I read Kathy Hedberg’s recent column about tech-challenged folks the other day, and had to laugh quite a bit. It’s nice to know that I’m not the only person in the world that has trouble with computers and all these other new-fangled gadgets. Not that I’m computer illiterate you understand, just severely impaired. Our local computer guru considers me to be one of his steadiest customers, and a call to my place is his idea of the next best thing to a low-cost coffee shop. Strange as it may seem however I’m really not a total stranger to technology either. I used to be a radar and computer technician of sorts… back when the US Air Force had some of the biggest radars and the best computers in the world, even if they were the size of a very large barn, and took the greater part of Hoover Dam’s total output to power ‘em up. That of course was long ago and far away, back in the days when I was a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed kid, and was proudly wearing the uniform of my countries armed forces.
Back in those days almost every kid was expected to serve a hitch in the military if he was physically qualified. Why? Well, among other things we were taught that as American citizens we had certain civic duties that included respecting our parents (and Mom’s apple pie), obeying the law, and defending the nation as needed. Those duties even included silly little things like being informed voters, although that was somewhat difficult at times. We somewhat reluctantly went to school, and even attended church on a semi-regular basis. In school we learned things like American history and how our government worked (well, how it used to work), and about a concept called patriotism, although I understand that in our modern day and age those subjects are considered propaganda and are very much out of favor with politically correct “educators”, while attending church taught us morality, and how to tell right from wrong. Christianity also seems to be somewhat politically incorrect nowdays as well. Some of us enlisted in the military directly out of high school, others went to college first, and quite a few went to work and waited for the draft to catch up with them, but eventually all of us had a chance at becoming soldiers.
It’s an old American tradition to avoid military service during peacetime, stemming I believe from our long distrust of large standing armies. Yet those same folks who avoided the military like the plague in peacetime were the first in line to enlist whenever war was forced upon us, and they proved to be pretty darn good soldiers. Most of us were imbued with the ideals of “Duty, Honor, Country”, (which just happens to be the West Point motto), irregardless of whether or not we realized that fact. Yet it seems like a lot of younger folk of today take the view that even wartime military service is only for fools and incompetents. Where, might we ask, after two hundred years of American dedication to the defense of our lifestyle and our country, have we lost that proud tradition?
Back in the 1950’s there were numerous books published that stressed the dangers of communism. The authors came from a very wide range of anti-communist zealots, people who had extensive experience with communism, and were very well aware of the threat. One fact constantly stressed by all was the threat of ideological subversion or “psychological warfare”, which is essentially a means to change the targeted person’s perceptions of reality. Most of us have heard the quote “if you tell a lie often and long enough, people will believe it”, and that is quite true. In the early 1800’s, many political thinkers observed the unfairness of the then almost feudal social/economic system existent in Europe, and began looking for a better way to do things. The ideas they developed were later described by Karl Marx in his rather turgid “Communist Manifesto”, were rapidly adopted by the socialists of the era, and were taught as gospel to their students. In America, philosophers (who were largely educators) were quick to follow the lead of their European brethren, and began teaching the glories of socialist theories to their students (a practice that continues to this day). Following the revolution, Russian communists under Lenin found a ready made following in the believers of American socialism, jumped to their aid, and soon began the subversion of the worlds leading capitalist country.
Essentially, communist subversion is divided into several stages, the first being Demoralization. Generally it takes about 15 to 30 years to demoralize a nation, because this is the time needed to educate one generation of students. Today, after being exposed to Marxist socialist ideology for three generations, with none of it being counter-balanced by morality and basic American values, is it really any wonder that so many of America’s youth are totally confused and lack any direction? Stage two is Destabilization. With a fragmented, demoralized people who have no idea of what or who they are, it only takes a few years to destabilize their economy and wreck their foreign relations. The nest stage of course is Crisis. It may take only a few weeks to bring the country to the verge of an internal crisis, as we often see happening in the third world. And after crisis with its violent changes of power, structure, and economy, you have so called period of normalization. Normalization is what happens when the following dictatorship assumes absolute power.
The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, and aptly demonstrated that Marxism is an unworkable political system. Still, once the demoralization of a nation has begun, it continues by its own inertia, and needs no further aid or direction from outside. Wannabe “Benevolent dictators” get themselves elected and will promise people all kind of goodies in order to continue destabilizing the nation… they will try to eliminate the principle of free market competition, wreck the economy, and will endeavor to put a Big Brother Government in charge of nearly everything. Once a dictator comes to power, all these fuzzy headed people who believe in a free lunch and who preach socialism are no longer needed, they will probably be lined up and shot. For an example of that we have only to look at the French revolution and the ensuing mass executions of the “Terror”.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Peace Prize?
Mr. Barack Obama is the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. At best, the world was “stunned” and “shocked” by the rather “unexpected” choice so early in the presidential term, a term that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. A beaming Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he that was honored and humbled to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the others who had won it before him. But, he said, "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." Obama is the third U.S. president to win the prize while in office, after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Obama's selection as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday left many Americans puzzled about why he deserved the honor. Quoting a few comments: "It would be wonderful if I could think why he won." "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for." "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black. What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet." Former President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, said "It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations." Then we have Rush Limbaugh’s comment: "Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it." Others have commented that: "This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award." "Why not give him the literature prize? At least he's actually written a couple of books." And of course my own immortal comment upon reading of the award… “Huh?”
The Peace Prize has been handed out for 108 years, supposedly for activities involving peaceful activities. Recipients include Jean Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross and initiator of the Geneva Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought about the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan. In 1919 the prize was awarded to Woodrow Wilson, who is credited with founding the League of Nations. However, I’d think that awards to such people as Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and Martin Luther King Jr. are somewhat counter-balanced by the rather dubious awards to Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho!
The Nobel Prize was established by the 1895 will and estate of Swedish chemist and inventor Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and the Prize in Economics, which is commonly identified with them, are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields. The Nobel Peace Prize on the other hand conveys social prestige and is often controversial. This year’s award will apparently be no exception.
Really though, we have to stop and think about what the award committee was trying to say, and what were they trying to do? Mr. Obama is not Woodrow Wilson who won it because he created the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations. That I can understand. I can understand Teddy Roosevelt’s win for stopping a particularly nasty war between Japan and Imperial Russia. But in this case I’d be tempted to think it’s more of an anti-Bush statement from Europe. And I think that they are saying that the United States has been resistant to the kind of peaceable fraternal efforts that are the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The odd part is we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Guantanamo Bay is still open. Mr. Obama has made some nice sounding statements to a number of tyrants, and has apologized to the Muslims for the Twin Towers getting in front of a couple of Arab piloted airliners. But I really find it difficult to believe that this makes him the equal of Albert Schweitzer! Still, Europeans do have what I consider to be rather odd ideas of war and peace. I’m mindfull of World War One, where all of Europe exploded into a mass frenzy of mayhem and destruction over the deaths of two people. Then there was World War Two, where Europeans spent years weeping and wailing about the evils of Nazi Germany, and were still wringing their hands when Hitler burst out of his borders. But I also notice that FDR didn’t get any prize for bringing the United States into Europe’s fight and pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. Ike didn’t get one for ending the Korean War, nor did Nixon for ending the Vietnam War. But Mr. Obama gets one for nothing more than mouthing a few platitudes? I guess this goes to prove that you really can become anything you want in America.
A straw poll by MSNBC asked whether Obama deserved the honor. 62 percent of more than 194,000 responders said no, 24 percent said yes, and 13 percent said the award was premature. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who generally applauds Obama, praised the award, saying it was "a positive measure" that was more a criticism of past U.S. policies than recognition of Obama's accomplishments. The Nobel Committee announced that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. So being able to listen to Europe’s lectures on international goodwill is enough to win a prize worth $1.4 million, and have a place in history. And that diminishes both the president and the prize in a way that it should not. Obama got his award for the kind of fuzzy internationalism in which he bows to the United Nations. They might love that in Norway but it’s not what an American president is elected to do.
Dunno about the motives of the Nobel Committee, nor do I really care about world opinion, but had I been President in the aftermath of 911, and tasked with the defense of America, either the Moslems would have quickly gotten a hammerlock on their fanatics, or the Nobel Committee would have had to invent a prize for war. "Shock and Awe" would have taken on entirely new meanings!
Obama's selection as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday left many Americans puzzled about why he deserved the honor. Quoting a few comments: "It would be wonderful if I could think why he won." "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for." "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black. What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet." Former President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, said "It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations." Then we have Rush Limbaugh’s comment: "Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it." Others have commented that: "This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award." "Why not give him the literature prize? At least he's actually written a couple of books." And of course my own immortal comment upon reading of the award… “Huh?”
The Peace Prize has been handed out for 108 years, supposedly for activities involving peaceful activities. Recipients include Jean Henri Dunant, founder of the International Red Cross and initiator of the Geneva Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, who brought about the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan. In 1919 the prize was awarded to Woodrow Wilson, who is credited with founding the League of Nations. However, I’d think that awards to such people as Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and Martin Luther King Jr. are somewhat counter-balanced by the rather dubious awards to Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho!
The Nobel Prize was established by the 1895 will and estate of Swedish chemist and inventor Alfred Nobel, and was first awarded in 1901. The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and the Prize in Economics, which is commonly identified with them, are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields. The Nobel Peace Prize on the other hand conveys social prestige and is often controversial. This year’s award will apparently be no exception.
Really though, we have to stop and think about what the award committee was trying to say, and what were they trying to do? Mr. Obama is not Woodrow Wilson who won it because he created the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations. That I can understand. I can understand Teddy Roosevelt’s win for stopping a particularly nasty war between Japan and Imperial Russia. But in this case I’d be tempted to think it’s more of an anti-Bush statement from Europe. And I think that they are saying that the United States has been resistant to the kind of peaceable fraternal efforts that are the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. The odd part is we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Guantanamo Bay is still open. Mr. Obama has made some nice sounding statements to a number of tyrants, and has apologized to the Muslims for the Twin Towers getting in front of a couple of Arab piloted airliners. But I really find it difficult to believe that this makes him the equal of Albert Schweitzer! Still, Europeans do have what I consider to be rather odd ideas of war and peace. I’m mindfull of World War One, where all of Europe exploded into a mass frenzy of mayhem and destruction over the deaths of two people. Then there was World War Two, where Europeans spent years weeping and wailing about the evils of Nazi Germany, and were still wringing their hands when Hitler burst out of his borders. But I also notice that FDR didn’t get any prize for bringing the United States into Europe’s fight and pulling their chestnuts out of the fire. Ike didn’t get one for ending the Korean War, nor did Nixon for ending the Vietnam War. But Mr. Obama gets one for nothing more than mouthing a few platitudes? I guess this goes to prove that you really can become anything you want in America.
A straw poll by MSNBC asked whether Obama deserved the honor. 62 percent of more than 194,000 responders said no, 24 percent said yes, and 13 percent said the award was premature. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who generally applauds Obama, praised the award, saying it was "a positive measure" that was more a criticism of past U.S. policies than recognition of Obama's accomplishments. The Nobel Committee announced that it was trying "to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now." It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. So being able to listen to Europe’s lectures on international goodwill is enough to win a prize worth $1.4 million, and have a place in history. And that diminishes both the president and the prize in a way that it should not. Obama got his award for the kind of fuzzy internationalism in which he bows to the United Nations. They might love that in Norway but it’s not what an American president is elected to do.
Dunno about the motives of the Nobel Committee, nor do I really care about world opinion, but had I been President in the aftermath of 911, and tasked with the defense of America, either the Moslems would have quickly gotten a hammerlock on their fanatics, or the Nobel Committee would have had to invent a prize for war. "Shock and Awe" would have taken on entirely new meanings!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Yet more on Obama
When the votes were tallied, and Mr. Barrack H. Obama was more or less declared the winner of our latest presidential election, the American media burst out singing his praises in the loudest possible terms. The European media was beside themselves with joy, proclaiming to all and sundry that those ignorant gun slinging American cowboys had finally elected a President who would properly respect the wishes of “civilized” Europeans, follow their “wiser” lead, and refrain from “dangerous excursions” in international relations. Worldwide, the socialists declared a day of rejoicing while the conservatives were looking at this latest American development with a wary eye. Back at the ranch, Mr. Obama’s approval rating was at a high 69%, the Democrats were gloating, and the Republicans were finding out how it felt to be run over by a steamroller. Sen. McCain hobbled home to lick his wounds, chubby Michael Moore was reportedly doing handsprings in the streets, and the RNC seemed to be blaming the entire fiasco on Sarah Paulin. All-in-all, Mr. Obama certainly started out with a bang!
Now however, looking back at the last few months of Mr. Obama’s administration, things seem to have changed somewhat. Barrack’s popularity rating is now hovering around the 51% level here at home, and I have no doubt it will fall even more. (That’s normal for almost every administration I understand.) It is rather strange that the average approval rating for all presidents since FDR at the 9 month point of their first term is 64%, somewhat higher than Mr. Obama’s current 51%. Democrats consistently rate him very high, Independents consider him somewhat mediocre, and I won’t mention his standing with the Republicans. Still, his ratings remain generally high in Europe, although wavering somewhat. Not surprisingly his popularity in both Russia and Iran has increased significantly… after the announcement that he was abandoning the “Missile Shield” that is. Asia remains somewhat neutral at the moment, well aware that US policies can change with only a moments notice, and usually to the detriment of our Far Eastern Allies. Still, US Presidents aren’t elected by Europeans, Asians, or any other foreign national (unless we start letting illegal immigrants vote), and the liberal’s New Messiah seems to be a lot lower in the public standings than I might expect.
I’ve nearly worn out the old saying that “If we can’t learn from history we’re cursed to relive it”, and often compared what happened to the Roman Republic with what is happening to the United States today. Our nation’s founders were students of Roman history and could readily understand what had happened to the Romans. Despite that, they had boundless faith in the common sense of the American people, and presented us with a republic anyhow. Both of course were ruled by the people rather than the local nobility, and it follows that that rule was intended to be in the best interest of the people and not necessarily that of the nobility. Both had the foundation of their law “set in stone”, literally so in the “Twelve Tablets” of Rome, and figuratively in the Constitution of the United States. The Romans started out with term limits applied to the holders of political office, and placed a lot of severe restrictions on just who could hold office and how long they had to wait before they could stand for another election. Our founders passed on term limits unfortunately, but set things up so that “any boy could grow up to be President”. Both governmental systems had any numbers of checks and balances that severely limited government authority. Both nations became the premier world power of their era, both ran up a tremendous national debt, and both entered any number of ill advised foreign excursions. Then, over time, both slowly slipped away from their plebian base, ignored their constitution, and became (or in our case are rapidly becoming) imperial states, feared by others but certainly not respected. In the case of Rome it took over 450 years for the Republic to die. In the United States, our Republic has nearly vanished, and we haven’t even been around for 250 years!
Many Americans see this shift away from those things that made America great, and loudly bemoan the fact. Nor is this destruction of America un-noticed elsewhere. The British Media calls Mr. Obama “President Pantywaist”, and asks why does he hate America so badly, with one editorial saying “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.” The editorial continues; “Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.”
It appears he has never abandoned the campaign trail, and that’s why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to make a quick trip Langley, to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. So, the next senior al-Qaeda hood that’s captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Mr. Obama’s recent world tour wherein he was all buddy-buddy with the bad guys, and apologizing to all and sundry for just about everything in our history indicates that his only enemies are Americans. And that brings up the question, why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Who would have believed that an American President would distance himself from America's Christian heritage and speak of the "Holy Quran" in a nation that will not allow Christian conversions to take place? Who would have believed that an American President would speak about "common ground" with a theocratic political system that wants to rule the world and eliminate all other religions? Who would have believed that the government of the United States, at the direction of the President, would own major private businesses with no opposition from the media or Congress? Who would have believed that a few members of the media would refer to a sitting president as "some sort of god"?
All these recent events remind me of happenings in the fictional “Twilight Zone”!
Now however, looking back at the last few months of Mr. Obama’s administration, things seem to have changed somewhat. Barrack’s popularity rating is now hovering around the 51% level here at home, and I have no doubt it will fall even more. (That’s normal for almost every administration I understand.) It is rather strange that the average approval rating for all presidents since FDR at the 9 month point of their first term is 64%, somewhat higher than Mr. Obama’s current 51%. Democrats consistently rate him very high, Independents consider him somewhat mediocre, and I won’t mention his standing with the Republicans. Still, his ratings remain generally high in Europe, although wavering somewhat. Not surprisingly his popularity in both Russia and Iran has increased significantly… after the announcement that he was abandoning the “Missile Shield” that is. Asia remains somewhat neutral at the moment, well aware that US policies can change with only a moments notice, and usually to the detriment of our Far Eastern Allies. Still, US Presidents aren’t elected by Europeans, Asians, or any other foreign national (unless we start letting illegal immigrants vote), and the liberal’s New Messiah seems to be a lot lower in the public standings than I might expect.
I’ve nearly worn out the old saying that “If we can’t learn from history we’re cursed to relive it”, and often compared what happened to the Roman Republic with what is happening to the United States today. Our nation’s founders were students of Roman history and could readily understand what had happened to the Romans. Despite that, they had boundless faith in the common sense of the American people, and presented us with a republic anyhow. Both of course were ruled by the people rather than the local nobility, and it follows that that rule was intended to be in the best interest of the people and not necessarily that of the nobility. Both had the foundation of their law “set in stone”, literally so in the “Twelve Tablets” of Rome, and figuratively in the Constitution of the United States. The Romans started out with term limits applied to the holders of political office, and placed a lot of severe restrictions on just who could hold office and how long they had to wait before they could stand for another election. Our founders passed on term limits unfortunately, but set things up so that “any boy could grow up to be President”. Both governmental systems had any numbers of checks and balances that severely limited government authority. Both nations became the premier world power of their era, both ran up a tremendous national debt, and both entered any number of ill advised foreign excursions. Then, over time, both slowly slipped away from their plebian base, ignored their constitution, and became (or in our case are rapidly becoming) imperial states, feared by others but certainly not respected. In the case of Rome it took over 450 years for the Republic to die. In the United States, our Republic has nearly vanished, and we haven’t even been around for 250 years!
Many Americans see this shift away from those things that made America great, and loudly bemoan the fact. Nor is this destruction of America un-noticed elsewhere. The British Media calls Mr. Obama “President Pantywaist”, and asks why does he hate America so badly, with one editorial saying “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.” The editorial continues; “Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.”
It appears he has never abandoned the campaign trail, and that’s why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to make a quick trip Langley, to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. So, the next senior al-Qaeda hood that’s captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Mr. Obama’s recent world tour wherein he was all buddy-buddy with the bad guys, and apologizing to all and sundry for just about everything in our history indicates that his only enemies are Americans. And that brings up the question, why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Who would have believed that an American President would distance himself from America's Christian heritage and speak of the "Holy Quran" in a nation that will not allow Christian conversions to take place? Who would have believed that an American President would speak about "common ground" with a theocratic political system that wants to rule the world and eliminate all other religions? Who would have believed that the government of the United States, at the direction of the President, would own major private businesses with no opposition from the media or Congress? Who would have believed that a few members of the media would refer to a sitting president as "some sort of god"?
All these recent events remind me of happenings in the fictional “Twilight Zone”!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Tax and Spend
According to the White House website, Mr. Obama’s “stimulus” plan was to focus on economic recovery, whereby “America would become a stronger and more prosperous nation”. The thought is that “the current economic crisis is the result of many years of irresponsibility, both in government and in the private sector.” The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is supposed to make long-term investments in health care, education, energy, and infrastructure. Among other objectives, the recovery will increase production of alternative energy, modernize and weatherize buildings and homes, expand broadband technology across the country, and computerize the health care system. It’s also claimed that the recovery plan will save or create about 3.5 million jobs while investing in priorities that create sustainable economic growth, and will create a new regulatory framework that holds market players responsible for their actions and stops fraudulent practices before they take hold. The White House is also demanding accountability and transparency on Wall Street and in Washington. On the surface this all sounds well and fine, but the question remains, will it work? First, in my not so humble opinion, is the fact that the current economic crisis was brought about by nothing more than greed in our financial system, and government controls that did little more than augment that greed. And I’ll certainly agree with the “irresponsibility” part and lay that at the doorstep of big government as well, particularly when considering the social welfare state we seem to have become.
The disaster of the 1929 depression established the conditions where FDR could get elected in 1932 on a welfare platform. In his acceptance speech, Roosevelt declared: “Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.” As we all know, Roosevelt was elected, and the “New Deal” became a reality. But, both during and for long after his presidency conservative critics questioned not only his policies but also the enormous expansion of government debt during Roosevelt's time in office. In 1929 the national debt was a bit less than 20% of the Gross National Product. The New Deal raised that to slightly over 40%, and WW II ran that up to a wopping 130%! By 1950 the debt was paid down to a meer 90% of the GNP. By 1980 the debt had been paid down to almost 35%, and has again been climbing slowly but steadily ever since. By 2008 the debt had reached slightly over ten trillion dollars, then with the Bush bailouts and now Mr. Obama’s continuation of the stimulus programs, we’re well over 80%, and the line on the graph is going straight up! Just who pray tell, is going to pay off that debt… and how long is it going to take!? Well shoot, HOW are we going to pay off that debt!? Remember that with consumer spending going down in our current crisis, business is going to be laying people off — not hiring them. Nor can you blame business for doing this, as its all part of a vicious economic cycle. And you can't blame consumers for not spending (or paying high taxes), when the economy is in the basement. Much like FDR’s public works projects, “stimulus” might put a few people to work for awhile, but what happens when the money runs out? And run out it will.
In the meantime, the current crisis has taught us once again just how dependant we’ve become on financial markets and institutions, and the severe impact they can have on working folks. Following the current meltdown, the government has tried (unsuccessfully it seems) to get credit flowing once again so that small businesses can rebuild, and American families can again afford to send their kids off to college. And how was this done? By “bailing-out” the banking industry with taxpayer money, and not incidentally putting my grandkids deep into debt! Adding insult to injury, the ‘Fed’ has lowered the Federal Reserve interest rate to about the lowest level in history. Effectively this hands a LOT of ‘free’ federal money to big banks so they can loan it to us… at whatever interest rates the market will bear, and putting the profits into their pockets. You might make note that all that very profitable federal money has to go through the big banks, it’s certainly not directly available to John Q. Citizen at that nearly nonexistent interest rate.
All of this economic slight-of-hand has to be paid for somehow, and that’s supposed to be done through taxes. And that, according to Mr. Obama, will be accomplished by “taxing the rich”, and that nobody making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase. Well, he might consider the fact that the richest 1% of Americans already pay nearly 41% of our total tax burden. This year New York’s rich were tapped like never before. The state’s wealthy pay higher income tax rates, higher taxes on their limos, airplanes, and yachts, more to enter their ponies in a horse race, and more to play in the real estate market. They’re also losing tax loopholes and deductions that others get. Now, early figures indicate that taxing the wealthy may have driven away richer New Yorkers. “You heard the mantra, ‘Tax the rich, tax the rich’” Gov. David Paterson said, “We’ve done that. We’ve probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state. People aren’t wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It’s a different world.” Both Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and Rush Limbaugh became ex-New Yorkers this year, due to the higher tax rates. Golly, could any liberal have anticipated that happening?
Stimulus money is helping many states to plug the leaks in their budget, but a lot of officials are now worried about supporting assorted programs after the federal funds run out. Around $90 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package was dedicated to supporting state Medicaid programs. The money, which is known as FMAP funds, has moved faster than other stimulus dollars allocated to many other spending categories. The GAO found that most states were using their Medicaid funds to cover increased caseloads and to maintain their current services and eligibility criteria. Some states are using the funds to avoid cutting overly large payments to doctors and hospitals. Some State officials “expressed concern about the longer-term sustainability of their Medicaid programs after the increased FMAP funds are no longer available, beginning in January 2011,” the GAO report said. The report also found some states were using Medicaid funds to finance general state budget needs. No wonder a good friend of mine is having so much trouble getting Medicaid assistance following a catastrophic illness.
Republicans have criticized the funds for state governments, saying they encourage states to postpone hard budget decisions and do little to create jobs or growth. They have also attacked the plan’s effectiveness overall, citing the 26-year high in unemployment. Members of the administration say the plan is working, and that it has kept the recession from being worse.
To all this federal waste and confusion we may add “Social justice has been served and government is here to help you…”
The disaster of the 1929 depression established the conditions where FDR could get elected in 1932 on a welfare platform. In his acceptance speech, Roosevelt declared: “Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.” As we all know, Roosevelt was elected, and the “New Deal” became a reality. But, both during and for long after his presidency conservative critics questioned not only his policies but also the enormous expansion of government debt during Roosevelt's time in office. In 1929 the national debt was a bit less than 20% of the Gross National Product. The New Deal raised that to slightly over 40%, and WW II ran that up to a wopping 130%! By 1950 the debt was paid down to a meer 90% of the GNP. By 1980 the debt had been paid down to almost 35%, and has again been climbing slowly but steadily ever since. By 2008 the debt had reached slightly over ten trillion dollars, then with the Bush bailouts and now Mr. Obama’s continuation of the stimulus programs, we’re well over 80%, and the line on the graph is going straight up! Just who pray tell, is going to pay off that debt… and how long is it going to take!? Well shoot, HOW are we going to pay off that debt!? Remember that with consumer spending going down in our current crisis, business is going to be laying people off — not hiring them. Nor can you blame business for doing this, as its all part of a vicious economic cycle. And you can't blame consumers for not spending (or paying high taxes), when the economy is in the basement. Much like FDR’s public works projects, “stimulus” might put a few people to work for awhile, but what happens when the money runs out? And run out it will.
In the meantime, the current crisis has taught us once again just how dependant we’ve become on financial markets and institutions, and the severe impact they can have on working folks. Following the current meltdown, the government has tried (unsuccessfully it seems) to get credit flowing once again so that small businesses can rebuild, and American families can again afford to send their kids off to college. And how was this done? By “bailing-out” the banking industry with taxpayer money, and not incidentally putting my grandkids deep into debt! Adding insult to injury, the ‘Fed’ has lowered the Federal Reserve interest rate to about the lowest level in history. Effectively this hands a LOT of ‘free’ federal money to big banks so they can loan it to us… at whatever interest rates the market will bear, and putting the profits into their pockets. You might make note that all that very profitable federal money has to go through the big banks, it’s certainly not directly available to John Q. Citizen at that nearly nonexistent interest rate.
All of this economic slight-of-hand has to be paid for somehow, and that’s supposed to be done through taxes. And that, according to Mr. Obama, will be accomplished by “taxing the rich”, and that nobody making less than $250,000 a year will see a tax increase. Well, he might consider the fact that the richest 1% of Americans already pay nearly 41% of our total tax burden. This year New York’s rich were tapped like never before. The state’s wealthy pay higher income tax rates, higher taxes on their limos, airplanes, and yachts, more to enter their ponies in a horse race, and more to play in the real estate market. They’re also losing tax loopholes and deductions that others get. Now, early figures indicate that taxing the wealthy may have driven away richer New Yorkers. “You heard the mantra, ‘Tax the rich, tax the rich’” Gov. David Paterson said, “We’ve done that. We’ve probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state. People aren’t wedded to a geographic place as they once were. It’s a different world.” Both Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and Rush Limbaugh became ex-New Yorkers this year, due to the higher tax rates. Golly, could any liberal have anticipated that happening?
Stimulus money is helping many states to plug the leaks in their budget, but a lot of officials are now worried about supporting assorted programs after the federal funds run out. Around $90 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package was dedicated to supporting state Medicaid programs. The money, which is known as FMAP funds, has moved faster than other stimulus dollars allocated to many other spending categories. The GAO found that most states were using their Medicaid funds to cover increased caseloads and to maintain their current services and eligibility criteria. Some states are using the funds to avoid cutting overly large payments to doctors and hospitals. Some State officials “expressed concern about the longer-term sustainability of their Medicaid programs after the increased FMAP funds are no longer available, beginning in January 2011,” the GAO report said. The report also found some states were using Medicaid funds to finance general state budget needs. No wonder a good friend of mine is having so much trouble getting Medicaid assistance following a catastrophic illness.
Republicans have criticized the funds for state governments, saying they encourage states to postpone hard budget decisions and do little to create jobs or growth. They have also attacked the plan’s effectiveness overall, citing the 26-year high in unemployment. Members of the administration say the plan is working, and that it has kept the recession from being worse.
To all this federal waste and confusion we may add “Social justice has been served and government is here to help you…”
Racist
It’s now official I guess, I’m a racist… and no less a personage than former president Jimmy Carter has said so. Apparently, according to the loony left that is, if I oppose the government takeover of another 17% of our national economy under the guise of health care reform, I hate black people. (“Another 17%”? Well, remember that the federal government has already nationalized about 60% of the auto industry, and a large part of the major banks.) Now there’s a major push to cram “ObamaCare” down out throats, which is nothing less than an attempt to nationalize the Health Care industry. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that twelve percent (12%) of voters nationwide believe that most opponents of Mr. Obama’s health care reform plan are racist, 67% of voters disagree, and 21% are not sure. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans reject the notion, as do 78% of voters not affiliated with either party, and 39% of Democrats. Twenty-two percent (22%) of the Democrats believe that most of the opposition to his plans come from racists, and another 39% aren’t sure.
‘Racism’ is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others”, and also includes “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. Since the presidential campaign, many Democrats have claimed that opposition to Mr. Obama is nothing less that racism, a claim I find rather difficult to believe. Presidents are always criticized, and it’s always been that way. But now that Obama is in the oval office, criticism is racism, and anyone who see things a different way than those on the left are racists! But even Mr. Obama disagreed with this when he told NBC's David Gregory, “The media loves to have a conversation about race, this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that’s very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.” The leftist media does have a habit of making mountains out of molehills after all.
The defining moment of the racism card came when Joe Wilson, in a rather unparliamentarily manner, shouted "liar!" at Obama when he said that the new law would not entail rationing. Yet the program he’s pressing uses that word to describe how it would work, therefore Mr. Obama was indeed lying, or at least stretching the point considerably, but to say so in public is racist?! As to the central problem, certainly the US faces healthcare policy problems, and something needs to be done about it! But, what would happen if the uninsured were allowed the option of buying into the existing MediCare program? Or if the individual states were allowed to run their own healthcare systems as California does with MediCal? I seriously doubt that would be considered racism… at least not by anyone to the right of Max Baucus! The real problem facing Mr. Obama is that “We the People” are sick and tired of watching our liberties being eroded by the socialist left, and are ready to fight for our rights, leaving the question; is the left able to see the peoples resolve? The recent march on Washington should have demonstrated that determination, hence the racism card is somewhat like an old child's trick, i.e. when you’re losing start calling people names! People who claim this is racist only want to distract others from discussing the real issues. Also, the left seem to think that they alone get to define racism, sexism, etc. They do not, they are not in charge of the language, and they have been revealed as a bunch of people who only want power and money… without working for it. Carter's comment is insulting, as a good majority of those Washington marchers didn’t support “HillaryCare” fifteen ago either, and that certainly wasn’t “racism”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, and protests against Mr. Obama’s policies are not only about health care. We objected to the erosion of our liberty Under President Bush, with his Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but that didn’t make us racist. We objected to the “Bailout” and the “Stimulus” giveaways under both Bush and Obama, but that didn’t make us racists either. But now, if we object to ObamaCare we’re suddenly racists who hate Black people and Illegal immigrants?
My objection to the present administration, and the congressional majority, is their head-long rush to spend my grandchildren's future. I don't see how that makes me a racist, but, since I'm of European descent I must be, at least in the view of the liberal left. ‘Course I also believe that most politicians are so far removed from normal people's lives that they have no business saying what the average American thinks.
For the most part Americas loathed the policies of Democrat Jimmy Carter and his filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress. They turned him out of office by a landslide in favor of a Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan. They rejected the policies of Walter Mondale and re-elected the Republicans by an even larger landslide. America rejected the policies of Michael Dukakis and elected Bush the Elder, another conservative Republican, by a large margin. That President broke his read-my-lips no-new-taxes pledge, and was rejected in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton (who promised to cut middle-class taxes), by less than a 50% popular majority. After Clinton broke his tax cut pledge, pushed for gays in the military, and tried to impose socialized health care on America, we turned the House of Representatives over to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. Clinton was re-elected after he followed the lead of the Conservative GOP Congress to enact welfare reform, push for free trade and supply side tax cuts. Al Gore ran far to the left of Slick Willie’s marginally successful Presidency and lost to Bush the Younger, a Republican who favored tax cuts. “Dubbya”, who enacted the tax cuts that prevented a post-911 recession, and who somehow kept the terrorists at bay after 911, was re-elected over another liberal Democrat. Shortly thereafter the Great Recession hits White and Black Americans alike, and the American electorate (more than 78% White) selected a Liberal Black Democrat, Barack Obama, who promised he would not raise taxes on anyone earning over $250K, and gave him a filibuster proof Congress. So he promptly repeats the mistakes of Carter and Clinton by advocating a horde of far left liberal policies, causing both he and Congress to fall in the polls. The vast majority of Americans care a whole lot about their wallets, their liberty, and about national security. BUT… because they object to liberal policies… they are suddenly raciest? Seems to me that what those rejected politicians have in common is not skin color, but rather their failed liberal policies!
I watched a movie on TV the other evening (about vampires of course, which seems to be the stock fare in this day and age), and I noticed that all the victims were sweet, innocent, young ladies (cute ones at that). I can only guess that power hungry self centered politicians don’t taste all that good to a vampire. Come to think of it, I can’t stomach ‘em either…
‘Racism’ is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others”, and also includes “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races”. Since the presidential campaign, many Democrats have claimed that opposition to Mr. Obama is nothing less that racism, a claim I find rather difficult to believe. Presidents are always criticized, and it’s always been that way. But now that Obama is in the oval office, criticism is racism, and anyone who see things a different way than those on the left are racists! But even Mr. Obama disagreed with this when he told NBC's David Gregory, “The media loves to have a conversation about race, this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that’s very powerful. And it invokes some very strong emotions.” The leftist media does have a habit of making mountains out of molehills after all.
The defining moment of the racism card came when Joe Wilson, in a rather unparliamentarily manner, shouted "liar!" at Obama when he said that the new law would not entail rationing. Yet the program he’s pressing uses that word to describe how it would work, therefore Mr. Obama was indeed lying, or at least stretching the point considerably, but to say so in public is racist?! As to the central problem, certainly the US faces healthcare policy problems, and something needs to be done about it! But, what would happen if the uninsured were allowed the option of buying into the existing MediCare program? Or if the individual states were allowed to run their own healthcare systems as California does with MediCal? I seriously doubt that would be considered racism… at least not by anyone to the right of Max Baucus! The real problem facing Mr. Obama is that “We the People” are sick and tired of watching our liberties being eroded by the socialist left, and are ready to fight for our rights, leaving the question; is the left able to see the peoples resolve? The recent march on Washington should have demonstrated that determination, hence the racism card is somewhat like an old child's trick, i.e. when you’re losing start calling people names! People who claim this is racist only want to distract others from discussing the real issues. Also, the left seem to think that they alone get to define racism, sexism, etc. They do not, they are not in charge of the language, and they have been revealed as a bunch of people who only want power and money… without working for it. Carter's comment is insulting, as a good majority of those Washington marchers didn’t support “HillaryCare” fifteen ago either, and that certainly wasn’t “racism”. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, and protests against Mr. Obama’s policies are not only about health care. We objected to the erosion of our liberty Under President Bush, with his Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but that didn’t make us racist. We objected to the “Bailout” and the “Stimulus” giveaways under both Bush and Obama, but that didn’t make us racists either. But now, if we object to ObamaCare we’re suddenly racists who hate Black people and Illegal immigrants?
My objection to the present administration, and the congressional majority, is their head-long rush to spend my grandchildren's future. I don't see how that makes me a racist, but, since I'm of European descent I must be, at least in the view of the liberal left. ‘Course I also believe that most politicians are so far removed from normal people's lives that they have no business saying what the average American thinks.
For the most part Americas loathed the policies of Democrat Jimmy Carter and his filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress. They turned him out of office by a landslide in favor of a Conservative Republican, Ronald Reagan. They rejected the policies of Walter Mondale and re-elected the Republicans by an even larger landslide. America rejected the policies of Michael Dukakis and elected Bush the Elder, another conservative Republican, by a large margin. That President broke his read-my-lips no-new-taxes pledge, and was rejected in favor of Democrat Bill Clinton (who promised to cut middle-class taxes), by less than a 50% popular majority. After Clinton broke his tax cut pledge, pushed for gays in the military, and tried to impose socialized health care on America, we turned the House of Representatives over to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. Clinton was re-elected after he followed the lead of the Conservative GOP Congress to enact welfare reform, push for free trade and supply side tax cuts. Al Gore ran far to the left of Slick Willie’s marginally successful Presidency and lost to Bush the Younger, a Republican who favored tax cuts. “Dubbya”, who enacted the tax cuts that prevented a post-911 recession, and who somehow kept the terrorists at bay after 911, was re-elected over another liberal Democrat. Shortly thereafter the Great Recession hits White and Black Americans alike, and the American electorate (more than 78% White) selected a Liberal Black Democrat, Barack Obama, who promised he would not raise taxes on anyone earning over $250K, and gave him a filibuster proof Congress. So he promptly repeats the mistakes of Carter and Clinton by advocating a horde of far left liberal policies, causing both he and Congress to fall in the polls. The vast majority of Americans care a whole lot about their wallets, their liberty, and about national security. BUT… because they object to liberal policies… they are suddenly raciest? Seems to me that what those rejected politicians have in common is not skin color, but rather their failed liberal policies!
I watched a movie on TV the other evening (about vampires of course, which seems to be the stock fare in this day and age), and I noticed that all the victims were sweet, innocent, young ladies (cute ones at that). I can only guess that power hungry self centered politicians don’t taste all that good to a vampire. Come to think of it, I can’t stomach ‘em either…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)