Saturday, May 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Good Riddance
Arlen Spector, senior Senator from Pennsylvania, is now batting for the other side. For 30 years, he has been a moderate thorn in the Republican Party's side, and now, when the chips are down, he snakes over the to other side in order to preserve his political career.
Specter has stated "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans". This has come a month after Specter has stated he would never switch parties for ideological reasons. I am pretty sure he is going to get a comfortable chairmanship in exchange for giving the Democrats safe from any opposition from the Republicans.
Frankly, I am happy for the Republican Party. This is exactly what doctor is proscribing. Let the party purge itself and embrace a new generation of true conservative politicians. This will revamp the party staffed with members who have not been tainted by Washington politics. As Joe Scarborough says "sitting in that town [DC] changes you."
Specter has stated "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans". This has come a month after Specter has stated he would never switch parties for ideological reasons. I am pretty sure he is going to get a comfortable chairmanship in exchange for giving the Democrats safe from any opposition from the Republicans.
Frankly, I am happy for the Republican Party. This is exactly what doctor is proscribing. Let the party purge itself and embrace a new generation of true conservative politicians. This will revamp the party staffed with members who have not been tainted by Washington politics. As Joe Scarborough says "sitting in that town [DC] changes you."
Thursday, March 5, 2009
China's growing recession.
China's PM addresses The National People's Congress
The US is not the only country hit hard in these tough economic times. Recently the NPC, the National People's Congress (a congregation of the one-party rule of China). PM Wen Jiabao has stated that the centrally controlled government will increase spending, although they claim their debt of 950 billion Yuan is only 3% of their GDP and have projected 8% economic growth. China plans on increasing spending on social programs, healthcare and a projected 15% increase in spending on military programs.
The PRC is able to immidiately initiate new policy due to democratic centralism that is a linchpin in one-party, authoritarian rule. However, many leaders within the party, including Jiabao, have no clear plan on how to utilize the new spending. Nonetheless, it seems the party predicts a dreary future and are preparing for it as quickly as possible.
A question that comes to mind: how will this effect US-Sino relations? More importantly, will China's new policies drastically effect the amount of US debt they buy up?
The US is not the only country hit hard in these tough economic times. Recently the NPC, the National People's Congress (a congregation of the one-party rule of China). PM Wen Jiabao has stated that the centrally controlled government will increase spending, although they claim their debt of 950 billion Yuan is only 3% of their GDP and have projected 8% economic growth. China plans on increasing spending on social programs, healthcare and a projected 15% increase in spending on military programs.
The PRC is able to immidiately initiate new policy due to democratic centralism that is a linchpin in one-party, authoritarian rule. However, many leaders within the party, including Jiabao, have no clear plan on how to utilize the new spending. Nonetheless, it seems the party predicts a dreary future and are preparing for it as quickly as possible.
A question that comes to mind: how will this effect US-Sino relations? More importantly, will China's new policies drastically effect the amount of US debt they buy up?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A step closer to the fairness doctrine?
Obama picks new head of FCC.
It pays off to go to Havard Law School. Julius Genachowski, a former classmate of Mr. Obama's at Harvard, has been named Julius Genachowski as the new head of the FCC. Previous to this move, he was a part of various venture capital groups and corporations around DC, most became an insider within those eight years. He had also previously worked for the FCC as well.
Ok, so he seems like a self-started, business oriented professional. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But as you read the article further, he was a campaign worker who openly expressed support for "net-neutrality" protections and media-ownership rules to promote diversity. First of all, I have no idea what net-neutrality could possibly mean. The internet is probably humanity's last bastion of true openness. No matter who you are: liberal, conservative, or pinko-communist, anyone has a free run to express themselves. Even scumbag neo-nazis have paypal accounts to sell copies of the "Turner Diaries".
What scares me more is that second part. "Media-ownership rules to promote diversity". This leads me to believe that Mr. Genachowski is none other than a full fledged supporter of the fairness doctrine, a policy that has floated around the liberal camp since the 1940s. Back then, congress believed that both sides of the political spectrum should have equal air time due to the limited amount of frequency that was available to fledgling radio technology. Now this policy is no longer needed due to the fact that the technology has expanded tenfold. No one company has to fight for airwave space because there is so much open space for everyone.
Now the fairness doctrine is a ploy to silence conservative talk, or at least, force conservative-leaning stations, by government mandate, to allow equal time for the other side their so-called "fair share". First of all, it is known that conservative talk rules the radio waves, with hosts such as Mark Levine and Sean Hannity, and this dominance is a threat to their liberal counter-parts, whose ratings, to say the least, are poor. In the liberal mindset, however, it is completely logical to force private communication companies to insert less popular hosts in their time slots to marginalize the time reserved for the more popular ones that, in essence, make them money through ratings and advertisments. Bottom line, the fairness doctrine eliminates private enterprise in favor of bigger government.
Last, and my other important point, is how this relates to the double-speak that Mr. Obama has used time and time again. In February, he vowed to never touch the subject of the fairness doctrine and if congress pushes any type of legislation pertaining to it, he will reject it. With this appointment, could this be a way to curtail the legislative process and delegate the power to a federal agency? We will have to wait and see.
It pays off to go to Havard Law School. Julius Genachowski, a former classmate of Mr. Obama's at Harvard, has been named Julius Genachowski as the new head of the FCC. Previous to this move, he was a part of various venture capital groups and corporations around DC, most became an insider within those eight years. He had also previously worked for the FCC as well.
Ok, so he seems like a self-started, business oriented professional. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But as you read the article further, he was a campaign worker who openly expressed support for "net-neutrality" protections and media-ownership rules to promote diversity. First of all, I have no idea what net-neutrality could possibly mean. The internet is probably humanity's last bastion of true openness. No matter who you are: liberal, conservative, or pinko-communist, anyone has a free run to express themselves. Even scumbag neo-nazis have paypal accounts to sell copies of the "Turner Diaries".
What scares me more is that second part. "Media-ownership rules to promote diversity". This leads me to believe that Mr. Genachowski is none other than a full fledged supporter of the fairness doctrine, a policy that has floated around the liberal camp since the 1940s. Back then, congress believed that both sides of the political spectrum should have equal air time due to the limited amount of frequency that was available to fledgling radio technology. Now this policy is no longer needed due to the fact that the technology has expanded tenfold. No one company has to fight for airwave space because there is so much open space for everyone.
Now the fairness doctrine is a ploy to silence conservative talk, or at least, force conservative-leaning stations, by government mandate, to allow equal time for the other side their so-called "fair share". First of all, it is known that conservative talk rules the radio waves, with hosts such as Mark Levine and Sean Hannity, and this dominance is a threat to their liberal counter-parts, whose ratings, to say the least, are poor. In the liberal mindset, however, it is completely logical to force private communication companies to insert less popular hosts in their time slots to marginalize the time reserved for the more popular ones that, in essence, make them money through ratings and advertisments. Bottom line, the fairness doctrine eliminates private enterprise in favor of bigger government.
Last, and my other important point, is how this relates to the double-speak that Mr. Obama has used time and time again. In February, he vowed to never touch the subject of the fairness doctrine and if congress pushes any type of legislation pertaining to it, he will reject it. With this appointment, could this be a way to curtail the legislative process and delegate the power to a federal agency? We will have to wait and see.
Mr. Brown goes to Washington.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown addressed both houses today, being the fifth PM in our history to do so.
Brown Speech.
Without making any suggestions or solutions to any problems, Brown talked of the special relationship the US and UK has which is pivotal in curing the global crisis. He claims what is needed is an initiative a "global new deal". Maybe Mr. Gordon should take a lesson in US history. It took a world war to mobilize the US economy out of its giant slump, not government intervention and massive spending.
Brown Speech.
Without making any suggestions or solutions to any problems, Brown talked of the special relationship the US and UK has which is pivotal in curing the global crisis. He claims what is needed is an initiative a "global new deal". Maybe Mr. Gordon should take a lesson in US history. It took a world war to mobilize the US economy out of its giant slump, not government intervention and massive spending.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
CIA used Nixon-esque tactics.
Bush CIA memos.
According to WSJ, the Justice Department is investigating 92 destroyed tapes that belonged to the CIA. It seems these tapes pertained to the Bush Administration's interrogation policies after the 9/11 attacks. Along with this investigation has been the disclosure of memos that concern ways in which to curtail civil liberties and ignore diplomatic agreements.
With Mr. Obama closing Gitmo within days of the beginning of his administration, it seems that his aim is to rid our nation with any remnant of the Bush Administration and create a new slate. By doing this however, he is edging away from his promise to look to the future and not dwell on the past.
I agree with anyone who thinks Bush's plans to limit civil liberities in the name of national security was completely and utterly unconstitutional. I don't see our bill of rights as a contract that can be "renegotiated". The government is there to ensure are rights are protected and are not there to protect us by eliminating our certain, unalienable rights.
But I digress. I feel this is the Obama administration's attempt at mini-witch hunts to purge DC of Bush-era bureaucrats. Disguising this move with groups like the ACLU as a righteous crusade to protect civil liberties does not do justice to those true liberty-loving Americans who fight for the preservation of our rights everyday. It begs the question, though, how far will Obama really go to persecute the intelligence community. Although they used unorthodox methods of imprisoning suspected terrorists, our nation has been kept reletively safe from attack since 9-11. Were their methods suspect to being unconstitutional? Most likely. Were they effective? Yes. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
According to WSJ, the Justice Department is investigating 92 destroyed tapes that belonged to the CIA. It seems these tapes pertained to the Bush Administration's interrogation policies after the 9/11 attacks. Along with this investigation has been the disclosure of memos that concern ways in which to curtail civil liberties and ignore diplomatic agreements.
With Mr. Obama closing Gitmo within days of the beginning of his administration, it seems that his aim is to rid our nation with any remnant of the Bush Administration and create a new slate. By doing this however, he is edging away from his promise to look to the future and not dwell on the past.
I agree with anyone who thinks Bush's plans to limit civil liberities in the name of national security was completely and utterly unconstitutional. I don't see our bill of rights as a contract that can be "renegotiated". The government is there to ensure are rights are protected and are not there to protect us by eliminating our certain, unalienable rights.
But I digress. I feel this is the Obama administration's attempt at mini-witch hunts to purge DC of Bush-era bureaucrats. Disguising this move with groups like the ACLU as a righteous crusade to protect civil liberties does not do justice to those true liberty-loving Americans who fight for the preservation of our rights everyday. It begs the question, though, how far will Obama really go to persecute the intelligence community. Although they used unorthodox methods of imprisoning suspected terrorists, our nation has been kept reletively safe from attack since 9-11. Were their methods suspect to being unconstitutional? Most likely. Were they effective? Yes. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Chimp-Stimulus Cartoon creates malestorm of racial tension.
New York Post cartoon angers liberal elitists, such as Al Sharpton:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/chimp-stimulus-cartoon-raises-racism-concerns/
My first impression of the cartoon found it humorous (although a rampaging chimp is no laughing matter). Clearly, it was poking fun of our belligerent congress wildly running around like animals last week when writing the Stimulus Bill. And like animals, they (Democrats) were furiously vying for pieces of the pie. In a nutshell, it was commenting on congress' lack of professionalism. Yet, Rev. Al Sharpton was quick to make a loose connection between the artist's rendition of the shot ape and our African-American President, insinuating that, in effect, the cartoon was calling our black President a monkey.
I was reading an article on NRO by Jonah Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism) that touches base with this very issue. "Oppression by the minority" is what he calls it, meaning, the hesitation by journalists and political critics must take to circumvent any kind of speech that might be deemed un-PC. Now, in my opinion, there is a fine line between hate speech and free speech. Anyone with common sense knows what is hate speech and what it is not. However, it is often that freedom of speech will be sacrificed in order to appease the over-reactive whims of the minority. It was freedom of speech that was a cornerstone of the Civil Rights movement. Justifiably, freedom of speech lead the way for equal rights for all citizins of this nation. Vocies were heard and rights were won. Can voices still be heard, in our present day, and keep these rights?
Some might ask if the Civil Rights movement has reached its pinnacle; with Barack Obama winning the Presidency, I have heard this issue come up many times. I wouldn't know and I wouldn't be able to make a clear speculation. One issue I am trying to raise is at what price do we sacrifice individual liberties for the sake of a group. In a "pure" democracy (like the ancient Greek city-states), organized government systems were run by mob rule and effectively stamped out any competition. Unlike unruley Hellenic mobs, I don't see minority groups themselves as mobs. I see their leaders, behind closed doors, using and abusing the triumphs made by past civil rights leaders to usher in political power for themselves. Effectively, if there is no problem, a liberal would be out of a job.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/chimp-stimulus-cartoon-raises-racism-concerns/
My first impression of the cartoon found it humorous (although a rampaging chimp is no laughing matter). Clearly, it was poking fun of our belligerent congress wildly running around like animals last week when writing the Stimulus Bill. And like animals, they (Democrats) were furiously vying for pieces of the pie. In a nutshell, it was commenting on congress' lack of professionalism. Yet, Rev. Al Sharpton was quick to make a loose connection between the artist's rendition of the shot ape and our African-American President, insinuating that, in effect, the cartoon was calling our black President a monkey.
I was reading an article on NRO by Jonah Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism) that touches base with this very issue. "Oppression by the minority" is what he calls it, meaning, the hesitation by journalists and political critics must take to circumvent any kind of speech that might be deemed un-PC. Now, in my opinion, there is a fine line between hate speech and free speech. Anyone with common sense knows what is hate speech and what it is not. However, it is often that freedom of speech will be sacrificed in order to appease the over-reactive whims of the minority. It was freedom of speech that was a cornerstone of the Civil Rights movement. Justifiably, freedom of speech lead the way for equal rights for all citizins of this nation. Vocies were heard and rights were won. Can voices still be heard, in our present day, and keep these rights?
Some might ask if the Civil Rights movement has reached its pinnacle; with Barack Obama winning the Presidency, I have heard this issue come up many times. I wouldn't know and I wouldn't be able to make a clear speculation. One issue I am trying to raise is at what price do we sacrifice individual liberties for the sake of a group. In a "pure" democracy (like the ancient Greek city-states), organized government systems were run by mob rule and effectively stamped out any competition. Unlike unruley Hellenic mobs, I don't see minority groups themselves as mobs. I see their leaders, behind closed doors, using and abusing the triumphs made by past civil rights leaders to usher in political power for themselves. Effectively, if there is no problem, a liberal would be out of a job.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Beligerence Be Thy Name!
Unless you live under a rock, most of you are well aware of the Stimulus bill. This so-called "stimulus" was hastily passed through Congress like crap through a goose this Friday. And so, President Obama signed the bill today, the rubber stamp of the liberal juggernaut that dominates our national congress.
House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was in a huge rush to pass the bill through before the weekend would start. A big jet liner headed for Rome was waiting for her to board, so really, there was no time to review it and discuss it (if it is any consolation, the Pope slammed her for her pro-choice stance...some devout Catholic). If this bill is not passed, according the to President, our economy will suffer a blow that it would never recover from. It was imperative that the bill be passed immediately and without delay. First of all, this is fear mongering. Obama's message to the American public was nothing more than a slippery slope. The fallacy being that if the bill isn't passed, than the US economy is going to go down the toilet. How many of you, rationally speaking, really think that without this bill all hell would break loose. Is this bill the be-all-end-all? It is unreasonable to lead the public to believe that this bill alone will solve the nation's problems.
Which leads me to my second point. Pushing the bill through in order to "save" the economy was a flat-out facade. It was passed through rapidly in order to save it from extreme scrutiny and opposition. Effectively, what they did was avoid any sort of discussion from the other end of the isle, public uproar and millions of phone calls, emails and nasty letters flooding their congressional offices. If given any time at all, the bill would have had to undergo massive edits and even the possibility of getting canned for a newly revised bill.
So what does this say about the bill itself? To tell you the truth, I'm sure very few in Washington have actually slogged through the 1,000 plus pages of legislation. The content itself must be questionable, possibly a reason why they did not want the public to be knowledgeable; it leads one to wonder how much actual stimulus has been included in the bill. I guess we can forget about Obama's promise to have bills posted 5 days on the White House webpage before he will do any signing. So much for transparency within the government. I hope this does not become an ongoing trait with this administration. That goes double for the use of fear mongering with the public. Americans deserve better than this; a government of the people, by the people and for the people...not a deceptive government for its own self-interest.
By the way, if you actually have the time, heres link of the bill put into 5 pdf files:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was in a huge rush to pass the bill through before the weekend would start. A big jet liner headed for Rome was waiting for her to board, so really, there was no time to review it and discuss it (if it is any consolation, the Pope slammed her for her pro-choice stance...some devout Catholic). If this bill is not passed, according the to President, our economy will suffer a blow that it would never recover from. It was imperative that the bill be passed immediately and without delay. First of all, this is fear mongering. Obama's message to the American public was nothing more than a slippery slope. The fallacy being that if the bill isn't passed, than the US economy is going to go down the toilet. How many of you, rationally speaking, really think that without this bill all hell would break loose. Is this bill the be-all-end-all? It is unreasonable to lead the public to believe that this bill alone will solve the nation's problems.
Which leads me to my second point. Pushing the bill through in order to "save" the economy was a flat-out facade. It was passed through rapidly in order to save it from extreme scrutiny and opposition. Effectively, what they did was avoid any sort of discussion from the other end of the isle, public uproar and millions of phone calls, emails and nasty letters flooding their congressional offices. If given any time at all, the bill would have had to undergo massive edits and even the possibility of getting canned for a newly revised bill.
So what does this say about the bill itself? To tell you the truth, I'm sure very few in Washington have actually slogged through the 1,000 plus pages of legislation. The content itself must be questionable, possibly a reason why they did not want the public to be knowledgeable; it leads one to wonder how much actual stimulus has been included in the bill. I guess we can forget about Obama's promise to have bills posted 5 days on the White House webpage before he will do any signing. So much for transparency within the government. I hope this does not become an ongoing trait with this administration. That goes double for the use of fear mongering with the public. Americans deserve better than this; a government of the people, by the people and for the people...not a deceptive government for its own self-interest.
By the way, if you actually have the time, heres link of the bill put into 5 pdf files:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
500 Million will be unemployed!
San Fran Nan does it again...
Is this really what our politicians have turned into? Are they so out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent in our government? The DC circus has become so ridiculous that I sometimes mistake CNN for comedy central.
Is this really what our politicians have turned into? Are they so out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent in our government? The DC circus has become so ridiculous that I sometimes mistake CNN for comedy central.
Monday, February 2, 2009
What do you think?
Many are getting pretty disappointed over Obama's cabinet picks. Victor Davis Hanson of NRO compares Obama's picks to Bush's picks and offers a good comparison between the two. Is it too soon to tell, however?
"President Hamlet"
"President Hamlet"
Hey WSJ...its called a Bong!
Michael Phelps and his "pot pipe".
C'mon WSJ, like none of your staff and writers never went to college.
Give Phelps a break. He's like the greatest athlete ever and helped us own the Chinese in their own backyard. I hope this doesn't stain the poor guy's reputation.
Lets focus more on men like Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle who have troubles using TurboTax, yet seem to find themselves in cabinet positions that deal with our nation's finances. With our economy in the perverbial crapper, why would men with shady histories be in charge of fixing this mess? Truth is stranger than fiction.
C'mon WSJ, like none of your staff and writers never went to college.
Give Phelps a break. He's like the greatest athlete ever and helped us own the Chinese in their own backyard. I hope this doesn't stain the poor guy's reputation.
Lets focus more on men like Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle who have troubles using TurboTax, yet seem to find themselves in cabinet positions that deal with our nation's finances. With our economy in the perverbial crapper, why would men with shady histories be in charge of fixing this mess? Truth is stranger than fiction.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Hung-over epiphany.
I was driving home one morning after a long night of drinking with some friends. Hung-over like an Irish priest, I wasn't in the mood for music, so I switched off my cd player to catch some morning talk. A block of commercials were running, including one for Washington Mutual (WaMu). They were advertising the different services they offer, but what caught me was it served more of a purpose as a notice to the public. They were informing listeners that they were merging with Chase, yet nothing was going to change. They were still going to maintain all the bells and whistles WaMu has provided before.
My point is that I'm excited that WaMu is still in buiseness. Well, maybe it is. The significant thing I want to point out is the merger between the two. Chase and WaMu together. This is what happens in a recession; when buisenesses go bankrupt or go under, others will buy them out, or at least, buy shares of the company, as in the case of Chase and WaMu. It has happened to others as well. Chrysler, who was on the edge of bitting the dust, was picked up, partially, by Italian car-maker Fiat. This is one of the important aspects of a free market economy such as ours. Companies are free to buy up parts of others in order to continue growth and capture pieces of the market.
I'm not attempting to give you a lesson in Economics 101 (I never took it and know only a limited amount anyway). My point: when the market naturally acts like this, when companies will buy off other bankrupt companies at any opprotunity, why is it nessessary to bail them out? Why would the government need to spend $800 billion in tax payer's money and hand it out to financial groups and auto makers? What is worse is that most of this money is given off without any conditions or instruction. Tax payer money just written off in hopes that these corporations will do the right thing and use it wisely to promote growth, keep jobs and stimulate the economy. With no strings attatched, they are litterally given a blank check, free to use (and abuse) the money as they wish and they keep coming back for more. Why? It was misused and their companies continue in bad business practices. The government has bailed out the large corporations that are "vital" to our economy under the pretext to save jobs. So far, no dice. Each day, thousands of jobs are lost. What I find difficult with this government initiative is that the Federal government assumes these companies are too vital. Who really is to say how vital these companies are. If they were going bankrupt, losing money and credibility, do they even deserve to be saved in the first place? Second of all, if the money is primarily used to save jobs, why isn't their mandatory oversight? Without oversight, plain and simple, the companies are free to use this money as they wish, ignoring jobs and refreshing management practices.
So I say, petition your Senators and Congressmen and women. If you don't voice your anger and anguish over this issue, nothing will be done to be stopped and congress will continue to squander your taxes on needless and frankly stupid projects that will, in their view, "save" the economy.
My point is that I'm excited that WaMu is still in buiseness. Well, maybe it is. The significant thing I want to point out is the merger between the two. Chase and WaMu together. This is what happens in a recession; when buisenesses go bankrupt or go under, others will buy them out, or at least, buy shares of the company, as in the case of Chase and WaMu. It has happened to others as well. Chrysler, who was on the edge of bitting the dust, was picked up, partially, by Italian car-maker Fiat. This is one of the important aspects of a free market economy such as ours. Companies are free to buy up parts of others in order to continue growth and capture pieces of the market.
I'm not attempting to give you a lesson in Economics 101 (I never took it and know only a limited amount anyway). My point: when the market naturally acts like this, when companies will buy off other bankrupt companies at any opprotunity, why is it nessessary to bail them out? Why would the government need to spend $800 billion in tax payer's money and hand it out to financial groups and auto makers? What is worse is that most of this money is given off without any conditions or instruction. Tax payer money just written off in hopes that these corporations will do the right thing and use it wisely to promote growth, keep jobs and stimulate the economy. With no strings attatched, they are litterally given a blank check, free to use (and abuse) the money as they wish and they keep coming back for more. Why? It was misused and their companies continue in bad business practices. The government has bailed out the large corporations that are "vital" to our economy under the pretext to save jobs. So far, no dice. Each day, thousands of jobs are lost. What I find difficult with this government initiative is that the Federal government assumes these companies are too vital. Who really is to say how vital these companies are. If they were going bankrupt, losing money and credibility, do they even deserve to be saved in the first place? Second of all, if the money is primarily used to save jobs, why isn't their mandatory oversight? Without oversight, plain and simple, the companies are free to use this money as they wish, ignoring jobs and refreshing management practices.
So I say, petition your Senators and Congressmen and women. If you don't voice your anger and anguish over this issue, nothing will be done to be stopped and congress will continue to squander your taxes on needless and frankly stupid projects that will, in their view, "save" the economy.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama V. Limbaugh
Obama does not approve of Limbaugh being the voice of the GOP.
Let's get ready to rumble!
oh, and the National Review posts his response:
Round 2
Let's get ready to rumble!
oh, and the National Review posts his response:
Round 2
Friday, January 23, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
An uneasy turn in foreign policy.
With the Obama administration settling into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., a serious question arises: how will foreign policy be conducted? Is it going to be reshaped? Will it stay the same? Will the American people see a mix of both? Let us explore the developments in order to come to a conclusion.
I woke up this morning to the confirmation of former Senator Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State. I still find this mind boggling. Can someone please tell me when the last time a new president had hired a party rival for the presidency into their cabinet? I'm pretty sure its a new one in the executive. Maybe I'm wrong. Nonetheless, someone as power-hungry as a Clinton, let alone Hillary Clinton (I call them the "Clinton package"; Bill will never be too far behind insinuating and influencing-he's not done folks, not by a long shot) will be difficult to find them self eye-to-eye with their own political rival who is currently at the helm. Don't get me wrong, the State Department answers to the president, but the question is, to what degree will Hillary answer the order of our President.
Next is the Obama administration's failure to recognize the war on terror. In the past few days, no such wording has been used when addressing foreign policy. Yet it is quite clear, with all intents and purposes, that our military is actively involved in two theaters of combat under the context of combating terrorism abroad. The new method will be to take a more diplomatic approach, which I am not opposed to per se, but sitting down with leaders who lead rogue states, let alone terrorist organizations with no recognizable government to speak of, without preconditions, dampens and significantly weakens our foreign policy clout. It seems to have, however, created warm and fuzzy feelings though. Muammar al-Gaddafi, de facto leader of Libya since 1969, has lauded President Obama for his moralistic and ethical approach toward world affairs. Thats all swell that mid-East leaders approve of the new diplomatic approach of the US, but this comes at what cost? Frankly, I care more about the preservation of our national defense policy than if Arab leaders approve of us. The main reason I say this is because, whether or not Arab leaders approve, muslim extremists and Islamo-facsists still see the US with hatred and will reamin our enemy regardless.
What alarms me most is the closing of Guatanamo Bay. With the stroke of a pen, Obama has shaken off and erased our prison for suspected terrorists of the Etch-a-sketch of US bases. Clearly, again, this is a move based upon morality and ethics due to the base's notorious reputation from the use of alleged methods of torture. It seems this closure will serve as a messege to the rest of the world that the US is taking a new road of peace and understanding to our enemies. To me, that is like shutting down an entire high school due to a few bad teachers. Realistically speaking, a nation has its self-preservation as the top priority over all other considerations, including global reputation. I do realize there is a problem with the overt use of torture, however, closing the facility that houses our prisoners of war does not warrant its closure. Most of congress, both Republicans and Democrats, voted for us to go to war, and frankly, war is hell. Its almost comical how Dems have repudiated a war they voted to go forward with, yet condemn it and shift the blame onto others while at the same time, promoting their own image as the moral and ethical beacons of hope for this nation.
Ther verdict: I clearly see a reshape of US foreign policy and a definate break from much of what the Bush administration had created. Will these new policies work? I really hope so, but I'm not giving it too much confidence. National defense is too fragile to gamble with.
I woke up this morning to the confirmation of former Senator Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State. I still find this mind boggling. Can someone please tell me when the last time a new president had hired a party rival for the presidency into their cabinet? I'm pretty sure its a new one in the executive. Maybe I'm wrong. Nonetheless, someone as power-hungry as a Clinton, let alone Hillary Clinton (I call them the "Clinton package"; Bill will never be too far behind insinuating and influencing-he's not done folks, not by a long shot) will be difficult to find them self eye-to-eye with their own political rival who is currently at the helm. Don't get me wrong, the State Department answers to the president, but the question is, to what degree will Hillary answer the order of our President.
Next is the Obama administration's failure to recognize the war on terror. In the past few days, no such wording has been used when addressing foreign policy. Yet it is quite clear, with all intents and purposes, that our military is actively involved in two theaters of combat under the context of combating terrorism abroad. The new method will be to take a more diplomatic approach, which I am not opposed to per se, but sitting down with leaders who lead rogue states, let alone terrorist organizations with no recognizable government to speak of, without preconditions, dampens and significantly weakens our foreign policy clout. It seems to have, however, created warm and fuzzy feelings though. Muammar al-Gaddafi, de facto leader of Libya since 1969, has lauded President Obama for his moralistic and ethical approach toward world affairs. Thats all swell that mid-East leaders approve of the new diplomatic approach of the US, but this comes at what cost? Frankly, I care more about the preservation of our national defense policy than if Arab leaders approve of us. The main reason I say this is because, whether or not Arab leaders approve, muslim extremists and Islamo-facsists still see the US with hatred and will reamin our enemy regardless.
What alarms me most is the closing of Guatanamo Bay. With the stroke of a pen, Obama has shaken off and erased our prison for suspected terrorists of the Etch-a-sketch of US bases. Clearly, again, this is a move based upon morality and ethics due to the base's notorious reputation from the use of alleged methods of torture. It seems this closure will serve as a messege to the rest of the world that the US is taking a new road of peace and understanding to our enemies. To me, that is like shutting down an entire high school due to a few bad teachers. Realistically speaking, a nation has its self-preservation as the top priority over all other considerations, including global reputation. I do realize there is a problem with the overt use of torture, however, closing the facility that houses our prisoners of war does not warrant its closure. Most of congress, both Republicans and Democrats, voted for us to go to war, and frankly, war is hell. Its almost comical how Dems have repudiated a war they voted to go forward with, yet condemn it and shift the blame onto others while at the same time, promoting their own image as the moral and ethical beacons of hope for this nation.
Ther verdict: I clearly see a reshape of US foreign policy and a definate break from much of what the Bush administration had created. Will these new policies work? I really hope so, but I'm not giving it too much confidence. National defense is too fragile to gamble with.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Singin' those post-Inauguration blues...
Dick Morris of The Hill, without this use of a Delorean equipped with a flux capacitor, has foreseen what the Obama administration will bring us; a socialist escapade of grand proportion since FDR. Lets pray Morris is wrong or at least the effects short lasting.
The change we might get...
Read carefully on the topic of the welfare state and how he believes the US will follow suit to many of the socialized European countries.
The change we might get...
Read carefully on the topic of the welfare state and how he believes the US will follow suit to many of the socialized European countries.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Everyone wants a piece of the pie.
Today five Democratic governors asked the Federal Government for a nation-wide bailout of $1 trillion dollars. Three major things I see wrong this:
1) If this money is allocated to the union of states, who is going to pay for it and how? Also, who is going to oversee this allocation? With a Democratic controlled congress, there is a great chance of a conflict of interest toward home states, marginalizing other states in favor for others.
2) The Federal Government's bailout to the Big Three Automotive industry will be paid back eventually, so although unfavorable in my book, at least there is some delayed gratification. If the $1 trillion state-bailout goes toward public institutions and agencies on the state level, how will this ever be paid back to the Federal government? Bear in mind public institutions are not profit-driven and I feel this money will just be squandered and the states will end up asking for more...which leads me to my final point.
3) A bailout of this magnitude will further promote the need of big government. States will develop and enable a deepening dependence upon the Federal Government. Fostering a policy like this will only force states to forfeit their rights mostly because of the leverage the Federal Government will become ever stronger.
Its funny to me. States, such as New York, have initiated 88 new taxes upon its citizens, yet claims there is still a need because of growing deficits due to a tax revenue plunge? I'm sorry David Paterson, that simply makes no sense. In my opinion, if you over-tax your citizens, they will simply find ways to avoid them, such as boycotting consumer products. This does not promote growth and free economic enterprise. I'm sorry, its not the Federal government's job to "jump-start" the economy. Let private enterprise and ingenuity fix the economy because handouts are not compatible with capitalism; it is a band-aid on a bullet wound.
Here's the full story. Thank you Drudge.
1) If this money is allocated to the union of states, who is going to pay for it and how? Also, who is going to oversee this allocation? With a Democratic controlled congress, there is a great chance of a conflict of interest toward home states, marginalizing other states in favor for others.
2) The Federal Government's bailout to the Big Three Automotive industry will be paid back eventually, so although unfavorable in my book, at least there is some delayed gratification. If the $1 trillion state-bailout goes toward public institutions and agencies on the state level, how will this ever be paid back to the Federal government? Bear in mind public institutions are not profit-driven and I feel this money will just be squandered and the states will end up asking for more...which leads me to my final point.
3) A bailout of this magnitude will further promote the need of big government. States will develop and enable a deepening dependence upon the Federal Government. Fostering a policy like this will only force states to forfeit their rights mostly because of the leverage the Federal Government will become ever stronger.
Its funny to me. States, such as New York, have initiated 88 new taxes upon its citizens, yet claims there is still a need because of growing deficits due to a tax revenue plunge? I'm sorry David Paterson, that simply makes no sense. In my opinion, if you over-tax your citizens, they will simply find ways to avoid them, such as boycotting consumer products. This does not promote growth and free economic enterprise. I'm sorry, its not the Federal government's job to "jump-start" the economy. Let private enterprise and ingenuity fix the economy because handouts are not compatible with capitalism; it is a band-aid on a bullet wound.
Here's the full story. Thank you Drudge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
