Thursday, December 31, 2009
WSJ article by Fouad Ajami on Iran, Terrorism and Obama Foreign Policy
This exactly what I'm talking about Baxter.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Cheney nails it again
He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, "war on terror," we won't be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency - social transformation--the restructuring of American society. President Obama's first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.
Just knowing that he appointed the Kerryesque Janet Napolitano to head Homeland Security after her "The system worked" "The system failed" flip flop makes me feel so much safer.
Lets return 90 Gitmo prisoners back to that new hot bed of Al Queda terrorists, Yemen, so that Barry can try to keep his campaign promise. Who craes if they will be some of the next leaders of Al Queda plotting more attacks against the US.
After Fort Hood and Flight 253 it is really obvious that Islamic terrorists appreciate Barry's new and improved tone of reasoning with people who want to destroy our way of life.
Merry Christmas Ben Nelson
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/nebraska/election_2012_nebraska_senate
It may not be unprecedented for an incumbent Senator to trail by 30 points in a hypothetical matchup, but it is certainly extraordinary.
Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are Strongly Opposed.
C'mon Ben do your constitutional duty and represent the State of Nebraska's wishes instead of thinking like the rest of the liberals who fancy themselves better and smarter than all non liberals.
2010 is shaping up to be a great election year for Conservatives.
We will probably be treated with the wonderful event of Harry Reid leaving the Senate. Oh what a glorious day that will be!
There is still a Santa Claus!
Wishing everyone, including Rich and Terry, a healthy and happy 2010!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
Shortsighted Hypocrites or Simply Stupid?
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. That quote is my favorite. Why would he or anyone of his ilk (Republican Senators) get respect when discussing fiscal matters going forward?
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio defended his (support) in 2003 and (opposition) now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious. So, it was okay to add billions in deficit spending during the good times, but now we must stop the spending in the face of rising unemployment and recession? Isn't just the opposite? Aren't we supposed to pay down debt or save our pennies in times of growth for the rainy days that will surely come?
Lawmakers who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion include the Senate's top three Republican leaders, all sharp critics of the Obama-backed health care plans: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. These three sanctimonious guys have lost all credibility. The speak so passionately in opposition to Obama's plans today, but were happy to add the largest entitlement in 40 years without a penny to pay for it six years ago. Do they ever just break out laughing?
Thanks again, Doc, for posting the article and helping to clarify the quality of the players on the right side of the aisle.
Real Climate Change Based on Real Science and Real Data
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Hags
Sunday, December 27, 2009
MTP
It was also enjoyable seeing Newt. The GOP has few policy wonks - the base eschews intellectualism. I rarely agree with him, but I enjoy watching him ply his craft. He is thought provoking and, at times, compelling.
Spelling
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Dr. Thomas Hendricks, an eminent surgeon in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, who quits the field, eloquently explains his decision.
A Reasoned Approach to Climate Change version 2.0
I have long indicated that there is a consensus within the scientific community regarding climate change and the rather sober implications thereof. And I read your link where many in the "scientific (read climate) community" wrote a letter supporting climate change.
I. Scientific consensus. There is no consensus in science, which in fact means nothing. If we all agree on something that is wrong, it is still wrong. There is theory which is subject to testing. As they told us in Medical School: "half of what we are telling you is wrong, we just don't know which half." For example, "they" told us clot busting drugs were good for heart attacks until "they" told us they were not. An argument went on for years among various parties with various motivations including pride and finance. Those who had made their careers on "thrombolytics" vigorously resisted the idea as did the drug companies which supported their work. On the other side where the "Interventionalists" who, supported by the "device" companies, said a better way to stop a heart attack was with a balloon. Another interested party were the hospitals, who had to make patient care and financial decisions on two very expensive treatments. This is standard fare in medical (scientific) consensus.
My point here is to debunk what seems to be your quaint idea of "scientists" sitting around smoking pipes and expounding theory for the common good. (more on expounding ie. consensus, theory in a moment).
Scientific consensus is frequently wrong, biased and subject to swirling outside, frequently contradictory, influences.
II Scientific Theory. When making medical decisions, there are levels of evidence which can be used with varying degrees of confidence. The standard is a double blind randomized trial where two treatments are tested against each other where neither the patient nor the doctor is aware what treatment is being used. Next is using un blinded or past studies and the last is "expert" consensus.
Climate change, a theory, should be subject to the same testing as any other scientific endeavor, same as medical decision making. My understanding of the data (which is hard to locate-which therefore brings its accuracy into question) is that using models which are thought to predict the future would not have predicted the past. This means that current scientific evaluation does not pass even the second level used to evaluate theory and when combined with the E-mail issues and the fact that the people in the climate change community depend on its existence for their career (read $) and work in an environment of liberalism which generally support its cause (and therefor biases their opinion)...One cannot, even remotely, accept on blind faith a "consensus" on climate change. OK...now you asked, I gave you an answer, before you start pounding away, read it again.
III Alternatives. There are none. None of the alternative energy sources can stand on their own without heavy subsidies. Wind, solar, nuclear make no economic sense and despite years of support could not stand on their own. The taxes you propose would have a devastating effect on a large segment of the worlds population, now. which brings the next issue.
IV rather sober implications thereof: Words from your post. If in fact man made climate change is in our future (unclear) it is also unclear if it would be of harm or benefit. The main doomsday scenario seems to be the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The probability of such an event is very low and at its worse case is projected to result in 200,000 deaths a year. The reality of now is "dung" fires and poverty and hunger and disease which result in millions of deaths a year. So the rather "sober" implications of climate change INTERVENTIONS would be to condemn millions NOW through continuing poverty, starvation and disease.
V Capitalism. Next time...
Again, you asked, now stop and think.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Mark's 'atheists'
"As early as A.D. 245, the Church father Origen was proclaiming it heathenish to celebrate Christ's birthday as if He were merely a temporal ruler when His spiritual nature should be the main concern. This view was echoed throughout the centuries, but found strong, widespread advocacy only with the rise of Protestantism. To these serious-minded, sober clerics, the celebration of Christmas flew in the face of all they believed. Drunken revelry on Christmas! The day was not even known to be Christ's birthday. It was merely an excuse to continue the customs of pagan Saturnalia" (Del Re, p. 20).
The Encyclopaedia Britannica adds: "The [church] Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius, contended that Christmas was a copy of a pagan celebration" (15th edition, Macropaedia, Vol. 4, p. 499, "Christianity").
The decision to celebrate Christ's birth on December 25 was far from universally accepted. "Christians of Armenia and Syria accused the Christians of Rome of sun worship for celebrating Christmas on December 25 ... Pope Leo the Great in the fifth century tried to remove certain practices at Christmas which he considered in no way different from sun worship" (Robert Myers, Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays, 1972, p. 310)."
Is Sara the old "grinch who stole..."? Certainly hope not. Simply felt an obligation to attempt to present an intellectual background to one of man's long held traditions. Cheers to all.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Taxes
The true question that needs to be ask: Is there anything you would not tax?
A Reasoned Approach to Climate Change
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
So - where are the skeptics numbers? I don't need a cut and past about the last ice age, yada, yada, yada, just tell us what percentage of the scientific community does not buy into Climate Change. A link or a referenced report would be wonderful.
I have another point that is not made often enough. Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? We can all agree that there is a large number of highly educated scientists that believe that climate change is real and the consequences are dire. If even they only represented a large minority, shouldn't we take heed? What happens if they are right? What would it say about us if we cavalierly ignored the warnings and ended up suffering the devastating consequences? What should we do to ensure that doesn't happen?
Climate change is not an indictment of capitalism. It is an unwelcome by-product of capitalism's great success. The problem will best be solved through the price mechanism - a capitalist tool if ever there was one.
As I have often mentioned, policies that will reduce carbon emissions are also policies that will greatly reduce our reliance on foreign (and unreliable) energy. We can make the USA the center of alternative energy innovation through simply incorporating a stiff carbon tax (not cap & trade) and letting the free market find answers for the more expensive fossil fuels. Solar and wind power are no longer pie in the sky. In fact, with carbon taxes, solar will be competitive right away with it's relative advantage increasing every year. How many economies have been damaged because they were too damned energy efficient?
Wouldn't it be great to reduce the relative political muscle of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and jump start green American industry? Wouldn't it be reminiscent of the '80's tech boom related to our defense build up? All this, and reducing carbon emissions is merely icing on the cake.
Happy Holidays!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Your kidding right?
Let's look at...um... health care.
If there is a desire to have more people "covered" with health care insurance, the best method would be to lower the cost of health care. The best way to lower the cost of health care is to have patients pay for their health care at the point of service. Instead, we are moving in the exact opposite direction, including many services under health care rights. Police, Fire fighters, Doctors.
So to make health care a governmental service (right) the left is performing at minimum the following redistributions.
Generational: Using money we do not have to pay for current health care needs.
State: Promising (grafting) various Senators and other legislators benefits for their vote.
Flat out redistribution: Here it is...wait...a health care excise tax on the wealthy!
The above can be repeated for just about any issue you please.
Our economy is at a standstill because the producers/leaders of this country have no confidence in the future. Dummies like Rich(ie) and Terry as represented by this administration have put them in their cross hairs.
And Mark R.....No, Rich still will not answer questions, however, when he takes time and does not just pound away on his Blackberry, he occasionally has a point. (I think he is pretending to run for office and likes to do "rapid response"). But, do not despair, the new Mark, Mark C. pounds away just like you did (although we miss you and always welcome your return).
Merry Christmas!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Atheists and Christmas
I know that Muslims do not and Jews do not.
If Atheists do give presents out isn't this being ultra hypocritical given the fact that the holiday is honoring the birth of Jesus Christ?
The true meaning of Hope & Change
So the real Hope was that the Left would take control of the US economy and transfer massive amounts of wealthe from the haves to the have nots. The Change is that we would become even more pf a partisan country with Congressman violating their constitutional duties and voting against the wishes of the constituents that elected them. There are not very many States that are polling in favor of this health care reform bill yet these Congressman are still voting for it against the desires of the people they represent. This is Change we can believe in?
Monday, December 21, 2009
THE REPUBLICAN USE OF PRAYER
There was absolutely no mystery concerning which senator was being referenced by Coburn.
It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) who has been in and out of hospitals and lay at home ailing. It would not be easy for Byrd to get out of bed in the wee hours with deep snow on the ground and ice on the roads -- but without his vote, Democrats wouldn't have the 60 they needed.
FUNNY IF IT WAS NOT TRUE.
The same could be written about California and soon (unfortunately very soon) the U.S.
The solution: Cut spending, cut taxes, maintain right to work and reduce the size and scope of government.
Terry, your vacuous "social justice" is leading us down the very same road. Fiscal Conservativism is social justice.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Obama does it again
But he went anyway, was twice humiliated in public by the Chinese premier and then finally settled for what the White House hailed as a "meaningful agreement."
Really? A top aide admitted that the deal was basically just "an important first step" that was "not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change."
Then Obama himself dropped the other shoe: The agreement contains no specific commitments on carbon emissions, only pledges that "will not be legally binding." So what the hell was the point?
One would think that Obama had taken a lesson from his last trip to Copenhagen -- when he thought his presence alone would win the 2016 Olympic games for Chicago.
That is, that he would have learned that it is a mistake to publicly commit presidential prestige to an outcome that isn't locked up in advance. Obviously, not. So much for two years of work and a supposedly broad international consensus that was to make the Copenhagen conference little more than a formality.
Clearly, yesterday was about squabbling over how much money we'll borrow from the Chinese so that we can give it right back to Beijing and other Third World countries in exchange for their promise to . . . well, that was never clear. And twice yesterday, Obama was kept waiting in public by China's premier. This is scary stuff. Obviously, the rest of the world has taken measure of Barack Obama -- and decided he's a pushover.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Global warming history
One of the favorite buzzwords of global warming alarmists is “unprecedented” when talking about present day warming.
Well, we’ve known it’s unsubstantiated spin for quite a long time. NOAA apparently has too, because the data presented in this video is in fact from NOAA and is from the year 2000 on their website.
But you don’t see it publicized much. Why? Well, because it totally destroys claims of “unprecedented warming” in our present day.The source of inspiration is from this Hockey stick post is observed in NOAA ice core data.
Climate alarmists, like liberals everywhere, rely on ignorance of the past. About the worst thing that could happen to the earth would be for the current warm spell that we are enjoying to come to an end.
The legitimacy of Copenhagen
To get a real feel for the legitimacy of this crowd with most arriving on private CO2 emitting jets and have had to have limos imported in because there were not enough of these large CO2 emitting vehicles to carry the delegates in the style they wish, Can you say HYPOCRITE, one should consider this.
The lead negotiator for the small island nation of Tuvalu, the bow-tie wearing Ian Fry, broke down as he begged delegates to take tough action.
"I woke up this morning crying," and that's not easy for a grown man to admit," Mr. Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears.
"The fate of my country rests in your hands," he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause.
But the part-time PhD scholar at the Australian National University actually resides in Queanbeyan, NSW, where he's not likely to be troubled by rising sea levels because the closest beach at Batemans Bay is a two-hour, 144km drive away. Asked whether he had ever lived in Tuvalu, his wife told The Australian last night she would "rather not comment"....
Still, it's a long way from the endangered atolls of Tuvalu, with his neighbor Michelle Ormay confirming he's lived in Queanbeyan for more than a decade, while he has worked his way up to being "very high up in climate change."
The neighbor's description of the fake from Tuvalu is also noteworthy. She says he is "very high up in climate change," as though it's a business, which of course it is.
Just a few headlines from Copenhagen - What a joke!
Climate Change BS
The "cure" for poverty time and time again is Capitalism which as the following post demonstrates, is the true agenda of Climate Change. To change us to Socialism.
Climate Change BS II
Any international meeting that invites Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe to speak has no legitimacy. But that's not the worst of it.
When these fellows spoke in Copenhagen, their asinine remarks were cheered and applauded by attendees who seemed to think they were in the presence of great men. Surely the world now gets what the global warming alarmists are about. Doesn't it?
For reasons that remain a mystery to us, Chavez was celebrated as if he were a popularly elected president who has led his country toward greater freedom and prosperity instead of a socialist who rigged his election to be president for life, crushed civil liberties and wrecked his nation's economy.
Nevertheless, "President Chavez brought the house down," according to newspaper the Australian, when he addressed the U.N. Climate Change Conference on Wednesday. "When he said there was a 'silent and terrible ghost in the room' and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening."
Socialism, Chavez told the fawning audience, is "the way to save the planet" while "the destructive model of capitalism is the eradication of life." And: "Capitalism is the road to hell. ... Let's fight against capitalism and make it obey us." For that nugget of nonsense, Chavez received a standing ovation.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Elliot Pollack 2010 Forecast
USA is doing much beer than AZ. Arizona and Michigan are fighting to be #50 in job growth. Our population growth has nearly stopped (+1.4% and 1.0 comes simply from births v deaths). He says AZ economy will not improve until population growth returns, which will likely happen after USA is back up & running for awhile.
Robert Sarver hosted the breakfast and talked about the difference between '09 and the RTC days. He said that you could buy a dollar from the RTC for $.30-.40, but not so today in the commercial real estate (and commercial paper) markets. He said thanks to the internet and sophisticated, widely advertised sales efforts, it costs a dollar to buy a dollar these days. He said, sure - it is significantly discounted from the existing debt - but you are paying what it is really worth.
Pollock said there will not be a major office building built in PHX for 5 - 7 years. He said 1991 - 1995 was the same scenario. That forecast concerned only office, but I can't imagine retail will be any better. Again, residential construction will materially pick up 4 - 5 years from now, once foreclosures have been resolved.
One recurring theme - the economy is not doing well, but it is slowly getting better and is no longer fragile. I have to throw this in - he compared 12/08 and 12/09 data and the obvious point was how much better things are today than a year ago across the board. The big question - will Bernanke be able to soak up all the liquidity before inflation arrives? He can't start mopping too soon or he risks repeat of 1937 - premature tightening and another leg down. Pollack says Fed will maintain easy money through 2010, including buying up mortgages if need be. Helicopter Ben will not oversee the onset of deflation.
Thought you might be interested...
REPUBLICAN HEALTH CARE HYPOCRISY
Republican's created an entitlement for seniors to purchase low-cost drug coverage. Of course this bill was passed with no way to pay for it except deficit spending.
In the 2009 report to Congress the Medicare trustees estimate that the 10 year cost of Medicare part D is as high as 1.2 TRILLION. That figure just for prescription drug coverage that people over 65 still have to pay a lot of money for_dwarfs the 848 BILLION cost of the Senate Bill.
The price continues to escalate because the law explicicitly bars the goverment from using its market power to negotiate drug prices.
Unlike the Democratic Bill which the Congessional Budget Office says won't add to the deficit.
Former comptroller general David M Walker had called the 2003 Republican Health Care bill " the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960's"
John Kyle in in 2003 "As a member of the team that crafted the Medicare Part D coverage, I am committed to insure it's successful implementation. I will fight any attempts to erode Part D coverage" Six years later Kyle calls Harry Reids's democratic health care legislation a " trillion dollar bill a bad bill "
What the Republican's object to is expanding government in a way that doesn't help them get elected.
Also forgotten was the shenanigans pulled by the Republican's in 2003. Bush officials threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary if he shared honest cost estimates with Congress. House of Republican's cut off C-Span and kept the roll call open for 3 hours to get the last few votes they needed.
Oh what short memories!!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
JOBS ON THE WAY
1. 11,000 THE NUMBER OF JOBS THE ECONOMY SHED IN NOV.
SMALLEST DROP SINCE LATE 2007
2. 58,000 THE NUMBER OF SERVICE SECTOR JOBS CREATED IN NOV.
THE SECOND STRAIGHT MONTH OF GROWTH
3. 86,000 THE NUMBER OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE JOBS CREATED
IN NOV.
UP 126% FROM PREVIOUS MONTH.
4. 474,000 THE NUMBER OF FIRST TIME UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS FOR THE
WEEK ENDING DEC.5
DOWN 28% FROM THE PEAK IN THE SPRING.
5. 57% THE AMOUNT THE DOW HAS RALLIED SINCE MARCH 8TH.
Wait! What has he done?
Rich(ie) opines that he has done so much...huh? Name one thing...please.
The economic collapse and management, actually Bush's team, with much controversy and little Conservative support. Remember "O" words? We are available if needed. (Said after McCain stupidly suspended his campaign).
What does he get credit for??? Oh, I remember, the stimulus...that's right. The $700 billion WASTE OF MONEY!
Tax cuts? Nope. Tax hikes? Nope. Unemployment high, deficit high, gas prices high, Auto's devastated. Where is the recovery? I am told that the Phoenix metro area has over 140K vacant homes. Where, with all our money spent, do we have the bullets for recovery?
What was done on his watch with the liberal in charge? Well there is this huge budget with discretionary spending growing at 14%. This has been no entitlement reform only a proposed take over of the health care industry. The budget growth was opposed by every Republican!
Now wait Jim G., the "O" must be doing better in foreign policy. OK, then Mr. Liberal dummy, tell us one concrete achievement (beyond the absolutely crazy NYC based trial of KSM) of the new friendlier U.S. foreign policy. Still Gitmo, still Afghanistan, still Korea, still Iran. Beyond the cheer leading what has he accomplished? The dollar has cratered even though countries "like" us more. (How the liberal mind can embrace such a farce remains a mystery).
Climate change! That's the ticket. Well, if the wacky left would actually allow a reasonable debate on the issue, some minds might be opened, but now it is tainted in controversy. And the "O", did he cause this debacle? No, but he is responsible for one of his signature issues being allowed to sink into religious passion instead of science. And...Rich(ie), I do know how to interpreted scientific data, I am a scientist (although I did not invent the Internet) and I know when the wool is being pulled over my eyes for a secondary agenda. John Stossel's (sp) recent show on Fox Business with a guy from the CATO institute was very enlightening.
The original Mark was right, he is in way over his head.
Government "Can't Manage the Economy". Really?
We live in a Keynesian world. What nation eschews "management" of their economy? We all have central banks running monetary policy that are knee deep in their respective economies. Our governments "manage" the fiscal environment through tax and spending policy. The rules of the road - the laws and regulatory regime have a significant impact on a modern economy.
That doesn't mean that one can't advocate a true Laissez-faire, Libertarian approach to governance. Ron Paul does just that. However, doing so is rather radical and there is not a developed industrial economy that chooses that model. In fact, I don't think there is a seated political party in the world suggesting such an anachronistic, short sighted policy.
So - one might say government shouldn't manage the economy, but they shouldn't say government can't. They would be manifestly wrong. Our governments have been doing it for generations.
Drop... Obama's Approval Rating Hits New Low, Poll Finds
Monday, December 14, 2009
HERE IS THE DEAL
1. You agree to turn over Osam Bin Laden, and we leave your country in 90 days.
2. You don't turn him over, we are here till we get him.
3. We will bomb villages. Till we get him. Let your God sort you out in your heaven.
4. We are not kidding.
By Jackson Diehl who needs pom poms
The coming debt panic, only bipartisan action can avoid it. WP
Consider: In the space of a single fiscal year, 2009, the debt soared from 41 percent of the gross domestic product to 53 percent. By way of comparison, the average for the past half-century has been 37 percent. This sum, which does not include what the government has borrowed from its own trust funds, is on track to rise to a crushing 85 percent of the economy by 2018. Getting the debt back down to a reasonable level will require extraordinary, almost unimaginable, fiscal discipline and political cooperation. Failing to do so will lower the national standard of living and ultimately threaten America's economic stability.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
YOU DIDN'T GET MAD
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed energy company officals to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative was placed in danger.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act was passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded Iraq looking for WMD's that didn't exist.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 Billion dollars (and counting) on the Iraq War.
You didn't get mad when over 10 Billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when Bush was illegally wiretapping us at home and at work.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let New Orleans drown.
You didn't get mad when Bush got 4,500 soldiers killed.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You didn't get mad when John McCain suspended his campaign to bail out the banking system.
And then finally you got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if the are sick.
Illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, all are OK with you?
BUT HELPING OTHER AMERICANS IS THE LAST STRAW
Saturday, December 12, 2009
drop
What unites al-Qaida and the Taliban is a shared murderous radical Islamic ideology, one antithetical to our own. Americans should hear that without politically correct euphemisms.
The president must explain what victory in Afghanistan means. Are we there until we destroy the viability of the Taliban and their terrorist allies — by fostering an elected government that will eventually secure the country? If so, we need to hear exactly that.
If not, the president can instead talk of deadlines, troop withdrawals, cruise-missile attacks and Predator-drone bombings — all efforts to now and then bother, but not end, the Taliban and al-Qaida.
War typically concludes when one side cannot fulfill its political objectives. Sometimes both sides quit, as in the Korean War. But usually, as in Vietnam or the Balkans, violence ceases when one side is tired of losing more than it hopes to gain — and admits defeat.
Nation building may be fine and even necessary. But war always involves "a military solution." How can there be economic prosperity or political stability if civilians are afraid of getting killed by enemy terrorists?
President Obama talked of many things in his recent Afghanistan speech. But he never once mentioned the words "victory" and "win." All that may seem like an out-of-date idea to postmodern Americans. But it is still a very real one to the premodern Taliban, who seem to understand the ageless nature of war far better than we do.
Drop
The $1.1 trillion measure combines much of the year's unfinished budget work - only a $626 billion Pentagon spending measure would remain - into a 1,000-plus-page spending bill that would give the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and others increases far exceeding inflation.
The 60-34 vote met the minimum threshold to end the GOP filibuster. A final vote was set for Sunday afternoon to send the measure to President Barack Obama.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Drop
Hope and change!
Stimulus!
Bail out!
Health Care!
Green!
War Away!
Gitmo Away!
Unemployment...
Fraud...
Cap and Trade...
Still Gitmo...
Still Iraq...
Still Afghanistan...
Death Panel...
Tea Parties
Town Halls
Rage and bewilderment.
Nobel prize?
Olympics?
Another Stimulus?
Bowing?
Again Afghanistan?
Rationing!
Jets to green?!
Unemployment!
More fraud!
Despair!
Anger!
Denial.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Post Turtle
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
More government involvement - this time college football!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Does this statement apply in reverse for the other party?
Thoughts about the current Economic Crisis.
Government economic policy has a tremendous influence on job creation. Do you think otherwise? Yes, it makes it worse. Hell, let's do a poll, how many jobs does the government create? Well, then, what is your point? Your approach has been thoroughly discredited and now you want to complain as Obama cleans up your guys mess!? We shall see in 2010. How long are you going to hide. This is your mess, your 10%, your decreased tax revenue, your health care debacle.
Stop using 911 as an excuse for Bushes poor record. It is unseemly and in fact, is no excuse for his failed presidency. The policy responses to that awful day far exceed the damage done by Bin Laden & Co. And the low interest rates were a big part of the housing implosion.
Clinton had the Asian financial crisis, as well as the Russian default and Mexican peso crisis. Remember Long Term Capital Management? Why don't we always hear about these crises? Because Clinton, Rubin & Summers prescribed extremely effective measures to contain each unique problem. No, because they are minor compared to 9-11.
Does anyone think for a moment that Bush & O'Neal or Bush & Snow would have successfully handled any of these economic emergencies? Would Larry Lindsay have recommended the activist, Washington led, Keynesian, responses that were so successful? Of course not... And we would be out of this mess and could be again with broad based tax cuts and a pro business environment.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Just wondering, does anybody see a 10%+ unemployment rate?
Rich responded to Mark C., that Bush only created a few thousand jobs during his first term. Actually, Bush did not create any jobs, the private sector does. However, 4, 4.7, 5.8, 6.0 look pretty good in retrospect given 9-11 and dot bust. Let's hope for some change.
The Definition of Economic Insanity-From our friend Mark C.
Undeterred by the complete failure of their past job creation efforts, leading leftist luminaries are again calling on the liberal majorities in Congress and President Obama to approve billions more in government spending for a third stimulus. Yesterday, President Obama hosted a “jobs summit” where academics, union leaders, and select big business leaders made their pitch for government largess. Among the ideas reported: Teamsters leader James Hoffa called for higher barriers to trade, President Obama insisted that all future aid to states go to preserving government jobs and not tax cuts, and others pushed to bring the “success” of Cash for Clunkers to a new Cash for Caulkers program.
These “new” ideas will fail for the same reason the past two government stimulus plans failed: governments do not create jobs. Only the private sector in pursuit of opportunity can create jobs on net. The best we can hope from government is that it keeps to a minimum the jobs it prevents and the income and wealth it destroys. President Obama does not understand this. At yesterday’s summit, Obama lamented the lack of job creation: “There’s a lot of money on the sidelines in the private sector. They are still nervous about whether they want to go ahead and take the risks that are inherent in a free market system.”
Wrong. Businesses aren’t nervous about “the risks that are inherent in a free market system,” they are nervous about the risks inherent in a government regulation dominated economy. Fred P. Lampropoulos, founder and chief of Merit Medical Systems Inc., told the President that businesses were uncertain about investment because “there’s such an aggressive legislative agenda that businesspeople don’t really know what they ought to do.” That uncertainty, he added, “is really what’s holding back the jobs.”
Rich, before you start, the issue is not Bush vs. Obama, it is free markets vs. central planning.
Your man, your side, owns this mess and it ain't "recovering". The harder they plan, the worse it will become. Or are you somehow arguing that 10+% unemployment is a good thing?
Job summit, what a joke.
Friday, December 4, 2009
CONSERVATIVE
FDR
A Consevative believes nothing should be done a first time.
Phillip Fullmer
A Consevative is a man who has plenty of money and doesn't see any reason why he shouldn' always have plenty of money.
Will Rogers
A Conservative is a man that won't look at a new moon out of respect for the ancient time.
Bill Mitchell
The idea of sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in society because it seeks to turn other ideas like progress and change into crimes.
Salmon Rushdie
It has always been my thought to view the internet not as an " information highway" but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies. TC
David Brooks makes me want to puke!
This sounds like typical New York Times, liberal psycho-babble! The only thing that is missing is a vision of him smoking a pipe looking out the window of his office with the keys to his Saab or Volvo next to him. Gag me with a chain saw!
Thoughts for the day
"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of
both." -James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." -
Unknown
"Do you know Tiger Woods new nickname? Cheetah!!!"
Hags
Something we can all oppose.
Until recently, male décolletage was an androgynous fashion affectation limited mainly to sporadic appearances on European runways. But the look, including deep V-necks and scoop-neck tops, hit the U.S. in full force at New York's September Fashion Week.
.This time around, the styles were more blatantly sexual and the models had a more studly swagger. New York designer Mr. Bastian said his show's vibe was inspired in part by "Latin guys" he noticed wearing their shirts unbuttoned, as well as the unabashed machismo of Latin American men in general. "We wanted to go back to a more natural body, a more '70s body with the models, getting away from the super skinny," says Mr. Bastian. (then again Rich(ie)...getting away from super skinny...)
Thursday, December 3, 2009
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
~Abraham Lincoln
Yes We Can!
"O"
Amateur hour in the big leagues.
A day after President Barack Obama laid out his plan to send at least 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, his promise to begin withdrawing them as soon as July 2011 had become as divisive as the surge.
Republican critics said setting a firm date for starting a troop withdrawal encourages the enemy to simply wait out the U.S. efforts, and many officials in Afghanistan agreed, calling the timeline unrealistic. Some Democrats, meanwhile, were concerned the deadline wasn't firm enough and that a sizable force would be left in Afghanistan indefinitely.
In Pakistan -- a key ally in the fight against al Qaeda -- officials said the timeline raises fears that the U.S. would only drive insurgents across the border into their country, and then withdraw. And it emerged Wednesday that Defense Secretary Robert Gates initially resisted the timetable; administration officials said he agreed only after securing flexibility to adjust it to the situation on the ground.
.In all, the exit strategy, which Mr. Obama pushed to make the troop plan more palatable, threatened to become the biggest obstacle to gaining broad support for escalating the war. "The announcement just gives good news to the Taliban and others," said prominent Afghan lawmaker Shukria Barakzai in Kabul.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
OBAMA CHANNELS BUSH
Tonight we watched Obama address the cadets of West Point and, over their shoulder, the American people. I kept asking myself: if I were in the audience did I hear anything worth risking my life for? There is a lot in Afghanistan worth risking one's life for, but Obama sure didn't summon it.
Watching President Obama address the nation, the right probably recognized the incongruity of sending additional troops on a difficult mission and setting, at the same time, a very short timetable for their withdrawal. The right doubtless wondered why the Taliban won't just wait Obama out and move in after he leaves. But the political cost of this speech will not come on the right. Obama will get the support of everyone who won't ever vote for him. But it is with his base on the left that he will be in trouble.
His volunteers, his backers, his donors have to have watched that speech and asked themselves "why did we win the election?" Obama sounded just like Bush. More articulate, perhaps, but substantively precisely the same. His decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, an odd move for a peace candidate, his failure to close Guantanamo, our continued military presence in Iraq, and his failure to act on liberal priorities like gays in the military and immigration reform, are all sapping his support from those who voted for him. For those with memories of Vietnam, the task of backing a corrupt regime summons the most unpleasant of comparisons. This speech will inflame the left and that is the real threat to Obama's base.
Even in the health care debate, the under 30 voters are learning that they are targeted -- just like the elderly -- for special punishment in Obama's health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5% of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8% of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12% if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic.
Then he is losing popularity on issues that have nothing to do with ideology. It all begins with unemployment. While voters still believe by 50-42 (Rasmussen) that Bush is more at fault than Obama for the economy, Bush is not on the ballot. The high jobless rate nurtures a belief that Obama doesn't really know what he is doing. This discontent need not take the form of ideological opposition to the stimulus package or the deficit spending. It can merely be a sense that things aren't going right.
And then come the adjectives. Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs, and seems egotistical. All polls have Obama below 50 and some, like Harris, have him all the way down to 43% in job approval. These surveys mean that Obama, who won 52% of the vote, is now losing between one in ten and one in five of his voters.
This erosion of support makes the elections of 2010 look more and more like a rerun of 1994. It is now reasonable to predict -- and I do -- that the GOP will take both houses of Congress. In the Senate, the Republicans are likely to hold all their vacant seats with the possible exception of New Hampshire. Incumbent Democrats Dodd (Ct), Specter (Pa), Lincoln (Ark), Reid (Nev), and Bennett (Col) are the low hanging fruit. Among the open seats, Delaware seems ripe for the Republicans. Add to these six seats, two more if Rudy Giuliani challenges Kristin Gillibrand in New York and if North Dakota governor Hoeven takes on Dorgan. Mark Kirk could the ninth pickup in Illinois. And, in a Republican sweep, you have to respect GOP chances in California and New Jersey.
On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lock-step, over the cliff together.
When one considers where Obama was only a year ago and where he is today, the fall is simply stunning. That he clings to the staff that helped him take it is amazing. This has to be the least successful White House since, well, Clinton's 1993-94 crowd. In fact, its many of the same people!