Dr. Krauthammer
It's better to be paralyzed from the neck down, than to be paralyzed from the neck up...
Dr. Charles Krauthammer
Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.
Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.
The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.
Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along.
He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage.. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future.. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Random Stuff
It's been three weeks since my last post, and I apologize. A lot of stuff going on...soccer, t-ball, volleyball, softball, work, vacation days...just haven't felt like doing much.
1. This isn't just Obama, but he is the poster boy for government in general. Government doesn't produce anything. It first has to take from the productive. Otherwise we could simply have everyone work for the government...and the obvious question is where would the money come from? Some great examples of government (and Obama in particular) of only being able to destroy and not create - oil spill (moratorium on drilling), cap and trade (which by any standard will kill jobs and economic production), green energy (at the expense of cheaper and more efficient energy), and jobs in general (stimulus, extending unemployment benefits, etc).
2. I don't know how many have read 1984, a book by George Orwell. A great book and kind of scary. It is hard to describe, but it really doesn't seem that different from Communist Russia (or eventual path for us). Rewriting history in the present ("we have always been at war with East Asia"). But just a great quote from the book about totalitarianism (the evil party in the book's vision of what life would be like).
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
3. Which leads me into my next comment, just about Ken Salazar's comment about keeping a boot on the neck of BP. We already have laws that people can use to sue BP, but that apparently isn't enough. Hence the $20 billion coming from BP via the White House. As a wannabe economist, what surprises me most is just the lack of understanding about risk (assuming good intentions). Sure fishermen are hurt by the oil spill, as are a lot of other people. If I have to pay more for gas because of the BP spill, am I entitled to sue (and where does it end as Rush pointed out...shrimp will cost more, as will other foods, and anything that relies on gas would see some sort of increase)? It appears more like another boost to the trial lawyers which will have a field day with BP. But for a great article on Obama's thuggery see this.
4. Rush pointed out about minorities were hardest hit by the mortgage meltdown. You don't say. I could have told anyone that. Granting or refusing a loan to a white person, no big deal. But refuse a loan to a minority and you are in big trouble (and both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for it). The problem isn't minorities, it is granting loans to people who couldn't pay them back (through political pressure). These people just happened to be minorities. And what I just said would be construed by a lot on the left as racist. But is it? If the reverse were true and banks loaned to a lot of white people through political pressure who couldn't pay it back, would I give them a pass? Of course not.
5. Obama, in his push to grant amnesty to millions of illegals (didn't we try that before...I thought Obama was going to bring change and hope), keeps talking about our "broken" immigration system. Okay...but why is it broken? It is Presidents, including Reagan, who refused (along with Congress) to enforce the border. Might as well look in the mirror.
6. On computers, when did it become recycling bin rather than garbage bin? Was it always recycling bin and I just didn't notice? Funny how little stuff like that never seems to garner our attention.
7. Inclusiveness. This seems to be coming back around again. Just curious, but those who want inclusiveness demand it, thus excluding those who don't want to be inclusive. Is that in the spirit of inclusiveness? Same thing with diversity. People claim to be for diversity, but against the diverse opinion that diversity is not an unqualified good thing.
8. I definitely can't do better than this. Will Ken Salazar suffer for exploiting a crisis? Probably not, seems what the Obama administration is made for.
9. With the resignation/firing of McChrystal in Afghanistan, now Petraeus is taking over (obviously one hopes, for the best of the country). But it seems like not too long ago that Democrats were furious at Petraeus (MoveOn and the Betray-us ad). Hillary Clinton even called out Petraeus for being a liar. Well which is it?
1. This isn't just Obama, but he is the poster boy for government in general. Government doesn't produce anything. It first has to take from the productive. Otherwise we could simply have everyone work for the government...and the obvious question is where would the money come from? Some great examples of government (and Obama in particular) of only being able to destroy and not create - oil spill (moratorium on drilling), cap and trade (which by any standard will kill jobs and economic production), green energy (at the expense of cheaper and more efficient energy), and jobs in general (stimulus, extending unemployment benefits, etc).
2. I don't know how many have read 1984, a book by George Orwell. A great book and kind of scary. It is hard to describe, but it really doesn't seem that different from Communist Russia (or eventual path for us). Rewriting history in the present ("we have always been at war with East Asia"). But just a great quote from the book about totalitarianism (the evil party in the book's vision of what life would be like).
There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
3. Which leads me into my next comment, just about Ken Salazar's comment about keeping a boot on the neck of BP. We already have laws that people can use to sue BP, but that apparently isn't enough. Hence the $20 billion coming from BP via the White House. As a wannabe economist, what surprises me most is just the lack of understanding about risk (assuming good intentions). Sure fishermen are hurt by the oil spill, as are a lot of other people. If I have to pay more for gas because of the BP spill, am I entitled to sue (and where does it end as Rush pointed out...shrimp will cost more, as will other foods, and anything that relies on gas would see some sort of increase)? It appears more like another boost to the trial lawyers which will have a field day with BP. But for a great article on Obama's thuggery see this.
4. Rush pointed out about minorities were hardest hit by the mortgage meltdown. You don't say. I could have told anyone that. Granting or refusing a loan to a white person, no big deal. But refuse a loan to a minority and you are in big trouble (and both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for it). The problem isn't minorities, it is granting loans to people who couldn't pay them back (through political pressure). These people just happened to be minorities. And what I just said would be construed by a lot on the left as racist. But is it? If the reverse were true and banks loaned to a lot of white people through political pressure who couldn't pay it back, would I give them a pass? Of course not.
5. Obama, in his push to grant amnesty to millions of illegals (didn't we try that before...I thought Obama was going to bring change and hope), keeps talking about our "broken" immigration system. Okay...but why is it broken? It is Presidents, including Reagan, who refused (along with Congress) to enforce the border. Might as well look in the mirror.
6. On computers, when did it become recycling bin rather than garbage bin? Was it always recycling bin and I just didn't notice? Funny how little stuff like that never seems to garner our attention.
7. Inclusiveness. This seems to be coming back around again. Just curious, but those who want inclusiveness demand it, thus excluding those who don't want to be inclusive. Is that in the spirit of inclusiveness? Same thing with diversity. People claim to be for diversity, but against the diverse opinion that diversity is not an unqualified good thing.
8. I definitely can't do better than this. Will Ken Salazar suffer for exploiting a crisis? Probably not, seems what the Obama administration is made for.
9. With the resignation/firing of McChrystal in Afghanistan, now Petraeus is taking over (obviously one hopes, for the best of the country). But it seems like not too long ago that Democrats were furious at Petraeus (MoveOn and the Betray-us ad). Hillary Clinton even called out Petraeus for being a liar. Well which is it?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
(Unfortunately Late) Memorial Day Tribute
My eternal apologies for this. I wanted to post something Monday and ashamed to say that I didn't find the time.
Memorial Day is so often treated as nothing more than a holiday to a lot of Americans, and that is truly disagraceful and despicable. So many lives lost, and those that sacrificed didn't care whether the policy was bad or the war strategy was bad. There was a job to do. In hindsight we see the benefit and a winning overall strategy in places like Iwo Jima. At the time it might be hard to come to any conclusion beyond a costly victory. Though I do not agree with Presidents like Clinton or Obama (and even sometimes whether Bush was correct), we should definitely continue to pray for our Presidents that they make the right decisions, and for our war commanders that war is neither taken lightly nor for unjust causes.
As a side note, on Monday we saw the veterans come out in my parent's town and fire shots in remembrance of those who have fallen. The flags at half-mast, and trying to explain to Joseph (my son for those who don't know) why. Just seeing the POW/MIA flag, it is very hard to instill in a young person how appreciative they really should be.
And then wondering how many Americans would truly give their lives for this country. Would you? Would I?
Memorial Day is so often treated as nothing more than a holiday to a lot of Americans, and that is truly disagraceful and despicable. So many lives lost, and those that sacrificed didn't care whether the policy was bad or the war strategy was bad. There was a job to do. In hindsight we see the benefit and a winning overall strategy in places like Iwo Jima. At the time it might be hard to come to any conclusion beyond a costly victory. Though I do not agree with Presidents like Clinton or Obama (and even sometimes whether Bush was correct), we should definitely continue to pray for our Presidents that they make the right decisions, and for our war commanders that war is neither taken lightly nor for unjust causes.
As a side note, on Monday we saw the veterans come out in my parent's town and fire shots in remembrance of those who have fallen. The flags at half-mast, and trying to explain to Joseph (my son for those who don't know) why. Just seeing the POW/MIA flag, it is very hard to instill in a young person how appreciative they really should be.
And then wondering how many Americans would truly give their lives for this country. Would you? Would I?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Random Thoughts
Want to see real greed? Look at Greece. Economy is almost in collapse, but the people won't let go of their extravagant government pensions. They're getting theirs and now they really don't care if anyone else gets theirs. Just goes to show that greed is a part of human nature. Capitalism is the only system that channels that greed into a system whereby the only time a transaction occurs is when both parties benefit (that has been distorted by the government).
Liberals keep saying "papers" to connote some link to the Nazis or Communists. Well, what do you call having to show license, registration, and proof of insurance when you get stopped by the police?
I really like the exclusion of people who have stopped looking for work from the unemployment numbers. So if all the unemployed suddenly stopped looking for work, we would have full employment, which is ludicrous. I'm not saying it is limited to Obama or anything, but it just seems like a dumb statistic.
Government is really good at rewarding failure.
Liberals keep saying "papers" to connote some link to the Nazis or Communists. Well, what do you call having to show license, registration, and proof of insurance when you get stopped by the police?
I really like the exclusion of people who have stopped looking for work from the unemployment numbers. So if all the unemployed suddenly stopped looking for work, we would have full employment, which is ludicrous. I'm not saying it is limited to Obama or anything, but it just seems like a dumb statistic.
Government is really good at rewarding failure.
Highlights From Last Week
1. The folly of citing international standards...what if the majority of people were under Communist rule? Should we adopt those standards? The best part of the linked article, "But they ignore foreign law and world opinion when it calls into question liberal policies in the United States. One classic example is the horror that most countries’ courts have for the American practice of letting virtually unguided juries award punitive damages. In most of the world, punitive damages are forbidden. But you will never see a liberal Supreme Court justice talk about 'international law' or 'international opinion' when it comes to punitive damages, which are sacrosanct in the eyes of many liberal judges."
2. Indiana Republican Mark Souder was caught in an affair with a staffer. I am glad he is resigning. The bad thing (besides his conduct) is that it allows liberals to bring up their favorite charge, hypocrisy. I don't think, however, their problem is necessarily his conduct though, simply that he is a hypocrite. He shouldn't dare to have high standards. As Peter Schweizer points out in his book "Do As I Say, Not As I Do", when conservatives don't follow their principles, they hurt themselves and their families. When liberals do, they benefit (i.e. not using unions for the work they want done, investing in companies they publicly denounce)...and that is pointed out in the book as well.
3. Last week during the special elections and primaries, Rush had a great line. During some election nights people will drink alcohol based on what is happening. Rush said that they should definitely not drink every time someone in the media said how these elections were a referendum on anything but Obama, as they'd obviously be drinking a lot.
4. Can you imagine if conservatives had said something like "Thank God, God is a Republican" in a natural disaster, as Stephanie Miller did about the oil spill? The media firestorm would be huge.
5. Michael Posner, a State Department appointee, apologizing to China for the Arizona illegal immigration law. Yes, the Chinese who are repressive and deny rights to their own citizens.
6. A little bit older, but CBO scoring of ObamaCare will cost $115 billion more than first thought (of course, the CBO is nonpartisan and have to score what is given them, no matter how absurd or unrealistic). And of course that is still probably a low estimate.
2. Indiana Republican Mark Souder was caught in an affair with a staffer. I am glad he is resigning. The bad thing (besides his conduct) is that it allows liberals to bring up their favorite charge, hypocrisy. I don't think, however, their problem is necessarily his conduct though, simply that he is a hypocrite. He shouldn't dare to have high standards. As Peter Schweizer points out in his book "Do As I Say, Not As I Do", when conservatives don't follow their principles, they hurt themselves and their families. When liberals do, they benefit (i.e. not using unions for the work they want done, investing in companies they publicly denounce)...and that is pointed out in the book as well.
3. Last week during the special elections and primaries, Rush had a great line. During some election nights people will drink alcohol based on what is happening. Rush said that they should definitely not drink every time someone in the media said how these elections were a referendum on anything but Obama, as they'd obviously be drinking a lot.
4. Can you imagine if conservatives had said something like "Thank God, God is a Republican" in a natural disaster, as Stephanie Miller did about the oil spill? The media firestorm would be huge.
5. Michael Posner, a State Department appointee, apologizing to China for the Arizona illegal immigration law. Yes, the Chinese who are repressive and deny rights to their own citizens.
6. A little bit older, but CBO scoring of ObamaCare will cost $115 billion more than first thought (of course, the CBO is nonpartisan and have to score what is given them, no matter how absurd or unrealistic). And of course that is still probably a low estimate.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Highlights From The Last Week
1. The way liberals act, you would think oil companies wanted the oil leak to happen. 11 people died, a lot of sea life probably killed as well, I don't think anyone is happy about that. Though, in liberals' views, people in government are well-meaning and altruistic, whereas people in the private sector are greedy (wonder how they feel about those in government who once worked in the private sector).
2. Rush mentioned something, that the left wouldn't even oppose it if the illegal immigrants came across the border with illegal cigarettes (hence not principled opposition to either). Now, I wouldn't go as far as saying the same thing about drugs, but liberal and even compassionate conservative border policies have blurred the distinction between those who legitimately do want a better life and those who are coming here to commit crimes or traffic drugs. I don't favor amnesty for either, though once we enforce existing laws I might be a little more lenient with the former category (specifying they do learn English, getting rid of the baby anchor law, etc.)
3. A recent advertisement on the radio with President Obama speaks of 30% of high school students not graduating. The success of public education! Of course Obama's solution would likely be even more centralized control of education.
4. I notice environmentalists rarely speak of China and India when including those nations that are destroying the planet (usually the U.S.). I recently found out that China has 300 million smokers, which amounts to about 1/3 of total smokers in the world. Where is Michael Bloomberg when you need him?
5. Hopefully we are getting a new breed of Republican that favors principle over politics. The old Republicans, uncomfortable even in the majority, seemed to think getting something done is better than standing on principle. Which fully explains compassionate conservatism. Democrats want an outrageous amount of x, Republicans don't really want x at all, so they compromise at some of x...right where Democrats wanted. It's like buying a car. The sticker price at 15000, you offer less than what you would settle for.
6. Is it just me, or does it seem like with all the Tea Party movements and conservative uprisings, that the media and Democrats are praying for an actual racist event so they can blame all Republicans for being racist against Obama?
7. Obama says he won't tolerate finger-pointing, of course unless it is he pointing the finger at BP, auto companies, Goldman Sachs, capitalism in general, etc. Amazing how arrogant Obama is. He also blamed government on part of this, but just exactly who is going to pay in government? Likely no one.
8. Ever notice how anything bad that happened in the economy, foreign policy, etc. was always Bush's fault according to the media, but our media would never blame Obama for anything that happens on his watch (probably still Bush's fault).
9. I hear liberals scream about conservatives want to regulate the bedroom, but it is them constantly forcing the rest of us through the power of government to adopt the morality they see fit.
10. I genuinely do not like lawsuits. Do they help some victims? Sure. But they hurt many more. Why? Government doesn't produce anything. Take pharmaceutical companies. One lawsuit might help some grieving families, but it makes it less like those companies will produce the next great drug, or if they go out of business, the drug they made that made peoples' lives better. The problem...all of these are unseen consequences. Few bemoan the benefit that would have been seen because it is unquantifiable. Imagine the whole economy like that.
2. Rush mentioned something, that the left wouldn't even oppose it if the illegal immigrants came across the border with illegal cigarettes (hence not principled opposition to either). Now, I wouldn't go as far as saying the same thing about drugs, but liberal and even compassionate conservative border policies have blurred the distinction between those who legitimately do want a better life and those who are coming here to commit crimes or traffic drugs. I don't favor amnesty for either, though once we enforce existing laws I might be a little more lenient with the former category (specifying they do learn English, getting rid of the baby anchor law, etc.)
3. A recent advertisement on the radio with President Obama speaks of 30% of high school students not graduating. The success of public education! Of course Obama's solution would likely be even more centralized control of education.
4. I notice environmentalists rarely speak of China and India when including those nations that are destroying the planet (usually the U.S.). I recently found out that China has 300 million smokers, which amounts to about 1/3 of total smokers in the world. Where is Michael Bloomberg when you need him?
5. Hopefully we are getting a new breed of Republican that favors principle over politics. The old Republicans, uncomfortable even in the majority, seemed to think getting something done is better than standing on principle. Which fully explains compassionate conservatism. Democrats want an outrageous amount of x, Republicans don't really want x at all, so they compromise at some of x...right where Democrats wanted. It's like buying a car. The sticker price at 15000, you offer less than what you would settle for.
6. Is it just me, or does it seem like with all the Tea Party movements and conservative uprisings, that the media and Democrats are praying for an actual racist event so they can blame all Republicans for being racist against Obama?
7. Obama says he won't tolerate finger-pointing, of course unless it is he pointing the finger at BP, auto companies, Goldman Sachs, capitalism in general, etc. Amazing how arrogant Obama is. He also blamed government on part of this, but just exactly who is going to pay in government? Likely no one.
8. Ever notice how anything bad that happened in the economy, foreign policy, etc. was always Bush's fault according to the media, but our media would never blame Obama for anything that happens on his watch (probably still Bush's fault).
9. I hear liberals scream about conservatives want to regulate the bedroom, but it is them constantly forcing the rest of us through the power of government to adopt the morality they see fit.
10. I genuinely do not like lawsuits. Do they help some victims? Sure. But they hurt many more. Why? Government doesn't produce anything. Take pharmaceutical companies. One lawsuit might help some grieving families, but it makes it less like those companies will produce the next great drug, or if they go out of business, the drug they made that made peoples' lives better. The problem...all of these are unseen consequences. Few bemoan the benefit that would have been seen because it is unquantifiable. Imagine the whole economy like that.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
List of Stuff
1. George Soros saying the current financial crisis was a result of his life's work.
2. If Congressmen actually knew the private sector and were capable of regulating it, wouldn't they be in the private sector making 10-20 times more?
3. The current enviro line (even peddled by Obama) is that oil companies are to blame for the oil spill. For one thing, does Obama think companies make an evil profit by letting their oil leak out?
4. Contessa Brewer hoping the Times Square bomber wasn't a Muslim. If it was a Tea Partier, would she feel the same way?
5. Michael Bloomberg recently said that the would-be bomber had to be someone dissatisfied with Obama's health care plan. (Judgment seemingly made against Tea Partiers and conservatives in general). Once we find out it is a Muslim (something our media strangely avoids), Bloomberg is worried about a possible backlash against Muslims. How about condemning a Muslim for starters? I have yet to hear of a single example (even after 9-11) of Americans targeting innocent Muslims. I would be glad to hear of one.
6. Speaking of which, the media seemed to be overly joyed to find out the bomber was a Tea partier. Once it wasn't, yawn (the NYT even saying it was an SUV owner...SUVs are evil and cause global warming, except in the case the driver was a Muslim, in which case the Times is silent).
7. Obama and HHS secretary rightly praise the guy who turned in the terrorist. But what if the guy was wrong? Wouldn't Obama and Napolitano both condemn the guy for racially profiling? So of course, it seems like the only criteria between racial profiling and preventing a terrorist attack is being right that the person is a terrorist. Who would turn people in when, in all honestly, the chances of person X being a terrorist are very small vs. the alternative of being publicly labeled a racist?
8. One response also from the media is how the suspect was an amateur. (I think I have mentioned this before too). But, especially in the case of suicide bombers, aren't they amateurs until they succeed?
9. Jon Stewart, who is usually a pretty big leftie but still with some common sense remarked on how the media is filling in, in detail, about how the bomber failed. Why? Wouldn't it be more likely that an amateur bomber might succeed where this guy failed (if you get a video of it, please let me know and I will pass it out).
10. With the oil spill, the big push is for us to not drill at all. But in the same token, enviros oppose nuclear technology as well, so it is hard to escape the conclusion that they simply want to oppose any new energy technology (even the French are doing it, and normally liberals look to France and Germany for solace).
11. Finally, the big announcement from the administration about how airlines are required to refresh the no-fly list every two hours rather than 24 hours (why not every minute). My beef is that it seems a way to pass the buck off to the private sector while appearing to be a bystander (my guess is checking the list isn't as straightforward as the administration would have you believe). But just think of a free market. Had a terrorist committed a terrorist attack, airlines would beef up security and many people would pay more for such security (i.e. 10 guys with M-16's) for the comfort rather than pointless screening of 99% of citizens who are not committing terrorist attacks. Checking the no-fly list would be an advantage different companies could tout and compete over.
2. If Congressmen actually knew the private sector and were capable of regulating it, wouldn't they be in the private sector making 10-20 times more?
3. The current enviro line (even peddled by Obama) is that oil companies are to blame for the oil spill. For one thing, does Obama think companies make an evil profit by letting their oil leak out?
4. Contessa Brewer hoping the Times Square bomber wasn't a Muslim. If it was a Tea Partier, would she feel the same way?
5. Michael Bloomberg recently said that the would-be bomber had to be someone dissatisfied with Obama's health care plan. (Judgment seemingly made against Tea Partiers and conservatives in general). Once we find out it is a Muslim (something our media strangely avoids), Bloomberg is worried about a possible backlash against Muslims. How about condemning a Muslim for starters? I have yet to hear of a single example (even after 9-11) of Americans targeting innocent Muslims. I would be glad to hear of one.
6. Speaking of which, the media seemed to be overly joyed to find out the bomber was a Tea partier. Once it wasn't, yawn (the NYT even saying it was an SUV owner...SUVs are evil and cause global warming, except in the case the driver was a Muslim, in which case the Times is silent).
7. Obama and HHS secretary rightly praise the guy who turned in the terrorist. But what if the guy was wrong? Wouldn't Obama and Napolitano both condemn the guy for racially profiling? So of course, it seems like the only criteria between racial profiling and preventing a terrorist attack is being right that the person is a terrorist. Who would turn people in when, in all honestly, the chances of person X being a terrorist are very small vs. the alternative of being publicly labeled a racist?
8. One response also from the media is how the suspect was an amateur. (I think I have mentioned this before too). But, especially in the case of suicide bombers, aren't they amateurs until they succeed?
9. Jon Stewart, who is usually a pretty big leftie but still with some common sense remarked on how the media is filling in, in detail, about how the bomber failed. Why? Wouldn't it be more likely that an amateur bomber might succeed where this guy failed (if you get a video of it, please let me know and I will pass it out).
10. With the oil spill, the big push is for us to not drill at all. But in the same token, enviros oppose nuclear technology as well, so it is hard to escape the conclusion that they simply want to oppose any new energy technology (even the French are doing it, and normally liberals look to France and Germany for solace).
11. Finally, the big announcement from the administration about how airlines are required to refresh the no-fly list every two hours rather than 24 hours (why not every minute). My beef is that it seems a way to pass the buck off to the private sector while appearing to be a bystander (my guess is checking the list isn't as straightforward as the administration would have you believe). But just think of a free market. Had a terrorist committed a terrorist attack, airlines would beef up security and many people would pay more for such security (i.e. 10 guys with M-16's) for the comfort rather than pointless screening of 99% of citizens who are not committing terrorist attacks. Checking the no-fly list would be an advantage different companies could tout and compete over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)