Thursday, September 11, 2014

How to Not fight Your Enemy

I will admit, I did not watch a moment of the President's speech last night on how he and his administration were going to handle the ISIS threat.  Why?  Because I knew, because I think I know this President very well now, that he would not say or commit to doing what really needs to be done.

Why do you ask?  Because Dinesh D'Souza, despite what you might think, is spot on about President Obama.  Obama adheres to an extremist, liberal view of American History.  I am all but certain that he has read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.  Obama therefore believes that America was founded at the least under dubious circumstances and at worst its history is ripe with genocide (of Native Americans) and was built on the foundation of slavery and other human rights violations.  This is why the President has signaled a retreat of America as the "Light on a hill" that the world can look to as the example of liberty and democracy in the world.  Thus, because of Obama's perception of US atrocities in its history, Obama does not think that America has the moral authority to be the lead the free world.

He also has absolutely no understanding of the nature of the enemy that we are fighting right now.  I must admit, though, that until recently I did not truly understand radical Islam.  It was not until I read two books over this summer.  The first is Son of Hamas written by Mosab Yousef, who is the son of one of the founders of Hamas and became a spy for Israel and then converted to Christianity.  The second is The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright.  This book traces the roots of radical Islam and how it lead to the attacks on 9/11.  After reading these two books I have come to two conclusions:

1.  Radical Islam, while a small minority of Islam, represents about 91 million people in the world.  They are hard-lined zealots that see the rest of the world both moderate Islam and the Infidel as needing to be conquered, and put under the flag of Islam.

2.  They will never stop.  Their goal is to establish a world wide caliphate, with Sharia Law as the basis for this government.  They are not moderate, and they cannot be negotiated with.  They welcome death in the name of their cause as they then can be called martyrs and hopefully lead others to this extremist view of Islam.

When one couples Obama's reticence to lead the world, along with his lack of understanding of the Islamic world, there was no way he was going to do what needed to be done.  Yes he is most likely going to bomb the crap out of them, but bombings alone have never won a war. Unfortunately, due to his retreat from Iraq he allowed ISIS to gain power. He will not do what needs to be done, and I fear for whoever is the next President of the United States.

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

No IRS Corruption Here...

"Not even mass corruption.  Not even a smidgen of corruption."  Barack Obama, February 2, 2014

That is what he said, when asked if there was any evidence of corruption in the IRS scandal that now should be on the minds of all of us.  Here is a short list of items and events that prove (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

Here are a short list of claims that were told by various people in the White House or other places within the administration proven later to be false.  
  1. Soon after the IRS scandal broke, Officials in Washington pointed fingers at the Cincinnati office, claiming that "rogue agents" had spearheaded the targeting.  This claim was proven false and that the targeting of Tea Party groups had been directed from Washington D.C.  Click HERE to read that story.
  2. Democrats claimed that Liberal groups were targeted as well.  While liberal groups were required.  This claim was proven false when IRS agents were questioned by Daryl Issa's committee.  The Daily Caller reported on April 7, 2014 that no Liberal groups were subjected to enhanced scrutiny.
So, the spin coming from Democrats/defenders of the IRS, has been proven to be false.  If there was no corruption or wrongdoing, why then did, when given the chance to clear her name, did Lois Lerner TWICE invoke her right plead the 5th Amendment  against SELF INCRIMINATION.  If there was no hint of wrongdoing or corruption, what does she have to hide?  She should be able to speak about what happened. 

We should take his word on this. Not a smidgen of corruption indeed.

More to come...

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Scandals are Everywhere

Benghazi, The IRS targeting Tea-Party Groups, DOJ going after phone records of AP reporters?  If you liberals out there think this is all coincidence, you are fooling yourself.

Benghazi, to this point does not look be a scandal in the same light as Watergate, which was a perfect example of abuse of power, corruption and a cover-up, but it does show gross incompetence.  State left its own flapping in the wind with insufficient security.  Ambassador Stevens kept asking for security, but was denied, and while the Red Cross and The UK diplomatic mission both pulled out of Benghazi due to real fears, the US decided to keep its mission there.  GROSS INCOMPETENCE.

The other two scandals are the real scary ones.  The White House will try to throw low level IRS workers under the bus and claim that they were overzealous liberals who went too far.  This scandal will reach much further up, and will take out someone within the administration, and will most likely cost Obama his chance at winning back the house during the mid-term elections next year.  Americans don't like this sort of thing.  But this overreaching and intimidation is an attitude that comes from the top.  Look at how President Obama acts.  When he is criticized and questions, he bristles, he filibusters and tries to intimidate his critics.  He has joked about IRS audits.  Sure, they were funny at the time, but given the fact that the IRS has actually done some of the stuff that Obama joked about, its not funny anymore.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  The Obama administration has cultivated a hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington.  Chicago politics has always been very dirty, and has included this sort of garbage, and Obama and his cronies have brought these tactics to Washington.

The slobbering media has heretofore allowed it to happen, but now that it is obvious that Obama uses his allies until he no longer needs them (see the AP/Congressional phone record scandal), maybe the press will wake up and try to finally do their job and take back up the mantle of America's 4th estate, rather than being the propaganda arm and protector of the Obama White House.

I'm not holding my breath.

Monday, August 13, 2012

The Democrats are trying to end Medicare as we know it.

Yes the headline is demagoguery and sensational, but it was meant to prove a point.  No, I don't think that Democrats are really want to end Medicare, but rather than engage in a fact based debate, the Democrats keep leveling this charge about Paul Ryan's proposal to bring Medicare back from the brink of fiscal ruin.

The left has been trying to paint Paul Ryan's medicare plan as something that will "destroy medicare as we know it."  The irony and hypocrisy in this statement is simply startling.  In fact I am absolutely sick and tired of the left's continual demagoguery of virtually every Republican's proposed solution to the very real fiscal problems that are combining to form a real threat to the future of the Republic. Rather than have a real debate where both sides can discuss how to solve problems, the left simply use scare tactics and vitriolic rhetoric in an attempt to just squash real debate, but I digress.

There are a few things that need to be pointed out, before a serious discussion can ensue about what needs to be done to salvage a dying program:

1)If nothing changes, Medicare will become insolvent in 12 years.  Now this is not some talking point from the Right, but rather this is the assessment and prediction of doom comes from the Department of Health and Human Services own report.  HERE is a link to an NPR story from last year detailing the when Medicare will become insolvent.

2)Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal in his budget (a budget that got more votes in both houses than President Obama's own budget proposals) does not change the benefit structure to anyone 55 an over.  This means that people who are either in the program already or are going to be entering the program in the next 10 years, will see no changes to Medicare, or will get exactly the same care that people already in the program currently enjoy.

3)President Obama and the Democrats have already cut Medicare by more than $700 billion dollars.  Well, I should not say cut, but rather they have raided medicare in an attempt to paint ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) as deficit neutral.  This accounting gimmick was used in the run up to the passage of ObamaCare so that the Democrats could say that ObamaCare would not add to the deficit.  Never mind that this has now been proven false, but one must wonder why the press has simply ignored this fact.  Had a Republican cut medicare like this, the press and the left would have eviscerated Republicans and claimed that they were trying to kill granny.  Obama cuts medicare and all we hear are crickets.

So, to play the Dem's game, one must ask two questions.  Why are Democrats trying to end Medicare as we know it and why are Democrats trying to kill seniors?  They have cut medicare by more than $700 billion, and by doing nothing, to fix the program's coming insolvency, the program is doomed.

Do I think this type of rhetoric is stupid? Yes. And I hate to even stoop so low, but I am so frustrated that the left, rather than have a debate on Obama's record and the differences in philosophy and the direction for this country, they have descended into demagoguery and distortions, the likes of which I have ever seen.




Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Monopolies are not just a problem in the Private Sector

"The great danger to the consumer is the monopoly — whether private or governmental."--Milton Friedman

As I have become a recent disciple of the late great champion of capitalism, Milton Friedman, my mind has been abuzz with the ideas of true capitalism and its power to lift people out of poverty.  There is a reason why the USA has been the greatest economic success story Earth's history has ever seen. It is because the constitution protects peoples' right to pursue their own self interest.  The pursuit of self interest is the driving force behind capitalism.  I would venture to guess that very few successful entrepreneurs ever started a business with the idea of providing benefits or charity to the masses as said entrepreneur's primary goal. A company opens its doors because the person or people who start that business want to, at the very least, earn an income that gives them financial independence without having to answer to someone else.  It is why, when one finds pockets of capitalism that are somehow shielded from government intervention, these sectors explode.  That is until government feels the need to extend its constricting tentacles and choke off the innovation that comes only when a person is able to pursue his or her own self interest.

Unfortunately since power is so enticing, the nature of most people is to consolidate that power.  The logical result of this within business is the monopoly, which almost everyone believes is a bad thing.  But, Is not an all powerful central government another form of a monopoly and just as dangerous as a private sector monopoly? Why is it that liberals, who will be the first to rightfully condemn private monopolies, are so blinded by their ideology to not recognize that centralized planning of any portion of the economy is a monopoly?  Do we not have numerous examples within the brief history of our own country that illustrate this point perfectly?  For every "Ma Bell" (which was broken up by the US government) there is a myriad of examples within the government where power has been consolidated, and the result is mismanagement, ineffectiveness and corruption.  There are anti-trust laws that allow government to regulate and break up monopolies as they get too powerful.  Now I am not arguing the efficacy or prudence of such laws (I personally think that the market will eventually take care of itself in these matters), but ask this question:
What recourse do citizens have when a portion of government has grown to big and unwieldy and has become a public "monopoly?"  Where can we go to break up such a monopoly?

People may try to argue that government will somehow be "fairer" as it takes care and provides for the  people.  First, who defines what is fair?  I certainly will have a different view of what is fair in comparison to someone else. Second and more importantly, History shows us that this notion is flawed anyway.  In almost every case government entities waste millions, if not billions of dollars, are unwieldy, and continually grow larger and larger, while providing fewer and fewer benefits to the masses and almost always at a greater expense to the public.

One can look at Public Education, Social Security, Medicare, The US Postal Service, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (just to name a few) and acknowledge their abject failures, or worse the ticking economic neuclear bomb that will go off if not defused, and wonder why do so many seemingly smart people  think that with something like health care, government will be able to finally do it right.

History tells me that the outcome of Obamacare (and subsequently single payer health care) will be no different than what we have gotten with some of the things I have named.

Someone once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result."  Insanity indeed.