Bill Clinton did a good job. He delivered a solid speech as he has a talent for doing. He did a much better job than Hillary at making a case for Obama. Overall, I think the speech was a bit heavy on self-glorification, but he nonetheless did what his party needed him to do.
Like Hillary, he delivered a laundry list of problems that the next President will have to deal with, but he fell a bit short in explaining how Obama would solve those problems. In fairness, that's Obama's job. Clinton's job was to at least appear as though he was fully supportive of Obama and that's what he did.
Now, some criticisms. Clinton mentioned the failure of America in addressing AIDS nationally and worldwide, and our failure to lead on global warming. Yet, he seemed to forget that he had eight years in office to address these issues and his administration fell very short. The same could be said about energy independence (if he'd started drilling then that oil would be hitting the market by now), global terrorism and Islamic extremism, and maintaining a strong military (no administration cut the defense budget as much as Clinton). Then he followed by saying that his "experience" tells him that Obama is ready. Hmm. Is that the same experience that dropped the ball on these issues?
All in all, I'd say BJ's speech was a plus for the Dems, but I also think that much of it was devoted to Clinton's own accomplishments and seemed to suggest that if Obama followed his lead then the candidate will do well. Fair enough. The speech was a success and may provide a small bounce but won't sway too many voters.
Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War. That should be noted since he seems to have forgotten. Also, why was it okay in the minds of Dems to take down Milosovic for genocide, but not Hussein for similar crimes? Just wondering.
More from Biden: "giving up is unforgivable" - Then how does he explain Obama's position on Iraq?
"the greatest warriors in the world" - this line got VERY little applause.
But I finally got some specifics about what Obama plans to do. Granted, these were sandwiched between the same old references of emotion, but I paid close attention. Apparently, Obama plans to provide health care to every American, save the Social Security trust fund, put more police on the streets, make college more affordable and help the nation of Georgia rebuild....and he will do all of this while cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. Huh?
Someone needs to explain to me how this is possible, because that seems like some very expensive things to do while also lowering taxes. With respect to Biden and Obama, I'm no idiot. I don't buy it.
Now, tomorrow. I am stunned that Obama insists on moving the convention to a larger venue to allow for more people to attend so he can deliver his trademark "rock star" speech. I think it's a huge mistake and a perfect metaphor for Obama's biggest shortcoming....his pride. He knows that the image of "The One" has and will hurt him. He knows that the average American most likely won't react very well to a candidate who speaks in front of a Greek temple backdrop before 80,000 people. He knows this, but he doesn't care. He wants the adoration, the crowd. At at time when America needs to learn more about Obama, he refuses to keep things more intimate, more one on one.
Obama's folks are already saying that he's doing this to allow the public more access to Obama's campaign. Bull! If that's true, then why doesn't Obama agree to the town hall debates with McCain? Why did he fight the vote counts in Florida and Michigan? That kind of rhetoric is bogus. Obama wants the grandiosity. And I don't think America is going to appreciate that.
This will look self-indulgent, presumptuous, pretentious and very arrogant. Americans may like confidence, but they don't like arrogance. A President is a servant of the people, and being a servant requires some humility. Obama has yet to demonstrate an ounce of humility. Before he says a word tomorrow, he will be facing an uphill task. His wife made the case 2 days ago that Barack was just an average guy-next-door type, and now he insists on moving the entire convention to a larger venue for his speech, complete with pillars and a stage fit for a Greek god. The two images don't mix well. Obama's speech tomorrow is already a big mistake and he hasn't said the first word. Regardless of what he says, tomorrow's speech will be more about Obama's ego than anything else. He may very well come out of this convention with a dip in the polls rather than the usual bump.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Day 2
Well, for the second consecutive night I am disappointed in the lack of substance from the Democrats, but I honestly wasn’t expecting much given the recent tension in the party. Last night, Hillary Clinton gave the first speech of her Hillary 2012 campaign. It was a bit self-indulgent with the clear intent of establishing herself as some sort of cultural icon and a voice for women. I think she accomplished that task, but she didn’t do much for election ’08, she didn’t do much for Obama.
Yes, Hillary said she supports Obama. Yes, she launched a few zingers at McCain. As a key democrat, she had to do her duty. But if this was an endorsement it was mediocre at best and hardly enthusiastic. She did what she had to do but overall didn’t really have much to say in support of the candidate. She went through the motions but this speech was about Hillary.
It was filled with a laundry list of problems America faces but no solutions were offered. There were Clinton ’s typical “folks she met on the campaign” references, no doubt inserted for the usual emotional effect. The best line was a quote from Harriet Tubman.
A few specifics that caught my eye: she spoke of universal, high quality, affordable health care. Of course, this is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as universal, high quality, affordable health care. It is the proverbial unicorn of politics. Clinton doesn’t realize this but she continues to pursue it like it was Sasquatch.
She also passionately spoke of some nonspecific mom she met on the campaign whose work hours were recently cut. I’m not sure what she was referring to, but I interpreted that as someone who had been victimized by the recent minimum wage increase that most employers simply can’t afford. And speaking of can’t afford, she also mentioned the need for more unionization. Yes, liberalism was alive and well.
One line that stuck out: “We’re Americans, we’re not big on quitting.”
Was this a subtle jab at Obama’s Iraq plan? Not sure, but that’s the first thing that came to mind when I heard it and I’m sure I am not alone.
She never mentioned foreign policy. She never said Obama was experienced enough and qualified enough to be President. She never said Obama was ready. She didn’t mention his character or his background, so there was no link to the theme of the first night. She didn’t mention any of his specific policies or plans. Her endorsement could have been applied to any fill-in-the-blank democrat. Basically, her Leftist supporters will vote for Obama but her independent supporters won’t budge, and I think that was her intent. She had the difficult task of looking supportive and doing what a good democrat should do without looking too supportive, without swinging the election back to Obama’s favor. Mission accomplished. Obama’s problem is with that subset of Hillary voters in the white, working class population. These are the folks who are typically moderate and not yet sold on Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate. These are the ones he needs to win. And these are the folks who won’t be swayed by what she said. Hillary’s primary campaign was based on Obama’s lack of experience and she said nothing last night to the contrary.
Let’s be clear. Hillary cares only about Hillary. She wants the White House like a two year old wants the chocolate chip cookie, she’ll break the cookie jar if she has to. If 2008 isn’t possible, then she will pursue 2012 and that’s what this speech was all about. I don’t for a second believe that she wants Obama to win because that would ultimately hurt her chances in 2012. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that when she’s in that voting booth she actually pulls the lever for McCain. So will Bill, and so will the intern that’s in the booth with him.
Tonight, Bill will speak and this should be interesting. Two nights have gone by and nothing has been accomplished aside from the launch of Hillary’s next campaign. Tonight will not likely be any different. Bill simply doesn’t like Obama and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. Tonight’s speech will be about Bill and will certainly be a continuation of last night’s theme…Hillary 2012. Plus, BJ has some image problems that he wants to address, namely the “racism” charges that came out during the campaign. He’s bitter about it and he seems intent to blame Obama for the perceived slander. But he also brings a bit of uncertainty. The guy isn’t exactly predictable lately and there really is no telling what he might say. He most definitely has not been an ardent supporter of Obama and if I were the candidate I would be a bit nervous, especially after Hillary’s speech. This should be entertaining if nothing else.
Yes, Hillary said she supports Obama. Yes, she launched a few zingers at McCain. As a key democrat, she had to do her duty. But if this was an endorsement it was mediocre at best and hardly enthusiastic. She did what she had to do but overall didn’t really have much to say in support of the candidate. She went through the motions but this speech was about Hillary.
It was filled with a laundry list of problems America faces but no solutions were offered. There were Clinton ’s typical “folks she met on the campaign” references, no doubt inserted for the usual emotional effect. The best line was a quote from Harriet Tubman.
A few specifics that caught my eye: she spoke of universal, high quality, affordable health care. Of course, this is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as universal, high quality, affordable health care. It is the proverbial unicorn of politics. Clinton doesn’t realize this but she continues to pursue it like it was Sasquatch.
She also passionately spoke of some nonspecific mom she met on the campaign whose work hours were recently cut. I’m not sure what she was referring to, but I interpreted that as someone who had been victimized by the recent minimum wage increase that most employers simply can’t afford. And speaking of can’t afford, she also mentioned the need for more unionization. Yes, liberalism was alive and well.
One line that stuck out: “We’re Americans, we’re not big on quitting.”
Was this a subtle jab at Obama’s Iraq plan? Not sure, but that’s the first thing that came to mind when I heard it and I’m sure I am not alone.
She never mentioned foreign policy. She never said Obama was experienced enough and qualified enough to be President. She never said Obama was ready. She didn’t mention his character or his background, so there was no link to the theme of the first night. She didn’t mention any of his specific policies or plans. Her endorsement could have been applied to any fill-in-the-blank democrat. Basically, her Leftist supporters will vote for Obama but her independent supporters won’t budge, and I think that was her intent. She had the difficult task of looking supportive and doing what a good democrat should do without looking too supportive, without swinging the election back to Obama’s favor. Mission accomplished. Obama’s problem is with that subset of Hillary voters in the white, working class population. These are the folks who are typically moderate and not yet sold on Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate. These are the ones he needs to win. And these are the folks who won’t be swayed by what she said. Hillary’s primary campaign was based on Obama’s lack of experience and she said nothing last night to the contrary.
Let’s be clear. Hillary cares only about Hillary. She wants the White House like a two year old wants the chocolate chip cookie, she’ll break the cookie jar if she has to. If 2008 isn’t possible, then she will pursue 2012 and that’s what this speech was all about. I don’t for a second believe that she wants Obama to win because that would ultimately hurt her chances in 2012. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that when she’s in that voting booth she actually pulls the lever for McCain. So will Bill, and so will the intern that’s in the booth with him.
Tonight, Bill will speak and this should be interesting. Two nights have gone by and nothing has been accomplished aside from the launch of Hillary’s next campaign. Tonight will not likely be any different. Bill simply doesn’t like Obama and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. Tonight’s speech will be about Bill and will certainly be a continuation of last night’s theme…Hillary 2012. Plus, BJ has some image problems that he wants to address, namely the “racism” charges that came out during the campaign. He’s bitter about it and he seems intent to blame Obama for the perceived slander. But he also brings a bit of uncertainty. The guy isn’t exactly predictable lately and there really is no telling what he might say. He most definitely has not been an ardent supporter of Obama and if I were the candidate I would be a bit nervous, especially after Hillary’s speech. This should be entertaining if nothing else.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Day One
My assessment of DNC day one:
I didn’t watch Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi. Frankly, I knew what they were going to say and wasn’t in the mood for the usual politics. Pelosi and Kennedy are two people for whom I have little respect. Last night was Michelle Obama’s night and I was interested to hear her speak.
I start off with something that didn’t occur to me until after the speech, but I think is the most important thing about last night. In the after-speech discussion, Juan Williams (my favorite liberal) was asked of his impression. Williams became visibly emotional. He talked about how amazing it was for him, a black journalist, to watch a black female stand and deliver an address in such a context. He was proud. Then he became more emotional when discussing the image of the Obama family. There, before the world, was the picture of a whole family. Michelle mentioned her father and the importance of his influence, her brother and the strength he provided. Then we saw Barack, a man devoted to his wife and children. In these times where the black family has been shattered, such a picture was a wonderful thing to see. That’s what moved Williams and, you know, he’s right. I think America needs more of this and I welcome the fine example set by such a handsome family, as should we all. This could be a very important legacy for an Obama presidency if he goes about it the right away. Bravo for Michelle Obama! Bravo for her beautiful family!
As for the speech, I think it was warm, fuzzy and loaded with typical liberal idealism. Granted, Mrs. Obama did a good job and she accomplished the task of reintroducing herself to America , but the content was lacking. I heard things like “the world as it should be” and “the new tide of hope”. I heard “listen to our hopes instead of listen to our fears”. I heard “stop doubting and start dreaming”. Basically, I heard the same old baby boomer, let’s-all-hold-hands-and-love-each-other-hug-a-tree-world-peace-tie-dyed-kumbaya idealist nonsense that stinks of the ‘60s and has become common from the Left. Don’t get me wrong. I’m okay with idealism. I’m okay with dreaming about utopia, but not at the expense of reality. And the reality is that I don’t have time for this mess. I have to get up and go to work in the morning. I have mouths to feed. I have bills to pay.
That’s reality, Mrs. Obama.
The reality of our world is that there are bad people out there who want to kill us. Acknowledging this fact does not amount to listening to our fears. The reality is that even though they’re easy to hate, we still need rich folks to drive business and provide jobs. I know I do, and so do most Americans. Rich folks aren’t evil, they’re just successful. They should be modeled and not demonized. The reality is that government is not an efficient, effective way to provide people with things they need. This has often been a brutal realization for some, yet it’s a lesson we have somehow yet to learn. The reality is that national health care has been ultimately detrimental for other nations. The reality is that we need to find a way to lower the cost of living and wean ourselves from foreign energy and we need to start RIGHT NOW! Listening to our dreams and the new tide of hope does absolutely nothing in that regard.
In fairness, it’s not Michelle Obama’s job to detail specifics about these things, so I don’t want to be too hard on her. But I do hope that the rest of the DNC doesn’t follow suit. The Democrats have long been the party of emotion much more so than the GOP, which is why Republicans are often viewed as insensitive and uncaring. But emotion doesn’t solve the problems we face. Emotion makes us feel good, but then we still have real problems that need effective solutions. Feeling warm and cozy doesn’t help. As a middle class voter, I can respectfully say that I don’t need a hug. I don’t need to listen to my dreams. I don’t need the new tide of hope, but thanks anyway. I need to hear someone talk about solving problems in a way that will benefit me, my family and my country, and I need specifics. “Change we can believe in” doesn’t cut it. “Yes we can” means nothing to me. Americans need more action and fewer words. While Michelle Obama’s speech was sweet and cozy, it still failed in that regard. There was plenty of emotion, but the lack of action left me dissatisfied. It will be interesting to see how the others follow.
I didn’t watch Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi. Frankly, I knew what they were going to say and wasn’t in the mood for the usual politics. Pelosi and Kennedy are two people for whom I have little respect. Last night was Michelle Obama’s night and I was interested to hear her speak.
I start off with something that didn’t occur to me until after the speech, but I think is the most important thing about last night. In the after-speech discussion, Juan Williams (my favorite liberal) was asked of his impression. Williams became visibly emotional. He talked about how amazing it was for him, a black journalist, to watch a black female stand and deliver an address in such a context. He was proud. Then he became more emotional when discussing the image of the Obama family. There, before the world, was the picture of a whole family. Michelle mentioned her father and the importance of his influence, her brother and the strength he provided. Then we saw Barack, a man devoted to his wife and children. In these times where the black family has been shattered, such a picture was a wonderful thing to see. That’s what moved Williams and, you know, he’s right. I think America needs more of this and I welcome the fine example set by such a handsome family, as should we all. This could be a very important legacy for an Obama presidency if he goes about it the right away. Bravo for Michelle Obama! Bravo for her beautiful family!
As for the speech, I think it was warm, fuzzy and loaded with typical liberal idealism. Granted, Mrs. Obama did a good job and she accomplished the task of reintroducing herself to America , but the content was lacking. I heard things like “the world as it should be” and “the new tide of hope”. I heard “listen to our hopes instead of listen to our fears”. I heard “stop doubting and start dreaming”. Basically, I heard the same old baby boomer, let’s-all-hold-hands-and-love-each-other-hug-a-tree-world-peace-tie-dyed-kumbaya idealist nonsense that stinks of the ‘60s and has become common from the Left. Don’t get me wrong. I’m okay with idealism. I’m okay with dreaming about utopia, but not at the expense of reality. And the reality is that I don’t have time for this mess. I have to get up and go to work in the morning. I have mouths to feed. I have bills to pay.
That’s reality, Mrs. Obama.
The reality of our world is that there are bad people out there who want to kill us. Acknowledging this fact does not amount to listening to our fears. The reality is that even though they’re easy to hate, we still need rich folks to drive business and provide jobs. I know I do, and so do most Americans. Rich folks aren’t evil, they’re just successful. They should be modeled and not demonized. The reality is that government is not an efficient, effective way to provide people with things they need. This has often been a brutal realization for some, yet it’s a lesson we have somehow yet to learn. The reality is that national health care has been ultimately detrimental for other nations. The reality is that we need to find a way to lower the cost of living and wean ourselves from foreign energy and we need to start RIGHT NOW! Listening to our dreams and the new tide of hope does absolutely nothing in that regard.
In fairness, it’s not Michelle Obama’s job to detail specifics about these things, so I don’t want to be too hard on her. But I do hope that the rest of the DNC doesn’t follow suit. The Democrats have long been the party of emotion much more so than the GOP, which is why Republicans are often viewed as insensitive and uncaring. But emotion doesn’t solve the problems we face. Emotion makes us feel good, but then we still have real problems that need effective solutions. Feeling warm and cozy doesn’t help. As a middle class voter, I can respectfully say that I don’t need a hug. I don’t need to listen to my dreams. I don’t need the new tide of hope, but thanks anyway. I need to hear someone talk about solving problems in a way that will benefit me, my family and my country, and I need specifics. “Change we can believe in” doesn’t cut it. “Yes we can” means nothing to me. Americans need more action and fewer words. While Michelle Obama’s speech was sweet and cozy, it still failed in that regard. There was plenty of emotion, but the lack of action left me dissatisfied. It will be interesting to see how the others follow.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Joe Biden on Barack Obama:
Aug. 2007 on Obama's experience: "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
Aug. 2007 on Obama's threat to go into Pakistan after Al Qaeda: "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, it's to do it. . . . The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we're about to violate . . . their sovereignty."
Aug. 2007 on Obama's pledge to meet with leaders of rogue nations: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was president? Absolutely, positively no."
Sept. 2007 on Obama's Iraq plan: "My impression is he thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany. I've seen zero evidence of that."
"If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake..."
Biden On Obama's Leadership On Iraq: "I Don't Recall Hearing A Word From Barack About A Plan Or A Tactic."
Biden on McCain:
"I'd feel a lot better if I knew that President Bush was going to be elected--and I'm not being solicitous--if I knew he was going to start to listen to John McCain instead of the secretary of Defense..."
"And so I've believed for a long time, a view shared by my Republican colleague John McCain and many others as well, that we need more force in Iraq. That's not a popular position to take. But we need more force now in order to have less force later. We need to gain control of security in Iraq."
"John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off -- be well off no matter who..."
Some of Biden's gaffes:
"You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Oh, I'm not joking."
"Better than everybody else. You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state,"
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,"
Again, I think Obama made a mistake here. He can no longer attack McCain for being a "Washington insider". He can no longer run a credible campaign of "change" and "new faces" in Washington. And Biden will eventually have to explain why his opinions of Obama and McCain suddenly changed when his name was added to the ticket. Politics as usual, perhaps? Obama could have done much better with Bayh.
Aug. 2007 on Obama's experience: "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
Aug. 2007 on Obama's threat to go into Pakistan after Al Qaeda: "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, it's to do it. . . . The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we're about to violate . . . their sovereignty."
Aug. 2007 on Obama's pledge to meet with leaders of rogue nations: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was president? Absolutely, positively no."
Sept. 2007 on Obama's Iraq plan: "My impression is he thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany. I've seen zero evidence of that."
"If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake..."
Biden On Obama's Leadership On Iraq: "I Don't Recall Hearing A Word From Barack About A Plan Or A Tactic."
Biden on McCain:
"I'd feel a lot better if I knew that President Bush was going to be elected--and I'm not being solicitous--if I knew he was going to start to listen to John McCain instead of the secretary of Defense..."
"And so I've believed for a long time, a view shared by my Republican colleague John McCain and many others as well, that we need more force in Iraq. That's not a popular position to take. But we need more force now in order to have less force later. We need to gain control of security in Iraq."
"John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off -- be well off no matter who..."
Some of Biden's gaffes:
"You cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Oh, I'm not joking."
"Better than everybody else. You don't know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state is the eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a northeast liberal state,"
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,"
Again, I think Obama made a mistake here. He can no longer attack McCain for being a "Washington insider". He can no longer run a credible campaign of "change" and "new faces" in Washington. And Biden will eventually have to explain why his opinions of Obama and McCain suddenly changed when his name was added to the ticket. Politics as usual, perhaps? Obama could have done much better with Bayh.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Biden is a mistake. I'm not sure what Obama was thinking there. Biden has a brutal tendency to shove his foot in his mouth....things like "Delaware was an original slave state" when explaining why he appeals to southerners. Plus, he roasted Obama on inexperience and a poor plan for Iraq during the primaries, all while praising McCain. The VP pick is rarely significant, but I think Obama could have done better.
Now, I'm really hoping McCain goes with Hutchison. If he does this, the election would be effectively over.
Now, I'm really hoping McCain goes with Hutchison. If he does this, the election would be effectively over.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Quick picks for running mates:
Obama goes with Bayh. Whether or not this is wise has yet to be determined. Biden has way too many soundbites criticizing Obama's Iraq strategy. Hillary would turn his campaign into a circus. Richardson is too inconsistent. And the Virginia guys are simply too risky. Bayh mirrors Obama. That's my bet.
McCain's pick is less clear. I'm going with an out-of-left-field darkhorse and saying Kay Bailey Hutchison. He wants Lieberman or Ridge, but the GOP would never allow it. He can't stand Romney, although I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being the ticket. Pawlenty is a maybe, but I don't see it happening. Jindal would be a great choice, but would take away McCain's "no experience" complaint against Obama. Hutchison would be superb. She would mirror McCain in many ways and potentially bring in some of the disenchanted Hillary supporters.
Just my thoughts. Tomorrow we'll see...when Obama "reveals his running mate to the world"
Give it a rest, Senator. You're not the center of the universe.
Obama goes with Bayh. Whether or not this is wise has yet to be determined. Biden has way too many soundbites criticizing Obama's Iraq strategy. Hillary would turn his campaign into a circus. Richardson is too inconsistent. And the Virginia guys are simply too risky. Bayh mirrors Obama. That's my bet.
McCain's pick is less clear. I'm going with an out-of-left-field darkhorse and saying Kay Bailey Hutchison. He wants Lieberman or Ridge, but the GOP would never allow it. He can't stand Romney, although I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up being the ticket. Pawlenty is a maybe, but I don't see it happening. Jindal would be a great choice, but would take away McCain's "no experience" complaint against Obama. Hutchison would be superb. She would mirror McCain in many ways and potentially bring in some of the disenchanted Hillary supporters.
Just my thoughts. Tomorrow we'll see...when Obama "reveals his running mate to the world"
Give it a rest, Senator. You're not the center of the universe.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
A tough week
Obama’s slide continues and there is no doubt that the powers that be in the DNC are getting worried. Ever since his Obamapalooza tour of Europe, the poll numbers have been dipping. Obama’s troubles began then and he has yet to right the ship. And most recently, the events of the past 1-2 weeks have been a near disaster for his campaign. He’s limping into Denver with what appears to be a new strategy. Obama looks poised to get muddy, leaving behind his claim of a new kind of politics. Today, he challenged McCain by saying his opponent “doesn’t know what he’s up against.” If this isn’t the sound of desperation – or perhaps preschoolish whining - then I don’t know what is. Something tells me McCain isn’t afraid. I’m wondering how far Obama is from asking McCain to “step outside”? My money would be on the old man in that one.
McCain’s charge that Obama is an empty celebrity, aka “The One”, has had some effect, and Obama didn’t get any help from Nancy Pelosi when she said that he is “a leader that God has blessed us with.” Really? So now the Dems have reached the point of claiming that God will be voting for Obama in November? Not a bright move from Pelosi, and I’m sure Obama cringed at the remark.
About the same time, the Soviets decide to dust off the hammer and sickle and invade a democratic neighbor. McCain was quick to act tough. Obama urged both sides to exercise restraint. Both sides. The American people saw one candidate unafraid to back down to a bully, the other hesitant to take sides. Big mistake, especially for a party trying desperately to shake their “weak on national security” reputation.
Meanwhile, the Dem convention has turned into Hillary’s gala. Somehow this event changed from Obama’s nomination to the Billary Show. Now Hillary, Bill and even Chelsea have primetime speaking slots. Huh? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought Obama was the winner of the primaries. I doubt the same courtesy would have been extended to the junior Senator had Hillary triumphed. The fact that he allowed Hillary to elbow her way, once again, into the center stage spotlight reflects even more weakness. If he caves that easily to Hillary, how will he do against Ahmadinejad? Or is this a hint that Hillary will be on the ticket? Talk about caving. I can honestly see Obama in the Oval Office telling Hillary to get out of his chair and Bill to get out of his office. That ticket would turn the White House into a frat house.
And then there’s the Saddleback forum. Was this a disaster for Obama or what? Take away the teleprompter and suddenly the oratory master starts spinning his wheels. Most notable was the simple question: “When do babies get human rights?” It was painful watching Obama stumble around that one. For someone who repeatedly votes for abortion rights, including legalizing partial birth abortions, it seems the answer to this question would be quick and easy. But, that’s not how it went down. Obama responded by saying that such an answer was “above my pay grade”. Above my pay grade? What? Did he actually say that? Did he actually say that he is not qualified to answer that question? And yet, he has a problem with people questioning his experience, or lack thereof. You know, there are certain things you expect from a presidential candidate while he’s campaigning, but refusing to answer a simple question because it’s “above my pay grade” isn’t one of them. Is there a higher pay grade in this country than President? I respect people of differing opinions, but I don’t respect people who are obvious in their fence-riding. Take a stand, Obama. Have an opinion. If you don’t know when life begins, then maybe you should rethink your votes for abortion rights, or at least explain them. After all, if there is some uncertainty maybe it’s wise to err on the side of caution instead of the old “kill ‘em all and let God sort them out” type of answer. This was a gaffe, and a huge one at that. Especially compared to McCain’s answer: “at the moment of conception.” Short and to the point. Yes, there will be people who don’t like him for it, but at least he has the guts to voice his opinion.
McCain won that night in a big way, and suddenly the dems are shocked that the old man isn’t rolling over for the Chosen One. But, instead of putting the night behind them and moving on, they have the stones to suggest that McCain cheated. Arrogant? Just a bit. And now amidst the whining Obama says McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against. Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about Obama and the Dems. Although, I think they have a much better idea now. No wonder Obama doesn’t have the guts to take on McCain in his cross-country town hall tour.
Something tells me the Obama campaign is about to get dirty. Next week is the convention. Let’s see how many times they go after McCain, rather than the usual “change we can believe in” and “a new kind of politics”. We’ll see.
The Old Man has turned the Obama campaign on its ear and he is clearly here for a fight. Good for him. Before this election I wasn’t a big fan of McCain’s, but I’m really beginning to warm up to him. He’s feisty. He’s mean. He’s tough as nails. And he has the Dems squirming. That’s alright in my book.
McCain’s charge that Obama is an empty celebrity, aka “The One”, has had some effect, and Obama didn’t get any help from Nancy Pelosi when she said that he is “a leader that God has blessed us with.” Really? So now the Dems have reached the point of claiming that God will be voting for Obama in November? Not a bright move from Pelosi, and I’m sure Obama cringed at the remark.
About the same time, the Soviets decide to dust off the hammer and sickle and invade a democratic neighbor. McCain was quick to act tough. Obama urged both sides to exercise restraint. Both sides. The American people saw one candidate unafraid to back down to a bully, the other hesitant to take sides. Big mistake, especially for a party trying desperately to shake their “weak on national security” reputation.
Meanwhile, the Dem convention has turned into Hillary’s gala. Somehow this event changed from Obama’s nomination to the Billary Show. Now Hillary, Bill and even Chelsea have primetime speaking slots. Huh? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I thought Obama was the winner of the primaries. I doubt the same courtesy would have been extended to the junior Senator had Hillary triumphed. The fact that he allowed Hillary to elbow her way, once again, into the center stage spotlight reflects even more weakness. If he caves that easily to Hillary, how will he do against Ahmadinejad? Or is this a hint that Hillary will be on the ticket? Talk about caving. I can honestly see Obama in the Oval Office telling Hillary to get out of his chair and Bill to get out of his office. That ticket would turn the White House into a frat house.
And then there’s the Saddleback forum. Was this a disaster for Obama or what? Take away the teleprompter and suddenly the oratory master starts spinning his wheels. Most notable was the simple question: “When do babies get human rights?” It was painful watching Obama stumble around that one. For someone who repeatedly votes for abortion rights, including legalizing partial birth abortions, it seems the answer to this question would be quick and easy. But, that’s not how it went down. Obama responded by saying that such an answer was “above my pay grade”. Above my pay grade? What? Did he actually say that? Did he actually say that he is not qualified to answer that question? And yet, he has a problem with people questioning his experience, or lack thereof. You know, there are certain things you expect from a presidential candidate while he’s campaigning, but refusing to answer a simple question because it’s “above my pay grade” isn’t one of them. Is there a higher pay grade in this country than President? I respect people of differing opinions, but I don’t respect people who are obvious in their fence-riding. Take a stand, Obama. Have an opinion. If you don’t know when life begins, then maybe you should rethink your votes for abortion rights, or at least explain them. After all, if there is some uncertainty maybe it’s wise to err on the side of caution instead of the old “kill ‘em all and let God sort them out” type of answer. This was a gaffe, and a huge one at that. Especially compared to McCain’s answer: “at the moment of conception.” Short and to the point. Yes, there will be people who don’t like him for it, but at least he has the guts to voice his opinion.
McCain won that night in a big way, and suddenly the dems are shocked that the old man isn’t rolling over for the Chosen One. But, instead of putting the night behind them and moving on, they have the stones to suggest that McCain cheated. Arrogant? Just a bit. And now amidst the whining Obama says McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against. Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about Obama and the Dems. Although, I think they have a much better idea now. No wonder Obama doesn’t have the guts to take on McCain in his cross-country town hall tour.
Something tells me the Obama campaign is about to get dirty. Next week is the convention. Let’s see how many times they go after McCain, rather than the usual “change we can believe in” and “a new kind of politics”. We’ll see.
The Old Man has turned the Obama campaign on its ear and he is clearly here for a fight. Good for him. Before this election I wasn’t a big fan of McCain’s, but I’m really beginning to warm up to him. He’s feisty. He’s mean. He’s tough as nails. And he has the Dems squirming. That’s alright in my book.
Friday, August 15, 2008
After watching Lance Armstrong win his seventh Tour de France, I was convinced that I would never live to see anyone match his accomplisment. I figured there was no way anything could compare. I was wrong. I just watched Michael Phelps win his seventh gold medal in Beijing, his 13th overall Olympic championship. Unbelievable. What Phelps is doing is unheard of and I can't even think of the words to describe it. There's no basis for comparison here. I'm just glad I was around to watch it happen.
Now, for more serious stuff. Russia is out of control. I'm wondering if we're witnessing the return of the Red Army. We haven't seen bullying like this since the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia. Not sure what they're doing, but it looks a lot like annexation. No doubt Ukraine and Belarus are more than a bit concerned. It appears that all Russia needs is an excuse and they will commence to rebuilding the old Soviet Union. It's simply unacceptable, brutal aggression.
But, even worse, is the silence from the UN headquarters in New York. Moments like this are exactly what the UN was established for, and they have - as always - been utterly inept in stopping the Soviet (yes, I used this word intentionally) aggression. Amazingly, it seems like the only thing between Georgia and its complete destruction is Condi Rice. Again, this is unacceptable. I've long advocated for the US withdrawing from the UN, and this only reinforces that notion.
Not to be outdone, the Europeans are equally silent. Yes, Sarkozy has pressured the Soviets, but that's about it. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's because the Soviets supply 30% of Europe's oil. Maybe it's because apathy is running rampant. Or maybe it's just typical European cowardice...they're not knocking on my back door so why should I care? Absolutely shameful.
And faced with a golden opportunity to show that his lack of experience is not an issue in foreign policy, Barack Obama decides to vacation in Hawaii while the people of Georgia get steamrolled. Yes, he climbed out of the swimming pool long enough to issue the obligatory condemnation, but that's pretty much it. Granted, he's only one Senator. But it seems to me that if he expects us to trust him as President he should at least postpone his vacation and take a more forward approach in leadership. After all, McCain doesn't have a problem with it. Very disappointing.
And finally, President Bush has gone too far with US involvement. He has dispatched military planes and units for humanitarian purposes. As always, I have a big problem with this. Bush, like many before him, forget that the US military is not a babysitter. These people are trained to kill people and destroy things, not to hand out toilet paper and bottled water. When you start sending US troops for these types of missions you're asking for trouble...period. We don't belong there. Our troops don't belong there. Soon, Naval warships will be rubbing elbows in the Black Sea with Russian ships, while our planes circle overhead to deliver supplies. How long before someone gets trigger happy? All it takes is one breakdown in communication and suddenly we have a major international incident, if not an all out war. Bush is dead wrong and he'd be wise to keep our troops out of it. I sympathize with the people of Georgia, and strongly condemn Russia, but this situation is not a matter of US national security and therefore our military has no role here.
I'm okay with sending the Sec State to help negotiate peace. But instead of sending troops to Georgia, Bush should be standing before the UN demanding international action against Russia. Humanitarian assistance is THE UN'S JOB! Hopefully, one day the UN will eventually take a leadership role in that regard.
Meanwhile, let's all pray that our involvement doesn't lead to disaster.
Now, for more serious stuff. Russia is out of control. I'm wondering if we're witnessing the return of the Red Army. We haven't seen bullying like this since the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia. Not sure what they're doing, but it looks a lot like annexation. No doubt Ukraine and Belarus are more than a bit concerned. It appears that all Russia needs is an excuse and they will commence to rebuilding the old Soviet Union. It's simply unacceptable, brutal aggression.
But, even worse, is the silence from the UN headquarters in New York. Moments like this are exactly what the UN was established for, and they have - as always - been utterly inept in stopping the Soviet (yes, I used this word intentionally) aggression. Amazingly, it seems like the only thing between Georgia and its complete destruction is Condi Rice. Again, this is unacceptable. I've long advocated for the US withdrawing from the UN, and this only reinforces that notion.
Not to be outdone, the Europeans are equally silent. Yes, Sarkozy has pressured the Soviets, but that's about it. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's because the Soviets supply 30% of Europe's oil. Maybe it's because apathy is running rampant. Or maybe it's just typical European cowardice...they're not knocking on my back door so why should I care? Absolutely shameful.
And faced with a golden opportunity to show that his lack of experience is not an issue in foreign policy, Barack Obama decides to vacation in Hawaii while the people of Georgia get steamrolled. Yes, he climbed out of the swimming pool long enough to issue the obligatory condemnation, but that's pretty much it. Granted, he's only one Senator. But it seems to me that if he expects us to trust him as President he should at least postpone his vacation and take a more forward approach in leadership. After all, McCain doesn't have a problem with it. Very disappointing.
And finally, President Bush has gone too far with US involvement. He has dispatched military planes and units for humanitarian purposes. As always, I have a big problem with this. Bush, like many before him, forget that the US military is not a babysitter. These people are trained to kill people and destroy things, not to hand out toilet paper and bottled water. When you start sending US troops for these types of missions you're asking for trouble...period. We don't belong there. Our troops don't belong there. Soon, Naval warships will be rubbing elbows in the Black Sea with Russian ships, while our planes circle overhead to deliver supplies. How long before someone gets trigger happy? All it takes is one breakdown in communication and suddenly we have a major international incident, if not an all out war. Bush is dead wrong and he'd be wise to keep our troops out of it. I sympathize with the people of Georgia, and strongly condemn Russia, but this situation is not a matter of US national security and therefore our military has no role here.
I'm okay with sending the Sec State to help negotiate peace. But instead of sending troops to Georgia, Bush should be standing before the UN demanding international action against Russia. Humanitarian assistance is THE UN'S JOB! Hopefully, one day the UN will eventually take a leadership role in that regard.
Meanwhile, let's all pray that our involvement doesn't lead to disaster.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Go USA!
Happy Olympics to you all. I love this time. Every four years the people of America seem to come together for a common purpose…cheering for our nation’s best athletes as they compete against the world. I guess that’s what makes sports such a great thing. For a while, our petty differences don’t seem to matter all that much, whether you’re talking about the Olympics or some other sporting event.
When I go to a Cowboys game, I may be sitting next to a Liberal, or a Libertarian, maybe even a socialist. But who cares? At least I’m not sitting next to a Redskins fan. We don’t talk about politics. We don’t talk about Iraq or the energy crisis. No, we focus more on why Tony Romo can’t seem to win while he’s dating the latest hottie du jour. You won’t see Code Pink at a Cowboys game, and if you do it’s okay as long as they’re cheering for the Cowboys and not cursing our military. The point is we’re united despite our different backgrounds.
The same thing happens when I’m at a NASCAR race. You won’t hear any disagreements about drilling, or taxes, or how to properly fight Islamic extremism. Sure, there may be the occasional argument over who’s the better restrictor-plate driver, but it’s all in good fun. And the people of NASCAR are all-inclusive, a perfect metaphor for the way America should be. You’re not hated for your religious beliefs, or your sexual orientation, or your racial background. You’re not excluded based on your feelings about abortion. If you like to watch racing and you are passionate about the sport, you’ll be welcomed with open arms. Nobody cares about your political affiliation. Nobody cares about your background. The only thing that isn’t tolerated is political activism. That’s sort of a buzz kill for the folks who are there to have a good time. Be passionate about your favorite driver, but don’t talk about the Bush-Gore SCOTUS decision. After all, such talk does nothing to help your driver win the race.
Ever go to a college football game? You see quite a mix of people. There are 80 year old guys who never miss a game, and 20 year old kids who are recovering from last night’s frat party. They may vote differently but they all want their team to win and win big. It doesn’t really matter if the team wins with a conservative, grind-it-out running game or with a “showboat” progressive hook-and-ladder trick play…as long as they win. What a concept!
But nothing compares to the unity that we feel during the Olympics. We may be at each other’s throats about how to fix Social Security, but when the gun goes off we’re all pulling for Michael Phelps and the Red-White-Blue. That’s what makes the Olympics great to me. Others may say the competition is a time for world unity, but I disagree. For me, it’s more of a time for national unity. I don’t care about being united with the Chinese or the Australians. To me, it’s all about being united as Americans. I want our athletes to beat them all.
So here’s to the next 16 days. I look forward to America once again coming together as one. I’m hoping that McCain, Obama, Pelosi and Bush put aside the politics and give it a rest for a while. There’s plenty of time for jabs and mud-slinging after the closing ceremony. And, frankly, I think we’re all a bit tired of it. The Olympics only come around every four years, let’s not ruin them with the same old politics. Thank God the Olympics occur during election years. It’s good to get a break from the garbage that comes from Washington. It’s good to still see that no matter how different we may be we can still find that elusive common ground.
Coming together for the common good despite our personal differences…I think our elected leaders could learn quite a bit from American sports fans.
When I go to a Cowboys game, I may be sitting next to a Liberal, or a Libertarian, maybe even a socialist. But who cares? At least I’m not sitting next to a Redskins fan. We don’t talk about politics. We don’t talk about Iraq or the energy crisis. No, we focus more on why Tony Romo can’t seem to win while he’s dating the latest hottie du jour. You won’t see Code Pink at a Cowboys game, and if you do it’s okay as long as they’re cheering for the Cowboys and not cursing our military. The point is we’re united despite our different backgrounds.
The same thing happens when I’m at a NASCAR race. You won’t hear any disagreements about drilling, or taxes, or how to properly fight Islamic extremism. Sure, there may be the occasional argument over who’s the better restrictor-plate driver, but it’s all in good fun. And the people of NASCAR are all-inclusive, a perfect metaphor for the way America should be. You’re not hated for your religious beliefs, or your sexual orientation, or your racial background. You’re not excluded based on your feelings about abortion. If you like to watch racing and you are passionate about the sport, you’ll be welcomed with open arms. Nobody cares about your political affiliation. Nobody cares about your background. The only thing that isn’t tolerated is political activism. That’s sort of a buzz kill for the folks who are there to have a good time. Be passionate about your favorite driver, but don’t talk about the Bush-Gore SCOTUS decision. After all, such talk does nothing to help your driver win the race.
Ever go to a college football game? You see quite a mix of people. There are 80 year old guys who never miss a game, and 20 year old kids who are recovering from last night’s frat party. They may vote differently but they all want their team to win and win big. It doesn’t really matter if the team wins with a conservative, grind-it-out running game or with a “showboat” progressive hook-and-ladder trick play…as long as they win. What a concept!
But nothing compares to the unity that we feel during the Olympics. We may be at each other’s throats about how to fix Social Security, but when the gun goes off we’re all pulling for Michael Phelps and the Red-White-Blue. That’s what makes the Olympics great to me. Others may say the competition is a time for world unity, but I disagree. For me, it’s more of a time for national unity. I don’t care about being united with the Chinese or the Australians. To me, it’s all about being united as Americans. I want our athletes to beat them all.
So here’s to the next 16 days. I look forward to America once again coming together as one. I’m hoping that McCain, Obama, Pelosi and Bush put aside the politics and give it a rest for a while. There’s plenty of time for jabs and mud-slinging after the closing ceremony. And, frankly, I think we’re all a bit tired of it. The Olympics only come around every four years, let’s not ruin them with the same old politics. Thank God the Olympics occur during election years. It’s good to get a break from the garbage that comes from Washington. It’s good to still see that no matter how different we may be we can still find that elusive common ground.
Coming together for the common good despite our personal differences…I think our elected leaders could learn quite a bit from American sports fans.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Ever heard of the UN's Millenium Development Goals? Neither had I until I read this column by Ollie North, a man I trust and admire. Here's the skinny:
For years, the UN has been pushing for a global effort to bring the Third World into the modern world. On the surface, their intentions seem wonderful. They call their objectives the Millenium Development Goals and it consists of 8 specific things they hope to achieve. These are: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop a global partnership for development. The target date for achieving these goals is 2015.
Here is the website if you want to learn more.
Now, I am all for doing these things. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't. But my cynicism immediately kicks in when I hear talk of such things because doing these kinds of things costs money, and lots of it. And where does the UN hope to get such money?
Before we get into that, I also want to point out my past criticism of the UN. It's no secret that I despise that institution. In my mind, the idea of a multinational global union that works for the benefit of all people is a pipe dream. Each individual nation is going to seek its own self-interests, regardless of what's best for the world. So bringing nations together for a common goal amounts to herding cats. Then there's the Third World influence which seems to dominate the UN, as well as the influence of dictatorial regimes like Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, who have no interest in democracy and basic human rights. They all get one vote in the UN General Assembly, as does the United States despite the fact that we pay 25% of the UN's annual budget revenue. So I often wonder how the UN expects to fight for human rights issues when many of its member nations aren't interested in these issues. Then, you have to factor in the corruption, and the UN is arguably the most corrupt institution in human history. There's a lot of money going into that body, and the people who pay this money aren't getting much return on the investment.
My point is that if we want an effective global union then it must be a group of nations with a common goal and a common interest. This body should be comprised of ONLY nations who practice democracy and equality. At least then, we would find some common ground while also speaking with a loud voice. It would encourage those outside nations to clean up their acts in order to be a part of the global community. Seems so common sense to me.
Now, back to the Millenium Goals. The UN hopes to achieve these with a familiar plan - redistribution of wealth. It will require the wealthiest nations to pony up big time so that the poorest nations can be provided with the necessities required to achieve the goals. The US cost? Annually, 0.7% of its gross national product. That's $100 billion a year NOT including the 25% of the UNs annual budget that we already fund.
While you try to close your jaws, you can also think about this. Despite his inexperience, Barack Obama HAS proposed some legislation, and one of his key legislative pieces is the Global Poverty Act of 2007. In addition to Obama, it has 29 cosponsors. Here is what the bill says:
"To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
Basically, this bill is an endorsement of the UNs plan and it requires the US government to find a way to get the UN what it needs to accomplish it. What does that mean to you and me? Simple, the IRS will be collecting taxes for the United Nations. Frame it anyway you want, but that's what will happen.
I am a "by your own bootstraps" kind of guy. I sympathize with people who struggle but I believe it is ultimately their responsibility to free themselves of that struggle. Society's responsibility is to ensure they have the freedom to do so, without someone else's boot on their neck. Freebies are nice, but are more often than not squandered. It's only when things are earned that they are valued. This rings true whether you're talking about a single individual or an entire country. Many nations have pulled themselves out of poverty, look no further than China for such an example. So the idea of taxing the wealthy to give to the poor is just as fruitless on an international level as it is on an intranational level. How much has this nation spent on entitlements and social programs since the 1960s? And how much have we accomplished? Just look at the statistics and you'll see again that there has been little return on that investment.
Obama calls himself a citizen of the world, and his Global Poverty Act is his crowning piece of legislation. It passed the House in September 2007, and now has to pass the Senate and be signed by the President. Once that happens, the American people will be paying heavier taxes to the UN - a corrupt and inept institution - for the benefit of those nations who won't take responsibility for themselves. No wonder this man is loved by the world moreso than by his own country, his loyalties at times seem to be misplaced. $100 billion a year can do a lot right here in America.
Redistribution of wealth does not work and it never will. Think about that on November 4.
For years, the UN has been pushing for a global effort to bring the Third World into the modern world. On the surface, their intentions seem wonderful. They call their objectives the Millenium Development Goals and it consists of 8 specific things they hope to achieve. These are: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop a global partnership for development. The target date for achieving these goals is 2015.
Here is the website if you want to learn more.
Now, I am all for doing these things. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't. But my cynicism immediately kicks in when I hear talk of such things because doing these kinds of things costs money, and lots of it. And where does the UN hope to get such money?
Before we get into that, I also want to point out my past criticism of the UN. It's no secret that I despise that institution. In my mind, the idea of a multinational global union that works for the benefit of all people is a pipe dream. Each individual nation is going to seek its own self-interests, regardless of what's best for the world. So bringing nations together for a common goal amounts to herding cats. Then there's the Third World influence which seems to dominate the UN, as well as the influence of dictatorial regimes like Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, who have no interest in democracy and basic human rights. They all get one vote in the UN General Assembly, as does the United States despite the fact that we pay 25% of the UN's annual budget revenue. So I often wonder how the UN expects to fight for human rights issues when many of its member nations aren't interested in these issues. Then, you have to factor in the corruption, and the UN is arguably the most corrupt institution in human history. There's a lot of money going into that body, and the people who pay this money aren't getting much return on the investment.
My point is that if we want an effective global union then it must be a group of nations with a common goal and a common interest. This body should be comprised of ONLY nations who practice democracy and equality. At least then, we would find some common ground while also speaking with a loud voice. It would encourage those outside nations to clean up their acts in order to be a part of the global community. Seems so common sense to me.
Now, back to the Millenium Goals. The UN hopes to achieve these with a familiar plan - redistribution of wealth. It will require the wealthiest nations to pony up big time so that the poorest nations can be provided with the necessities required to achieve the goals. The US cost? Annually, 0.7% of its gross national product. That's $100 billion a year NOT including the 25% of the UNs annual budget that we already fund.
While you try to close your jaws, you can also think about this. Despite his inexperience, Barack Obama HAS proposed some legislation, and one of his key legislative pieces is the Global Poverty Act of 2007. In addition to Obama, it has 29 cosponsors. Here is what the bill says:
"To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
Basically, this bill is an endorsement of the UNs plan and it requires the US government to find a way to get the UN what it needs to accomplish it. What does that mean to you and me? Simple, the IRS will be collecting taxes for the United Nations. Frame it anyway you want, but that's what will happen.
I am a "by your own bootstraps" kind of guy. I sympathize with people who struggle but I believe it is ultimately their responsibility to free themselves of that struggle. Society's responsibility is to ensure they have the freedom to do so, without someone else's boot on their neck. Freebies are nice, but are more often than not squandered. It's only when things are earned that they are valued. This rings true whether you're talking about a single individual or an entire country. Many nations have pulled themselves out of poverty, look no further than China for such an example. So the idea of taxing the wealthy to give to the poor is just as fruitless on an international level as it is on an intranational level. How much has this nation spent on entitlements and social programs since the 1960s? And how much have we accomplished? Just look at the statistics and you'll see again that there has been little return on that investment.
Obama calls himself a citizen of the world, and his Global Poverty Act is his crowning piece of legislation. It passed the House in September 2007, and now has to pass the Senate and be signed by the President. Once that happens, the American people will be paying heavier taxes to the UN - a corrupt and inept institution - for the benefit of those nations who won't take responsibility for themselves. No wonder this man is loved by the world moreso than by his own country, his loyalties at times seem to be misplaced. $100 billion a year can do a lot right here in America.
Redistribution of wealth does not work and it never will. Think about that on November 4.
Monday, July 28, 2008
At the risk of being called a racist, my criticism of Barack Obama continues. I don't seek ways to criticize, I simply read stories and respond:
Today, he announced an economic plan that would increase taxes on those families making over $250,000 a year, and cut taxes for those making less than 150K. This has me a little confused because back in June he announced this exact plan but stated it was his way of fixing Social Security, basically increasing the payroll tax for those who make over 250K. So, if you make over 250K a year it appears that Obama will raise BOTH your income tax and your FICA taxes. Ouch!
He calls it the "trickle up" effect, and seems to believe that cutting taxes for the middle class will somehow stimulate the economy. Wow.
This in light of the fact that the top 1% of US income earners pay 40% of the nation's income tax revenue, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of the revenue, while the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 3% of America's income taxes. For some reason Obama sees this as unfair (and, in a way, he's right) and wants to change things so the "rich" pay MORE!!!
As a side note, since I am in the medical field, I think it's worth saying that if a hypothetical physician sees too many patients he/she runs the risk of falling into Obama's "wealthy" classification. Basically, he will give that doctor incentive to decrease the work load since it will be way too costly otherwise. Sure, that doctor wants to serve his patient population, but this can't happen if it's financially detrimental. This is just one example of why these kinds of taxes don't work. For some, it could lead to cutting patient enrollment. For others, maybe it's cutting jobs, or downsizing operations, or postponing any plans for expansion. There IS a point where the financial gain is overshadowed by the "penalty" of taxation.
In addition to these taxes, he has also previously stated that he will DOUBLE the capitol gains tax and place a windfall profits tax on large corporat profits, namely the oil companies. Anybody who knows even a little economics should now be terrified of a Barack Obama administration.
Here is what will likely happen if Obama does the things that he is proposing:
First, small businesses will fail. These are the folks who fall in the 250K category. They fit Obama's description of wealthy, but are hardly super-rich. Small business is a major driving factor in our economy, and a major employer as well. So you can imagine what will happen when they are squeezed from both ends of Obama's tax plan. Couple that with the recent minimum wage hike and you have the perfect storm for America's small business. At best, they cut jobs and unemployment goes up. At worst, the business folds, the jobs are lost and the local economy takes a hit.
Then, the windfall profits tax kicks in. What do you think will happen to the price of oil? There will be no limit. Once that skyrockets, again the national and global economy feels the crunch, as it is today. Yet that crunch will be magnified by Obama's stubborn unwillingness to explore US drilling options. Basically, there is nothing Obama plans to do in the short term to bring oil prices down, yet he promises a tax on corporate profits that will without a doubt send oil prices even higher than they are now. One wonders how much more $120+ a barrel oil this economy can take.
Finally, Obama's capitol gains tax. Even Hillary - who rarely meets a tax hike she doesn't like - stated that increasing the capitol gains, even by a small amount, would be a bad idea for our economy. But Obama doesn't want to increase it by a small amount, he wants to DOUBLE it. This means that investment will slow down, and the stock market will plunge. Naturally, the overall economy will take a hit. NEVER has an increase in this tax led to economic expansion...never.
Obama has announced a few plans for the economy, and none of them will amount to actual growth. NEVER has a tax increase led to economic expansion. This is because of a simple premise, and that is that the gov't isn't effective at efficient spending. The private sector is. Under Obama, I fear we will see higher unemployment, more small business failures, decreasing investments, higher inflation, astronomical oil prices, higher food prices, and one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression.
The economy is sputtering from oil strangulation and the housing market, there isn't much more it can take before bad things start happening. But small business and investment remain strong. What happens when Obama hits them with his economic policy?
Today, he announced an economic plan that would increase taxes on those families making over $250,000 a year, and cut taxes for those making less than 150K. This has me a little confused because back in June he announced this exact plan but stated it was his way of fixing Social Security, basically increasing the payroll tax for those who make over 250K. So, if you make over 250K a year it appears that Obama will raise BOTH your income tax and your FICA taxes. Ouch!
He calls it the "trickle up" effect, and seems to believe that cutting taxes for the middle class will somehow stimulate the economy. Wow.
This in light of the fact that the top 1% of US income earners pay 40% of the nation's income tax revenue, and the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of the revenue, while the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 3% of America's income taxes. For some reason Obama sees this as unfair (and, in a way, he's right) and wants to change things so the "rich" pay MORE!!!
As a side note, since I am in the medical field, I think it's worth saying that if a hypothetical physician sees too many patients he/she runs the risk of falling into Obama's "wealthy" classification. Basically, he will give that doctor incentive to decrease the work load since it will be way too costly otherwise. Sure, that doctor wants to serve his patient population, but this can't happen if it's financially detrimental. This is just one example of why these kinds of taxes don't work. For some, it could lead to cutting patient enrollment. For others, maybe it's cutting jobs, or downsizing operations, or postponing any plans for expansion. There IS a point where the financial gain is overshadowed by the "penalty" of taxation.
In addition to these taxes, he has also previously stated that he will DOUBLE the capitol gains tax and place a windfall profits tax on large corporat profits, namely the oil companies. Anybody who knows even a little economics should now be terrified of a Barack Obama administration.
Here is what will likely happen if Obama does the things that he is proposing:
First, small businesses will fail. These are the folks who fall in the 250K category. They fit Obama's description of wealthy, but are hardly super-rich. Small business is a major driving factor in our economy, and a major employer as well. So you can imagine what will happen when they are squeezed from both ends of Obama's tax plan. Couple that with the recent minimum wage hike and you have the perfect storm for America's small business. At best, they cut jobs and unemployment goes up. At worst, the business folds, the jobs are lost and the local economy takes a hit.
Then, the windfall profits tax kicks in. What do you think will happen to the price of oil? There will be no limit. Once that skyrockets, again the national and global economy feels the crunch, as it is today. Yet that crunch will be magnified by Obama's stubborn unwillingness to explore US drilling options. Basically, there is nothing Obama plans to do in the short term to bring oil prices down, yet he promises a tax on corporate profits that will without a doubt send oil prices even higher than they are now. One wonders how much more $120+ a barrel oil this economy can take.
Finally, Obama's capitol gains tax. Even Hillary - who rarely meets a tax hike she doesn't like - stated that increasing the capitol gains, even by a small amount, would be a bad idea for our economy. But Obama doesn't want to increase it by a small amount, he wants to DOUBLE it. This means that investment will slow down, and the stock market will plunge. Naturally, the overall economy will take a hit. NEVER has an increase in this tax led to economic expansion...never.
Obama has announced a few plans for the economy, and none of them will amount to actual growth. NEVER has a tax increase led to economic expansion. This is because of a simple premise, and that is that the gov't isn't effective at efficient spending. The private sector is. Under Obama, I fear we will see higher unemployment, more small business failures, decreasing investments, higher inflation, astronomical oil prices, higher food prices, and one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression.
The economy is sputtering from oil strangulation and the housing market, there isn't much more it can take before bad things start happening. But small business and investment remain strong. What happens when Obama hits them with his economic policy?
Friday, July 25, 2008
I Am Legend
Okay, I am now officially creeped out by this Obama-mania that seems to have a kung-fu grip on so many people across the country and now, apparently, across the globe. I don't get it. This guy has zero executive experience and has only been in politics a few years, yet he can stand and deliver a speech full of corny cliches and idealistic imagery - while virtually absent of ideas - and suddenly he is the savior of the world and has everyone blindly chanting "yes we can". Huh? Have the Europeans really become that easy to impress? Well, I guess this isn't the first time.
I read the transcript from Obama's speech. I didn't watch the speech, mainly out of fear of coming under the Obamatron spell, I swear this guy has some sort of Gorgonian quality. Instead of turning to stone, those who look too long become blathering fools incapable of independent or analytical thought, with big sparkly smiles, brown noses and a tendency to laugh at anything the Senator says that may be remotely considered a joke regardless of humor level. His media posse of Stepford Wives have turned from "yes" men to "yes we can" men. The toughest question this guy has faced was whether he preferred to work out with machines or free weights. Even Frank Luntz, usually objective and cynical, seemed to have fallen into an Obamian trance last night on Hannity & Colmes. Et tu, Franky? We're dropping like flies. I'm beginning to feel like Robert Neville trying to find a cure for this plague while fearing every night that I will be eaten by my fellow humans-turned-night-seekers who have fallen victim to the disease. I am not legend, I am just a guy who would like the Senator to answer a few tough questions regarding what he plans to do should he become President.
But seriously, I read the transcript from the speech and I am not impressed. This wasn't Reagan, or even Kennedy. It was a pretentious display of bold self-indulgence and glorification that has me wondering what Obama is doing. Is he running for US President, or Emperor of the Galaxy? Should we expect a campaign tour of Mars soon? He no doubt has the money for it. Arrogant and elitist? No, this guy has transcended those terms. My great grandmother would say that he has "gotten too big for his britches". Maybe that's a better description. I wonder if Grandma would ever chant "yes we can".
Since I have been able to resist the tractor-beam of Obamacharm, I have my own critique of Obamapalooza 2008, and my own questions that I can only hope will one day be asked of his Highness. First, how does being popular with Europeans translate in America? The way I see it, there is a vast culture gap between mainstream Americans and mainstream Europeans. Our values differ a great deal. In short, we just don't have much in common anymore. Europe has become a wasteland of secularism, socialism and moral relativism. So when 200,000 Germans gleefully chant your name in support, how will that be received in America? When Reagan went to Germany, he was protested. In fact, the Europeans didn't like him all that much. But the LOVE Obama. In my mind, that's a negative and it only reinforces my opinion of his Highness. Being loved by the Europeans isn't something to brag about, and it isn't easy. You basically have to prove that you're similar to them in so many ways. Obama's socialist agenda complete with universal health care, carbon offsets, internationalist foreign policy and appeasement in the war on terror plays well with the Europeans. In their eyes, he's not American at all. I didn't see any protests. Just how important is it to Obama that he is liked by the world? To me, it seems very important...not a quality that I look for in a President. People in Californistan may approve, but I wonder how this will play on Main Street, USA. Just smile and say "yes we can".
Is it reasonable to expect the American tax payer to foot the bill for a portion of Obamapalooza? The first few days was labeled a Senate "fact finding" mission. This way, Obama was able to travel for free with a clear conscience. His campaign insists the trip had nothing to do with his presidential campaign. I'm not convinced and surely I'm not the only one. The Obama campaign should have funded the entire trip. Don't worry Mr Taxpayer, just nod and say "yes we can".
Did al-Maliki truly endorse your 16 month pullout plan? That's not what I heard. Al-Maliki said he supports the eventual withdrawal of all US troops and feels a plan should be in place for such a withdrawal when the proper time comes. Congrats to the Prime Minister, who is now part of a unanimous opinion, thank you for stating the obvious. We all want US troops to leave Iraq eventually. Now, if you speak Obamese then that apparently translates into an all-out endorsement of Obama's pullout plan. To which, Al-Maliki responded: "That's not what I said". Not that it matters, let's not quibble with details. The Stepford Wives lapped it up and formatted Maliki's words into a complete endorsement and no one has called them on it. In fact, if you believe Obama's posse then you probably think that al-Maliki bowed to Obama and asked his Highness to bestow his blessing upon Iraq and its people while bobbing his head uncontrollably and chanting "yes we can". But that's just rumor.
Why did you bother meeting with General Petraeus? This had nothing to do with fact-finding. Obama declared before the trip that he would pull US troops out of Iraq in 16 months. He made his Imperial decree before meeting with the General, before stepping foot in Iraq, basically before he knew what he was talking about. That was a mistake. At least he could have been more patronizing and announce his plan after meeting with Petraeus, but the Obamatrons didn't seem to mind. Again, independent thought isn't a trait of theirs. The General has long argued against unconditional timetables but, then again, he has yet to fall under the Obamacharm spell. Perhaps that's why Obama met with him. Alas, it was to no avail. The General still opposes unconditional timetables and thus Obama had to change his rhetoric. Before, he was pulling us out because the surge had failed. Now, he's pulling us out because the surge has worked so well that the Iraqis no longer need us. In Obama's eyes you can call it what you want, so long as he gets his 16 month unconditional retreat and keeps his far-Left river of money flowing. And in the process, he got some really cool photo-ops with the troops. Never mind, just nod your head and say "yes we can".
Why didn't you bother meeting with the injured troops in Germany? The Pentagon says they reminded Obama that any such meeting must be in private, thereby keeping the campaign off the base. Basically, Obama was told that he could have a few senate staffers with him and that's it. No press, no parade, no hoopla. To that the Senator said, "No thanks". Sure, he tried to paint it as the Pentagon's idea, but these rules have been in place for a long time and are applied equally to both parties. It seems, at least on the surface, that Obama isn't interested in meeting with our armed forces unless there is a camera close by to show the world how much he cares. At least that's how it seems. To those troops in Germany, just nod and say "yes we can".
And finally, Senator, please tell me what the difference is between the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. You say we must win in Afghanistan but you're basically indifferent on Iraq. Why the two positions? In both places, we're fighting extremists who want to rule a country with the iron fist of tyranny, who live for the destruction of the West and anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking all while actively seeking the most horrifying weapons known to man. Did I miss something? Is there something going on in Afghanistan that isn't happening in Iraq? What is it that makes one crucial and the other an afterthought? I guess the people in Iraq should just nod and say "yes we can".
Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time before I get an answer from the Dems Manchurian Candidate other than the obligatory "yes we can". But I'll wait. Meanwhile, I'm gonna try to isolate the antibodies in General Petraeus bloodstream since he seems to be immune to the global Obamitis pandemic that has engulfed our world. Perhaps I am legend after all.
I read the transcript from Obama's speech. I didn't watch the speech, mainly out of fear of coming under the Obamatron spell, I swear this guy has some sort of Gorgonian quality. Instead of turning to stone, those who look too long become blathering fools incapable of independent or analytical thought, with big sparkly smiles, brown noses and a tendency to laugh at anything the Senator says that may be remotely considered a joke regardless of humor level. His media posse of Stepford Wives have turned from "yes" men to "yes we can" men. The toughest question this guy has faced was whether he preferred to work out with machines or free weights. Even Frank Luntz, usually objective and cynical, seemed to have fallen into an Obamian trance last night on Hannity & Colmes. Et tu, Franky? We're dropping like flies. I'm beginning to feel like Robert Neville trying to find a cure for this plague while fearing every night that I will be eaten by my fellow humans-turned-night-seekers who have fallen victim to the disease. I am not legend, I am just a guy who would like the Senator to answer a few tough questions regarding what he plans to do should he become President.
But seriously, I read the transcript from the speech and I am not impressed. This wasn't Reagan, or even Kennedy. It was a pretentious display of bold self-indulgence and glorification that has me wondering what Obama is doing. Is he running for US President, or Emperor of the Galaxy? Should we expect a campaign tour of Mars soon? He no doubt has the money for it. Arrogant and elitist? No, this guy has transcended those terms. My great grandmother would say that he has "gotten too big for his britches". Maybe that's a better description. I wonder if Grandma would ever chant "yes we can".
Since I have been able to resist the tractor-beam of Obamacharm, I have my own critique of Obamapalooza 2008, and my own questions that I can only hope will one day be asked of his Highness. First, how does being popular with Europeans translate in America? The way I see it, there is a vast culture gap between mainstream Americans and mainstream Europeans. Our values differ a great deal. In short, we just don't have much in common anymore. Europe has become a wasteland of secularism, socialism and moral relativism. So when 200,000 Germans gleefully chant your name in support, how will that be received in America? When Reagan went to Germany, he was protested. In fact, the Europeans didn't like him all that much. But the LOVE Obama. In my mind, that's a negative and it only reinforces my opinion of his Highness. Being loved by the Europeans isn't something to brag about, and it isn't easy. You basically have to prove that you're similar to them in so many ways. Obama's socialist agenda complete with universal health care, carbon offsets, internationalist foreign policy and appeasement in the war on terror plays well with the Europeans. In their eyes, he's not American at all. I didn't see any protests. Just how important is it to Obama that he is liked by the world? To me, it seems very important...not a quality that I look for in a President. People in Californistan may approve, but I wonder how this will play on Main Street, USA. Just smile and say "yes we can".
Is it reasonable to expect the American tax payer to foot the bill for a portion of Obamapalooza? The first few days was labeled a Senate "fact finding" mission. This way, Obama was able to travel for free with a clear conscience. His campaign insists the trip had nothing to do with his presidential campaign. I'm not convinced and surely I'm not the only one. The Obama campaign should have funded the entire trip. Don't worry Mr Taxpayer, just nod and say "yes we can".
Did al-Maliki truly endorse your 16 month pullout plan? That's not what I heard. Al-Maliki said he supports the eventual withdrawal of all US troops and feels a plan should be in place for such a withdrawal when the proper time comes. Congrats to the Prime Minister, who is now part of a unanimous opinion, thank you for stating the obvious. We all want US troops to leave Iraq eventually. Now, if you speak Obamese then that apparently translates into an all-out endorsement of Obama's pullout plan. To which, Al-Maliki responded: "That's not what I said". Not that it matters, let's not quibble with details. The Stepford Wives lapped it up and formatted Maliki's words into a complete endorsement and no one has called them on it. In fact, if you believe Obama's posse then you probably think that al-Maliki bowed to Obama and asked his Highness to bestow his blessing upon Iraq and its people while bobbing his head uncontrollably and chanting "yes we can". But that's just rumor.
Why did you bother meeting with General Petraeus? This had nothing to do with fact-finding. Obama declared before the trip that he would pull US troops out of Iraq in 16 months. He made his Imperial decree before meeting with the General, before stepping foot in Iraq, basically before he knew what he was talking about. That was a mistake. At least he could have been more patronizing and announce his plan after meeting with Petraeus, but the Obamatrons didn't seem to mind. Again, independent thought isn't a trait of theirs. The General has long argued against unconditional timetables but, then again, he has yet to fall under the Obamacharm spell. Perhaps that's why Obama met with him. Alas, it was to no avail. The General still opposes unconditional timetables and thus Obama had to change his rhetoric. Before, he was pulling us out because the surge had failed. Now, he's pulling us out because the surge has worked so well that the Iraqis no longer need us. In Obama's eyes you can call it what you want, so long as he gets his 16 month unconditional retreat and keeps his far-Left river of money flowing. And in the process, he got some really cool photo-ops with the troops. Never mind, just nod your head and say "yes we can".
Why didn't you bother meeting with the injured troops in Germany? The Pentagon says they reminded Obama that any such meeting must be in private, thereby keeping the campaign off the base. Basically, Obama was told that he could have a few senate staffers with him and that's it. No press, no parade, no hoopla. To that the Senator said, "No thanks". Sure, he tried to paint it as the Pentagon's idea, but these rules have been in place for a long time and are applied equally to both parties. It seems, at least on the surface, that Obama isn't interested in meeting with our armed forces unless there is a camera close by to show the world how much he cares. At least that's how it seems. To those troops in Germany, just nod and say "yes we can".
And finally, Senator, please tell me what the difference is between the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. You say we must win in Afghanistan but you're basically indifferent on Iraq. Why the two positions? In both places, we're fighting extremists who want to rule a country with the iron fist of tyranny, who live for the destruction of the West and anyone who disagrees with their way of thinking all while actively seeking the most horrifying weapons known to man. Did I miss something? Is there something going on in Afghanistan that isn't happening in Iraq? What is it that makes one crucial and the other an afterthought? I guess the people in Iraq should just nod and say "yes we can".
Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time before I get an answer from the Dems Manchurian Candidate other than the obligatory "yes we can". But I'll wait. Meanwhile, I'm gonna try to isolate the antibodies in General Petraeus bloodstream since he seems to be immune to the global Obamitis pandemic that has engulfed our world. Perhaps I am legend after all.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Today, the New York Times refused to publish an op-ed piece by John McCain. McCain's piece was written as a response to Barak Obama's column that was published by the Times 2 weeks ago. Unless you watch or read Fox News, you probably haven't seen anything about this story...no surprise there.
The Times released a statement saying they will not publish McCain's column unless he meets certain pre-set criteria as deemed appropriate by their editors. Whether or not Obama was given these criteria is unknown.
The column Obama wrote is basically the speech he is giving on his recent Obama-palooza tour across the middle east. So, the Times pretty much printed an Obama campaign speech. The McCain column is available online and I have included it here on this site. The reader can form their own opinion about the Times, most of us already have.
By Sen. John McCain
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
The Times released a statement saying they will not publish McCain's column unless he meets certain pre-set criteria as deemed appropriate by their editors. Whether or not Obama was given these criteria is unknown.
The column Obama wrote is basically the speech he is giving on his recent Obama-palooza tour across the middle east. So, the Times pretty much printed an Obama campaign speech. The McCain column is available online and I have included it here on this site. The reader can form their own opinion about the Times, most of us already have.
By Sen. John McCain
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Exposing Al Gore as a fraud has almost become too easy, but I think I'll jump in anyway. One year ago the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Mr Gore was an energy glutton, basically consuming 20 times the national average at his Tennessee home. Gore was, of course, appalled and promised to change this. Well, that same group has done a follow up after giving the global warming guru an entire year to clean up his act, and guess what they found?
Gore's energy use in his home has actually INCREASED by 10%.
Mr Gore has no doubt taken the term "hypocrisy" to new levels. Meanwhile, he continues to tour the world raising alarms about global warming and calling on others to conserve energy and change their lifestyles. One wonders why anyone still takes this guy seriously.
Not enough? Well, consider his recent calls for more laws that would provide subsidies and mandates for the alternate energy industry. He names a few companies of this industry: Smartcar, Altra biofuels, and Ausra solar technology to name a few. Then, no kidding, he goes on to say: "Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these."
As a side note, it's important to mention at this time that Gore has accumulated a fortune of over $100 million since leaving public office in 2001.
Is it just me or did Gore let the proverbial cat out of the backyard compost pile? He actually admitted that he has personally invested money in companies that stand to profit a great deal if the world buys his chicken little routine, all while he has INCREASED his own personal energy use at home. I'm no genius, but I can spot snake oil when it's being pushed on me. Gore doesn't appear to be nearly as concerned about the environment as he is about his own bank balance, or so it seems to the commoner.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for smart energy. We should maximize renewable energy, conserve as much as practically possible and do whatever it takes to become energy independent. But I for one am a bit tired of Gore's antics. The guy is a phony and it is slowly becoming evident that this enviro-crusade of his basically boils down to his own personal get-richer scheme. The man has no credibility in my eyes and I will consider anything that comes out of his mouth a lie until proven otherwise.
I think the wise man would do the same.
Gore's energy use in his home has actually INCREASED by 10%.
Mr Gore has no doubt taken the term "hypocrisy" to new levels. Meanwhile, he continues to tour the world raising alarms about global warming and calling on others to conserve energy and change their lifestyles. One wonders why anyone still takes this guy seriously.
Not enough? Well, consider his recent calls for more laws that would provide subsidies and mandates for the alternate energy industry. He names a few companies of this industry: Smartcar, Altra biofuels, and Ausra solar technology to name a few. Then, no kidding, he goes on to say: "Here are just a few of the investments that I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these."
As a side note, it's important to mention at this time that Gore has accumulated a fortune of over $100 million since leaving public office in 2001.
Is it just me or did Gore let the proverbial cat out of the backyard compost pile? He actually admitted that he has personally invested money in companies that stand to profit a great deal if the world buys his chicken little routine, all while he has INCREASED his own personal energy use at home. I'm no genius, but I can spot snake oil when it's being pushed on me. Gore doesn't appear to be nearly as concerned about the environment as he is about his own bank balance, or so it seems to the commoner.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for smart energy. We should maximize renewable energy, conserve as much as practically possible and do whatever it takes to become energy independent. But I for one am a bit tired of Gore's antics. The guy is a phony and it is slowly becoming evident that this enviro-crusade of his basically boils down to his own personal get-richer scheme. The man has no credibility in my eyes and I will consider anything that comes out of his mouth a lie until proven otherwise.
I think the wise man would do the same.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The "100 years" war
If you follow the news, especially the New York Times or CNN, then you certainly have seen John McCain's comment about America's future in Iraq. It happened at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire in January. A voter said to McCain that Pres. Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years. McCain's response was: "make it a hundred". This is what all the media outlets have pounced upon, and what Obama (who claims to practice a "new" kind of politics) has adopted as a quasi-campaing slogan. Of course, there is little mention of what McCain said immediately afterward: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
McCain is right. There is nothing about his statement that is inappropriate or inaccurate. America helps protect its allies with a military presence. We're also based in the UK, Germany, Turkey, Guam, and many former Soviet republics. It's a fact and there is no reason to assume that we wouldn't have a permanent military presence in Iraq once the fledgling democracy is on its feet, especially given Iraq's strategic importance. The MSM has misrepresented McCain's comment, as has Obama (who claims to practice a "new" kind of politics), as some kind of endorsement of 100 years of war in Iraq without end. This is dishonest to say the least, and Obama should know better since he has been the victim of similar misrepresentations, ie the "typical white person" comment. The non-partisan watchdog group factcheck.org has said that "Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years in Iraq is a serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood". Obama is getting muddy and it's not becoming of him, especially since he claims to practice a "new" kind of politics.
McCain isn't backing down and he has challenged Obama on the deliberate misrepresentation. Obama's response was that we have no business in a country that has nothing to do with the war on terror. This caught my attention, and warrants a response from WEP.
It's true that I've grown tired of trying to explain to liberals why war in Iraq was necessary...tragic but necessary. Either you get it or you don't, the debate is basically fruitless. They always come back with this ridiculous assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and they think that our presence there detracts from the "actual" war on terror and ties up badly needed resources. I wonder who they think we're fighting in Iraq? I always thought we were fighting Islamic terrorists.
If you ask a typical liberal about the war on terror (or the "so called war on terror" as they like to say) you will discover that this war begins and ends with Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, once we capture him it is all over. All we need to do is withdraw from Iraq, focus all our efforts on Bin Laden and we can end this so called war on terror and get back to our ipods and Sex in the City reruns. Simple enough, right?
Well, I'm sorry, but fighting a complex war like this is not the same as playing a game of Stratego, which is basically what Obama's military strategy would be. Bin Laden is one of many Islamic terrorists who want all of us to worship their god or die. Yes, he is high profile but capturing or killing him would hardly end the war. Victory only comes with a change in mindset, governance, and perception in a culture that knows much of violence and little of tolerance. Bin Laden's capture wouldn't do much in that regard. If anything, it would inspire more fight in our enemies since they so admire the whole martyrdom thing.
So while Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, saying it has nothing to do with the war on terror reflects a jaw-droppingly vast and dangerous lack of understanding of this conflict. Our troops are actively engaged with the enemy and they are winning. We have established a front line of battle in the war on terror and it is very far from main street America where the terrorists would prefer to fight. Where once they were hiding in the shadows, our conflict in Iraq has drawn them into a fight with our military, where they are greatly overmatched, as opposed to killing unarmed and untrained civilians as they would prefer. The enemy's focus is on driving our troops out of Iraq, more so than attacking our families here at home, and they are fighting this battle at great cost. Disengaging in Iraq would mean losing that front line and our enemies would creep back into the shadows looking for their next target, likely somewhere on main street America.
I think someone should sit down with Obama and explain this to him because he has no business being our next Commander in Chief if he doesn't understand such a fundamental military concept. Against a guerrilla enemy, it is much better to establish a line and provide them motivation to attack you and thus draw them into you strength rather than seek them amongst the shadows in their line of strength. The enemy's strength is their anonymity and invisibility which is lost when they are attacking our line of strength. Basically, our troops are fighting over there so we won't have to over here. It's simple, and believe me no one understands this more than the troops who are doing the fighting.
Obama clearly doesn't get it and neither do most libs who say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
We have paid a dear price in this fight. We've lost many brave soldiers and spent large amounts of treasure. But what is the alternative? Are we to simply give up and stop fighting altogether? Yes, we could disengage in Iraq and focus our efforts on seek-and-destroy missions, kill a terrorist here, capture another there. But we wouldn't come close to inflicting the kind of damage on these networks that we are currently inflicting in Iraq, not to mention the most damaging of all...establishing a democratic Islamic state in the heart of the middle east. When we began this fight in September 2001, President Bush said it was going to be long, costly and difficult. Were we not listening? Did we not believe him?
We've lost over 3,000 Americans in Iraq in 5 years of fighting. We lost more than that in one day on 9-11. We have options but to me the alternative to what we are currently doing seems much worse. It's the lesser of two evils once again. In 1945, Truman faced something similar and he chose to inflict misery on the enemy rather than allow the enemy to inflict misery on us. What are we to do today? Obama? McCain? This is the most important question of this year's election.
McCain is right. There is nothing about his statement that is inappropriate or inaccurate. America helps protect its allies with a military presence. We're also based in the UK, Germany, Turkey, Guam, and many former Soviet republics. It's a fact and there is no reason to assume that we wouldn't have a permanent military presence in Iraq once the fledgling democracy is on its feet, especially given Iraq's strategic importance. The MSM has misrepresented McCain's comment, as has Obama (who claims to practice a "new" kind of politics), as some kind of endorsement of 100 years of war in Iraq without end. This is dishonest to say the least, and Obama should know better since he has been the victim of similar misrepresentations, ie the "typical white person" comment. The non-partisan watchdog group factcheck.org has said that "Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years in Iraq is a serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood". Obama is getting muddy and it's not becoming of him, especially since he claims to practice a "new" kind of politics.
McCain isn't backing down and he has challenged Obama on the deliberate misrepresentation. Obama's response was that we have no business in a country that has nothing to do with the war on terror. This caught my attention, and warrants a response from WEP.
It's true that I've grown tired of trying to explain to liberals why war in Iraq was necessary...tragic but necessary. Either you get it or you don't, the debate is basically fruitless. They always come back with this ridiculous assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and they think that our presence there detracts from the "actual" war on terror and ties up badly needed resources. I wonder who they think we're fighting in Iraq? I always thought we were fighting Islamic terrorists.
If you ask a typical liberal about the war on terror (or the "so called war on terror" as they like to say) you will discover that this war begins and ends with Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, once we capture him it is all over. All we need to do is withdraw from Iraq, focus all our efforts on Bin Laden and we can end this so called war on terror and get back to our ipods and Sex in the City reruns. Simple enough, right?
Well, I'm sorry, but fighting a complex war like this is not the same as playing a game of Stratego, which is basically what Obama's military strategy would be. Bin Laden is one of many Islamic terrorists who want all of us to worship their god or die. Yes, he is high profile but capturing or killing him would hardly end the war. Victory only comes with a change in mindset, governance, and perception in a culture that knows much of violence and little of tolerance. Bin Laden's capture wouldn't do much in that regard. If anything, it would inspire more fight in our enemies since they so admire the whole martyrdom thing.
So while Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, saying it has nothing to do with the war on terror reflects a jaw-droppingly vast and dangerous lack of understanding of this conflict. Our troops are actively engaged with the enemy and they are winning. We have established a front line of battle in the war on terror and it is very far from main street America where the terrorists would prefer to fight. Where once they were hiding in the shadows, our conflict in Iraq has drawn them into a fight with our military, where they are greatly overmatched, as opposed to killing unarmed and untrained civilians as they would prefer. The enemy's focus is on driving our troops out of Iraq, more so than attacking our families here at home, and they are fighting this battle at great cost. Disengaging in Iraq would mean losing that front line and our enemies would creep back into the shadows looking for their next target, likely somewhere on main street America.
I think someone should sit down with Obama and explain this to him because he has no business being our next Commander in Chief if he doesn't understand such a fundamental military concept. Against a guerrilla enemy, it is much better to establish a line and provide them motivation to attack you and thus draw them into you strength rather than seek them amongst the shadows in their line of strength. The enemy's strength is their anonymity and invisibility which is lost when they are attacking our line of strength. Basically, our troops are fighting over there so we won't have to over here. It's simple, and believe me no one understands this more than the troops who are doing the fighting.
Obama clearly doesn't get it and neither do most libs who say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
We have paid a dear price in this fight. We've lost many brave soldiers and spent large amounts of treasure. But what is the alternative? Are we to simply give up and stop fighting altogether? Yes, we could disengage in Iraq and focus our efforts on seek-and-destroy missions, kill a terrorist here, capture another there. But we wouldn't come close to inflicting the kind of damage on these networks that we are currently inflicting in Iraq, not to mention the most damaging of all...establishing a democratic Islamic state in the heart of the middle east. When we began this fight in September 2001, President Bush said it was going to be long, costly and difficult. Were we not listening? Did we not believe him?
We've lost over 3,000 Americans in Iraq in 5 years of fighting. We lost more than that in one day on 9-11. We have options but to me the alternative to what we are currently doing seems much worse. It's the lesser of two evils once again. In 1945, Truman faced something similar and he chose to inflict misery on the enemy rather than allow the enemy to inflict misery on us. What are we to do today? Obama? McCain? This is the most important question of this year's election.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Progress in Iraq
In a recent report to Congress, the Bush administration reported that Iraq has now made satisfactory progress on 15 of 18 benchmarks. This is nearly twice the progress that was reported one year ago. If you were unaware of this, that's probably because NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and the New York Times all completely ignored the story. That's right, none of these major news outlets felt Iraq's progress on meeting political benchmarks was worthy of reporting. But the full story can be found here.
This is no doubt bad news for Barack Obama, who is depending on US failure in Iraq to help him get to the White House. Perhaps that's why the aforementioned news agencies haven't reported on this. Obama has committed to immediate, unconditional withdrawal of US troops and it's a position that he can't reverse. So, the worse things are in Iraq the better he will look when he gives that order, which brings me to another issue.
During a debate, Obama was asked if he would still withdraw US troops EVEN if his top military advisors told him such a withdrawal would be disastrous. Obama answered yes, saying that the Commander in Chief has ultimate authority and is not bound to what his advisors say. This is where I have a problem.
Obama has no military experience. He knows nothing about military tactics or strategy. Yet, he hopes to command the greatest military force on the planet. That's fine. But it seems to me that someone in his position would listen carefully to his military advisors. After all, they know what they're talking about, he doesn't (at least when it comes to military issues). The idea that he is going to do what he wants to do - damn what his advisors say - is a bit frightening. It's just another example of Obama's arrogance, and it reflects a reckless military policy.
I for one am happy to see the Iraqi government making progress. In one year they have doubled the number of benchmarks met. We have given them freedom, then security, and it appears they are responding. Progress is slow, but we are heading in the right direction. It's my hope that America won't turn its back on the people of Iraq when they are so close to succeeding at building their democracy.
That will be up to the voters.
This is no doubt bad news for Barack Obama, who is depending on US failure in Iraq to help him get to the White House. Perhaps that's why the aforementioned news agencies haven't reported on this. Obama has committed to immediate, unconditional withdrawal of US troops and it's a position that he can't reverse. So, the worse things are in Iraq the better he will look when he gives that order, which brings me to another issue.
During a debate, Obama was asked if he would still withdraw US troops EVEN if his top military advisors told him such a withdrawal would be disastrous. Obama answered yes, saying that the Commander in Chief has ultimate authority and is not bound to what his advisors say. This is where I have a problem.
Obama has no military experience. He knows nothing about military tactics or strategy. Yet, he hopes to command the greatest military force on the planet. That's fine. But it seems to me that someone in his position would listen carefully to his military advisors. After all, they know what they're talking about, he doesn't (at least when it comes to military issues). The idea that he is going to do what he wants to do - damn what his advisors say - is a bit frightening. It's just another example of Obama's arrogance, and it reflects a reckless military policy.
I for one am happy to see the Iraqi government making progress. In one year they have doubled the number of benchmarks met. We have given them freedom, then security, and it appears they are responding. Progress is slow, but we are heading in the right direction. It's my hope that America won't turn its back on the people of Iraq when they are so close to succeeding at building their democracy.
That will be up to the voters.
Friday, June 27, 2008
What happens when political correctness and enviro-extremism go haywire? It's called the Democrat National Convention. This article by Stephanie Simon of the Wall Street Journal is laugh-out-loud funny. Here is a sample with the link to the full text and new terms like Director of Greening. Just remember, these are the same buffoons who want to take over OUR health care system and promise to save social security. Enjoy!
DENVER -- As the Mile High City gears up to host a Democratic bash for 50,000, organizers are discovering the perils of trying to stage a political spectacle that's also politically correct.
Consider the fanny packs.
The host committee for the Democratic National Convention wanted 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic cotton. By unionized labor. In the USA.
Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: "That just doesn't exist."
Ditto for the baseball caps. "We have a union cap or an organic cap," Mr. DeMasse says. "But we don't have a union-organic offering."
Much of the hand-wringing can be blamed on Denver's Democratic mayor, John Hickenlooper, who challenged his party and his city to "make this the greenest convention in the history of the planet."
Convention organizers hired the first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson. Her response to the mayor's challenge: "That terrifies me!" FULL TEXT
DENVER -- As the Mile High City gears up to host a Democratic bash for 50,000, organizers are discovering the perils of trying to stage a political spectacle that's also politically correct.
Consider the fanny packs.
The host committee for the Democratic National Convention wanted 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic cotton. By unionized labor. In the USA.
Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: "That just doesn't exist."
Ditto for the baseball caps. "We have a union cap or an organic cap," Mr. DeMasse says. "But we don't have a union-organic offering."
Much of the hand-wringing can be blamed on Denver's Democratic mayor, John Hickenlooper, who challenged his party and his city to "make this the greenest convention in the history of the planet."
Convention organizers hired the first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson. Her response to the mayor's challenge: "That terrifies me!" FULL TEXT
Monday, June 23, 2008
More insanity...
Further supporting the suspicion that the global warming debate is degenerating into the Salem witch hunt of the 21st century, here is a recent story from Fox News:
The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist....."Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute's Web site. "Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming." FULL STORY
Hansen provides no proof of his accusations, only a typical "I told you so" and a "last warning". He goes on to say that in the next 5-10 years, the arctic will be completely free of sea ice in the summer months. And even though he calls for prosecuting the oil barrons, he makes no mention of the environmentalists who repeatedly lobby and block expanded nuclear enery.
On the flip side of this, here is a link to a petition urging the US government to reject the Kyoto Treaty along with the ideas behind human induced climate change. The petition states:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists, all of whom have almost certainly been bought off by the oil industry...at least that's what the Left would have us believe, since they constantly tell us that human induced climate change is the consensus opinion of the scientific community.
My opinion on human induced climate change has been thoroughly documented on this site. It interests me that this issue is as polarizing as any political issue in America today, even though the scientific evidence is hardly conclusive. Still, people who believe in global warming defend it as furiously as they defend a woman's "right to choose", as if there is no debate and no question in the scientific data. That suggests a certain arrogance, yet small-mindedness, among the Leftist elites.
No wonder they nominated Barack Obama.
I posted this to exemplify the global warming crowd. This NASA nut wants to prosecute people for crimes against humanity without providing a shred of evidence of such crimes. But, hey, who needs evidence? It's never been of much importance to the "believers".
The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist....."Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute's Web site. "Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming." FULL STORY
Hansen provides no proof of his accusations, only a typical "I told you so" and a "last warning". He goes on to say that in the next 5-10 years, the arctic will be completely free of sea ice in the summer months. And even though he calls for prosecuting the oil barrons, he makes no mention of the environmentalists who repeatedly lobby and block expanded nuclear enery.
On the flip side of this, here is a link to a petition urging the US government to reject the Kyoto Treaty along with the ideas behind human induced climate change. The petition states:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists, all of whom have almost certainly been bought off by the oil industry...at least that's what the Left would have us believe, since they constantly tell us that human induced climate change is the consensus opinion of the scientific community.
My opinion on human induced climate change has been thoroughly documented on this site. It interests me that this issue is as polarizing as any political issue in America today, even though the scientific evidence is hardly conclusive. Still, people who believe in global warming defend it as furiously as they defend a woman's "right to choose", as if there is no debate and no question in the scientific data. That suggests a certain arrogance, yet small-mindedness, among the Leftist elites.
No wonder they nominated Barack Obama.
I posted this to exemplify the global warming crowd. This NASA nut wants to prosecute people for crimes against humanity without providing a shred of evidence of such crimes. But, hey, who needs evidence? It's never been of much importance to the "believers".
Thursday, June 12, 2008
WEP is relocating due to recent change in jobs, so my posts will be a bit less frequent until things get settled. But this is one I've been wanting to write for a while, and Congress's recent vote to NOT drill for offshore oil is a perfect opportunity. This is the second bill they've recently debated on the Hill, the other being a motion to restrict emissions and implement a new carbon credit system for pollution. In light of Congress' action, I am reminded that politics will always be politics. Very few of our representatives actually want to solve problems since such problems are why we vote people into office to begin with. Thus, solving a problem would potentially threaten the need for their existence. Be they Republican or Democrat, our representatives are impotent when it comes to action. So, I have a few words of advice for either President McCain or President Obama. If they truly want to solve our energy problems, it starts with these steps. I call it the WEP-Plan.
First, oil is a commodity, which means that it's price is determined mainly by 2 factors: supply/demand, and speculators who wager on what supply/demand will be like in the near and distant future. So here's how we reduce the price of oil, for our economy, for the environment, for energy independence. Here is the bipartisan WEP-Plan.
1) Drill. Yes, we must tap our own natural resources. I acknowledge that oil is a finite resource and that we must find a renewable alternative to ensure our long-term survival. Yes, I get it. But that doesn't help us in the short-term. Simply demanding that people stop using so much gas is impractical. People have to work. So, let's increase oil supply and drill, both off-shore and in ANWR. The beach bums in Florida and caribou in Alaska will have to deal with it.
2) Build more nuclear power plants. Again, I realize this may not be the long-term solution, but nuclear power is cleaner and more efficient than what the majority of us use now. There is no reason for us to NOT build more of these power stations.
3) Build more refineries. See number one. The environmentalists will have to live with it.
4) End grain subsidies. Obviously grain subsidies don't lower the price of oil, only raise the price of grain. So now we pay more for both gas AND milk (as well as other grain-based products).
That's the easy stuff. The hard part comes next, mainly because of the nasty politics that would be involved.
5) Close ALL government offices every other Friday. The military does this at some places. You basically work at 10 hour day, and every other week is a 4 day work week.
6) Adjust the thermostat in ALL government buildings. No less than 73 degrees in the summer, no more than 68 degrees in the winter.
7) Deliver the US mail only on Monday, Wed, Friday. And only deliver to rural routes 2 days a week. Eliminate package delivery service, UPS and FedEx can take care of that stuff. The USPS should only deliver envelope-type mail. That way, the suburban mail carrier can be resurrected, walking the route on foot.
8) Lower the federal speed limit back to 55mph.
9) Release 10% of the strategic oil reserve into the market. If anything, this will scare the speculators.
10) Encourage police departments to increase foot-patrols, decrease cruisers on the street, more motorcycles, more horses.
11) Implement an "energy independence" holiday. This is a day where businesses will be encouraged to close, and local communities encouraged to plan activities that would contribute to energy independence, with the major goal of this day being as many Americans as possible stay home, on foot or bike and do NOT buy gasoline. Again, sounds cheesy, but will likely scare the speculators.
That's the WEP-Plan. Not perfect, but it's a start. Do these things, and the every day American will see more affordable oil and it will buy us more time to develop better alternatives. But this won't happen without bipartisan cooperation, which makes it unlikely for Obama.
First, oil is a commodity, which means that it's price is determined mainly by 2 factors: supply/demand, and speculators who wager on what supply/demand will be like in the near and distant future. So here's how we reduce the price of oil, for our economy, for the environment, for energy independence. Here is the bipartisan WEP-Plan.
1) Drill. Yes, we must tap our own natural resources. I acknowledge that oil is a finite resource and that we must find a renewable alternative to ensure our long-term survival. Yes, I get it. But that doesn't help us in the short-term. Simply demanding that people stop using so much gas is impractical. People have to work. So, let's increase oil supply and drill, both off-shore and in ANWR. The beach bums in Florida and caribou in Alaska will have to deal with it.
2) Build more nuclear power plants. Again, I realize this may not be the long-term solution, but nuclear power is cleaner and more efficient than what the majority of us use now. There is no reason for us to NOT build more of these power stations.
3) Build more refineries. See number one. The environmentalists will have to live with it.
4) End grain subsidies. Obviously grain subsidies don't lower the price of oil, only raise the price of grain. So now we pay more for both gas AND milk (as well as other grain-based products).
That's the easy stuff. The hard part comes next, mainly because of the nasty politics that would be involved.
5) Close ALL government offices every other Friday. The military does this at some places. You basically work at 10 hour day, and every other week is a 4 day work week.
6) Adjust the thermostat in ALL government buildings. No less than 73 degrees in the summer, no more than 68 degrees in the winter.
7) Deliver the US mail only on Monday, Wed, Friday. And only deliver to rural routes 2 days a week. Eliminate package delivery service, UPS and FedEx can take care of that stuff. The USPS should only deliver envelope-type mail. That way, the suburban mail carrier can be resurrected, walking the route on foot.
8) Lower the federal speed limit back to 55mph.
9) Release 10% of the strategic oil reserve into the market. If anything, this will scare the speculators.
10) Encourage police departments to increase foot-patrols, decrease cruisers on the street, more motorcycles, more horses.
11) Implement an "energy independence" holiday. This is a day where businesses will be encouraged to close, and local communities encouraged to plan activities that would contribute to energy independence, with the major goal of this day being as many Americans as possible stay home, on foot or bike and do NOT buy gasoline. Again, sounds cheesy, but will likely scare the speculators.
That's the WEP-Plan. Not perfect, but it's a start. Do these things, and the every day American will see more affordable oil and it will buy us more time to develop better alternatives. But this won't happen without bipartisan cooperation, which makes it unlikely for Obama.
Friday, May 30, 2008
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK'...That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
This was a statement made by Senator Obama last week during a campaign stop in Oregon and, not surprisingly, it didn't get a whole lot of press coverage. I think it should have because I think this statement says a lot about Obama's mindset and how he views America. One has to ask: What is he saying here?
For a moment you may think that he is trying to solidify the radical Left vote. These are the true hate-America folks. These are the ones who think that America is bad and will always be until we voluntarily surrender our global role as economic, political and military superpower while also transferring our wealth to the third world. These are the folks who love Obama's above statement. But, in truth, he already has them solidly in his corner. It's been a long time since the kooks have been so fired up over a candidate. So there's no need to pander to them with dumb statements like this...unless Obama really meant what he said, and then we have a problem. In that case, Obama may be grouping himself with those folks, and that makes me a bit nervous.
Before I get into all that, I want to make a few points so that my readers can soak up Obama's words with the proper perspective, something other than "America is the root of all evil". First, the US economy is the largest in the world. No other country even comes close. And since our economy is so big, that means that we have the greatest impact on global markets. As our economy goes, so goes the world. Consumerism is a big part of our economy. Strong consumers mean a strong economy, which means a strong global market. So maybe Obama shouldn't be too critical of America's spenders. This is a simplification, of course, but you get the basic point.
Second, the US is the world's leading food producer, again by a wide margin. Today, most of the world's nations depend on food imports to feed their people so, again, if our economy goes bad then many bad things will happen to many people worldwide. Third, America is the most charitable nation in the world. For example, private American citizens gave $1.8 billion in tsunami aid, dwarfing what any government, including the US government, contributed. We gave $78 million in earthquake aid to Pakistan, at a time when that nation has been less-than-cooperative in the war on terror. Annually, private American citizens donate one-quarter of a trillion dollars to charity, and this DOES NOT include what's given at their places of worship. This kindness is unprecedented in human history. No other group of private citizens has ever been so generous with their time and money. Suggesting we are gluttonous and greedy is unfair.
And fourth, let's not forget the other sacrifice we make for the world, that of giving our sons and daughters for liberty. We send our soldiers to die so that other people, who sometimes don't even like or appreciate us, can have freedom. Every person on this planet who lives in freedom does so because of the blood and treasure sacrifice of the American military. This is a simple fact that is all-too-often overlooked or forgotten. Now, back to the Senator's comment.
As I said, for a moment it appears that Obama considers his fellow Americans to be gluttonous, greedy and selfish. He appears to have a problem with our consumerism and he opposes our behavior for the sake of America being more appealing to "other countries".
In light of the fact that we drive the world's economy (where would China be without the American consumer?), feed the world with our crops, protect the world with our soldiers and bring aid to the world in times of need, I personally think that the approval from other countries is a given. If it's not, then we're probably talking about countries that are unappreciative, are basic enemies of America, seek to weaken us, are themselves very greedy, or simply just don't like us and probably never will. In that case, why care if they are "OK" with our lifestyle? Chances are they won't approve of us regardless of what we do. So what's Obama saying?
Well, if you know his political philosophy (and sadly many of his supporters don't) then you know that he is very much a government-solve-the-problem kind of guy, which again bothers me given the above statement. So I think he's driving at government action here. I'm wondering if Obama is somehow suggesting that we should regulate (through some governmental way) what kind of vehicles people drive, how much they eat, and how much energy they consume at home. You can decide that for yourself.
At any rate, Obama apparently thinks the world doesn't like us and, despite my facts, he seems to understand and empathize with them. Again, you can decide whether or not to agree. And don't worry, I won't ask what Obama's thermostat sits on at home, even though I'm sure it's not higher than 72 degrees.
Americans consume a lot, that's true. But we also produce a lot. So I'd say our consumption falls within the "our fair share" range of things. And we donate MUCH more than our fair share, especially considering the lives we give for others around the world. In light of this, all in all I'd say the "other countries" of the world come out pretty good in the deal. Obama thinks we should back off and consume less than our fair share so these other countries will approve of us. I guess that will be up to the voters.
This was a statement made by Senator Obama last week during a campaign stop in Oregon and, not surprisingly, it didn't get a whole lot of press coverage. I think it should have because I think this statement says a lot about Obama's mindset and how he views America. One has to ask: What is he saying here?
For a moment you may think that he is trying to solidify the radical Left vote. These are the true hate-America folks. These are the ones who think that America is bad and will always be until we voluntarily surrender our global role as economic, political and military superpower while also transferring our wealth to the third world. These are the folks who love Obama's above statement. But, in truth, he already has them solidly in his corner. It's been a long time since the kooks have been so fired up over a candidate. So there's no need to pander to them with dumb statements like this...unless Obama really meant what he said, and then we have a problem. In that case, Obama may be grouping himself with those folks, and that makes me a bit nervous.
Before I get into all that, I want to make a few points so that my readers can soak up Obama's words with the proper perspective, something other than "America is the root of all evil". First, the US economy is the largest in the world. No other country even comes close. And since our economy is so big, that means that we have the greatest impact on global markets. As our economy goes, so goes the world. Consumerism is a big part of our economy. Strong consumers mean a strong economy, which means a strong global market. So maybe Obama shouldn't be too critical of America's spenders. This is a simplification, of course, but you get the basic point.
Second, the US is the world's leading food producer, again by a wide margin. Today, most of the world's nations depend on food imports to feed their people so, again, if our economy goes bad then many bad things will happen to many people worldwide. Third, America is the most charitable nation in the world. For example, private American citizens gave $1.8 billion in tsunami aid, dwarfing what any government, including the US government, contributed. We gave $78 million in earthquake aid to Pakistan, at a time when that nation has been less-than-cooperative in the war on terror. Annually, private American citizens donate one-quarter of a trillion dollars to charity, and this DOES NOT include what's given at their places of worship. This kindness is unprecedented in human history. No other group of private citizens has ever been so generous with their time and money. Suggesting we are gluttonous and greedy is unfair.
And fourth, let's not forget the other sacrifice we make for the world, that of giving our sons and daughters for liberty. We send our soldiers to die so that other people, who sometimes don't even like or appreciate us, can have freedom. Every person on this planet who lives in freedom does so because of the blood and treasure sacrifice of the American military. This is a simple fact that is all-too-often overlooked or forgotten. Now, back to the Senator's comment.
As I said, for a moment it appears that Obama considers his fellow Americans to be gluttonous, greedy and selfish. He appears to have a problem with our consumerism and he opposes our behavior for the sake of America being more appealing to "other countries".
In light of the fact that we drive the world's economy (where would China be without the American consumer?), feed the world with our crops, protect the world with our soldiers and bring aid to the world in times of need, I personally think that the approval from other countries is a given. If it's not, then we're probably talking about countries that are unappreciative, are basic enemies of America, seek to weaken us, are themselves very greedy, or simply just don't like us and probably never will. In that case, why care if they are "OK" with our lifestyle? Chances are they won't approve of us regardless of what we do. So what's Obama saying?
Well, if you know his political philosophy (and sadly many of his supporters don't) then you know that he is very much a government-solve-the-problem kind of guy, which again bothers me given the above statement. So I think he's driving at government action here. I'm wondering if Obama is somehow suggesting that we should regulate (through some governmental way) what kind of vehicles people drive, how much they eat, and how much energy they consume at home. You can decide that for yourself.
At any rate, Obama apparently thinks the world doesn't like us and, despite my facts, he seems to understand and empathize with them. Again, you can decide whether or not to agree. And don't worry, I won't ask what Obama's thermostat sits on at home, even though I'm sure it's not higher than 72 degrees.
Americans consume a lot, that's true. But we also produce a lot. So I'd say our consumption falls within the "our fair share" range of things. And we donate MUCH more than our fair share, especially considering the lives we give for others around the world. In light of this, all in all I'd say the "other countries" of the world come out pretty good in the deal. Obama thinks we should back off and consume less than our fair share so these other countries will approve of us. I guess that will be up to the voters.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
So much politics, so little time to post. Barack Obama continues to provide folks like me stuff to post about, and since I've lost all respect for the man I certainly don't mind taking what he gives me. Two things today:
First, a little thing. Today Obama tells the GOP to leave his wife alone, claiming that their "attacks" were "low class". To that I say, "okay, then tell her to stop making stump speeches". He was referring to the Tennessee GOP airing an ad that takes exception to Ms Obama's "proud of my country" comment. You see, there are quite a few Americans who didn't appreciate what she said and the GOP is taking advantage. It was a mistake, and the Obama's are paying a price. In my opinion, a candidate's spouse has the option of taking on a supportive role versus something more active. Ms Obama has chosen the latter, which means that what she says is open to criticism. Why would Obama expect anything different? Are we to grant his wife a free pass to say and do anything simply because she is his wife? Once again, the elitist arrogance of those two is astounding. The GOP is not out of bounds here. They did not "attack" her, as Obama says. There was no personal attack. I mean, it's not like they made fun of her for being a stay-at-home mom (I wonder if Obama would consider THAT to be low class?). They took exception to something she said. That's politics, and if Ms Obama can't handle it then perhaps she should reconsider the job she's applying for.
Second, a much bigger issue. President Bush gave a speech to the Israeli parliament and during that speech he said appeasement is bad, referring specifically to Iran and how some people feel we should deal with them. Obama and many other democrats are irate. Joe Biden even called it "bullshit". Excuse the language, his words not mine. The interesting thing about this is that Bush didn't mention any names. He didn't even mention any one particular political party. He said appeasement was bad, and the democrats apparently have a major problem with that.
The dems say that it was wrong for the president to play politics in a foreign country. Of course, it's okay for Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, but not for Bush. In my mind, it's very appropriate for the US President to tell Israel--one of our most loyal allies--that he disagrees with appeasing a dictator that has openly advocated for wiping Israel off the map. Not sure what the dems object to there.
But I found it both entertaining and informative when the dems seem to collectively object to the president condemning appeasement. I mean, what exactly are they objecting to? If there is anything more telling about how the dems approach foreign policy then I haven't seen it. Senator Obama would have been much better served if he simply agreed with what Bush said unless, of course, he disagreed with what Bush said in which case the Senator was right to take issue with it.
However, Obama has decided to keep Iran in the political spotlight and he is sticking to his guns. He defends his position that the US President should hold unconditional unilateral talks with Ahmadinejad. The basis of his opinion is that we did the same with the Soviet Union. That's right, Obama doesn't see any difference in the two. This reveals much about his vast lack of understanding, experience, knowledge, whatever you want to call it...who knows? Regardless, the fact that he considers the two to be about the same is gaspingly ridiculous. Even the most junior of junior senators should be able to discern the two and know better than this. If he does become President, it is my sincere hope that he learns as much as he can about foreign policy in the next 6 months or we'll be in bigger trouble than I thought (And I won't bother explaining why this is so gaspingly ridiculous. Either you get it or you don't and if you don't then you are probably an Obama supporter, in which case the man can do no wrong in your eyes and you will never take issue with him no matter what I or anyone else says. I saw it today, Obama basically saying "we talked with the USSR" and his minions just mindlessly nodded in support. No gasps, no wide eyes, they just lapped it up without actually thinking about what he said).
Obama also defends his position by saying that McCain is just an extension of Bush's foreign policy. Wrong again, Senator. Unbelievable. Someone needs to inform the Senator that since this country was founded it has ALWAYS been US policy to NEVER negotiate with terrorists, and there is a pretty good reason for it. This is not a George Bush concept. Apparently the good Senator plans to do things differently. Obama says he is all about change. Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Each day that goes by this guy gets more and more scary.
But what Obama hasn't done is tell the American people what he plans to say to Ahmadinejad. I, for one, would like to know. He's attacked Bush for not doing it right. He's attacked McCain for just doing what Bush is doing. But he hasn't told us what he plans to do, other than have private talks with a terror-supporting dictator who denies the holocaust and wants to destroy Israel. What will he say that hasn't already been said? What can one say to someone who is clearly off the proverbial rocker? What fresh new conversation will he have that will convince Ahmadinejad to abandon his terrorist ways? Or does Obama plan to offer something in return? It's a fair question.
Eventually, Obama will have to answer these questions, even though the mainstream media is not likely going to ask them. Still, this issue won't go away and we, the voters, have the right to know what Obama plans to say to this man, and will it be worth the price we pay for granting Ahmadinejad status as a world leader.
First, a little thing. Today Obama tells the GOP to leave his wife alone, claiming that their "attacks" were "low class". To that I say, "okay, then tell her to stop making stump speeches". He was referring to the Tennessee GOP airing an ad that takes exception to Ms Obama's "proud of my country" comment. You see, there are quite a few Americans who didn't appreciate what she said and the GOP is taking advantage. It was a mistake, and the Obama's are paying a price. In my opinion, a candidate's spouse has the option of taking on a supportive role versus something more active. Ms Obama has chosen the latter, which means that what she says is open to criticism. Why would Obama expect anything different? Are we to grant his wife a free pass to say and do anything simply because she is his wife? Once again, the elitist arrogance of those two is astounding. The GOP is not out of bounds here. They did not "attack" her, as Obama says. There was no personal attack. I mean, it's not like they made fun of her for being a stay-at-home mom (I wonder if Obama would consider THAT to be low class?). They took exception to something she said. That's politics, and if Ms Obama can't handle it then perhaps she should reconsider the job she's applying for.
Second, a much bigger issue. President Bush gave a speech to the Israeli parliament and during that speech he said appeasement is bad, referring specifically to Iran and how some people feel we should deal with them. Obama and many other democrats are irate. Joe Biden even called it "bullshit". Excuse the language, his words not mine. The interesting thing about this is that Bush didn't mention any names. He didn't even mention any one particular political party. He said appeasement was bad, and the democrats apparently have a major problem with that.
The dems say that it was wrong for the president to play politics in a foreign country. Of course, it's okay for Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, but not for Bush. In my mind, it's very appropriate for the US President to tell Israel--one of our most loyal allies--that he disagrees with appeasing a dictator that has openly advocated for wiping Israel off the map. Not sure what the dems object to there.
But I found it both entertaining and informative when the dems seem to collectively object to the president condemning appeasement. I mean, what exactly are they objecting to? If there is anything more telling about how the dems approach foreign policy then I haven't seen it. Senator Obama would have been much better served if he simply agreed with what Bush said unless, of course, he disagreed with what Bush said in which case the Senator was right to take issue with it.
However, Obama has decided to keep Iran in the political spotlight and he is sticking to his guns. He defends his position that the US President should hold unconditional unilateral talks with Ahmadinejad. The basis of his opinion is that we did the same with the Soviet Union. That's right, Obama doesn't see any difference in the two. This reveals much about his vast lack of understanding, experience, knowledge, whatever you want to call it...who knows? Regardless, the fact that he considers the two to be about the same is gaspingly ridiculous. Even the most junior of junior senators should be able to discern the two and know better than this. If he does become President, it is my sincere hope that he learns as much as he can about foreign policy in the next 6 months or we'll be in bigger trouble than I thought (And I won't bother explaining why this is so gaspingly ridiculous. Either you get it or you don't and if you don't then you are probably an Obama supporter, in which case the man can do no wrong in your eyes and you will never take issue with him no matter what I or anyone else says. I saw it today, Obama basically saying "we talked with the USSR" and his minions just mindlessly nodded in support. No gasps, no wide eyes, they just lapped it up without actually thinking about what he said).
Obama also defends his position by saying that McCain is just an extension of Bush's foreign policy. Wrong again, Senator. Unbelievable. Someone needs to inform the Senator that since this country was founded it has ALWAYS been US policy to NEVER negotiate with terrorists, and there is a pretty good reason for it. This is not a George Bush concept. Apparently the good Senator plans to do things differently. Obama says he is all about change. Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Each day that goes by this guy gets more and more scary.
But what Obama hasn't done is tell the American people what he plans to say to Ahmadinejad. I, for one, would like to know. He's attacked Bush for not doing it right. He's attacked McCain for just doing what Bush is doing. But he hasn't told us what he plans to do, other than have private talks with a terror-supporting dictator who denies the holocaust and wants to destroy Israel. What will he say that hasn't already been said? What can one say to someone who is clearly off the proverbial rocker? What fresh new conversation will he have that will convince Ahmadinejad to abandon his terrorist ways? Or does Obama plan to offer something in return? It's a fair question.
Eventually, Obama will have to answer these questions, even though the mainstream media is not likely going to ask them. Still, this issue won't go away and we, the voters, have the right to know what Obama plans to say to this man, and will it be worth the price we pay for granting Ahmadinejad status as a world leader.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Today's hot button issue is the recent California Supreme Court ruling that any law limiting marriage to one man and one woman is discriminatory, and therefore has opened the way for gay marriage in California. If you haven't heard about it, you will.
I'm not going to address the gay marriage issue. It's one of those things that, like abortion, never gets solved. It can be argued all day and no one will change their position or see any merit in the arguments of the other side. We all have our own opinion on it and our opinion doesn't matter to California because the people of California have already settled the issue. In 2000, the voters went to the polls and voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The matter was concluded, or at least it should have been. So if you support or oppose gay marriage, I don't care. That's not the issue here.
The issue at hand regards who or what holds absolute power in this country. If you want to join in the discussion, it begins with this simple question: Do Americans have the right to govern themselves?
The Californistan Supreme Court looked at the law created by the people and had to decide whether or not it was Constitutional. For most people, the answer would be clear after reading the first 3 words of the Constitution...We The People. That would do it for me, but not for the 4 activists that apparently sit on the court.
The Constitution begins with We The People. It does not say we the courts, or we the judges, or we the congress or we the politicians. It says We The People. We are the ones who established the law, we are the ones who govern this land. Granted, we appoint people to establish, enforce and interpret the law on our behalf, but the ultimate authority belongs to We The People, and there is no governmental or judicial entity with the power to dispute or overturn that authority. This is a very basic, yet critical premise for our democracy.
In 2000, the people of California established, by majority rule, a law regarding marriage. Millions voted. Today, four individual judges determined that those who voted were wrong, and overturned the will of the people based on, of all things, the argument that their will was unConstitutional. The way I see it, there is nothing more unConstitutional than four people overturning the will of millions, yet that's exactly what happened. And despite how you personally feel about gay marriage, the idea that four people wrongly exercise a perceived power and over-rule the majority should be disturbing to all. Today you may agree with their opinion, but what happens when you don't agree? Four judges do not, and should never, have the power to over-rule the people. Every time that happens, our democracy weakens.
The people of California have spoken. They have determined how to define marriage for their state. That simple fact is what makes it Constitutional. The law is not discriminatory because the people have said so, and it's the people who have ultimate and absolute authority in this country.
I'm not going to address the gay marriage issue. It's one of those things that, like abortion, never gets solved. It can be argued all day and no one will change their position or see any merit in the arguments of the other side. We all have our own opinion on it and our opinion doesn't matter to California because the people of California have already settled the issue. In 2000, the voters went to the polls and voted to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The matter was concluded, or at least it should have been. So if you support or oppose gay marriage, I don't care. That's not the issue here.
The issue at hand regards who or what holds absolute power in this country. If you want to join in the discussion, it begins with this simple question: Do Americans have the right to govern themselves?
The Californistan Supreme Court looked at the law created by the people and had to decide whether or not it was Constitutional. For most people, the answer would be clear after reading the first 3 words of the Constitution...We The People. That would do it for me, but not for the 4 activists that apparently sit on the court.
The Constitution begins with We The People. It does not say we the courts, or we the judges, or we the congress or we the politicians. It says We The People. We are the ones who established the law, we are the ones who govern this land. Granted, we appoint people to establish, enforce and interpret the law on our behalf, but the ultimate authority belongs to We The People, and there is no governmental or judicial entity with the power to dispute or overturn that authority. This is a very basic, yet critical premise for our democracy.
In 2000, the people of California established, by majority rule, a law regarding marriage. Millions voted. Today, four individual judges determined that those who voted were wrong, and overturned the will of the people based on, of all things, the argument that their will was unConstitutional. The way I see it, there is nothing more unConstitutional than four people overturning the will of millions, yet that's exactly what happened. And despite how you personally feel about gay marriage, the idea that four people wrongly exercise a perceived power and over-rule the majority should be disturbing to all. Today you may agree with their opinion, but what happens when you don't agree? Four judges do not, and should never, have the power to over-rule the people. Every time that happens, our democracy weakens.
The people of California have spoken. They have determined how to define marriage for their state. That simple fact is what makes it Constitutional. The law is not discriminatory because the people have said so, and it's the people who have ultimate and absolute authority in this country.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Here are two separate stories with links included.
US to add polar bears to "threatened" species list
Polar Bear numbers are increasing in the eastern arctic
Global warming strikes again. I'm not going to comment any further. I think the stories speak for themselves.
US to add polar bears to "threatened" species list
Polar Bear numbers are increasing in the eastern arctic
Global warming strikes again. I'm not going to comment any further. I think the stories speak for themselves.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
From a recent article in Nature (May 1 issue), the UN IPCC has apparently begun to conjure up explanations for why their doomsday forecasts for the earth aren't actually panning out. After adjusting the IPCC's climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years they came to the following conclusion:
"global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
So the IPCC now says that global warming may not actually happen in the next ten years because mother nature will temporarily correct the problem. How convenient. Just to be clear, the IPCC says that man (especially those in America) is destoying the planet. They say that things like the Kyoto Treaty (which would weaken America) will help solve the problem. They have spotty evidence at best to support their claims, and now they say that even though the danger is imminent we may not see evidence of it over the next ten years. But we should all take their word for it. This looks a lot like a street corner shell game to me.
So following this reasoning, I am apt to beging advocating for more carbon admissions. It seems that mother nature is hell-bent on cooling the planet and the only thing that is stopping her is man's greenhous gas emissions. I don't want another ice age, so maybe we should crank up those coal-burning power plants. That's IF we want to follow the IPCC's reasoning, which we would be foolish to do. My guess is that the enviro-whacks will eat this up and soon add a note of gratitude to their message of doom..."thank goodness mother nature has granted us more time to fix the problem." I just wonder what they will come up with ten years from now when things still aren't falling in line as predicted.
I've long given up on global warming as an actual scientific issue. In my mind, just like anything else, it is a political issue. The global warming fanatics are really anti-capitalism more than they are pro-environment, or else they would be targeting China more than America for their demonizing. Global warming is the "cause" they manipulate as an effort to weaken America, which is why the third-world-dominated UN is so adamant that we (ie, America) take action right away to offset the crisis, and any action short of reducing our GDP and slowing down our economy is simply unacceptable. This is the only way to explain why "global" warming is really America's problem more than it is the globe's.
Until the UN and the enviro-whacks begin focusing their efforts on China and India as they do America, and acknowledge the simple fact that the evidence of man-made climate change is lacking, I will continue to consider this nothing more than politics as usual. I see no evidence that man is capable of actually altering the earth's climate. However, I see plenty of evidence of the earth's third-world countries looking for ways to topple the last-remaining super power. They can't do it with military might, so their weapons of choice are biofuels and carbon credits.
"global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
So the IPCC now says that global warming may not actually happen in the next ten years because mother nature will temporarily correct the problem. How convenient. Just to be clear, the IPCC says that man (especially those in America) is destoying the planet. They say that things like the Kyoto Treaty (which would weaken America) will help solve the problem. They have spotty evidence at best to support their claims, and now they say that even though the danger is imminent we may not see evidence of it over the next ten years. But we should all take their word for it. This looks a lot like a street corner shell game to me.
So following this reasoning, I am apt to beging advocating for more carbon admissions. It seems that mother nature is hell-bent on cooling the planet and the only thing that is stopping her is man's greenhous gas emissions. I don't want another ice age, so maybe we should crank up those coal-burning power plants. That's IF we want to follow the IPCC's reasoning, which we would be foolish to do. My guess is that the enviro-whacks will eat this up and soon add a note of gratitude to their message of doom..."thank goodness mother nature has granted us more time to fix the problem." I just wonder what they will come up with ten years from now when things still aren't falling in line as predicted.
I've long given up on global warming as an actual scientific issue. In my mind, just like anything else, it is a political issue. The global warming fanatics are really anti-capitalism more than they are pro-environment, or else they would be targeting China more than America for their demonizing. Global warming is the "cause" they manipulate as an effort to weaken America, which is why the third-world-dominated UN is so adamant that we (ie, America) take action right away to offset the crisis, and any action short of reducing our GDP and slowing down our economy is simply unacceptable. This is the only way to explain why "global" warming is really America's problem more than it is the globe's.
Until the UN and the enviro-whacks begin focusing their efforts on China and India as they do America, and acknowledge the simple fact that the evidence of man-made climate change is lacking, I will continue to consider this nothing more than politics as usual. I see no evidence that man is capable of actually altering the earth's climate. However, I see plenty of evidence of the earth's third-world countries looking for ways to topple the last-remaining super power. They can't do it with military might, so their weapons of choice are biofuels and carbon credits.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
"I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright. So, that's my little commercial for that."
--writer Stephen King speaking to a group of high school students
It's long been my belief that elite liberals look down on the military and in many ways despise the military and its members. I emphasize the word elite. These are the extreme Left, the bona fide tree-hugging, "Imagine"-singing, god-hating, UN-loving, environazi socialist radicals who hate everything about traditional America and want nothing more than to see the destruction of capitalism and individual liberty. They are out there and they have a lot of power in the democrat party. I'm not talking about the mainstream democrats who tend to respect, admire and truly support the military. I'm talking about the nuts, and Stephen King belongs in that category. He is a genius writer, but still a political nut. And he is taking some criticism for these remarks, rightfully so since this statement is very offensive to someone who has chosen an admirable career like military service.
I've visited a few different websites and I've seen some comments about King, basically what one would expect. The Left defends him, the Right roasts him. In his defense, people say King has freedom of speech, that he is allowed to oppose the Iraq War, that without the objector there would always be war, etc. King himself has fired back, basically blasting the Right for questioning his patriotism, which is the standard response by a Leftist nut every time someone takes exception to an offensive statement like the one King made. In their eyes, you're not allowed to object to their opinion because that's the equivalent of calling them unpatriotic. I for one can't fathom defending this kind of statement, no matter the speaker or the context.
For the record, as of 2004, 90% of those in the US military held a high school diploma, well above the national average of approximately 75-78%. Most recently, the recruiting class of 2007 was 79% high school graduates, a slight dip from before but still right at or just above the national average, which also had dropped. So Stephen King's claim is factually wrong, and THAT's why people are taking exception. Liberals despise the military so much that they can't comprehend why anyone would voluntarily join up unless they were simply dumb. Remember John Kerry's famous "stuck in Iraq" comment? Of course, they would never actually admit this, but the opinion often emerges in statements like the one above. So either Mr. King is ill-informed or he was taking a deliberate shot at those in uniform. Either way, he was wrong.
This does not equate to questioning his patriotism, this is simply correcting the record and pointing out the inaccuracy of his statement. Perhaps Mr.King will educate himself on the topic the next time he decides to speak to a group of students. Perhaps he will consider those who serve and show some respect rather than blatantly insulting their intelligence. Perhaps, but this blogger isn't holding his breath.
--writer Stephen King speaking to a group of high school students
It's long been my belief that elite liberals look down on the military and in many ways despise the military and its members. I emphasize the word elite. These are the extreme Left, the bona fide tree-hugging, "Imagine"-singing, god-hating, UN-loving, environazi socialist radicals who hate everything about traditional America and want nothing more than to see the destruction of capitalism and individual liberty. They are out there and they have a lot of power in the democrat party. I'm not talking about the mainstream democrats who tend to respect, admire and truly support the military. I'm talking about the nuts, and Stephen King belongs in that category. He is a genius writer, but still a political nut. And he is taking some criticism for these remarks, rightfully so since this statement is very offensive to someone who has chosen an admirable career like military service.
I've visited a few different websites and I've seen some comments about King, basically what one would expect. The Left defends him, the Right roasts him. In his defense, people say King has freedom of speech, that he is allowed to oppose the Iraq War, that without the objector there would always be war, etc. King himself has fired back, basically blasting the Right for questioning his patriotism, which is the standard response by a Leftist nut every time someone takes exception to an offensive statement like the one King made. In their eyes, you're not allowed to object to their opinion because that's the equivalent of calling them unpatriotic. I for one can't fathom defending this kind of statement, no matter the speaker or the context.
For the record, as of 2004, 90% of those in the US military held a high school diploma, well above the national average of approximately 75-78%. Most recently, the recruiting class of 2007 was 79% high school graduates, a slight dip from before but still right at or just above the national average, which also had dropped. So Stephen King's claim is factually wrong, and THAT's why people are taking exception. Liberals despise the military so much that they can't comprehend why anyone would voluntarily join up unless they were simply dumb. Remember John Kerry's famous "stuck in Iraq" comment? Of course, they would never actually admit this, but the opinion often emerges in statements like the one above. So either Mr. King is ill-informed or he was taking a deliberate shot at those in uniform. Either way, he was wrong.
This does not equate to questioning his patriotism, this is simply correcting the record and pointing out the inaccuracy of his statement. Perhaps Mr.King will educate himself on the topic the next time he decides to speak to a group of students. Perhaps he will consider those who serve and show some respect rather than blatantly insulting their intelligence. Perhaps, but this blogger isn't holding his breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)