Sunday, March 27, 2011
Mr. President, We Don't "Volunteer" Our Military
In an interview that Obama gave in El Salvador during his recent South and Central America tour (as described by Byron Preston of Pajamas Media) he stated "...it's our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions". As usual it's difficult to understand what Obama is really saying because he always leaves space to be able to credibly contradict himself later, but in the quote above it's not some mysterious other person who would be "volunteering" our military (and I assume he's referring to NATO as the imagined borrowers), it would be Obama who would be loaning them, if such a situation were to occur, and this idea of loaning our military to a foreign power must never be allowed to happen, because before long they would likely be working under United Nations command, and we all know what fascist bastards the U.N. are. The reference was to the no-fly decision in Libya and the fact that Obama will not take a leadership role, but instead wants our military personnel to fight and possibly die under another nation's command. It's been stated that Obama is distrustful of American leadership in the world, and with him as Commander in Chief I share his distrust. What happened to the promise made by Obama during the last presidential campaign when he stated that he would be ready and waiting in case a 3AM emergency occurred and would respond at a moments notice? And now he hides behind Hillary's pantsuit and suggests that our troops be placed under foreign command so he doesn't have to make hard decisions and alienate his ultra-liberal base. This is near-criminal idiocy and must be halted. Obama is a dithering, indecisive man who is going to get Americans killed if he's not stopped. He is destroying the wealth and power of the United States while at the same time flying all over the world in Air Force One (which of course is powered by "yesterday's" source of power [jet fuel], and even though Obama uses Air Force One "today" and will do so again "tomorrow", he would never admit that by jet-setting in a private 747 he is demonstrating his lack of faith in his ideal world of green power. But of course it's difficult to push a 747 to lift-off speed using photovoltaic cells for power, so he'll continue to use the old fuel of "yesterday" regardless of how much his green policies increase the cost of everything we use today, and into the future).
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Whose "People" Are "We The People"?
Three events have occurred recently that should make Americans fear for our great nation and they should direct that fear toward officials at the highest levels of our government.
1. Eric Holder was appearing before a congressional committee and was trying to explain why he didn't go for final conviction and punishment of a New Black Panther Party member who had violently intimidated voters in a previous election, and his amazingly odd and rambling logic found him mentioning "his people" who were denied civil rights thirty years ago, and not concentrating on the "people" who were denied their voting rights two years ago.
2. Louis Farrakhan was speaking on a radio program about Obama launching missiles against Libya and warned Obama that this kind of attack would alienate him from his "people in Africa and throughout the world".
3. When Obama was trying to get his nerve up to defend the citizen forces rebelling against Kaddafi he went to the United Nations to get courage and approval, not to the congress that he's constitutionally required to consider, whose members were elected by "we the people" of the United States and who Obama declared the president was required to get approval from when our Barry was a senator and railing against Bush for being militant.
None of the "people" referred to above (Holder's people, Obama's people or the people of the United Nations) are the "people" of the United States of America who the president and attorney general are sworn to serve and whose constitution they swore to protect. So what the hell "people" are these fools referring to exactly? It certainly is not the "we the people" mentioned in the constitution, and we'd better fear we don't find out who these perverts are really serving and answering to before the last two years of Obama's administration have expired, or our lives may be unalterably and unpleasantly changed forever and our freedoms ripped from us.
1. Eric Holder was appearing before a congressional committee and was trying to explain why he didn't go for final conviction and punishment of a New Black Panther Party member who had violently intimidated voters in a previous election, and his amazingly odd and rambling logic found him mentioning "his people" who were denied civil rights thirty years ago, and not concentrating on the "people" who were denied their voting rights two years ago.
2. Louis Farrakhan was speaking on a radio program about Obama launching missiles against Libya and warned Obama that this kind of attack would alienate him from his "people in Africa and throughout the world".
3. When Obama was trying to get his nerve up to defend the citizen forces rebelling against Kaddafi he went to the United Nations to get courage and approval, not to the congress that he's constitutionally required to consider, whose members were elected by "we the people" of the United States and who Obama declared the president was required to get approval from when our Barry was a senator and railing against Bush for being militant.
None of the "people" referred to above (Holder's people, Obama's people or the people of the United Nations) are the "people" of the United States of America who the president and attorney general are sworn to serve and whose constitution they swore to protect. So what the hell "people" are these fools referring to exactly? It certainly is not the "we the people" mentioned in the constitution, and we'd better fear we don't find out who these perverts are really serving and answering to before the last two years of Obama's administration have expired, or our lives may be unalterably and unpleasantly changed forever and our freedoms ripped from us.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
More Unnecessary, Government-Caused Suffering
On March 14, 2011, Washington Post Writers Group contributor Robert Samuelson wrote an article titled "The Great Food Crunch" in which he detailed the suffering of the poorer nations of the world caused by inflated food prices, and he even attributed some of the reason for the upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia to increased food prices and the scarcity of food.
In the late 1960s, Paul Ehrlich wrote a book (The Population Bomb) wringing his hands about the millions of deaths by starvation he predicted were imminent in India, Bangladesh and other poor nations, because of the insufficient crops these nations were growing. Of course Mr. Ehrlich wanted government controls and a reduction of the wealthier nations' living standards to help remedy the predicted disaster. But instead, and to the chagrin of the likes of Mr. Ehrlich, we now know that nations like India are net exporters of food, and instead of the western nations having to live less well, countries like India are now living and eating much better than when Paul Ehrlich wrote his books. The poorer nations are not living better because of government intervention, but in spite of it. It was the free market, exclusively located in the mean and wasteful affluent west that developed seeds that would produce crops resistant to weeds, bugs and drought, and allow people in the poorer nations to live better lives.
So now we're seeing shortages again in poor nations and we can readily identify government, and in particular the Obama administration, as a major contributor to the suffering, while our immoral president enjoys golf games and Martha's Vineyard vacations, eating Kobe beef and living in the lap of tax-payer-provided luxury, and at the same time telling us how we all must sacrifice, eat less and take fewer vacations in order to make ends meet. The Obama administration has directly, with its own policy edicts, caused corn products to be removes from the food market and be diverted to fuel usage for the administration's personal and political interests, and this diversion can be directly blamed for the food shortages and the increased cost of food we see around us, thus causing the poorest to suffer most.
And although the United States consumers are less immediately impacted by the redirection of food to fuel, we are seeing inflation in our own country in both the cost of food and of the fuel we use in our homes and cars, as the fools in government edict that our own domestic drilling for oil and gas be halted.
There is no doubt that eventually the market place will solve the problems the world is having with food and energy costs and shortages, but the painful situation need never have developed in the first place if government, our own in particular, would have abided by the limited and enumerated powers listed in our constitution, and not attempted to change the way we live based on the idiotic and destructive theories of Mr. Obama and his unconstitutional czars. The time-proven practices of production and economics that have developed over centuries of individual, profit-driven markets have produced wealth and plenty for the world, and Obama's policies are destroying all of it, and within the span of one fool's administration. Will this immoral man never stop? If he isn't defeated in 2012 our nation is finished!
In the late 1960s, Paul Ehrlich wrote a book (The Population Bomb) wringing his hands about the millions of deaths by starvation he predicted were imminent in India, Bangladesh and other poor nations, because of the insufficient crops these nations were growing. Of course Mr. Ehrlich wanted government controls and a reduction of the wealthier nations' living standards to help remedy the predicted disaster. But instead, and to the chagrin of the likes of Mr. Ehrlich, we now know that nations like India are net exporters of food, and instead of the western nations having to live less well, countries like India are now living and eating much better than when Paul Ehrlich wrote his books. The poorer nations are not living better because of government intervention, but in spite of it. It was the free market, exclusively located in the mean and wasteful affluent west that developed seeds that would produce crops resistant to weeds, bugs and drought, and allow people in the poorer nations to live better lives.
So now we're seeing shortages again in poor nations and we can readily identify government, and in particular the Obama administration, as a major contributor to the suffering, while our immoral president enjoys golf games and Martha's Vineyard vacations, eating Kobe beef and living in the lap of tax-payer-provided luxury, and at the same time telling us how we all must sacrifice, eat less and take fewer vacations in order to make ends meet. The Obama administration has directly, with its own policy edicts, caused corn products to be removes from the food market and be diverted to fuel usage for the administration's personal and political interests, and this diversion can be directly blamed for the food shortages and the increased cost of food we see around us, thus causing the poorest to suffer most.
And although the United States consumers are less immediately impacted by the redirection of food to fuel, we are seeing inflation in our own country in both the cost of food and of the fuel we use in our homes and cars, as the fools in government edict that our own domestic drilling for oil and gas be halted.
There is no doubt that eventually the market place will solve the problems the world is having with food and energy costs and shortages, but the painful situation need never have developed in the first place if government, our own in particular, would have abided by the limited and enumerated powers listed in our constitution, and not attempted to change the way we live based on the idiotic and destructive theories of Mr. Obama and his unconstitutional czars. The time-proven practices of production and economics that have developed over centuries of individual, profit-driven markets have produced wealth and plenty for the world, and Obama's policies are destroying all of it, and within the span of one fool's administration. Will this immoral man never stop? If he isn't defeated in 2012 our nation is finished!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Whether To Fear Muslims Or Not Is A 50/50 Deal
Either Muslims are dangerous or they're not, and if they're not they have nothing to fear from a Congressman who just wants to determine the extent of American Muslims who may be radicalized. Stated differently, either Muslims are in the United States because they love the way we live and want to live here, in which case they are welcome and have nothing to fear, or they are here to kill us, which means we have every right to identify and neutralize them. It's a 50/50 deal. Either way an investigation of dangerous radicals in the Muslim population by Congressman Peter King should cause no particular outcry. Mr. King only wants to determine the extent of the problem, which is relevant and logical. But the violent and loud voices of large groups of Muslims and their liberal camp-followers makes one suspect that there is a larger problem here than meets the eye, and the demonstrators along with those who are threatening Mr. King are giving the appearance that something threatening and dangerous to our nation is indeed to be found with his hearing.
The large and violent response to Mr. King would cause one to believe that the protesters do have something to hide. If they didn't, they would welcome an investigation that would absolve them and that might at the same time identify dangerous radicals in our population who threaten Christians and Muslims alike. And the only reason Muslim radicals are being singled out is because there are no international gangs of Buddhists or Baptists who have stated that they want to kill Americans and send airplanes into our buildings.
The large and violent response to Mr. King would cause one to believe that the protesters do have something to hide. If they didn't, they would welcome an investigation that would absolve them and that might at the same time identify dangerous radicals in our population who threaten Christians and Muslims alike. And the only reason Muslim radicals are being singled out is because there are no international gangs of Buddhists or Baptists who have stated that they want to kill Americans and send airplanes into our buildings.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Addressing The "Tough Decisions" Thing
Recently Congressman Kevin Yoder sent a newsletter stating that he was making "tough decisions" about the economy, and although I appreciate the good bills and proposals Kevin has supported and voted for, he has not really addressed the truly "tough" areas yet. Here are some of the major items:
1. We are defrauding young people by making them pay FICA taxes when we know that there will be no Social Security money available to them when they reach retirement age. To be fair with them, we must allow them to keep the money they are forced to pay to FICA, and instead invest it in directions that will benefit them in retirement. This action would also reduce the number of people making demands on Social Security in future years, thereby reducing related expenses to the government.
2. Under the Department of Education our children's education is much worse than when the Department was formed. This failure on the part of the Department, and its increasing budget every year in spite of its failures, demand that it be disbanded and abolished. This would save the government hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and education would be improved by returning all decisions regarding education to the local school districts, two very favorable outcomes.
3. Are gas and oil more plentiful or less expensive now than they were 5 or 10 years ago? No, they're not! So we must abolish the Departments of Energy and Interior and thus save additional hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Any department that is failing the nation must be gotten rid of so we can move on.
4. Is the EPA being true to its enabling legislation and protecting the environment as congress ordered them to do upon its formation? No! The agency is writing its own rules and is going rogue with new regulations that will strangle business and the economy. This entire agency must be abolished if we are to save our prosperity and liberty, and we could save additional tens of billions of dollars each year with it gone.
The above list is a series of "tough decisions" that will really save significant money each and every year, and each would make the nation better and freer, but I've heard no one propose them yet.
So, Kevin I appeal to you, keep up the good work so far, but get busy immediately on the really "tough decisions" that will make a meaningful difference to our nation. This would truly make you a leader, not a career politician, and would prevent your becoming a professional follower.
1. We are defrauding young people by making them pay FICA taxes when we know that there will be no Social Security money available to them when they reach retirement age. To be fair with them, we must allow them to keep the money they are forced to pay to FICA, and instead invest it in directions that will benefit them in retirement. This action would also reduce the number of people making demands on Social Security in future years, thereby reducing related expenses to the government.
2. Under the Department of Education our children's education is much worse than when the Department was formed. This failure on the part of the Department, and its increasing budget every year in spite of its failures, demand that it be disbanded and abolished. This would save the government hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and education would be improved by returning all decisions regarding education to the local school districts, two very favorable outcomes.
3. Are gas and oil more plentiful or less expensive now than they were 5 or 10 years ago? No, they're not! So we must abolish the Departments of Energy and Interior and thus save additional hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Any department that is failing the nation must be gotten rid of so we can move on.
4. Is the EPA being true to its enabling legislation and protecting the environment as congress ordered them to do upon its formation? No! The agency is writing its own rules and is going rogue with new regulations that will strangle business and the economy. This entire agency must be abolished if we are to save our prosperity and liberty, and we could save additional tens of billions of dollars each year with it gone.
The above list is a series of "tough decisions" that will really save significant money each and every year, and each would make the nation better and freer, but I've heard no one propose them yet.
So, Kevin I appeal to you, keep up the good work so far, but get busy immediately on the really "tough decisions" that will make a meaningful difference to our nation. This would truly make you a leader, not a career politician, and would prevent your becoming a professional follower.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Why Liberals Are Nearly Always Wrong
Political scientist Edward Banfield, in his book The Unheavenly City, responded to the dilemma of why some people commit crimes and why other people don't, stating that criminals act unwisely because of their "orientation toward the future" consisting of their "inability to imagine a future", combined with their "inability to discipline" themselves "to sacrifice present for future satisfaction". By making this distinction of why criminals commit crimes he has also told us why liberals, in the realm of politics, ruin everything they touch: They have no concept of a future, and they are unable to sacrifice today for rewards in the future. They just do things, and nearly always their actions involve spending other peoples' money. They are impulsive and rash in their actions and in their legislation (remember how urgent the stimulus was and how they forced Obamacare down our throats without allowing any Republican input, and how they coerced doubting Democrats to vote for the destructive legislation without delay or debate)? Liberals commit political and legislative violence when they have their way with policy, and the entire nation ends up eventually paying a heavy price for their ill-considered actions, as we are now seeing with our unbelievable debt and the fact that nearly all states face financial crises, if not outright bankruptcy.
Banfield's theory would also explain why liberals cause such pain and suffering: they are unable to apply principle to their actions and can't visualize the future and the down-side of their actions (they feel good about handing out welfare to the poor, and generous retirement packages to government employees, without considering that welfare recipients will get trapped in dependency and that government retirees may one day be left with a reduced retirement when the money runs out, as we are currently seeing). They claim their compassion causes them to be overly kind in their givings, but actually it's because they are honestly unable to comprehend the future results of their actions and because it's not their money they are doling out.
At present we are facing an increasingly violent response from liberals as they face an end to the heyday they've had and the promises they've made for the last 40 years. The mobs in Wisconsin show where all states, cities, and eventually the federal government are headed now that we have responsible adults in charge of policy, and the liberal juveniles are objecting to having their lavish spending policies reversed. Our nation is nearing destruction, and still liberals cannot see the over-reaching they've done and the misery they've caused. We must stand firmly behind all politicians who are serious about reducing spending and reducing the size and intrusiveness of government, or we all will face a future that is bleak and uncomfortable, and our children will never know the joy of living in a free and prosperous nation.
Banfield's theory would also explain why liberals cause such pain and suffering: they are unable to apply principle to their actions and can't visualize the future and the down-side of their actions (they feel good about handing out welfare to the poor, and generous retirement packages to government employees, without considering that welfare recipients will get trapped in dependency and that government retirees may one day be left with a reduced retirement when the money runs out, as we are currently seeing). They claim their compassion causes them to be overly kind in their givings, but actually it's because they are honestly unable to comprehend the future results of their actions and because it's not their money they are doling out.
At present we are facing an increasingly violent response from liberals as they face an end to the heyday they've had and the promises they've made for the last 40 years. The mobs in Wisconsin show where all states, cities, and eventually the federal government are headed now that we have responsible adults in charge of policy, and the liberal juveniles are objecting to having their lavish spending policies reversed. Our nation is nearing destruction, and still liberals cannot see the over-reaching they've done and the misery they've caused. We must stand firmly behind all politicians who are serious about reducing spending and reducing the size and intrusiveness of government, or we all will face a future that is bleak and uncomfortable, and our children will never know the joy of living in a free and prosperous nation.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Obama Administration's Violence and Racism Astounds
In spite of the fact that the Attorney General of the United States is in place to protect all of the American people, Eric Holder recently said in effect that he will protect "his people" in the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case to the detriment of all other citizens. Are there any questions as to who his "people" are? And what happened to equal protection under the law for all citizens?
There is a pattern of violence and racism in the Obama administration that is troubling and dangerous for our nation. From Obama stating that liberals should punish their political opponents after winning an election, to his suggestion that his followers take a gun to a knife fight, to Eric Holder announcing that he has "people" he will defend over others, to Obama defying court orders related to off-shore oil drilling and the Obamacare legislation, to Obama's arbitrarily announcing that the Defense of Marriage Act is, in his political opinion, unconstitutional, and will no longer be defended by his administration, it appears that lawless, totalitarian clouds are forming on the political horizon.
Be very afraid of Obama, Holder and their "people".
There is a pattern of violence and racism in the Obama administration that is troubling and dangerous for our nation. From Obama stating that liberals should punish their political opponents after winning an election, to his suggestion that his followers take a gun to a knife fight, to Eric Holder announcing that he has "people" he will defend over others, to Obama defying court orders related to off-shore oil drilling and the Obamacare legislation, to Obama's arbitrarily announcing that the Defense of Marriage Act is, in his political opinion, unconstitutional, and will no longer be defended by his administration, it appears that lawless, totalitarian clouds are forming on the political horizon.
Be very afraid of Obama, Holder and their "people".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)