tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57542239765939503222024-03-12T18:11:51.635-07:00BlahgwriteJust doing my part to exercise my rights in free speech (while they last)blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-15956926083183326052009-11-05T18:50:00.000-08:002009-11-05T19:03:40.374-08:00Long time, no see...Ok,<br /><br />Small doings on Tuesday with some elections. The Republicans won a couple of governor spots while the Democrats won a couple of House seats. Which was more important?<br /><br />As much as I hate to agree with the idiots over at DailyKos, I think that the Democrats came out bigger nationally, at least in the short term.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Corzine losing in New Jersey wasn't terribly surprising. I think that results were more anti-Corzine than it was pro-Republican. And time will tell whether Chris Christie will actually be conservative (my immediate guess is no). <br /><br />As for Virginia, come on, it's...Virginia. We should be whuppin' ass in Virginia. The fact that the Democrats have done as well as they have kinda scary. <br /><br />But these are mostly local issues. Governors don't really have any power to influence national aspects. But the House of Representatives does.<br /><br />I think there was a seat in California that was won by Democrats...no shocker there. From what I understand, Democrats heavily outnumbered Republicans in that district and it traditionally sends the former to represent them.<br /><br />NY-23, however, is a much different story. Once again, the RINOs decided that they're going to suck Democrat balls rather than even try to reconciliate with conservatives. That race made me sick because I really do think Hoffman should have been the winner there, particularly since about 5% voted for Scozzafava anyway. But then, that's the RINOs for you. If they don't get their way, they just vote Democrat (funny how everyone always portrays us conservatives as being narrow-minded). Congrads RINOS, you just added another "yes" vote to radical health care. <br /><br />I mean, with "friends" like the Scuzzy backers, the Maine sisters and a host of other "let's toss salad the Democrats" RINOs, who needs enemies? Seriously, why don't the RINOs just slap a fucking D next to their name and be done with it? It's obvious that you guys agree very much with Democrats, so just take the next logical step and switch parties. And yes, I'm not afraid to say that I want to see the Republican purified a bit. If purified means getting rid of backstabbers and Meghan "like oh my god" McCain twits, is that necessarily a bad thing? <br /><br />Purify the party and improve on the message (and yes it needs improving) or at the very least make it clearer. In the long term we'll be better for it.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-62546534241127417872009-05-11T14:49:00.001-07:002009-05-11T15:38:58.978-07:00Fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan news...I haven't really written on the war up to this point, but I've been following it since it started in 2001. I've been getting particularly interested in what was going on in Pakistan over the last couple of months, primarily through an excellent site, <a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/">The Long War Journal</a>. If you haven't seen this site yet, I strongly suggest you do, since it's an invaluable information tool to get daily events on what's going on with the War on Terror (I refuse to use the terminology by the current jackass administration). <br /><br />One thing that caught my attention was what has been going on in the Northwest Frontier region of Pakistan. From what I've seen in the mainstream media, they aren't covering this important news anywhere near the level that they should. In a nutshell, Pakistan is much worse than what is reported, and it's not improving. The media makes a point to herald various Pakistani army offensives against the Taliban, and then leaves it hanging. What generally happens is that the army or security forces move against the Taliban, take a town or a small amount of territory, declare victory and then withdraw. That's assuming that they aren't thrown out of their gains by Taliban counterattacks, which has happened frequently. <br /><br />Even the <a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/05/pakistani_claims_of.php">US military is skeptical </a>about Pakistani military claims in its latest offensive, which is spanning the Northwest Frontier districts of Buner, Shangla, Dir and Swat. If our own military is saying that the Paks are full of shit, I think it's time to get worried. God help us if the Taliban actually gets ahold of some of the nuclear weapons.<br /><br />And from Afghanistan, <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUKTRE54A28520090511">there's this "cute" article </a>about the Afghan lawmakers (I use that term loosely) wanting to restrict our soldiers there. Yeah, anything to help the Taliban out...<br /><br />In a nutshell, these guys are pissed off that civilians are getting killed by our soldiers (which may or may not be true, since they could easily be getting killed by their own people) and so they want to put restrictions on our troops to make sure no civilians are hurt in the future. They say that if it doesn't happen, there will be uprisings.<br /><br />Well, my call on this to pull that quote out by William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is all hell." People do get killed in war, it's unavoidable. Our soldiers are being put between a rock and a hard place. They're told to fight a war, then have restrictions put on them telling them how they can fight, where they can go, etc. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "winning of hearts and minds" mindset of warfare. I think it's bullshit. The way to win is to smash the enemy up and do as much damage as possible. Beat them into submission. In the long run, you take much less casualties. But of course we won't do that, and I'm sure there are many people who would tell me that I'm full of shit. Perhaps, but we'll see what the national mindset will be when (not if) the enemy sets off a nuclear or biological device in this country and coldly exterminates thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of American citizens. Unfortunately, that's the enemy we're up against. Ignore it at your peril.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-4741920398720441002009-05-03T16:29:00.001-07:002009-05-03T17:17:14.110-07:00Souter's out as US Supreme Court Judge; left-wing replacement likelyDavid Souter was probably one of the oddest judicial nominations by any president. He was chosen by George H.W. Bush in 1990 in what should have been a relatively conservative addition to the United States Supreme Court. In fact, the opposite happened, and while Souter was not a left-wing nut, he was center-left, which shocked most people. On Friday, May 1st, Souter announced that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/01/justice.souter.retiring/index.html">he would be retiring from the Court</a>, which enables Obama to choose a judge more pliable to his liking (not that Souter was horrible for the Messiah...).<br /><br />" <em>'In addition, the president said he will seek "somebody with a sharp, independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.' That person must honor traditions, respect the judicial process and share Obama's grasp of constitutional values, he said</em>."<br /><br />So essentially, it'll be a left-wing fruit-loop that'll replace Souter (who will probably look downright rightest compared to his successor). The last part in the above statement is pretty much the only thing that counts. Obama's "grasp of constitutional values" means that someone who believes the Constitution is an activist document will be placed on the Court. And given the situation in Congress right now, it's a certainty that the candidate will sail through with no problems.<br /><br />"<em>The president said he intends to consult with people in both political parties as he makes his choice to replace Souter</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, I'm sure he'll fete good RINOs who just want to get along. Of course, if Republicans get too feisty, he can just say "I won."<br /><br />"<em>Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican who led the Senate Judiciary Committee when President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the court, said Republicans needed to be fair and not seek 'a big fight that is ideological</em>.' "<br /><br />This coming from a guy who has no problems pissing all over the Constitution a couple of months ago regarding making the D.C. representative a voting member of Congress. The Constitution is quite explicit about the District of Columbia being a distinct and separate entity from the other 50 states. This is mainly due to the idea that the center of federal government should not be directly involved in political decisions. Now, Hatch was a big supporter of this because it added another representative (temporarily) to Utah (which Hatch represents). However, when the Census is finished next year, then Utah could very well lose that representative again, which means that Hatch's scheme will fail dismally. Once again, short term interests trump the long term<strong>.</strong> By the way, the way things are going, it had better damn well be ideological because the Democrats see this battle as nothing but. But of course, the RINOs still haven't figured it out yet. They're too busy trying to make nice.<br /><br />Here's the overall situation. Souter was center-left already, so this does not change things much. He'll most likely be replaced by a much more leftist judge, but that doesn't really change the equation for the Court, which is roughly 4 liberal, 4 conservative and 1 fence-sitter. And given the Democrats' hold on both Houses of Congress, there will not be any real problems in the nomination process. Oh, I'm sure a few Republicans will piss and moan about it, but for the most part I expect that the RINOs will act like they always do and help the Democrats in order to be "cooperative." Of course, the RINOs are still irrelevant since the Democrats don't really need them. <br /><br />In fact, the next two eldest judges are both liberals: Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (76) and John Paul Stevens (89). Steven Breyer, also a liberal, is 70. The former two are the most likely judges to leave the Court. Since these two are both leftists anyway, replacing them will not change the balance in the short term. What it will do is keep several leftists in the Court for a long time. Three of the four conservative judges are relatively young: John Roberts (54), Samuel Alito (55) and Clarence Thomas (60). Only Antonin Scalia is getting on in years (73). That leaves one judge that teeters constantly back and forth: Anthony Kennedy, who is 72. <br /><br />However, as Souter has shown, age isn't necessarily the only factor in determining when a judge will leave the court. However, consider this. If Obama wins re-election in 2012, he could conceivably nominate as many as five judges before he's out, based on the age criteria. The average SCOTUS nomination number for presidents has been two per administration. With Souter leaving, Obama is halfway to that average and he's just over 100 days in. That is significant to say the least.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-9763308214411086652009-04-30T13:06:00.000-07:002009-04-30T13:52:54.171-07:00Hey, let's start a panic...or Hoof in Mouth Biden's comments concerning swine fluI guess my reaction to <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7470281&page=1">this</a> is mixed. Does anyone really take this drooling twit seriously or do they look at the vice-president and say, "wow, the VP said it, so we should really be worried (in which case one has to question peoples' intelligence)."<br /><br />I'm referring to our glorious Vice-President's remarks last night regarding the swine-flu epidemic. This is part of what he said. <br /><br />" <em>'I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to </em><a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/obama-staffer-s.html" target="external"><em>Mexico</em></a><em> in a confined aircraft where one person sneezes, that goes all the way through the aircraft,' </em><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Obama100days/story?id=7467346&page=1" target="external"><em>Biden</em></a><em> said on NBC's 'Today' show</em>."<br /><br />Ok, let's look at the absurdity of this sentence. He won't go anywhere in confined places. Now, for example, a bathroom is a pretty confined area. Does this mean that Biden will start using diapers because he won't go into a restroom? Yeah, that would be a real interesting image... I also guess that Amtrak option is a no-go now...<br /><br />" <em>'I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway,' he said. 'From my perspective, this relates to mitigation. If you're out in the middle of the field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, that's another thing'</em> "<br /><br />Who the hell would be in a closed container? Ok, so if Americans were to actually follow this mental giant's advice, we would not be driving to work, kids wouldn't be going to school (although it seems like schools are starting to overreact as well), or traveling. Now, let's really think about that for a moment. Kids would not be going to school, which impedes their education (and given the way public schools are now, kids need all the education they can get). But more serious is how not driving (or taking the bus or subway) to work or traveling would impact the economy. If you're not going to work, then you're not getting paid. If you're not getting paid, then how can one stimulate the economy? Same thing with traveling. If people aren't traveling and going to see places, then they aren't spending their money, which also impacts the economy. So essentially, if Americans were to take Hoof in Mouth's advice, the American economy would come to a screeching halt in a matter of weeks. Super brilliant there, Joe. <br /><br />Of course, in the following paragraphs, the travel industry essentially made the same argument as I, probably because they understand more about economics than our esteemed VP. <br /><br />"<em>When asked by ABC</em><a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/todays-q-for--3.html" target="external"><em> </em></a><em>New, press secretary Robert Gibbs replied: 'I think ... what the vice president meant to say was the same thing that again, many members have said in the last few days, that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting flulike symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel.'<br />Gibbs apologized if anyone was 'unduly' alarmed but did not elaborate.<br />'Jake, I'm telling you what he meant to say,' he said to laughter</em>."<br /><br />No Gibbs, I'm pretty sure that Biden opened his mouth without thinking, which is generally par for the course. Gibbs last line was kind of bizarre. He replied to laughter? It conjured up a mental image from one of the Glen Larson shows I used to watch back in the 80's (Buck Rogers, the original Battlestar Galactica) when at the end of each show, someone would tell a joke, and the end would freeze up in the middle of them laughing and then the credits would come out. I kinda imagined Gibbs making that comment, and then all of the press started to laugh, the screen freezes and then the credits would start rolling out. It pretty much shows how chummy our 4th estate has gotten with the Obama Administration. <br /><br />Probably the most surrealistic moment came when Nancy "Bimbette" Pelosi remarked on Slow Joe's advice.<br /><br />"<em>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also had a different message. She said she would not tell her family to stay off planes and public transportation, but would recommend to them the 'common-sense' approach, washing hands and covering sneezes or coughs.<br />'They are living their lives and, again, practicing common sense, good practices. And so it's not a question of not encouraging, not to travel. It's also a question of encouraging them not to leave home ... just because their states ... are the most, shall we say, suspicious in this case,' Pelosi told reporters</em>." <br /><br />You know, when Pelosi sounds like a comparative fountain of wisdom, the world has truly turned upside down. <br /><br />You want to know the kicker? This swine flu epidemic has been blown completely out of proportion. It's actually milder than most forms of the flu. The reason why people are dying of this (cough, Mexico) is because of abyssmal hygiene levels. If you take basic precautions like washing your hands (which should be an automatic anyway, especially in this country), you should be fine. However, the administration and the media, has good reasons to keep this story going. The media loves to put people into a panic over the dumbest things (remember SARS?). The administration loves the political cover that this flu gives, because they can quietly push more crap legislation through Congress and no one would notice. And since the media is essentially acting like Pravda to this administration, it's a double bonus for them. They get a good story that they can trumpet to the heavens while giving political cover to their Messiah. As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-44610133162210340622009-04-29T15:56:00.000-07:002009-04-29T16:54:57.879-07:00Speaker Pelosi proves she's a first class idiot or "Republicans, take back your party!"Wow, just when you thought "Bimbette" Pelosi couldn't get any dumber, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/pelosi.gop/index.html">she launches this plea out</a>...<br /><br />"<em>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marked President Barack Obama's 100th day in office with some unsolicited advice for Republican voters, telling them to "take back" their party</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, because the GOP needs more Democrat-Lites to infiltrate the party...I'm assuming she's been emboldened by Specter's defection.<br /><br />"<em>The California Democrat offered her own analysis of the political environment for her political opponents, asserting Republicans across the country are more willing to work with Democrats than their leaders on Capitol Hill</em>."<br /><br />Uh, I don't know what she's looking at, but I saw Republicans mostly trying to fight the Democratic initiatives. But let's break this sentence down. She said that Republicans are more willing to work with Democrats. The same people who are pushing huge government and massive debt through massive spending. True Republicans are really willing to work with these initiatives? Really? Republicans may be unwilling to work with GOP leaders on Capitol Hill because the leaders in the Beltway have no idea what they stand for. I would say that the opposite is true. RINOs are wanna-be Democrats. They're not really Republicans. They certainly aren't conservative. <br /><br /><em>" 'Yes, there is -- shall we say -- a 'radical right-wing' element with whom they identify. But by and large, I say to Republicans in America: Take back your party. The party of protecting the environment. The party of individual rights. The party of fairness. This is not the Grand Old Party.' "</em><br /><br />Yes, we should say it. We conservatives are right-wing, but hardly radical. The Republican Party is not the party of environmental-nuts. Those are your peeps, the leftists, Nancy. And we're not the party of fairness. We'll leave the uber-egalitarianism/socialism with you guys. You're the lockstep Marxists, remember? What is really fair in nature? Nothing. People move up in station in their lives because they're capable, not because of some overarching idea of "fairness." And speaking of lockstep, Bimbette is right about one thing. We are the party of individual rights. I do believe that the individual should be allowed to develop themselves to the best of their ability. But not by enacting laws designed to supposedly level a playing field by giving groups special rights and privileges. And that's really the heart of the matter. Republicans stand for the individual. Democrats stand for the group, or community, which is where Communism comes from. BTW, how would Nancy know what the GOP is and isn't? She should stick to worrying about what her own party does.<br /><br />"<em>Pelosi concluded her long riff about the GOP by saying, 'Our country needs a strong, diverse Republican Party.' Without missing a beat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chimed in, saying 'not too strong.'</em> "<br /><br />Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, those Democrats, what a bunch of comedians... What they mean by diverse is a party that is either tied to the asinine values of the Democratic Party (hence the RINOs) or one that is so multi-dimensional that it stands for nothing. With enough "diversity," one eventually finds the substance lacking because it's been so watered down. And of course Reid comes in with his comment. I'm still laughing it up here. Ok, no I'm not...<br /><br />"<em>As Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders ticked off a list of legislative accomplishments passed largely without Republican support, the speaker insisted she's tried to reach out to Republicans in Congress, but said it hasn't been easy</em>."<br /><br />Wow, they really got the mutual admiration society down pat, don't they? Yeah, as McCain said in one of the presidential debates last year, 'it's hard to reach out when you're that far to the left.' So let me get this straight: after patting yourselves on the back for all of the "wonderful" legislation passed in the last 100 days, you then get contrite about getting Republican support? Wow, talk about ballsy...<br /><br />"<em>Republicans in the House of Representatives 'are difficult to deal with, let's put it that way,' she said.<br />Asked about Pelosi's comment, House Republican Leader John Boehner responded curtly, 'She hasn't tried.'</em> "<br /><br />Yeah, because Republicans are such retards that they can't possibly understand your level of sophistication, eh, Nancy? Here's an idea. Perhaps lose the "tude," and maybe you'll find Republicans more responsive, assuming that was ever your intention to begin with. I'd agree with Boehner. She never tried to. But then, since she has the House locked up, she doesn't really need to. <br /><br />Overall, I think Nancy tried to get cutesy, but it doesn't really come out that way. What it does look like is blatant patronizing. "Oh, if only you stupid Republicans could be as awesome as we are..." The fact is that Nancy, like Obama has a nasty inferiority complex. She didn't like it one bit when the Republicans are in control, and for the next two years (probably more than four), she's going to rub the Republicans in the shit as much as she can. How...mature...<br /><br />Let me reiterate. Republicans are not losing because they are becoming right-wing extremist. They're losing because they still, at this late hour, have no coherent message. There is a conservative message and there's a RINO message. One eventually has to dominate the arena. Given how RINOs have done in the last decade, I'd rather it be the conservative message that wins out. It may take a while for the message to resonate, but it can win elections. Case in point, Barry Goldwater was unabashedly conservative and got utterly hammered in the 1964 presidential election. It was the worst presidential defeat until Mondale in 1984. But then, that's my point. Sixteen years after Goldwater's defeat and the "death of conservatism," the conservative movement won big in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. The key to victory is to embrace conservatism, not Democrat-Lite.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-10332090607621268812009-04-28T17:06:00.000-07:002009-04-28T18:31:38.830-07:00Not really surprising...Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changes from a passive to an active DemocratWell, it's not like I didn't see <a href="http://news.aol.com/main/politics/article/specter-switching-parties/450460">this coming eventually</a>. <br /><br />"<em>Veteran Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday with a suddenness that seemed to stun the Senate, a moderate's defection that pushed Democrats to within a vote of the 60 needed to overcome filibusters and enact President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities</em>."<br /><br />This was hardly stunning. Specter has been essentially liberal for a long time. This move simply changes Specter from a pseudo-Democrat to an actual one. And with Franken gaining the Minnesota Senate seat with near certainty, it will give the Democrats the magical 60 votes needed to "bust" the filibuster. This will also unfortunately make the Republican Party essentially irrelevant until at least late next year. I certainly hope the RINOs are satisfied now. <br /><br /><em>"Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative. But he cast his decision as one of principle, rather than fueled by political ambition as spurned GOP leaders alleged</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, and Specter is pretty much full of shit. His entire career has been one of political ambition. This is the jackass who gave us the "magic bullet" theory when JFK was assassinated. This guy was a Democrat until he switched parties in 1965 (running for the attorney general). Interestingly enough, he switched because he was about to lose in the Democratic primary. Specter has always been a total douchebag and this pretty much reinforces it. Of course he's doing it to stay in power! He's 79 years old, what else can he do with his life? <br /><br />"<em>Specter called the White House on Tuesday to notify Obama of his decision to switch. The president called back moments later, according to spokesman Robert Gibbs, to say the Democratic Party was 'thrilled to have you.'<br />Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said discussions of a possible switch had reached into the White House in recent days, although Gibbs said he had no details</em>."<br /><br />From what I read in other articles, VP 'Hoof in Mouth' Biden had a major hand in bringing Specter over. The idea of Obama "calling back" reinforces that, since if Specter called the White House, don't you think the President would talk to him? Again, this goes against the 'bolt from the blue' statement uttered elsewhere in this article. And why wouldn't Obama be thrilled to have Specter? After all, he just gave Obama a literal filibuster instead of one in the hands of a few RINOs.<br /><br />"<em>At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, making it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of former president George W. Bush.<br />"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added</em>."<br /><br />Huh? How is it that conservatives are to blame? The RINOs have been running this party for almost a decade now. They pushed their candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2008. And what was the outcome? A party that had no message whatsoever, increased spending and a party that was essentially Democrat-Lite. And we're to blame? Please Arlen, do a better job of covering your ass.<br /><br />"<em>Ironically, Specter had spoken recently about the importance of a strong Republican presence in the Senate.<br />'If we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check and the Obama big spending plans.'</em> "<br /><br />So... let me get this straight. To deny the Democrats the magical 60th Senate seat, you decided to head over and become the 60th seat. Wow, Arlen, you really are a fucking numbnut, if you actually believe anything you say, which is doubtful. After all, you did go along with the big spending plans and you are for the budget (i.e. tax increases) so how is keeping you as a RINO Republican going to change that? However, I will say that you answered your own question by speaking of yourself in the third-person by somehow being the savior of the GOP. So it's not really about the Republicans so much as really helping yourself (wow, talk about narcissism).<br /><br />Well, I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this move. To be honest, Specter was essentially a Democrat and he will continue to vote that way in the future. Therefore, I don't believe that this is as big a loss as many might fear. Yes, this gives the Democrats the filibuster-proof Senate that they've been drooling over for several months now and I do think that he will beat Toomey in the general election next year. If anyone still thinks Pennsylvania is a battleground state, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It's a blue state, so let's just acknowledge that fact.<br /><br />Secondly, I really do have to wonder how this will play out for other "moderate" Republicans? Firstly, Specter's defection really makes the Maine sisters irrelevant, and in fact I think <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21802.html">they realize it </a>. <br /><br />" '<em>You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,' said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate</em>. "<br /><br />Uh, that's because you moderates are essentially spineless and worthless. You "moderates" are closet Democrats, so you might as well openly acknowledge that. After watching the 2008 election results and how the RINOs destroyed the Republican Party, I don't feel all that warm and fuzzy either. And Lindsay Graham, a GOP Senator, didn't make much sense either.<br /><br />" <em>'I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.'</em> "<br /><br />Um, yeah...vibrant like, what, 2006 and 2008? Yeah, the GOP looked like a friggin' juggernaut then, didn't it? It seems your idea of center-right is to act Democrat-Lite. That's not center-right. It's not even center. It's left, so just admit it. <br /><br />" '<em>I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?'” [Snowe] said. “Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses</em>.' "<br /><br />Hey Olympia? You won because Maine is a northeastern liberal state and elects liberals. That's why no one asks you. When you vote like a Democrat for big budgets and even bigger government, then conservatives could care less how you won. You whored yourself out to the left, end of story. But I'll let you in on a little secret, ok Ms. Snowe? We'll avoid further losses if the GOP grows a spine, gets a clear message to counter the leftist-Democrats and actually practices what it preaches. See, pretty simple, wasn't it? <br /><br />Senator Snowe is indeed worried, as is her state counterpart Susan Collins (I don't think I'm too far off here). And they have good reason to be. With Specter's defection, their bargaining power just diminished considerably. With Franken coming in and Specter basically playing along, the Democrats will have little need of courting these two in upcoming votes. Will the Maine sisters continue to vote Democrat? Probably, since their state is pretty liberal and they have to represent them. But they won't be getting any future goodies (well, at least not as much) that they probably got when they voted for the other Democratic packages earlier in the year (I'm really interested to see how Maine benefited from their votes).<br /><br />So now the Republicans really are politically irrelevant until at least 2010. I hate to say it, but a third party built entirely around conservatives is looking better every day (which means the GOP will dissolve).<br /><br />So now the RINOs really have to make a decision with regards to their "party." Either they can join in with the conservatives in at least symbolically opposing the Socialist Democratic agenda (in which case, they may regain some of their honor) or they can continue the way they have. If the former, welcome back. If the latter, then just follow Specter's lead. We conservatives don't want the RINOs. Now if only we could get those pesky Maine sisters to switch now...blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-41223518579177533212009-04-14T16:08:00.000-07:002009-04-15T16:31:32.356-07:00While brown-nosing all Muslim extremists, Obama declares that those who disagree with him are a national security threatThe road to tyranny can be slow or quick. In this country, it's starting slow, but will undoubtedly gain momentum as the Messiah's first term continues. I don't even want to think about what will happen if this guy gets re-elected. However, I'd bet money that some congressperson after 2012 will probably think it's a swell idea if we got rid of those pesky presidential term-limits...<br /><br />I have stated before that I believe this president will do anything to stay in power and that includes overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. The bill for an expanded "youth corps" has essentially passed through Congress. Among other things in this bill, the youth corps also includes a shadowy "National Service Reserve Corps" whose only function is to deal with national emergencies or crisises (which is generally the territory of the National Guard).<br /><br />And apparently, he has taken the next step. The Department of Homeland Security has <a href="http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf">issued this cute little report</a> on "right wing extremists."<br /><br />"<em>The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific<br />information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,<br />but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about<br />several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first<br />African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and<br />recruitment</em>."<br /><br />Now bear in mind that this Office has no actual evidence that anything will happen. Of course, Hitler and the Nazis kinda thought the same thing about the Jews. Although the report initially specifies white supremists and anti-government groups (probably militia), there is a disturbing footnote at the bottom of page 2 attached to these examples.<br /><br />"<em>Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and<br />adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),<br />and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or<br />rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a<br />single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration</em>."<br /><br />Ok, I can understand the hate-oriented stuff, but antigovernment? So the idea that I'd like to see a reduced federal government suddenly makes me a terrorist? This is a key question because the note puts an "or" instead of an "and". You may be a terrorist if you are rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority OR rejecting government authority entirely. I love the last sentence. I admit that the abortion issue isn't really high on my list of priorities, but you're telling me that I can't say anything about an illegal immigration problem without being connected to terrorism? And the left said Bush Jr. was bad???<br /><br />"<em>Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans<br />likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,<br />as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for<br />violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and<br />stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation<br />of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary<br />concern to law enforcement</em>."<br /><br />Newsflash, people are buying tons of guns because they're afraid that Obama will eliminate the right to bear arms. They're also afraid that if the country does go south (literally and figuratively), they have some way of protecting themselves. So all of a sudden, these people are now right-wing extremists and terrorists.<br /><br />"<em>Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are<br />attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing<br />extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to<br />boost their violent capabilities</em>."<br /><br />And of course since the military isn't particularly flipped about the Messiah, they're thrown into the mix as well. After all, when one who has served the country honorably through military service, he/she can look forward to being seen as a potential terrorist. Who said the left has reneged on their Vietnam-era hatred of the military? After all, they're just "baby-killers" waiting to overthrow the government, right? Of course, if you look at the fine print of the Obama Youth act, there are several references to wanting "veterans" in the NSRC. Kinda intriguing...<br /><br />"<em>DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are<br />driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.<br />Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small<br />terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of<br />an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a<br />driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization</em>."<br /><br />Now, is this "rightwing extremist recruitment" meaning (partly, of course) increased enrollment in the Republican Party? If so, I'm guilty as charged. I liked the touch about the "historical election" of an African American president. Did MSNBC write some of this report? The next paragraph is fun.<br /><br />" <em>A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing<br />extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in<br />Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction<br />reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment<br />conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a<br />Jewish-controlled “one world government</em>."<br /><br />Ah yes, one incident and it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, the report is strangely silent about the five cops who were killed by an African American in Oakland several days previously. I believe there was a march supporting the killer there. But apparently, the Chosen One missed that headline...<br /><br />"<em>Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception<br />that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to<br />work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that<br />these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico</em>."<br /><p>Wow, so not being flipped about illegal immigrants pouring over our southern border constitutes extremism? I guess I'm guilty as charged there. Do I hate Mexicans? Nope. Do I ask that they not turn this country into a Greater Mexico, with all of the problems inherent in their politics and society? Yes. Sorry, that's not racism.</p><p>"<em>DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have<br />observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.<br />— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and<br />explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had<br />discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.<br />— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after<br />communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants<br />crossing into the United States</em>."</p><p>Ok, while this is serious stuff, how about the Americans who are killed by Mexicans? They're saying it doesn't happen? There's incidents along the border virtually every day that most Americans don't even hear about. How about La Raza, whose Hispanic organization constantly calls for a militant takeover of the Southwest by their brethren? I hear crickets chirping...</p><p>" <em>Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and<br />have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability<br />to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to<br />pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and<br />corporations as a part of subversion strategy</em>." </p><p>Well, tell me none of that is the truth. We have lost a large amount of manufacturing capability in this country. That's a reality that we'll have to deal with. Our unionized industries cannot compete against global competitors. I hardly think voicing that truth is "extremist." As far as Russia is concerned, I'm not as concerned about their energy sources as I am, say, the Middle East. Russia lives or dies on its energy industry. Right now, they're economy is crippled because of low oil prices. As for China, they are investing in real estate. They hold a royal shitload of our government and personal debt. If they decide to cash in, it would ruin us since we don't have the money to pay it back. We're sinking further and further into debt and sooner or later the party will end. That's not extremism, that's pragmatism. </p><p>Of course I "bemoan" a lack of American stature. Being a superpower has enabled us to live the good life for so many years. We don't have the luxury of Europe in having someone else to protect us while we live high on the hog. Our economic strength has enabled us (with backing of our military) to wield tremendous influence globally to the point where American culture is world reknown. The Department of Homeland Security seriously thinks that me voicing this absolute fact makes me an extremist? Hey Janet, listen up! Once we lose our superpower status, China will take over in that status, whether we like it or not! Simply putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly does not change that fact one iota. Without our economic power, we will not influence anyone. And without economic power, we will not be able to field the type of powerful military that we've enjoyed for over 60 years. China will call the shots the way it wants to and I can guarantee you that we won't like some of those calls. It's not extremist, it's called the future. Get used to it. Yeah, it irritates me.</p><p>The rest of it deals with white supremist groups. While I have no love for those groups I do wonder why only they are being targeted. So, once again, only whites are capable of violent behavior? Everyone else is a victim. Newsflash, that attitude will unfortunately give these idiots more rhetorical ammunition to use to attract whites. To conclude, I sometimes wonder if the Obama administration is actually trying to provoke a response from some of these people.<br /></p>blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-87882490145186416322009-04-07T17:52:00.000-07:002009-04-07T18:32:22.041-07:00Yup, Obama's going to yank the troops out of Iraq: next up, Middle East in flamesWell, it's not like <a href="http://news.aol.com/article/obama-in-baghdad-tells-troops-iraq-must/417575?cid=12">we didn't know this was going to happen</a>. He practically screamed it constantly during his campaign.<br /><br />"<em>Flying unannounced into a still-dangerous war zone, President Barack Obama told U.S. troops and Iraqi officials alike Tuesday it is time to phase out America's combat role in a conflict he opposed as a candidate and has vowed to end as commander in chief.<br />With violence diminished but hardly disappearing — a car bomb killed eight Iraqis just hours before Obama's arrival — the president met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and emphasized that "we strongly support" steps to unite political factions, including integrating minority Sunnis into the government and security forces</em>."<br /><br />Bear in mind that he went there to talk to troops after announcing some pretty hefty cuts in the military budget. Talk about first class...<br />The bombings alone show that Iraq is mostly won, but hardly subdued. We're leaving too early...<br /><br />"<em>Iraqis 'need to take responsibility for their own country,"'Obama told hundreds of cheering soldiers gathered in an ornate, marble palace near Saddam Hussein's former seat of power.<br />'You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement,' he told some 600 troops, saluting their efforts during six years of American fighting and losses</em>."<br /><br />While I totally agree that Iraqis need to take responsibility for their country, the question is whether they're ready to do it or not. It's a fledgling democracy. It could be a success or it could dissolve in a bloody civil war. I'd rather that it be concrete and not a fleeting 'opportunity.' It won't be any kind of achievement if Iraq collapses into civil war. What it will be is a waste of American lives for absolutely nothing. I don't understand why liberals are so clueless on this.<br /><br />Have we made major strides in the last year and a half in Iraq? Absolutely. However, Iraq at this point could be likened to a brittle, fragile crystal. If rapped hard enough, it'll shatter into hundreds of pieces. A withdrawal from Iraq will give a green light to the Iranians, who have been watching with bated breath just across the border. They're patiently waiting for us to leave and they'll go right back to interfering with Iraqi internal politics. The Sunnis, who are still very much distrustful of the Kurds and Shiites, will watch warily for any signs of revenge. <br /><br />Personally, I think it'll happen. It is entirely possible that the Kurds will break away, causing problems for not only Iraq, but also Iran and Turkey, which have significant minorities of Kurds. The Shiites will undoubtedly be supported by the Iranians if they decide to take over the government. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have already said that they would support the Sunnis in a civil war. This has the potential to get out of control very quickly.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-52783323439901284402009-04-05T16:48:00.000-07:002009-04-05T18:03:24.718-07:00Obama: we should just get rid of nukes...yeah...just get rid of them...or something...While I'm not a fan of nuclear weapons (well, really, who is? Except for the nutjobs who actually want to use them...), <a href="http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-nuclear-weapons/412784?icid=mainmaindl1link3http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fmain%2Fobama-presidency%2Farticle%2Fobama-nuclear-weapons%2F412784">this is pretty dumb</a>.<br /><br /><br />"<em>Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one</em>."<br /><br />Once again, the Messiah declares that us Americans are pieces of shit and he lays the guilt trip pretty hard. Yeah, it would be nice if all the countries in the world just got rid of them, but it's not realistic. I mean, how would Iran create it's "sea of fire" if it ended its nuclear quest? They sure couldn't do it with conventional weapons.<br /><br />What pisses me off is that the Dear Leader made it sound like we just woke up one day and decided to drop atomic bombs on Japan. I mean, I could just picture President Truman sitting in the Oval Office with a dartboard with a number of countries names on it. He throws the dart and it magically lands on Japan.<br /><br />Unfortunately, schools do not teach history very well (if at all) anymore. Therefore they neglected to mention that Japan started the war by launching a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941 that killed thousands of American servicemen. However, by late 1945, American military casualties were starting to mount and with the defeat of Germany, many wanted the war to end. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa didn't help in this respect. Although they were both American victories and they enabled the Air Force to get into closer and closer range of Japan with the bombers, it also cost tens of thousands of American lives as well as hundreds of thousands of Japanese. To put it in perspective, the garrison at Iwo Jima was almost 23,000. How many willingly surrendered? A little over a thousand. The Americans committed 110,000 men to this battle and over 25,000 were casualties (over 6800 dead). Okinawa was far worse. Over a half-million Americans participated in the invasion, and over 50,000 were casualties (over 12,500 dead). Out of a garrison of 140,000 Japanese, only 10,000 were captured. Perhaps another 100,000 Japanese civilians died as well.<br /><br />American commanders figured that if the Japanese were willing to lose so many in the outer islands surrounding Japan, then what would the resistance be like if the Allies actually invaded the heartland itself? Well, the Allies had a plan to invade Kyushu, south of Honshu. The southern part of the island, once secured, would have become essentially a massive Allied airbase. This operation would have been called Olympic. The second part, Coronet, would have mounted the actual invasion of Honshu itself.<br /><br />While this was going on, the Americans built two atomic bombs. They were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we all know what the results were. Japan surrendered shortly after.<br /><br />However, what if we decided <strong>not</strong> to use the bombs? Well, post-war, American officers were able to come ashore at Kyushu to see what the defenses looked like. What they saw absolutely horrified them. The Japanese military had built a vast network of bunkers, entrenchments and hidden airfields that had thousands of kamikaze planes. The Japanese anticipated our invasion and built massive defenses to thwart it. If we had invaded, there is no doubt that American casualties would have run into the hundreds of thousands (this for just Olympic). Operation Coronet would have consumed an even greater amount of Allied lives.<br /><br />For the Japanese, however, it would have been much worse. Literally millions (yes, I mean plural) would have been killed in the final assault. The Japanese High Command had no intention of surrendering, and was quite willing to annhilate Japan to avoid that.<br /><br />The Allied commanders were not enthusiastic with Olympic, so they had a backup plan. They would blockade Japan into submission with their navy. Although relatively few Americans would have lost their lives in this (there would have certainly been kamikaze attacks), it would have probably destroyed Japan. The Japanese Islands had (and still have) few natural resources, and a blockade would have slowly starved tens of millions of Japanese civilians to death.<br /><br />So weighed against those options, we decided to drop the bombs and get it over with. Over 220,000 Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, it was horrible. But was it more horrible than the options that were available at the time? I'd have to say no. It's real easy to play Monday morning quarterback.<br /><br />"<em>A North Korean rocket launch upstaged Obama's idealistic call to action, delivered in the capital of the Czech Republic, a former satellite of the Soviet Union. But Obama dismissed those who say the spread of nuclear weapons, 'the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War,' cannot be checked. "This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime,'he told a cheering crowd of more than 20,000 in the historic square outside the Prague Castle gates. We 'must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can</em>.' "<br /><br />Ah, so wishful thinking is going to trump reality? Wow, talk about arrogance (he <em>dismisses</em> us). So who's going to make sure that every nuke is destroyed? Who's going to make sure no one else will build them? Who's going to tell North Korea and Iran not to build them? These are valid questions that the Messiah needs to address. I suppose he'll just get rid of them with his sheer force of personality.<br /><br />"<em>Few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done. Even backward nations such as North Korea have shown they can develop bombs, given enough time</em>."<br /><br />That's because you can't get rid of all of them. You can't uninvent science. The knowledge is out there and someone who wants it bad enough will try to make one.<br /><br />"<em>But a program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and lions of the foreign policy world. Obama embraced that step as his first goal and chose as the venue for his address a nation that peacefully threw off communism and helped topple the Soviet Union, despite its nuclear power."</em><br /><br />Uh, the Russians, for all their ideological nonsense, were quite rational. They fought two world wars in the 20th century and lost something like over 50 million killed in both of them. They didn't want a repeat of that. You honestly think they'd lob nukes in order to keep Czechoslovakia? They left the former Warsaw Pact countries because they were gutted internally. They lost the will to keep their empire together.<br /><br /><em>"But he said his own country, with its huge arsenal and its history using two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, had to lead the world. He said the U.S. has a "moral responsibility" to start taking steps now. "</em><br /><em></em><br />Like I said above. Why do we alone have the moral responsibility? Doesn't Russia have responsibilities? Doesn't China? Wow, talk about being a arrogant, guilt-tripping piece of shit.<br /><br />" '<em>To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year,' he promised</em>."<br /><br />Why Russia? Shouldn't our Dear Leader be more concerned with other countries developing nukes?<br /><br />"<em>The nuclear-free cause is more potent in Europe than in the United States, where even Democratic politicians such as Obama must avoid being labeled as soft or naive if they endorse it. Still, Obama said he would resubmit a proposed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification. The pact was signed by President Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999</em>."<br /><br />That's because the Senate was controlled by Republicans then. Maybe this time it'll work for the Unicorn in Chief. I doubt the Democrats could be that stupid, could they?<br /><br />"<em>While espousing long-term goals, Obama took care to promise that America would not lower its defenses while others are pursuing a nuclear threat. He warned both North Korea, which has tested a nuclear weapon, and Iran, which the West says is developing one, that the world was against them</em>."<br /><br />I'm pretty sure the North Koreans and Iranians understand that the world is against them (at least a good portion is). So what's his point? Either he keeps our defenses up and he deep-sixes his idea for a nuke free world, or he gets rid of nukes and...well he isn't get rid of nukes, so that point is moot...wow, talk about rhetorical nonsense.<br /><br />"<em>Obama gave his most unequivocal pledge yet to proceed with building a missile defense system in Europe, so long as Iran pursues nuclear weapons, a charge it denies. That shield is to be based in the Czech Republic and Poland. Those countries are on Russia's doorstep, and the missile shield has contributed to a significant decline in U.S.-Russia relations</em>."<br /><br />Ok, build it or don't build it, make up your mind. One does not gain respect with constant indecision...<br /><br />"<em>In the interest of resetting ties with Moscow, Obama previously had appeared to soft-pedal his support for the Bush-era shield proposal. But he adopted a different tone in Prague.<br />'As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven,' Obama said, earning cheers from the crowd</em>."<br /><br />Yay. But hey, we're in the Czech Republic, not Russia. Those pesky Russians won't listen in outside their country...we sure done fooled them...yeehaw...<br /><br /><em>"Hours before the address, an aide awoke Obama in his hotel room to tell him that North Korea had make good on its pledge to launch a long-range rocket. By lunchtime, the president had addressed it publicly nearly half a dozen times</em>."<br /><br />But what is he going to do about it? With this guy, talk is not only cheap but damn near free...<br /><br />" <em>'Rules must be binding," he said. 'Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."<br />'Now is the time for a strong international response,' he said</em>."<br /><br />In other words, we'll do nothing. He's right when he says that rules are binding, violations should be punished. Words must mean something? Don't they usually? That's what words do: they describe. His teleprompter must have gone off for a split second there. But now is the time for a strong international response...so when was the last time that happened? Obama's trying to talk a lot of shit, but when push comes to shove, he hides behind the "mighty" UN.<br /><br />"<em>After the speech and a round of private meetings with foreign leaders, Obama arrived in Turkey, the final stop of his trip</em>."<br /><br />Being a muslim country, I'm sure he saved the best for last...<br /><br />"<em>On the broader anti-nuclear issue, more than 140 nations have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But 44 states that possess nuclear technology need to both sign and ratify it before it can take effect and only 35 have do so. The United States is among the holdouts, along with China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, look at that list and ponder...But of course it's exclusively our fault for not signing it because...come on, say it with me...WE'RE AMERICANS...and we should always be ridden with guilt.<br /><br />"<em>Ratification was one of several "concrete steps" Obama outlined as necessary to move toward a nuclear-free world. He also called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy and seeking a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons</em>. "<br /><br />Yeah, why don't we wish the moon was made of cheese while we're at it? Well Messiah, what are you waiting for? Use your towering oratory skills to ratify that bad boy so we can't be guilty anymore. As for reducing the role of nukes in our security, didn't he mention that he wasn't going to lower our defenses? So which one is it? I'll bet on him gutting our national security, thanks...<br /><br />"<em>Obama said the U.S. will seek to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by providing more resources and authority for international inspections and mandating "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty</em>. "<br /><br />Like what? Draw a line in the sand, watch them step over it and draw another line? And another? And another? And another?...BTW, his oratory skills (the one thing he has in overwhelming abundance) should not be considered resources.<br />I really want to see the details in this plan...<br /><br />"<em>He offered few details of how he would accomplish his larger goal and acknowledged that'"in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up</em>.' "<br /><br />Yes, well, it's all in the details, isn't it? It's hardly a strange turn of history. The threat of global nuclear war was at its high point during the Cold War (Soviet Union vs. US). We both had enough to ensure annhilation if one or the other started it. When the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the 80's, our conventional military power was unmatched. In order to equalize it, other countries have looked to nuclear weapons to prevent us from going after them. It's not strange, it's quite natural (even though it's frightening).<br /><br />Looks like more of the same foreign policy bullshit coming from the Teleprompter in Chief. I shudder to think what will happen when someone actually does something concrete against us.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-13435391019052378792009-04-03T20:35:00.001-07:002009-04-03T21:58:21.584-07:00An interesting prediction about the Republican PartyAlthough I don't particularly like Newt Gingrich because of some of his personal decisions, I have to say that he might be on to <a href="http://news.aol.com/article/gingrich-prediction/413045">something</a>.<br /><br />"<em>Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich skewered both President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush for their mishandling of the economy in a talk with students on Tuesday, but it was his warning to Republicans that raised eyebrows.<br />"If the Republicans can't break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012," Gingrich said at an event hosted by the College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Mo., TV station KY3 reported. A loss of small-government conservatives would be an enormous blow to the GOP</em>."<br /><br />Like I said before, I don't like him, but he knows what he's talking about. Up to this point, Republicans have continued to act as if being RINOs will suddenly vault them back into power. It was precisely this attitude that gradually wore away their power and then got them decisively bounced out.<br /><br />"<em>Gingrich said last month that he is seriously considering a run for president in 2012, and many pundits have said that he would be a strong contender</em>."<br /><br />Yeah good luck to that. I say to the pundits that they're full of shit. The left would have a field day with this guy if for some reason he got the nomination. His personal life alone would turn most people off (it did me). Sorry, but I don't know how you could fend off the news that he wanted to divorce one of his wives while she was recovering from surgery. I'm not saying I'm an angel, but that's pretty goddamn low. Another problem is his mouth. He just can't shut up about anything and it's one of the major reasons why the Republicans couldn't capitalize on Clinton's low ratings in the 1996 presidential campaign. He turned a lot of people off and then got knocked out in his own district.<br /><br />"<em>In a question and answer session with students, Gingrich took aim at Obama's fiscal policies, blasting the bank bailouts, stimulus package and proposed $3.5 trillion dollar federal budget as part of 'the most destructive agenda in modern history</em>.' "<br /><br />That part is true. I think long term, Americans are going to pay a steep price for "unicorn economics."<br /><br />"<em>But he also laid into Bush's free-spending ways. 'Remember, everything Obama's doing, Bush started last year,' Gingrich said. 'If you're going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama's first two, three months</em>.' "<br /><br />This is also true. I said back in September that this bailout was a horrendous idea and that it would backfire spectacularly in the future if Obama was elected. They can't exactly attack him on his spending policies when they spent like Democrats themselves for six years.<br /><br />I think Gingrich is more suited to being a political analyst at this point than being a presidential candidate because he's already had his shot in politics. It's very difficult to regain credibility when you were bumped out previously.<br /><br />However, I do think he's prophetic when he said that there could be a third party. I think that's what will ultimately happen. I don't think conservatives are going to wait while the RINOs keep losing (even when they're winning) political battles that further undermine Republican credibility (people such as Megan "like, oh my god" McCain and her nonsense).<br /><br />In fact, I think that's what conservatives ultimately should do. Create a third party and see what happens. Now, short term, it may not look good, but they should stay the course. There needs to be a clear alternative to the current Democrat-Lite attitudes of the Republican Party, since the actual Democratic Party is swinging hard to the left. The Republican Party has lost an awful lot of credibility in the last 10 years. Maybe a new party can restore lost honor.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-42070109084968555692009-03-26T17:00:00.001-07:002009-03-30T17:59:16.604-07:00Obamajugend? Actually more like Red Guards...Well, it's not like we were warned about this or anything.<br /><br />Last July, our Messiah made a <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html">speech</a> (there are YouTube videos online on this as well, but I wanted something in text) about having a national security force. The American Thinker article has the quote in full: " "<em>We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a <strong>civilian national security force</strong> that's just as powerful, just as strong, <strong>just as well-funded</strong>." (emphasis added)"</em><br /><br />Now bear in mind that this is exactly what Obama said. It wasn't taken out of context, he wasn't mistaken, this is what he stated (off the teleprompter of course). It received a pretty negative reaction from conservatives at the time. And of course, came this <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388">news</a> (note: I linked to the actual bill because I really do think people need to take a good look at what they'll be getting soon).<br /><br />Several conservative bloggers have written about this, notably <a href="http://www.cassyfiano.com/2009/03/more-details-of-obamas-hitler-youth-brigade">Cassy Fiano</a>, <a href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/house-passes-dear-leaders-hitler-youth.html">Gateway Pundit</a> and <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/26/giveserve-act-updates/">Michelle Malkin</a>. I guess I'll throw my two cents in, though I'm not as illustrious as the said bloggers. This thing scares the shit out of me. It is very vague in its applications and it could get out of control very quickly.<br /><br /><br />A good portion of it essentially adds major portions to the original AmeriCorps bill under President Bill Clinton. However, it is the latter additions that make this monstrosity truly frightening.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>SEC. 119. CAMPUSES OF SERVICE.<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A385"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A385"></a><br /><em>‘(a) In General- The Corporation, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, may annually designate not more than 25 institutions of higher education as Campuses of Service, from among institutions nominated by State Commissions.</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br />In other words, 25 different campuses of service may be designated by the executive office to carry out these activities. This section explains that the states may nominate colleges and universities, but the ultimate choosing is done by the Secretary of Education (and hence Obama). Now, most campuses in this country are already very liberal in nature and I can easily see the Messiah choosing some of the most leftist ones for this assignment. I will bet even money that one of these campuses will be Berkeley. Bear in mind that most of this will be from Federal funding.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>‘SEC. 120. INNOVATIVE DEMONSTRATION SERVICE-LEARNING PROGRAMS AND RESEARCH.</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(2) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE- The term ‘youth engagement zone’ means the area in which a youth engagement zone program is carried out.</em><br /><br /><br /><br />I don't know about you, but this has military connotations. But let's delve further...<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>‘(3) involve students in service-learning projects in emergency and disaster preparedness</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(5) involve high school age youth in the mentoring of middle school youth while involving all participants in service-learning to seek to meet unmet human, educational, environmental, public safety, or emergency disaster preparedness needs in their community;</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(B) for community-based service-learning projects that--<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A441"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A441"></a><br /><em>‘(i) shall--<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A442"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A442"></a><br /><em>‘(I) meet unmet human, educational, environmental (including energy conservation and stewardship), emergency and disaster preparedness, and public service needs; and</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br />An awful lot of emergency and disaster preparedness in here. What am I getting at? Let's keep going.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>‘(1) ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS- National service programs under this subsection shall be known as ‘Opportunity Corps’ and may include the following types of national service programs:</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(F) A program that engages citizens in public safety, public health, and emergency and disaster preparedness, and may include the recruitment and placing of qualified participants in positions to be trainees as law enforcement officers, firefighters, search and rescue personnel, and emergency medical service workers, and may engage Federal, State, and local stakeholders in collaboration to organize more effective responses to issues of public safety and public health, emergencies, and disasters.</em><br /><br /><br /><br />Fantastic, some of these people will be law enforcement...I'm not against police, mind you. Quite the opposite. But I do have a problem when this sort of thing is nationalized (like paramilitary?).<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>‘SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A721"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A721"></a><br /><em>‘(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A722"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A722"></a><br /><em>‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A723"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A723"></a><br /><em>‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A724"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A724"></a><br /><em>‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A725"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A725"></a><br /><em>‘(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.<br /></em><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.<br /></em><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials. </em><br /><br /><br /><br />I have to admit that this is pretty ingenious. Since all of these organizations are going to be run by the federal government and more or less answerable to the President, why would they do any of this stuff. Pray tell why they would protest against the government?<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>"Subtitle E--Amendments to Subtitle E (National Civilian Community Corps)<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1012"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1012"></a><br /><em>SEC. 1501. PURPOSE.<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1013"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1013"></a><br /><em>Section 151 (</em><a class="usclink" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/newurl?type=titlesect&title=42&section=12611" target="_blank" rel="/perl/usc-popup.cgi?ref=" jquery1238113859043="82" context_before="2&context_after="><em>42 U.S.C. 12611</em></a><em>) is amended to read as follows:</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘It is the purpose of this subtitle to authorize the operation of, and support for, residential and other service programs that combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service, including leadership and team building, to meet national and community needs. Such needs to be met under such programs include those related to--<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1016"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1016"></a><br /><em>‘(1) natural and other disasters</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br />Still more of the disaster stuff. One thing that does give me the creeps here is the part about the best aspects of military service, leadership and team building. Is this going to be run on military principles? To meet national needs?<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>" SEC. 1509. PERMANENT CADRE.</em> "<br /><br /><br /><br />Now that's a phrase that makes me feel better. Are we sure we're not in the Soviet Union?<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>"STUDY OF INVOLVEMENT OF VETERANS- The Corporation shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 3 years after the enactment of this section, on--<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1459"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1459"></a><br /><em>‘(A) the number of veterans serving in national service programs historically by year;</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(F) how to improve utilization of veterans as resources and volunteers</em><br /><br /><br /><br />Why this interest in veterans? Seriously, I'm really curious.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>‘SEC. 198B. SERVE AMERICA FELLOWSHIPS</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br />‘(E) improve disaster preparedness and response<br /><br /><em></em><br /><br />It's a recurring thread in this bill.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>SEC. 198E. NATIONAL SERVICE RESERVE CORPS</em>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>‘(1) On a biannual basis, the Corporation shall certify organizations with demonstrated experience in responding to disasters, including through using volunteers, for participation in the program under this section.<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1719"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1719"></a><br /><em>‘(2) The Corporation shall ensure that every certified organization is--<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1720"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1720"></a><br /><em>‘(A) prepared to respond to major disasters or emergencies;<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1721"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1721"></a><br /><em>‘(B) prepared and able to utilize National Service Reserve Members in responding; and<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1722"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1722"></a><br /><em>‘(C) willing to respond in a timely manner when notified by the Corporation of a disaster or emergency.</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br /><em>‘(1) IN GENERAL- If a major disaster or emergency designated by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (</em><a class="usclink" title="" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/newurl?type=titlesect&title=42&section=5121" target="_blank" rel="/perl/usc-popup.cgi?ref=" jquery1238113859043="137" context_before="2&context_after="><em>42 U.S.C. 5121</em></a><em> et seq.) occurs and the Corporation, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, determines is an incident for which National Service Reserve Corps members are prepared to assist, the Corporation shall--<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1728"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1728"></a><br /><em>‘(A) deploy interested National Service Reserve Corps members on 30-day assignments to assist with local needs related to preparing or recovering from the incident in the affected area, through organizations certified under subsection (c);<br /></em><a class="extractor" title="Extract this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/embed/sample-billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1729"></a><a class="linker" title="Link to this section" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388&version=pcs&nid=t0%3Apcs%3A1729"></a><br /><em>‘(B) make travel arrangements for the deployed National Service Reserve Corps members to the site of the incident; and</em><br /><br /><em></em><br /><br />I believe that if any of the organizations has the possibility of evolving into something like a national paramilitary police corps, this one is it. I would advise people to pay attention to this particular group since this one will be most involved in "emergency and disaster" situations. Time will tell on this development.<br /><br />Will this end up being a Presidential Guard? It's too soon to tell. My guess is that it'll be a gradual buildup and not rushed. The government won't try to alarm people too much. You can already hear Democratic supporters saying that this bill is a great idea because it puts kids to work in a positive way.<br /><br />Perhaps, but in a representative republic that values individual freedom why should kids become the ward of the government rather than parents? Every time the government increases power, even incrementally, individual liberty loses correspondingly. Alexis de Toqueville was prophetic when he wrote about the small tyranny that could be the bane of this country. <br /><br />Is the fear that a paramilitary that's answerable to the executive branch frightening? Yes it is. We have a law (Posse Comitatus Law) in this country that prevents the military from interfering in internal affairs. The founding fathers had a huge argument about the powers of a standing army. On one side, the Anti-Federalists, argued that there should be a part-time militia whose loyalty was beholden to the states. They were wary of a standing professional army. The Federalists, headed by Alexander Hamilton, felt that a strong standing army and powerful central government was the only guarantee of liberty as well as an effective national defense. <br /><br />President Bush tried to do away with the Posse Comitatus act in 2007 but there was such an outcry that it was reinstated early the following year. He did not abuse it and never called up troops. But it concerned many people and gave the liberal nuts ammunition to scream that the president was going to make a power grab. <br /><br />This bill is potentially much more insidious, because it goes <strong>around</strong> the Posse Comitatus law. Think about the actual name of this: The National Service Reserve Force. What's it a reserve to? The other organizations listed in the bill? Not really, because it has little in common with the others (they sound like they are pretty specialized). Only the NSRF is vague with its actual intentions, and it deals with national emergencies and disasters. The problem with is that emergency and disaster can be open to all sorts of interpretation. Can't use the military to enforce the government's will? No problem, it has a paramilitary force answerable only to the President, to take care of an 'emergency." What I cannot understand is how people cannot fathom that this could be a major problem. But then the government counts on the populace to be rather dense.<br /><br />We have a president who is accumulating considerable power at a growing and alarming rate. What's his next move going to be?blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-91678942270922358892009-03-16T17:06:00.000-07:002009-03-16T18:36:57.188-07:00Fun in foreign policy or dealing with the RussiansWell, the economy seems to be stabilizing for the moment (stocks did well last week), though it's still too soon to say what will happen next.<br /><br />However, our foreign policy is looking pretty pathetic. I think we're going to have to resign ourselves to watching the <a href="http://www.georgiatimes.info/?lang=en&area=articleItem&id=6908&path=articles">Russians take pot shots at us for a few years</a>. However, short of economic retaliation, there was and still is very little chance for us to do anything to support Georgia militarily in the near future (I stated this when the Russians invaded Georgia last year). However, this seems to be another move by the Russians to test the resolve the Messiah.<br /><br />" <em>The Russian General Staff has chosen the small town of Bombora outside Gudauta to be an air force base. In Soviet times a paratroopers' regiment was based there. Now about 20 aeroplanes are proposed to be stationed there: Su-27 fighters, Su-25 low-flying attack aircraft and some An-26 transport aircraft</em>."<br /><br />Probably elements of several squadrons, I'm assuming? It's a pretty balanced mix: interceptor/air superiority, ground attack and transport/supply. However, the base could be used to house much larger numbers in the future (as the article implies). It's possible that the Russians are moving a small force to see how we'll react, and then slowly build up as needed later on. <br /><br />And how is the West reacting to this?<br /><br />"<em>An official NATO spokesman James Appathurai explained at a press conference in Brussels that the alliance and its allies had determined their positions on Georgia's territorial integrity - on the basis of accepting 'll recognized borders' Therefore they view reports appearing in the press that Russia might build military bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia with some concern. 'he Secretary-General of the alliance Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,'assured Appathurai, 'ill raise this question at the February meeting with Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov.'<br />ou may agree that this is quite a mild reaction. The alliance - for the time being, at least - has avoided making any vociferous demands or protests. While Moscow has found its 'nternational levers' As a result of which Appathurai spent more time talking about the fact that NATO and Russia had reached an agreement over the transit of civilian cargo for the alliance's contingent in Afghanistan. Which might very well explain why we have heard what almost amounts to a willingness from them to resign themselves to Russian bases on the 'recognized borders of Georgia'</em>."<br /><br />Well, naturally, the spineless Europeans aren't going to do anything about this. What is surprising is that there is not a peep from the US. However, our supply corridor through Central Asia is vulnerable and the US is dependent on the goodwill (or at the very least hefty bribes) of the Central Asian countries, many of which still have strong ties to Russia. My guess is that this is how the interceptor missile question in Eastern Europe will eventually finish: We'll remove them so that Russia won't strangle our supply lines into Afghanistan.<br /><br />Georgia isn't the only area where the Russians are aggressively pushing. Apparently, the Russians are once again <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/cuba/story/950627.html">very interested in Caribbean airbases </a>to land their long-range bombers.<br /><br />"<em>The Russian military has reached a contingency agreement to land long-range supersonic bomber aircraft in Venezuela, according to reports from Moscow on Saturday, which analysts cast as a nuisance rather than reason for alarm.<br />U.S. Defense and diplomatic officials told The Miami Herald they were aware of the report by the at-times unreliable InterFax agency but downplayed its significance</em>."<br /><br />While it is nothing more than posturing by the Russians, it could have long-term significance. It's another example of someone else looking at the long-term future while we blithely look five minutes ahead. Russia only has 16 Tu-160 Blackjack bombers (their most modern long-range bomber) and its production rate is abysmal. Other potential aircraft include the Tu-22M Backfire (mainly a naval bomber) and Tu-95 Bear (recon and apparently once again a strategic bomber). Tu-16 Badger bombers were retired in the 90's. <br /><br />My favorite part of this article was at the end where the Miami Herald quoted an anonymous military analyst.<br /><br />"<em>An American military analyst who has studied Latin America for 20 years questioned whether the Cuban airstrips were maintained well enough to handle anything more sophisticated than cargo aircraft.<br />Absent details from the Kremlin, he said, the general may have exaggerated the arrangement or 'may have gotten ahead of this.'<br />'I would have to wait for more information or confirmation from Moscow,' said the analyst, who was skeptical of the report and declined to comment with his name attached. 'It surprises me because we're pressing the reset button on Russian-U.S. relations and for the Russians to say this at this point seems out of whack</em>.' "<br /><br />Ok, the part regarding Cuban airstrips is a valid point. It is also possible that the Russian general spoke out of turn. However, the last paragraph made me very suspicious because the "analyst" sounded like an Obama hack. It surprised this person because "we're pressing the reset button on Russian-U.S. relations"? <br /><br />First of all, the "reset" crap is entirely a diplomatic game (and judging from the screwup by Clinton when she actually coined it, not a very good one). Why on earth would this military analyst be so shocked that the Russians are doing this? Because it doesn't fit into the Messiah's preconception of the world bowing to him because of his "oratory" genius? Is the analyst serious? Russia is going to look after its own interests, however the US feels. Russia is looking to regain some of their power, and while they probably aren't a high priority threat, they can be a vicious nuisance. This administration has, on several occasions already, looked at foreign affairs like a deer looking into the headlights of an oncoming car. It had better wake up before something drastic does happen.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-10469822495672919732009-03-03T18:01:00.000-08:002009-03-04T16:06:05.136-08:00The shape of things to come or, let's just raise the Green Banner of Islam over the Capitol right now<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093">This sort of article</a> would have been unforgivable a couple of years back. But apparently in the new Golden Age of the Messiah, it's a breath of fresh air (trying to keep from puking)...<br /><br />"<em>Pakistan's Swat valley is quiet once again. Often compared to Switzerland for its stunning landscape of mountains and meadows, Swat became a war zone over the past two years as Taliban fighters waged fierce battles against Army troops. No longer, but only because the Pakistani government has agreed to some of the militants' key demands, chiefly that Islamic courts be established in the region. Fears abound that this means women's schools will be destroyed, movies will be banned and public beheadings will become a regular occurrence</em>."<br /><br />Ok, this is pretty much standard reporting (at least what goes for reporting these days).<br /><br />"<em>The militants are bad people and this is bad news. But the more difficult question is, what should we—the outside world—do about it? That we are utterly opposed to such people, and their ideas and practices, is obvious. But how exactly should we oppose them? In Pakistan and Afghanistan, we have done so in large measure by attacking them—directly with Western troops and Predator strikes, and indirectly in alliance with Pakistani and Afghan forces. Is the answer to pour in more of our troops, train more Afghan soldiers, ask that the Pakistani military deploy more battalions, and expand the Predator program to hit more of the bad guys? Perhaps—in some cases, emphatically yes—but I think it's also worth stepping back and trying to understand the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism</em>."<br /><br />Uh, to say that this stuff is bad is a prize understatement. So the gist of the article at this point is that we're fighting the enemy...but (alarm bells should be going off at this point)...<br /><br />"<em>It is not just in the Swat valley that Islamists are on the rise. In Afghanistan the Taliban have been gaining ground for the past two years as well. In Somalia last week, Al-Shabab, a local group of Islamic militants, captured yet another town from government forces. Reports from Nigeria to Bosnia to Indonesia show that Islamic fundamentalists are finding support within their communities for their agenda, which usually involves the introduction of some form of Sharia—Islamic law—reflecting a puritanical interpretation of Islam. No music, no liquor, no smoking, no female emancipation</em>."<br /><br />Ok, I've been actually stating this problem for several years. Islam is at odds with certain Western values. Always has been, always will be. They are not compatable, no matter how much the leftist elitists wish otherwise. This should also be a bit alarming because all of this crap is happening in areas that have either a majority population of Muslims or at least a substantial majority. This does not bode well for Western Europe in the near future. And make no mistake, they are winning on a number of fronts.<br /><br />"<em>The groups that advocate these policies are ugly, reactionary forces that will stunt their countries and bring dishonor to their religion. But not all these Islamists advocate global jihad, host terrorists or launch operations against the outside world—in fact, most do not. Consider, for example, the most difficult example, the Taliban. The Taliban have done all kinds of terrible things in Afghanistan. But so far, no Afghan Taliban has participated at any significant level in a global terrorist attack over the past 10 years—including 9/11. There are certainly elements of the Taliban that are closely associated with Al Qaeda. But the Taliban is large, and many factions have little connection to Osama bin Laden. Most Taliban want Islamic rule locally, not violent jihad globally</em>."<br /><br />Well, that's merely a matter of perspective. It's a no-brainer that these lunatics will "stunt" their countries because they want to bring their world back to the 7th century. However, I continue to hear about how these are just little extremist groups and not the whole. Well, if they are such a small segment of the population, then why do they have such enormous influence. Zakaria said in the previous paragraph that these people have the support of their communities. Therefore they're either a small group that's fanatical enough to enforce their view on the rest of the population or they are actively getting much more support from those people than we care to admit.<br /><br />And let's take this "local" rule argument to its logical conclusion. If enough countries want Islamic rule locally, is it really all that absurd that they will start thinking globally? I mean, didn't the original Muslims just want Arabia back in the 630's? And didn't it just kinda move into Persia and the rest of the Middle East, and then into North Africa, the Caucasus and Central Asia and finally into India, Asia and Europe? History shows very clearly that once anyone, religious or otherwise, consolidates their power, they start expanding.<br /><br />I don't believe for a moment that the Taliban wasn't in cahoots with Al Qaeda. They sheltered them and fought with them after 9/11. Maybe their goal was to stay in Afghanistan, but we'll never really know that.<br /><br />"<em>How would you describe Faisal Ahmad Shinwari, a judge in Afghanistan? He has banned women from singing on television and called for an end to cable television altogether. He has spoken out against women and men being educated in the same schools at any age. He has upheld the death penalty for two journalists who were convicted of blasphemy. (Their crime: writing that Afghanistan's turn toward Islam was "reactionary.") Shinwari sounds like an Islamic militant, right? Actually, he was appointed chief justice of the Afghan Supreme Court after the American invasion, administered Hamid Karzai's oath of office and remained in his position until three years ago</em>."<br /><br />I would describe Mr. Shinwari as a tad barbaric. End of story. What else could I say? If you honestly think we're going to usher in a Golden Age for Afghanistan, you're kidding yourself.<br /><br />"<em>Were he to hold Western, liberal views, Shinwari would have little credibility within his country. The reality—for the worse, in my view—is that radical Islam has gained a powerful foothold in the Muslim imagination. It has done so for a variety of complex reasons that I have written about before. But the chief reason is the failure of Muslim countries to develop, politically or economically. Look at Pakistan. It cannot provide security, justice or education for many of its citizens. Its elected politicians have spent all of their time in office conspiring to have their opponents thrown in jail and their own corruption charges tossed out of court. As a result, President Asif Ali Zardari's approval rating barely a month into office was around half that enjoyed by President Pervez Musharraf during most of his term. The state is losing legitimacy as well as the capacity to actually govern</em>."<br /><br />Actually, it seems that Mr. Zakaria is finally, after a number of years, unveiling himself as he's truly meant to be seen. That of an Islamic apologist. The fact that he stated that radical Islam has a "powerful foothold in the Muslim imagination" pretty much guarantees that we're not dealing with a small band of extremists. So why continue to believe that we are?<br /><br />"<em>Consider Swat. The valley was historically a peaceful place that had autonomy within Pakistan (under a loose federal arrangement) and practiced a moderate version of Sharia in its courts. In 1969 Pakistan's laws were formally extended to the region. Over the years, the new courts functioned poorly, with long delays, and were plagued by corruption. Dysfunctional rule meant that the government lost credibility. Some people grew nostalgic for the simple, if sometimes brutal, justice of the old Sharia courts. A movement demanding their restitution began in the early 1990s, and Benazir Bhutto's government signed an agreement to reintroduce some aspects of the Sharia court system with Sufi Muhammed, the same cleric with whom the current government has struck a deal. (The Bhutto arrangement never really worked, and the protests started up again in a few years.) Few people in the valley would say that the current truce is their preferred outcome. In the recent election, they voted for a secular party. But if the secularists produce chaos and corruption, people settle for order</em>."<br /><br />Ah yes, Swat...a peaceful place for peaceful people with a peaceful religion. <sigh><br /><br />So the moral of the story is that democracy will never take hold in Islamic regions. I'm truly shocked...didn't see that one coming...<br /><br />"<em>The militants who were battling the Army (led by Sufi Muhammed's son-in-law) have had to go along with the deal. The Pakistani government is hoping that this agreement will isolate the jihadists and win the public back to its side. This may not work, but at least it represents an effort to divide the camps of the Islamists between those who are violent and those who are merely extreme</em>."<br /><br />Mr. Zakaria makes it sound like this is a bad deal for the militants. I would have to disagree completely. Since the Pakistani army is no longer making an effort to retake it, those troops can redeploy elsewhere. Yeah, I'd agree that there's a lot of hoping, but I see the conquest of Swat as more of a consolidation before pushing southwards again. It's obvious that Mr. Zakaria knows little of military strategy. If it is an effort by the Pakistani government, then it's a desperate gamble. The fact is that the army has been beaten pretty badly recently. Any plan to enable your opponent to dig in is unwise to say the least. That would be akin to Stalin asking for a six-month ceasefire after the Germans overran European Russia in World War II.<br /><br />"<em>Over the past eight years such distinctions have been regarded as naive. In the Bush administration's original view, all Islamist groups were one and the same; any distinctions or nuances were regarded as a form of appeasement. If they weren't terrorists themselves, they were probably harboring terrorists. But how to understand Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the countries "harbor" terrorists but are not themselves terrorist states?</em> "<br /><br />And should be continued to be regarded as naive because it is appeasement. You don't stop an opponent by offering more territory or goodies. The Romans tried to buy off barbarian hordes in the Late Imperial period, but it only postponed the inevitable. This is a piss poor long term strategy to have and pretty much guarantees that we will lose this war. As for the last question, I think it's just silly American diplomacy that's making it difficult. We're at war. We need to know if they are on our side or not. If not, engage them. If not, then start acting like an ally.<br /><br />"<em>To be clear, where there are Qaeda cells and fighters, force is the only answer. But most estimates of the number of Qaeda fighters in Pakistan range well under a few thousand. Are those the only people we are bombing? Is bombing—by Americans—the best solution? The Predator strikes have convinced much of the local population that it's under attack from America and produced a nationalist backlash. A few Qaeda operatives die, but public support for the battle against extremism drops in the vital Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Is this a good exchange? </em>"<br /><br />Well, those are numbers that we know of. My guess is that they are much stronger than that. One has to remember that Al Qaeda changed after 2001. It became more of a "franchise" than an army. They welcome anyone who wants to engage our troops, whether they're actually Al Qaeda or not. It's this sort of circular logic that totally pisses me off. Look if Al Qaeda is there, and they are only a "few thousand", the question (once again) is why they are able to exert such a tremendous influence in that region? In terms of square miles, it's enormous. There's a large population there. So who else are we bombing? I would say Al Qaeda sympathizers. In order to get at these guys we have to fight them. My guess is that we'll probably end up fighting Pakistan eventually. Once again, we just don't want to admit it. Mr. Zakaria doesn't really give any solutions at this point, though I believe that leaving that region is a good idea in his opinion.<br /><br />"<em>We have placed ourselves in armed opposition to Muslim fundamentalists stretching from North Africa to Indonesia, which has made this whole enterprise feel very much like a clash of civilizations, and a violent one at that. Certainly, many local despots would prefer to enlist the American armed forces to defeat their enemies, some of whom may be jihadists but others may not. Across the entire North African region, the United States and other Western powers are supporting secular autocrats who claim to be battling Islamist opposition forces. In return, those rulers have done little to advance genuine reform, state building or political openness. In Algeria, after the Islamists won an election in 1992, the military staged a coup, the Islamists were banned and a long civil war ensued in which 200,000 people died. The opposition has since become more militant, and where once it had no global interests, some elements are now aligned with Al Qaeda</em>."<br /><br />Well, that's because it <strong>is</strong> a clash of civilizations, silly. The fundamentalists have figured this out pretty early. We're just naive enough still to not understand this basic concept. We've just decided to try the messiest approach to this problem.<br /><br />"<em>Events have taken a different course in Nigeria, where the Islamists came to power locally. After the end of military rule in 1999, 12 of Nigeria's 36 states chose to adopt Sharia. Radical clerics arrived from the Middle East to spread their draconian interpretation of Islam. Religious militias such as the Hisbah of Kano state patrolled the streets, attacking those who shirked prayers, disobeyed religious dress codes or drank alcohol. Several women accused of adultery were sentenced to death by stoning. In 2002 The Weekly Standard decried "the Talibanization of West Africa" and worried that Nigeria, a "giant of sub-Saharan Africa," could become "a haven for </em><em>Islamism</em><em>, linked to foreign extremists</em>."<br /><br />Sounds pretty bad, but Zakaria is going to throw a curve ball here...<br /><br />"<em>But when The New York Times sent a reporter to Kano state in late 2007, she found an entirely different picture from the one that had been fretted over by State Department policy analysts. "The Islamic revolution that seemed so destined to transform northern Nigeria in recent years appears to have come and gone," the reporter, Lydia Polgreen, concluded. The Hisbah had become "little more than glorified crossing guards" and were "largely confined to their barracks and assigned anodyne tasks like directing traffic and helping fans to their seats at soccer games." The widely publicized sentences of mutilation and stoning rarely came to pass (although floggings were common). Other news reports have confirmed this basic picture</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, 'cuz the NYT is that bastion of balanced and unbiased reporting. Bear in mind that this reporter went there in 2007, which was during Bush's tenure. Given the way the NYT acted towards him for eight years, I doubt they would have considered backing him by reinforcing his "warmonger" stance. Funny thing is that journalists always portray the extremists as being pretty reasonable. Have these journalists ever heard of a Potemkin Village? I seriously doubt that these people are going to trot out people to be stoned or mutilated right in front of a journalist. That's just the height of stupidity. Most likely these people were quietly killed after the reporter left. I'm curious how long Ms. Polgreen actually stayed in the area. I doubt it was for very long.<br /><br />"<em>Residents hadn't become less religious; mosques still overflowed with the devout during prayer time, and virtually all Muslim women went veiled. But the government had helped push Sharia in a tamer direction by outlawing religious militias; the regular police had no interest in enforcing the law's strictest tenets. In addition, over time some of the loudest proponents of Sharia had been exposed as hypocrites. Some were under investigation for embezzling millions</em>."<br /><br />More of the same BS. Of course it's entirely possible that the loudest opponents had been already silenced by this time. I personally think that Mr. Zakaria is stretching a bit if he has to go back two years and use a central African country as the cornerstone of his argument.<br /><br />"<em>We have an instant, violent reaction to anyone who sounds like an Islamic bigot. This is understandable. Many Islamists are bigots, reactionaries and extremists (others are charlatans and opportunists). But this can sometimes blind us to the ways they might prove useful in the broader struggle against Islamic terror. The Bush administration spent its first term engaged in a largely abstract, theoretical conversation about radical Islam and its evils—and conservative intellectuals still spout this kind of unyielding rhetoric. By its second term, though, the administration was grappling with the complexities of Islam on the ground. It is instructive that Bush ended up pursuing a most sophisticated and nuanced policy toward political Islam in the one country where reality was unavoidable—Iraq</em>."<br /><br />And with good reason. When someone says they want to martyr themselves by killing a bunch of infidels, I'd be a bit leery of being around them as well, at least without having some kind of weapon to defend myself with. I'm not sure that Iraq is necessarily a good example because we don't know how that will end up (and the fact that Obama will get out of there by 2010 does not bode well).<br /><br />"<em>Having invaded Iraq, the Americans searched for local allies, in particular political groups that could become the Iraqi face of the occupation. The administration came to recognize that 30 years of Saddam—a secular, failed tyrant—had left only hard-core Islamists as the opposition. It partnered with these groups, most of which were Shiite parties founded on the model of Iran's ultra-religious organizations, and acquiesced as they took over most of southern Iraq, the Shiite heartland. In this area, the strict version of Islam that they implemented was quite similar to—in some cases more extreme than—what one would find in Iran today. Liquor was banned; women had to cover themselves from head to toe; Christians were persecuted; religious affiliations became the only way to get a government job, including college professorships</em>."<br /><br />Ok, but how does that relate to what's going on throughout the Muslim world? After all, Mr. Zakaria stated that radical Islam has a powerful hold. Therefore, is simply blaming Saddam for the hard-core element necessarily true? I think it's deeper than that. If anything, this serves as a warning of things to come for the West.<br /><br />"<em>While some of this puritanism is now mellowing, southern Iraq remains a dark place. But it is not a hotbed of jihad. And as the democratic process matures, one might even hope that some version of the Nigerian story will play out there. "It's hard to hand over authority to people who are illiberal," says former CIA analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht. "What you have to realize is that the objective is to defeat bin Ladenism, and you have to start the evolution. Moderate Muslims are not the answer. Shiite clerics and Sunni fundamentalists are our salvation from future 9/11s</em>."<br /><br />Ok, great for southern Iraq, but here's my question. A lot of Muslims are immigrating into the West, be it Europe or North America. They are also having a lot more babies than the Westerners are. Does this mean we'll have a bloodbath here and then a "mellowing out" phase? I don't believe that's particularly reassuring. And I believe that the CIA guy's logic is tragically warped. Maybe that'll be the case in the short term, but long term after they consolidate? Well, if the Muslims outbreed us here in the West, then it'll probably be a moot point because they'll be in charge.<br /><br />"<em>The Bush administration partnered with fundamentalists once more in the Iraq War, in the Sunni belt. When the fighting was at its worst, administration officials began talking to some in the Sunni community who were involved in the insurgency. Many of them were classic Islamic militants, though others were simply former Baathists or tribal chiefs. Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy ramped up this process. "We won the war in Iraq chiefly because we separated the local militants from the global jihadists," says Fawaz Gerges, a scholar at Sarah Lawrence College, who has interviewed hundreds of Muslim militants. "Yet around the world we are still unwilling to make the distinction between these two groups</em>."<br /><br />Hmmm, that's because there's a distinction between short term and long term damage. The local militants of today could very well become the global jihadists of tomorrow. Jesus, does anyone actually read Islamic history??? Once again, Iraq is not finished and we won't know the result until it happens. They're trying to foretell a future that is uncertain at best.<br /><br />"<em>Would a strategy like this work in Afghanistan? David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency expert who has advised Petraeus, says, 'I've had tribal leaders and Afghan government officials at the province and district level tell me that 90 percent of the people we call the Taliban are actually tribal fighters or Pashtun nationalists or people pursuing their own agendas. Less than 10 percent are ideologically aligned with the Quetta Shura [Mullah Omar's leadership group] or Al Qaeda.' These people are, in his view, 'almost certainly reconcilable under some circumstances.' Kilcullen adds, 'That's very much what we did in Iraq. We negotiated with 90 percent of the people we were fighting.'</em> "<br /><br />Well, that's the million dollar question. I'm not sure how much I'd rely on Mr. Kilcullen's sources, since they're talking to an infidel. But time will tell. It seems that we're adopting a strategy that doesn't see the forest for the trees. It sounds like we're not looking at the big picture.<br /><br />"<em> Beyond Afghanistan, too, it is crucial that we adopt a more sophisticated strategy toward radical Islam. This should come naturally to President Obama, who spoke often on the campaign trail of the need for just such a differentiated approach toward Muslim countries. Even the Washington Institute, a think tank often associated with conservatives, appears onboard. It is issuing a report this week that recommends, among other points, that the United States use more "nuanced, noncombative rhetoric" that avoids sweeping declarations like "war on terror," "global insurgency," even "the Muslim world." Anything that emphasizes the variety of groups, movements and motives within that world strengthens the case that this is not a battle between Islam and the West. Bin Laden constantly argues that all these different groups are part of the same global movement. We should not play into his hands, and emphasize instead that many of these forces are local, have specific grievances and don't have much in common</em>."<br /><br />Wow, didn't see this coming...what did I say in the first paragraph again? I cringe when I see the word "sophisticated." It generally is a masking word for retreat or defeat or at the very least a lack of political will. What I fail to understand is why we should stop using "sweeping declarations" when Islamic media continually portrays the West as evil and even sub-human? This is simply horseshit.<br /><br />"<em>That does not mean we should accept the burning of girls' schools, or the stoning of criminals. Recognizing the reality of radical Islam is entirely different from accepting its ideas. We should mount a spirited defense of our views and values. We should pursue aggressively policies that will make these values succeed. Such efforts are often difficult and take time—rebuilding state structures, providing secular education, reducing corruption—but we should help societies making these efforts. The mere fact that we are working in these countries on these issues—and not simply bombing, killing and capturing—might change the atmosphere surrounding the U.S. involvement in this struggle</em>."<br /><br />Ok, this is why I get so annoyed with this Islamic apologist crap. Zakaria is all over the place with his argument. The fact is that the extremists do burn girls' schools, they do stone criminals. They do all sorts of nasty shit that should shock a Westerner to the core. That should be enough to mount a desperate (yes, desperate) defense of Western Civilization. Mr. Zakaria wants us to mount a "spirited defense of our views and values," but his entire argument up to this point is to do exactly the opposite. And where exactly does he think we're going to pony up the money to do all of this wonderful stuff in the Islamic world that he wants? We're in the middle of a deep recession. We don't have enough money to help ourselves much less a bunch of people who, let's face it, hate our guts.<br /><br />"<em>The veil is not the same as the suicide belt. We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. In the end, time is on our side. Bin Ladenism has already lost ground in almost every Muslim country. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried—in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan—people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That's the most powerful weapon of all</em>."<br /><br />Ok, that's fine but there's a fine difference between people wanting to find their own balance and imposing it on another culture. Unfortunately, that's what Islam does. And I don't necessarily agree with him about time being on our side. In fact, I would argue the opposite. We are incredibly short-sighted as a culture. Islamic history shows that it is far more patient in the long term. I think Mr. Zakaria is grasping at straws. Things are way too uncertain right now to say that bin Ladenism is gone. We said that several years ago. We were proven wrong. Every time we even consider that, we have to revise it. Therefore I can't really accept that radical Islam is going away anytime soon. Mr. Zakaria is right in that Islam cannot create solutions to the modern world. It's a 7th century religion and has not made much in the way of progress since then. It has gained "progress" by riding the backs of other civilizations, be it Persian, Indian, Chinese, European or American.<br /><br />I find Mr. Zakaria's stance a bit bizarre. On one hand he's essentially telling us that we should just radical Islam run its course as if it's no big deal. At the end, he tells us that we need to fight. Well, which one is it? Do we need to fight, or not? I lump him into the group of Muslims who are unsure of how to resolve their issues with residing in the West. On the one hand, the West has given Muslims a lot of benefits that they take advantage of. On the other hand, the West is well, not Muslim (well, not yet anyway). My guess is that Mr. Zakaria does not believe in the militant aspects of Islam and yet does have a private wish that Islam, in general, be victorious. Unfortunately for Muslims (and they really don't understand this at all) is that once the West is gone and attached to the Islamic world, those benefits will stop.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-44245631490864802232009-03-02T16:49:00.001-08:002009-03-02T18:17:37.684-08:00This and that, plus major BS Newsweek article...I didn't write about the State of the Union Address last week because it was pretty much what I expected: bunch of give-away program nonsense that the Congressional crowd(and apparently, most of the American people) ate up. Standard Democratic boilerplate. I was disappointed in Bobby Jindal's response. He looked and sounded like a goober talking to a bunch of inbred retarded children ("Americans can do anything" was repeated at least a half dozen times).<br /><br />The stock market dropped another 300 points today. I can see that Unicornucopia of pure goodness is just around the corner...it's truly change that we can believe in.<br /><br />I liked Rush Limbaugh's speech at CPAC (watched most of it on Fox). It was pretty fiery, but it would be nice if the Republican leadership would show similar backbone. RNC Chair Michael Steele then proceeded to go onto the <a href="http://www.melissaclouthier.com/2009/03/02/rush-to-chairman-steele-where-are-your-guts/">D.L Hughley show </a>on CNN (who the hell is this person, and is this even a legitimate political show?) and make an ass out of himself. I watched two numbnuts run rings around Steele (Hughley the dipshit and some hip-hop numbnut) and overall made him look like a tool. It's nice to know that Steele essentially agreed with these two mental giants on, well, everything from Limbaugh being a big meanie to the fact that Republicans are essentially Nazis. Lovely...Looks like Steele is shaping up to be a gutless wonder a la McCain. Yeah, like we need more of those twits at the helm.<br /><br />I decided to concentrate on this <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/186961/page/1">Newsweek article</a> (Obama's Pelosi problem) just because I feel the need to stomach more intellectual dishonesty from the mainstream media.<br /><br />" <em>Charlie Dent</em><em> wanted to vote for </em><em>Barack Obama</em><em>'s stimulus package. Obama really wanted Dent to vote for it. </em><em>Nancy Pelosi</em><em>? Not so much. Dent is a Republican congressman from Allentown, Pa., an old steel town that was in bad shape even before the recession. Most of the people Dent represents are Democrats who voted for Obama; the GOPcongressman has held on to their support in part by positioning himself as the kind of guy who listens to his conscience, and his constituents, not his party's bosses. Throughout the years, he's irritated GOP leaders by siding with Democrats on issues like stem cells and education funding</em>."<br /><br />I'm kinda curious how a district with what seems like Obama Democratic voters is "centrist." While I understand that congressmen and women need to listen to their constituents, my question is why they bother calling themselves Republican when they could just as easily be Democrats without all the fuss (let's face it Pennsylvania is and should be considered a blue state, not battleground). It sounds like Dent's the Representative equivalent of Arlen Specter (and same state too...who woulda thunk it?). And we can't ignore the little dig by Ms. Bailey about those pesky Republican party bosses. If only those conservatives would just abandon their principles and be like Democrats, everything would be hunky dory, right?<br /><br />"<em>But in the end, it wasn't enough to win Dent's support. Along with every other Republican in the House, he voted no on the stimulus. He thought the plan was too expensive and weighed down with pet projects. But still, he might have been persuaded to go along—if it weren't for Nancy Pelosi</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, good ole' Nancy. Psst...Dent...if you just switched parties, you wouldn't have the problem. You should look into that...The project was too expensive, but with a little greasing of the palms, he might have considered it. I have to admit though, that he at least listened to the "evil" party bosses this time, unlike a few Senators that come to mind...<br /><br />"<em>Obama and his aides, the official says, were upset over press leaks—which they believe came from Pelosi's office—suggesting Obama was "naive" to reach out to Republicans. Obama gets that Democrats in Congress still harbor resentment over the way GOP leaders treated them when Democrats were in the minority. Pelosi's allies say they wanted to work with Republicans on the stimulus and sought their input last fall. They accuse the GOP of trying to embarrass Obama by voting en masse against the stimulus. No doubt there's truth to that: Republican leader John Boehner muscled his members not to break ranks</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, he was really reaching out to them when he told them "I won," and that they needed to stop "listening to Rush Limbaugh." I felt the unity then. Apparently Ms. Bailey chose not to add that little tidbit into the story (though admittedly it would have brought her logic and the entire premise of the story crashing down around her ears since the Chosen One had no intention of getting real Republican support).<br /><br />And why is it so awful that the GOP is trying to embarrass Obama? The two parties have different ideologies. Is it really so surprising that they wouldn't? Of course the Republicans are going to try to make him look stupid. But let's be honest while we're on the "truth" thing: Obama didn't need Republicans to pass it (the three senators don't count).<br /><br />"<em>But Obama's campaign was all about putting an end to this kind of petty sniping between the parties. By snubbing Republicans, Pelosi was very publicly undercutting the president. Obama wants that to stop. In recent weeks, the Obama official says, the White House has had "many candid conversations" with Pelosi and other Democratic leaders about the importance of winning over—or at least not openly antagonizing—Republicans</em>."<br /><br />Is this woman serious? It was nothing of the sort. The whole premise of the Messiah's campaign was to try to break apart the Republican Party by trying to act conciliatory while actually doing exactly the opposite. Let's be clear about this: The Democrats, for all of the "candid" talk, need the Republicans for nothing more than political cover, and the Republicans would be stupid for playing into that. Pelosi and Obama are attempting to play "good cop/bad cop" and very clumsily at that.<br /><br />"<em>For now, Pelosi may need Obama more than he needs her, but Obama knows he won't always be as popular as he is today, and he will count on her support in the coming budget and health-care fights. At last week's White House fiscal responsibility summit, Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, stood and told Obama that if he really wanted bipartisanship, he would tell Pelosi to have a more 'open process.'</em> "<br /><br />I doubt that this will ever happen. The fact is that the House is entirely decided on by a simple majority vote. Anything else is pure cosmetics (although it's nice when Republicans actually do vote exclusively to avoid looking clueless). True bipartisanship would occur if the Republicans did have control of one of the Houses. Obama would be forced to negotiate. However, given the current climate the Democrats, unfortunately, have virtual control of everything until 2010. The reality is that there is little to nothing that the Republicans can do to change that dynamic. Although Ms. Bailey would like to think that Pelosi's entirely to blame, Obama is the Party's head. It's up to him to decide what goes and what doesn't. Ultimately, the One has as much, if not more to blame for what's happening now.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-87111253983000650382009-02-23T17:39:00.000-08:002009-02-23T18:27:52.056-08:00Obama and Co. keep talking, economy keeps tankingI'll say one thing about this administration: it's consistent. Every time someone in the Messiah's camp starts talking, the <a href="http://news.aol.com/article/obama-pledges-to-slash-deficit-andmdash/354380?cid=9">stock market starts to drop</a>. <br /><br />"<em>Urging strict future restraint even as current spending soars, President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to dramatically slash the skyrocketing annual budget deficit as he started to dole out the record $787 billion economic stimulus package he signed last week.<br />'If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road,' the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. 'We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences</em>.' "<br /><br />Why not, Obama? You didn't seem to have a problem with it when you signed that gargantuan spending bill, I meant stimulus. Note: confronting the crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it is another codeword for Blame the Republicans...<br /><br />"<em>He said he would reinstitute a pay-as-you-go rule that calls for spending reductions to match increases and would shun what he said were the past few years' 'casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks.' He called the long-term solvency of Social Security 'the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far' and said reforming health care, including burgeoning entitlement programs, was a huge priority</em>."<br /><br />Ah, clever accounting tricks, such as...oh I don't know...a shitload of pork in a stimulus package??? Again, the past few years part is another codeword for Blame the Republicans...<br />He's right about one thing. Social Security does need to be reformed and soon. Otherwise the GenXers and Millenials will pretty much mortgage their future (they already are, but it could get even worse). Can't wait to see how much Health Care reform will cost us...<br /><br />"<em>Wall Street seemed unimpressed by all the talk. The Dow Jones industrials dropped 251 points for the day</em>."<br /><br />There's a reason for this. If people who really know the economy don't have a lot of confidence in this guy, why should folks like me have it? An interesting little tidbit of info: Since Obama was inaugurated, the market has dropped about 1100 points in a little over 4 weeks.<br /><br />"<em>Obama goes before Congress and the nation Tuesday night to make the case for his agenda and his budget plans, which the White House is to release in more detail on Thursday.<br />On Monday, he sought to prepare people for tough choices ahead</em>."<br /><br />You mean, the Messiah goes before the Democrats on Tuesday night. Somehow, the party hasn't really been paying attention to either Republicans or people in general up to this point. I have a feeling that the stock market will plummet even more on Wednesday and Thursday.<br /><br />"<em>He summoned allies, adversaries and outside experts to what the White House characterized as a summit on the nation's future financial health one week after triumphantly putting his signature on the gargantuan spending-and-tax-cut measure designed to stop the country's economic free fall and, ultimately, reverse the recession now months into its second year</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, because these "experts" have done so awesome so far. Didn't the media go ga-ga over a supposed crack economic team that the Chosen One put together during the transition period? What happened to them, by the way?<br /><br />"<em>At the same time, federal regulators announced a revamped program to shore up the nation's banks that could give the government increasing ownership. It was the administration's latest attempt to bolster the severely weakened banking system without nationalizing any institutions, which the White House has said it does not intend to do</em>."<br /><br />Newsflash...this information is what caused the stock market to go down. The market is scared shitless that the government will nationalize the banks. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and given this administrations track record so far with saying one thing and doing the opposite, I'd bet good money that you'll see some sort of nationalization before this is through.<br /><br />"<em>Obama said there would be another summit next week on health care reform. "It's not that I've got summititis here," he added wryly</em>."<br /><br />No, but it does look like you have no handle on any situation whatsoever...<br /><br />"<em>By the president's account, the administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year from the Bush administration — that's the figure Obama says he'll cut in half — and the stimulus law, coupled with rescue efforts for ailing automakers, the financial industry and beleaguered homeowners will raise this year's red ink to $1.5 trillion.<br />The administration hopes to trim the deficit by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government.</em><br /><em>'We are paying the price for these deficits right now,' Obama said, estimating the country spends $250 billion — one in every ten dollars of taxpayer money — in interest on the national debt. 'I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay.'</em> "<br /><br />Ah yes, more references to Bush. Hey, Messiah, he's gone. Deal with the problem already. You're beating a dead horse. How is it all of those extra freebies add only $200 billion to the $1.3 trillion? I sense a slight of hand here, maybe some of that accounting bullshit he talked about above...<br /><br />But how is he going to cut this deficit in half? By getting out of Iraq (goodbye Middle East...can't wait to see what the market does when that region goes up in flames), raising taxes on the wealthy (which will pretty much guarantee a stifling of job growth and continued recession) and... streamlining government??? Did I see that correctly? Is he serious? Did Porkulus mean anything to this guy? Ok, I can see where the streamlining will be: the military. He's going to gut it like a Thanksgiving turkey!<br /><br />Oh yeah, Chosen One? My prediction is that the children will indeed pay, along several dimensions, for the nonsense you're putting out now.<br /><br />"<em>As an example of a purchasing process 'gone amok,' the president said he had ordered a thorough review of his new fleet of Marine One helicopters, now far over budget. He was asked about the fleet by former presidential rival John McCain at the end of the White House meeting.<br />'The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me,' Obama said, to laughter. 'Of course, I've never had a helicopter before. So, you know, maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it</em>.' "<br /><br />Ok, I'm really curious to know how much that helicopter fleet is costing Obama. My guess is, relatively speaking, a drop in the bucket. <br /><br />"<em>Earlier, Obama met with Republican and Democratic governors who are poised to benefit from his unprecedented emergency economic package. He told the chief executives, attending a three-day National Governors Association meeting in Washington, that he would begin distributing $15 billion to their states within two days to help them with Medicaid payments to the poor.<br />The recession has strapped state budgets, in particular in regard to the Medicaid program that is jointly underwritten by states and the federal government. In total, states will eventually receive $90 billion for Medicaid from the new law</em>."<br /><br />Hmmm...talk about pissing money away. My guess is that these people will unfortunately remain poor because they won't be able to find jobs in a stagnant or dwindling job market. Which means that the rest of us will have to keep paying for them. Which means more government spending, which means more tax dollars, which means little to no job growth, which means...oh hell, what's the use? I'm beating a dead horse at this point...<br /><br />"<em>One month into office as the economy continues its downward spiral, Obama is seeking to balance twin priorities: turning around dismal conditions with a huge injection of spending while lowering huge budget deficits. With his re-election race just a few years away, he also has an interest in avoiding being labeled as a big-government, big-spending Democrat</em>."<br /><br />Soooo...Porkulus, Health Care "reform" and nationalizing banks isn't big-government or big-spending? Only a leftist journalist could write this silly nonsense. Newsflash Ms. Sidotti, Porkulus was a huge injection of spending. I don't know what realm of reality you're in...<br /><br />"<em>The White House meetings opened a jam-packed White House week that includes a State-of-the-Union-style address to Congress Tuesday night and the president's first budget proposal on Thursday. A common thread: addressing current economic turmoil while controlling the country's long-term costs.<br />'This will not be easy,' Obama told his White House audience, which included congressional leaders, 2008 GOP presidential nominee McCain, and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who recently backed out as Obama's commerce secretary</em>."<br /><br />Well, putting your foot in your mouth every time you talk isn't exactly helping the economy nor is it making things easier. Maybe a little more of doing than talking would make things better. Or more likely make things worse. <br /><br />"<em>After Obama spoke, attendees broke into five groups to brainstorm how to address costly areas including military weapons, Social Security, health care and tax reform.<br />During one, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said, 'Our deficit really cannot be controlled until we figure out how to deal with health care costs.' At another, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio proposed raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 over a number of years</em>."<br /><br />Hooray, more brainstorming bullshit. Note that little thing about costly military weapons. I can imagine that soldiers in the field will fail to get updated equipment in the near future. But remember that Democrats love the military. Don't question their patriotism...<br /><br />"<em>Afterward, Obama emphasized areas where he said there was agreement and consensus on moving forward in a bipartisan way, including that the country must ensure people have retirement security, that the tax process must be simplified and that the existing budgeting process isn't working. He also directed his team to pull together a final report from the sessions in 30 days."</em><br /><em></em><br />Ugh, more of that bipartisan shit. Cuz' there was so much consensus last time the One started this nonsense. Yeah, I can pretty much chalk this paragraph into the category of "dream on."blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-51450573493894280472009-02-17T16:59:00.000-08:002009-02-17T17:36:42.233-08:00Obama signs Porkulus, Stock Market thanks his deified efforts by tanking...againWow, with all of these "<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/economy/obama_stimulus_meas_success/index.htm?postversion=2009021713">bold</a>" initiatives we're getting from the Messiah and Co., I'm wondering if we'll have an economy left by the end of the year...<br /><br />"<em>President Obama on Tuesday signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law.<br />But he's far from being able to declare "mission accomplished."<br />"Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles," Obama said before signing the bill at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. "But it does mark the beginning of the end - the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the wake of layoffs; to provide relief for families worried they won't be able to pay next month's bills; and to set our economy on a firmer foundation</em>.' "<br /><br />First part is a prize understatement. The second part...well he's right about one thing. It is probably the beginning of the end. So spending gobs of money on pork will create jobs, how? As for relief, my question is how these "families" got into the financial messes that they did? Once again, are the responsible going to pay for the chronically irresponsible? I wouldn't bet against it. As for setting it on a firmer foundation, the stock market dropped <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm">298</a> points today and has not recovered since Pretty Boy Geithner had his infamous "I dunno" speech last week. So where is this crack economic team that the media gushed about only a couple months before? <br /><br />"<em>Indeed, even though debate over the legislation was fraught with partisan fighting and what some characterize as strategic missteps by the nascent administration, getting the law passed was the easy part</em>."<br /><br />Ok, let's break CNN's brilliance down on this part. It was "fraught with partisan fighting", which sounds an awful lot like "those asshole Republicans wouldn't play ball, so it screwed things up." It might be me, but perhaps the Republicans (who recently found their balls now that they've pretty much lost control of the government) saw a whole lotta stuff in this package that was utter bullshit and decided that they wanted no part of it. A lot of it also revolved around this strange good cop/bad cop strategy by the Messiah, Speaker Bimbette and Senator Dirty Harry. One moment, they're pining for unity and bipartisanship to the public and the next they're telling Republicans that they don't matter (which, I hate to say is largely true). The Democrats wanted the Republicans to provide cover for them in case this blew up in their faces and the latter rightly called it for what it was and refused to play ball. <br /><br />"<em>Far more difficult will be gauging whether the legislation's trademark initiatives - which include improving physical infrastructure, investing in energy projects and providing financial relief for families by way of tax cuts and increased government benefits -- are really doing the trick.<br />The first step is to stem the recession in the near term. In the longer term it will be to put the economy on a path to sustained growth and greater efficiencies in energy production, health care and other areas.<br />So how will we know if it's working? What will be the signs? The president and economists say the biggest marker will be an improvement in the jobs picture.<br />"That's bottom-line number one, because if people are working, then they've got enough confidence to make purchases, to make investments," Obama said last week before the bill's passage. "Businesses start seeing that consumers are out there with a little more confidence, and they start making investments, which means they start hiring workers. So step number one, job creation</em>.' "<br /><br />Well, depending on what one reads, the recession could end at the end of this year, early next year or keep on going. If it ends in a year or so, the Democrats will take the credit whether they earned it or not (I say, hell no). However, it's one thing to simply end a recession. It's quite another thing for the economy to grow. If the economy simply stagnates, that's not going to help much either. However, many economic experts also thought that the bottom of the market would be about 8,000. As of today it's under 7,600, not really a good sign (though it can bounce back). I'll be interested to see how the market does tomorrow.<br /><br />Can it work? I'm not a big advocate of hiking up taxes (which will happen) or printing tons of money to create inflation (which will also happen). My guess is that it might do a little good, but more likely it'll be a colossal waste of money (just like the bailout package, and how much money from that was lost again?...). But hey, we Americans keep falling for this nonsense, so it's our own damn fault.<br /><br /> On the bright side, GM & Chrysler need only another $<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/companies/auto_plans/index.htm?postversion=2009021716">21.6 billion </a>to keep shoring up their disaster. I wonder how much all of these little payments will add up to in a couple of years?blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-69443594691099230672009-02-12T17:21:00.000-08:002009-02-12T18:46:11.906-08:00Republican Judd Gregg withdraws from the Obama cabinetHmmm...<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gregg_withdrawal">this</a> isn't really all that surprising...<br /><br />"<em>Saying, 'I made a mistake,' Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew as commerce secretary nominee on Thursday and drew a testy reaction from the White House, suddenly coping with the third Cabinet withdrawal of Barack Obama's young presidency.<br />Gregg cited 'irresolvable conflicts' with Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census in a statement released without warning by his Senate office.<br />Later, at a news conference in the Capitol, he sounded more contrite.<br />'The president asked me to do it,' he said of the job offer. 'I said, 'Yes.' That was my mistake.'</em>"<br /><br />Yeah, I think Gregg did make a big mistake in trying out for that position. He should have known better than to trust the Democrats. However, at least he figured that out before he took the office.<br /><br />"<em>Obama offered a somewhat different account from Gregg.<br />'It comes as something of a surprise, because the truth, you know, Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic,' Obama said in an interview with the Springfield (Ill.) Journal-Register. 'But ultimately, I think, we're going to just keep on making efforts to build the kind of bipartisan consensus around important issues that I think the American people are looking for.'</em> "<br /><br />Let's face it, both sides got their hands caught in the cookie jar. My guess is that Obamessiah wanted a Republican and asked Gregg, and the latter was eager for it. Think about it. It's a position that's guaranteed for four years, whereas Gregg could have been knocked out of the Senate in 2010. I also think Gregg was being a bit naive in thinking that his opinion would be genuinely accepted by the Chosen One's administration. It's obvious that Obama would not trust him with any real power after he decided to take over the Census, which clearly falls under the Commerce Department. If Obama can't trust Gregg with that, then I would say that he's absolutely not interested in any kind of bipartisanship and the Democrats need to abandon this nonsense once and for all.<br /><br />"<em>White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said once it became clear Gregg was not going to support some of Obama's top economic priorities, it became necessary for Gregg and the administration 'to part ways,' Gibbs said. 'We regret that he has had a change of heart.'<br />Gregg said he'd always been a strong fiscal conservative. 'It really wasn't a good pick.' When the Senate voted on the president's massive stimulus plan earlier this week, Gregg did not vote. The bill passed with all Democratic votes and just three Republican votes.<br />The unexpected withdrawal marked the latest setback for Obama in his attempt to build a Cabinet. It came as the new president expended political capital in Washington — and around the country — for his economic package</em>."<br /><br />Ok, so reading between the lines here...it seems that Gregg had some serious issues with the way Obama was handling the situation, and was vocal about it. Far from getting the pliant yes-man, the Obama administration decided to get rid of him. As I said before, though Gregg said it wasn't a great pairing, he should have known better. As soon as this stimulus package was underway, Gregg, a fiscal conservative, should have seen the financial handwriting on the wall. I would hardly say it was unexpected. Gregg's position as Commerce Sercretary would have had little actual power.<br /><br />Nor am I sure that it was a real setback for Obama. I truly believe people keep underestimating this individual (and yes, I have all sorts of pet names for him). Let's go through the list of people that have gone against him, either directly or indirectly through the campaign and now. First, there was Clinton and Biden. Both of them are moderate in the sense that they were not left wing loonies. Obama showed some craftiness by adding them to his administration. Instead of having a potential moderate enemy in the Senate in Joe Biden, he's been relegated to Vice-President, a position that has little real value in and of itself. The Democrats have enough control of the Senate that his tiebreaker ability should not come into play for at least two years. His <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/bidens-senate-replacement-named/">Senate position</a> is now under his aide, Edward Kaufman, who is 69 and has no desire to continue after two years. That means that the seat (which will probably but not certainly go to a Democrat) could be replaced with a freshman more pliable to Obama's wishes.<br /><br />Hillary Clinton left her Senate position to become the Secretary of State. It was clear that Obama wanted Caroline Kennedy to replace Clinton. That meant that a very pro-Obama senator would have replaced a lukewarm supporter. However, Governor David Patterson nixed that because he absolutely did not want Kennedy as Senator (which surprised me because I didn't think Patterson had the balls for that kind of confrontation). Instead, the governor chose Kirsten Gillibrand, a relative centrist, for the position. Although Gillibrand won both of her elections fairly handily (53%-47% in 2006 and 62%-38% in 2008) as a Representative, she has two years to make a name for herself as a Senator. A much more left-leaning Representative, Carolyn McCarthy, has voiced desires of taking that Senate seat. McCarthy, a Representative since 1997, has also won big in all of her elections. This would set up an interesting Democratic primary in 2010 should McCarthy opt to face off against Gillibrand. Given New York State's penchant for liberals, McCarthy could get in and become a much more reliable supporter of Obama.<br /><br />This leads to Judd Gregg. As this article states, Gregg probably will not run in 2010. This means that another Republican Senate seat is vulnerable to Democrats (and New Hampshire isn't exactly a red state either). This means that at least three seats can be given to very liberal Democrats in two years, if everything falls into place.<br /><br />Is this paranoia? Perhaps, but let's look at the situation. Obama is clearly a leftist, as is the Pelosi-run House. Getting the votes for whatever Obama wants will not be a problem there (although getting more leftists over Blue Dogs will unquestionably help). The question is the Senate, with the filibuster rule. Right now, the Democrats are teetering on a filibuster-proof Senate in two years. The more moderate Senators that are kicked out and replaced with freshmen (and perhaps more liberal), the better for Obama, particularly if he wins in 2012 (horrors of horrors).<br /><br />Is it at least possible that there is some sort of game plan by the Obama administration in particular and the radical portion of the Democratic Party in general for consolidating their already considerable power base for the future? I think it foolish to dismiss it out of hand. After all, the Democrats are on the verge of passing a stimulus package that is loaded with leftist goodies and it gained virtually all of their party's support. The Republicans need to be absolutely on their guard and have to rebuild very quickly if they want to stop this. Let us hope that RNC Chairman Michael Steele is up to the challenge.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-35506011709987633462009-02-11T12:52:00.000-08:002009-02-11T13:56:40.700-08:00Last couple of days: Geithner talks, stocks tank; Senate passes stimulus bill; House/Senate agreement to compromise "cut"It's old news, but Geithner's "I dunno" speech yesterday tanked the stock market well below the 8,000 point level, considered by many economists as the bottom for the stock market. This simply showed that the bottom has not been reached yet. <br /><br />The Senate, unsurprisingly, passed their version of the stimulus bill by a 61-37 vote. It went pretty much by party line with the exception of three Republicans: Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins (both from Maine) and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Quick question: Why do any of these three even bother calling themselves Republican? And what's the deal with Maine sending these turncoats to the Senate? Can't they even figure out the difference between a liberal and a conservative up there? Is there even a true Republican party structure in that state? A bit of advice for those three: change your designation from (R) to (D) fast. In fact, Mr. Steele, who is now the head of the Republican Party, should just chuck these three jackasses (literally and figuratively) to the curb. They want to be Independents, fine. But they should not even bother calling themselves Republicans after this little episode.<br /><br />And now onto today's action:<br /><br />Apparently, a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/11/stimulus.plan/index.html">compromise</a> ($789 billion) was reached between the Senate and the House over the stimulus package today. And so quickly too. My question was whether the Republicans were even included in the "compromise" process?<br /><br />"<em>Negotiators have resolved the differences between the House and Senate versions of the stimulus bill, Sen. Harry Reid said Wednesday. 'The bills were really quite similar, and I'm please to announce that we've been able to bridge those differences,' said Reid, the Senate majority leader.<br />'Like any negotiation, this involved give and take, and if you don't mind my saying so, that's an understatement,' he said.</em>"<br /><br />Yeah, you should definitely be patting yourself on the back for this one, Harry. The fact that the bills are roughly similar seems to suggest, without any other data, that not much was negotiated on at all. I can't possibly believe that the Republicans were even consulted over this, since the compromise was so quick. But please, by all means, wipe your brow of all the sweat you went through. <br /><br />" <em>Negotiators worked late into the night to iron out differences between the two versions of the stimulus bill.<br />President Obama said he wanted the bill on his desk by Presidents Day, which is next Monday</em>."<br /><br />It sure sounds like you guys went to the turf on this one. But look at the bright side: the bill will<br />make the Messiah's timetable by Monday. That's what was truly important, right? Like Senator Schmuck Schumer said yesterday, Americans don't really mind the pork...<br /><br />"<em>Reid praised the three 'brave' GOP senators who broke ranks to the support the bill: Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.<br />Of the 219 Republicans in Congress, they were the only three to back the bill.<br />'Today we have shown that, working together, we can address the enormous economic crisis facing our country,' Collins said.<br />Collins said the agreement has a price tag of $789 billion, less than both the House and Senate versions.<br />Reid said this middle ground creates more jobs than original Senate bill, and spends less than the original House bill</em>. "<br /><br />Yeah, the first part speaks volumes. Like I said before, those three should be chucked out of the Republican Party, like yesterday. Oh yeah, Collins, don't be too proud of this monstrosity that you so love. It's only $30 billion less than the House and $51 billion less than the Senate. Let's look at that percentagewise: that's less than 4% off both the House and Senate bills. In other words, Collins' idea of cutting is a miniscule percentage of what will now be passed. That's the middle ground???!!! That's waste cutting you can believe in.<br /><br />"<em>Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, summed up the bill as a 'jobs bill.'<br />'Today you might call us the 'jobs squad,' said Nelson, one of the key negotiators. 'Because that's what we're attempting to do: to make sure that people will have the opportunity to hang on to their jobs that they have today, and they'll be able to get jobs if they lose their jobs.'<br />Multiple Democratic sources had offered details on topics that had to be worked out:<br /></em><br /><em>35 percent of the bill would be tax cuts; 65 percent would be spending.<br />Tax breaks for workers that had been set at $1,000 per family or $500 per individual would be scaled back to $800 per family and $400 per individual.<br />$44 billion in aid to states, including money for education and other services.<br />More funding to help people buy health insurance through the federal COBRA program.<br />$6 billion to $9 billion for modernizing and repairing schools.<br />The funding for schools is intended to assuage House Democrats who are upset that the Senate cut $20 billion for school construction</em>. "<br /><br />Yeah, Ben, that's just what I was thinking when I saw this bill. Try calling yourselves the "pork squad" and it'll be a tad more accurate. So let me postulate this argument: In order to save jobs, we're going to tax the crap out of businesses, so they have even less of a profit margin than before. Therefore in order to be competitive (and to keep prices low so that consumers, at least those who have jobs, can actually buy those items or services at a reasonable price) they cut jobs to keep those margins up. Those people that you're trying to save will no longer have jobs. Now, if this happens to enough businesses, how are they going to find another job if none are available? It's a vicious cycle. It's clear that logic and politicians do not mix well at all.<br /><br />So essentially, those 35% tax cuts will be dwarfed by the 65% spending, since that extra money will have to come from somewhere (and I can pretty much guess how that'll come about). Tax breaks have been scaled back so the people will have less money to spend. The education money for the states will be pissed away (much like the previous bailout package). Ok, $6-9 billion could produce construction jobs, but that's a drop in the bucket (less than 1% of the bailout). Umm...<br /><br />I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank. How is this insanity going to produce jobs again?<br /><br />"<em>Democrats in the Senate must hold on to at least two Republican votes in order to get the 60 votes needed to pass the bill. Not a single Republican voted in support of the House version of the bill, but the House Democrats have a large enough majority that they were still able to pass it. </em><br /><em>The three Republican senators who voted in favor of the package indicated Wednesday that they were pleased with the agreement.<br />'As I said, unless the bill remained virtually intact from what the agreement was last Friday, my support would be conditional on that, and we got there," Specter said. 'I think it is an important component of putting America back on its feet.'</em> "<br /><br />Ah, so here we come to the crux of the compromise, which was essentially no compromise at all (at least in the true sense). Translation: The House Republicans are irrelevant so they don't need to be consulted and the Democrats need to hold onto at least two of the three RINOs who voted for it before. And from what I can see, I don't think that will be much of a problem. So much for the spirit of bipartisanship and unity that the Democrats puked out for several weeks after the inauguration. <br /><br />"<em>Specter said earlier Wednesday that he's aware of the political danger he's putting himself in but that action is needed to pump up the ailing economy. 'I understand the peril, but I didn't run for the United States Senate to further my own political interests,' he said on CNN's 'American Morning.'<br />When asked about the possible political backlash from his vote supporting the bill, Specter said. 'It's a good plan, not a perfect plan. But a good plan, and I'll take my chances.'</em> "<br /><br />Ok, I truly believe that Specter is a bit of a dipshit. Who else could come up with the Magic Bullet theory that followed JFK's assassination (yes, he advocated that)? However, I seriously doubt that his political career is in much jeopardy. I mean, we're talking about Pennsylvania and that's basically a blue state (I don't see how this battleground state nonsense keeps cropping up every election). I predict that he'll be voted back in next election because he's essentially a closet Democrat. <br /><br />Overall, I cannot say I'm surprised by the outcome of this package. There was little to no chance that the Republicans could really stop it from passing, barring a total revolt from the Democratic congresspeople. Yes, a few did switch over to vote against it in the House, but it was not enough. As for the Senate, I figured that a couple of RINOs would side with the Democrats on this and sure enough, that happened (though I admit that less did so than I imagined). I still believe that the Republicans should vote against it, so that there is no real showing of bipartisanship. I believe that this bill will ultimately fail and if there is fallout, then let the Democrats reap the whirlwind (though they'll probably just blame it on the Republicans and most Americans will accept that). <br /><br />As for the RINOs, I think we now have a clear idea who the real turncoats are and they should be driven from the Republican Party. It makes no logical sense for the Party to keep these people on if they will continuously spit in its face when they are needed most. They should not be made welcome in a Party they clearly do not believe in.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-90232029610960896112009-02-08T16:29:00.000-08:002009-02-08T17:38:14.251-08:00CNN reports that 'Biden promises 'new tone' in U.S. foreign affairs' presumably by putting his foot in his mouth whenever possibleSo, Ole' Hoof in Mouth Biden is promising a new <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/07/biden.germany/index.html?iref=werecommend">foreign policy</a> for America. I'm kinda curious as to what he means by new...<br /><br />"<em>Vice President Joe Biden emphasized a "new tone" in Washington and around the world as he delivered his first major speech Saturday in Munich, Germany. Biden told delegates at a security conference that the United States will work "preventively, not pre-emptively" whenever possible to avoid conflict, and will at the same time "vigorously defend" the nation's security</em>."<br /><br />Awesome, more doublespeak bullshit. Hey Hoof in Mouth, when you pre-empt someone or something, you're making an attempt to prevent it. As for avoiding conflict, how can one avoid conflict whenever possible while at the same time vigorously defend our security. Let's break this down. Vigorously defending implies being aggressive, going on the offensive. Avoiding conflict as much as possible means that one cannot be aggressive, but rather passive. Let's create an example, say, Iran and nukes. Iran's developing nukes and says that it's going to blow us off the map (hey, anything's possible with the Democlowns). We can vigorously defend ourselves, mainly by blasting Iran before it has a chance to attack us. We could also vigorously avoid conflict and wait until Iran attacks. See what I mean?<br /><br />"<em>He also said the United States will do everything possible to end the threat posed by extremists.<br />'We reject as false the choice between our safety and ideals,' Biden told the Munich</em><em> Security Conference audience, which included German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "America will vigorously defend our security and our values, and in doing so we will all be more secure</em>.' "<br /><br />Yeah, because Merkel and Sarkozy have been backing us to the hilt up to this point. But enough of the Eurotrash. The focus is on Biden. If the United States will do everything possible to end the threat, then there has to be, by logical definition, at least some choice between safety and our ideals. I mean, if al qaeda sets off a bomb in this country, are we really going to sit back and tell ourselves "well, we just got pasted, but at least we believed in our ideals..." I say utter horseshit. We may have to scale back on freedoms. I'm not saying I like it, I'm not even advocating it. However, does one honestly think that if terrorists set off an NBC weapon(s) in this country, then we won't change in some profound way? I can almost guarantee you'd have martial law in this country very quickly to offset the nationwide panic. Martial law tends to put a little bit of a dampener on freedoms, you know? Hoof in Mouth is playing a very dangerous game with words here.<br /><br />"<em>That policy will be in force at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the U.S. prison that the Obama administration intends to close, Biden said. 'America will not torture. We will uphold the rights of those we bring to justice,' Biden said</em>." <br /><br />Ok, so it seems that Hoof in Mouth is willing to grant full Constitutional rights to fanatical thugs trying to annhilate us. Talk about being naive...I can see every slick lawyer drooling over the chance to make a name for him/herself by defending these dirtbags. And if you don't believe me, remember OJ...<br />If they are found guilty, then what? Throw them into already super overcrowded prisons? Create a temptation for a prison breakout (which, incidentally did happen with Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan last year)? Better yet, a chance for these hardened killer fanatics to gain converts in the system? Are we really comprehending the long-term consequences of this? Methinks not.<br /><br />"<em>The vice president emphasized cooperation with allies and to extend a hand to others. He asked for shared responsibility for security and fighting extremism. 'America will do more. That's the good news,' Biden said. 'The bad news is, America will ask from more from our partners as well.'<br />Obama's administration doesn't believe international alliances or organizations will diminish American power, Biden said. In fact, he said, such alliances do the opposite -- as long as they are "credible and effective</em>."<br /><br />Yeah, because the Europeans and others have been falling over themselves to help us up to this point. America may or may not do more to fight this war. Given the rhetoric of the left, I somehow doubt it. But it's pretty much a given that Europe, far from expanding its role in the war, wants to wind it down as quickly as possible because their governments are under far more pressure from their leftists than we are here. And that is the crux of the argument for Hoof in Mouth regarding alliances. He's right in that sense. An effective alliance is one that works. However, I'd say that NATO, as a fighting force, is becoming less and less credible. In order to project any kind of power, it must rely on American transport, it still very much relies on American firepower for support, and it doesn't have the political will (it's far worse in Europe than here) to back their soldiers up. Time will tell, but history hasn't been very optimistic.<br /><br />"<em>He said nations working together can help persuade Iran to forgo the development of nuclear weapons, an 'illicit' program that Biden said is not conducive to peace.<br />'Our administration is reviewing our policy toward Iran, but this much is clear: We'll be willing to talk,' Biden said. 'We'll be willing to talk to Iran and to offer a very clear choice: Continue down the current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives</em>.' "<br /><br />Hasn't there been international pressure to force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program for some time now? If it didn't work before, how is it going to work now? Iran stated recently that the US will have to apologize before it will enter talks. Obviously this is a move expressly designed for our country to lose face. The Democrats may even be stupid enough to go along with it. So here's what it seems like what Hoof in Mouth is saying to Iran (once he gets this awesome support from the rest of the world): Keep developing the weapons and we'll do nothing (economic sanctions are useless) and you'll be as isolated as you have been since the 80's (again, that's been a winning approach so far) or give it up and we'll give you goodies that we can't afford to give because our economy is in the toilet. Yeah, some deal...<br /><br />"<em>By acting preventively to avoid conflict, Biden said, the United States can start to recapture its strength.<br />Biden stressed a commitment to reach peace in the Middle East and draw down U.S. forces in Iraq. He also said the United States will continue to work for a stable Afghanistan.<br />'We look forward to sharing that commitment with the government and people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and with all of our allies and partners, because a deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat not just to the United States, but I would suggest, somewhat presumptively, to every one of you assembled in this room,' Biden said</em>." <br /><br />While it is possible to regain strength by curtailing constant military conflict (hell, even Sun Tzu says as much), I cannot help but wonder if this is a Democratic catchphrase which essentially says they'll let the world walk all over us. Unfortunately, Iraq is still not completely stabilized and the consequences of a pullout there could be disastrous. And if that happens, then are we going to simply ignore it and concentrate on Afghanistan, or will we split things up like we did before? <br /><br />"<em>Obama ordered a strategic review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is soliciting input from allies, Biden</em><em> said.<br />'We are sincere in seeking your counsel,' Biden said. 'As we undertake this review, there's a lot at stake. The result must be a comprehensive strategy for which we all take responsibility.'<br />The United States also aims to increase foreign assistance to ease poverty, boost education, cancel the debts of poor countries, and launch a 'green revolution' that produces sustainable supplies of food.<br />"We also are determined to build a sustainable future for our planet," Biden said. "We are prepared to once again lead by example</em>."<br /><br />So, we're going to curtail military activities but we're going to solve the food, education and financial problems of the world??? I would love to know who's going to pay for that one. I can guess, but I suspect it won't be the tax-evading Democrats. And we're going to start the Green Revolution to boot! Woo Hoo! We'll fight al qaeda with Greenpeace...Super awesome.<br /><br />So essentially, we won't just be creating give-away programs for those in our country, but for the entire world! That'll be the underpinnings of the next massive porkulus/spendulus/stimulus package (and I can't wait to see how much that one will cost) next year. Anyway, I thought we were fighting the Muslims. How did 9/11 turn into a fight to have a sustainable planet? Are we recruiting Captain Planet to fight our glorious crusade?<br /><br />"<em>On the issue of a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe -- a bone of contention with Russia</em><em> -- Biden said the United States will remain firm in defending against the nuclear threat, and he said Washington aims to work together with Moscow.<br />'We will not agree with Russia on everything,' he said. 'For example, the United States will not -- will not -- recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. We will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence.'<br />But, Biden added, 'the United States and Russia can disagree and still work together where our interests coincide, and they coincide in many places.' Deputy Russian Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov had started off the day Saturday by proposing a ban on deployment of strategic offensive weapons outside a country's borders, Russia's Interfax news agency reported</em>."<br /><br />Russia already outflanked us on the missile shield, so it's irrelevant. They tweaked our noses on that and they go what they wanted. As for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they are Russian satellites and there's very little to nothing that we can do about that for the forseeable future. As for spheres of influences, that's an absolute guarantee that we'll end up in some sort of conflict. International political reality is that there are spheres of influence around strong nations. To cite some examples, China's sphere of influence is around West Asia. Russia's is in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Ours is the Western Hemisphere and wherever we can project force. That's just a reality that one quaint sentence from Hoof in Mouth cannot erase.<br /><br />"<em>Biden also promised that America will 'act aggressively against climate change</em>.' "<br /><br />That'll be the third porkulus package coming our way. But then, that's the Democrat way: spend, spend and spend until we bleed ourselves white.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-65944909239265334382009-02-05T15:02:00.000-08:002009-02-05T15:46:24.216-08:00Obama: Pass Porkulus or Western Civilization will fall...Didn't I hear <a href="http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-warning-economy/329973">this</a> several months ago after the first financial crisis broke?<br /><br />"<em>President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to pass an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into an even longer, perhaps irreversible recession, as senators searched for compromises to whittle down the enormous bill</em>."<br /><br />I see. So if we don't give permission for the Democrats to tax us into bankruptcy, then we're all screwed. Awesome logic. Somehow, I don't think backing ACORN financially is going to cause the country's collapse, but I could be wrong. <br /><br />"<em>Senate moderates gathered behind closed doors in an effort to find at least $50 billion in spending reductions that might make the $900 billion-plus package more palatable to centrists. Democratic leaders hoped to pass the legislation by Friday at the latest.<br />Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing</em>."<br /><br />Once again, I fail to understand how bumping an $820 billion package up to over $900 billion, then taking $50 billion off is saving money. Even with the cut, it's still at least $30 billion more than the House bill. Am I the only person who smells a sackload of shit with all this political maneuvering? As for lawmakers doing nothing, last time I checked, the bill <strong>passed</strong> the House. If the Senate pushes it through with slight changes, it's still <strong>passing</strong> through. That means that the bill will pass. How does that necessitate failure on the part of the Messiah? <br /><br />Once again, I must reiterate that the Democrats are much more unsure of this monstrosity than they're letting on. They can pass it through without any Republican support if they really want to. The only thing they need the Republicans for is to help cushion the political fallout if (and in my opinion, it's a matter of when) this package fails. In my mind, that's a fantastic reason for the Republicans not to get on board. Of course, you'll have some dingleberry RINOs back it and everyone will pretend that the package was awesomely "bi-partisan" (I can't even begin to tell people how I detest this word). <br /><br />"<em>In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.<br />'This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse,' Obama wrote in the newspaper piece</em>."<br /><br />THERE'S NO TIME TO WASTE! WE HAVE NO TIME FOR DELAY! Actually, I have to say that trying to panic the populace into backing this shit worked pretty well for Paulson & Co. a few months back. It may very well work again (something about P.T. Barnum's quote on there being a sucker born every minute), especially since it's the Messiah who's backing it, not that big ole' meany Bush Jr. I can guarantee you that if this package is passed, then you will have a lingering recession. Massive government spending on stupid shit generally does that. Let's face it, this country, in general, got itself into this position by spending way, way, way more than it had (this goes for both government and people). So how exactly is spending a huge crapola of money on useless projects that have nothing to do with economic stimulating going to help?<br /><br />"<em>He rejected the argument that more tax cuts are needed in the plan and that piecemeal measures would be sufficient. His latest plea came on the same day the economy dealt with another dose of bad news: A big jump in jobless claims and another round of weak retail sales</em>."<br /><br />God forbid that we have tax cuts or anything. That would involve believing that people know how to spend their money better than a bloated and out of control government. As heartless as this sounds, recessions and boom times come and go: Just look at American history (though I forgot that they don't really teach that in schools anymore) and look at the periods of prosperity or financial drought. We even had a real doozy in the 1930's known as the Great Depression. <br /><br />" <em>For their part, Senate Republicans signaled they would persist in their efforts to reduce spending in the measure, to add tax cuts and reduce the cost of mortgages for millions of homeowners.<br />Officials figures were unavailable, but it appeared that the measure carried a price tag of more than $920 billion, making it bigger than the financial industry bailout that passed last year and as large as any measure in memory</em>."<br /><br />And by all means, the Republicans should endeavor to push the tax cuts and reduce this bill. Of course, they should have been doing this all along, not just when they are out of power. And finally...<br /><br />"<em>Despite bipartisan concerns about the cost, Republicans failed in a series of attempts on Wednesday to cut back the bill's size</em>."<br /><br />I think this sentence speaks volumes. First of all, according to the Mr. Espo of the AP, there are "bi-partisan concerns." However, "Republicans failed in a series of attempts (note that this reads plural) on Wednesday to cut back the bill's size." Well, there doesn't seem to be as much unity spirit as the politicians like to claim when Republicans are rebuffed at every attempt to give their input. Which pretty much means that the bi-partisan concerns weren't really such a big deal. This one sentence summed up the idea of bi-partisanship for the Democrats. They are willing to listen to the Republicans, but only if the latter thinks Democratically. Being conservative doesn't count for bi-partisanship. So if those pesky Republicans just put away their Rush Limbaugh hats and start thinking like Democrats, why, there would be no problems at all! Why even bother having political parties? Hell, why stop there...why even bother having a representative government, since the Democrats have everything figured out? It's gonna be a long four years...blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-30641703653885478232009-02-04T17:27:00.000-08:002009-02-04T18:11:26.779-08:00Much has happened in the last few days...So several Obama candidates had to withdraw because they forgot to pay their taxes. Awesome. It seems to me that the Democrats love to hike the taxes up, but hate actually paying them. It's all for the greater good though, right?<br />I won't go into too much detail on this because it's old news. However...<br /><br />The Chosen One still <a href="http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=856795&lang=eng_news&cate_img=83.jpg&cate_rss=news_Politics">pushing</a> for the stimulus package. I'm not really sure what his point is, since it'll pass with or without Republican support.<br /><br />"<em>Polite yet pointed, President Barack Obama pushed back against Republican critics of the U.S. economic stimulus legislation making its way through Congress on Wednesday at the same time he reached across party lines to consider changes in the bill.<br />'Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential,' Obama said as Senate Republicans stepped up their criticism of the bill's spending and pressed for additional tax cuts and relief for homeowners. He warned that failure to act quickly "will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession.'</em> "<br /><br />I thought that he "won" already and didn't need to listen to Republicans? As for acting quickly, I'd rather see a well-reasoned and thought-out stimulus plan than one rushed through, like the last one. Again, I don't see what's stopping the Democrats. They have the Presidency, the have total control of the House and an almost-filibuster proof Senate. Why is this a problem for them?<br />You guys wanted the power, so act already. <br /><br />"<em>Democratic leaders have pledged to have legislation ready for Obama's signature by the end of next week, and they concede privately they will have to accept some spending reductions along the way</em>. '<em>This bill needs to be cut down,' Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. He cited $524 million for a State Department program that he said envisions creating 388 jobs. 'That comes to $1.35 million per job,' he added.<br />Republicans readied numerous attempts to reduce the cost of the $900 billion measure, which includes tax cuts and new spending designed to ignite recovery from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 193os</em>."<br /><br />This package wasn't dubbed Porkulus for nothing. And it's even bigger than before: over $900 billion. Fantastic. Once again, AP seems to have a flair for the dramatics regarding the economy. While there is an economic crisis, it is still not as bad as the one during the late 70's/early 80's, when we had over 10% unemployment. Until it gets that bad, I don't want to hear anything in comparison to the Great Depression. <br /><br />"<em>But after days of absorbing rhetorical attacks, Obama and Senate Democrats mounted a counteroffensive against Republicans who say tax cuts alone can cure the economy.<br />Obama said the criticisms he has heard 'echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems.'<br />'I reject those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change,' said the president, who was elected by a wide margin and enjoys high public approval ratings at the outset of his term</em>."<br /><br />Tax cuts alone won't do it. There will have to be deficit spending as well. However, tax cuts will increase money flow into the economy because it's keeping income with the people rather than the government (which always pisses it away on stupid shit). Tax cuts are a damn sight better than going on one of the biggest government spending sprees in American history. Actually, the 'failed economic theories' had nothing to do with economics, but mostly with the notion that government should get involved with the market (i.e. telling banks that they should loan out to schmucks who cannot pay them back). As for approval ratings, those can change very quickly. In fact, most Americans oppose the stimulus package as it is, which is really why the Democrats are treading carefully. It has nothing to do with Republican opposition so much as there is the real possibility that this stimulus package could fuck up the American economy. If there wasn't that wee little problem, the Democrats would be spending like there's no tomorrow without a care in the world.<br /><br />"<em>The president softened the partisan impact of his comments by meeting at the White House with Sen. OIympia Snowe, a moderate Republican lawmaker who periodically parts company with her party.<br />"The bill should not be an open invitation to spending in perpetuity, and I'm hopeful that we can address these issues during the Senate's amendment process," she said in a statement released by her office. She did not say whether she presented any specific recommendations to the president.<br />Separately, Sens. Susan Collins, a Republican, and Ben Nelson, a Democrat, have been working on a list of possible spending cuts totaling roughly $50 billion, although they have yet to make details public</em>."<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, this is simply another attempt by the Messiah to split the Republican opposition by catering to the weak links (i.e. RINOS). Ok, so we're going to cut $50 billion. That's fine, but since the bill that went from the House to the Senate went up by $80 billion (820-900 billion), how exactly is that cutting it? It's still an increase of $30 billion. I smell a rat.<br /><br />"<em>The House approved its own version of the stimulus bill last week on a party line vote, but the political environment in the Senate is far different.<br />Democrats hold a comfortable 58-41 majority. But because the legislation would increase the federal deficit, any lawmaker can insist that 60 votes be required to add to its cost.<br />While the 60-vote threshold can impose a check on Democrats, it can also illuminate the cross-pressures at work on Republicans</em>."<br /><br />Translation: the Democrats can work on a few RINOs, like Snowe & Collins and get the package delivered more or less intact. God, I hate Northeastern Republicans...<br /><br />"<em>A Democratic attempt on Tuesday to add $25 billion for public works projects failed when it gained only 58 votes, two short of the total needed.<br />But a few hours later, a proposed $11 billion tax break for new car buyers attracted 72 votes, including several from Republicans. One, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, later issued a statement applauding the provision. 'The car tax deduction amendment will make the purchase of a new car more affordable and encourage more people to buy a car,' he said</em>."<br /><br />Ok, if you're currently unemployed, how exactly are you going to get the money to buy a new car? Trust me, in these economic times, I'm far more concerned with keeping a roof over my head and getting food. Buying a new car is one of the lower priorities at this point.<br /><br />Overall, this is how I see it: The Democrats have the power, but it's tenuous. They have a monstrosity porkulus package that will probably not work (I've heard that only 25% of it is actually stimulus). They have the votes in Congress and a President that's willing to push it though. So why the misgivings? Do they really want this to be "bi-partisan?"<br /><br />Of course not. They want to take credit for it if it succeeds (since the Republican yes votes are pretty much meaningless). However, should it fail, they want political cover (i.e. they want the Republicans to fall with them). So far, the Republicans are calling their bluff. It'll be interesting to see what the Republican senators do. It has nothing to do with conservatives wanting this to fail. This package is total pork bullshit and both sides know it. The Democrats are trying to weasel the Republicans by pushing the 'conscience' factor ("how can you hurt the people this way?"). The problem is that this package can hurt Americans because it's going to either raise taxes through the roof or it'll force the government to print a ton of more money, which'll increase inflation. <br /><br />The gamble, far from it being Republican, is with the Democrats. They're savvy enough to know that it may not work (from my point of view, it's much simpler, since it definitely will not). In the last week, the Republicans found their spines. Let's hope that they keep it for a while longer.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-65096106547210612162009-02-01T12:35:00.000-08:002009-02-01T12:46:16.490-08:00Obama proves that he loves the military by proposing to cut it by over 10%And <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/defense-official-obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/">this</a> while we're in the middle of a war. It's kinda akin to a hyothetical situation in World War II where FDR just decides in 1944 that the Pacific campaign doesn't really need a couple of extra Marine Divisions to help island-hopping operations or if the US Army doesn't really need those 15-20 divisions to expand the Normandy beachhead (Armored divisions? Who needs armored divisions?). <br /><br />I can't really say that I'm all that surprised by this. The New ultra-left (now twice as cuddly to national enemies!!!) Democrats are going to gut the military any way they can and American soldiers' blood will be on their hands (though the Left won't see it that way). But hey, it's much better if our own side's suffering casualties, just so long as we keep our enemy's losses down, right? For the Democrats, there's always a silver lining to brighten their day. <br /><br />They have always blamed the war on the Republicans rather than where it really lies. They couldn't come out and say it while Bush was around because they were still vulnerable to a backlash (note the reaction to Harry Reid's "we're losing the war" a couple years back). Now that they are comfortably in the seat of power for the next two years, their true colors will and are already starting to come out. But don't question their patriotism...blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-11077807750708227622009-01-29T16:16:00.001-08:002009-01-29T16:32:09.000-08:00Seriously, we did all we could...or Iranians arms have no problems going to GazaYup, we're definitely <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090128/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran;_ylt=AtBVS5kb_uyhBIEo8kPB0ZMD5gcF">serious</a> about promoting peace in the Middle East...<br /><br />"<em>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.<br />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.<br />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</em>."<br /><br />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...<br />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?<br /><br />" <em>'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</em>.' "<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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..."blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-53666501753782078662009-01-29T15:19:00.000-08:002009-01-29T16:08:26.031-08:00Messiah asks Europeans: Please sirs, more troops?Yeah, because these <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_europe;_ylt=AmQ5Sg47yxrjPpgKZ7MuPe8D5gcF">guys</a> were oh so helpful in Iraq...<br /><br />"<em>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</em>."<br /><br />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).<br /><br />" '<em>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</em>.' "<br /><br />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. <br /><br />"<em>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</em>."<br /><br />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. <br />I think the question is whether we really need to be allied with these clowns...<br /><br />"<em>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</em>."<br /><br />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?blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754223976593950322.post-78610940794204976852009-01-28T16:40:00.000-08:002009-01-28T18:38:40.659-08:00One hell of a shopping spree passes the HouseA $<a href="http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/house-stimulus-vote/316784">819 Billion </a>(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...<br /><br />Hey, we've already gone totally apeshit with the spending, what's another $800+ billion? <br /><br />" '<em>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</em>."<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"<em>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</em>.' "<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"<em>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.<br />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</em>."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />At least one Republican, however, is asking the right question, and this is probably the most important question that all Americans should have:<br /><br />"<em>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. <strong>'Where are we going to get the money</strong>,' he asked, but his attempt failed overwhelmingly, 302-134</em>."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.blahga the hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371235274419340465noreply@blogger.com0