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.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Random Stuff
1a. The United States has 71 million unused flu vaccines. No private entity could ever make it overproducing by that much (obviously in this case, where government buys it...if it were private citizens, these firms would have to estimate how much of the vaccine to produce and their bottom lines may depend on it.
1b. A federally chartered organization flunks an independent audit of how it conducts business.
What do both of these have in common? Obviously debunking the liberal myth that government ever plays by the same rules as private entities.
2. Rush happened to mention he thinks that deporting 12 million illegals is impractical. On this I actually disagree with Rush. No one says we have to deport them all tomorrow (which obviously would be impractical...if you mean by impractical that neither side would deport all of them, well neither side has shown a lot of effort by securing the border, so is that impractical). Of course deporting all of them would take time. And of course the first step would be securing the border, so those we deport don't just come back over (2nd step would be to eliminate the anchor-baby law). The biggest problem of course is policies for the last 20 years doing absolutely nothing to weed out criminals and those who don't want to assimilate vs. those who actually would like the become American citizens and adopt the American way of life. Liberals continual argument on this subject (other than their default position of accusing us of being racist) is that they are just looking for a better life (well certainly the drug dealers and other criminals are doing better in America). Well isn't everyone? I'd like to be retired by 30 but that doesn't mean I get the benefit of breaking laws to achieve that goal. If we let just anyone in (but we don't even...just the ones likely to vote Democratic), America stops being America.
3. Great point by Rush today...liberals think that we are powerful enough to stop global warming but by God, we just can't stop people from crossing our borders.
1b. A federally chartered organization flunks an independent audit of how it conducts business.
What do both of these have in common? Obviously debunking the liberal myth that government ever plays by the same rules as private entities.
2. Rush happened to mention he thinks that deporting 12 million illegals is impractical. On this I actually disagree with Rush. No one says we have to deport them all tomorrow (which obviously would be impractical...if you mean by impractical that neither side would deport all of them, well neither side has shown a lot of effort by securing the border, so is that impractical). Of course deporting all of them would take time. And of course the first step would be securing the border, so those we deport don't just come back over (2nd step would be to eliminate the anchor-baby law). The biggest problem of course is policies for the last 20 years doing absolutely nothing to weed out criminals and those who don't want to assimilate vs. those who actually would like the become American citizens and adopt the American way of life. Liberals continual argument on this subject (other than their default position of accusing us of being racist) is that they are just looking for a better life (well certainly the drug dealers and other criminals are doing better in America). Well isn't everyone? I'd like to be retired by 30 but that doesn't mean I get the benefit of breaking laws to achieve that goal. If we let just anyone in (but we don't even...just the ones likely to vote Democratic), America stops being America.
3. Great point by Rush today...liberals think that we are powerful enough to stop global warming but by God, we just can't stop people from crossing our borders.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Random Stuff
1. When you have excessive regulation, the result is that investors don't do their due diligence checking out what they are purchasing, especially in the case of firms deemed too big to fail.
2. Two weeks ago the media and Democrats (redundant I know) continued to brand Tea Partiers as racist. They also asked for civility in politics, even though all we ever got was phony stories about racism and known infiltrators filmed by the media. Now with the Arizona law being passed and leftists showing what true incivility and violence is like, where are the media and Democrats calling for civility there?
3. The Democrats are really reaching for straws on the immigration debate (even as Rush pointed out, they are using the word "papers" to try to correlate the law with Nazism). In this case, it is supposedly racist to have to present an ID when a cop stops you...um, don't citizens have to do that any way? So again it is obvious Democrats haven't read the bill (and don't plan to...it is racist, don't ask questions).
4. Charlie Crist is losing the Florida Senate seat in the Republican primary, so he has decided to run as an independent. Of course, when you start calling liberal Republicans on issues, they show their true colors (Jim Jeffords, Colin Powell, Arlen Specter, etc). Then they always claim the party left them...um no, we've always been about lower taxes, generally anti-abortion, and less government. You never agreed with the party but now you're trying to paint the party as extreme to benefit your reelection chances.
5. Green jobs in Spain costing 2.2 jobs for every job it produces. What's the catch?
2. Two weeks ago the media and Democrats (redundant I know) continued to brand Tea Partiers as racist. They also asked for civility in politics, even though all we ever got was phony stories about racism and known infiltrators filmed by the media. Now with the Arizona law being passed and leftists showing what true incivility and violence is like, where are the media and Democrats calling for civility there?
3. The Democrats are really reaching for straws on the immigration debate (even as Rush pointed out, they are using the word "papers" to try to correlate the law with Nazism). In this case, it is supposedly racist to have to present an ID when a cop stops you...um, don't citizens have to do that any way? So again it is obvious Democrats haven't read the bill (and don't plan to...it is racist, don't ask questions).
4. Charlie Crist is losing the Florida Senate seat in the Republican primary, so he has decided to run as an independent. Of course, when you start calling liberal Republicans on issues, they show their true colors (Jim Jeffords, Colin Powell, Arlen Specter, etc). Then they always claim the party left them...um no, we've always been about lower taxes, generally anti-abortion, and less government. You never agreed with the party but now you're trying to paint the party as extreme to benefit your reelection chances.
5. Green jobs in Spain costing 2.2 jobs for every job it produces. What's the catch?
Great Points
Some great points made by Rush Limbaugh on Monday's show:
* Democrats and "compassionate" conservatives keep telling us that illegals are doing the jobs Americans won't do. Well, a company in Arizona got raided by ICE and the 300 jobs previously filled by illegals were immediately filled by Americans. (My note: boy, the jobs that illegals currently have would be nice to help reduce our own umemployment).
* Why doesn't financial reform include Fannie and Freddie? Weren't subprime mortgages backed by these two the major cause of the crisis?
* Obama and the Democrats are attacking the "greed" of Wall Street (and Democrats today grilling Goldman Sachs execs because they were betting against people by "shorting"). Will they also attack people like George Soros (made $2.8 billion in 2008 shorting U.S. housing? Or how about trial lawyers that increase costs of products (which invariably hurts the poor the most because they are least able to absorb the higher costs)? Of course not.
* Chuck Schumer, George Soros, and John Paulson from Goldman Sachs all possibly benefiting from the collapse of IndyMac (started by Schumer saying the bank was insolvent, leading people to pull their money out). A good piece that rounds it all up.
* MSNBC had a funny headline saying that the Arizona law regarding illegals will make it a crime to be an illegal alien. Isn't it already a crime?
* Democrats and "compassionate" conservatives keep telling us that illegals are doing the jobs Americans won't do. Well, a company in Arizona got raided by ICE and the 300 jobs previously filled by illegals were immediately filled by Americans. (My note: boy, the jobs that illegals currently have would be nice to help reduce our own umemployment).
* Why doesn't financial reform include Fannie and Freddie? Weren't subprime mortgages backed by these two the major cause of the crisis?
* Obama and the Democrats are attacking the "greed" of Wall Street (and Democrats today grilling Goldman Sachs execs because they were betting against people by "shorting"). Will they also attack people like George Soros (made $2.8 billion in 2008 shorting U.S. housing? Or how about trial lawyers that increase costs of products (which invariably hurts the poor the most because they are least able to absorb the higher costs)? Of course not.
* Chuck Schumer, George Soros, and John Paulson from Goldman Sachs all possibly benefiting from the collapse of IndyMac (started by Schumer saying the bank was insolvent, leading people to pull their money out). A good piece that rounds it all up.
* MSNBC had a funny headline saying that the Arizona law regarding illegals will make it a crime to be an illegal alien. Isn't it already a crime?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Around The Web
A couple great articles I happened across...
1. Liberals screaming over the Arizona illegal immigration bill.
2. The New York Times finally notices another aspect of government health care mired in bureaucracy.
1. Liberals screaming over the Arizona illegal immigration bill.
2. The New York Times finally notices another aspect of government health care mired in bureaucracy.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Random Thoughts
Anyone else simply cringe when they listen to Obama speak?
1. Obama talks about reckless risk taking. Huh? I'm not sure if safe risk taking actually qualifies as risk taking.
2. Obama also mentioned in his speech that under the financial reform bill shareholders would get new powers to regulate the pay and bonuses of the CEOs and management. But couldn't they just take their money elsewhere? If they are investing their money they are investing for a reason. That has to be one of the many things an investor would take into account, whether the current management or future management structure has what it takes. If not, they take their money elsewhere, but at no point are they guaranteed to make money on the deal.
3. Obama also mentioned in his speech that the failure was all the way from Wall Street to Washington. But when does Washington ever suffer for those failures? The only answer seems to be more government to these people.
4. From #1, #2, and #3, it is clearly obvious Obama has had no real-world experience in the private sector whatsoever. Either that, or that he really wants to delude his base that he is really going to get tough on Wall Street. Of course he or other Democrats aren't going to do anything. Though Republicans get saddled with Wall Street, it is really the Democrats. Not to mention it is pretty rich when Obama attacks Goldman Sachs, since it seems to be a revolving door with them and the White House.
5. All the hoopla about the private sector failing, with talk of derivatives, credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, etc, at the heart of it is the subprime mortgages (and in reality it was 4 states that make up the bulk - California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona). And of course the subprime mortgages would not have been made had they not been pressured by the government through affordable housing and backed by government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
6. Obama keeps ripping Wall Street, but in reality he is simply practicing crony capitalism. Rip Wall Street, threaten them with financial reform, and then ask them to help clean up the mess they supposedly created (and if you don't, get ready for Obama and Geithner to find a way to take over your business).
7. You want to see real greed? Check out a rally for "teachers" (more like teachers' unions) in Chicago.
8. As mentioned on Rush Limbaugh, all our foreign aid in Haiti is doing a number of things, among them making it so that Haitian farmers cannot sell their crops. People aren't going to pay money when we are simply giving it to them. Also, people not even affected by the earthquake are joining the camps just so they can get free food and health care.
9. A funny (and possibly true) post about that liberals don't listen to Rush because they disagree with him, they don't listen because they're afraid Rush might convince them that he is right. (Traffic must be jammed on the original site, but if you can get there the full read is worth it).
1. Obama talks about reckless risk taking. Huh? I'm not sure if safe risk taking actually qualifies as risk taking.
2. Obama also mentioned in his speech that under the financial reform bill shareholders would get new powers to regulate the pay and bonuses of the CEOs and management. But couldn't they just take their money elsewhere? If they are investing their money they are investing for a reason. That has to be one of the many things an investor would take into account, whether the current management or future management structure has what it takes. If not, they take their money elsewhere, but at no point are they guaranteed to make money on the deal.
3. Obama also mentioned in his speech that the failure was all the way from Wall Street to Washington. But when does Washington ever suffer for those failures? The only answer seems to be more government to these people.
4. From #1, #2, and #3, it is clearly obvious Obama has had no real-world experience in the private sector whatsoever. Either that, or that he really wants to delude his base that he is really going to get tough on Wall Street. Of course he or other Democrats aren't going to do anything. Though Republicans get saddled with Wall Street, it is really the Democrats. Not to mention it is pretty rich when Obama attacks Goldman Sachs, since it seems to be a revolving door with them and the White House.
5. All the hoopla about the private sector failing, with talk of derivatives, credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, etc, at the heart of it is the subprime mortgages (and in reality it was 4 states that make up the bulk - California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona). And of course the subprime mortgages would not have been made had they not been pressured by the government through affordable housing and backed by government entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
6. Obama keeps ripping Wall Street, but in reality he is simply practicing crony capitalism. Rip Wall Street, threaten them with financial reform, and then ask them to help clean up the mess they supposedly created (and if you don't, get ready for Obama and Geithner to find a way to take over your business).
7. You want to see real greed? Check out a rally for "teachers" (more like teachers' unions) in Chicago.
8. As mentioned on Rush Limbaugh, all our foreign aid in Haiti is doing a number of things, among them making it so that Haitian farmers cannot sell their crops. People aren't going to pay money when we are simply giving it to them. Also, people not even affected by the earthquake are joining the camps just so they can get free food and health care.
9. A funny (and possibly true) post about that liberals don't listen to Rush because they disagree with him, they don't listen because they're afraid Rush might convince them that he is right. (Traffic must be jammed on the original site, but if you can get there the full read is worth it).
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Quick Thoughts
On my way to dinner for a friend, here is some stuff I have been collecting the past week...
1. The New York Times mentions the health care bill has bad things in it and may not lower premiums at all. Where were they before the bill was passed?
2. Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy asks that we all act like adults when it comes to Obama's judicial nominees. What about Bush's?
3. Remember how dissent was supposed to be the most patriotic thing when Bush was in office? How does the current administration and media (both parroting that line) treat the Tea Partiers? Obviously with derision and contempt. Not so patriotic any more when Democrats are in charge.
4. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is forcing insurance companies there to insure people at last year's rates. So what happens? Since people know the insurance companies can't charge higher rates, they simply wait to get sick to get insured. Now the insurance companies just don't want to insure anybody, since they have to take a loss on it.
5. Obama has expressed desire for John Paul Stevens' replacement to be one that has empathy. So, basically on criteria other than the law. Better not be the big guy before the eyes of the law.
6. Dick Morris writing at thehill.com, mentioning that the new financial bill allows Obama and Secretary Geithner to take over any financial institution if they deem it too big to fail and on the brink of insolvency. Unfortunately, it passed the House already.
7. Obama says "whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower". Liberals are screaming it is out of context, and I've read the context and it isn't much better.
8. Henry Waxman canceled the hearings for the CEOs to explain why they say health care costs would go up even though Democrats say they will go down. Presumably someone mentioned that they were simply following the law.
9. From Rush. We consistently get polls on the racial makeup of the Tea Partiers. But why don't we get polls and investigations on other groups? Of course the only reason is to imply the Tea Partiers are racist.
10. According to Pelosi, giving money to people who don't pay taxes is considered tax breaks. More Democrat redefinition.
1. The New York Times mentions the health care bill has bad things in it and may not lower premiums at all. Where were they before the bill was passed?
2. Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy asks that we all act like adults when it comes to Obama's judicial nominees. What about Bush's?
3. Remember how dissent was supposed to be the most patriotic thing when Bush was in office? How does the current administration and media (both parroting that line) treat the Tea Partiers? Obviously with derision and contempt. Not so patriotic any more when Democrats are in charge.
4. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is forcing insurance companies there to insure people at last year's rates. So what happens? Since people know the insurance companies can't charge higher rates, they simply wait to get sick to get insured. Now the insurance companies just don't want to insure anybody, since they have to take a loss on it.
5. Obama has expressed desire for John Paul Stevens' replacement to be one that has empathy. So, basically on criteria other than the law. Better not be the big guy before the eyes of the law.
6. Dick Morris writing at thehill.com, mentioning that the new financial bill allows Obama and Secretary Geithner to take over any financial institution if they deem it too big to fail and on the brink of insolvency. Unfortunately, it passed the House already.
7. Obama says "whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower". Liberals are screaming it is out of context, and I've read the context and it isn't much better.
8. Henry Waxman canceled the hearings for the CEOs to explain why they say health care costs would go up even though Democrats say they will go down. Presumably someone mentioned that they were simply following the law.
9. From Rush. We consistently get polls on the racial makeup of the Tea Partiers. But why don't we get polls and investigations on other groups? Of course the only reason is to imply the Tea Partiers are racist.
10. According to Pelosi, giving money to people who don't pay taxes is considered tax breaks. More Democrat redefinition.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Random Thoughts
1. Obama recently said we are the only advanced country that doesn't provide health insurance for its citizens (50 million is the number he used this time)...so we're not supposed to want it because it is good, only that everybody else is doing it? Not a very convincing argument to me.
2. A lot on the right are curious when the media is going to start blaming Obama for the West Virginia mine disaster like they did for the Sago mine when Bush was President. Of course we pray for the miners and their families, but if any on the right actually exclaimed Obama was responsible it would be wrong not to mention it would be using it for political purposes. Our beef is with our media who claim to be objective but jumped on every disaster as an excuse to bash Bush.
3. Talking to the other Mike, I just happened to mention that the country has been messed up for a long time and people are finally taking notice. What if Obama hadn't tried to be as radical? Would conservatives have lifted a finger?
4. As I believe Michelle Malkin pointed out, when there is ever a lone right-wing gunman, the media treat it as if the entire right-wing is at fault. I would extend that to say even in the case of the recent mine disaster it was an opportunity for the media (and Democrats) to blame Republicans since the mine owner gave money to Republicans. Of course, no examination if that affected any existing regulation, whether new regulation would have saved the miners, if there are other factors at play that would make the miners' jobs safer but other laws prohibit it, or even if some of the mythic deregulation resulted in higher death tolls. I would guess no, but we always have to wait for the facts to come out, which never make as big a story as the original.
5. Finally, it was reported that if you take into account all tax credits, 47% of Americans either pay no income tax or receive money. With more and more government coming, and fewer and fewer paying for it, just remember when you hear this is somehow a "free" market.
2. A lot on the right are curious when the media is going to start blaming Obama for the West Virginia mine disaster like they did for the Sago mine when Bush was President. Of course we pray for the miners and their families, but if any on the right actually exclaimed Obama was responsible it would be wrong not to mention it would be using it for political purposes. Our beef is with our media who claim to be objective but jumped on every disaster as an excuse to bash Bush.
3. Talking to the other Mike, I just happened to mention that the country has been messed up for a long time and people are finally taking notice. What if Obama hadn't tried to be as radical? Would conservatives have lifted a finger?
4. As I believe Michelle Malkin pointed out, when there is ever a lone right-wing gunman, the media treat it as if the entire right-wing is at fault. I would extend that to say even in the case of the recent mine disaster it was an opportunity for the media (and Democrats) to blame Republicans since the mine owner gave money to Republicans. Of course, no examination if that affected any existing regulation, whether new regulation would have saved the miners, if there are other factors at play that would make the miners' jobs safer but other laws prohibit it, or even if some of the mythic deregulation resulted in higher death tolls. I would guess no, but we always have to wait for the facts to come out, which never make as big a story as the original.
5. Finally, it was reported that if you take into account all tax credits, 47% of Americans either pay no income tax or receive money. With more and more government coming, and fewer and fewer paying for it, just remember when you hear this is somehow a "free" market.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Monday Edition
Just a couple small pieces from John Stossel's blog from Fox. A lot of things on this blog you just don't see trumpeted by our media.
1. Please stop calling credit markets frozen!
2. Environmentalists eat each other.
3. Sorry one more...What media bias?
1. Please stop calling credit markets frozen!
2. Environmentalists eat each other.
3. Sorry one more...What media bias?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Monday Edition
Sorry been busy last week and then took a little vacation to MN Friday through Sunday. I am back now and hopefully I will give you a little something to talk about.
1. With the Democrats being so celebratory about deeming the Senate bill as passed, it gives one pause. If it were only insurance, they have been waiting 100 years in order to get universal insurance coverage? I don't think so. They know the bill is much more and will lead to much more than simply insurance (which it won't even do).
2. I don't remember where I saw or heard it, but the Republicans get branded as the party of NO, when it is Democrats who say NO to crosses for Christians, want to say NO to you deciding on health care, NO to you deciding which foods you can and can't eat (i.e. trans fats, some sodas being banned), and NO to you letting you keep more of your tax money.
3. Analogies abound in taxes starting now and not receiving any supposed health care benefits for 4 years. A couple of my favorites...what if Obama had said we are in desperate need of jobs (which he did) but had decided to wait for 4 years before any jobs were created? And the other is, buying a car and having to pay for it now, but not being able to drive it for four years.
4. A lot of the talk has been about right-wing violence against liberals. Where was the outrage in the media and on the left for the left wing violence in the 2004 and 2008 elections (http://www.thepatriotsflag.com/2010/03/violence-against-republicans/)? Not to mention the notices of "an alarming trend". I don't condone violence but seems like a double standard.
5. Supposedly Congressman John Lewis was called the n-word and Barney Frank was called a derogatory term for gays right before the health care vote. For me, I don't want to seem too conspiracy like, but though cameras were abundant at the Capitol, no tape, video or audio, has surfaced which support their version of events. I am also aware of many instances of hoaxes with racism with liberals (http://rdickerhoof.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/hoax-and-change/). That and to Democrats it is always 1964. Hence why they paint the Tea Partiers as racist and conservatives in general.
6. This was a while ago, but Human Rights Watch, a left-wing group seeming more to want to damage Israel than actually investigate human rights abuses, turns out to have had a military expert who was fired for showing at least an affinity for Nazi memorabilia. I am glad HRW fired him, but is there any doubt, if this guy worked for Palin or Romney, it would be a huge story? But if it is a left-wing group our media yawns. See http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275875.html. The point isn't to attack him personally, it is to say that apparently his views weren't out of sync with others at HRW, and that our media doesn't even report these kind of things.
7. Democrats always seem to say that what matters most is what group you belong to - Hispanic, black male, white male, etc. Their current arguments are that Republicans and Tea Partiers are racist (not known for their new analyses), but when you break it down it means that they dare to disagree with Obama because he is black. So in other words, what matters most is that Obama is black.
8. Once government can decide that you must buy health insurance, where do you stop? Why couldn't they force you to buy anything?
9. Just curious if any lawyers who proclaim they handle the cases for "the rule of law" regarding Gitmo detainees will offer their services pro-bono to the "Christian" militia group.
10. Democrat Henry Waxman calling executives up from private companies to intimidate them about not signing on to so-called health care reform.
1. With the Democrats being so celebratory about deeming the Senate bill as passed, it gives one pause. If it were only insurance, they have been waiting 100 years in order to get universal insurance coverage? I don't think so. They know the bill is much more and will lead to much more than simply insurance (which it won't even do).
2. I don't remember where I saw or heard it, but the Republicans get branded as the party of NO, when it is Democrats who say NO to crosses for Christians, want to say NO to you deciding on health care, NO to you deciding which foods you can and can't eat (i.e. trans fats, some sodas being banned), and NO to you letting you keep more of your tax money.
3. Analogies abound in taxes starting now and not receiving any supposed health care benefits for 4 years. A couple of my favorites...what if Obama had said we are in desperate need of jobs (which he did) but had decided to wait for 4 years before any jobs were created? And the other is, buying a car and having to pay for it now, but not being able to drive it for four years.
4. A lot of the talk has been about right-wing violence against liberals. Where was the outrage in the media and on the left for the left wing violence in the 2004 and 2008 elections (http://www.thepatriotsflag.com/2010/03/violence-against-republicans/)? Not to mention the notices of "an alarming trend". I don't condone violence but seems like a double standard.
5. Supposedly Congressman John Lewis was called the n-word and Barney Frank was called a derogatory term for gays right before the health care vote. For me, I don't want to seem too conspiracy like, but though cameras were abundant at the Capitol, no tape, video or audio, has surfaced which support their version of events. I am also aware of many instances of hoaxes with racism with liberals (http://rdickerhoof.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/hoax-and-change/). That and to Democrats it is always 1964. Hence why they paint the Tea Partiers as racist and conservatives in general.
6. This was a while ago, but Human Rights Watch, a left-wing group seeming more to want to damage Israel than actually investigate human rights abuses, turns out to have had a military expert who was fired for showing at least an affinity for Nazi memorabilia. I am glad HRW fired him, but is there any doubt, if this guy worked for Palin or Romney, it would be a huge story? But if it is a left-wing group our media yawns. See http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275875.html. The point isn't to attack him personally, it is to say that apparently his views weren't out of sync with others at HRW, and that our media doesn't even report these kind of things.
7. Democrats always seem to say that what matters most is what group you belong to - Hispanic, black male, white male, etc. Their current arguments are that Republicans and Tea Partiers are racist (not known for their new analyses), but when you break it down it means that they dare to disagree with Obama because he is black. So in other words, what matters most is that Obama is black.
8. Once government can decide that you must buy health insurance, where do you stop? Why couldn't they force you to buy anything?
9. Just curious if any lawyers who proclaim they handle the cases for "the rule of law" regarding Gitmo detainees will offer their services pro-bono to the "Christian" militia group.
10. Democrat Henry Waxman calling executives up from private companies to intimidate them about not signing on to so-called health care reform.
Monday, March 22, 2010
What Our Friends from the North are thinking
By Howard Galganov
Montreal, Quebec , Canada
When Obama won the Presidency with the help of the LEFTIST Media,Hollywood And Entertainment Liberals, Ethnic Socialists (ACORN), Stupid Non-Business Professionals and Bush Haters, I wrote: It won't take six months until the People figure this guy out and realize how horrible a mistake they've made.. And when they come to that realization, the damage to the United States of America will be so great it will take a generation or more to repair - IF EVER.
The IDIOTS who not only voted for the Messiah, but also worked [hard] to promote his Lordship, are now left holding the bag.
Here are two things they will NEVER do: They will NEVER admit to making a Blunder out of all proportion by electing a snake-oil salesman with no Positive social history or management experience of any kind. They will NEVER take responsibility for the curse they've imposed upon the immediate and long-term future of their country.
In essence, the people responsible for putting this horror show in power are themselves responsible for every cataclysmic decision he makes and the Consequences thereof.
In just six months, the Messiah's polls are showing the following: 1. On Healthcare Reform - He's going under for the third time with polling well Under 50 percent, even within his own Party. Even though he might be able to Muscle a Healthcare Reform Bill by using Chicago BULLY tactics against his Fellow Democrats, it will just make things worse. 2. On Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) - The Fat-Lady is already singing. 3. On the Stimulus Package (Tax and Spend) - His popularity is in FREE-FALL. 4. On the TARP package he took and ran with from President Bush - It's all but Good-Night Irene. 5. On the closing of GITMO and "HIS" war on what he no longer wants called the War On Terrorism - He's standing in quicksand with his head just about to go under. 6. On a Comparison between himself and George W. Bush at the same six months into Their respective first term Presidencies - Bush is ahead of him in the Polls. 7. On a comparison between He Who Walks On Water and the 12 preceding Presidents between WW II and now - Obama ranks 10th. 8. On a Poll just Conducted, that asks who would you vote for today between Obama and Mitt Romney - It's a dead heat. Between Obama and Palin - Obama's ONLY ahead by 8 Points and she hasn't even begun to campaign. It seems to me that Obama Wants to be everywhere where he shouldn't be.
He's personally invested in 'totally insulting' America 's ONLY REAL Middle Eastern ally ( Israel ) in favor of Palestinian Despots and Murderers. He's traveling the world apologizing for the USA while lecturing others on how to do it right, when in fact and truth he has no experience at doing anything other than getting elected.
He went to the Muslim world in Egypt to declare that America IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION while he heaped praises on Islam, where he compared the "plight" of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.
The Russians think he's a putz, The French think he's rude.
The Germans want him to stop spending.
The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental business.
The North Koreans think he's a joke, The Iranians won't acknowledge his calls.
And the British can't even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.
As for the Chinese, he's too frightened to even glance their way. [After All, China now owns a large portion of the United States .]
Maybe if America's first Emperor would stay home more, travel less, and work a little bit instead of being on television just about everyday or stop running to "papered" Town Hall Meetings, perhaps he would have a little bit of time to do the work of the nation.
In all fairness, it wasn't HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama's presidency, even in its first six months, so I'm going to make yet another prediction:
OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a Conventional way.
He is such a political HORROR SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his Own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to Resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.
Who knows, maybe he really isn't a BORN US Citizen and that's a way the Democrats will be able to get rid of him. [He is a citizen, but not a naturalized citizen with both mother and father being US citizens.]
Or - MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Democrats will make Obama THEIR OWN LAME DUCK PRESIDENT.
I don't believe the Democrats have nearly as much love for their country as they do for their own political fortunes. And with Obama, their fortunes are rapidly becoming toast.
Montreal, Quebec , Canada
When Obama won the Presidency with the help of the LEFTIST Media,Hollywood And Entertainment Liberals, Ethnic Socialists (ACORN), Stupid Non-Business Professionals and Bush Haters, I wrote: It won't take six months until the People figure this guy out and realize how horrible a mistake they've made.. And when they come to that realization, the damage to the United States of America will be so great it will take a generation or more to repair - IF EVER.
The IDIOTS who not only voted for the Messiah, but also worked [hard] to promote his Lordship, are now left holding the bag.
Here are two things they will NEVER do: They will NEVER admit to making a Blunder out of all proportion by electing a snake-oil salesman with no Positive social history or management experience of any kind. They will NEVER take responsibility for the curse they've imposed upon the immediate and long-term future of their country.
In essence, the people responsible for putting this horror show in power are themselves responsible for every cataclysmic decision he makes and the Consequences thereof.
In just six months, the Messiah's polls are showing the following: 1. On Healthcare Reform - He's going under for the third time with polling well Under 50 percent, even within his own Party. Even though he might be able to Muscle a Healthcare Reform Bill by using Chicago BULLY tactics against his Fellow Democrats, it will just make things worse. 2. On Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax) - The Fat-Lady is already singing. 3. On the Stimulus Package (Tax and Spend) - His popularity is in FREE-FALL. 4. On the TARP package he took and ran with from President Bush - It's all but Good-Night Irene. 5. On the closing of GITMO and "HIS" war on what he no longer wants called the War On Terrorism - He's standing in quicksand with his head just about to go under. 6. On a Comparison between himself and George W. Bush at the same six months into Their respective first term Presidencies - Bush is ahead of him in the Polls. 7. On a comparison between He Who Walks On Water and the 12 preceding Presidents between WW II and now - Obama ranks 10th. 8. On a Poll just Conducted, that asks who would you vote for today between Obama and Mitt Romney - It's a dead heat. Between Obama and Palin - Obama's ONLY ahead by 8 Points and she hasn't even begun to campaign. It seems to me that Obama Wants to be everywhere where he shouldn't be.
He's personally invested in 'totally insulting' America 's ONLY REAL Middle Eastern ally ( Israel ) in favor of Palestinian Despots and Murderers. He's traveling the world apologizing for the USA while lecturing others on how to do it right, when in fact and truth he has no experience at doing anything other than getting elected.
He went to the Muslim world in Egypt to declare that America IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION while he heaped praises on Islam, where he compared the "plight" of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.
The Russians think he's a putz, The French think he's rude.
The Germans want him to stop spending.
The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental business.
The North Koreans think he's a joke, The Iranians won't acknowledge his calls.
And the British can't even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.
As for the Chinese, he's too frightened to even glance their way. [After All, China now owns a large portion of the United States .]
Maybe if America's first Emperor would stay home more, travel less, and work a little bit instead of being on television just about everyday or stop running to "papered" Town Hall Meetings, perhaps he would have a little bit of time to do the work of the nation.
In all fairness, it wasn't HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama's presidency, even in its first six months, so I'm going to make yet another prediction:
OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a Conventional way.
He is such a political HORROR SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his Own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to Resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.
Who knows, maybe he really isn't a BORN US Citizen and that's a way the Democrats will be able to get rid of him. [He is a citizen, but not a naturalized citizen with both mother and father being US citizens.]
Or - MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Democrats will make Obama THEIR OWN LAME DUCK PRESIDENT.
I don't believe the Democrats have nearly as much love for their country as they do for their own political fortunes. And with Obama, their fortunes are rapidly becoming toast.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Weekend Treat
1. This (the third letter) passes for intellectual thought. Does the writer know that in the times of the Boston Massacre, John Adams was a British subject just as the soldiers who committed the massacre were? As Ann Coulter points out, these same lawyers would never defend someone like the person who killed George Tiller, the abortionist. Or defend insurance companies and tobacco companies, who are also unpopular. Don't they deserve legal representation as much as the Guantanamo detainees (who are also getting it for free)? Of course these lawyers (as with a lot of the left) want to feel important,as if they are defending the very principles in the Constitution, when in reality they are making it easier for Americans to be killed.
2. Sounds like they are having trouble determining what caused the Toyota crashes. Again, our politicians and media rush to judgement, and no surprise their answer is more government control.
3. President Obama can't seem to make up his mind. On the one hand, he says the debate is over (what is it with Democrats and the debate always being over) and the time for talk is over, but on the other hand he is the one that must keep talking about it.
2. Sounds like they are having trouble determining what caused the Toyota crashes. Again, our politicians and media rush to judgement, and no surprise their answer is more government control.
3. President Obama can't seem to make up his mind. On the one hand, he says the debate is over (what is it with Democrats and the debate always being over) and the time for talk is over, but on the other hand he is the one that must keep talking about it.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Weird Story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100303/cm_huffpost/481057
I like stories like this. Though you do feel bad for people, it completely ignores the economics of it. In this case, should the bank never evict anyone? If they didn't have standards and procedures like evicting people who don't pay their mortgage, there wouldn't be a company like them that provides the means for people to have mortgages in the first place.
Some other quick notes:
1. Of course the SEIU is involved. Obama is buddy buddy with the SEIU president.
2. Anyone wonder if the number one job of every bank CEO is to personally evict people?
3. Just curious again, but do we even know that she can afford her house? If they extend the loan she still doesn't pay, weren't they right in the first place?
4. What are the union details? Were the union demands over the top?
5. Her rate was adjustable. Even if her story is true about having the tumor, wouldn't much of the fault lie with our politicians for trying to get everyone to own a home, regardless of whether they can afford it?
I like stories like this. Though you do feel bad for people, it completely ignores the economics of it. In this case, should the bank never evict anyone? If they didn't have standards and procedures like evicting people who don't pay their mortgage, there wouldn't be a company like them that provides the means for people to have mortgages in the first place.
Some other quick notes:
1. Of course the SEIU is involved. Obama is buddy buddy with the SEIU president.
2. Anyone wonder if the number one job of every bank CEO is to personally evict people?
3. Just curious again, but do we even know that she can afford her house? If they extend the loan she still doesn't pay, weren't they right in the first place?
4. What are the union details? Were the union demands over the top?
5. Her rate was adjustable. Even if her story is true about having the tumor, wouldn't much of the fault lie with our politicians for trying to get everyone to own a home, regardless of whether they can afford it?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Random Stuff
The big talking point from the left was about how the health care bill would actually reduce the deficit. Of course by having taxes for 10 years while only benefits for 6 years. The real question is, how many Congressional investigations would there be if an insurance company told people they had to pay for 10 years but would only get 6 years of benefits?
And more bad news for global warming advocates.
And more bad news for global warming advocates.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Small Town USA
The truth of American Politics can be found in the truck stops, coffee shops, and diners across America and from what I have heard in my small coffee shop is that Republicans and Democrats both need to watch out in the next election. The "common" people are upset with both parties for not resolving the issues at hand with one party fumbling the majority and the other sitting back. People are frustrated with the current administration for the lack of movement in policy when the democrats held the super majority nothing was done. Now that the super majority is gone the republicans don't want to make any waves and are stepping back to let the democrats continue to implode. Is that the right thing to do? From what I am hearing in small town USA, NO. The country is so messed up in nearly every aspect that there should be no "aisle". Where has common sense gone? No party wants to make the hard decisions that need to be made and as a result here we are at another stalemate. If the parties don't wake up there could be another Ross Perot, Gov. Jesse Ventura, on the horizon.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Chris Christie
Wow, I am really liking this guy...
Speech to League of Municipalities.
Hopefully Christie's example will lead others in the fight against irresponsible spending from either party.
Speech to League of Municipalities.
Hopefully Christie's example will lead others in the fight against irresponsible spending from either party.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday Edition
Some great articles I ran across...
Mark Steyn on America possibly going the way of the Greeks.
From the American Thinker, the NHS in Britain in big trouble.
Mark Steyn on America possibly going the way of the Greeks.
From the American Thinker, the NHS in Britain in big trouble.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Great Health Care Summit, Part 2
It was also pretty interesting that Obama kept saying he wanted to talk about the issues and chastised Republicans numerous times about talking points (when they were reading from the previous bills or bringing up legitimate concerns, like McCain bringing up special interests in the bill). Here is how Democrats talk about the issues:
OBAMA: I can certainly remember Malia coming into the kitchen one day and saying, "I can't breathe, Daddy." ... My mother didn't have reliable health care and she died of ovarian cancer.
REID: A young man by the name of Jesus Gutierrez.
MURRAY: I remember a little boy, who was 11 years old, who's name was Marcellus.
HOYER: I had a message on my machine: "I was just diagnosed with a tumor."
HARKIN: Got a letter yesterday from a farmer in Iowa.
ROCKEFELLER: I knew this kid, Samuel Ford, and he had leukemia.
CONARD: My own father-in-law in his final illness.
WAXMAN: People from California who were told by Anthem WellPoint that their insurance was going to go up 39 percent.
DODD: A guy in my state, Kevin Galvin.
SLAUGHTER: Her sister died. This poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister's teeth.
That doesn't really sound like the issues to me. It sounds like sob stories designed to bypass the real issues and any meaningful debate.
OBAMA: I can certainly remember Malia coming into the kitchen one day and saying, "I can't breathe, Daddy." ... My mother didn't have reliable health care and she died of ovarian cancer.
REID: A young man by the name of Jesus Gutierrez.
MURRAY: I remember a little boy, who was 11 years old, who's name was Marcellus.
HOYER: I had a message on my machine: "I was just diagnosed with a tumor."
HARKIN: Got a letter yesterday from a farmer in Iowa.
ROCKEFELLER: I knew this kid, Samuel Ford, and he had leukemia.
CONARD: My own father-in-law in his final illness.
WAXMAN: People from California who were told by Anthem WellPoint that their insurance was going to go up 39 percent.
DODD: A guy in my state, Kevin Galvin.
SLAUGHTER: Her sister died. This poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister's teeth.
That doesn't really sound like the issues to me. It sounds like sob stories designed to bypass the real issues and any meaningful debate.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Great Health Care Summit
Seems quite obvious now that the health care summit was nothing but a ruse all along. Obama was to appear bipartisan while Republicans were to be goaded into being rude and appear obstructionist. It has also been clear since Democrats have already been working on a reconciliation bill that would bypass a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, even though it is still unlikely such a bill would pass the House. Regardless, some of the highlights and comments from today's show:
Of course, Democrats also played the sob stories right away (wait...didn't Obama say throughout the summit they wanted to talk about issues? A number of Republicans brought up legitimate issues, and to be honest I though the President was rather rude to them. Anyone else get that feeling?
- Supposedly bipartisan, but Democrats have almost twice as much speaking time as Republicans.
- Obama doesn't count his time speaking since he's the President.
- Trying to paint Republicans as obstructionist. Wait...don't Democrats have a majority in both Houses? How can Republicans stop anything even remotely moderate?
- New tactic? Target talk radio.
Of course, Democrats also played the sob stories right away (wait...didn't Obama say throughout the summit they wanted to talk about issues? A number of Republicans brought up legitimate issues, and to be honest I though the President was rather rude to them. Anyone else get that feeling?
Random Stuff
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of governement. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
Alexis de Tocqueville
Alexis de Tocqueville
Monday, February 15, 2010
Spending Cuts
For the umpteenth time, whenever spending must be cut (as in the case of New Jersey), liberals scream that this will mean fewer policeman and firefighters. Of course, it *could* mean that, but only if you didn't have massive entitlements, bloated public sector union jobs, and wasteful spending across the board. When you have all of the latter that liberals will refuse to cut, of course it could mean more essential things could be cut. Naturally, Republicans will take the blame for being heartless (though thankfully Christie has stuck to his guns to restore some sense of fiscal sanity), when it is really Democrats who should be blamed for years of incompetent management of the state.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Random Stuff
A lot of things have been bugging me lately...
1) The trend of the left to rely more and more on appeals to consensus. It has always been the case with climate science. Al Gore has shouted for years about how all scientists agree, even though a simple Google search would reveal that not the case. Any scientist, expert in the field or not, who agrees with global warming is embraced, and any scientist who does not, qualified or not, is ignored or destroyed. We see this same tactice with Obama. With talking about the stimulus, he said that no economist he knows of is against it. In regards to Iraq and the surge in 2007, he said that no expert in the region he knows of or has spoken to has said that will make any difference. It did. And the point being that politicians will use that from time to time, but we should be wary, since any appeal to authority magically seems to favor the politician's approach.
2) Again with global warming. Of course, no amount of evidence to the contrary will be enough the shake the faith of the believers. If it had been an oil company, or a Republican-favored group perpetrating some of the things we've heard about from the IPCC, Democrats and liberals would be holding Congressional investigations. The media would be insisting the guilt of the accused parties with or without any evidence.
3) A must read book is The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell. One of the main themes of the book is about how liberals think that they can solve problem X, even if X isn't a problem or X has been getting better for years. Liberals get their hands involved and all of the sudden we are worse off for decades (see black unemployment). The vision is that of that there are perfect solutions and no tradeoffs involved. One can easily see this in things like the "right" to housing. Well, it is a right as long as other people subsidize you. Which of course, is the antithesis of a right in the classical sense.
4) Ever notice how most discussions of race and ethnicity leave out Asian Americans? In a lot of areas, Asian Americans do better than even whites. Of course, that doesn't fit the template of racist white Americans getting rich off the back of minorities. If we group blacks and whites (which I don't like doing because those groups are made of individuals making their own choices, which I think they are fully capable of doing), we could say that both groups could learn a lot from the habits of Asian Americans.
5) When liberals talk of rights, it isn't in the classical sense we would think, that the right is God-given, and with that right comes responsibility. On their terms, they think it means giving something to someone at taxpayer expense (surely infringing the rights of taxpayers), with no expectation that any responsibility lies with the person receiving the gift. For example, home ownership. I should subsidize other people living in houses they can't afford or those who took out multiple home loans to try to "flip" them, but they shouldn't have any responsibility in the first place. Such as, can they make payments, did they have an adjustable rate mortgage, or should they even have a house in the first place?
1) The trend of the left to rely more and more on appeals to consensus. It has always been the case with climate science. Al Gore has shouted for years about how all scientists agree, even though a simple Google search would reveal that not the case. Any scientist, expert in the field or not, who agrees with global warming is embraced, and any scientist who does not, qualified or not, is ignored or destroyed. We see this same tactice with Obama. With talking about the stimulus, he said that no economist he knows of is against it. In regards to Iraq and the surge in 2007, he said that no expert in the region he knows of or has spoken to has said that will make any difference. It did. And the point being that politicians will use that from time to time, but we should be wary, since any appeal to authority magically seems to favor the politician's approach.
2) Again with global warming. Of course, no amount of evidence to the contrary will be enough the shake the faith of the believers. If it had been an oil company, or a Republican-favored group perpetrating some of the things we've heard about from the IPCC, Democrats and liberals would be holding Congressional investigations. The media would be insisting the guilt of the accused parties with or without any evidence.
3) A must read book is The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell. One of the main themes of the book is about how liberals think that they can solve problem X, even if X isn't a problem or X has been getting better for years. Liberals get their hands involved and all of the sudden we are worse off for decades (see black unemployment). The vision is that of that there are perfect solutions and no tradeoffs involved. One can easily see this in things like the "right" to housing. Well, it is a right as long as other people subsidize you. Which of course, is the antithesis of a right in the classical sense.
4) Ever notice how most discussions of race and ethnicity leave out Asian Americans? In a lot of areas, Asian Americans do better than even whites. Of course, that doesn't fit the template of racist white Americans getting rich off the back of minorities. If we group blacks and whites (which I don't like doing because those groups are made of individuals making their own choices, which I think they are fully capable of doing), we could say that both groups could learn a lot from the habits of Asian Americans.
5) When liberals talk of rights, it isn't in the classical sense we would think, that the right is God-given, and with that right comes responsibility. On their terms, they think it means giving something to someone at taxpayer expense (surely infringing the rights of taxpayers), with no expectation that any responsibility lies with the person receiving the gift. For example, home ownership. I should subsidize other people living in houses they can't afford or those who took out multiple home loans to try to "flip" them, but they shouldn't have any responsibility in the first place. Such as, can they make payments, did they have an adjustable rate mortgage, or should they even have a house in the first place?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
New Precedent?
Mike I know you and I agree on a lot and we disagree on some things. I think the most dangerous thing is allowing these terrorists any kind of judicial leeway whatsoever. At what point does freedom of speech and protecting your citizens end? Once you give freedoms you can't take them back (see: abortion, etc.) so its best to give rights to non-citizens slowly. If you don't, you are setting a precedent that probably can't be taken away.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Giving The Enemy Constitutional Rights
I don't know how many of you listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis, but he made a great point today. You can't bestow constitutional rights on someone without giving them the presumption of innocence.
Of course the administration is trying to have it both ways. Satisfy the left-wing base by trying them in civilian court (and somehow try to blame it on Bush, naturally) while trying to act tough. Regarding acting tough, the administration keeps saying that Khalid Sheik Mohammed will get his due and he will be executed. Hell, if they are certain he is guilty and will be executed anyways, then pretty much we are just rubber stamping it, giving a show trial. There is nothing grand about that. The hostile Muslims will not see true justice, only the illusion of it (if they really care about justice in our sense...I doubt they do).
Of course, that brings in all other sorts of questions which we have discussed previously - Miranda rights, evidence illegally obtained, right to jury (all it would take is one crazy leftist who thinks Bush was responsible for the poor fellow turning to terrorism...even though he was a terrorist before Bush...Bush has that kind of power), and so on and so on. Many in the left wing base truly believe Bush created terrorists.
Of course the conclusion is obvious. We cannot project military might (or even deter) when we allow the enemy more benefits than we allow our own soldiers. We can't have an effective fighting force when our soldiers are just as concerned about being punished for normal wartime activites as they are about being killed by the enemy. And literally, we cannot defend ourselves that way.
Is that the goal? One would hope not.
Of course the administration is trying to have it both ways. Satisfy the left-wing base by trying them in civilian court (and somehow try to blame it on Bush, naturally) while trying to act tough. Regarding acting tough, the administration keeps saying that Khalid Sheik Mohammed will get his due and he will be executed. Hell, if they are certain he is guilty and will be executed anyways, then pretty much we are just rubber stamping it, giving a show trial. There is nothing grand about that. The hostile Muslims will not see true justice, only the illusion of it (if they really care about justice in our sense...I doubt they do).
Of course, that brings in all other sorts of questions which we have discussed previously - Miranda rights, evidence illegally obtained, right to jury (all it would take is one crazy leftist who thinks Bush was responsible for the poor fellow turning to terrorism...even though he was a terrorist before Bush...Bush has that kind of power), and so on and so on. Many in the left wing base truly believe Bush created terrorists.
Of course the conclusion is obvious. We cannot project military might (or even deter) when we allow the enemy more benefits than we allow our own soldiers. We can't have an effective fighting force when our soldiers are just as concerned about being punished for normal wartime activites as they are about being killed by the enemy. And literally, we cannot defend ourselves that way.
Is that the goal? One would hope not.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
The Weekly Enlightenment
My side of the family had Christmas this past weekend, so this will be kind of short. Of course the big news was the failed terrorist attack on the plane going to Detroit. Just another reminder that we are still at war and there are people ready to kill Americans. Of course, I doubt it will be a wake-up call that there are people in the world who will kill us regardless of who our President is and how many times he apologizes for us. The initial reaction from members of the Obama administration is telling though. Both Janet Napolitano (DHS Secretary) and Robert Gibbs (press secretary) exclaimed that the system worked. The system worked so well, we had to rely on a Dutchman to subdue the attacker. Meaning, the would-be bomber got through security and onto the plane. Naturally, now Napolitano is claiming her words were taken out of context (you can read the whole context below and tell me what you think). As Ann Coulter points out, Republicans get mad when you take their words out of context. Democrats get mad when you quote them accurately. Also, if the system "worked", why is Napolitano making changes? Normally you don't change something that works.
Along with this, it puts a huge dent in the claim that it is the poor and uneducated who are drawn to terrorism. Of course, if it were that, the usual follow-up is that the United States is responsible for keeping the world poor (4% of the population, 25% of the world's resources). Thus the United States created the terrorist. In this case, the terrorist was very well to do. It has also been pointed out that Al Qaeda's leaders have been Western-educated as well, thus showing it as a choice, rather than being forced into it by the big bad United States. The usual leftist theory also doesn't explain why we don't have billions of terrorists since most of the world is poor.
On a side note, remember when Obama was asked during one of the debates about when human life begins? He said that was above his pay grade. But for some reason, running 1/6th of the U.S. economy via health care and pretty much all the economy through cap and trade isn't?
MUST READ
* If you read nothing else, read this. A superb article on where the United States is heading with the Senate health care bill.
* A must read opinion piece about how politicians are set out to "fix" something they know next to nothing about.
* On the radar, trial lawyers and Big Green lining up to rifle through the pockets of business (i.e. actually you and me paying higher prices for goods or having less choices).
* Ralph Peters is slowly becoming one of my favorite columnists. In this case, how we continue to lie to ourselves about the relationship between Islam and terror.
* The system worked.
What Media Bias?
* Unfortunately, I would guess many in the media actually think like this, that Iraq was a nice little country with no terrorists before we got there.
Silly Liberals
* Was Max Baucus drunk on the Senate floor?
* Of course, amazingly we probably wouldn't have heard about Napolitano unless she hadn't backtracked.
* Two of the leaders (since corrected to one) who planned the attack were apparently released from Guantanamo Bay. Of course, they should still be in there (who decided they should be released), but remember, Obama wants to close Gitmo.
* Iran trying to smuggle uranium...will Obama do anything about it? I hate to be pessimistic, but I can see us only talking, then by 2012, we can start being told that no one lost Iran (the reference is to China, in which we had subversives directing U.S. policy towards the Chinese Communists and not Chiang Kai-Shek).
Along with this, it puts a huge dent in the claim that it is the poor and uneducated who are drawn to terrorism. Of course, if it were that, the usual follow-up is that the United States is responsible for keeping the world poor (4% of the population, 25% of the world's resources). Thus the United States created the terrorist. In this case, the terrorist was very well to do. It has also been pointed out that Al Qaeda's leaders have been Western-educated as well, thus showing it as a choice, rather than being forced into it by the big bad United States. The usual leftist theory also doesn't explain why we don't have billions of terrorists since most of the world is poor.
On a side note, remember when Obama was asked during one of the debates about when human life begins? He said that was above his pay grade. But for some reason, running 1/6th of the U.S. economy via health care and pretty much all the economy through cap and trade isn't?
MUST READ
* If you read nothing else, read this. A superb article on where the United States is heading with the Senate health care bill.
* A must read opinion piece about how politicians are set out to "fix" something they know next to nothing about.
* On the radar, trial lawyers and Big Green lining up to rifle through the pockets of business (i.e. actually you and me paying higher prices for goods or having less choices).
* Ralph Peters is slowly becoming one of my favorite columnists. In this case, how we continue to lie to ourselves about the relationship between Islam and terror.
* The system worked.
What Media Bias?
* Unfortunately, I would guess many in the media actually think like this, that Iraq was a nice little country with no terrorists before we got there.
Silly Liberals
* Was Max Baucus drunk on the Senate floor?
* Of course, amazingly we probably wouldn't have heard about Napolitano unless she hadn't backtracked.
* Two of the leaders (since corrected to one) who planned the attack were apparently released from Guantanamo Bay. Of course, they should still be in there (who decided they should be released), but remember, Obama wants to close Gitmo.
* Iran trying to smuggle uranium...will Obama do anything about it? I hate to be pessimistic, but I can see us only talking, then by 2012, we can start being told that no one lost Iran (the reference is to China, in which we had subversives directing U.S. policy towards the Chinese Communists and not Chiang Kai-Shek).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)