(1) When Obama took office, our national debt was around $9 trillion.
(2) Today, our national debt is around $15 trillion.
(3) Each year under Obama so far, each annual budget deficit has been larger than the last.
(4) Each year under Obama so far, each annual budget deficit has set a new record high.
Obama already claims to be engaged in spending cuts; he defines this as increasing spending, but not by as much as it could be increased. Sort of like saving $1 with a coupon when you buy a $5 item - you didn't increase your income by $1, you just spent a little less than you would have, but either way, you now have less money. Can we sustain these types of "spending cuts" going forward, and how do we trust him to actually cut spending when his definition of cutting spending is to increase spending!?
Now ask yourself this question: What has Obama done that gives you confidence that the spending spree won't continue unabated like this if he gets another four years in the White House? And ask yourself, "How will a national debt of upwards of $25 trillion affect our country?" Consider that interest payments alone on such a huge tab would eat up a huge portion of all federal revenues, making it that much harder to fix the problem after Americans finally do realize how fast we are speeding toward fiscal collapse. I'll save the whole hyperinflation doomsday government solution to massive debts for another post.
Liberals got all warm and fuzzy inside after last night's State of the Union address by the President, but warm and fuzzy don't solve problems; practicality, responsibility, accountability, and a reasoned approach to our challenges do. One liberal blogger whom I read regularly for entertainment proclaimed after Obama's speech that "We don't deserve him. We really don't." What is he, a god now or something to these people? See, that's the mindset of the liberals who support him - they get emotional and have faith, like it's a family member they are defending against evildoers. He's merely a politician who wants to turn our country into the next (failed) socialist experiment, which is blatantly obvious to see if you're not blinded by emotion and faith. Emotion and faith have no place in this arena where hard decisions need to be made and a nation stands in dire straits, in need of strong, principled leadership to lead us out of these darkening times.
So when you go to the polls in November, ask yourself if warm and fuzzy is worth $25 trillion in debt, or if you'd prefer to merely fulfill your civic duty and help put in place a principled leader who will make tough decisions and not apologize for them. I can get warm and fuzzy from friends and family - from my leaders, I require strong decision-making, a responsible approach to governing, and respect and adherence for both the oath they will take and the Constitution that oath requires them to uphold and defend.
Obama is a good speaker. It's time to move on to a good leader.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Eternal Vigilance
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." - George Washington
I think this quote partners nicely with the story of the frog placed in a pot of water while the temperature of the water is increased slowly over time. The frog doesn't recognize the incremental change in temperature, and as the saying goes, the frog will boil to death as the temperature eventually reaches the boiling point.
Every day, our government passes new laws, and each law curbs our freedoms in one way or another, some justifiably and some not. However, they rarely repeal any of these laws, so that each day we have fewer and fewer freedoms. At some point, like the frog in the pot, we will have boiled to death following a long and caluclated assault by the government against our liberty.
Each small, insignificant chipping away of our freedoms adds up over time, making it necessary and very worthwhile to resist this assault each step of the way.
This is why I think laws like the one prohibiting the sale of incandescent lightbulbs are so insidious. In isolation, it's merely a minor inconvenience, but in the grand scheme of things, it's another brick in the wall of our jail cell.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
I think this quote partners nicely with the story of the frog placed in a pot of water while the temperature of the water is increased slowly over time. The frog doesn't recognize the incremental change in temperature, and as the saying goes, the frog will boil to death as the temperature eventually reaches the boiling point.
Every day, our government passes new laws, and each law curbs our freedoms in one way or another, some justifiably and some not. However, they rarely repeal any of these laws, so that each day we have fewer and fewer freedoms. At some point, like the frog in the pot, we will have boiled to death following a long and caluclated assault by the government against our liberty.
Each small, insignificant chipping away of our freedoms adds up over time, making it necessary and very worthwhile to resist this assault each step of the way.
This is why I think laws like the one prohibiting the sale of incandescent lightbulbs are so insidious. In isolation, it's merely a minor inconvenience, but in the grand scheme of things, it's another brick in the wall of our jail cell.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance
Friday, January 20, 2012
Aid to Terrorists
I continue to be outraged by the total lack of media coverage about the aid we supply to the Gaza Strip. In 2011, the United States gave $100 million in aid to Gaza. That is $100 million more than we should be giving to those people. Keep in mind this money is all coming from American taxpayers, citizens who get up every day and go to work, only to have their hard-earned money taken away from them by our government and given to a region run by one of the worst terrorist organizations in the world.
In 2007, Hamas, one of the best-known and most violent terrorist organizations in the world, seized control of the Gaza Strip, following Israel's withdrawal from the area and handing over of it to the Palestinians. There is always constant pressure on Israel to give away more and more of its nation to the Palestinians with promises and that giving away territory to these anit-semitic muslims will lead to peace between them and the Palestinians. So, with pressure from many countries, the United Nations, and even from the United States, which is supposed to be Israel's staunchest ally, Israel gave away the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians. Gaza was promptly taken over through force by Hamas. Since 2007, Hamas has ruled Gaza with an iron fist, leading to humanitarian problems of the highest degree for its muslim population. Hamas withholds food and resources from the people and takes advantage of and extorts their own people in order to maintain control over the area. Their ultimate goal is to maintain control over a region that is right next door to their sworn enemy, providing a perfect launching pad for attacks against Israel.
The humanitarian problems in Gaza have garnered global attention, and the United States, sucker that it is, has consistently provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the region, while at the same time taking no action to return control of the region to non-Hamas, non-terrorist Palestinians to whom the region was originally given to. Now, I'm not saying the U.S. should intervene militarily to wrest control of Gaza away from Hamas, but we ought to at least cease all aid to the region until Hamas relinquishes control.
Now, when is the last time you heard even a blurb from the liberal media about the $$$ we give to Gaza? Even Fox News, the sole conservative voice on the TV airwaves, rarely mentions anything about this distressing situation.
Regardless of whether Hamas controls of Gaza, we ought not to provide a single penny of aid to the region. For one thing, there are thousands of regions around the world with humanitarian needs, so if we are to give aid to anyone, Gaza should be very low on the list. Secondly, even without Hamas at the helm, the region is a hotspot of anti-semitism and a source of daily rocket attacks against Israel.
Not enough Americans realize the depth of hatred the Palestinians and muslims in the middle east have for Israel. For thousands of years, muslims have been dedicated to killing jews and plotting to take over the entire area from the jews. The reasons are set out very clearly in the Koran, Islam's bible. One of the primary goals of muslims is the elimination of jews from the face of the earth and return of the holy land to the Palestinians. The center of this holy land is Jerusalem, Israel. There is no negotiating with the muslims either. They will not cease their violence against the jews until they have run them out of the area completely or killed them all, taking over all of what is currently the sovereign nation of Israel.
Every attempt at peace by Israel, usually with pressure by everyone, including the U.S., has been met with continued violence against Israel by the muslims. The Palestinians aren't interested in peacefully living side by side with jews, and they use the global pressure for peace and overtures by Israel simply as minor victories in their war against the jews. There can be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because the hatred Palestinians harbor for the jews is deeply embedded in the fabric of their culture and beliefs. Only conversion by the Palestinians from Islam to another religion entirely would foster an atmosphere conducive to peace, and that's not likely to happen....ever.
So with that in mind, the emphasis for Israel should be a constant state of readiness to defend its homeland from attacks by Palestinians and other muslims. And the U.S. ought to support Israel in this position rather than sucking up to the corrupt, anti-semitic U.N. and pressuring Israel to continuously make more and more useless concessions to the Palestinians. Let's leave it up to Israel to determine what is best for their national security, and then support whatever decision(s) they make.
One of the more significant concessions that Israel has made toward peace with their enemies recently was the giving away of Gaza to the Palestinians. As usual, this concession did nothing to foster peace, but only provided Israel's enemies with more adjacent territory from which to launch attacks against them. After Hamas immediately took over Gaza, rendering this concession by Israel nothing more than surrender of territory to an enemy for nothing in return, Israel has blockaded ships from entering Gaza without first being searched to ensure that weapons were not being brought in to Gaza for use in their war against Israel. This action by Israel is simply a rational national security measure taken to prevent Hamas from attacking them from their newly acquired territory. But the global community, particularly the U.N., has been blatant in its anti-semitism in calling for Israel to stop patrolling the waters off the coast of Gaza and to let anything and everything into Gaza without inspection or prohibition.
What we have now is a small "island" called Israel, a sovereign nation, surrounded on all sides by much larger and very numerous countries that hate them and are dedicated through their religious teachings to their destruction. Israel is continuously pressured to take another first step toward a peace which will never exist by giving away more and more of its own country to its enemies. They sustain daily rocket attacks from adjacent territories, and terrorist attacks within its borders by its enemies. The restraint that Israel shows in light of constant aggression and violent attacks is simply amazing, and that alone shows that it is not Israel that is preventing peace in the region.
Yet, in light of all this, we have decided that we should provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Gaza! It is outrageous and should cease immediately. I wouldn't have a problem with the U.S. staying out of the region's problems entirely - we have enough problems at home to worry about without giving away much needed money to people who are dedicated to killing the citizens of one of our greatest allies.
And the media remains silent about the flood of money going from American taxpayers to the anti-semitic, Hamas-run Gaza Strip, while continuing to call for Israel to take another first step toward peace by giving more concessions to its sworn enemies. I find the whole situation obscene, and I wish more Americans knew the truth about the mercury rising and our assistance to the enemies of one of our greatest friends.
In 2007, Hamas, one of the best-known and most violent terrorist organizations in the world, seized control of the Gaza Strip, following Israel's withdrawal from the area and handing over of it to the Palestinians. There is always constant pressure on Israel to give away more and more of its nation to the Palestinians with promises and that giving away territory to these anit-semitic muslims will lead to peace between them and the Palestinians. So, with pressure from many countries, the United Nations, and even from the United States, which is supposed to be Israel's staunchest ally, Israel gave away the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians. Gaza was promptly taken over through force by Hamas. Since 2007, Hamas has ruled Gaza with an iron fist, leading to humanitarian problems of the highest degree for its muslim population. Hamas withholds food and resources from the people and takes advantage of and extorts their own people in order to maintain control over the area. Their ultimate goal is to maintain control over a region that is right next door to their sworn enemy, providing a perfect launching pad for attacks against Israel.
The humanitarian problems in Gaza have garnered global attention, and the United States, sucker that it is, has consistently provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the region, while at the same time taking no action to return control of the region to non-Hamas, non-terrorist Palestinians to whom the region was originally given to. Now, I'm not saying the U.S. should intervene militarily to wrest control of Gaza away from Hamas, but we ought to at least cease all aid to the region until Hamas relinquishes control.
Now, when is the last time you heard even a blurb from the liberal media about the $$$ we give to Gaza? Even Fox News, the sole conservative voice on the TV airwaves, rarely mentions anything about this distressing situation.
Regardless of whether Hamas controls of Gaza, we ought not to provide a single penny of aid to the region. For one thing, there are thousands of regions around the world with humanitarian needs, so if we are to give aid to anyone, Gaza should be very low on the list. Secondly, even without Hamas at the helm, the region is a hotspot of anti-semitism and a source of daily rocket attacks against Israel.
Not enough Americans realize the depth of hatred the Palestinians and muslims in the middle east have for Israel. For thousands of years, muslims have been dedicated to killing jews and plotting to take over the entire area from the jews. The reasons are set out very clearly in the Koran, Islam's bible. One of the primary goals of muslims is the elimination of jews from the face of the earth and return of the holy land to the Palestinians. The center of this holy land is Jerusalem, Israel. There is no negotiating with the muslims either. They will not cease their violence against the jews until they have run them out of the area completely or killed them all, taking over all of what is currently the sovereign nation of Israel.
Every attempt at peace by Israel, usually with pressure by everyone, including the U.S., has been met with continued violence against Israel by the muslims. The Palestinians aren't interested in peacefully living side by side with jews, and they use the global pressure for peace and overtures by Israel simply as minor victories in their war against the jews. There can be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because the hatred Palestinians harbor for the jews is deeply embedded in the fabric of their culture and beliefs. Only conversion by the Palestinians from Islam to another religion entirely would foster an atmosphere conducive to peace, and that's not likely to happen....ever.
So with that in mind, the emphasis for Israel should be a constant state of readiness to defend its homeland from attacks by Palestinians and other muslims. And the U.S. ought to support Israel in this position rather than sucking up to the corrupt, anti-semitic U.N. and pressuring Israel to continuously make more and more useless concessions to the Palestinians. Let's leave it up to Israel to determine what is best for their national security, and then support whatever decision(s) they make.
One of the more significant concessions that Israel has made toward peace with their enemies recently was the giving away of Gaza to the Palestinians. As usual, this concession did nothing to foster peace, but only provided Israel's enemies with more adjacent territory from which to launch attacks against them. After Hamas immediately took over Gaza, rendering this concession by Israel nothing more than surrender of territory to an enemy for nothing in return, Israel has blockaded ships from entering Gaza without first being searched to ensure that weapons were not being brought in to Gaza for use in their war against Israel. This action by Israel is simply a rational national security measure taken to prevent Hamas from attacking them from their newly acquired territory. But the global community, particularly the U.N., has been blatant in its anti-semitism in calling for Israel to stop patrolling the waters off the coast of Gaza and to let anything and everything into Gaza without inspection or prohibition.
What we have now is a small "island" called Israel, a sovereign nation, surrounded on all sides by much larger and very numerous countries that hate them and are dedicated through their religious teachings to their destruction. Israel is continuously pressured to take another first step toward a peace which will never exist by giving away more and more of its own country to its enemies. They sustain daily rocket attacks from adjacent territories, and terrorist attacks within its borders by its enemies. The restraint that Israel shows in light of constant aggression and violent attacks is simply amazing, and that alone shows that it is not Israel that is preventing peace in the region.
Yet, in light of all this, we have decided that we should provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Gaza! It is outrageous and should cease immediately. I wouldn't have a problem with the U.S. staying out of the region's problems entirely - we have enough problems at home to worry about without giving away much needed money to people who are dedicated to killing the citizens of one of our greatest allies.
And the media remains silent about the flood of money going from American taxpayers to the anti-semitic, Hamas-run Gaza Strip, while continuing to call for Israel to take another first step toward peace by giving more concessions to its sworn enemies. I find the whole situation obscene, and I wish more Americans knew the truth about the mercury rising and our assistance to the enemies of one of our greatest friends.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Obama's Critics are Dumb
That's the headline on the upcoming issue of Newsweek, referring to the main article written by Andrew Sullivan about how freakin' awesome Obama is. I hear lefty bloggers bash Sullivan all the time as some out-of-touch conservative, which just shows how out of touch they are since Sullivan is as far from conservative as one can get. And Sullivan is either a genius or a dummy himself - genius because he's worked himself into the main slot of Newsweek and discussions on shows like Fox News' Hannity; a dummy because, well, he's just an idiot.
I haven't read the article, but have read quotes from it like "Obama's re-election remains as crucial and important to America's future as his original election in 2008," and "both the left and right have failed to absorb how wonderful Obama has been for America during his first term." I may not have those quotes exactly right, but I got the key words basically right.
If we have to suffer another four years of Obama at the helm, we're in deep shit! And that's all I can stomach to say about it right now. Take it from a libertarian atheist: God help us if Obama gets re-elected!
I haven't read the article, but have read quotes from it like "Obama's re-election remains as crucial and important to America's future as his original election in 2008," and "both the left and right have failed to absorb how wonderful Obama has been for America during his first term." I may not have those quotes exactly right, but I got the key words basically right.
If we have to suffer another four years of Obama at the helm, we're in deep shit! And that's all I can stomach to say about it right now. Take it from a libertarian atheist: God help us if Obama gets re-elected!
"Wolf!"
Several months ago, there was a big fight about Obama's request to raise the debt ceiling to about $14 trillion. Our faithful federal nannies had maxed out their credit card and needed a credit limit increase, so rather than rein in spending, Obama decided we ough to increase our credit line instead. What ensued was some of the best political theater one could hope for (if one hopes for political games that dig our fiscal hole deeper).
Obama and his cronies claimed that they needed to borrow more money just this once (in reality, it would be about the 100th time the credit limit would be raised) in order to meet our obligations, avoid a government shutdown, and provide some breathing room to start actually trimming back the size of government. Anyone paying attention knew right off the bat that this was all total BS.
So here we are, several months later, spending continues unabated, no changes have been made, and we have maxed out the credit card again, this time at $14 trillion. So now Obama is asking for an increase to $15 trillion. I ask you, where does it end?? Apparently, it doesn't. Well, it will eventually when we go broke.
When he was a mere senator, Obama fought GW Bush's attempt to raise the debt ceiling, arguing that Bush was irresponsible and that a debt ceiling increase would be detrimental to the nation. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Obama's tune has changed - he's all for jacking up the credit line now! So how do you convince, well, anyone, that it's a good idea to raise the limit...again?
First, you employ scare tactics, one of the staples of liberal political strategy. "If we don't raise it, a great depression will wash over the land like the Nothing from The Neverending Story, wiping out the entire middle class, burning small businesses to the ground, and erasing the wealth of the nation in a single bound." You can't prove a negative, so this is always a good tactic to avoid having to justify your actions with any sort of reason or logic.
Next, you use the same old, tired "just this one last time" plea. We just need to raise it one last time in order to get our fiscal house in order. The same fiscal house that Obama has been subletting to termites and college fraternities (those are the two best examples I can come up with right now that destroy houses, fiscal or otherwise).
Then, you point to a tepid and tenuous economic recovery (which doesn't exist) being helped along by massive hemorraging of money, justifying the continued out-of-control spending and supporting the need for continued borrowing for continued spending for continued tepid and tenuous economic recovery.
Finally, you show how well the practice has worked in the past. Last time we raised it, we avoided a great depression by being able to borrow more money, spend more money, and keeping the tepid and tenuous...well, you get the point. And, again, you can't prove a negative.
I don't know for sure that they want this country''s economy to collapse, but if one had that goal in mind, one would be doing the same exact things this administration has been doing for the last three years.
So here's what's going to happen: there will be a faux fight over the debt ceiling issue, they'll come up with some faux spending cuts, they'll raise the credit limit, and they'll keep on spending as they have. And in another several months, we will have maxed out the new credit limit. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Historical debt ceiling levels
Obama and his cronies claimed that they needed to borrow more money just this once (in reality, it would be about the 100th time the credit limit would be raised) in order to meet our obligations, avoid a government shutdown, and provide some breathing room to start actually trimming back the size of government. Anyone paying attention knew right off the bat that this was all total BS.
So here we are, several months later, spending continues unabated, no changes have been made, and we have maxed out the credit card again, this time at $14 trillion. So now Obama is asking for an increase to $15 trillion. I ask you, where does it end?? Apparently, it doesn't. Well, it will eventually when we go broke.
When he was a mere senator, Obama fought GW Bush's attempt to raise the debt ceiling, arguing that Bush was irresponsible and that a debt ceiling increase would be detrimental to the nation. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Obama's tune has changed - he's all for jacking up the credit line now! So how do you convince, well, anyone, that it's a good idea to raise the limit...again?
First, you employ scare tactics, one of the staples of liberal political strategy. "If we don't raise it, a great depression will wash over the land like the Nothing from The Neverending Story, wiping out the entire middle class, burning small businesses to the ground, and erasing the wealth of the nation in a single bound." You can't prove a negative, so this is always a good tactic to avoid having to justify your actions with any sort of reason or logic.
Next, you use the same old, tired "just this one last time" plea. We just need to raise it one last time in order to get our fiscal house in order. The same fiscal house that Obama has been subletting to termites and college fraternities (those are the two best examples I can come up with right now that destroy houses, fiscal or otherwise).
Then, you point to a tepid and tenuous economic recovery (which doesn't exist) being helped along by massive hemorraging of money, justifying the continued out-of-control spending and supporting the need for continued borrowing for continued spending for continued tepid and tenuous economic recovery.
Finally, you show how well the practice has worked in the past. Last time we raised it, we avoided a great depression by being able to borrow more money, spend more money, and keeping the tepid and tenuous...well, you get the point. And, again, you can't prove a negative.
I don't know for sure that they want this country''s economy to collapse, but if one had that goal in mind, one would be doing the same exact things this administration has been doing for the last three years.
So here's what's going to happen: there will be a faux fight over the debt ceiling issue, they'll come up with some faux spending cuts, they'll raise the credit limit, and they'll keep on spending as they have. And in another several months, we will have maxed out the new credit limit. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Can't We All Just Get Along?
In last night's debate, Ron Paul threw out this tidbit of sarcasm/wisdom: "We endlessly bomb these countries [the middle east] and then we wonder why they don't like us?" I agree with Ron Paul on most things, but every time he talks about foreign affairs, I like him a little less. This post is not about his indifference to Iran's having nuclear weapons, but that is another fine example of his ignorance about muslims and their hate for America.
With all due respect, Mr. Paul, the reason the middle eastern, muslim nations don't like us has nothing to do with how many bombs we drop on them. It has everything to do with their religion. The Koran specifically states that all non-muslims should be exterminated, especially Jews. That is why they don't like us. Obama has been running around the middle east for years now, apologizing and sucking up to them, and they don't like us any more than they did before. The reason, again, is simple. Islam dictates that non-muslims are enemies and should be killed. Their mission to kill non-believers (infidels) is called jihad.
There is a passage in the Koran where some muslim prophet is seeking out Jews to kill in his quest to exterminate them all from the face of the earth. He stands before the trees and rocks and tells the trees and rocks to let him know if there are any Jews hiding behind them so that he may find them and kill them. I think it's one of the rocks that then says to him, "Hey, there is a Jew hiding behind me - come and kill him!" No, I don't have a specific page reference in the Koran for that passage, but trust me, it's in there. Muslims hold sacred their duty to carry out jihad against the infidels, which means the searching, finding, and killing of non-believers like Americans. Americans fall squarely within the jihadist crosshairs. Nothing we do will change this.
Well, that's not true. I think perhaps there is something that may change their jihadist ways regarding America, and it has nothing to do with pawning our balls and kissing their ass. The only thing these people understand is brutality, and we are engaged in a war with these Islamist extremists. I think it was Sun Tzu who said that it the one willing to be most brutal will win the war. We ought to present these extremists with a level of brutality that will move us far down the easy-target list.
Right now, we are easy targets. For one thing, we have military and diplomatic personnel spread out all over the world, so there are Americans just blocks away from virtually any location on the globe. Additionally, our response to hostility is sanctions, negotiations, discussions, etc. We pander, and it's pathetic. Our president panders to our enemies and apologizes to them for their not liking us! When they aren't plotting our demise, they are laughing at us behind our backs. We should meet brutality with brutality. Only then will they look elsewhere for an easier target. After all, there are plenty of infidels to choose from. It's like the two men caught facing an angry grizzly bear in the woods. The first guy says he doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend. Well, let's outrun some other infidels and become a not-so-fun target for them anymore.
Does anyone remember the last time Islamic extremists attacked a Chinese embassy? That's because they don't bother with China. It's not because they like China more - it's because China doesn't worry about being politically correct and trying to get everyone to like them. The Chinese are infidels just like we are, but they are out to win and to survive, and if you mess with them, they hit back hard.
So when Ron Paul says we should stop being so hostile toward the jihadists and they'll like us more, he is totally clueless.
March 20, 2003 - Shock and Awe campaign, Iraq.
With all due respect, Mr. Paul, the reason the middle eastern, muslim nations don't like us has nothing to do with how many bombs we drop on them. It has everything to do with their religion. The Koran specifically states that all non-muslims should be exterminated, especially Jews. That is why they don't like us. Obama has been running around the middle east for years now, apologizing and sucking up to them, and they don't like us any more than they did before. The reason, again, is simple. Islam dictates that non-muslims are enemies and should be killed. Their mission to kill non-believers (infidels) is called jihad.
There is a passage in the Koran where some muslim prophet is seeking out Jews to kill in his quest to exterminate them all from the face of the earth. He stands before the trees and rocks and tells the trees and rocks to let him know if there are any Jews hiding behind them so that he may find them and kill them. I think it's one of the rocks that then says to him, "Hey, there is a Jew hiding behind me - come and kill him!" No, I don't have a specific page reference in the Koran for that passage, but trust me, it's in there. Muslims hold sacred their duty to carry out jihad against the infidels, which means the searching, finding, and killing of non-believers like Americans. Americans fall squarely within the jihadist crosshairs. Nothing we do will change this.
Well, that's not true. I think perhaps there is something that may change their jihadist ways regarding America, and it has nothing to do with pawning our balls and kissing their ass. The only thing these people understand is brutality, and we are engaged in a war with these Islamist extremists. I think it was Sun Tzu who said that it the one willing to be most brutal will win the war. We ought to present these extremists with a level of brutality that will move us far down the easy-target list.
Right now, we are easy targets. For one thing, we have military and diplomatic personnel spread out all over the world, so there are Americans just blocks away from virtually any location on the globe. Additionally, our response to hostility is sanctions, negotiations, discussions, etc. We pander, and it's pathetic. Our president panders to our enemies and apologizes to them for their not liking us! When they aren't plotting our demise, they are laughing at us behind our backs. We should meet brutality with brutality. Only then will they look elsewhere for an easier target. After all, there are plenty of infidels to choose from. It's like the two men caught facing an angry grizzly bear in the woods. The first guy says he doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun his friend. Well, let's outrun some other infidels and become a not-so-fun target for them anymore.
Does anyone remember the last time Islamic extremists attacked a Chinese embassy? That's because they don't bother with China. It's not because they like China more - it's because China doesn't worry about being politically correct and trying to get everyone to like them. The Chinese are infidels just like we are, but they are out to win and to survive, and if you mess with them, they hit back hard.
So when Ron Paul says we should stop being so hostile toward the jihadists and they'll like us more, he is totally clueless.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The Bane of Bain
First, let me say that I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney. He has flip-flopped on numerous, critical positions over the years in an effort to be politically expedient and increase his perpetual 25% approval rating. Gingrich was right when he said the only reason Romney isn't a career politician is because he lost to Ted Kennedy in the '90's. Romney would increase the military budget and continue this absurd practice of policing every corner of the world. He's a big gov't "conservative," and his mini-Obamacare in Massachusetts may torpedo him completely in a general election. He's probably conservative, but also probably just the other side of the big government coin - the democrats being the other, other side. All that being said, the attacks on his record at Bain Capital are unwarranted and inaccurate.
Venture capitalist firms, like Bain, search for opportunities for infusing money, restructuring companies, making them more efficient, and then selling the more valuable company for a profit. These firms do not survive for the purpose of killing companies, but rather for resurrecting them. Were they to act in the manner that Gingrich is purporting, they themselves would be out of business.
With Romney, Bain had a 70% success rate. I have read that the industry average for venture capitalists is somewhere between 15% and 30%. So Bain was very successful. It means that 70% of the companies that Bain invested in were turned around, saved, or otherwise became better, contributing to job creation and overall productivity in the marketplace. That 30% failed does not make Bain, as Rick Perry puts it, a "vulture capitalist" firm. Jobs are created and lost in a capitalist system, that's just how it works. But Bain was a glowing success under Romney's watch, and we're all better off for it.
Staples and The Sports Authority are examples of Bain's successes - those companies, instead of going bankrupt and leaving many people unemployed, are now great successes, having hired many people since Bain got involved.
Now, I would expect the liberals to confuse the public about Bain, painting it as a ruthless, evil entity out to destroy companies and steal their money, leaving unemployed workers strewn about in its wake. That is entirely inaccurate, but that's politics for better or for worse.
The bigger problem is that conservatives like Gingrich and Perry are attacking Romney and Bain. While they think they are merely bringing down Romney and helping themselves garner a larger percentage of the republican vote, they are actually bringing the entire party down and giving merit (where it doesn't belong) to the liberals' cries that capitalism is economically unjust. The liberals use this tactic constantly to assist their efforts to change our society from a capitalist one to a socialist one. All conservatives need to fight this class warfare agenda the liberals are using to bring down the nation.
Gingrich and Perry ought to see the bigger picture: all the R candidates are on the same side, trying to oust perhaps the worst president ever, so on core issues like capitalism and free markets, they should stick together. It (attacks on Bain) will ultimately help Romney anyway, because (1) it will exhaust this issue well before the general election is underway, rendering Obama's attacks on Bain outdated, and (2) the facts will bear out that the negative claims are simply not true. The real danger is that whoever is nominated by the R's may have lost many independent voters because of their anti-capitalist stance through this Bain mission.
Venture capitalist firms, like Bain, search for opportunities for infusing money, restructuring companies, making them more efficient, and then selling the more valuable company for a profit. These firms do not survive for the purpose of killing companies, but rather for resurrecting them. Were they to act in the manner that Gingrich is purporting, they themselves would be out of business.
With Romney, Bain had a 70% success rate. I have read that the industry average for venture capitalists is somewhere between 15% and 30%. So Bain was very successful. It means that 70% of the companies that Bain invested in were turned around, saved, or otherwise became better, contributing to job creation and overall productivity in the marketplace. That 30% failed does not make Bain, as Rick Perry puts it, a "vulture capitalist" firm. Jobs are created and lost in a capitalist system, that's just how it works. But Bain was a glowing success under Romney's watch, and we're all better off for it.
Staples and The Sports Authority are examples of Bain's successes - those companies, instead of going bankrupt and leaving many people unemployed, are now great successes, having hired many people since Bain got involved.
Now, I would expect the liberals to confuse the public about Bain, painting it as a ruthless, evil entity out to destroy companies and steal their money, leaving unemployed workers strewn about in its wake. That is entirely inaccurate, but that's politics for better or for worse.
The bigger problem is that conservatives like Gingrich and Perry are attacking Romney and Bain. While they think they are merely bringing down Romney and helping themselves garner a larger percentage of the republican vote, they are actually bringing the entire party down and giving merit (where it doesn't belong) to the liberals' cries that capitalism is economically unjust. The liberals use this tactic constantly to assist their efforts to change our society from a capitalist one to a socialist one. All conservatives need to fight this class warfare agenda the liberals are using to bring down the nation.
Gingrich and Perry ought to see the bigger picture: all the R candidates are on the same side, trying to oust perhaps the worst president ever, so on core issues like capitalism and free markets, they should stick together. It (attacks on Bain) will ultimately help Romney anyway, because (1) it will exhaust this issue well before the general election is underway, rendering Obama's attacks on Bain outdated, and (2) the facts will bear out that the negative claims are simply not true. The real danger is that whoever is nominated by the R's may have lost many independent voters because of their anti-capitalist stance through this Bain mission.
The King of America and his NDAA
Recently, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes the controversial citizen detention provision. Given, it's just a small part of this voluminous bill (all bills in recent times are absurdly long - most are several hundred pages long, if not thousands), but it is a crucial infringement of our civil liberties and a blatant violation of Constitutional due process.
When GW Bush was president, there was an ongoing fight over his handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Following 9/11, President Bush ordered enemy combatants (suspected terrorists) to be captured and held/detained at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba. The detainees were not afforded the right to seek redress in U.S. courts, essentially precluded from Constitutional due process by virtue of their not being U.S. citizens (which is what the Constitution covers) and by virtue of their not being soldiers associated with any country.
The Geneva Convention governs how nations should treat captured enemies on the battlefield. It prohibits torture and generally requires that all those captured be treated humanely. Most nations in the world signed this treaty, which is essentially a contract which binds the parties (countries) which signed it.
However, the Bush administration faced a dilemma: detain captured terrorists and treat them humanely under the Geneva Convention, foregoing the ability to interrogate for intelligence, or violate the Geneva Convention and gain valuable intelligence in the war on terror. Bush found a way around this, defining those captured as "enemy combatants" from organizations who were not parties to the Geneva Convention. After all, while most countries had signed this contract, organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban had not signed the contract. These terrorist organizations did not represent any nation, but rather were terrorist organizations spread out over many nations with stated goals of killing Americans and taking down the western way of life - freedom and democracy.
Since they were not a party to the Geneva contract, Bush argued, they were not subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. This made sense. If you're not a party to a contract, you aren't bound by it's limitations and you aren't afforded its protections. And, of course, it was clear that these terrorist organizations were not operating in accordance with the Geneva Convention - we are all familiar with the videos that surfaced on the internet of Americans and others captured by these terrorists who were beheaded in the name of Allah and Islam. It was pretty obvious that they didn't give much credence to the treaty/contract signed by various countries that required the humane treatment of captured enemies.
Nevertheless, liberal activists and attorneys pressed hard to have detainees at Guantanamo given access to legal counsel and the U.S. courts so that they could present habeas corpus petitions. Basically, they wanted these terrorist detainees to be afforded the due process rights that American citizens enjoy and that perhaps detainees subject to the Geneva Convention might enjoy. After hard-fought legal battles, the issue reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the detainees did, in fact, have due process rights. Since then, detainees in Guantanamo have had access to attorneys who file unlawful detainer petitions with U.S. federal courts seeking judicial review of their detentions. I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, but it stands as the current law nonetheless.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago - President Obama signs the NDAA into law. It gives him, in his sole discretion, the authority to detain any American citizen that he alone deems a national security threat, without any review by a court of law and without any ability by the detained person to challenge their detention in the same manner as Guantanamo detainees during Bush's tenure were afforded. Such detention may be indefinite, without the president ever providing any reason for their detention or any ability for the detained American citizens to seek redress in American courts. A blatant violation of the Constitution!
These are American citizens, keep in mind, not foreign, non-citizen, terrorists. So the terrorists in Guantanamo have a right to due process under the Constitution, but American citizens now detained for the same reasons by Obama do not have this right. Anyone else see the inconsistency and absurdly unlawful and outrageous nature of the NDAA in this regard?
There is much more that can be said about the NDAA, but I'll leave you with this famous quote from many hundreds of years ago which rings as true today as when it was coined: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Is Obama president, or king?
Don't expect the liberal media to discuss this issue. They are basically the PR wing of the democratic party. Aside from Fox News, which the rest of the media paints as the devil, the media is the ministry of propaganda for the lefties in this country, and I think most Americans either don't know about the NDAA and it's implications, or don't realize the gravity of it. Hopefully, this short diatribe may at least encourage you to look into this issue more fully on your own. Once you know more about this, I'm sure you'll find it as outrageous as I do. Don't be complacent, people, or you'll lose the ability to challenge these violations of liberty, and by the time you realize that something needs to be done, you won't have the freedom to challenge and change things. Don't trust me - don't trust anyone. Educate yourself, and fight for what you feel comports with the tenets of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I contend that the NDAA is a blatant attack on these sacred American values. We need to fight for strict compliance with the Constitution by our elected officials, who all take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. Obama has violated this oath by signing the NDAA. Good luck and God bless America!
Japanese-American Internment Camp during WWII
When GW Bush was president, there was an ongoing fight over his handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Following 9/11, President Bush ordered enemy combatants (suspected terrorists) to be captured and held/detained at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba. The detainees were not afforded the right to seek redress in U.S. courts, essentially precluded from Constitutional due process by virtue of their not being U.S. citizens (which is what the Constitution covers) and by virtue of their not being soldiers associated with any country.
The Geneva Convention governs how nations should treat captured enemies on the battlefield. It prohibits torture and generally requires that all those captured be treated humanely. Most nations in the world signed this treaty, which is essentially a contract which binds the parties (countries) which signed it.
However, the Bush administration faced a dilemma: detain captured terrorists and treat them humanely under the Geneva Convention, foregoing the ability to interrogate for intelligence, or violate the Geneva Convention and gain valuable intelligence in the war on terror. Bush found a way around this, defining those captured as "enemy combatants" from organizations who were not parties to the Geneva Convention. After all, while most countries had signed this contract, organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban had not signed the contract. These terrorist organizations did not represent any nation, but rather were terrorist organizations spread out over many nations with stated goals of killing Americans and taking down the western way of life - freedom and democracy.
Since they were not a party to the Geneva contract, Bush argued, they were not subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. This made sense. If you're not a party to a contract, you aren't bound by it's limitations and you aren't afforded its protections. And, of course, it was clear that these terrorist organizations were not operating in accordance with the Geneva Convention - we are all familiar with the videos that surfaced on the internet of Americans and others captured by these terrorists who were beheaded in the name of Allah and Islam. It was pretty obvious that they didn't give much credence to the treaty/contract signed by various countries that required the humane treatment of captured enemies.
Nevertheless, liberal activists and attorneys pressed hard to have detainees at Guantanamo given access to legal counsel and the U.S. courts so that they could present habeas corpus petitions. Basically, they wanted these terrorist detainees to be afforded the due process rights that American citizens enjoy and that perhaps detainees subject to the Geneva Convention might enjoy. After hard-fought legal battles, the issue reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the detainees did, in fact, have due process rights. Since then, detainees in Guantanamo have had access to attorneys who file unlawful detainer petitions with U.S. federal courts seeking judicial review of their detentions. I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, but it stands as the current law nonetheless.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago - President Obama signs the NDAA into law. It gives him, in his sole discretion, the authority to detain any American citizen that he alone deems a national security threat, without any review by a court of law and without any ability by the detained person to challenge their detention in the same manner as Guantanamo detainees during Bush's tenure were afforded. Such detention may be indefinite, without the president ever providing any reason for their detention or any ability for the detained American citizens to seek redress in American courts. A blatant violation of the Constitution!
These are American citizens, keep in mind, not foreign, non-citizen, terrorists. So the terrorists in Guantanamo have a right to due process under the Constitution, but American citizens now detained for the same reasons by Obama do not have this right. Anyone else see the inconsistency and absurdly unlawful and outrageous nature of the NDAA in this regard?
There is much more that can be said about the NDAA, but I'll leave you with this famous quote from many hundreds of years ago which rings as true today as when it was coined: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Is Obama president, or king?
Don't expect the liberal media to discuss this issue. They are basically the PR wing of the democratic party. Aside from Fox News, which the rest of the media paints as the devil, the media is the ministry of propaganda for the lefties in this country, and I think most Americans either don't know about the NDAA and it's implications, or don't realize the gravity of it. Hopefully, this short diatribe may at least encourage you to look into this issue more fully on your own. Once you know more about this, I'm sure you'll find it as outrageous as I do. Don't be complacent, people, or you'll lose the ability to challenge these violations of liberty, and by the time you realize that something needs to be done, you won't have the freedom to challenge and change things. Don't trust me - don't trust anyone. Educate yourself, and fight for what you feel comports with the tenets of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I contend that the NDAA is a blatant attack on these sacred American values. We need to fight for strict compliance with the Constitution by our elected officials, who all take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. Obama has violated this oath by signing the NDAA. Good luck and God bless America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
