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
Saturday, January 24, 2009
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.
Monday, December 29, 2008
CATO's take on downsizing the Federal Government.
Here's a link to the CATO Institute's newest vblog on downsizing the Federal Government, specifically targeting agriculture and the problem with farm subsidies.
CATO: Agriculture and Downsizing.
Very informative and very eye-opening. If you are inclined toward privatization and competitive markets, then check it out.
CATO: Agriculture and Downsizing.
Very informative and very eye-opening. If you are inclined toward privatization and competitive markets, then check it out.
Farewell to LA's conservative linch-pin.
I know its belated, but I would like to say farewell and good luck to Larry Elder as he has quit his program "The Larry Elder Show" on 790 KABC AM and his last broadcast was December 12, 2008. The Sage from South Central is a formative and significant conservative who has shed much light in our world that seems to be consumed by liberal rhetoric and socialist policies everyday.
You can check up on his latest projects and literature on his website: www.larryelder.com
You can check up on his latest projects and literature on his website: www.larryelder.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
