Thursday, January 29, 2009

Seriously, we did all we could...or Iranians arms have no problems going to Gaza

Yup, we're definitely serious about promoting peace in the Middle East...

"The nation's top military officer said Tuesday the United States did all it could to intercept a suspected arms shipment to Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, but its hands were tied.
Separately, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other U.S. officials said it is too soon to tell whether the prospect of new U.S. engagement with Iran will bear fruit.
Mullen confirmed that a Cypriot-flagged ship intercepted in the Red Sea last week was carrying Iranian arms and that U.S. authorities suspect that the shipment was ultimately bound for the Gaza Strip, where Hamas and Israel are observing a shaky truce after three weeks of fighting

Ok, Iran's sending a shitload of weapons to the Hamas lowlifes, and we're worried about how Iran's going to take our sissy diplomatic initiative? Ok, I might be reaching here, but if Iran's sending weapons to Hamas, I would say with some confidence that we're not really reaching them...
And we suspect that Iran's sending the weapons to Gaza? We don't actually know? Are you kidding me? We have a network of military satellites and they can't figure that one out? Ok, based on my simple knowledge of geography, the Red Sea heads towards the Suez Canal. If for some reason, and hoo boy, this is entirely hypothetical, the ship actually goes through the canal and hangs a right, chances are pretty good that it's headed for Gaza or at least Syria. See, wasn't so difficult, was it?

" 'The United States did as much as we could do legally," Mullen said, adding that he would like more authority to act in such cases. "We were not authorized to seize the weapons or do anything like that.' "

Don't count on it Mullen. We might hurt someone's feelings if we did that. I mean, God forbid that we actually seize our enemies' weapons shipments. That might actually be, I dunno, warlike. Ugh, the Messiah's starting out awesome...

This exercise by Iran is nothing more than an attempt to see how we're going to react. From what I can see, we just got an F. It appears that the One's idea of forceful diplomacy will be to say..."I dare you to cross this line...ok, this line...ok, this line...ok, this line...ok, this line..."

Messiah asks Europeans: Please sirs, more troops?

Yeah, because these guys were oh so helpful in Iraq...

"President Barack Obama already is testing whether Europe will match its enthusiastic words about his administration with concrete actions. After seeking help shutting the Guantanamo Bay prison, Obama now has a potentially more contentious request: He wants more European troops fighting in Afghanistan."

Yes, we need more European troops that will be confined to barracks because their governments refuse to have them actually fight (which is happening to at least two countries).

" 'Europeans are still hoping they won't be asked" about Afghanistan, said Julianne Smith, director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But Obama ran on the message `the urgency of now' and he seems to consider Afghanistan urgent.' "

That we need more troops in Afghanistan is something I can understand. In order to even have a chance at winning there, more troops are clearly needed. However, I'm puzzled as to why we have to rely on, once again, "allies" which are generally lukewarm about committing troops anywhere. NATO doesn't have the ability to project the size of forces that we can. Their infrastructure does not allow it. Therefore, in order to make this happen (assuming the Europeans actually cough up the troops) we'll have to transport troops from Europe using our own assets. Let's make this clear. Instead of using our own forces which are clearly capable, we're going to bring troops over from countries which don't really want to fight this war. So, are we going for a war of symbolisms (which is what the NATO troops are there for, decoration), or are we actually going to be serious about fighting? Let's face it, this is a cosmetic answer to a pressing need for troops over there.

"Leaders in some European countries, including Germany, believe they are better equipped for primarily noncombat missions in an impoverished country whose problems cannot be solved on the battlefield alone."

Jesus, what's the point of these countries even having a military???!!! I can already see what's going to happen here. These NATO countries will eventually send some more troops over, they'll be stuck in the areas where there's no fighting. This will leave the US forces, once again, in the position of actually fighting and dying while the Europeans can sit in their cozy barracks.
I think the question is whether we really need to be allied with these clowns...

"Europeans who widely admire the new U.S. president may expect Obama to fulfill campaign promises to heal trans-Atlantic relations and expand cooperation. But on this issue, at least, Obama is signaling that trans-Atlantic cooperation means greater demands."

This passage is dead on, of course. The cooperation goes both ways. The Europeans need to get off their collective asses and actually do something, rather than just dictate. That's how NATO is, though. They want something for nothing, kind of like how they acted in the Cold War. You didn't really think the Soviets were worried about the big, bad Dutch or Belgian armies now, did you?

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

One hell of a shopping spree passes the House

A $819 Billion (yes, that's with a "B") economic stimulus bill passed through the House today, 244-188. Not surprisingly, the vote went along Party lines, with all of the Republicans against it. 12 Democrats voted against it. Of course, it would have been nice if the Republicans had found this type of backbone last fall with the bailout package. Of course, this package will now go to the Senate, where they are planning an even bigger package. And it keeps getting awesomer...

Hey, we've already gone totally apeshit with the spending, what's another $800+ billion?

" 'We don't have a moment to spare,' Obama declared at the White House as congressional allies hastened to do his bidding in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

Spare for what? Government intervention is primarily what caused this crisis to begin with. So what is Obamessiah's solution? Increase it dramatically. Awesome...let's just keep proudly marching towards Socialism, shall we? I especially enjoyed the part about congressional allies rushing to do his bidding. It conjures up a picture of an emperor ordering his lackey courtiers about. This is hardly a media-induced image, as House Speaker Nancy "Bimbette" Pelosi states a couple of paragraphs later:

"A mere eight days after Inauguration Day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday's events heralded a new era. 'The ship of state is difficult to turn,' said the California Democrat. 'But that is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address.' "

First of all, what the fuck does this exactly mean, unless it's a clear implication that the Democrats are indeed hell-bent on turning this country into a Socialist "utopia?" The first statement issued by Speaker Bimbette is not what concerns me, although it just reinforces my view that she's a numbnut. No, the second part is far more intriguing, that this "is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address."

I see... so essentially, Pelosi readily admits that the Democratic House of Representatives is nothing more than a friggin' rubber stamp for our mighty Messiah. I love it! You know, there was a time when Representatives were actually supposed to, well, represent their district. But not in this new Golden Age. No, now we're all mere extensions of our Dear Leader. We are all mere serfs to work for the glory of the One. Yes, I'm well aware that congresspeople are going to support their political party, but the particular phrases and wording by Democrats are pretty creepy. I don't recall ever hearing Republicans in Congress voting on something for the greater glory of George W. Bush.

"Rahm Emanuel, a former Illinois congressman who is Obama's chief of staff, invited nearly a dozen House Republicans to the White House late Tuesday for what one participant said was a soft sales job.
This lawmaker quoted Emanuel as telling the group that polling shows roughly 80 percent support for the legislation, and that Republicans oppose it at their political peril. The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity, saying there was no agreement to speak publicly about the session

This is a soft sales job? Vote on this legislation, or else? Wow, some bipartisanship. Personally, I don't think the Republicans are in much peril at all. They are already in the minority, and the Democrats can pass pretty much whatever they want. If Republicans oppose it and if things go south economically speaking, then they'll come out smelling like a rose. If they go along with it and things go well (or bad), then they'll be even more marginalized than now. I think there are more benefits for them to fight this package every step of the way. The Democrats want the Republicans on board so that if this package falls apart, they have some cover, which seems, to me anyway, why they shouldn't accept.

At least one Republican, however, is asking the right question, and this is probably the most important question that all Americans should have:

"Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, sought to strip out all the spending from the legislation before final passage, arguing that the entire cost of the bill would merely add to soaring federal deficits. 'Where are we going to get the money,' he asked, but his attempt failed overwhelmingly, 302-134."

One of the reasons why we got ourselves into this mess to begin with was due to runaway spending. This occurred naturally with the Democrats, since they can't wait to hike taxes through the roof so that they can get all of their giveaway programs. However, Republicans have to shoulder part of the blame as well. Their spending throughout 2000-06 bordered on reckless. So what's the current solution? Spend even more money. Although this might be hard to understand for some people, but money doesn't come out of thin air. The government can gain money two ways. They can tax people, which means that nothing the government provides is never really free or they can print more of it, which increases inflation and decreases the value of the dollar.

Make no mistake...for all of the nonsense spewed by the Left about bipartisanship and unity, the Democrats don't really need the Republicans. They have the Presidency, they have the House and they can probably garner a few milquetoast Republicans to help them in the Senate without too much trouble. This will be the state of affairs for the next two years. If this massive glut of a bill is an early sign of what the Democrats are planning, then the next couple of years are going to be very rough.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Messiah's first TV interview goes to...the Muslim world?

Although I have no issues with the Messiah going on Islamic TV (Dubya did it three times during his term), I do question him going hat in hand with no strength to back him up, especially given the aggressiveness that the religion has displayed in the world in the last couple of decades. Whether the West likes it or not, Islam is on the ascendency (partly because of the West's pacifistic response) and it would have been nice for the One to at least get some military or diplomatic victories under his belt before he goes hat in hand to the Muslim world.

"The interview underscored Obama's commitment to repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered under the previous administration."

Hmmm...I wasn't aware that we had an obligation to repair relations, especially given the fact that we are at war with them (despite leftists' claims to the contrary). The relations suffered because, well, Muslims rammed planes into several of our buildings, killing several thousand people. That sort of thing tends to be a bit of a downer relationwise (note: heavy on the sarcasm).

" 'My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,' Obama told the Saudi-owned, Al-Arabiya news channel, which is based in Dubai."

This is certainly a matter of debate. The Messiah's job regarding the Muslim world is really to make sure that they don't launch further attacks. Anything else is just a bonus. And yes, we are enemies. That's why we're at war. War makes enemies. To say otherwise is quite silly. Germany and France in two world wars, were enemies (though not now). They certainly weren't friends in 1914 or 1940. Why do we try to think differently?

"Obama called for a new partnership with the Muslim world 'based on mutual respect and mutual interest.' He talked about growing up in Indonesia, the Muslim world's most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives."

A partnership based on mutual respect and interest...Ok, what does this exactly mean? I look at the Muslim culture and ours and I don't see how there's much mutual anything. I know that we in the West are trying our damnedest to annhilate our culture, but the roots are there, nonetheless. One cannot simply pretend the culture doesn't exist. This statement seems more like a plea than anything else, something that will probably have negative consequences for this country in the future. The enemy smell weakness like sharks smell blood in the water.

"The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that both Israel and the Palestinians have hard choices to make.
'I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people' he said, calling for a Palestinian state that is contiguous with internal freedom of movement and can trade with neighboring countries

Not to be a spoilsport here, O Messiah, but Israel is already a very prosperous country with considerable security. To be blunt, the Israelis could militarily smash up the Middle East in a couple of weeks (maybe less) if they actually had to. The only thing that keeps them from doing that is us, since we like to interfere with any successful Israeli operation to defend itself. Last time I checked, the West Bank borders Jordan, which means that it has always had a trade link, if it wanted. Instead of building its infrastructure and economy, the Palestinians chose to build suicide bombers and martyrs. It comes down to choices and the Palis made bad ones. It's not Israel's fault. And this idea of "internal freedom of movement" is creepy. The reason why the Palestinians don't have complete freedom of movement is because they continuously launch suicide bomber attacks as well as missile strikes from Gaza. Perhaps the suicide attacks have been on the wane, but that's due more to Israel building a wall to separate them than anything the Palis have done. So until the Palestinians behave themselves, they don't have freedom of movement. The other option is to have Israel give up some of its land to set up a corridor, but I don't think that has a snowball's chance of happening (and they shouldn't have to give up land).

"Obama also said that recent statements and messages issued by the Al Qaeda terror network suggest they do not know how to deal with his new approach.
'They seem nervous,' he told the interviewer. 'What that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt
.' "

Wow, this is the height of arrogance. The Messiah has been in office for about a week, and he has already won the war against al qaeda. It's as good as won, right? They're confused by his superior oratory and intellectual skills. Ok, reality check, is this guy serious?
They seem nervous? Al qaeda has been issuing communiques for the past decade, but only now can they be translated as worried? Al qaeda has a history of adjusting to each problem they come across and now suddenly, they are bankrupt of ideas. Wow, talk about delusional...

Ok, let's pretend for a moment (because I believe absolutely none of this) that it's true and that al qaeda, blinded by the dazzling brilliance of our Messiah, is now scared as hell. Now how do people react in truly desperate situations, you know, a "nothing to lose" scenario?

My guess is that they go out with a bang, literally and figuratively. They will pull off the biggest and nastiest thing they can think of because (and make no mistake about this) they hate our guts. If they go down, they will stop at nothing to take us with them.

It must be nice going through life with just empty optimism with nothing to back it up. Unfortunately, history has repeatedly shown that fate intervenes exactly when false hubris shows up on the scene.

For my final thought, I loved how AP injected its own interpretation of al qaeda's message at the end.

"The message suggested the terror network was worried Obama could undermine its rallying cry that the United States is an enemy oppressor. "

Really? So the AP has taken over intelligence duties for this country? Pure awesomeness. For a moment there, I was worried. Nah, the MSM is not biased at all.

I have a bad feeling that this country is going to pay a grievous price for all of the current false optimism that this administration, and the left in general, is already putting forth at this early hour. But then, that's the Left for you. All talk, all glitz, all sloganizing, but very little to no substance.

Overall, the interview seemed to be a mix of unnecessary pleading and naive optimism, plus a dangerous underestimation of the enemy, which is probably one of the worst combinations one can make.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Hooray, we have a wannabe tax-evader as Treasury Secretary!

Is this really all that surprising? I mean, did anyone, including the most diehard conservative, really believe that this guy wouldn't get confirmed? A dominant Democratic voice in Congress, an unrepentant President and a spineless Republican opposition make for an easy appointment. Apparently, stupid goofs (though I still believe that this jackass evaded taxes on purpose) only hurt Republicans.

Well, Geithner won't be able to blame TurboTax if he gums up the economy further. Or maybe he will, and the American people will swallow another white lie, or are too blinded by the Messiah's burning bush beacon to care. With a 60-34 vote, it didn't even seem to be a problem.

"Some senators were concerned that Geithner, who would oversee the Internal Revenue Service, did not pay all of taxes until he had been tapped to the president's Cabinet. Geithner called it an unintentional oversight and settled his $42,702 overdue tax bill."

Apparently, a whole heck of a lot of senators didn't give a shit one way or another.

"Obama and others supporting Geithner's nomination said the nation couldn't afford to wait for Obama to search for another nominee to run the Treasury Department."

I don't see how we can afford to let this doofus get confirmed, but apparently I'm in the minority. Either the guy is a crook and intentionally evaded his taxes or the guy is unaware of surroundings and forgets things. I don't know what's scarier. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, but this isn't average joe forgetting to put a zero on his tax form. We're talking about someone who is supposedly intimately familiar with the intricate workings of finance, which does involve taxes. Of course, the Messiah is riding the crest of history and it cannot wait for silly details such as competence, so we must all bow to his will. After all "he won."
In some ways, it's an interesting pick. If it blows up in his face, then we know who to blame. Unfortunately, the American people will be the one, as usual, who have to pick up the tab.

As if the Guantanamo thing couldn't get any better...

Well, we don't have to worry about taking all of these al qaeda bastards that the Messiah seems hell-bent on letting go into our prison system. We'll let the European Union help out, because we all know that those jackasses are the epitome of anti-terrorist toughness.

"European Union leaders said Monday they are willing to take prisoners being released from the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay — but only after detailed screening to ensure they don't import a terrorist."

Uh, EU guys...your entire continent is one giant terrorist camp. I doubt a few more will make much of a difference. That's kinda like locking the barn door after the horses are out.

"Foreign ministers from the 27-nation bloc discussed the fate of up to 60 Guantanamo inmates who, if freed, cannot be returned to their homelands because they would face abuse, imprisonment or death. The prisoners come from Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Chad, China, Saudi Arabia and Yemen."

Hmmm...there might be a damn good reason why these countries are so interested in prosecuting them. I can identify at least four from that list in which citizens are prominent in al qaeda. But the EU doesn't want any terrorists.

Let me get this straight. The EU is willing to take up to 60 crominals that are seriously wanted in other countries, some of which have considerable representation in al qaeda, but they don't want any terrorists? Am I the only one who thinks this illogical? Have the Europeans truly become this retarded? This is, of course, a rhetorical question.

" Some EU foreign ministers said their own countries — long critical of the Bush administration's operation of Guantanamo — would be accused of hypocrisy if they didn't take at least one ex-prisoner and were seen to be helping Obama with the shutdown."

Ah, now we come to the heart of the matter. Of course, the ministers are right. However, it also seems to me that they painted themselves into a corner with all of the rhetoric they they used throughout the Bush administration. They danced to the Devil's tune, now they must pay the piper.

As much as it would make me happy that the Europeans take some responsibility for their naivity, I fear that releasing these prisoners to them would be akin to simply letting them go. As soon as they are let go, they will melt into the Muslim European framework and will start their wickedness all over again.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

So much for the bipartisanship...

This was in the New York Post on Friday. I guess bipartisanship is pretty much out the window, though that's hardly shocking.

"President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
'You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,' he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. "

In other words, the Messiah is telling us conservatives that we need to give up our principles so that "things get done." Hey why even bother having two parties, when we can live in the land of the Lotus eating Democrats?

"One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. 'We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

I'm kinda curious to see what those "big" things are. Needless to say, national security doesn't seem to be one of them, since the One is getting rid of the Guantanamo facility. Again, I still get that feeling that bipartisanship means "get with the program, or else." As for derailing partisan politics, do the Democrats mean the stuff they pulled during Bush's tenure? So now that their Savior has arrived, conservatives are now barred from expressing their opinion? After all, we don't want to hurt the Messiah's feelings...

"In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: 'I won,' according to aides briefed on the meeting.
'I will trump you on that.'
Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.
'We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly,' Obama said during the meeting."

Super maturity right there from the Messiah. Nyah, Nyah. If that isn't gloating, then this blog isn't opinionated. It is in this passage, however, that we get to the crux of the idea. There isn't and will not be any "bipartisan" effort other than to browbeat conservatives into giving up their ideas. One cannot have "unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers" and make a serious attempt to reach out to the other party. If it's unrivalled, then you don't need the other side, it's as simple as that. Therefore, what the Messiah is doing is utter bullshit. As for the "unprecedented economic crisis," is that compared to, oh I don't know, the Great Depression? Is he serious? Yeah, it's bad (I came within an ace of being laid off a few weeks ago, so I'm definitely aware how serious it is), but is it really all that unprecedented? Worse than the Carter years, where unemployment was in double digits (though it may reach that in a year or so)? Methinks this guy needs a history lesson in economics.

Heads up to Cassy Fiano for the story.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Messiah's response on the Gitmo question: Bring your huddled terrorist masses here, yearning to bomb free.

Well, I think we can pretty much lay to rest the idea that the Messiah will take the threat to our country seriously. He has been in office for over a day and already this has come out.

"Closing the facility in Cuba 'would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice,'read the draft prepared for the new president's signature."

Say what??? Ok, let's look at this logically. How exactly is closing down a prison with diehard terrorists (where they cannot break out or be rescued) going to further the national security of this country? And where will these bin Laden wannabes going to be held? Here? Oh yeah, I can already see rescue operations being launched by Al Qaeda to get some of them free. Even one successful breakout can cause incredible national security damage, not to mention the symbolism of the US looking like a bunch of retards who cannot keep these jackoffs behind bars.

As for foreign policy interests, you mean those countries who we want to do a tossed salad on a continual basis (yeah, Colin Powell comes to mind here)? You know the ones who "claim" to be on our side and then secretly incite these douchebags to attack us? Yeah, let's drink some more of that Jim Jones variety of Kool Aid. We already know that some of the lowlifes that we've already released have come back to fight us, so why on earth would we repeat that mistake?

Oh yeah, I forgot. I'm one of the fearful types who's afraid to envision the new Messianic Golden Age. Let's pray that the "gold" is not stained with unnecessary American blood.

The Messiah's Treasury Secretary to be: Whoopsie!


If this is going to be indicative of the Messiah's next four years, I can hardly wait.

"At his confirmation hearing, Geithner called the transgressions "careless mistakes" and unavoidable ones.
He told the Senate Finance Committee the failure to pay was "unintentional." But he also said, "I should have been more careful

As to the first part, yeah, I'd say that's a big affirmative, especially since I have my taxes in well before the due date every year. As for the "unintentional" part, I'd say that's a heaping pile of horseshit. He was head of the Federal Reserve Bank's New York regional branch for crying out loud. Am I to believe that this person, who's knee deep in the economic system simply forgot? Where's the outcry from our esteemed press? Sorry, I heard crickets. Of course, the next passage pretty much sums up the mood for the Democrats:

"Earlier, committee Chairman Max Baucus said he thought that Geithner had made 'disappointing mistakes' but also said he needed to be confirmed so he could get to work on solving the country's financial crisis. "

I see. To hell with the fact that the guy conveniently forgot to pay $34,000 in back taxes (that's a year's salary for me) cuz we need to get cracking on that economy thingamabob. I ponder the consequences if this were a Republican who did this.

Aside from the fact that the guy is obviously a friggin' crook, does one really want someone in charge of money when he's had a history of forgetting certain sums of money? Am I the only person who thinks this is odd? Welcome to the land of the Logical Messiah.

"He did so after Obama's transition team found that Geithner had made the same tax mistake his first two years at the IMF as the one the IRS found he made during his last two years at the international lending agency. "

Absolutely awesome. I see that this guy worked with Bush and Harry Paulson as well. My guess is that the whole bunch is laughing all the way to the bank. Congrads America. You proved once again that we're suckers.

"While many senators expressed the view that the tax problem was not large enough to derail Geithner's nomination, the issue has become fodder for late-night television comedians and tax problems have helped sink Cabinet nominees in previous administrations. "

Apparently, it won't sink this one, because nominee came from the Messiah and we all know that he can do no wrong.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

It's finally official: Obama is now president

It's finally here. Barack Obama, or I should say the Messiah of Hope/Change (henceforth he will be referred to in future posts as either the messiah or The One), is now the 44th President of the United States. Although I did not vote for him, I'm glad the transition of power went smoothly. Apparently all of the evil conservatives did not try to usurp the government, no matter what the leftnuts thought over the last couple of months. I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if the Messiah lost the election?

I have to admit that I chuckled when he flubbed the oath of office. I guess he did need a teleprompter to aid him in that difficult moment. Of course, if Bush had done that, the media and the left in general would have jumped all over him. In this case, the left actually blamed Chief Justice Roberts for deliberately messing up the oath to make the Messiah look bad. Wow, talk about stretching things.

Given the vitriol aimed at Bush over the last eight years (some of it deserved, most hardly so), I would say that the left would have already been plotting to undermine a McCain presidency through various means. Now, however, the conservatives must bow to the spirit of "bi-partisanship" because he's The One, to which I reply...Yeah, Right.

After having watched his inauguration speech earlier, I felt the need to actually look at the speech text several hours later. I found a few tidbits to pick apart...

"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."

It's nice that the left has finally understood the nature of the terrorist threat, or should I say that they are at least paying lip service to this issue. However, I cannot help but wonder where they were between 9/11 and the present day? Obama himself seemed determined to undermine the war effort, but now freely acknowledges (gasp!) that there might be a problem after all. How...convenient. Well, it's all in the spirit of "bi-partisanship", to be sure.

As for the economy, it is true that greed and irresponsibility caused much of it. It also had much to do with government interference (let's just say that forcing lenders to hand out money to those with very bad credit rating isn't the most logical solution). I'm at a loss as to what "our collective failure to make hard decisions and prepare the nation for a new age" has to do with the economy. If he means making decisions in the stock market, well, it's a win/lose situation. Sometimes you come up big, sometimes you don't. That's why people with no knowledge of how the stock market works shouldn't be doing it. As for preparing the country for a "new age", I can only imagine what that'll be. I could say Socialism, but that would be mean, and I know how conservatives are perceived. It's probably not the Age of Aquarius that he's talking about (although maybe it is...he is of that generation).

Homes were lost because people made stupid economic decisions. Putting your house up for collateral to take money out is not exactly the most intelligent decision, but apparently those of us where were very responsible will have to bail out the super irresponsible. But hey, that's how life is in the Age of the Messiah (note: the whole bail out thing is not exclusive to the left...those who were "conservative" and supported the bail out know who they are).

So we'll make more jobs and keep businesses running by taxing the living hell out of them? Yeah, sounds like a sound economic strategy to me. That's what Obama essentially proposed in his campaign theme. Tax the rich. Make them pay. It's a wonder that we'll have any capitalism at all in four years. I won't even comment on health care at this point. As for schools, since the left runs the educational system, perhaps the problem lies in the teaching process. Perhaps teaching students the concept of math and science as well as history (yes, it's hard to believe, but we do actually have a history and...this will totally blow your mind...some of it was actually good) will make students better able to critically think, instead of this kumbaya bullcrap that's peddled today.

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

Yeah, some of that unity I keep hearing about. Newsflash...trying to demonize your opponent is not a good way of promoting unity. As a conservative, I'm a little insulted by this line. So I fear the future? Depends on what that future holds. Fear isn't necessarily a bad trait to have. In fact, it's a basic human condition to keep our otherwise insatiable curiosity from getting us killed is certain circumstances. I know this is a real issue with the left, but conflict and discord have always been around and will always be there. The messiah will not change this. And what exactly is so wonderful about "unity of purpose"? I mean, it sounds a little like we should be good automatons behaving exactly like what our Dear Leader dictates. He's the president, not a deity. Let's keep things in perspective, shall we? This country was founded on discord and conflict because we didn't agree with Parliament on how the colonies should be governed. Hell, we had a conflict in order to create the United States for crying out loud. From the very beginning, there was argument on the style of government (see Federalist and Anti-Federalist). To say that conflict is evil undermines the very spirit of this country. It's an absolute necessity for having a democracy, since without two sides, it's kinda hard to have that type of government (but then the left does want a socialist dictatorship).

"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do. "

Woo Hoo!!! The Golden Age of the Messiah has begun in earnest! However...

Not to be a killjoy on this joyous celebration of True Socialism in our lifetime, but how exactly are we going to pay for all of this? I know, it's leftist drivel and they thrive on emotion (instead of that evil reality that we conservatives live in), but its certainly something worth asking. But I get an answer in the following paragraph.

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. "

Ah yes, that part about me lacking courage to face the New Age. My memory isn't exactly short. It's a valid question. We've had 200+ years to get to where we are today. Rome wasn't built in a day, and yet the Messiah is telling the populace to ignore that basic fact. And as silly as it seems, all of this "can do" spirit will still require a royal assload of money to implement, so I ask again (at the peril of sounding too fearful), who's going to pay for all of this?

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. "

Since I'm a cynic, I feel compelled to answer this. First of all, I felt some amusement at this, since I conjured up an image (probably believed to be a generalized fact among many leftists) that I (and likewise others of the same political persuasion) was an evil creature being shoved back into the dark crevasses of the earth by the Light of the Messiah. Although this will sound arrogant (maybe it is), I don't feel the ground has shifted beneath my feet. On the contrary I feel that a lot of naive people have been duped into believing a charismatic person who peddled a lot of fluff in order to get elected. Time will tell whether the tired old arguments no longer apply. Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for a bright future. But like I said earlier, there are many possible futures that we can move into. Simply pretending those problems don't exist will not change them. As to the rest of the passage, I won't hold my breath.

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. "

Say what??? Sturdy convictions? Yeah, it helped those pro-democracy demonstrators in Tianemen Square. They had nothing but conviction, and it didn't stop Chinese tanks from rolling them over and blasting them off the face of the earth. Sturdy alliances are always backed with military might (unless it's an economic alliance, in which case it's money). An alliance among nations without military might is nothing. Check the UN and Bosnia(Sebrenica and Zepa in particular). Let's face it, harsh language and simple "conviction" would not have stopped Hitler in World War II, nor would it have stopped the thousands of Soviet T-72s and T-80s massed in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. If this is the nonsense that the Messiah will bring to the table against our enemies, then it'll be a long four years. We'll see what humility and restraint will get us when Iran lobs nukes into Israel or if al-qaeda, God forbid, sets off, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on our soil. I can already see this is a recipe for disaster in the making.

"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. "

I ask this tiresome question again. Great, but who's going to pay for all of this? We're not even a full day into this administration and already we're seeing signs of gumdrop flowers, lollipop trees and sugarplums dancing nonsense. None of this happy horseshit will solve any of the existing problems that we have.

And finally..."So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood."

Yeah, this is what you get when you take history out of the curriculum. It becomes morphed into something incomprehensible. I'm assuming that he was referring to the Battle of Trenton, which he totally muffed. I know that it's not cool to know anything about history these days, but I must say something about this. Actually, they moved to the Delaware River, they never actually encamped there (did he mix this up with Valley Forge the following year? Not sure). There wasn't really an actual capital, since the Congress was generally where the British weren't. Far from advancing, the British went into winter quarters, confident that the Americans would fall apart over the winter after their previous reverses around New York. The fact that the Hessian mercenaries were totally surprised in Trenton certainly suggests that they were doing everything but advancing. The blood didn't stain the snow until the Americans attacked.

What does all of this mean? It may be that I'm nitpicking an otherwise "glorious" piece of oration, but how many Americans actually know what I just described? I believe far too many. It's like watching that scene in Animal House when Bluto is revving up the frat brothers about the "Germans bombing Pearl Harbor", Otter said "Germans?", and Boon said "Forget it, he's rolling (btw, I loved that movie)." I thought of that scene when I heard that passage today. But then, we don't need to know history.

We're going to see how this guy does. As Karl Rove said, he'll find it harder to govern than to campaign. The pregame festivities are over. It's time for him to put his money where his mouth is.