Thursday, December 10, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
- Paragraphs 5-6 – I’m glad he mentions the international and bipartisan nature of the beginning of the conflict. The US didn’t just ‘go rogue’ in Afghanistan.
- Paragraph 8 – Blame Bush comes in. Notice there is no defining the largely bi-partisan vote that went into this decision.
- Paragraph 10 (end) – If the efforts have been hampered by “insufficient Security Forces,” then why has it taken so long for Pres. Obama to make the decision to send more? He had information on what was needed before he even officially took office (note the highlighted text in the domestic speech, and see the international press confirmation) .
- Paragraphs 21-28 – This actually sounds fairly presidential. President Obama states the case that most ‘right minded’ Americans know. I like the reference to extremists apprehended ‘within our borders.’ Everyone knows the danger to the US, and Democracy, will “only grow if the region slides backwards.” And Obama acknowledges this is a global threat, one that needs more participation from our allies.
- Paragraph 33 - You’re giving a timeline for withdrawal already? Really? If you’re going to “tak[e] into account conditions on the ground,” then shouldn’t you leave it at that? What if everything is not copacetic by your deadline? Or, being the intelligent folks they are, what if the enemy simply decides to disappear until after the deadline? And just 2 years? Are you kidding me? That’s not nearly enough time to get the job done. This is troublesome. Of course, the date is no coincidence. July 2011 is basically campaigning season for Presidential candidates. It’s far enough away from the election day to claim “Leaving Afghanistan” as a political victory, while close enough to election day to help ensure security won’t totally go to sh!t before the (possible) reelection for candidate Obama.
- Paragraphs 40-43 – I agree with President Obama’s stance on Pakistan. I think we need to have closer ties to the nation if we are to have lasting influence in the region. Concentrating solely on Afghanistan would not solve the problem.
- Paragraphs 46-46 – I’m glad Obama puts to rest the whole “Afghanistan is Vietnam” mantra. It couldn’t be further from the truth. His main point, ‘they attacked us first,’ is germane to the whole reason we’re there.
- Paragraph 49-55 – So, President Obama wants to include a timeframe to establish a “reasonable cost” so we don’t go beyond “our means?” Why not simply define the objectives and leave when they’re done, instead of informing the enemy you plan to pull out? And does he think we can’t rebuild the economy without cutting costs in the War on Terrorism? He’s sadly mistaken about what will actually help the economy. If limiting the National Debt and building our economy were really more than mouthed words to him, he would work to reassure businesses here at home that his policies won’t put them in the poor house. So far, he hasn’t been a big supporter of free enterprise (Note the sub-heading “Creditors Take Hit”) and contract law.
- Paragraph 56 – If the “struggle against violent extremism” won’t be finished quickly, why the heck is he going to cut and run in Afghanistan after only 2 years?
- Paragraph 57 – Confront extremists with “pressure and strong partnerships?” Yeah, because that’s worked so well in Iran.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
- Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
- Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
- Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
- Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
With an open ended spending bill that no one read being rushed through, of course the authors are going to put in a bunch of projects they couldn't fund otherwise. And, of course, there are issues with oversight and fraud in any government program, especially one as large as this. Heck, the bill isn't even creating jobs, as it was intended to do1.
Tell me again why we had to rush passage of this bill?
1 - Notice the date on the articles, February vs. May. Same Network, different news.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
It is obvious the Obama administration is interested in a full single payer system. One thing to keep in mind is that any plan with a public option will not increase choice, but decrease it. It will do this by squeezing out the small companies first, as Democratic Representative Schakowsky from Illinois pointed out.
SO, can the president please explain how attacking smaller businesses and forcing them to close (with a large number of lost jobs) will "help increase competition" in the healthcare insurance market? It won't. Further, he knows it won't. He knows the "public option" plan is just a step towards fully socialized healthcare.
Call your Senators or Representatives and tell them to vote against a "public option" in healthcare.
Hat Tip - Hot Air
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Hyperbole and sophistry are familiar territory for Liberals. Thus it is easy for them to label any slight as a "war crime." However, when you look at the facts of a situation, you will usually see a much different perspective. For instance, this Pajamas TV video relating to the "war crime" of using nuclear weapons on Japan. The facts look at little different than those expressed by John Stewart on his comedy show.
Hat Tip - Hot Air
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Keep this in mind as you think about how Obama's Federal government tries to get its hands in everything. Government tries to manipulate the economy, with questionable effects. Government intervenes in previously private businesses and banks that are "too big to fail."
Now, even though Obama's budget deficit will be historically high, Obama wants to step in, spend even more money and muddle about with our private health care system. An aside: How does government interference help restore or rebuild our economy? Answer: It doesn't.
This scares me more than most of the other systems, since it has the potential to do several things, none of them good. I've listed some of the effects below.
First, it will INCREASE the cost of care, not decrease it. We would have to fund the system twice, both as patients and as taxpayers. When we go to the doctor, most Americans would still have to pay money out of pocket for service. In addition, taxpayer money would have to go into paying for the administration of this system. And we all know how efficient government administered programs are.
Second, there will be fewer doctors and fewer specialists to treat everyone. Don't believe me? Then quickly review this New York Times article about how the current government run healthcare system, Medicare, is working.
The recommendation from the article seems to be that individuals should find "Concierge Medicine" in their area. The anecdote provided at the end illustrates how coverage in concierge medicine, coverage for services not covered by government funding, saved a person's life. Would a government paid doctor answer the phone after business hours to offer life-saving services? As mentioned above, even with "Government Healthcare," individual spending for appropriate, necessary, life saving care is necessary.
Finally, we would have face a shortage of service. This is the really scary effect, one that will kill people. With fewer doctors and specialists, rationed health care is garunteed. Look at the evidence provided by this video.
With all of these effects of Socialism, why is Obama pushing us further in that direction?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The callers have some interesting comments. One caller mentions teaching 'personal responsibility' to teens. This means allowing the kids to live with the consequences of their actions.
Another caller, a high school student, points out something interesting. He discusses how promiscuity was popularized by his parents, and so is carried on by the children. It's the old, "I can't hear what you're saying because of what you're doing," argument. And he's right.
What we need is for parents to be real parents and teach their children real morals. This means living within the laws of the land.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
One thing that struck me is the accounting rules that changed recently. Oh my gosh! It appears that, instead of trying to acurately report items, banks and financial institutions (with the help of our Federal Government) said, "Let's just change how we report things to mak eour balance sheets look better."
I also agree with Black about the bogus stress tests. It's a FARCE and a SHAM! And we know this based on the real facts, not the revised accounting numbers. How do we know the tests are a sham? Stress test doesn't test for asset quality. And, as Black states, "How can the banks all pass the stress test if they collectively need $2 Trillion in U.S. Taxpayer money?"
Also, the whole idea that we can simply inject capital into the banks to make them solvent is ILLEGAL! Black states, "The prior administration violated that law and the current administration is violating that law."
I love his almost blunt answer to the question, "Tim Geitner's the Treasurey Seceratary. Doesn't he know what he's doing?" He starts to say, "No," but backs off and gives a more politic answer, although going on to offer MOUNDS of evidence detailing how Geitner is not qualified.
Watch the whole thing to understand just how screwed up things are right now.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
There is definitely a way to cut more from this budget.
Hat Tip Hot Air.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
The US stated they had support and approval from the proper Iraqi authorities. Apparently this is the truth, since the last line in the story states "Iraqi State TV reported that Iraq's defense ministry ordered the arrest of two Iraqi commanders in Kut who apparently allowed the U.S. military to carry out the raid."
Now the Iraqi authorities want to accuse the US of violating the security pact in place. Al-Maliki has asked for the release of the suspects from the raid and to "hand over those who committed the crime" to the Iraqi judiciary. However, if the Iraqi representatives gave consent, as the story indicates, then the US troops did nothing wrong. Of course, facts may not be as important in this case as who you're related to.
Now for the questions:
1) The reason for the raid. According to US intelligence, those detained were affiliated with Iran as a "special group" operating inside Iraq. I assume the US will produce evidence about this (and must have done so in the past to get the permission from Iraqi representatives in Kut).
2) Who was the "Tribal Leader" and how much pull does he have with the Iraqi national government? This is huge because, from my inklings about human nature, it seems like the leader might have cried to the right people in the national government about the raid to have these actions taken. Of course, this is totally against the rule of law, but there it is.
3) Did the US receive approval from the proper authorities? Again, my knowledge of how the US Army operates is that the order would come down from someone high enough in the US forces to allow the planning and execution of the order. The big issue is where the approval came from on the Iraqi side. Was the issue addressed at the proper level? Again, gut instinct says, "Yes, enough to cover the Americans who ordered the raid and executed the orders."
4) How serious is Al-Maliki about prosecuting the US troops? Is this an honest attempt to prosecute people who have actually committed "grave premeditated felonies" or is this more of a move on the Iraqi government's part to flex their muscles and show some nationalist tendencies? If Al-Maliki really pushes this, it can cause trouble between the US and the nascent Iraqi government.
Again, the last line in the news article acknowledges there was some sort of approval from Iraqi authorities. This covers the US this time in a true court of law. However, I believe this action will definitely chill the possible approval for raids in the future.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Barnett's ideas are incredibly simple when you first look at it, but the devil is in the details. His point is that we have no real transition plan for the work that the Army does. If we had a plan like this during the initial invasion of Iraq, we would have our troops out by now, with a victory in-tact.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The whole idea of the capitalist system is, "You reap what you sow." This means if a company makes bad decisions, the company goes under. Period.
This also means that no company is "too big to fail," contrary to what some in the Obama administration would have you believe. This also means, stop giving them more money when they are failing.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Based on what I read in this Washington Examiner article, Obama is a believer. It's interesting to note how Obama won the primary election by "out lefting" the rest of the Democratic candidates, and won the general election by moving back to the center. An important note in how he managed to do this was the coddling given to him by the main stream media. With the information they provided, people could hope for a centrist Obama who happened to be among a 'few' bad apples.
However, with his economic BS package and his new budget, Obama has marked himself as a liberal of the higest order. I can't say I'm surprised.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Every American should be enraged, outraged and severely PO'd by the Bailouts and the BS package. The bonuses aren't really the issue. The real issue is that we put any money into these businesses at all.
Something to remember, the way our system should work is that businesses should be allowed to fail if they are not profitable. Business bankruptcy is there to allow businesses to liquidate their assets to people who have been better money managers, not to the Federal government.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The part I like best:
"Indeed we should do something—but, as usual, it’s exactly the opposite of what the federal government intends to do. We should cut the government’s budget as drastically as possible, thereby releasing resources for use by the productive sector. (That worked pretty well in stopping the terrible depression of 1920–21.) We should stop the Fed from interfering in the recovery process. We should let the private economy sort out which activities undertaken during the artificial Greenspan boom are genuine wealth-generating activities and which are wealth-destroying bubble activities. The latter should be promptly liquidated so their resources can be better employed by the former.
Meanwhile, we still have some conservatives, frozen in the 1980s, calling for reductions in marginal income tax rates, among other feckless suggestions. Tax reductions are desirable, to be sure, but the crisis we are facing is a systemic one that is not going to be fixed by marginal changes here and there. We need to start talking big changes. We need to open up questions the regime has long since considered closed. We need to talk about the monetary system, the Fed, entitlements, and much else.
In other words, if the Left can advocate $1 trillion-plus annual deficits as far as the eye can see, why can’t supporters of the free market be equally bold in the opposite direction?"