities – God help anyone that gets in the way of Lake Eola business owners! Someone attempting to view the broken fountain might find their view blocked by a human being without a home to go to.

In short, for me there is little left to argue about. Whatever.

The Missile Defense System – Laura's Final Response

Which wars did the "European nations surrender at the first sign of conflict" Chase? If this is in history, I sure missed it. Your version of history must be different than any that I have learned.

I have no real response to your anti-European statements Chase. We are all entitled to our opinions, but as they say, opinions are like _____ and everyone has one. There is no arrogance towards Americans in Paris and has not been for quite some time, so I am left curious as to where in Paris you visited that prompted this experience. Do you speak any French at all? Perhaps you thought that the people you encountered should address you in English? Now that would be arrogant on your part.

I am not clear on how Stalin was "the lesser of two evils" as a dictator Chase, but then it is your lack of familiarity with the former Soviet Union that would prompt you to state such a thing and again you manage to make my point for me. "Lay in bed with a few bad guys now and then" doesn't quite capture the essence of U.S. foreign policy since the start of World War 2, and backing Batista in Cuba is an excellent example of U.S. policy being based on financial gain, and not the safety of its citizens. You state this as if you believe that the citizens of the U.S. were in danger of being attacked by Cuba prompting the necessity to back Batista the puppet. Do you believe that the interference in Central America was based on any danger to democracy? Such a thought is laughable. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Reagan administration's illegal backing of the Contras is now available to all in the National Security Archive. Do avail yourself of this excellent educational resource Chase.

Financial aid under false pretenses hasn't worked out real well, has it Chase? Just because we shove money at these nations' greedy governments doesn't mean that the people will be forever on their knees for us. Financial aid usually works out well for those with their hands in the till and for the specific U.S. business interests with something to gain, but is rarely advantageous for the people on either side.

Self preservation translates to protecting U.S. financial interests and little else. It is all about the promotion of economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism and has never had anything whatsoever to do with helping others. Invading sovereign nation-states with the purpose of backing puppet governments that help U.S. financial interests at the expense of the people doesn't give me any "warm fuzzy feelings" at all Chase.

I know that I do not need your capitalist view of history. So what is your solution Chase?

The Missile Defense Decision – Chase's Final Response

For your information, Ms. Valentine, I am quite knowledgeable in Russian History; as well as European History, Middle Eastern and American. However, my reasoning behind becoming knowledgeable is for much different reasons than the deceptive Barack Hussein Obama.
Do you really believe that the United States was created "on the backs of the citizens of the states of Europe"? I haven't had that good of a laugh since... well, yesterday (I was reading articles to post on one of my other blogs). The U.S. was created because they desired "Independence" from Great Britain and Europe (mostly French and Spanish rule).

I will pass on the crème brulée, but breakfast in The City of Lights would be nice to do again. I have been there several times, but much prefer the nicer folks in places like Carcassonne and Toulouse - they are much less arrogant to Americans there.

As for the U.S. "partnering" with Stalin; it has always been U.S. policy (based on common sense) to support "The lesser of two evils". It is not our fault that there are just so many damn evil dictators in this world. But we always keep the safety, security and well-being of U.S. citizens as priority #1. Sometimes this means having to lay in bed with a few bad guys now and then. Another good example of this would be backing Batista in Cuba over Fidel Castro (however, Congress eventually sided with Castro - and you see where that has gotten us). The Sandinistas and Contras ring a bell too? Iran and Irag? Russia ad Afghanistan? Blah, Blah, Blah...

The Russians must not have believed their cause and right to be in Georgia too much. They sure scurried back across the border when the rest of the world said, "No, no, no!"

It is always a tragedy when nations turn on the U.S. after we help them with millions and sometimes billions of dollars of aid. Reminds me of the old saying, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you".

But they never appreciate the Billions in aid we send to all of them. The first opportunity they get they turn like rabid dogs against the very hands that saved them in their time(s) of need. But they were all standing there with open arms for the gracious handouts when they had no one else to come to their aid. But "America is the bad guy" as usual.

Of course you will argue that we only do it to get something in return; but isn't that why anyone does anything for people. Even if all they get in return is a warm fuzzy feeling inside?

When it all boils down, it's all about self-preservation. Protecting ourselves at whatever cost. The same way it has been for 10,000 years in the past and will be for 10,000 more.

The Missile Defense Decision: Laura's 2nd Response

President Obama has extensive knowledge of Russian history because he is educated, unlike former president Bush. So do I for that matter – what is your level of education in relation to Russian history Chase?

European nations surrender at the first sign of conflict? Tell me that you're friggen kidding Chase, please. How do you believe that the United States were created to begin with? Well I'll tell you: on the backs of the citizens of the states of Europe.

You do not care for crème brulée Chase? It is my absolute favorite. Perhaps now that we have a president in office with diplomatic skills there will be breakfasts in the City of Lights. We can only hope Chase.

The Russians are our allies today, though our partnership with Stalin, the brutal dictator that played a part in the deaths of 28 million people in the former Soviet Union, was indeed suspect. What a coin that was to toss, right? Why is it that the US always partners with these dictators Chase? Trust me; the Russians have less of a deficit than we do in the United States and are more than capable of defending their territory. Ronald Reagan played a miniscule part (that's a pun in reference to his former position) in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Prior to Stalin's death there were many in the State Duma that sought change, but feared speaking about it. Nikita Khrushchev was one of the many, though the Cold War escalated under his watch, of course.

It is known far and wide that Stalin's pet phrase was: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

You believe that Georgia is a peaceful state? Georgian troops launched the recent offensive, but of course they were trained and armed by the forever interfering US. You have it backwards there Chase. Of course Russia responded in full force Chase, but what would you have expected them to do?

Now we are fighting the men that have those weapons that we supplied to the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War during 1979 to 1989. We armed them and now they use the arms to fight us. The Soviets did not exactly lose, but chose under Mikhail Gorbachev, to withdraw. Gorbachev played a much bigger part in the dissolutiion of the USSR than you are giving him credit for Chase. You also neglect to mention that Saudi Arabia and half of the states in the Middle East also supported the mujahideen during this ongoing conflict. The US did not arm the Afghans – we armed the resistance, which is quite the opposite.

The Missile Defense Decision – Chase's 2nd Response

Well Laura, of course Obama would naturally have "extensive" knowledge of Russian history. Gee, I wonder why that is?

As for the "not in my backyard" attitude you mention - I fail to see how this is a bad thing. We don't bring wars to other nations, but we sure do stop them before they get here. And this is a bad thing? It is not our fault that all the European nations always surrender at the mere sight of conflict.

I love how you can always say with such certainty that there is never a threat from any of these hostile nations like Iran. And this is because you have breakfast with all these Dictators and Tyrants each morning and laugh about falsely scaring the U.S. and the rest of the civilized world into 'thinking' you are actually a threat? You are right. What were we thinking. Let's just join hands with all the them and play a game of Ring Around The Rosie while we all drink overrated tea from Britain and eat Crème Brûlée from Gay Paris.


The Russians are NOT our allies. They haven't been since WWII. As for Russia 'standing by and allowing' the U.S. to initialize the Missile Defense Plan (George W. Bush's Plan); I don't think they really had a choice. The Cold War is over (thanks mostly to Ronald Reagan) and Russia doesn't have the might nor the resources to even flex their muscles, let alone start another standoff militarily with the U.S.

The Missile Defense Shield Program does not only have to do with countering long range missiles from Iran. You are incorrect; it has everything  to do with Russia as well. It will also defend against any attack the war hungry Russians may initiate against other peaceful nations like Poland, The Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia and Poland (Their aggression was made all too public in the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008).

And as for the Missile Defense Plan being "derailed" - I would hold that assumption. Why do you think it was set for the year 2017 and not done right away? Because Bush knew that if a Democratic leader succeeded him in The White House, he would be gone by 2016 and the plan can easily be reinstated to meet it's original projection date.

You are absolutely right when you state that the 10 year Soviet/Afghan War helped as well to dissolve the U.S.S.R. The U.S. trained the Afghans and supplied $200,000,000 in aid/weapons to them to defeat the Soviets. You really think they could have done it by themselves? In essence, the U.S. fought that war... and won.

As for our agenda in Afghanistan now - We are not fighting them. We are fighting terrorist cells within their borders. So I fail to see where you are going with that.

The Missile Defense Decision – Laura's 1st Response:

It is necessary to point out that President Obama has extensive knowledge of Russian history, whereas Bush had zero knowledge or forethought when he initially made the announcement or played a part in the plan.

I do not consider provoking the Russian Federation to be intelligent at all Chase. And guess what? You do not live in Western Europe so your lack of concern over Bush's potential for reverting back to the early 1960s and turning France and Germany into the nuclear battleground of a U.S. instigated nuclear war is representative of the typical "as long as it's not in my backyard" attitude.

Additionally, Bush made these promises at a time when he sought Eastern European support in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I will take this a step further here and confidently assert that there is not any nuclear threat from Iran, unless of course the Iranians are attacked first.

The Russians are our allies Chase, so your anti-Communist stance and reference to the former Soviet Union borders on the ridiculous. President Obama seeks to overcome the negative impact that the Bush administration had on U.S. – Russia relations. Is that okay with you, or would you rather he provoked an entirely new Cold War? Many of us Obama supporters supported him because of his announced intentions of diplomacy. I know that you cannot believe that Russia would have stood by and allowed the U.S. to get away with Bush's plan.

The European states that supported the missile defense system are mainly Poland and the Czech Republic. Tell me Chase – What do these Eastern European states have to fear from Iran? According to U.S. plans under the Bush administration, the entire missile defense shield plan had only to do with Iranian long range nuke capabilities and nothing whatsoever to do with Russia. Instead of incorporating this point in your thesis, you actually discuss Star Wars under Ronald Reagan – a point understood all to well by the Russians, and by many Americans that are all too aware of the costs involved. In a sense you have made my argument for me.

Western Europeans have no desire to be at the center of a nuclear war between Iran and the U.S. and your title of this post is a misnomer – clarify that you are referring to the former Soviet Socialist Republic satellite states when using the term "sellout" and rename please. For the U.S. this has mainly to do with Iran, although the U.S. did arm and train the Georgian military. For the former Soviet satellite states it has mainly to do with the Russian Federation, although the majority of citizens do not feel that the provocation is necessary either. Clearly each party has vastly different goals in this missile defense shield plan that is finally, and thankfully, derailed.

The entire plan concocted by the Bush war-mongers was little beyond the usual interference.

You feel it necessary to discuss the dissolution of the Soviet Union Chase? You must as you stated:

"Many analysts agree that the race drained Soviet coffers and triggered the economic difficulties that sped up the Soviet collapse in 1991."

This statement that refers to Star Wars neglects the 10-year Soviet invasion and war in Afghanistan (79-89). I'm sure that many in Russia and the former satellite states are eyeing the U.S. agenda today and wondering: How is that going for you? Hopefully this leaves you with something to consider in relation to the current U.S. agenda in Afghanistan that began in late 2001.