Speaker Boehner's plan lasted all of a few hours after having been released this morning. Speaker Boehner even called in live to the Rush Limbaugh show this afternoon... not without precedent, but rather rare. After Boehner explained his "plan", there was a painfully awkward silence. His plan immediately raises the debt limit by over $1 Trillion, whilst cutting a similar amount of "spending".... over the next 10 years. So next years spending cuts shall at best amount to $100 Billion. The United States government increases its national debt by $100 Billion every month (!) ... and that amount is set to continue growing in years to come.
Furthermore, as a new federal budget is produced each year (well, a budget WAS produced each year until Obama & Co. came to town... we've gone over 800 days without one), and no Congress can force action on a future Congress, the final 9 years of the Boehner plan are completely meaningless.
$1 of spending cuts (REAL cuts, mind you...) for $1 of debt limit extension. It's as simple as that.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Green, Warming, Nonsense
With the GOP 2012 candidate situation continuing to “work itself out”, a lot of the candidates are dealing with their past (and for Newt Gingrich, present) political mistakes and ill-conceived statements. Romney has Romney-care, Gingrich has his 3rd wife (with whom he cheated on the 2nd wife, with whom he cheated on the 1st wife), Pawlenty has his statements on Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax), and so on. In light of Pawlenty’s sin of being in favor of Cap and Tax some years ago (Gingrich was also in favor… remember his Public Service Announcement with Nancy Pelosi?), I’ve been thinking about Cap and Tax a bit this week. Yes, we could make a “market” of carbon credits and other “green” ideas, and it could “work” to an extent, but why waste both time and treasure on something with no real utility what-so-ever. The cap and tax crowd acts as if CO2 is not unlike arsenic, and any detectable level of it is a crime against nature that MUST be corrected. I thought liberals were supposed to be enlightened and highly educated? Don’t these morons know that CO2 is the very molecule that permits all actual “green things” (flora) to exist? Simply stunning.
Speaking of CO2, and its sinister alleged effects, I must say that I find it exceptionally curious that if CO2 is in fact the cause of anthropogenic global warming, how can it be that all throughout Earth’s history, global climate has been warmer with far less CO2 in the atmosphere and cooler with far more. 20,000 years ago the better part of the continental United States was covered with glaciers over a mile thick. Then it warmed! All on its own! No SUV’s, no coal fired power plants, not even the flatulence from herds of domesticated cattle! And do you know why? Because that’s what climate does, it CHANGES! It changes on its own, and it does so in an unstoppable manner. An increase of a few score parts per million of CO2 couldn’t be of any less consequence.
The AGW cult of believers act like the Earth’s climate is the result of some agreement with Mother Nature that we’re now breaking. In their minds the climate is some fragile creation that would completely derail were it not for their careful stewardship. A perfect example of Leftist hubris. In reality, global climate does not react to humans. Humans react to global climate. Climate is perpetually shifting; it always has, and it always shall; a non-stop cycle of warming followed by cooling, followed by warming, followed by cooling. Up until about 150 years ago, no appreciable emissions were being generated by human activity, yet the climate cycle didn’t miss a beat.
The AGW faithful look at ~110 PPM increase of CO2 as well as a barely perceptible rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution and have deduced both direct correlation and causality! All without any replicable scientific proof! Amazing detective work, to be sure. For the barely detectible rise in temperature, remember, global climate is always either warming or cooling. Any time period selected from Earth’s atmospheric history will have a 50% chance of demonstrating a slight warming trend. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution happened to coincide with the end of the “Little Ice Age” (or Maunder Minimum as it’s called). Much of the “data” used to support AGW theories isn’t really data at all. The output of various climate models is offered as concrete data when it is nothing of the sort! The AGW faithful select a few facts, make some massive assumptions, hire a fellow AGW believer to create a “scientific” climate model, and there you have it – scientific proof!
Glancing over the fact that creating a model for a system with as many variables as global climate is not possible, the models put forth as data are not only created by individuals with financial and professional interests directly tied to AGW activism/alarmism, but those same individuals are also charged with interpreting the invariably inconclusive results!
Thusly armed, the AGW cult members can then loudly assert that driving non-hybrid cars, burning any fossil fuels for energy (affordable energy), and other anthropogenic emissions will destroy the planet, all the while acting much holier-than-thou. Going back to the enlightened and educated left, it amazes me that such allegedly enlightened intellectuals can convince themselves that a ~110 PPM increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a more likely culprit for any warming than the SUN, even more so when it turns out that the cyclical global warming and cooling cycles just so happen to coincide with solar output cycles. A perfect instance of people believing what they want to believe.
Speaking of CO2, and its sinister alleged effects, I must say that I find it exceptionally curious that if CO2 is in fact the cause of anthropogenic global warming, how can it be that all throughout Earth’s history, global climate has been warmer with far less CO2 in the atmosphere and cooler with far more. 20,000 years ago the better part of the continental United States was covered with glaciers over a mile thick. Then it warmed! All on its own! No SUV’s, no coal fired power plants, not even the flatulence from herds of domesticated cattle! And do you know why? Because that’s what climate does, it CHANGES! It changes on its own, and it does so in an unstoppable manner. An increase of a few score parts per million of CO2 couldn’t be of any less consequence.
The AGW cult of believers act like the Earth’s climate is the result of some agreement with Mother Nature that we’re now breaking. In their minds the climate is some fragile creation that would completely derail were it not for their careful stewardship. A perfect example of Leftist hubris. In reality, global climate does not react to humans. Humans react to global climate. Climate is perpetually shifting; it always has, and it always shall; a non-stop cycle of warming followed by cooling, followed by warming, followed by cooling. Up until about 150 years ago, no appreciable emissions were being generated by human activity, yet the climate cycle didn’t miss a beat.
The AGW faithful look at ~110 PPM increase of CO2 as well as a barely perceptible rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution and have deduced both direct correlation and causality! All without any replicable scientific proof! Amazing detective work, to be sure. For the barely detectible rise in temperature, remember, global climate is always either warming or cooling. Any time period selected from Earth’s atmospheric history will have a 50% chance of demonstrating a slight warming trend. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution happened to coincide with the end of the “Little Ice Age” (or Maunder Minimum as it’s called). Much of the “data” used to support AGW theories isn’t really data at all. The output of various climate models is offered as concrete data when it is nothing of the sort! The AGW faithful select a few facts, make some massive assumptions, hire a fellow AGW believer to create a “scientific” climate model, and there you have it – scientific proof!
Glancing over the fact that creating a model for a system with as many variables as global climate is not possible, the models put forth as data are not only created by individuals with financial and professional interests directly tied to AGW activism/alarmism, but those same individuals are also charged with interpreting the invariably inconclusive results!
Thusly armed, the AGW cult members can then loudly assert that driving non-hybrid cars, burning any fossil fuels for energy (affordable energy), and other anthropogenic emissions will destroy the planet, all the while acting much holier-than-thou. Going back to the enlightened and educated left, it amazes me that such allegedly enlightened intellectuals can convince themselves that a ~110 PPM increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a more likely culprit for any warming than the SUN, even more so when it turns out that the cyclical global warming and cooling cycles just so happen to coincide with solar output cycles. A perfect instance of people believing what they want to believe.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Taxes, The Deficit & The GOP In 2012
4/16/11
Mainstream talking heads continue bringing up the idea of raising income taxes on folks earning $200,000 or more per annum. These ideas have been rebutted on every occasion by members of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, usually with Paul Ryan (R - WI) in the lead. Until the federal government demonstrates even a modicum of fiscal responsibility, the topic of tax increases isn’t even on the table, much less a likely prospect.
The liberal answer to every single problem facing America in the 21st century seems to be some variation of “Tax the rich!”. By “rich” they generally mean people with jobs. “Pay your fair share!” they say. Perhaps they’re unaware - more likely that they simply don’t care - that the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3% of income tax collected! For anyone subjected to the public school system in America, that means that the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income tax collected. The “rich” (Democrats consider a family of 5 with a household income of $250,000 to be “rich”) already pay all of the taxes! Apparently that is just not good enough for the leftists/state-ists who never met a government program they didn’t instantly love and swear to defend with their lives. If liberals want Americans to pay even more, that’s one thing, but stop saying that they don’t pay their fair share, as that is an absurd statement.
The outcome of the 2012 Presidential election is rapidly growing in importance in my mind. Also growing in equal proportion is my belief that the next 10 years shall determine whether or not the United States goes the way of all former global hegemons. In light of this realization, the remarkable weakness of all of the potential “leaders” to guide us through this moment of truth - or decade of truth, to be more precise - is extremely alarming. Despite the weakness of the field of persons seeking the Republican nomination, the one certainty is that the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama would be the single greatest existential threat to the United States of America since the first shots were fired in Charleston harbor 150 years ago. A strong Republican candidate must come forward, willingly or otherwise. As of now our only legitimate option is Mitt Romney. The situation is perilous!
Mainstream talking heads continue bringing up the idea of raising income taxes on folks earning $200,000 or more per annum. These ideas have been rebutted on every occasion by members of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, usually with Paul Ryan (R - WI) in the lead. Until the federal government demonstrates even a modicum of fiscal responsibility, the topic of tax increases isn’t even on the table, much less a likely prospect.
The liberal answer to every single problem facing America in the 21st century seems to be some variation of “Tax the rich!”. By “rich” they generally mean people with jobs. “Pay your fair share!” they say. Perhaps they’re unaware - more likely that they simply don’t care - that the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3% of income tax collected! For anyone subjected to the public school system in America, that means that the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all income tax collected. The “rich” (Democrats consider a family of 5 with a household income of $250,000 to be “rich”) already pay all of the taxes! Apparently that is just not good enough for the leftists/state-ists who never met a government program they didn’t instantly love and swear to defend with their lives. If liberals want Americans to pay even more, that’s one thing, but stop saying that they don’t pay their fair share, as that is an absurd statement.
The outcome of the 2012 Presidential election is rapidly growing in importance in my mind. Also growing in equal proportion is my belief that the next 10 years shall determine whether or not the United States goes the way of all former global hegemons. In light of this realization, the remarkable weakness of all of the potential “leaders” to guide us through this moment of truth - or decade of truth, to be more precise - is extremely alarming. Despite the weakness of the field of persons seeking the Republican nomination, the one certainty is that the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama would be the single greatest existential threat to the United States of America since the first shots were fired in Charleston harbor 150 years ago. A strong Republican candidate must come forward, willingly or otherwise. As of now our only legitimate option is Mitt Romney. The situation is perilous!
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Wisconsin Absurdity
Public union members (“workers” in the old Lenin-Marxist parlance) in Madison, Wisconsin continue protesting new legislation that will begin to bring some balance to their contracts with the state. The current extremely imbalanced contracts have left the small state of Wisconsin $3,600,000,000 in the red over the next two years. Some teachers and other state workers have finally begun returning to work, though the 14 Democrat State Senators remain on the lam somewhere in Illinois, hopping from one Motel 6 to the next in efforts to stay one step ahead of non-state-run media persons as well as any Wisconsin state troopers that may be trying to apprehend them. With only 19 State Senators remaining in Madison, they are unable to fulfill quorum requirements (20 Senators, or 60%) needed to pass fiscal legislation. Now that the bill in question has passed through the State Assembly, the pressure on the absent Senators is increasing.
Governor Walker is being repeatedly likened to Adolf Hitler and a number of other monsters of human history. Has he murdered millions of Jews in an attempted continental ethnic cleansing? No? Then surely he has committed the moral equivalent of such a heinous act, right? Governor Walker’s dictatorial tyrannical crime against humanity itself: asking public union members to contribute 5% (!) of their salaries towards their otherwise entirely state-funded benefits & pensions, and reduce the public union collective bargaining powers. No doubt charges against Governor Walker are being drawn up at The Hague.
Following Governor Walker’s example, several other states facing fiscal emergencies have taken similar measures to reign in their own budget-busting public unions. Barack Obama continues to back public unions, albeit only verbally, and even that support is waning as time passes. As Obama’s decision making process focuses on whether an action is politically expedient & whether it polls well, rather than whether an action is right or wrong, he has undoubtedly realized that supporting the public unions in this fight is a losing proposition. Having state governments attempting to balance their budgets as adversaries would not be well received in the arena of public opinion. Americans have come to realize - hopefully not too late - that public sector unions are little more than avenues through which tax-payer money is laundered to the Democratic Party in exchange for luxurious benefits packages The 2010 election cycle alone saw the transfer of over $200,000,000 to Democratic candidates from public unions, who in turn received their money from taxpayers - allocated to them by current Democrat politicians. That borders on the criminal.
Governor Walker is being repeatedly likened to Adolf Hitler and a number of other monsters of human history. Has he murdered millions of Jews in an attempted continental ethnic cleansing? No? Then surely he has committed the moral equivalent of such a heinous act, right? Governor Walker’s dictatorial tyrannical crime against humanity itself: asking public union members to contribute 5% (!) of their salaries towards their otherwise entirely state-funded benefits & pensions, and reduce the public union collective bargaining powers. No doubt charges against Governor Walker are being drawn up at The Hague.
Following Governor Walker’s example, several other states facing fiscal emergencies have taken similar measures to reign in their own budget-busting public unions. Barack Obama continues to back public unions, albeit only verbally, and even that support is waning as time passes. As Obama’s decision making process focuses on whether an action is politically expedient & whether it polls well, rather than whether an action is right or wrong, he has undoubtedly realized that supporting the public unions in this fight is a losing proposition. Having state governments attempting to balance their budgets as adversaries would not be well received in the arena of public opinion. Americans have come to realize - hopefully not too late - that public sector unions are little more than avenues through which tax-payer money is laundered to the Democratic Party in exchange for luxurious benefits packages The 2010 election cycle alone saw the transfer of over $200,000,000 to Democratic candidates from public unions, who in turn received their money from taxpayers - allocated to them by current Democrat politicians. That borders on the criminal.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Source of Liberal Aggression
Why are liberals so full of hatred and scorn? Why are they so universally negative, hateful, and prone to violence? They are so for scores of reasons, not the least of which being that their reputation in the American public is steadily shrinking, with <20% of Americans self identifying as “liberals”. More than twice that number self identify as “conservatives”.
A group of such a minority, with views so divergent from those held by the general public, will find itself in a near perpetual state of intellectual self defense. When not defending their largely unpopular ideology, they’re trying to implement their liberal agenda through social reforms. As they make up less that 1/5 of the population, much of their efforts are in vain.
I know not whether liberalism begets a sense of elitism or whether elitism begets a sense of liberalism, but that the two go hand in hand cannot be denied.
So far everything about liberalism is either negative or resentful: inherent elitism, low self identifying %, the perpetual defensive nature. Worse still, each of these things feed off of each other in a vicious feedback loop.
Returning to the aforementioned elitism, liberals largely view themselves as better, brighter, and considerably more enlightened than average Americans, yet these same inferior Americans rarely (and inexplicably!) turn to their betters (liberals… in case you are one of those average Americans and aren’t able to follow…) to lead them. To the liberals’ great shock and indignation, average Americans resent them for their perceived natural superiority. Resentment feeding resentment in yet another tragic feedback loop.
Residing in such a bubble of negativity, it should not be a surprise that liberals are such a spiteful lot. It would, in fact, be a surprise to find liberals who are not negative! Look back at news stories of violent protests and demonstrations around the world. I challenge anyone to find news coverage of protests and/or demonstrations requiring riot gear donned law enforcement in which the protestors are conservatives. In fact, I challenge you to find an example of such a protest in which the protestors are anything but liberals or leftists.
Liberal aggression is also fueled by that which sustains liberal political momentum and in the United States, the Democratic Party. Downward socio-economic mobility is the catalyst for liberal expansion. Conversely upward economic mobility is generally bad for liberals and the Democratic Party, as is economic prosperity and growth in general. Their ranks swell in a direct correlation with poverty and government dependency.
I imagine it is rather difficult for a party (political) to be full of good cheer when its perception of success is the spread of misery among the populace.
Try the riot gear experiment.
A group of such a minority, with views so divergent from those held by the general public, will find itself in a near perpetual state of intellectual self defense. When not defending their largely unpopular ideology, they’re trying to implement their liberal agenda through social reforms. As they make up less that 1/5 of the population, much of their efforts are in vain.
I know not whether liberalism begets a sense of elitism or whether elitism begets a sense of liberalism, but that the two go hand in hand cannot be denied.
So far everything about liberalism is either negative or resentful: inherent elitism, low self identifying %, the perpetual defensive nature. Worse still, each of these things feed off of each other in a vicious feedback loop.
Returning to the aforementioned elitism, liberals largely view themselves as better, brighter, and considerably more enlightened than average Americans, yet these same inferior Americans rarely (and inexplicably!) turn to their betters (liberals… in case you are one of those average Americans and aren’t able to follow…) to lead them. To the liberals’ great shock and indignation, average Americans resent them for their perceived natural superiority. Resentment feeding resentment in yet another tragic feedback loop.
Residing in such a bubble of negativity, it should not be a surprise that liberals are such a spiteful lot. It would, in fact, be a surprise to find liberals who are not negative! Look back at news stories of violent protests and demonstrations around the world. I challenge anyone to find news coverage of protests and/or demonstrations requiring riot gear donned law enforcement in which the protestors are conservatives. In fact, I challenge you to find an example of such a protest in which the protestors are anything but liberals or leftists.
Liberal aggression is also fueled by that which sustains liberal political momentum and in the United States, the Democratic Party. Downward socio-economic mobility is the catalyst for liberal expansion. Conversely upward economic mobility is generally bad for liberals and the Democratic Party, as is economic prosperity and growth in general. Their ranks swell in a direct correlation with poverty and government dependency.
I imagine it is rather difficult for a party (political) to be full of good cheer when its perception of success is the spread of misery among the populace.
Try the riot gear experiment.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Comcast & NBC Universal Coincidence? The Sacking of Olberman
Days after the FCC approved Comcast’s acquisition of / merger with NBC Universal, the journalism world was given a pleasant & unexpected surprise: MSNBC’s liberal bomb-thrower and consummate liar Keith Olberman has been fired! MSNBC executives claim the merger had no impact on their actions, but I find that rather difficult to accept. Coincidence or not, NBC/Comcast made an excellent decision in releasing that raving left-of-liberal lunatic back into the wild. The only downside is that that “wild” happens to be the society in which we all reside.
There are no shortages of liberal loons at MSNBC to fill in, but Olberman was their leader and the quickest to resort to twisting - and if need be fabricating all of the “facts” needed to “prove” his opinions on the ways of the world. People like him who must sink to such base tactics to “win” the argument must do so because the real facts can not come close to doing so on their own.
How much further “house cleaning” shall occur is unknown, but folks at MSNBC must be alarmed to have found out that Comcast is in the business of making money - not cheer leading for the Democratic Party. No money was being made by giving Olberman an uber-liberal fiefdom of a network to operate as he saw fit. Not long ago Olberman was forcing other MSNBC hosts off the air for daring to challenge his opinion on some small political issue. MSNBC and its dozens of regular viewers were nominally under his control with regard to on air content. How the mighty have fallen.
MSNBC will undoubtedly shuffle their lineup of socialists, lesbians, and leftist blow-hards to minimize disruption, but the effects of Olberman’s dismissal will be impossible to ignore. You know you’re in trouble when your game plan for the future includes the words “Ed Shultz” and “prime time”.
There are no shortages of liberal loons at MSNBC to fill in, but Olberman was their leader and the quickest to resort to twisting - and if need be fabricating all of the “facts” needed to “prove” his opinions on the ways of the world. People like him who must sink to such base tactics to “win” the argument must do so because the real facts can not come close to doing so on their own.
How much further “house cleaning” shall occur is unknown, but folks at MSNBC must be alarmed to have found out that Comcast is in the business of making money - not cheer leading for the Democratic Party. No money was being made by giving Olberman an uber-liberal fiefdom of a network to operate as he saw fit. Not long ago Olberman was forcing other MSNBC hosts off the air for daring to challenge his opinion on some small political issue. MSNBC and its dozens of regular viewers were nominally under his control with regard to on air content. How the mighty have fallen.
MSNBC will undoubtedly shuffle their lineup of socialists, lesbians, and leftist blow-hards to minimize disruption, but the effects of Olberman’s dismissal will be impossible to ignore. You know you’re in trouble when your game plan for the future includes the words “Ed Shultz” and “prime time”.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Unbridled Arrogance
Barack Obama is supremely smug and arrogant. This smug arrogance has grown to such an extent that it’s led to delusional perception of reality. Throughout his life, Obama has been told how smart and how special he is so many times -with an exponential increase in intensity in the past 36 months - that I think he honestly believes it now. We have seen this demonstrated repeatedly in his time as President, as if he thinks his very presence will actually do things like convince the International Olympic Committee to hold the 2016 Olympics in Chicago, solve the healthcare debate, and stop Iran from trying to acquire nukes.
As for being the head of state, It's almost as if he holds the duties of the Presidency, the White House, and the American people, in contempt. As if all of this is “beneath” him. I get the distinct impression that he views his job as not just a terrific burden, but as an inconvenience as well. It is a burden of course, every President will attest to that, but every other President would also call it a noble burden, whereas Obama sees it as a distasteful and loathsome burden.
A few days ago I found myself watching a news report on how he had to interrupt his precious vacation (6th, for the record) to take a conference call with economic “geniuses” Tim Geitner and Larry Summers about the economy (that they‘re all doing such a great job of expanding), and I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks we should thank him for taking the time out of his day - on his vacation (!), no less - to deal with our problems. "We really owe you for that one, Barry!"
His arrogance is truly incredible to behold; it knows NO bounds. That level of arrogance is the cause of much of his unusual behavior - ZERO press conferences for more than 10 months (why should someone as brilliant as he need to explain himself to all of us knuckle-dragging Americans, desperately clinging to our guns and religion?), the ceaseless vacations, the 50 rounds of golf, leaving the White House at every opportunity, and creating as many of those opportunities as possible.
To borrow a line, what we have here is the first President not to be awed by the office. He acts like the office should be awed by him. 2012 can not come soon enough.
As for being the head of state, It's almost as if he holds the duties of the Presidency, the White House, and the American people, in contempt. As if all of this is “beneath” him. I get the distinct impression that he views his job as not just a terrific burden, but as an inconvenience as well. It is a burden of course, every President will attest to that, but every other President would also call it a noble burden, whereas Obama sees it as a distasteful and loathsome burden.
A few days ago I found myself watching a news report on how he had to interrupt his precious vacation (6th, for the record) to take a conference call with economic “geniuses” Tim Geitner and Larry Summers about the economy (that they‘re all doing such a great job of expanding), and I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks we should thank him for taking the time out of his day - on his vacation (!), no less - to deal with our problems. "We really owe you for that one, Barry!"
His arrogance is truly incredible to behold; it knows NO bounds. That level of arrogance is the cause of much of his unusual behavior - ZERO press conferences for more than 10 months (why should someone as brilliant as he need to explain himself to all of us knuckle-dragging Americans, desperately clinging to our guns and religion?), the ceaseless vacations, the 50 rounds of golf, leaving the White House at every opportunity, and creating as many of those opportunities as possible.
To borrow a line, what we have here is the first President not to be awed by the office. He acts like the office should be awed by him. 2012 can not come soon enough.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Obama's Favorite Mosque
At a Ramadan celebration dinner this Friday, President Obama announced his full support for the proposed construction of a mosque in the shadow of the former World Trade Center in New York City. This is about par for the course for America’s most anti-American president. Here we have yet another issue in which Barack Hussein Obama is diametrically opposed to the overwhelming opinion of the American people.
I suppose we should be thankful in some small way that Obama is expressing his true opinions on matters such as this, instead of lying to us. Truthfulness, however, does nothing to make his opinions any less disgusting and abhorrent.
The “cover story” justifying the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan is the desire for “Muslim outreach” and to “bridge the gaps” between cultures. This is both laughable and insulting. A farce! Lip service and nothing more.
In all my life I have never heard of a group “bridging gaps” between itself and another culture by offending that culture to its very core - especially when that offense involves disrespecting the memory of innocent members of the latter culture who were savagely murdered by outlying members of the former culture!
A mosque in such close proximity to where the World Trade Center once stood is an insult aimed at the very heart of America and should be rightly regarded as such. The primary purpose of a mosque is to serve the local Muslim community, yet there isn’t much of community near this mosque, as it is located in the heart of Manhattan’s commercial district. If there is no community, why build a mosque? The mosque’s proponents will not bring up the fact that historically mosques have also served a secondary purpose, and that purpose is to serve as a victory flag announcing to all who see it, “Let it be known that at this site, warriors of Islam were victorious over the infidel!” Apparently that’s the kind of statement that B. Hussein Obama can get behind!
I suppose we should be thankful in some small way that Obama is expressing his true opinions on matters such as this, instead of lying to us. Truthfulness, however, does nothing to make his opinions any less disgusting and abhorrent.
The “cover story” justifying the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan is the desire for “Muslim outreach” and to “bridge the gaps” between cultures. This is both laughable and insulting. A farce! Lip service and nothing more.
In all my life I have never heard of a group “bridging gaps” between itself and another culture by offending that culture to its very core - especially when that offense involves disrespecting the memory of innocent members of the latter culture who were savagely murdered by outlying members of the former culture!
A mosque in such close proximity to where the World Trade Center once stood is an insult aimed at the very heart of America and should be rightly regarded as such. The primary purpose of a mosque is to serve the local Muslim community, yet there isn’t much of community near this mosque, as it is located in the heart of Manhattan’s commercial district. If there is no community, why build a mosque? The mosque’s proponents will not bring up the fact that historically mosques have also served a secondary purpose, and that purpose is to serve as a victory flag announcing to all who see it, “Let it be known that at this site, warriors of Islam were victorious over the infidel!” Apparently that’s the kind of statement that B. Hussein Obama can get behind!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, has been confirmed by the Senate to serve as an Associate Justice of the highest court in the nation. Ms. Kagan was previously a policy advisor and Associate White House Council in the Clinton Administration, and most recently Dean of Harvard Law School. While there can be no disputing that she has considerable experience in the court room, as a judge she has no experience to speak of.
From what is known of the Solicitor General, one can deduce that her political opinions running roughly parallel to that of President Obama. Her views lean to the left, and also like Obama, she is quite proud of her beliefs. Many on the conservative side of the spectrum view excessively liberal judges (liberal social activist judges, more specifically) with an anxiously watchful eye; continuously searching for signs of policy creation rather than policy interpretation. They view such activism as a corruption of our system of checks and balances, and a grave threat to the liberty and freedom they hold so dearly. A fair amount of this concern is unfounded - there have been liberal judges as long as there have been liberals willing to elect or appoint them to their respective judgeships, and our system of government has largely survived intact. Be that as it may, danger does exist in this appointment and others, but it lies elsewhere. The real danger is borne out through the fact that Ms. Kagan has never before been a judge in any court. She has precisely zero experience and zero mental training in the difficult task of separating her personal beliefs and life-long convictions from objective adjudication.
Any self-respecting and honorable judges strive daily to maintain their objectivity, if not continuously improve it. Objective interpretation of the law - in this case the Constitution of the United States - is the badge of honor distinguishing a judge worthy of his or her gavel. Such a skill is not acquired overnight. Considering that, how could we possibly expect to see such a difficult to acquire trait exhibited by a person who has no prior experience as a judge? We’d be foolish to demand such and even more foolish to expect it. We could no sooner expect a person who has never before played a round of golf to one day suddenly make the cut for the PGA Tour! That’s just not how things work in the real world.
So with that said, when we examine Elena Kagan’s worthiness for a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court, it is not her personal beliefs that should give us pause, but her inability (as a normal human being lacking decades of mental training and practice) to effectively separate her personal beliefs from her legal rulings and interpretations. Separating one’s feelings from one’s interpretation of a law is a most unnatural act. Only through many years of practice can such a skill truly be refined to any reliable degree.
From what is known of the Solicitor General, one can deduce that her political opinions running roughly parallel to that of President Obama. Her views lean to the left, and also like Obama, she is quite proud of her beliefs. Many on the conservative side of the spectrum view excessively liberal judges (liberal social activist judges, more specifically) with an anxiously watchful eye; continuously searching for signs of policy creation rather than policy interpretation. They view such activism as a corruption of our system of checks and balances, and a grave threat to the liberty and freedom they hold so dearly. A fair amount of this concern is unfounded - there have been liberal judges as long as there have been liberals willing to elect or appoint them to their respective judgeships, and our system of government has largely survived intact. Be that as it may, danger does exist in this appointment and others, but it lies elsewhere. The real danger is borne out through the fact that Ms. Kagan has never before been a judge in any court. She has precisely zero experience and zero mental training in the difficult task of separating her personal beliefs and life-long convictions from objective adjudication.
Any self-respecting and honorable judges strive daily to maintain their objectivity, if not continuously improve it. Objective interpretation of the law - in this case the Constitution of the United States - is the badge of honor distinguishing a judge worthy of his or her gavel. Such a skill is not acquired overnight. Considering that, how could we possibly expect to see such a difficult to acquire trait exhibited by a person who has no prior experience as a judge? We’d be foolish to demand such and even more foolish to expect it. We could no sooner expect a person who has never before played a round of golf to one day suddenly make the cut for the PGA Tour! That’s just not how things work in the real world.
So with that said, when we examine Elena Kagan’s worthiness for a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court, it is not her personal beliefs that should give us pause, but her inability (as a normal human being lacking decades of mental training and practice) to effectively separate her personal beliefs from her legal rulings and interpretations. Separating one’s feelings from one’s interpretation of a law is a most unnatural act. Only through many years of practice can such a skill truly be refined to any reliable degree.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Academic or Common Sense?
I have come to the firm conclusion that having an academic “intellectual” as Commander in Chief is HIGHLY over-rated. I would instead prefer to have a GED education level possessing Commander in Chief with a reasonable amount of common sense over one considered an “intellectual elite”. Academics by nature exist in the realm of the abstract, relying almost exclusively on theory and supposition; whereas those of common sense exist in reality, relying almost exclusively on personal experience. This is not to say academics have no place within the nerve center of government. They are terrific advisors, but totally ineffective leaders.
Try to think of it this way : Imagine you are trapped in a building that has caught on fire. Who would you want to lead the effort to rescue you? Would you want a person with a Ph. D. in Chemistry, specializing in thermodynamics, who is thoroughly versed in all science and theory pertaining to the properties and behavior of combustion and heat energy, OR would you prefer being rescued by a fire chief who has many years of personal experience fighting fires? I have a feeling that I know your answer. As such, it has been my experience in life that academic knowledge almost ALWAYS pales in comparison to wisdom acquired by genuine experience.
I can think of no better example of a healthy amount of common sense making for an excellent leader than President Harry S. Truman. Harry Truman won World War II, helped for the United Nations, oversaw the reconstruction of Europe following the war, prevented an economic crisis during the transformation from a wartime economy to a peacetime one, held the line in Korea, and Presided over numerous other impressive accomplishments. President Truman did all of this without having spent a single day enrolled in college!
One does not need academic intelligence to be a great leader; nor does having considerable academic intelligence ensure that one will be a good leader, but if one lacks experience and common sense, it is all but certain that that person will prove to be an exceptionally poor leader.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
At A Glance: Analyzing Some Of Obama’s Most Dangerous Weaknesses
7/27/10
At A Glance: Analyzing Some Of Obama’s Most Dangerous Weaknesses
(in no particular order)
This is a follow-up of last weeks look at what attributes, background, and experiences make for effective leaders. When examining Obama’s term as President of the United States thus far, the list of crucial characteristics and traits in which he is suffering from a “considerable want of” is alarmingly long and alarmingly diverse. Providing an accurate chronicle and analysis of all items on than list would result in a several volume desk reference set of missteps and misery. I have accordingly selected three items on that formidable list that I consider to the be the most dangerous and most likely to cause harm.
All Things Economic - The unemployment rate in the United States presently (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) is somewhere between 9.7% [U1] and 17.1% [U6]. The stimulus package passed in 2009 - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which passed through Congress on the promise of it keeping unemployment (U1) below 8.0% - has been less than effective in stimulating much of anything other than constituent disapproval. When one considers all of the various stimulus packages passed, we find ourselves well into the >$1 trillion range. That’s dangerous territory for any sort of government program - all the more so when said program failed to accomplish anything tangible and/or measurable.
Less than two years into his term, Barack Obama has left us mired in Keynesian demand-side economic theory. After trillions of dollars of deficit spending, millions of unemployment insurance applications submitted, and NO unequivocal private sector stimulus measurements to speak of, President Obama’s answer is not to try a new tactic or approach, but to double down! At the G-20 Summit last month in Canada, Obama found himself clashing head-on with European heads of state - who in the preceding few years have come to terms with the folly of creating a sustainable welfare state - by urging them to immediately cancel their recently imposed austerity measures. Rather than learn from the mistakes of Europe, Obama seems dead-set on forcing us to learn that very same lesson the hard way.
This particular weakness of being unable to comprehend real-life economics ties in very closely to my previous article on leadership qualities: Obama has no real-world experience to speak of. Obama is dictating financial and economic policy to businessmen and executives despite the fact that Obama himself has never once owned, run, or even worked for a for-profit business of any size in his entire life.
Foreign Policy In General - Having demonstrated little to no knowledge or interest in United States history or world history, Obama is poorly equipped to navigate the ever more complex and intricate realm of United States foreign policy & foreign relations.
Obama’s most oft-repeated foreign policy blunder (aside from his inability to refrain from bowing to every single foreign national he meets overseas, of course) has been his “Ally Blindness” - his seemingly total inability to distinguish our allies from our enemies. As a nation we have generated many close alliances over the years, and even some special “relationships” with certain other nations as a result of the shared history of our respective peoples. Many of these alliances have proved instrumental to the maintenance of world peace and the protection of our interests abroad. Ever since taking office in January, 2009, Obama has done much to sully our relationships with many of our closest allies, often going so far as publicly offering his personal support (and as Commander in Chief, the official support of the government of the United States) to those in direct opposition of our allies. The two instances of this that stand out in my mind would be the publicly announced support for Argentina’s claim on the Falklands, and the shockingly less than supportive treatment of Israel with regard to it’s on-going mission to NOT get wiped off the face of the planet by the numerous hostile nations surrounding it.
Obama’s treatment of Israel is obviously the far more consequential of the two blunders as I’m sure Argentina is in no rush to be embarrassed on the world stage again, but both actions represent betrayals of our allies. His strategy of trying to appease the enemies of our allies projects nothing but weakness; so much so that our NATO ally Turkey (former ally now, perhaps?), and non NATO member but valued ally Brazil have found it prudent to side with Iran and its theocrat Islamo-fascist nuclear-weapons-seeking loons over the United States! Such a stunning betrayal would have been totally inconceivable under President Bush or even President Clinton for that matter.
Administration of the “machine” that is the United States of America - This section could be expanded with little difficulty to fill many, many pages, but in summary Obama has approached the role of President as a legislator rather than an executive administrator. For Obama or any leader to be successfully carry out his duties, he MUST make decisive judgments on a very regular basis. A leader must gather the most reliable data available, make a decision based on that data, and stick with it. A leader will never please everyone, and continuously trying to please everyone will only result in pleasing no one. That reality must be accepted. Rather than issuing commands and delegating authority to subordinates, Obama’s response is to “solve” a given problem by forming what I consider to be the epitome of bureaucratic inefficiency - establishing some damned commission or committee to “analyze” the situation and offer a carefully-worded suggestion as to how to solve the problem. Unfortunately, however, by the time a solution is suggested by one of these groups, it is invariably too late to be of any real use.
A successful executive - especially an executive in government, and infinitely more so as the executive of the entire government - should make every effort to cut through bureaucratic inefficiency. A leader should be cutting the red tape, not creating more of it! It would appear that the Obama Administration simply can not help itself from creating incredible amounts of its very own Obama-brand red tape at every turn.
The most striking demonstration of this weakness which I can think of (tragically so…) would be the Administration’s pathetic response to the BP spill in the gulf, and the sad fact that 71 days had to elapse before the Obama Administration finally decided to accept help (and even then, only “in principle”) from some of the many nations that offered us assistance in containing the disaster. Most of the nations offering help did so on day 3 or 4 of the spill!
The explosion of the Deep Horizon oil rig and the subsequent gushing of the underwater well was a disaster by any definition of the word. That disaster was transformed into a full-blown epic catastrophe by the staggering ineptitude of President Obama and his Administration. All-in-all, Barack Obama has created or worsened FAR more problems than he has solved.
At A Glance: Analyzing Some Of Obama’s Most Dangerous Weaknesses
(in no particular order)
This is a follow-up of last weeks look at what attributes, background, and experiences make for effective leaders. When examining Obama’s term as President of the United States thus far, the list of crucial characteristics and traits in which he is suffering from a “considerable want of” is alarmingly long and alarmingly diverse. Providing an accurate chronicle and analysis of all items on than list would result in a several volume desk reference set of missteps and misery. I have accordingly selected three items on that formidable list that I consider to the be the most dangerous and most likely to cause harm.
All Things Economic - The unemployment rate in the United States presently (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) is somewhere between 9.7% [U1] and 17.1% [U6]. The stimulus package passed in 2009 - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which passed through Congress on the promise of it keeping unemployment (U1) below 8.0% - has been less than effective in stimulating much of anything other than constituent disapproval. When one considers all of the various stimulus packages passed, we find ourselves well into the >$1 trillion range. That’s dangerous territory for any sort of government program - all the more so when said program failed to accomplish anything tangible and/or measurable.
Less than two years into his term, Barack Obama has left us mired in Keynesian demand-side economic theory. After trillions of dollars of deficit spending, millions of unemployment insurance applications submitted, and NO unequivocal private sector stimulus measurements to speak of, President Obama’s answer is not to try a new tactic or approach, but to double down! At the G-20 Summit last month in Canada, Obama found himself clashing head-on with European heads of state - who in the preceding few years have come to terms with the folly of creating a sustainable welfare state - by urging them to immediately cancel their recently imposed austerity measures. Rather than learn from the mistakes of Europe, Obama seems dead-set on forcing us to learn that very same lesson the hard way.
This particular weakness of being unable to comprehend real-life economics ties in very closely to my previous article on leadership qualities: Obama has no real-world experience to speak of. Obama is dictating financial and economic policy to businessmen and executives despite the fact that Obama himself has never once owned, run, or even worked for a for-profit business of any size in his entire life.
Foreign Policy In General - Having demonstrated little to no knowledge or interest in United States history or world history, Obama is poorly equipped to navigate the ever more complex and intricate realm of United States foreign policy & foreign relations.
Obama’s most oft-repeated foreign policy blunder (aside from his inability to refrain from bowing to every single foreign national he meets overseas, of course) has been his “Ally Blindness” - his seemingly total inability to distinguish our allies from our enemies. As a nation we have generated many close alliances over the years, and even some special “relationships” with certain other nations as a result of the shared history of our respective peoples. Many of these alliances have proved instrumental to the maintenance of world peace and the protection of our interests abroad. Ever since taking office in January, 2009, Obama has done much to sully our relationships with many of our closest allies, often going so far as publicly offering his personal support (and as Commander in Chief, the official support of the government of the United States) to those in direct opposition of our allies. The two instances of this that stand out in my mind would be the publicly announced support for Argentina’s claim on the Falklands, and the shockingly less than supportive treatment of Israel with regard to it’s on-going mission to NOT get wiped off the face of the planet by the numerous hostile nations surrounding it.
Obama’s treatment of Israel is obviously the far more consequential of the two blunders as I’m sure Argentina is in no rush to be embarrassed on the world stage again, but both actions represent betrayals of our allies. His strategy of trying to appease the enemies of our allies projects nothing but weakness; so much so that our NATO ally Turkey (former ally now, perhaps?), and non NATO member but valued ally Brazil have found it prudent to side with Iran and its theocrat Islamo-fascist nuclear-weapons-seeking loons over the United States! Such a stunning betrayal would have been totally inconceivable under President Bush or even President Clinton for that matter.
Administration of the “machine” that is the United States of America - This section could be expanded with little difficulty to fill many, many pages, but in summary Obama has approached the role of President as a legislator rather than an executive administrator. For Obama or any leader to be successfully carry out his duties, he MUST make decisive judgments on a very regular basis. A leader must gather the most reliable data available, make a decision based on that data, and stick with it. A leader will never please everyone, and continuously trying to please everyone will only result in pleasing no one. That reality must be accepted. Rather than issuing commands and delegating authority to subordinates, Obama’s response is to “solve” a given problem by forming what I consider to be the epitome of bureaucratic inefficiency - establishing some damned commission or committee to “analyze” the situation and offer a carefully-worded suggestion as to how to solve the problem. Unfortunately, however, by the time a solution is suggested by one of these groups, it is invariably too late to be of any real use.
A successful executive - especially an executive in government, and infinitely more so as the executive of the entire government - should make every effort to cut through bureaucratic inefficiency. A leader should be cutting the red tape, not creating more of it! It would appear that the Obama Administration simply can not help itself from creating incredible amounts of its very own Obama-brand red tape at every turn.
The most striking demonstration of this weakness which I can think of (tragically so…) would be the Administration’s pathetic response to the BP spill in the gulf, and the sad fact that 71 days had to elapse before the Obama Administration finally decided to accept help (and even then, only “in principle”) from some of the many nations that offered us assistance in containing the disaster. Most of the nations offering help did so on day 3 or 4 of the spill!
The explosion of the Deep Horizon oil rig and the subsequent gushing of the underwater well was a disaster by any definition of the word. That disaster was transformed into a full-blown epic catastrophe by the staggering ineptitude of President Obama and his Administration. All-in-all, Barack Obama has created or worsened FAR more problems than he has solved.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Lowered Expectations
After much thought and reflection I have determined that it is unfair for anyone to voice disappointment with Barack Obama’s considerably less-than-impressive performance thus far as Commander in Chief. Disappointment implies that a different result was expected. Where on Earth did that expectation come from?
Aside from successfully defeating bumbling and stumbling Old Man McCain in the 2008 election and agitating his way into the Illinois political arena prior to that, Barack Obama has never accomplished anything of consequence in what persons outside of governmental bureaucracy would call the “real world”. Prior to elected office, the entirety of Barack Obama’s professional life consists of working at either a law school or a crackpot left-wing non-profit. Individually or as part of a group, in the public or private sector, Barack Obama has never actually produced anything of any use in his entire life. Not exactly what I would call superb training to lead the United States Government.
This is not privileged information. Even Obama himself acknowledges this reality. When questioned about what experience(s) in his life qualify him for the Presidency, his reply was the experience of running his campaign. That was the best - and only - qualifying experience he was able to proffer (and it probably should be noted that the vast majority of campaign operations were handled by Obama’s senior staffers, but I’ll let that slide I suppose…).
With all of this in mind, how could any reasonable person expect some sort of cleverly orchestrated administrative success from President Obama? How could anyone be shocked and disappointed when he fails to deliver? While these observations explain his exceptionally ineffective executive leadership, they do not justify it.
The ship of State is presently being piloted by the single most inexperienced and inept captain in it’s proud history. Our ship is taking on water and veering directly for the rocks and shoals. If we fail to wrest some amount of control from the liberal Democrats in November, the consequences are too terrible to contemplate.
Aside from successfully defeating bumbling and stumbling Old Man McCain in the 2008 election and agitating his way into the Illinois political arena prior to that, Barack Obama has never accomplished anything of consequence in what persons outside of governmental bureaucracy would call the “real world”. Prior to elected office, the entirety of Barack Obama’s professional life consists of working at either a law school or a crackpot left-wing non-profit. Individually or as part of a group, in the public or private sector, Barack Obama has never actually produced anything of any use in his entire life. Not exactly what I would call superb training to lead the United States Government.
This is not privileged information. Even Obama himself acknowledges this reality. When questioned about what experience(s) in his life qualify him for the Presidency, his reply was the experience of running his campaign. That was the best - and only - qualifying experience he was able to proffer (and it probably should be noted that the vast majority of campaign operations were handled by Obama’s senior staffers, but I’ll let that slide I suppose…).
With all of this in mind, how could any reasonable person expect some sort of cleverly orchestrated administrative success from President Obama? How could anyone be shocked and disappointed when he fails to deliver? While these observations explain his exceptionally ineffective executive leadership, they do not justify it.
The ship of State is presently being piloted by the single most inexperienced and inept captain in it’s proud history. Our ship is taking on water and veering directly for the rocks and shoals. If we fail to wrest some amount of control from the liberal Democrats in November, the consequences are too terrible to contemplate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)