Monday, April 30, 2012
It looks like this blog site no longer supports the browser I use - Internet Explorer. So I won't be writing any more blogs for time being, until I either find a new site to blog from or find a new browser I'm comfortable downloading onto my computer. I was perfectly happy using Internet Explorer to load my blog site and post my thoughts on various current events. Unfortunately, it has been decided that users of Internet Explorer, who comprise upwards of 85% of all internet users, are no longer important enough to this blog site. So stay tuned, I'll keep you updated on what is to happen. It's really a shame though, because I feel like I finally have a nice blog up and running, and I hate that I have to make major software changes now just to be able to spread the good word.
Friday, April 20, 2012
United Nations - Global Socialism
When an organization doesn't support American values and laws, the United States ought not to support it. Would we be part of an organization that supported eliminating gun rights, freedom of speech, or democracy? Of course not. Why, then, do we continue to participate in the socialist, anti-American musings of the United Nations?
Not only do we participate, but we are the top financial contributor to the U.N. We are basically hosting a perpetual, socialist organization in New York City, giving them more money than anyone else, and playing ball with their agenda of bringing down the West in the name of global equality. It's socialism on a global scale.
The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development in Brazil will formally put forth several initiatives concerned with environmental protection and preservation. It's a thinly veiled plot to impose redistribution of wealth and assets on the entire world, forcing the wealthier nations to give away their wealth and power to the poorer nations, all in the name of saving the planet. It's just another example in a never-ending line of socialist initiatives that do nothing but harm our great nation. When nine out of ten nations are poor, of course they will vote to take the wealth away from number one. Here are some of the policies the U.N. is proposing:
(1) More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ” “climate adaptation,” and other “green economy” measures. Redistribution of wealth - the cornerstone of every good socialist agenda.
(2) New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified. Taxing the rich to help the poor.
(3) Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically reorganized. These cost changes would “contribute to a more level playing field between established, 'brown' technologies and newer, greener ones." More equality engineering.
(4) Major global social spending programs, including a "social protection floor" and "social safety nets" for the world's most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.” Global welfare, funded by us.
(5) Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution - including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits." More welfare programs for the poorer nations, again funded by us.
(6) A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted. As one of the U.N. documents puts it: “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided." There is no doubt the U.N. will have much, much more of this in the future. It's just another in a long line of socialist initiatives the U.N. is well-known for (to those who care to look).
Nearly every initiative the U.N. undertakes is in the name of socialism and levelling the playing field for the poorer, less-developed nations. The United States is expected to ship our wealth off to poorer nations and voluntarily cripple our own economy and society in the name of equality - because it's just not fair that we are well off while other nations are struggling. The U.N. is like a global Obama, plying the rich vs. poor class warfare fire to ignite an agenda of redistribution of wealth. There is nothing in this agenda that is good for our country, and everything that is damaging to it.
We shouldn't be financially supporting the U.N., hosting it at our expense in New York City, or dignifying it's socialist agenda with continuing membership and discourse. If it were up to the U.N., the United States would be just another mundane, non-wealthy nation needing the permission of a centralized global government to leave the dinner table.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) - Fervent socialist and author of The Communist Manifesto, and Capital.
Not only do we participate, but we are the top financial contributor to the U.N. We are basically hosting a perpetual, socialist organization in New York City, giving them more money than anyone else, and playing ball with their agenda of bringing down the West in the name of global equality. It's socialism on a global scale.
The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development in Brazil will formally put forth several initiatives concerned with environmental protection and preservation. It's a thinly veiled plot to impose redistribution of wealth and assets on the entire world, forcing the wealthier nations to give away their wealth and power to the poorer nations, all in the name of saving the planet. It's just another example in a never-ending line of socialist initiatives that do nothing but harm our great nation. When nine out of ten nations are poor, of course they will vote to take the wealth away from number one. Here are some of the policies the U.N. is proposing:
(1) More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ” “climate adaptation,” and other “green economy” measures. Redistribution of wealth - the cornerstone of every good socialist agenda.
(2) New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified. Taxing the rich to help the poor.
(3) Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically reorganized. These cost changes would “contribute to a more level playing field between established, 'brown' technologies and newer, greener ones." More equality engineering.
(4) Major global social spending programs, including a "social protection floor" and "social safety nets" for the world's most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.” Global welfare, funded by us.
(5) Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution - including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits." More welfare programs for the poorer nations, again funded by us.
(6) A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted. As one of the U.N. documents puts it: “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided." There is no doubt the U.N. will have much, much more of this in the future. It's just another in a long line of socialist initiatives the U.N. is well-known for (to those who care to look).
Nearly every initiative the U.N. undertakes is in the name of socialism and levelling the playing field for the poorer, less-developed nations. The United States is expected to ship our wealth off to poorer nations and voluntarily cripple our own economy and society in the name of equality - because it's just not fair that we are well off while other nations are struggling. The U.N. is like a global Obama, plying the rich vs. poor class warfare fire to ignite an agenda of redistribution of wealth. There is nothing in this agenda that is good for our country, and everything that is damaging to it.
We shouldn't be financially supporting the U.N., hosting it at our expense in New York City, or dignifying it's socialist agenda with continuing membership and discourse. If it were up to the U.N., the United States would be just another mundane, non-wealthy nation needing the permission of a centralized global government to leave the dinner table.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Update on N.K.
Update, 4/20/12: The rocket blew up shortly after take off and fell into the sea. So the situation is postponed, for now.
North Korea is fueling its rocket now for a probable launch in the next 24 hours. Whether successful or not, this is the most important headline to watch over the next day or two. If the rocket blows up on lift-off, everyone (except Kim Jung-Un) will breathe a sigh of relief for this temporary delay in having to deal with NK antagonism. If the launch is successful, Japan or S. Korea may shoot it down, which NK has said will be considered an act of war. Also, pay attention to how the Obama administration handles this. I suspect our President will threaten more (yawn) sanctions against NK, even threatening to stop sending what little aid we provide at this point. All their food and aid comes from China though, so don't expect any mere verbal action by the President to have any effect whatsoever on NK.
I continue to hope for leadership in Washington that will threaten China with sanctions if it continues to do nothing in the way of assisting on NK matters. China is the key to keeping NK in check. The worst case scenario is a war in that region, so the stakes are high - mere political rhetoric, which has a tendency to sway American voters, is worthless when aimed at NK leadership.
North Korea is fueling its rocket now for a probable launch in the next 24 hours. Whether successful or not, this is the most important headline to watch over the next day or two. If the rocket blows up on lift-off, everyone (except Kim Jung-Un) will breathe a sigh of relief for this temporary delay in having to deal with NK antagonism. If the launch is successful, Japan or S. Korea may shoot it down, which NK has said will be considered an act of war. Also, pay attention to how the Obama administration handles this. I suspect our President will threaten more (yawn) sanctions against NK, even threatening to stop sending what little aid we provide at this point. All their food and aid comes from China though, so don't expect any mere verbal action by the President to have any effect whatsoever on NK.
I continue to hope for leadership in Washington that will threaten China with sanctions if it continues to do nothing in the way of assisting on NK matters. China is the key to keeping NK in check. The worst case scenario is a war in that region, so the stakes are high - mere political rhetoric, which has a tendency to sway American voters, is worthless when aimed at NK leadership.
Voter ID Law Opponents Exposed
I previously wrote about the Obama administration's vigorous attack of Texas for its voter ID law proposal. As I correctly pointed out, the attack is a charade aimed at gaining Latino votes, and has nothing to do with voter access or voter fraud.
My previous post:
http://usalibertyparty.blogspot.com/2012/03/your-papers-are-not-in-order.html
The Heritage Foundation has written a great article about this issue, pointing out that Indiana's voter ID law, which is one of the most strict in the nation, was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Heritage summarizes the Supreme Court's refusal to accept the main claims against the Indiana law. Here's the article, written by Lachlan Markay:
"The Justice Department’s lawsuit against South Carolina has rekindled political war over state voter identification laws. While the merits of the suit will surely be hashed out in the political arena, the Supreme Court has in fact weighed in on the constitutional arguments offered by opponents of voter ID laws, and found them wanting.
In light of the issue’s prevalence, it’s worth revisiting that decision to see what the nation’s highest court had to say about voter ID laws.
Opponents of those laws usually make a pair of arguments against them: they claim the laws impose overly burdensome restrictions on voting, and that they are a solution in search of a problem, given the relatively low incidence of voter fraud. Neither of those arguments stands up to the Supreme Court’s thorough examination of the issue.
In the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court upheld an Indiana voter ID law, which the National Conference of State Legislatures classifies as one of the strictest in the nation. The law requires voters to present a photo ID at polling places. Those who can’t may cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if the voter affirms the ballot in person – with a photo ID – within 10 days.
The Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that “showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.” It’s also worth noting that prior to enacting the voter ID law, Indiana did charge for photo IDs. A provision in the law repealed that fee, presumably to rescind financial barriers to voting. Like Indiana, South Carolina offers free IDs to state residents.
The majority opinion, written by then-Justice John Paul Stevens – no conservative stalwart – examined each of the objections offered to this day in opposition to voter ID laws. Let us review each in turn.
Claim: Voter ID laws are excessively and prohibitively burdensome
Indiana provides a free identification card to any resident who requests one from the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Traveling to the BMV and requesting one, therefore, is the extent of the restrictions on voting.
Even voters who show up to the polls on election day without an ID, as mentioned above, can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the voter visits the election board within 10 days of the election, and produces a photo ID or a valid objection to having one (indigence or religious belief).
The free IDs and provisional ballots mitigate any excessively burdensome voting restrictions, the court ruled. Voters who simply do not have an ID can easily obtain one: “the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph,” Stevens wrote, “surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
For certain classes of voters, however, those requirements may provide additional burdens. Those include the homeless, indigent, or elderly, and those with religious objections to being photographed. The law’s inclusion of provisional ballot exceptions, the court ruled, are ample to mitigate those restrictions. “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters,” Stevens added, “that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation” – namely, invalidation of the entire law.
Key to the court’s decision was the fact that the petitioners had not disputed the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process. Rather, they claimed that the law was a partisan attempt to restrict voters, to the advantage of state Republicans.
But “while the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable,” the court ruled, “the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.” If the impetus for the law were partisan in nature – i.e., were unrelated to the electoral process – even the minimal burdens placed on voters would render the law indefensible. But the law was spurred by a legitimate concern – one that even its opponents could not dispute – and “the ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge,” the court found.
Claim: Voter ID laws are unnecessary due to the relatively low incidence of voter fraud
The actual incidence of voter fraud in Indiana was only tangentially relevant to the validity of the law, the court ruled. While no evidence of fraud was included in the record by the respondents, “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” including examples in Indiana itself.
It was therefore unnecessary for Indiana to show that the law responded to documented cases of voter fraud that it would attempt to prevent or penalize. The very real possibility that fraud could occur – demonstrated by the fact that it had occurred elsewhere – was sufficient rationale for the law.
A corollary to this line of objections from voter ID opponents is that the documented voter fraud cited by the laws’ proponents would not actually be prevented by a photo ID requirement – absentee ballot voting, for instance. But the court ruled that a 2003 instance of absentee ballot fraud in Indiana demonstrated that voter fraud of any kind “could affect the outcome of a close election,” and therefore supported the state’s case for the law.
Also worthy of consideration, the court noted, is the state’s real interest in protecting the perception of fair elections and voter faith in the integrity of state elections. “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance,” the court ruled, “because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”
That passage is key, since it establishes a rationale for voter ID laws that does not require that fraud be widespread. Efforts to avoid the perception of fraud or the belief that it could take place – both of which could discourage citizens from voting – are sufficient to merit the voter ID requirement."
Finally, here's a video showing that some of the most vocal opponents of voter ID laws require visitors to their buildings to show photo ID's simply to enter the building. Doesn't seem so overly burdensome or discriminatory after all, does it?
My previous post:
http://usalibertyparty.blogspot.com/2012/03/your-papers-are-not-in-order.html
The Heritage Foundation has written a great article about this issue, pointing out that Indiana's voter ID law, which is one of the most strict in the nation, was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Heritage summarizes the Supreme Court's refusal to accept the main claims against the Indiana law. Here's the article, written by Lachlan Markay:
"The Justice Department’s lawsuit against South Carolina has rekindled political war over state voter identification laws. While the merits of the suit will surely be hashed out in the political arena, the Supreme Court has in fact weighed in on the constitutional arguments offered by opponents of voter ID laws, and found them wanting.
In light of the issue’s prevalence, it’s worth revisiting that decision to see what the nation’s highest court had to say about voter ID laws.
Opponents of those laws usually make a pair of arguments against them: they claim the laws impose overly burdensome restrictions on voting, and that they are a solution in search of a problem, given the relatively low incidence of voter fraud. Neither of those arguments stands up to the Supreme Court’s thorough examination of the issue.
In the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court upheld an Indiana voter ID law, which the National Conference of State Legislatures classifies as one of the strictest in the nation. The law requires voters to present a photo ID at polling places. Those who can’t may cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if the voter affirms the ballot in person – with a photo ID – within 10 days.
The Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that “showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.” It’s also worth noting that prior to enacting the voter ID law, Indiana did charge for photo IDs. A provision in the law repealed that fee, presumably to rescind financial barriers to voting. Like Indiana, South Carolina offers free IDs to state residents.
The majority opinion, written by then-Justice John Paul Stevens – no conservative stalwart – examined each of the objections offered to this day in opposition to voter ID laws. Let us review each in turn.
Claim: Voter ID laws are excessively and prohibitively burdensome
Indiana provides a free identification card to any resident who requests one from the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Traveling to the BMV and requesting one, therefore, is the extent of the restrictions on voting.
Even voters who show up to the polls on election day without an ID, as mentioned above, can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the voter visits the election board within 10 days of the election, and produces a photo ID or a valid objection to having one (indigence or religious belief).
The free IDs and provisional ballots mitigate any excessively burdensome voting restrictions, the court ruled. Voters who simply do not have an ID can easily obtain one: “the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph,” Stevens wrote, “surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
For certain classes of voters, however, those requirements may provide additional burdens. Those include the homeless, indigent, or elderly, and those with religious objections to being photographed. The law’s inclusion of provisional ballot exceptions, the court ruled, are ample to mitigate those restrictions. “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters,” Stevens added, “that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation” – namely, invalidation of the entire law.
Key to the court’s decision was the fact that the petitioners had not disputed the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process. Rather, they claimed that the law was a partisan attempt to restrict voters, to the advantage of state Republicans.
But “while the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable,” the court ruled, “the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.” If the impetus for the law were partisan in nature – i.e., were unrelated to the electoral process – even the minimal burdens placed on voters would render the law indefensible. But the law was spurred by a legitimate concern – one that even its opponents could not dispute – and “the ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge,” the court found.
Claim: Voter ID laws are unnecessary due to the relatively low incidence of voter fraud
The actual incidence of voter fraud in Indiana was only tangentially relevant to the validity of the law, the court ruled. While no evidence of fraud was included in the record by the respondents, “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” including examples in Indiana itself.
It was therefore unnecessary for Indiana to show that the law responded to documented cases of voter fraud that it would attempt to prevent or penalize. The very real possibility that fraud could occur – demonstrated by the fact that it had occurred elsewhere – was sufficient rationale for the law.
A corollary to this line of objections from voter ID opponents is that the documented voter fraud cited by the laws’ proponents would not actually be prevented by a photo ID requirement – absentee ballot voting, for instance. But the court ruled that a 2003 instance of absentee ballot fraud in Indiana demonstrated that voter fraud of any kind “could affect the outcome of a close election,” and therefore supported the state’s case for the law.
Also worthy of consideration, the court noted, is the state’s real interest in protecting the perception of fair elections and voter faith in the integrity of state elections. “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance,” the court ruled, “because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”
That passage is key, since it establishes a rationale for voter ID laws that does not require that fraud be widespread. Efforts to avoid the perception of fraud or the belief that it could take place – both of which could discourage citizens from voting – are sufficient to merit the voter ID requirement."
Finally, here's a video showing that some of the most vocal opponents of voter ID laws require visitors to their buildings to show photo ID's simply to enter the building. Doesn't seem so overly burdensome or discriminatory after all, does it?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Social Security: Efficient, Free of Fraud/Abuse, and Risk-Alleviating
I found this post on a liberal blog both hilariously out of touch and troublingly widely accepted by liberals as true. Characterizing the Social Security Ponzi scheme run by our government as efficient, without fraud or abuse, and having the positive effect of bailing out those who, as a result of of SS, feel free to take unreasonable risks with their future, is so far out of touch with reality that I don't think any responsive comments by me are even needed.
The absurdity of this position speaks for itself. So here are your three paragraphs of complete, blissful ignorance...
"Why our elites and media elites have such sheer contempt and hatred for social security. It’s there for everyone! It’s a solid government program which gives everyone the peace of mind that no matter what, there will be some money available for you to take care of yourself in your most vulnerable years. It’s such a miniscule portion of the taxes we pay, and for the ultra-rich screamers who hate social security the most, it’s a negligible portion of their income, and it’s capped! It’s not money wasted on fraud and abuse, it’s extremely efficient with the kind of overhead any charity or organization in the world would die to achieve, and it’s just an amazing program.
I’d argue that social security also helps innovation and entrepreneurship, because people can take wild risks opening businesses and if everything fails, they still will have the peace of mind to know that some of their most basic needs will be met due to their participation in the program.
There are a lot of things I can understand people getting mad about (I may not agree with them, but I can understand it), but this program simply is not one of them. Yet social security is under constant assault, with ridiculous amounts of hand-wringing and lying about the program. It’s insane."
The absurdity of this position speaks for itself. So here are your three paragraphs of complete, blissful ignorance...
"Why our elites and media elites have such sheer contempt and hatred for social security. It’s there for everyone! It’s a solid government program which gives everyone the peace of mind that no matter what, there will be some money available for you to take care of yourself in your most vulnerable years. It’s such a miniscule portion of the taxes we pay, and for the ultra-rich screamers who hate social security the most, it’s a negligible portion of their income, and it’s capped! It’s not money wasted on fraud and abuse, it’s extremely efficient with the kind of overhead any charity or organization in the world would die to achieve, and it’s just an amazing program.
I’d argue that social security also helps innovation and entrepreneurship, because people can take wild risks opening businesses and if everything fails, they still will have the peace of mind to know that some of their most basic needs will be met due to their participation in the program.
There are a lot of things I can understand people getting mad about (I may not agree with them, but I can understand it), but this program simply is not one of them. Yet social security is under constant assault, with ridiculous amounts of hand-wringing and lying about the program. It’s insane."
N. Korean Rocket Launch this Week
North Korea is scheduled to run a rocket test this week which it says is nothing more than the launch of non-military weather satellite into space. They have stated that they have the right to explore space for peaceful reasons - which is true, but probably not their true intention in this instance.
The U.S. and its international allies are worried that it is instead the testing of a long-range rocket designed to send nuclear payloads long distances, up to 4,000 miles, which means they could even reach some areas in the United States. Based on North Korea's consistent antagonism towards the West, disregard for international agreements, and dedication to its military and the development of new weapons, the rocket launch is a troubling development. Another aspect to consider with a successful long-range rocket system in N. Korea is that it may start selling it to other nations, such as Iran. The ripples from a successful rocket launch will reach every corner of the world.
Both South Korea and Japan have said that if the missile goes over their countries, they will shoot it down. It's not clear if they mean they'll shoot it down if it is going to land in their territories, or if it merely crosses over their countries. Either way, North Korea has said that shooting down the rocket will be regarded as an act of war. The rocket test appears to be an attempt by North Korea's new leader to better cement his leadership position in N. Korea. And although the risk of it veering off course is low, guidance remains its weakest point.
Meanwhile, as usual, China remains silent on the N. Korea situation, and continues to send food and other aid to N. Korea, without which N. Korea would not be able to survive as a nation. N. Korea is severely impoverished, and due to its antagonistic stance toward the international community, the only country willing to assist N. Korea in obtaining necessary food and aid is China. Without China, N. Korea can't survive unless it completely changes its attitude on international relations and military intentions.
The Obama administration has voiced concern over the impending rocket launch and seems intent on continuing to seek various sanctions against a country that has never given any credence to sanctions, and against which very few, if any, sanctions could have much effect, since the nation is already basically cut off from trading with the international community.
U.S. and other nations' intelligence claim that N. Korea has been developing enriched uranium for some time now, and probably has enough fissile material to make 4 to 6 nuclear weapons. If they are successful in developing a long-range rocket capable of carrying a nuclear payload up to 4,000 miles, it will constitute a very real threat to peace, particularly in the East Asian region.
China is intent on dominating the far east Asian region, and its support of N. Korea continues to be a problem. An antagonistic N. Korea is one thing, but a far superior Chinese military is a virtual lock to dominate the region militarily if it so desires - a spark from N. Korea could easily lead to an all-out military campaign in the region which would bring China right into the mix and give it an excuse to flex its muscles. Our allies South Korea and Japan stand to lose the most if a military conflict breaks out. And, of course, the U.S. would necessarily be dragged into yet another military venture, further endangering U.S. military personnel and further stressing an already tapped out government budget.
So what should we do about North Korea's actions? I contend that without getting China to take action to keep N. Korea in check, there is little we can do short of military intervention that will deter N. Korea from continuing to develop long-range rockets, nuclear weapons, and instigating its Asian opponents. So the question is how do we get China to cooperate with us in keeping N. Korea from starting a war?
Well, since China makes untold billions of dollars every month shipping and selling its goods to the U.S., we might start by telling China that until they pressure N. Korea to cool it, we won't let any of their goods into the U.S. - we might hold all shipments of Chinese goods in port, not allowing them into the U.S. marketplace. This would cost China a great deal of money each day their goods sit idle in their containers on ships and at docks in U.S. ports. I have to think China would assist with N. Korea to some degree in order to prevent a shutdown of their trade with the U.S. - we are their number one purchaser of stuff, so China would lose a large portion of its trade profits in such a situation.
This would be a reasonable, non-military action the U.S. could take to gain China's help. It can only help, and there's really no downside as it wouldn't constitute any type of military action or threat and it would probably have the positive side effect of increasing U.S. manufacturers' share of just about every market industry - after all, someone will have to pick up the slack of filling store shelves with the millions of items that would no longer be coming from China.
Imagine if Wal-Mart, which used to be dedicated to selling only made-in-the-USA goods (RIP, Sam Walton), had to start seeking U.S. suppliers for virtually all of its wares in the event that Chinese goods are stranded in port. That one company alone would provide a very large stimulus boost to the U.S. economy, and companies like Target, Home Depot, Office Max, and Sears would also start replacing lost Chinese goods with American-made products. The omnipresent "Made in China" labels we see on everything would start to be replaced with pride-instilling "Made in the USA!" labels.
In any event, the Chinese product-stranding strategy is just one example of an action we could take to garner assistance from China on the N. Korean problem(s). There are a wide array of economic sanctions we could threaten China with that would undoubtedly lead them to keep N. Korea in check. Without China in the picture, there isn't really anything we can do that is non-military to dissuade N. Korea from continuing to antagonize the region and develop long-range weapons. And when it comes down to it, China would suffer far more from trade cessation between the U.S. and China than the U.S. would - after all, there aren't too many "Made in the USA" labels on goods lining Chinese store shelves.
Unfortunately, I suspect our current leadership doesn't have the courage to stand up to China, meaning N. Korea's rocket launch will proceed as planned, and an unpredictable, troubling fallout will result. Hopefully, the next president, whether it be Obama, Romney, or Santorum, will begin to realize that N. Korea cannot be contained without including China in the equation, which requires hitting China where it hurts: their wallet.
If we're lucky, the entire situation will be postponed by another rocket launch failure by N. Korea - their last attempt ended in the accidental explosion of the rocket shortly after lift-off. This will just mean the problem is delayed, not solved. It will need to be addressed at some point.
The U.S. and its international allies are worried that it is instead the testing of a long-range rocket designed to send nuclear payloads long distances, up to 4,000 miles, which means they could even reach some areas in the United States. Based on North Korea's consistent antagonism towards the West, disregard for international agreements, and dedication to its military and the development of new weapons, the rocket launch is a troubling development. Another aspect to consider with a successful long-range rocket system in N. Korea is that it may start selling it to other nations, such as Iran. The ripples from a successful rocket launch will reach every corner of the world.
Both South Korea and Japan have said that if the missile goes over their countries, they will shoot it down. It's not clear if they mean they'll shoot it down if it is going to land in their territories, or if it merely crosses over their countries. Either way, North Korea has said that shooting down the rocket will be regarded as an act of war. The rocket test appears to be an attempt by North Korea's new leader to better cement his leadership position in N. Korea. And although the risk of it veering off course is low, guidance remains its weakest point.
Meanwhile, as usual, China remains silent on the N. Korea situation, and continues to send food and other aid to N. Korea, without which N. Korea would not be able to survive as a nation. N. Korea is severely impoverished, and due to its antagonistic stance toward the international community, the only country willing to assist N. Korea in obtaining necessary food and aid is China. Without China, N. Korea can't survive unless it completely changes its attitude on international relations and military intentions.
The Obama administration has voiced concern over the impending rocket launch and seems intent on continuing to seek various sanctions against a country that has never given any credence to sanctions, and against which very few, if any, sanctions could have much effect, since the nation is already basically cut off from trading with the international community.
U.S. and other nations' intelligence claim that N. Korea has been developing enriched uranium for some time now, and probably has enough fissile material to make 4 to 6 nuclear weapons. If they are successful in developing a long-range rocket capable of carrying a nuclear payload up to 4,000 miles, it will constitute a very real threat to peace, particularly in the East Asian region.
China is intent on dominating the far east Asian region, and its support of N. Korea continues to be a problem. An antagonistic N. Korea is one thing, but a far superior Chinese military is a virtual lock to dominate the region militarily if it so desires - a spark from N. Korea could easily lead to an all-out military campaign in the region which would bring China right into the mix and give it an excuse to flex its muscles. Our allies South Korea and Japan stand to lose the most if a military conflict breaks out. And, of course, the U.S. would necessarily be dragged into yet another military venture, further endangering U.S. military personnel and further stressing an already tapped out government budget.
So what should we do about North Korea's actions? I contend that without getting China to take action to keep N. Korea in check, there is little we can do short of military intervention that will deter N. Korea from continuing to develop long-range rockets, nuclear weapons, and instigating its Asian opponents. So the question is how do we get China to cooperate with us in keeping N. Korea from starting a war?
Well, since China makes untold billions of dollars every month shipping and selling its goods to the U.S., we might start by telling China that until they pressure N. Korea to cool it, we won't let any of their goods into the U.S. - we might hold all shipments of Chinese goods in port, not allowing them into the U.S. marketplace. This would cost China a great deal of money each day their goods sit idle in their containers on ships and at docks in U.S. ports. I have to think China would assist with N. Korea to some degree in order to prevent a shutdown of their trade with the U.S. - we are their number one purchaser of stuff, so China would lose a large portion of its trade profits in such a situation.
This would be a reasonable, non-military action the U.S. could take to gain China's help. It can only help, and there's really no downside as it wouldn't constitute any type of military action or threat and it would probably have the positive side effect of increasing U.S. manufacturers' share of just about every market industry - after all, someone will have to pick up the slack of filling store shelves with the millions of items that would no longer be coming from China.
Imagine if Wal-Mart, which used to be dedicated to selling only made-in-the-USA goods (RIP, Sam Walton), had to start seeking U.S. suppliers for virtually all of its wares in the event that Chinese goods are stranded in port. That one company alone would provide a very large stimulus boost to the U.S. economy, and companies like Target, Home Depot, Office Max, and Sears would also start replacing lost Chinese goods with American-made products. The omnipresent "Made in China" labels we see on everything would start to be replaced with pride-instilling "Made in the USA!" labels.
In any event, the Chinese product-stranding strategy is just one example of an action we could take to garner assistance from China on the N. Korean problem(s). There are a wide array of economic sanctions we could threaten China with that would undoubtedly lead them to keep N. Korea in check. Without China in the picture, there isn't really anything we can do that is non-military to dissuade N. Korea from continuing to antagonize the region and develop long-range weapons. And when it comes down to it, China would suffer far more from trade cessation between the U.S. and China than the U.S. would - after all, there aren't too many "Made in the USA" labels on goods lining Chinese store shelves.
Unfortunately, I suspect our current leadership doesn't have the courage to stand up to China, meaning N. Korea's rocket launch will proceed as planned, and an unpredictable, troubling fallout will result. Hopefully, the next president, whether it be Obama, Romney, or Santorum, will begin to realize that N. Korea cannot be contained without including China in the equation, which requires hitting China where it hurts: their wallet.
If we're lucky, the entire situation will be postponed by another rocket launch failure by N. Korea - their last attempt ended in the accidental explosion of the rocket shortly after lift-off. This will just mean the problem is delayed, not solved. It will need to be addressed at some point.
Friday, April 6, 2012
No Women Allowed
Augusta National Golf Club was established in 1933 as an all-male golf club. It's a private club that doesn't receive government assistance - it operates solely on the dues from its members and the money it makes from the Masters golf tournament every year, which is arguably the most famous golf tournament in the world.
Its all-male membership is causing liberals great consternation again - every year, as the Masters tournament is gearing up, this controversy rears its ugly head and more and more pressure comes to bear on the owners of Augusta to do away with their all-male tradition and start allowing women as members.
This is still a free country, right? I'm not so sure anymore. A private entity should be free to run its organization as it sees fit, as long as it's not infringing on the rights of others. As a private club, they are entitled to whatever rules and regulations they want. If they want to close every year from March through June, so be it. If they want to require their members to wear hats while playing golf, so be it. If they want to allow only men to become members, also, so be it. Anyone is free to start his or her own private golf club that only allows women as members. Also fine would be a private club that wants to allow only seniors as members. I don't hear anyone crying foul that the United Negro College Fund doesn't allow whites. Again, as a private organization that is not being subsidized by public funds, e.g. tax dollars, they are free to provide scholarships to only blacks. If you don't like it, then start your own and provide scholarships to whatever group you want to cater too.
That is what freedom is all about. Part of the greatness of freedom is that we are free to do things that others don't agree with. Augusta is pissing a lot of people off, and it's their right to do so.
Unfortunately, the pressure of the left will eventually be too much for Augusta to resist, and their policy of allowing only male members will be a thing of the past. It's not just verbal clamoring that is taking its toll - money is being funnelled to movements to end this abhorrent policy of this private club running its business as it sees fit without bothering anyone while doing so. And where there's money, there's power - power enough, even, to bring down one of the most storied golf clubs in the world. And once the do-gooders have accomplished their mission, what will they be able to brag about? That they eviscerated the freedom from a private organization in the land of the free and the home of the brave - not an accomplishment I would be proud of. It's not about freedom to the anti-Augustans - it's about having things their way, without regard to the freedom of others. Basically, you are free as long as your choose to exercise your freedom in a manner they approve of.
The President has even taken time out of his busy days of running up the national debt and ridding us of freedoms through Obamacare's personal mandate and the National Defense Authorization Act: "Women should be admitted. It's long past time when women should be excluded from anything." Basically, what he's saying is that it's long past time that people are free to decide who they will invite to be part of their private clubs.
For the sake of all of us who cherish freedom, I hope Augusta National continues to fight this war against liberty. If they do continue the fight but lose, it foreshadows the loss of freedoms across the board. Augusta losing its freedom may not affect you, but it opens the door to the eventual attack on freedoms you hold dear, and this will continue until freedom is a thing of the past, something we will tell our grandchildren about when we tell stories of the once great America where freedom rang from coast to coast.
The 10th fairway and green at Augusta National Golf Club
Its all-male membership is causing liberals great consternation again - every year, as the Masters tournament is gearing up, this controversy rears its ugly head and more and more pressure comes to bear on the owners of Augusta to do away with their all-male tradition and start allowing women as members.
This is still a free country, right? I'm not so sure anymore. A private entity should be free to run its organization as it sees fit, as long as it's not infringing on the rights of others. As a private club, they are entitled to whatever rules and regulations they want. If they want to close every year from March through June, so be it. If they want to require their members to wear hats while playing golf, so be it. If they want to allow only men to become members, also, so be it. Anyone is free to start his or her own private golf club that only allows women as members. Also fine would be a private club that wants to allow only seniors as members. I don't hear anyone crying foul that the United Negro College Fund doesn't allow whites. Again, as a private organization that is not being subsidized by public funds, e.g. tax dollars, they are free to provide scholarships to only blacks. If you don't like it, then start your own and provide scholarships to whatever group you want to cater too.
That is what freedom is all about. Part of the greatness of freedom is that we are free to do things that others don't agree with. Augusta is pissing a lot of people off, and it's their right to do so.
Unfortunately, the pressure of the left will eventually be too much for Augusta to resist, and their policy of allowing only male members will be a thing of the past. It's not just verbal clamoring that is taking its toll - money is being funnelled to movements to end this abhorrent policy of this private club running its business as it sees fit without bothering anyone while doing so. And where there's money, there's power - power enough, even, to bring down one of the most storied golf clubs in the world. And once the do-gooders have accomplished their mission, what will they be able to brag about? That they eviscerated the freedom from a private organization in the land of the free and the home of the brave - not an accomplishment I would be proud of. It's not about freedom to the anti-Augustans - it's about having things their way, without regard to the freedom of others. Basically, you are free as long as your choose to exercise your freedom in a manner they approve of.
The President has even taken time out of his busy days of running up the national debt and ridding us of freedoms through Obamacare's personal mandate and the National Defense Authorization Act: "Women should be admitted. It's long past time when women should be excluded from anything." Basically, what he's saying is that it's long past time that people are free to decide who they will invite to be part of their private clubs.
For the sake of all of us who cherish freedom, I hope Augusta National continues to fight this war against liberty. If they do continue the fight but lose, it foreshadows the loss of freedoms across the board. Augusta losing its freedom may not affect you, but it opens the door to the eventual attack on freedoms you hold dear, and this will continue until freedom is a thing of the past, something we will tell our grandchildren about when we tell stories of the once great America where freedom rang from coast to coast.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Uppity Kenyan Colonialist Gangsta Thug? WTF??
Another example of why democrats (at least the ones with morals and values) should be ashamed of their party leaders and embarrassed to be a democrat.
This is from a somewhat widely read liberal blog, and it epitomizes most democrats opinions on how republicans think about Obama. It's way off of course. It's his socialism we hate, not his blackness (although I'm not a republican, I'll lump myself in with them for the purposes of this post since I, also, don't like Obama for his socialist policies and not his race).
"Seven more months of “But he’s The Uppity Kenyan Colonialist Gangsta Thug! Hide your nubile daughters!” is going to be awesome like a migraine surrounded by smaller autonomous migraines. Then again, it’s not like Republicans can run on issues or anything, so the full court press on BLOOGITY BLOO HE’S BLACK is pretty much their entire hand at this point."
Pathetic. Insulting. Despicable. Wrong.
This is how some/most democrats think republicans view Obama.
This is from a somewhat widely read liberal blog, and it epitomizes most democrats opinions on how republicans think about Obama. It's way off of course. It's his socialism we hate, not his blackness (although I'm not a republican, I'll lump myself in with them for the purposes of this post since I, also, don't like Obama for his socialist policies and not his race).
"Seven more months of “But he’s The Uppity Kenyan Colonialist Gangsta Thug! Hide your nubile daughters!” is going to be awesome like a migraine surrounded by smaller autonomous migraines. Then again, it’s not like Republicans can run on issues or anything, so the full court press on BLOOGITY BLOO HE’S BLACK is pretty much their entire hand at this point."
Pathetic. Insulting. Despicable. Wrong.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
This is Your Video on Politics. Any Questions?
Check out this new campaign video by Rick Santorum. It looks more like a trailer for a new Freddy Kruger movie than it does a campaign video. I like it! It does a good job capturing the feel of a horror movie, while at the same time expressing the horror another 4 years of Obama would subject Americans to. It's not as crazy as the new Herman Cain video though which, if you haven't seen it, you should definitely check out - nothing makes your point like exploding bunny rabbits.
Here's Rick's entry at the Cannes Film Festival in the horror short category...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ
And check out Herman Cain's version of the '80's "this is your brain on drugs" frying egg commercial....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdpN5C1_flQ
The classic poster for the "this is your brain on drugs" anti-drug campaign from the '80's.
Here's Rick's entry at the Cannes Film Festival in the horror short category...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDGORiD82rQ
And check out Herman Cain's version of the '80's "this is your brain on drugs" frying egg commercial....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdpN5C1_flQ
Make Love, Not Laws
A 41 year old teacher in California has left his wife and kids to start a new life with an 18 year old girl who is a former student of his. Here we have two adults who are apparently in love, so I say, good for them and I wish them the best.
It's a little unusual, to be sure, that an 18 year old girl would prefer to tie the knot with a man who's the same age as her father, but I don't think it's unheard of. Sometimes love is ageless, and in this case it appears that the age gap has not prevented two consenting adults from falling in love and starting a life together.
But if California has its way, the guy will be a convicted felon serving a lengthy prison sentence for simply falling in love with another adult who purportedly also loves him. According to California State Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, "Our hope is that [making this a felony with a lengthy prison sentence] will be a pretty strong and painful deterrent and will cause someone to think twice before starting an inappropriate, unethical relationship with a student." Notice there is no concern that anyone is infringing on the rights of others or doing anything that is unlawful. Basically, many in California's government simply find what these consenting adults are doing to be distasteful and immoral. To them I say that if they find it so distasteful and wrong, then simply don't engage in it. Mind your own P's and Q's and let others make their own decisions about how to run their lives. Again, is this a free country or not?!
This is a classic case of the government stepping in to regulate ethical and moral decisions best left up to individuals, because there is nothing unlawful about their relationship. Unethical? Maybe - and perhaps a great number of schools won't want to hire him knowing that he may eventually date 18 year old students. I wouldn't hire a guy who had that as a priority, but I certainly wouldn't have him thrown in jail just because I disagree with his moral set.
It's a situation where different people with different moral values will evaluate it differently. Some will say it's ok because they are both adults. Some will say it's abhorrent because he's a "real" adult taking advantage of a de facto kid. Others may center on the fact that he left his current wife and kids to date this young'un, and is therefore an immoral bastard. The point is, this is a moral issue involving two consenting adults who are not infringing on the rights of anyone else by engaging in their relationship. Live and let live, I say. I mean, after all, this is still a free country right? That should mean one has the freedom to do things that others might not do, might not approve of, and might criticize.
But it's crossing the line when the government comes up with its own moral position on the topic and then goes forth to impose its moral values upon everyone else. Such a law making this guy a felon would not be a law designed to protect our rights or freedom or liberty - it would be a law designed to impose a specific moral value upon society; a moral value the government has deemed superior to the moral values of the two people here engaged in this relationship. Until either of these star-crossed lovers infringes on the rights of someone else, the government has no right to tell these adults how to live their lives.
And it got me thinking.... Isn't California at the very forefront of the gay marriage debate? Doesn't California support gay marriage? Are they not very vigilant in pushing for the legality of two consenting same-sex partners being able to get married? Well, some may find that immoral just as the government finds this teacher-former student relationship immoral. Is one any worse than the other in terms of adults being free to pursue whatever love interests they want? You can't tell two gay people that they are allowed to get married, but then also tell two heterosexual adults with an age gap that they aren't entitled to the same protection of the right to love who they want.
I would support a school that wanted to fire this teacher, and I would respect anyone's opinion on the morality of this situation. But I don't support government imposition of the "right" moral values upon all of us.
Read more from the New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/california-lawmaker-introduces-law-student-teacher-relationships-a-felony-article-1.1051958
Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher"
It's a little unusual, to be sure, that an 18 year old girl would prefer to tie the knot with a man who's the same age as her father, but I don't think it's unheard of. Sometimes love is ageless, and in this case it appears that the age gap has not prevented two consenting adults from falling in love and starting a life together.
But if California has its way, the guy will be a convicted felon serving a lengthy prison sentence for simply falling in love with another adult who purportedly also loves him. According to California State Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, "Our hope is that [making this a felony with a lengthy prison sentence] will be a pretty strong and painful deterrent and will cause someone to think twice before starting an inappropriate, unethical relationship with a student." Notice there is no concern that anyone is infringing on the rights of others or doing anything that is unlawful. Basically, many in California's government simply find what these consenting adults are doing to be distasteful and immoral. To them I say that if they find it so distasteful and wrong, then simply don't engage in it. Mind your own P's and Q's and let others make their own decisions about how to run their lives. Again, is this a free country or not?!
This is a classic case of the government stepping in to regulate ethical and moral decisions best left up to individuals, because there is nothing unlawful about their relationship. Unethical? Maybe - and perhaps a great number of schools won't want to hire him knowing that he may eventually date 18 year old students. I wouldn't hire a guy who had that as a priority, but I certainly wouldn't have him thrown in jail just because I disagree with his moral set.
It's a situation where different people with different moral values will evaluate it differently. Some will say it's ok because they are both adults. Some will say it's abhorrent because he's a "real" adult taking advantage of a de facto kid. Others may center on the fact that he left his current wife and kids to date this young'un, and is therefore an immoral bastard. The point is, this is a moral issue involving two consenting adults who are not infringing on the rights of anyone else by engaging in their relationship. Live and let live, I say. I mean, after all, this is still a free country right? That should mean one has the freedom to do things that others might not do, might not approve of, and might criticize.
But it's crossing the line when the government comes up with its own moral position on the topic and then goes forth to impose its moral values upon everyone else. Such a law making this guy a felon would not be a law designed to protect our rights or freedom or liberty - it would be a law designed to impose a specific moral value upon society; a moral value the government has deemed superior to the moral values of the two people here engaged in this relationship. Until either of these star-crossed lovers infringes on the rights of someone else, the government has no right to tell these adults how to live their lives.
And it got me thinking.... Isn't California at the very forefront of the gay marriage debate? Doesn't California support gay marriage? Are they not very vigilant in pushing for the legality of two consenting same-sex partners being able to get married? Well, some may find that immoral just as the government finds this teacher-former student relationship immoral. Is one any worse than the other in terms of adults being free to pursue whatever love interests they want? You can't tell two gay people that they are allowed to get married, but then also tell two heterosexual adults with an age gap that they aren't entitled to the same protection of the right to love who they want.
I would support a school that wanted to fire this teacher, and I would respect anyone's opinion on the morality of this situation. But I don't support government imposition of the "right" moral values upon all of us.
Read more from the New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/california-lawmaker-introduces-law-student-teacher-relationships-a-felony-article-1.1051958
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Soviet Energy Policy
In its proposed rulemaking on emissions from coal-fired power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency has fulfilled President Obama’s campaign statement that his administration would “essentially bankrupt” anyone who had the audacity to hope to build a new generation facility. By essentially prohibiting the production of new plants, the administration is again picking winners and losers in our energy economy, something which is best done by the market.
Supporters of this policy will claim that it is cheaper to generate electricity from natural gas, and that is true for now. But major producers using hydraulic fracturing and new horizontal drilling techniques in shale formations have recently stopped drilling new wells because the price is so low.
If it ultimately costs more to produce electricity from gas than it does from coal, the administration will have slapped yet another energy price hike on us—in addition to what we already pay to subsidize solar power, windmills, and Chevrolet Volts while taxpayers absorb the debt from the multiple bankruptcies of other politically correct energy concerns like Solyndra, Range Fuels, and a host of others.
Source: Cato Institute
Diagram of hydraulic fracturing operation.
Supporters of this policy will claim that it is cheaper to generate electricity from natural gas, and that is true for now. But major producers using hydraulic fracturing and new horizontal drilling techniques in shale formations have recently stopped drilling new wells because the price is so low.
If it ultimately costs more to produce electricity from gas than it does from coal, the administration will have slapped yet another energy price hike on us—in addition to what we already pay to subsidize solar power, windmills, and Chevrolet Volts while taxpayers absorb the debt from the multiple bankruptcies of other politically correct energy concerns like Solyndra, Range Fuels, and a host of others.
Source: Cato Institute
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Hypocrisy on the Left
The following (paraphrased) statements were made in the not too distant past:
Bill Maher: Sarah Palin is a slut. Sarah and Michelle Bachmann are boobs. I could go on and on about Bill Maher - just about every show he says something derogatory towards a conservative.
Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham is a slut.
David Letterman: Sarah Palin could improve her "slutty flight attendant look."
Rush Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke is a slut.
Notice there's only one conservative on that list above. The big three networks covered the comments by Maher, Letterman, and Schultz exactly zero times. They covered the comments by Limbaugh a total of 40 times between March 1st and 11th. Bill Maher contributed $1 million to Obama, who hasn't uttered a single word about it and who graciously accepted the donation. Obama also appeared on Letterman's show, hugging and laughing it up with Dave. And Obama continues to proclaim that we should be more civil and how he wants to raise his daughters in a world without insults and personal attacks.
And then there's this gem I found today on a liberal blog:
"Jesus God, Newt Gingrich is a despicable motherfucker. If I were Queen of the World, I would order him lightly scored with rusty pitchforks, dipped in sulfuric acid, rolled in a bed of broken light bulbs, stuffed into a cannon and fired into a toxic waste dump."
If you're on their team, you get a pass when it comes to hate speech. If you're on the right, though, you get crucified for the same conduct. Hypocrisy at its best.
Bill Maher: Sarah Palin is a slut. Sarah and Michelle Bachmann are boobs. I could go on and on about Bill Maher - just about every show he says something derogatory towards a conservative.
Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham is a slut.
David Letterman: Sarah Palin could improve her "slutty flight attendant look."
Rush Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke is a slut.
Notice there's only one conservative on that list above. The big three networks covered the comments by Maher, Letterman, and Schultz exactly zero times. They covered the comments by Limbaugh a total of 40 times between March 1st and 11th. Bill Maher contributed $1 million to Obama, who hasn't uttered a single word about it and who graciously accepted the donation. Obama also appeared on Letterman's show, hugging and laughing it up with Dave. And Obama continues to proclaim that we should be more civil and how he wants to raise his daughters in a world without insults and personal attacks.
And then there's this gem I found today on a liberal blog:
"Jesus God, Newt Gingrich is a despicable motherfucker. If I were Queen of the World, I would order him lightly scored with rusty pitchforks, dipped in sulfuric acid, rolled in a bed of broken light bulbs, stuffed into a cannon and fired into a toxic waste dump."
If you're on their team, you get a pass when it comes to hate speech. If you're on the right, though, you get crucified for the same conduct. Hypocrisy at its best.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Current Polls
Mitt Romney has won 21 of the 33 republican primary races so far across the country. It looks like he's going to win the nomination by a somewhat narrow margin over Rick Santorum. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have been taking turns picking up distant 3rd and 4th places, and are effectively out of the race.
Here are some current polls to give you a picture of how Americans stand on things:
President Obama's Job Approval
Approve - 47.5%
Disapprove - 46.5%
Congressional Job Approval
Approve - 11.3%
Disapprove - 82.5%
Direction of the Country
Right Direction - 31.3%
Wrong Direction - 61.3%
Obama v. Romney
Obama - 48.1%
Romney - 43.9%
Obama v. Santorum
Obama - 50.3%
Santorum - 41.9%
Obama v. Generic Republican Candidate
Obama - 45.0%
Republican - 43.8%
These poll numbers are very disappointing if you're hoping to be rid of the Obama administration in 2013, but there's a long way to go, and the numbers will change once the republicans have chosen their candidate. It's generally the case that an incumbent president has the advantage over various opposition party candidates before that opposition party has chosen one - but once the opposition party chooses its candidate, support consolidates and polls become much more accurate and depend largely on how popular the sitting president is. By mid-June, the republican party's candidate should be known, and republicans will then be able to consolidate their support behind a single candidate, and start focusing on the President's weaknesses rather than fighting amongst themselves. The negative ads being run by the republican candidates right now are wreaking havoc with their mass appeal, but once the race turns to defeating Obama, I suspect the republican's numbers will improve. After all, Obama's record is atrocious, so he can't merely run on "hope and change" this time.
But I must say, I'm very disappointed with the candidates the republican party has put forth. They are all weak options for a voter seeking a true conservative to vote for. A majority of the nation still identifies itself as right of center, and I think a true conservative would have mass appeal and do very well against Obama. However, like 2008, when the republicans trotted out John McCain, the party just seems incapable of picking a strong, conservative candidate for president.
President Obama has a good chance of being re-elected, if for no other reason than the fact that there are numerous voting blocs that are perennially in the democrats' bag, like unions, teachers and academia, and minorities. Those groups alone make up somewhere north of 35-40%, so a modest portion of the remaining voters may be enough to win another 4-year term.
I've always thought the democrats were much better at public relations than the republicans, and that continues to be the case as an incompetent, destructive democratic president maintains a lead on a couple of ho-hum, neo-conservative candidates. Once again, I'll probably be cornered into voting for the republican in November simply because he will again be the proverbial lesser of two evils.
Sources: Gallup.com, RealClearPolitics.com
Gallup Chart of President Obama's Approval Rating throughout 2012
Here are some current polls to give you a picture of how Americans stand on things:
President Obama's Job Approval
Approve - 47.5%
Disapprove - 46.5%
Congressional Job Approval
Approve - 11.3%
Disapprove - 82.5%
Direction of the Country
Right Direction - 31.3%
Wrong Direction - 61.3%
Obama v. Romney
Obama - 48.1%
Romney - 43.9%
Obama v. Santorum
Obama - 50.3%
Santorum - 41.9%
Obama v. Generic Republican Candidate
Obama - 45.0%
Republican - 43.8%
These poll numbers are very disappointing if you're hoping to be rid of the Obama administration in 2013, but there's a long way to go, and the numbers will change once the republicans have chosen their candidate. It's generally the case that an incumbent president has the advantage over various opposition party candidates before that opposition party has chosen one - but once the opposition party chooses its candidate, support consolidates and polls become much more accurate and depend largely on how popular the sitting president is. By mid-June, the republican party's candidate should be known, and republicans will then be able to consolidate their support behind a single candidate, and start focusing on the President's weaknesses rather than fighting amongst themselves. The negative ads being run by the republican candidates right now are wreaking havoc with their mass appeal, but once the race turns to defeating Obama, I suspect the republican's numbers will improve. After all, Obama's record is atrocious, so he can't merely run on "hope and change" this time.
But I must say, I'm very disappointed with the candidates the republican party has put forth. They are all weak options for a voter seeking a true conservative to vote for. A majority of the nation still identifies itself as right of center, and I think a true conservative would have mass appeal and do very well against Obama. However, like 2008, when the republicans trotted out John McCain, the party just seems incapable of picking a strong, conservative candidate for president.
President Obama has a good chance of being re-elected, if for no other reason than the fact that there are numerous voting blocs that are perennially in the democrats' bag, like unions, teachers and academia, and minorities. Those groups alone make up somewhere north of 35-40%, so a modest portion of the remaining voters may be enough to win another 4-year term.
I've always thought the democrats were much better at public relations than the republicans, and that continues to be the case as an incompetent, destructive democratic president maintains a lead on a couple of ho-hum, neo-conservative candidates. Once again, I'll probably be cornered into voting for the republican in November simply because he will again be the proverbial lesser of two evils.
Sources: Gallup.com, RealClearPolitics.com
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Solyndra Syndrome
Our elected officials have no shame when it comes to asking for handouts. Senator Al Franken, formerly of Hollywood fame, was outraged recently at how long it was taking for handouts to reach a company is his state. After all, votes are on the line! Well, according to Franken, jobs are on the line, which is technically true, but his request has nothing to do with jobs or the economy.
SAGE Electrochromics, a company that produces energy efficient windows, was promised federal loan money from the Department of Energy to bolster operating revenues so the company could remain in business. See, SAGE is going to go bankrupt if it doesn't get a bailout. Usually, companies need to provide goods or services the public wants, and make a profit doing so, in order to remain viable. Well, that just isn't acceptable to Franken, who admits:
"While the Department of Energy prolongs closing the deal, time and money are running out for SAGE. There are high-tech manufacturing construction jobs at stake here. It’s been going forward with the project assuming they get this loan guarantee but they’re running out of time and they may have to sell themselves to a French company."
If SAGE can't stay in business via its own merits, then the marketplace is better off if SAGE goes out of business or sells to a French company. By funnelling money to an unprofitable, non-viable company, money is diverted from useful means to wasteful ones. The federal loan money isn't going to do anything about SAGE's business model - it will remain a company destined for failure; the bailout will just prolong the inevitable. But the bailout will prolong the inevitable and maintain SAGE's employees' jobs just long enough for Franken to benefit politically, which is the goal here.
This is an example of corruption that has become far too common these days, and it doesn't take a Ph.D. economist to see why giving money to SAGE is a bad idea and a wasteful use of taxpayer money. The politicians in Washington are literally playing games with our money, and the country's economy is suffering tremendously as a result.
Here's a more complete excerpt of Franken's comments to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, complaining about how long it's taking for SAGE's bailout to be finalized:
SAGE Electrochromics, a company that produces energy efficient windows, was promised federal loan money from the Department of Energy to bolster operating revenues so the company could remain in business. See, SAGE is going to go bankrupt if it doesn't get a bailout. Usually, companies need to provide goods or services the public wants, and make a profit doing so, in order to remain viable. Well, that just isn't acceptable to Franken, who admits:
"While the Department of Energy prolongs closing the deal, time and money are running out for SAGE. There are high-tech manufacturing construction jobs at stake here. It’s been going forward with the project assuming they get this loan guarantee but they’re running out of time and they may have to sell themselves to a French company."
If SAGE can't stay in business via its own merits, then the marketplace is better off if SAGE goes out of business or sells to a French company. By funnelling money to an unprofitable, non-viable company, money is diverted from useful means to wasteful ones. The federal loan money isn't going to do anything about SAGE's business model - it will remain a company destined for failure; the bailout will just prolong the inevitable. But the bailout will prolong the inevitable and maintain SAGE's employees' jobs just long enough for Franken to benefit politically, which is the goal here.
This is an example of corruption that has become far too common these days, and it doesn't take a Ph.D. economist to see why giving money to SAGE is a bad idea and a wasteful use of taxpayer money. The politicians in Washington are literally playing games with our money, and the country's economy is suffering tremendously as a result.
Here's a more complete excerpt of Franken's comments to Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, complaining about how long it's taking for SAGE's bailout to be finalized:
"One such project is from a company in Minnesota called SAGE Electrochromics. I know you are aware of that. Sage has developed energy efficient windows that are cutting edge, better than anything in the world and uses photo-voltaic cells to control the window how dark it gets during the summer to block out UV light and lower air conditioning costs and to let it all in, lower heating costs in the summer. And it’s really…I’ve been there and it’s just an amazing tech. In the Spring of 2010, the DoE promised the company it would receive a $72 million loan guarantee under the 1703 Program to build a new manufacturing facility that would create 160 manufacturing jobs and 200 construction jobs in southern Minnesota. It’s now been two years since SAGE has been notified that it will receive a loan guarantee and the deal has not yet been closed. While the Department of Energy prolongs closing the deal, time and money are running out for SAGE. There are high-tech manufacturing construction jobs at stake here. It’s been going forward with the project assuming they get this loan guarantee but they’re running out of time and they may have to sell themselves to a French company. My first question is that the SAGE loan guarantee was going to be submitted to the credit committee on August 23rd, but it was stopped. Why is the Department of Energy continuing to delay closing and executing the SAGE loan guarantee?"
If it's such an "amazing tech" company, as Franken puts it, then it should have no problem securing financing from private lenders. The problem is, SAGE is a failing company, and it will be a grand waste of OUR money when the bailout checks are finally written to SAGE. It's Solyndra all over again, and there seems to be a never-ending string of Solyndras lining up for handouts orchestrated by corrupt politicians seeking votes the dishonest way.
Extremist Views in the White House
Dalia Mogahed, Obama's adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, holds some pretty extreme Muslim views. Not that you would ever hear about it in the mainstream media. If a similarly anti-Muslim adviser were in the White House, they'd probably cover it every day in the news and there would be congressional hearings on the matter. More of the sickening double standard that has become the norm in this country.
Regarding Syria's leader, Assad, adviser Mogahed said that Assad is not able to deliver stability or resistance to Israel, and is, therefore, only a killer without legitimacy. Under Assad, Syria has a record of consistent hostility towards Israel, and its capital, Damascus, was headquarters for the terrorist organization Hamas and other Islamic extremist jihadist groups. But this hostility towards Israel is not hostile enough for Obama's Muslim adviser - she would like to see a more hostile Syria, and until then, Assad is not legitimate enough for her tastes.
Here's Mogahed's exact Twitter statement from March 10, 2012 (see picture above):
"To those siding w/ Assad: he cannot deliver stability, protection of minorities, or resistance to Israel. He is a killer w/o legitimacy."
I hope you find it as troubling as I do that such an extremist Muslim holds a post in the White House - I'm sure Israel finds it troubling, and it's part of the reason why U.S.-Israel relations are more strained during Obama's administration than at any time in the last 40 years. It's just another reason we need new leadership in the White House.
Regarding Syria's leader, Assad, adviser Mogahed said that Assad is not able to deliver stability or resistance to Israel, and is, therefore, only a killer without legitimacy. Under Assad, Syria has a record of consistent hostility towards Israel, and its capital, Damascus, was headquarters for the terrorist organization Hamas and other Islamic extremist jihadist groups. But this hostility towards Israel is not hostile enough for Obama's Muslim adviser - she would like to see a more hostile Syria, and until then, Assad is not legitimate enough for her tastes.
Here's Mogahed's exact Twitter statement from March 10, 2012 (see picture above):
"To those siding w/ Assad: he cannot deliver stability, protection of minorities, or resistance to Israel. He is a killer w/o legitimacy."
I hope you find it as troubling as I do that such an extremist Muslim holds a post in the White House - I'm sure Israel finds it troubling, and it's part of the reason why U.S.-Israel relations are more strained during Obama's administration than at any time in the last 40 years. It's just another reason we need new leadership in the White House.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Double Standard at the NYT
New York Times, Front Page, September 12, 2001
The New York Times ran a very anti-Christian ad recently that said:
It's Time to Quit the Catholic Church
“Why put up with an institution that won’t put up with women priests, which excludes half of humanity. Why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters? Can’t you see how misplaced your loyalty is after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and coverup going all the way to the top. Apparently, you’re like the battered woman who, after being beaten down every Sunday, feels she has no place else to go.”
Then, they refused to run this ad, submitted by Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com:
It's Time to Quit Islam
“Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims – fully 9/10ths of humanity? Ask your imam: Does he support Hamas? Hizb’Allah? The destruction of Israel? Does he condemn the slaughter of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, etc. Does he vocally denounce Islamic killings, FGM, forced marriages, child marriage, polygamy? As a ‘moderate” Muslim you tell yourself and the world that you have chucked out the violent doctrine and hateful, oppressive decrees of your religion, and yet you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims."
I won't even include the NYT's BS reason for accepting one but not the other since it's obvious they are adhering to a double standard wherein it's OK to criticize Christianity, but Islam is off limits.
Read more here:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/new-york-times-protects-islam-from-criticism/?cat_orig=us
Anti-Speech Zones
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." - First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Congress just passed a law making it a felony to protest anywhere the secret service is present. This means anywhere the president is present, anywhere the vice president is present, anywhere a former president is present, anywhere a leading presidential candidate is present, and anywhere anyone who the president assigns secret service protection to is present. As a felony, this law is punishable by more than a year in prison. So the President can basically shut down protests anywhere a politician is speaking by assigning secret service to the politician. So next time Biden, Reid, or Pelosi visits a locale to tout the virtues of Obamacare, the President can simply assign secret service to the individual and protests at that locale will be punishable by more than a year in prison. This is outrageous!
For over 220 years, Americans have been able to exercise their freedoms of speech, association, and assembly in protesting the actions of the government. It's a uniquely American right that is significantly curbed by this new law.
The most disappointing aspect of this whole conspiracy (yes, it's a conspiracy, involving hundreds of members of Congress and the President to curb our constitutional rights!) is that it received widespread bipartisan support.
But nary a peep from the media. I would have thought the media, whose job it is to give the first amendment a workout, would at least be mentioning this blatant violation of the Constitution.
Read more:
http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/
Congress just passed a law making it a felony to protest anywhere the secret service is present. This means anywhere the president is present, anywhere the vice president is present, anywhere a former president is present, anywhere a leading presidential candidate is present, and anywhere anyone who the president assigns secret service protection to is present. As a felony, this law is punishable by more than a year in prison. So the President can basically shut down protests anywhere a politician is speaking by assigning secret service to the politician. So next time Biden, Reid, or Pelosi visits a locale to tout the virtues of Obamacare, the President can simply assign secret service to the individual and protests at that locale will be punishable by more than a year in prison. This is outrageous!
For over 220 years, Americans have been able to exercise their freedoms of speech, association, and assembly in protesting the actions of the government. It's a uniquely American right that is significantly curbed by this new law.
The most disappointing aspect of this whole conspiracy (yes, it's a conspiracy, involving hundreds of members of Congress and the President to curb our constitutional rights!) is that it received widespread bipartisan support.
But nary a peep from the media. I would have thought the media, whose job it is to give the first amendment a workout, would at least be mentioning this blatant violation of the Constitution.
Read more:
http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Your Papers Are Not In Order!
The Obama administration, through Attorney General Eric Holder, is suing the state of Texas for doing what over 20 other states have already done: enacting a law requiring everyone to show a photo ID in order to vote.
Holder, Obama, and the rest of the progressives keep pretending this is about voter rights, and that forcing people to present a photo ID is a type of voter intimidation that should not be allowed to stand. Keep in mind, this is the same Attorney General that spoke up in support of Obama's murder of an American citizen because Obama, absent any constitutional due process, review by any court of law, or investigation by an agency outside the White House, decided by himself that the individual posed a threat to the U.S. such that summarily killing him was necessary and appropriate. And this is the same administration, again via AG Holder, who refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation when they stood outside a polling place dressed in militant gear and wielding clubs. I'm pretty sure dressing up in all black and wielding a club outside a polling place is more intimidating to voters than asking them for a photo ID at the door. And if our government can kill Americans without due process, the surely a state can require the showing of a photo ID in order to vote.
The real reason they are fighting this, and doing so only in Texas, is to help shore up the Hispanic vote. It's the same reason they sued Arizona over their illegal immigration legislation that merely mirrored the federal law which the Obama administration still has not gotten around to enforcing. Texas has a large Hispanic population, and this is one of the voting blocks that Obama hasn't entirely won over; one that he feels he can win over with a little effort. Obama and Holder know that many of the Hispanics in Texas don't currently have a driver's license or state-issued photo ID. So, requiring them to have a photo ID before voting means that many of them will not vote. By standing up for the Hispanics in Texas who don't have a photo ID, by telling them that their state is violating their rights, and by telling them that they should be able to vote without expending any effort obtaining a photo ID, Obama and Holder are hoping to improve their popularity among that minority group.
It's not a bad strategy politically, although, like most other initiatives they undertake, they won't just be honest about why they are suing Texas. They have to put forth these phony reasons and pretend they are merely fighting for the rights of the little man when, in reality, they are simply engaging in outright political gamesmanship in an effort to boost their numbers among the large Hispanic population in Texas.
First of all, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from requiring a photo ID in order to vote. It's not so unduly burdensome that it effectively prevents people from asserting their constitutional right to vote. It may cost $10 or $15 to get an ID, and it requires people to go to a DMV or other state agency office to have their picture taken and provide basic background data like address, phone number, height, and eye color. Second, requiring a photo ID actually enhances the voting system - it makes it harder to fraudulently vote by adding an additional step for poll workers to confirm that the person voting is who he says he is.
The progressives are saying that voter fraud is not a problem, so no additional confirmation step is necessary. A quick Google search of "voter fraud" reveals that, while perhaps not at Iranian levels, voter fraud does exist across this country. Common sense dictates that requiring a photo ID will cut down on this fraud. How soon they forget their own arguments about voter fraud following GW Bush's win over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. I guess we are to believe that all voter fraud has been eliminated since that election ages ago.
There's really no downside to the photo ID requirement, except for those too lazy or disinterested to go and get the ID, and perhaps for those in the democratic party who wish they didn't have to actually win over the Hispanic vote on the merits of their own beliefs. They are more interested these days in cleverly stealing votes than actually obtaining them through honest means.
We show our photo ID's all the time, and it presents no great barrier to us in obtaining various goods and services. The list above provides a litany of everyday things that require a photo ID - at this point in our nation's history, a photo ID is pretty much an indispensable item that just about everyone has and anyone can easily get.
Obama can kill American citizens on a whim without casting a single glance at the Constitution. But try and make someone show their driver's license when they vote and all hell breaks loose in the Attorney General's office as they scramble to address this great injustice. The progressives are so full of bull on this that I'm surprised anyone actually buys what they are selling. Unfortunately, you don't need to have a photo ID to buy that load of horsepuckey!
Holder, Obama, and the rest of the progressives keep pretending this is about voter rights, and that forcing people to present a photo ID is a type of voter intimidation that should not be allowed to stand. Keep in mind, this is the same Attorney General that spoke up in support of Obama's murder of an American citizen because Obama, absent any constitutional due process, review by any court of law, or investigation by an agency outside the White House, decided by himself that the individual posed a threat to the U.S. such that summarily killing him was necessary and appropriate. And this is the same administration, again via AG Holder, who refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation when they stood outside a polling place dressed in militant gear and wielding clubs. I'm pretty sure dressing up in all black and wielding a club outside a polling place is more intimidating to voters than asking them for a photo ID at the door. And if our government can kill Americans without due process, the surely a state can require the showing of a photo ID in order to vote.
The real reason they are fighting this, and doing so only in Texas, is to help shore up the Hispanic vote. It's the same reason they sued Arizona over their illegal immigration legislation that merely mirrored the federal law which the Obama administration still has not gotten around to enforcing. Texas has a large Hispanic population, and this is one of the voting blocks that Obama hasn't entirely won over; one that he feels he can win over with a little effort. Obama and Holder know that many of the Hispanics in Texas don't currently have a driver's license or state-issued photo ID. So, requiring them to have a photo ID before voting means that many of them will not vote. By standing up for the Hispanics in Texas who don't have a photo ID, by telling them that their state is violating their rights, and by telling them that they should be able to vote without expending any effort obtaining a photo ID, Obama and Holder are hoping to improve their popularity among that minority group.
It's not a bad strategy politically, although, like most other initiatives they undertake, they won't just be honest about why they are suing Texas. They have to put forth these phony reasons and pretend they are merely fighting for the rights of the little man when, in reality, they are simply engaging in outright political gamesmanship in an effort to boost their numbers among the large Hispanic population in Texas.
First of all, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from requiring a photo ID in order to vote. It's not so unduly burdensome that it effectively prevents people from asserting their constitutional right to vote. It may cost $10 or $15 to get an ID, and it requires people to go to a DMV or other state agency office to have their picture taken and provide basic background data like address, phone number, height, and eye color. Second, requiring a photo ID actually enhances the voting system - it makes it harder to fraudulently vote by adding an additional step for poll workers to confirm that the person voting is who he says he is.
The progressives are saying that voter fraud is not a problem, so no additional confirmation step is necessary. A quick Google search of "voter fraud" reveals that, while perhaps not at Iranian levels, voter fraud does exist across this country. Common sense dictates that requiring a photo ID will cut down on this fraud. How soon they forget their own arguments about voter fraud following GW Bush's win over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. I guess we are to believe that all voter fraud has been eliminated since that election ages ago.
There's really no downside to the photo ID requirement, except for those too lazy or disinterested to go and get the ID, and perhaps for those in the democratic party who wish they didn't have to actually win over the Hispanic vote on the merits of their own beliefs. They are more interested these days in cleverly stealing votes than actually obtaining them through honest means.
We show our photo ID's all the time, and it presents no great barrier to us in obtaining various goods and services. The list above provides a litany of everyday things that require a photo ID - at this point in our nation's history, a photo ID is pretty much an indispensable item that just about everyone has and anyone can easily get.
Obama can kill American citizens on a whim without casting a single glance at the Constitution. But try and make someone show their driver's license when they vote and all hell breaks loose in the Attorney General's office as they scramble to address this great injustice. The progressives are so full of bull on this that I'm surprised anyone actually buys what they are selling. Unfortunately, you don't need to have a photo ID to buy that load of horsepuckey!
Keystone Pipeline Still Dead
Obama has been doing a lot of campaigning over the last 1-2 years, visiting key election battleground states repeatedly while touting his job-creation agenda to the unemployment-ridden masses (as an aside, keep in mind that the taxpayers cover all the costs associated with the President's jet-setting around the nation on the campaign trail). But when presented with an obvious job creation project like the Keystone Pipeline, the President's job-creation agenda seems to fade away, and his big-government, anti-free market, socialist-leaning tendencies storm to the forefront.
Aside from potentially improving our energy security, the construction and maintenance of the pipeline, which would run from Canada to America's Gulf Coast, would create thousands of jobs here in the U.S. It's a very simple, straightforward, and obvious example of something that creates jobs. One can argue that various tax policies, health care reforms, etc., create jobs, but those are usually complex initiatives not given to clear, concise job-creation analysis. Not so with the Keystone Pipeline - it's a project that, without question, would create jobs.
In addition, it would provide the U.S. with a great supply of oil from our neighbor to the north, decreasing our reliance on oil from the middle east, a region which is constantly rife with unpredictability, instability, and antagonism towards America. There are too many uncertainties in the middle east for us to rely solely on that region for our oil needs.
So why does President Obama continue to shut the Keystone Pipeline project down? No one knows for sure what's in his head, but I suspect he's willing to sacrifice all those jobs because of his green energy agenda. In fact, the President makes takes a lot of stances that are not in the best interests of American citizens when it comes to his green energy agenda. He recently stated that he hopes gas prices would rise to the level they are in Europe, which would mean $7-$8 per gallon gas here in the U.S. (Obama's appointed Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, also stated recently that he hopes for higher gas prices - days later, he now says his position has changed and he hopes for lower prices to ease the pressure on American's wallets) When questioned about it, the President backtracked a little, implying that a sitting president wouldn't hope for higher gas prices in an election year. While I don't believe him, even that answer is telling - his view on gas prices is dictated by what's good for his re-election campaign, not by what's good for the American people. I believe the President wants higher gas prices so that alternative energy becomes a more attractive option in the marketplace - he's willing to sacrifice the well-being of Americans if it furthers his green energy agenda.
The bottom line is that the Keystone Pipeline will create thousands of jobs for Americans, and it will have at least some positive effect on our energy security. But it's not in line with the goal of widespread green energy now, so Obama is willing to act to the detriment of America's citizens and refuse to allow the pipeline to be built.
Look, I'm all for green energy and alternative fuel sources, but they won't predominate in the marketplace until they can be produced and marketed on a cost basis that is competitive with fossil fuels. We simply aren't there yet. We'll get there, but in the meantime, we need jobs and gas price relief now, and the Keystone Pipeline is one item that will surely help. And I've yet to hear anyone articulate a downside to the Keystone Pipeline.
There are many Americans out there right now who don't have a job, and if our President would act in our best interests, some of those Americans would soon be going to work building the Keystone Pipeline. For their sake and all of ours, I just hope we won't have to wait another 4 years to see projects like this get the green light (pun intended).
Projected Path of the Keystone Pipeline
Aside from potentially improving our energy security, the construction and maintenance of the pipeline, which would run from Canada to America's Gulf Coast, would create thousands of jobs here in the U.S. It's a very simple, straightforward, and obvious example of something that creates jobs. One can argue that various tax policies, health care reforms, etc., create jobs, but those are usually complex initiatives not given to clear, concise job-creation analysis. Not so with the Keystone Pipeline - it's a project that, without question, would create jobs.
In addition, it would provide the U.S. with a great supply of oil from our neighbor to the north, decreasing our reliance on oil from the middle east, a region which is constantly rife with unpredictability, instability, and antagonism towards America. There are too many uncertainties in the middle east for us to rely solely on that region for our oil needs.
So why does President Obama continue to shut the Keystone Pipeline project down? No one knows for sure what's in his head, but I suspect he's willing to sacrifice all those jobs because of his green energy agenda. In fact, the President makes takes a lot of stances that are not in the best interests of American citizens when it comes to his green energy agenda. He recently stated that he hopes gas prices would rise to the level they are in Europe, which would mean $7-$8 per gallon gas here in the U.S. (Obama's appointed Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, also stated recently that he hopes for higher gas prices - days later, he now says his position has changed and he hopes for lower prices to ease the pressure on American's wallets) When questioned about it, the President backtracked a little, implying that a sitting president wouldn't hope for higher gas prices in an election year. While I don't believe him, even that answer is telling - his view on gas prices is dictated by what's good for his re-election campaign, not by what's good for the American people. I believe the President wants higher gas prices so that alternative energy becomes a more attractive option in the marketplace - he's willing to sacrifice the well-being of Americans if it furthers his green energy agenda.
The bottom line is that the Keystone Pipeline will create thousands of jobs for Americans, and it will have at least some positive effect on our energy security. But it's not in line with the goal of widespread green energy now, so Obama is willing to act to the detriment of America's citizens and refuse to allow the pipeline to be built.
Look, I'm all for green energy and alternative fuel sources, but they won't predominate in the marketplace until they can be produced and marketed on a cost basis that is competitive with fossil fuels. We simply aren't there yet. We'll get there, but in the meantime, we need jobs and gas price relief now, and the Keystone Pipeline is one item that will surely help. And I've yet to hear anyone articulate a downside to the Keystone Pipeline.
There are many Americans out there right now who don't have a job, and if our President would act in our best interests, some of those Americans would soon be going to work building the Keystone Pipeline. For their sake and all of ours, I just hope we won't have to wait another 4 years to see projects like this get the green light (pun intended).
Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood
Remember the uprising in Egypt? The people of Egypt had finally had enough, and a bottom-up revolution by the people resulted in the ouster of it's dictator, Hosni Mubarak. Our government, as usual, wasn't inclined to mind its own business, so we took an active role in helping reshape Egypt and assisting the revolutionaries.
I said at the time it was a bad idea for two reasons:
(1) It's none of our business - unless a foreign situation involves a threat to our national security or an attack against the United States, we have no business getting involved, regardless of how pure and well-intentioned our motives are. There are human rights violations across the entire globe, but it's not our duty or right to interfere in any of them absent a connection to our national security. Is the new rule that the U.S. should get involved whenever there are injustices being committed somewhere in the world? If so, we'll face a never-ending, absurdly expensive, and unpredictable foreign do-good campaign. Evil will never be eliminated from the earth, so if we're inclined to fight it on behalf of non-Americans whenever it rears its ugly head, we won't have time to do anything else but run around the globe interfering in other countries' affairs. Egypt presented no threat to our national security, and it had not attacked us. Our involvement was solely designed to help the Egyptian people wrest control of their nation from a ruthless dictator. But Mubarak was in power for decades, and it wasn't until recently that we got all excited about the notion of deposing him.
(2) If and when Mubarak was ousted, it would leave a power vacuum and subsequent fight among a myriad of political factions across Egypt, most of which were disorganized and ill-equipped to step in and take over. There was (is) one political group in Egypt, however, that was fairly organized, and it was apparent to me that once Mubarak was removed from power, this group had the best chance of taking over. That group was the Muslim Brotherhood, an islamic extremist group more interested in sharia law and destruction of the West than fostering equal rights and democracy in Egypt. We didn't face a national security threat from Egypt under Mubarak, but we very may well under the Muslim Brotherhood's rule, as they support terrorists and islamic extremists hell bent on defeating the infidels through jihad. Democracy is not a one-size-fits-all solution to every nation's problems - many nations have thousands of years of culture, values, and religion that don't allow for proper democracy to be practiced. Muslim nations in particular fall into this group, and I feared that once Egypt fell under the Muslim Brotherhood's rule, democracy would never take hold and we'd have assisted in creating yet another Muslim nation that hates us.
Well, Mubarak is long gone, a new Egyptian constitution has been written, and democratic elections have been held. It's no surprise to me that the Muslim Brotherhood now holds a majority of political positions of power in the new Egypt. We have helped create this calamity, and going forward we will now have to deal with Egypt as an antagonistic islamic extremist nation as the Muslim Brotherhood continues to gain more power, rather than as a non-threatening, neutral islamic nation like it was under Mubarak.
The lesson to be learned is, if it's not broken don't fix it. And by "not broken" I mean "presents no threat to the U.S., and is not treating the U.S. as an enemy." Egypt wasn't broken before (it was, perhaps, for Egyptian citizens wanting freedom, but not from a U.S. national security perspective), but thanks to our zealous interference in the revolution and Mubarak's downfall, it is now.
Read about the Muslim Brotherhood's consolidation of power in the new Egypt:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/muslim-brotherhoods-political-party-consolidates-power-in-parliament/2012/02/28/gIQA70sMgR_story.html?wprss=rss_middle-east
Read about the Muslim Brotherhood generally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood
Flag of Egypt
I said at the time it was a bad idea for two reasons:
(1) It's none of our business - unless a foreign situation involves a threat to our national security or an attack against the United States, we have no business getting involved, regardless of how pure and well-intentioned our motives are. There are human rights violations across the entire globe, but it's not our duty or right to interfere in any of them absent a connection to our national security. Is the new rule that the U.S. should get involved whenever there are injustices being committed somewhere in the world? If so, we'll face a never-ending, absurdly expensive, and unpredictable foreign do-good campaign. Evil will never be eliminated from the earth, so if we're inclined to fight it on behalf of non-Americans whenever it rears its ugly head, we won't have time to do anything else but run around the globe interfering in other countries' affairs. Egypt presented no threat to our national security, and it had not attacked us. Our involvement was solely designed to help the Egyptian people wrest control of their nation from a ruthless dictator. But Mubarak was in power for decades, and it wasn't until recently that we got all excited about the notion of deposing him.
(2) If and when Mubarak was ousted, it would leave a power vacuum and subsequent fight among a myriad of political factions across Egypt, most of which were disorganized and ill-equipped to step in and take over. There was (is) one political group in Egypt, however, that was fairly organized, and it was apparent to me that once Mubarak was removed from power, this group had the best chance of taking over. That group was the Muslim Brotherhood, an islamic extremist group more interested in sharia law and destruction of the West than fostering equal rights and democracy in Egypt. We didn't face a national security threat from Egypt under Mubarak, but we very may well under the Muslim Brotherhood's rule, as they support terrorists and islamic extremists hell bent on defeating the infidels through jihad. Democracy is not a one-size-fits-all solution to every nation's problems - many nations have thousands of years of culture, values, and religion that don't allow for proper democracy to be practiced. Muslim nations in particular fall into this group, and I feared that once Egypt fell under the Muslim Brotherhood's rule, democracy would never take hold and we'd have assisted in creating yet another Muslim nation that hates us.
Well, Mubarak is long gone, a new Egyptian constitution has been written, and democratic elections have been held. It's no surprise to me that the Muslim Brotherhood now holds a majority of political positions of power in the new Egypt. We have helped create this calamity, and going forward we will now have to deal with Egypt as an antagonistic islamic extremist nation as the Muslim Brotherhood continues to gain more power, rather than as a non-threatening, neutral islamic nation like it was under Mubarak.
The lesson to be learned is, if it's not broken don't fix it. And by "not broken" I mean "presents no threat to the U.S., and is not treating the U.S. as an enemy." Egypt wasn't broken before (it was, perhaps, for Egyptian citizens wanting freedom, but not from a U.S. national security perspective), but thanks to our zealous interference in the revolution and Mubarak's downfall, it is now.
Read about the Muslim Brotherhood's consolidation of power in the new Egypt:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/muslim-brotherhoods-political-party-consolidates-power-in-parliament/2012/02/28/gIQA70sMgR_story.html?wprss=rss_middle-east
Read about the Muslim Brotherhood generally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_brotherhood
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
WV Creates New Black Market
West Virginia's legislature just passed a law creating a black market for cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine (PE). Well, that's not what they are calling it (I just coined "PE" as the official street name for the substance!), and they don't realize they have created a black market, but in their vigilance in the war on drugs, the WV legislature has just made its problem worse, not better.
Under the new law, there is a limit on the number of such cold medicine units any one person may buy within a one-year period. Basically, they have limited the amount a person can buy to an amount far less than what is required to create the dangerous and addictive drug methamphetamine, known on the street as glass, crank, or simply meth. Before, someone running a clandestine meth lab could purchase as much of the cold medicines as they needed, and they would purchase a lot, because it takes a great number of cold medicine units to compile the requisite amount of PE for making meth. There was no black market for the PE because anyone could just buy as much of it as they wanted legally at any grocery or convenient store, and it's relatively cheap, as far as illicit drugs and drug ingredients go - a few bucks per unit.
Now, however, meth lab operators will not be able to simply purchase what they need over the counter for a few bucks per unit. I hope our legislators aren't so naive as to think that the lab operators will simply close up shop! No - what they'll do is turn to others to help them compile the amount of PE they need. Instead of purchasing it legally, the drug makers will purchase it illegally through others. This will undoubtedly increase the overall number of people purchasing PE, and the people playing middle-man, buying it for others, won't do so for free. Instead of paying what the store charges, the drug makers will have to pay a little (or a lot) extra in order to get others to buy it for them. This will make purchasing PE for others a venture that results in a profit, however small it may be. Where there's profit, there's greed and competition, and where the product involved is illegal, people will need to take matters into their own hands to settle business disputes - they can't simply call the police if someone steals their drug money or backs out on a PE deal. And the price per unit of the meth will increase because the makers will have to pay more for the key ingredient.
So, in their infinite wisdom, our fearless leaders have created a black market for PE where none existed before, bringing with it the inevitable violence, theft, increased prices of drugs and drug ingredients, and crime that goes along with any black market industry, especially drugs.
I can't even say that I hope I'm wrong because I know I'm not. It's prohibition and economics 101. I just wonder how much it will cost me as a taxpayer to help fund the administration of this new government-created black market in PE. I'm sure there will be entire new task forces devoted to clamping down on the problem they just created. New weapons, new vehicles, new training, new uniforms, new agencies, new heads of new agencies, new consultants for new agencies, new equipment for new agencies and new task forces, etc. And it's just a matter of time before citizens who are otherwise law-abiding are ruined for venturing into the new PE middle-man business. I wonder, per year, how many new warrants will be issued, how many more residential doors will be kicked in, and how many more non-violent people will be occupying jail cells around the state.
Sometimes I think Inspector Clousseau is running things in Charleston.
Article from MetroNews:
http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=51552
Under the new law, there is a limit on the number of such cold medicine units any one person may buy within a one-year period. Basically, they have limited the amount a person can buy to an amount far less than what is required to create the dangerous and addictive drug methamphetamine, known on the street as glass, crank, or simply meth. Before, someone running a clandestine meth lab could purchase as much of the cold medicines as they needed, and they would purchase a lot, because it takes a great number of cold medicine units to compile the requisite amount of PE for making meth. There was no black market for the PE because anyone could just buy as much of it as they wanted legally at any grocery or convenient store, and it's relatively cheap, as far as illicit drugs and drug ingredients go - a few bucks per unit.
Now, however, meth lab operators will not be able to simply purchase what they need over the counter for a few bucks per unit. I hope our legislators aren't so naive as to think that the lab operators will simply close up shop! No - what they'll do is turn to others to help them compile the amount of PE they need. Instead of purchasing it legally, the drug makers will purchase it illegally through others. This will undoubtedly increase the overall number of people purchasing PE, and the people playing middle-man, buying it for others, won't do so for free. Instead of paying what the store charges, the drug makers will have to pay a little (or a lot) extra in order to get others to buy it for them. This will make purchasing PE for others a venture that results in a profit, however small it may be. Where there's profit, there's greed and competition, and where the product involved is illegal, people will need to take matters into their own hands to settle business disputes - they can't simply call the police if someone steals their drug money or backs out on a PE deal. And the price per unit of the meth will increase because the makers will have to pay more for the key ingredient.
So, in their infinite wisdom, our fearless leaders have created a black market for PE where none existed before, bringing with it the inevitable violence, theft, increased prices of drugs and drug ingredients, and crime that goes along with any black market industry, especially drugs.
I can't even say that I hope I'm wrong because I know I'm not. It's prohibition and economics 101. I just wonder how much it will cost me as a taxpayer to help fund the administration of this new government-created black market in PE. I'm sure there will be entire new task forces devoted to clamping down on the problem they just created. New weapons, new vehicles, new training, new uniforms, new agencies, new heads of new agencies, new consultants for new agencies, new equipment for new agencies and new task forces, etc. And it's just a matter of time before citizens who are otherwise law-abiding are ruined for venturing into the new PE middle-man business. I wonder, per year, how many new warrants will be issued, how many more residential doors will be kicked in, and how many more non-violent people will be occupying jail cells around the state.
Sometimes I think Inspector Clousseau is running things in Charleston.
Article from MetroNews:
http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=51552
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
GCB v. GMB
There's a new show on ABC called Good Christian Bitches. Newt Gingrich made an excellent point the other day when he asked, rhetorically, "Take out the word 'Christian' in the title and replace it with 'Muslim' and ask yourself, 'Would any network air that show?' The answer is: not-a-one!"
He's right on the money! There is no way in hell that any network would air a show called Good Muslim Bitches, and if any did, I can't imagine the maelstrom of abuse they would receive from all sorts of people and organizations. It would be the top news story on every channel; there would be a major boycott initiative underway immediately, with companies joining the boycott list faster than you could read them off; and people would be getting fired as the airing network execs tried to come up with an acceptable scapegoat to get at least part of their image back in good standing.
But it's en vogue these days to criticize Christians and their beliefs. Tim Tebow received more criticism than Good Christian Bitches has, and all he did was pray silently for a few seconds after scoring touchdowns. There is a war on Christianity going on in this country and people need to take notice, stand up, and push back!
The hypocrisy in this country is disgusting, and the double standard from the left is unbearably dishonest.
This country was founded by Christians on Christian principles. Christians have good values - if everyone in the nation were a Christian, we'd be as close to total peace, cooperation, and prosperity as is possible to achieve. We should be embracing Christians, not mocking, degrading, and demonizing them. Meanwhile, the whole lot of terrorists we are fighting are Muslim, and if you so much as breathe wrong in a Muslim's direction in this country, you are outcast as a racist islamophobe.
As an objective, non-Christian observer, I call it like I see it. Sometimes this country makes me sick!
He's right on the money! There is no way in hell that any network would air a show called Good Muslim Bitches, and if any did, I can't imagine the maelstrom of abuse they would receive from all sorts of people and organizations. It would be the top news story on every channel; there would be a major boycott initiative underway immediately, with companies joining the boycott list faster than you could read them off; and people would be getting fired as the airing network execs tried to come up with an acceptable scapegoat to get at least part of their image back in good standing.
But it's en vogue these days to criticize Christians and their beliefs. Tim Tebow received more criticism than Good Christian Bitches has, and all he did was pray silently for a few seconds after scoring touchdowns. There is a war on Christianity going on in this country and people need to take notice, stand up, and push back!
The hypocrisy in this country is disgusting, and the double standard from the left is unbearably dishonest.
This country was founded by Christians on Christian principles. Christians have good values - if everyone in the nation were a Christian, we'd be as close to total peace, cooperation, and prosperity as is possible to achieve. We should be embracing Christians, not mocking, degrading, and demonizing them. Meanwhile, the whole lot of terrorists we are fighting are Muslim, and if you so much as breathe wrong in a Muslim's direction in this country, you are outcast as a racist islamophobe.
As an objective, non-Christian observer, I call it like I see it. Sometimes this country makes me sick!
Update on Alamo Heights vs. Edison
In my March 7, 2012, post about white Alamo High School students chanting "USA! USA!" after their basketball win over predominantly Hispanic Edison High School, I questioned the motive of the Alamo students. It appeared they were using Edison as a symbol of illegal immigration (even though its students are valid U.S. citizens) and chanting "USA!" as an ethnocentric insult.
However, it appears that throughout the game, prior to the Alamo students' chant, the Edison students were yelling "Alamo whites!" at the Alamo students. So perhaps the Alamo students' chant was in response to Edison's own racial bigotry.
It doesn't make it right, but it provides a valid reason why Alamo would choose to insult their opponent after the game.
Both sides should be reprimanded for this behavior. Both schools are American high schools, and the students on both sides should be proud of being American. That both schools were insulting the race or ethnicity of their opponent is disappointing, although not surprising based on how contentious the illegal immigration debate has become in recent years.
Draw your own conclusions.
Edison High School Mascot, the Golden Bear
However, it appears that throughout the game, prior to the Alamo students' chant, the Edison students were yelling "Alamo whites!" at the Alamo students. So perhaps the Alamo students' chant was in response to Edison's own racial bigotry.
It doesn't make it right, but it provides a valid reason why Alamo would choose to insult their opponent after the game.
Both sides should be reprimanded for this behavior. Both schools are American high schools, and the students on both sides should be proud of being American. That both schools were insulting the race or ethnicity of their opponent is disappointing, although not surprising based on how contentious the illegal immigration debate has become in recent years.
Draw your own conclusions.
Small Businesses, or Big Banks?
I would not be exaggerating much if I said that most of the federal government's programs, departments, and agencies do not result in a net positive effect on our nation or economy. Many are actually destructive, negative vehicles through which the government exerts control over various industries, property, or persons, while still others are merely good PR items - that is, they sound like they are really doing good, but in effect are providing virtually no help to anyone.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is one of those government departments that sounds crucial to an economic recovery by helping small businesses compete against larger ones, and putting Americans back to work, fueling the American economy.
In reality, the SBA really only helps big banks become bigger, and richer. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the SBA helps small businesses compete by enabling them to borrow at more attractive terms, such as lowered interest rates, than they would otherwise obtain.
However, only 0.5% (that's 1/2 of 1%) of all companies in the top 15 industries receiving SBA loans qualify as small businesses. Additionally, about 25% of all SBA loans are owned by just 10 private banks, including Wells Fargo (7.3% of all SBA loans), J.P. Morgan Chase, U.S. Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services.
So instead of being a flagship program for helping small businesses, the SBA is, in reality, an engine driving profits for major U.S. banks.
This is just one example of clever nomenclature the federal government employs for programs, departments, and agencies so they sound better than they really are. I mean, is anyone really going to sound like he is trying to help our economy recover if he proposes cutting funding for the Small Business Administration?
You should question every penny the federal government spends. In most cases, notwithstanding how beneficial a particular government venture may sound, you'll be correct in assuming that any given government program, department, or agency provides little to no real benefit to persons and industries in need, or actually has a negative impact on our economy.
Perhaps our government should rename the SBA the Big Bank Profit Enhancement Program.
Sources: CBO, Government Accountability Office, SBA.
Check out why The Cato Institute feels the SBA should be abolished (as you might imagine, I agree with Cato)...
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sba
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is one of those government departments that sounds crucial to an economic recovery by helping small businesses compete against larger ones, and putting Americans back to work, fueling the American economy.
In reality, the SBA really only helps big banks become bigger, and richer. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the SBA helps small businesses compete by enabling them to borrow at more attractive terms, such as lowered interest rates, than they would otherwise obtain.
However, only 0.5% (that's 1/2 of 1%) of all companies in the top 15 industries receiving SBA loans qualify as small businesses. Additionally, about 25% of all SBA loans are owned by just 10 private banks, including Wells Fargo (7.3% of all SBA loans), J.P. Morgan Chase, U.S. Bancorp, and PNC Financial Services.
So instead of being a flagship program for helping small businesses, the SBA is, in reality, an engine driving profits for major U.S. banks.
This is just one example of clever nomenclature the federal government employs for programs, departments, and agencies so they sound better than they really are. I mean, is anyone really going to sound like he is trying to help our economy recover if he proposes cutting funding for the Small Business Administration?
You should question every penny the federal government spends. In most cases, notwithstanding how beneficial a particular government venture may sound, you'll be correct in assuming that any given government program, department, or agency provides little to no real benefit to persons and industries in need, or actually has a negative impact on our economy.
Perhaps our government should rename the SBA the Big Bank Profit Enhancement Program.
Sources: CBO, Government Accountability Office, SBA.
Check out why The Cato Institute feels the SBA should be abolished (as you might imagine, I agree with Cato)...
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sba
Friday, March 9, 2012
Freedom: Before and After
Before: East Germany right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, after almost 50 years of communist rule. It is a country of dilapidation, disrepair, and ruin. This is what communism/socialism does for a nation.
After: The same places now, after 20 years of freedom. Almost unrecognizable.
We are heading in the opposite direction. There is a good comparison you can easily find online of Detroit in the 1950's and Detroit now. It is basically the East Germany before-and-after exercise in reverse.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,720326,00.html
After: The same places now, after 20 years of freedom. Almost unrecognizable.
We are heading in the opposite direction. There is a good comparison you can easily find online of Detroit in the 1950's and Detroit now. It is basically the East Germany before-and-after exercise in reverse.
Markt Strasse, in Erfurt, 1991
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,720326,00.html
Atlas Shrugged
I watched Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 finally. I had been avoiding it, even though I'm a big fan of the book and it's libertarian message.
I read several reviews over a period of weeks and they were all pretty negative. After several attempts of trying to want to see it, I read another review by some random person on the internet - she basically said it's a good movie, but since it doesn't cater to the liberal Hollywood ideology, most reviewers are giving it negative reviews more out of an agenda than a subjective opinion of it as a movie. I realized she's probably right, and that I was putting too much stock in the critical reviews. So I watched it, and it was pretty good. Of course, I agree with the libertarian message, and the movie presents it very persuasively and is true to the book, so perhaps I liked the movie more than a liberal would.
Parts 2 and 3 are scheduled to be made soon, with Part 2 being released right around election time this year. The book is about 1200 pages, so it's no wonder that it takes a trilogy to communicate it via the big screen.
If you haven't read the book, you should. If you don't want to read the book, watch the movie(s). Either way, the message that fairness, competition, and independent accountability and responsibility are the best structure for a successful economy/society is clear and persuasive. That is how this country became the greatest in the world; that is how the Constitution and Declaration of Independence intended this nation to work; and the failure to adhere to those principles is why this nation is failing.
Who is John Galt?
I read several reviews over a period of weeks and they were all pretty negative. After several attempts of trying to want to see it, I read another review by some random person on the internet - she basically said it's a good movie, but since it doesn't cater to the liberal Hollywood ideology, most reviewers are giving it negative reviews more out of an agenda than a subjective opinion of it as a movie. I realized she's probably right, and that I was putting too much stock in the critical reviews. So I watched it, and it was pretty good. Of course, I agree with the libertarian message, and the movie presents it very persuasively and is true to the book, so perhaps I liked the movie more than a liberal would.
Parts 2 and 3 are scheduled to be made soon, with Part 2 being released right around election time this year. The book is about 1200 pages, so it's no wonder that it takes a trilogy to communicate it via the big screen.
If you haven't read the book, you should. If you don't want to read the book, watch the movie(s). Either way, the message that fairness, competition, and independent accountability and responsibility are the best structure for a successful economy/society is clear and persuasive. That is how this country became the greatest in the world; that is how the Constitution and Declaration of Independence intended this nation to work; and the failure to adhere to those principles is why this nation is failing.
Who is John Galt?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Obama's Kill Doctrine
I can't say it any better than Jonathan Turley, so I won't even try. His take, from ForeignPolicy.com:
On Monday, March 5, Northwestern University School of Law was the location of an extraordinary scene for a free nation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama's claim that he has the authority to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat. It served as a retroactive justification for the slaying of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki last September by a drone strike in northeastern Yemen, as well as the targeted killings of at least two other Americans during Obama's term.
What's even more extraordinary is that this claim, which would be viewed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution as the very definition of authoritarian power, was met not with outcry but muted applause. Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama, or his successor, would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar "trust us" approach to civil liberties of this administration.
In his speech, Holder was clear and unambiguous on only one point: "The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war -- even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." The use of the word "abroad" is interesting because senior administration officials have previously asserted that the president may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including within the United States. Holder's speech does not materially limit that claimed authority, but stressed that "our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan." He might as well have stopped at "limited" because the administration has refused to accept any limitations on this claimed inherent power.
Holder became highly cryptic in his assurance that caution would be used in exercising this power -- suggesting some limitation that is both indefinable and unreviewable. He promised that the administration would kill Americans only with "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States." He did not explain how the nation in question would consent or how a determination would be made that it is "unable or unwilling to deal" with the threat.
Of course, the citizens of the United States once consented on a relevant principle when they ratified the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. They consented to a government of limited powers where citizens are entitled to the full protections of due process against allegations by their government. That is clearly not the type of consent that Holder wants to revisit or discuss. Indeed, he insisted that "a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process.'"
Holder's new definition of "due process" was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than "we will give the process that we consider due to a target." And even the vaguely described "due process" claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment -- something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.
What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens -- another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution's individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country -- or his willingness to wait for "justice" to be done. And if Awlaki's fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.
Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki's family tried to challenge Obama's kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself -- a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.
When the applause died down after Holder's speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.
Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.
Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen -- with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.
Original link:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/06/obama_s_kill_doctrine?page=full#.T1dXtEmgxbM.email
On Monday, March 5, Northwestern University School of Law was the location of an extraordinary scene for a free nation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder presented President Barack Obama's claim that he has the authority to kill any U.S. citizen he considers a threat. It served as a retroactive justification for the slaying of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki last September by a drone strike in northeastern Yemen, as well as the targeted killings of at least two other Americans during Obama's term.
What's even more extraordinary is that this claim, which would be viewed by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution as the very definition of authoritarian power, was met not with outcry but muted applause. Where due process once resided, Holder offered only an assurance that the president would kill citizens with care. While that certainly relieved any concern that Obama, or his successor, would hunt citizens for sport, Holder offered no assurances on how this power would be used in the future beyond the now all-too-familiar "trust us" approach to civil liberties of this administration.
In his speech, Holder was clear and unambiguous on only one point: "The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war -- even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen." The use of the word "abroad" is interesting because senior administration officials have previously asserted that the president may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including within the United States. Holder's speech does not materially limit that claimed authority, but stressed that "our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan." He might as well have stopped at "limited" because the administration has refused to accept any limitations on this claimed inherent power.
Holder became highly cryptic in his assurance that caution would be used in exercising this power -- suggesting some limitation that is both indefinable and unreviewable. He promised that the administration would kill Americans only with "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States." He did not explain how the nation in question would consent or how a determination would be made that it is "unable or unwilling to deal" with the threat.
Of course, the citizens of the United States once consented on a relevant principle when they ratified the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. They consented to a government of limited powers where citizens are entitled to the full protections of due process against allegations by their government. That is clearly not the type of consent that Holder wants to revisit or discuss. Indeed, he insisted that "a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process.'"
Holder's new definition of "due process" was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than "we will give the process that we consider due to a target." And even the vaguely described "due process" claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment -- something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.
What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens -- another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution's individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country -- or his willingness to wait for "justice" to be done. And if Awlaki's fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.
Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki's family tried to challenge Obama's kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself -- a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.
When the applause died down after Holder's speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.
Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.
Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen -- with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.
Original link:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/06/obama_s_kill_doctrine?page=full#.T1dXtEmgxbM.email
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
