Not Learning from History, Hope We Don’t Repeat It

Obama is all rhetoric and no substance. He talks a good game, mentioning words like "bipartisanship" and "job creation." Unfortunately, his actions don't follow his words. He constantly ignores history when it does not agree with his point of view.

Now he's trying to push through a bloated spending bill disguised as a stimulus package, with almost HALF of the spending happening 2 years from now or more. Spending that far out CANNOT jump start the budget. Even John McCain, who supported the first failed bailout, learned that this spending bill will not be able to dig America out. In addition, everyone knows that the new "temporary" programs put in place by this bill would become another piece of the entrenched Federal bureaucracy.

Now, if we look at what Obama wants to do to help “create jobs” in America, we will realize his policies sound very familiar. These policies include public works and more big government spending, to the tune of over $800 BILLION. In addition, it includes such stupid measures as requirements to “buy American” requirements that have caused more problems in the past than they helped.

As anyone who is a student of history can see, this didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Let's hope Obama and lawmakers realize this before it's too late.

Stand By Your Guns

I'm glad to see the Republicans in the House standing firm and not giving ANY support to the "stimulus package" that was grunted out of the House. This package is more like a flaming pile of poo flung on the American tax payers front door than a real attempt to help fix things now.

Economists agree that for the stimulus to work, it needs to take effect immediately and start pushing things through sooner rather than later. However, reading the text shows that only 20% of the stimulus would be spent this year! What? So why load up the bill with a bunch of crap?

Now we just need to see whether the Republicans in the Senate will fold. I'm thinking no, although I don't see a filibuster on the way.

Will They Ever Learn?

Why are the Danes even pursuing a case against Geert Wilders for expressing his opinion and telling a story, based on actual facts and quotes? Do they not believe in the most basic freedom, freedom of speech? This case is based on their somewhat odd idea that you can legislate what will "insult... Muslim worshipers." Unfortunately, this case insults me. Where an I to go for redress?

Fortunately, Mr. Wilders has support from many Europeans who are tiring of being told they have to bow down to Islam's ideas and not insult Mohamed's followers. If you've watched "Fitna," you know that Wilders simply interspersed quotes directly from the Muslim holy book with images, news pieces and quotes from Muslim speakers. This is the truth. And as one speaker said, "The truth is sometimes offensive... but it doens't make it any less true."

And remember, the group forwarding the prosecution of Mr. Wilders is the same group that held violent riots and demonstrations because someone drew this:




When all men are free to speak their minds, then will we truly have freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." I agree. In America we quote Voltaire and say, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Hat Tip Jawa Report for getting me started.

Who Supports Hamas?

Not the people who have to live with them. These are stories of people who have been taken advantage of. Hamas was supposed to help them have a better life. Instead, Hamas uses their children, their women and their elderly as human shields against Israeli bombs.

So, who really supports Hamas. We have "intellectuals" from New York, Ireland, and other countries outside of Gaza as the main supporters. These people have absolutely no idea of the real reasons the Israelis have to strike in populated areas. As this author states, "Almost no one on the Left has any understanding of militant Islam. Their politics is a politics of gesture, where wearing a keffiyeh is cool but understanding its symbolism is too much effort even for intellectuals."

I say stop pointing fingers at the defender and point the blame with the Hamas terrorists, where it rightly belongs.

We Need New Rules for Dealing With Al Qaeda

We can't treat AQ operatives as criminals. They are an international organization that is outside US law. They are not US citizens, they do not have the same rights under our nation's laws. They are enemy combatants and should be under the regulation of military justice, not civilian courts as some think. This might be tough on them, since they do not abide by the Geneva conventions.

And even when the rule of law is followed, the enemies we capture seem to take advantage of this. Some of those freed from Gitmo have even returned immediately to their active participation in a group that seeks to destroy the western way of life.

Of course, now we have a president who has decided we don't need special circumstances to deal with Al Qaeda. With a stroke of his pen, he has removed many of the tools Bush put in place to combat terrorism. How asinine!

This is not developing a strategy that will help defeat terrorists. This is similar to the actions of the last Democratic president who showed America as a "Paper Tiger" that Al Qaeda need not fear.

Inaugural Speech Commentary

As I read the text of Obama's speech, I was struck by how much the speech included language that seemed more appropriate for a Republican like Bush than a Democrat like Obama.

And it seems I'm not the only one to see the connection.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Why the Anger, PLO?

So, the Gaza supporters are mad that the "Juice" are fighting back. They express this anger in a typical manner, cowardly attacks on civilians across the free world. This is pretty consistent with past Muslim protests. However, this time around, the protests seem to be a bit more widespread, although no less violent.

Now remember, Hamas openly declared an end to the cease fire, not Israel. Hamas launched some of the first attacks by firing rockets into Israel. Israel simply responded in a manner consistent with a nation trying to defend itself from a violent aggressor. Israel decided not to be cowed and have focused their attacks on Hamas.

Seems to me if someone openly states, "We're going to fight you now," they really have no reason to decry violence if the enemy fights back.

Are you kidding me?

So apparently the first bail-out wasn't good enough. Now the banks want even more money. Yeah, this makes lots of sense, because the first one worked SO well.

Remember, Albert Einstein's definition of insanity "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Maybe it's time to do something different, like stopping the bailout madness and helping the little guys, the individual taxpayers. They could do this by lowering taxes for the middle class (those of us that actually make money and pay taxes) and small businesses, not giving rebate checks to "95% of Americans". In addition, they could refrain from raising the capital gains taxes. After all, tax revenue actually goes UP when you keep the capital gains tax low. Isn't the point of having a tax to actually bring in more revenue? Taxation should have nothing to do with "fairness." If we wanted everything to be fair, we'd have a flat tax.

Now, should we do something that actually brings in more revenue, and push for less government spending, or should we increase taxes and raise government spending? I know which one I'd vote for.

Reasons We Don't Need Universal Healthcare

Universal Health Care seems to be in vogue again, even though the Democrats tried this before and it failed to pass. Part of this may be because the President Elect stated health care was a "right" of all Americans. However, I have to disagree with the constitutional scholar. No where in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do the Founding Fathers indicate that access to the best medical treatment without regard to cost is a fundamental right of all Americans.

In Mr. Obama's argument, he even qualifies the right because we live in a "rich" nation. How does he think we got rich? It's because we had free enterprise and freedom of choice.

There are three major problems with any Universal Healthcare System we may implement. It would increase overall healthcare costs, it would degrade the quality of service, and it would take away our freedom and limit choice.

Contrary to popular belief, a government run health care system would not be any less expensive than our current private payer insurance system. When the need for a universal healthcare system is put forth, usually there is an anecdote of someones mother or grandmother having a hard time paying for something. However, anecdotal evidence does not mean the conditions are universal.

Instead of having privately run institutions with limited boards, we would instead have to develop a large bueracracy at the Federal, state and local level to manage our hospitals and clinics. The higher taxes needed to fund this additional bueracracy would come from our taxes, which are already stretched to pay for current government projects. With both the out-of-pocket expenses we would have to pay and the higher taxes needed to fund the the bueracracy, the American public would indeed end up paying more.

Another consequence of moving to a universal healthcare system would be a degradation in service. Other countries with universal healthcare have slow ambulance response times and long waiting periods for treatment. Now why would we degrade a life saving system just to save a portion of the US population a little money?

Finally, have the Federal Government involved in making decisions about our healthcare and lifestyle will take away choices from Americans. According to 2006 numbers (some of the most recent), 38% of America's uninsured population earn $50,000 or more. That's almost 18 million people who have decided, on their own, that they want to spend their money elsewhere. How can the Federal Government suddenly decide that these people can't make that choice for themselves any longer?

Taken to it's absurd limit, the American public would lose lifestyle choices because of perceived problems from some lifestyles. This means that, even though McDonalds may still offer french fries, you may not be able to eat them. Of course, managing these 'waistline cops' would simply add to the cost of the healthcare budget.

All three of these problems relate to the fact that, in the United States, government was not meant to take the place of businesses. Government should have a limited role in our daily lives.

Hat Tip to Carpe Diem for the uninsured statistics.

Cry for Hamas? I Don't Think So.

Remember, these are the same people who celebrated the deaths of Americans in September 11, 2001, civilians all. And there are indications the Palestinian National Authority tried to cover this up. Now, they want us to cry for them because the IDF is responding to their barbarism and attacks by decimating MILITARY targets.

More and more, I think people are catching on to this hypocrisy. More and more, we see videos of the actual violence of the Hamas fighters, like this one.



I think Israel has a right to attack those who attack them, to protect civilians in Israel. Hamas has been goading Israel for some time. I think it is unfortunate that there are civilians casualties from the IDF's response. But of course, as we see from the previous video, Hamas was killing civilians too, and in much greater numbers.


To learn more about the brutality of Hamas, see this video segment that includes a montage of different video pieces from Hamas.

The Federal Government Needs to Tighten Uncle Sam's Belt

This article at the National Review Online clearly highlights the financial problems hanging over the heads of the US. We need to tighten our belts and start reducing the deficit. We should have been doing this during the "good times" of economic abundance. We need it more than ever during these times of financial stress.

One of the big things to do to keep the budget in check is to stop giving bailouts to failing businesses. The American people have to live with a limited budget and manage their money well. Why shouldn't businesses be the same?

Like Walker, I also think Obama is on the right track. Limiting earmarks projects or "pork" in the federal budget will do more to help limit spending than most people know. I, for one, would like to see less government spending and less government intrusion in my life.

Why can't he just admit he's wrong?

This video is very enlightening.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

An honest, upstanding man, one who truly wants to serve the nation well, would readily admit when they are wrong. When confronted with obvious errors, an honest man will say, "You're right. I was wrong." However, Harry Reid is not an honest man, nor a great statesman. Instead he shows himself as a grasping, self-serving politician who wants to attribute all successes to himself and blame others for all failures.

Remember, Harry Reid was the politician who pushed hardest for us to leave Iraq as soon as possible. He stated that the surge was a failure and would not secure the region. Even in his review of the current issues in the Middle East, where he talks about the "destabilizing" of the region because we invaded Iraq, he makes monumental and factually wrong mistakes. (For instance, Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush and the US Congress agreeing to attack Iraq.)

I will agree with Harry on one thing, though. Patreaus is a genius. He had the intelligence to correctly guage the high morale of our troops, understand the mindset of the enemy and discern the correct path. He knew that the enemy would rightly see this as weakness on the part of America. Of course, the one Senator who supported and fought for this surge strategy ran for President. Unfortunately, another politician, one who had similar views to Harry, was elected. At least he had the grace to admit the surge worked.

Best Anthropogenic Global Warming Debunking Article Yet

Check out this article on why anthropogenic global warming is a fallacy. Like me, the author asserts that temperature has changed and will continue to change. In Mr. Ambler's words, "So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes." Proof of this is seen in the Vostok ice core data, where cyclical patterns of temperature change are obvious.

And so, the all important answer the question, "If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate?" The article points to a short term answer (ocean cycles) and a long term answer, the Sun. This will surprise no one who really studied the global warming issue in depth.

And why do I continue to rail against this fake crisis of anthropogenic global warming? Because there are so many other things we can focus on. I will let Mr. Ambler provide the best reason.

"To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong." (emphasis in the original)

Hat Tip - Hot Air.

You're kidding me, right???

So, in this land of the free, we allow people to comment peacefully on just about anything, even to protest a country protecting itself, as seen in this video here. One thing to notice is the Pro-Gaza group attacking the counter protesters. (But violence never solves anything, right?)

Okay, so why exactly are the Pro-Gaza protesters out? It's because Israel has decided to stop the people who are shooting at them (page 5 includes great graphics of the statistics). And this time, the IDF has the videos to prove what they're doing. And it's not like the Israelis are being particularly cruel or inhumane.

I find it oddly ironic that the Pro-Gaza protesters resort to violence when someone says something they don't agree with. Kind of like shooting mortar shells at somebody because you don't like them.

So, How are things in Iraq?

Seems like the news from Iraq has been pretty quiet lately. This could be because the US has already won the fight there. It could also be because casualties are down to their lowest level since the conflict started. Yes, the coalition forces in Iraq did a great thing in helping to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Now the Iraqis are starting to take more and more control of their own country.

Parting question, though. Why do we not hear more about this from the reporters leaving the nation? There has to be a reason.