Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was in the news recently due to his statement that it will be a priority of his office to quiet claims of birthers. Birthers for those who do not know, are conspiracy theorists who believe that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. Such a group represents a fringe group which should be ridiculed in the same manner of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but for the new Hawaii governor, they are a priority and must be silenced.
Sigh. As anyone who has read my blog will know, I am no fan of the President and his policies. He pushed through a health care reform policy that the country did not want. He and his democratic allies quadrupled spending and have added around 7 trillion to the debt in just two short years. He has made half hearted decisions in the war in Afghanistan and flat out undercut our efforts there by announcing a July 2011 withdrawal date, his foreign policy has been a joke and unemployment for Americans remains around 10%. Add to this his denouncement of Republicans as hostage takers during the tax compromise and we have a two-faced weasel as President with skin as thick as a dime.
I could go on and on and have spent plenty of blogs stating the many reasons that I do not like the way this man or his party ran my country during their two years of unprecedented power. The one thing I did not do denounce the man or speculate on where he was born. It's a non issue and a waste of time. Why the hell would anyone want to waste time debating someone dumb enough to believe Obama was born outside of Hawaii is beyond me, there are far more pressing issues that deserve coverage today. Also, what does it matter where he was born? Did he not grow up in Hawaii? Did he not attend college at UCLA? Was he not a community organizer in Chicago for a number of years before running for office? Does he even speak with a foreign accent?
No, he does not speak with a foreign accent and yes, all the other statement above are correct. If his birth was an issue the time to raise such a concern would have been during the Presidential election in 2008. Even then when the short form, or his certificate of live birth were issued it should have died, but conspiracy theorists being what they are, idiots, it has not completely died out and in fact has been given new life by a moronic Hawaii governor who deems that it needs to be "put to rest" once and for all.
Folks, with the new year approaching I encourage you to ignore these non-issues and instead ask you congressional representatives to focus on matters more important facing the nation, such as the passage of a budget for the current fiscal year. Tell them it's time to reign in spending, not reign in birthers.
-Zach
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Book Review: Decision Points by George W. Bush
I recently finished former President Bush's book covering his early political career and the major events during his 8 years in office. Like him, hate him, remember him fondly considering what we have today or rejoice that "bushisms" are a thing of the past, one thing I think Americans of all political affiliations can agree on is that Bush's 8 years took place in some of the most important times for this country in decades. His decisions, his agenda, his policy were controversial and events which took place during his presidency will be remembered by Americans for generations to come. President Bush covered each of these and to my knowledge did not leave any event uncovered. Overall I found the book to be a great look at the inside of how the administration was run and a great look into the President's rationale that went into most major decisions.
The book starts out with an account of George's early upbringing by his father and mother in Midland, Texas. Some interesting moments to note are George's simple upbringing early in life as his father sought to make himself a success, which was contrasted by family visits to Connecticut where his Grandfather, Prescott Bush, then a US Senator from Connecticut. A very notable instance in this visits with his grandfather is a time when he was in the Senate chambers and was introduced by his grandfather to a Senator from Texas, his grandfather boasting "here's one of your constituents." That Senator from Texas being LBJ. Other notable items from Bush's youth was his being shipped off to a private school in Massachusetts which was followed by college at Yale and later attendance at Harvard Business school, interestingly in Bush's first run for political office his opponent would use his time in northern schools to paint Bush as a carpetbager yankee, a tactic that worked.
Before the Presidency we have the election, and as most remember the Presidential election of 2000 was a controversial one in which the Democratic challenger Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency to George W. Bush. As Bush recalls the election campaign he notes that on the night of the election when it appeared that W would carry Florida, Bush received a call from Gore stating that he would concede the race to him. Gore than requested that W give Gore thirty minutes so that Gore can address his supporters. W gave it too him and waited.. and waited.. only to have Gore's campaign inform him that they were withdrawing their earlier concession. A month of court challenges later the Supreme Court ruled that the continued recounts were unconstitutional and that the earlier results would have to be accepted and the Florida and the Presidency were awarded to George W. Bush.
Covering the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Bush maintains that he wanted to project calm to the classroom and to the reporters. The last thing he wanted cameras to catch was a President jumping up and racing out of the room the moment he heard about 9/11. While Bush would later be criticised for this action I find his logic behind his decision acceptable, though I disagree with it overall and believe he should have excused himself from that classroom.
While covering the lead up to war in Iraq Bush devoted a good bit of time in his book to try and lay out the diplomatic courses of actions he took against Saddam Hussein's regime. He notes that in a world were the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred he could not sit back and hope that the regime would remain in it's corner and not become a threat to the American people. Interestingly he notes that they received intel prior to the war that Abu Zaqub al Zarqawi was leading a group in Iraq that would have chemical weapons soon and that they would use in a future attack. When weighing whether to attack the plant Bush opted not to attack the area feeling that the attack could create sympathy in the world for Iraq and lesson their resolve to demand a full accounting for Saddam's WMDs.
While discussing bipartisanship President Bush notes that one of the first people he invited over to the white house for "family movie night" was the late Senator Ted Kennedy. He notes that while he and Ted disagreed on many things, they both shared a passion for reforming the countries education system. Bush would ultimately gain Kennedy's support on this legislation and noted with pride the improved test scores for America's youth following the passage of the no child left behind act. He notes other areas, but like any American also notes the difficulty he encountered from both the left and the right on many legislative issues such as extending medicare coverage to cover prescription pills for the elderly, or his attempt to reform Social Security.
Lastly I want to cover the President's comments on the current political crisis. Bush noted the beginning by stating it was Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that broke the news to him about the failures of many banks and mortgage brokers that eventually required a bailout. In the early instances the government was able to intervene by finding a willing buyer in the free market to take up the slack and keep the failing company from falling under. Other banks could not be saved and required government intervention in order to save millions of lives. It was a decision at the time that Bush makes clear he did not wish to make, but in the end decided to make because the far reaching affect would hurt the American people more than an immediate government intervention. At the time Bush was attacked by both the left and right for this decision and the timing of this collapse likely served as the final crisis that caused any hope of a Republican victory in 2008 to disappear. Bush has since been vindicated though, as almost all institutions that received bailout money have paid it back with interest, making a profit for the government and keeping taxpayers from taking a permanent hit.
Overall the book covers many topics, a bit too many for this book review. I enjoyed it and I think readers of both political affiliations could enjoy it, though I would only recommend it as a Christmas gift for conservatives.
-Zach
The book starts out with an account of George's early upbringing by his father and mother in Midland, Texas. Some interesting moments to note are George's simple upbringing early in life as his father sought to make himself a success, which was contrasted by family visits to Connecticut where his Grandfather, Prescott Bush, then a US Senator from Connecticut. A very notable instance in this visits with his grandfather is a time when he was in the Senate chambers and was introduced by his grandfather to a Senator from Texas, his grandfather boasting "here's one of your constituents." That Senator from Texas being LBJ. Other notable items from Bush's youth was his being shipped off to a private school in Massachusetts which was followed by college at Yale and later attendance at Harvard Business school, interestingly in Bush's first run for political office his opponent would use his time in northern schools to paint Bush as a carpetbager yankee, a tactic that worked.
Before the Presidency we have the election, and as most remember the Presidential election of 2000 was a controversial one in which the Democratic challenger Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency to George W. Bush. As Bush recalls the election campaign he notes that on the night of the election when it appeared that W would carry Florida, Bush received a call from Gore stating that he would concede the race to him. Gore than requested that W give Gore thirty minutes so that Gore can address his supporters. W gave it too him and waited.. and waited.. only to have Gore's campaign inform him that they were withdrawing their earlier concession. A month of court challenges later the Supreme Court ruled that the continued recounts were unconstitutional and that the earlier results would have to be accepted and the Florida and the Presidency were awarded to George W. Bush.
Covering the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Bush maintains that he wanted to project calm to the classroom and to the reporters. The last thing he wanted cameras to catch was a President jumping up and racing out of the room the moment he heard about 9/11. While Bush would later be criticised for this action I find his logic behind his decision acceptable, though I disagree with it overall and believe he should have excused himself from that classroom.
While covering the lead up to war in Iraq Bush devoted a good bit of time in his book to try and lay out the diplomatic courses of actions he took against Saddam Hussein's regime. He notes that in a world were the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred he could not sit back and hope that the regime would remain in it's corner and not become a threat to the American people. Interestingly he notes that they received intel prior to the war that Abu Zaqub al Zarqawi was leading a group in Iraq that would have chemical weapons soon and that they would use in a future attack. When weighing whether to attack the plant Bush opted not to attack the area feeling that the attack could create sympathy in the world for Iraq and lesson their resolve to demand a full accounting for Saddam's WMDs.
While discussing bipartisanship President Bush notes that one of the first people he invited over to the white house for "family movie night" was the late Senator Ted Kennedy. He notes that while he and Ted disagreed on many things, they both shared a passion for reforming the countries education system. Bush would ultimately gain Kennedy's support on this legislation and noted with pride the improved test scores for America's youth following the passage of the no child left behind act. He notes other areas, but like any American also notes the difficulty he encountered from both the left and the right on many legislative issues such as extending medicare coverage to cover prescription pills for the elderly, or his attempt to reform Social Security.
Lastly I want to cover the President's comments on the current political crisis. Bush noted the beginning by stating it was Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that broke the news to him about the failures of many banks and mortgage brokers that eventually required a bailout. In the early instances the government was able to intervene by finding a willing buyer in the free market to take up the slack and keep the failing company from falling under. Other banks could not be saved and required government intervention in order to save millions of lives. It was a decision at the time that Bush makes clear he did not wish to make, but in the end decided to make because the far reaching affect would hurt the American people more than an immediate government intervention. At the time Bush was attacked by both the left and right for this decision and the timing of this collapse likely served as the final crisis that caused any hope of a Republican victory in 2008 to disappear. Bush has since been vindicated though, as almost all institutions that received bailout money have paid it back with interest, making a profit for the government and keeping taxpayers from taking a permanent hit.
Overall the book covers many topics, a bit too many for this book review. I enjoyed it and I think readers of both political affiliations could enjoy it, though I would only recommend it as a Christmas gift for conservatives.
-Zach
Friday, December 10, 2010
Democrats, the new "party of no"
What a difference an election cycle makes. For the past two years the President, his party, and his lemmings in the media have branded the Republicans as being unwilling to compromise, as being partisan, and as being everything that is wrong with politics in America. They sum up these gripes against the GOP the Dem's called them the "party of no." These stances by the dems for the past two years are made all the more considering their mounting anger over a compromise on taxes that the Obama administration had hoped to pass during the current lame duck session of Congress. It was a compromise that would have allowed the Bush tax cuts to stay in place for another two years while extending unemployment benefits for those who are about to see them go away. No one gets everything they want in this bill, not by a long shot, but it seems reasonable enough to support considering that not supporting it means a tax increase on all Americans and an abrupt end of unemployment insurance for those that have been collecting for 99 weeks.
Today the economy still stands shaky two years after Obama and the Dems won massive majorities. Two years of massive stimulus spending and unemployment extensions have done little to nothing to ease unemployment and foreclosure rates in this country. The GOP opposed these measures in mass and were attacked by the dems for their stance. They never offered any real compromise in any of their legislation, and to be honest they didn't need to for the most part, they had the votes on their own. Still, they took a very dishonest stance by terming the GOP as being too partisan and being against compromise. They trotted out whatever false evidence they could to try and convince the American people that they should still hate the GOP and made any excuse they could to excuse the Dems incompetence, to this day still blaming Bush for the current economic woes. In reality legislation like Obamacare, the stimulus, and unemployment were measures that Republicans could not vote for. They were completely against our party's core values of fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility and the dems offered nothing in these bills in which Republicans could support. Party of no? Not really, the party of convictions seems more appropriate.
Now with the current legislation we have a real test of how bipartisanship and compromise can work in Washington and who is and who is not in favor of it. This bill is not a perfect bill by any measure. Senator Jim Demint termed it best when he stated that his biggest problem was that the tax cuts should be made permanent. Making them permanent would allow businesses to plan 5-10 years in advance and would allow them to hire more workers on a long term basis. The other thing to hate about this bill is the extension of unemployment coverage for those who have been on it for 99 weeks. Really? 99 weeks and we need to extend it? We have never had unemployment coverage for this long prior to the Obama administration and can anybody really say that if we extend it say... 50 more weeks that in another year we wont see the same people out there demanding that it continue to be extended? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough and if you haven't been able to find a job by now,I simply don't believe your trying hard enough. Lets also not mention that this bill adds deficit spending and therefore is not fiscally responsible at all. Sigh, not perfect at all, but hey, the Dems apparently want more, so let the American people see them for what they are and have always been.
As of today house Dems have voted not to even bring the tax deal to the floor for a vote without some changes and speaker Pelosi has said she will not bring it to a vote without changes. In sum, they are saying "no" to the President. They are saying "no" to the Republicans willing to make a deal. They are saying "no" to the American people who, for whatever reason known to God, they believe will back them in this stance, guess they were asleep during last months election. The dems in their last month as a majority in both houses have shown who the real "party of no" is and sadly, will likely remain for the next two years as well.
-Zach
Today the economy still stands shaky two years after Obama and the Dems won massive majorities. Two years of massive stimulus spending and unemployment extensions have done little to nothing to ease unemployment and foreclosure rates in this country. The GOP opposed these measures in mass and were attacked by the dems for their stance. They never offered any real compromise in any of their legislation, and to be honest they didn't need to for the most part, they had the votes on their own. Still, they took a very dishonest stance by terming the GOP as being too partisan and being against compromise. They trotted out whatever false evidence they could to try and convince the American people that they should still hate the GOP and made any excuse they could to excuse the Dems incompetence, to this day still blaming Bush for the current economic woes. In reality legislation like Obamacare, the stimulus, and unemployment were measures that Republicans could not vote for. They were completely against our party's core values of fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility and the dems offered nothing in these bills in which Republicans could support. Party of no? Not really, the party of convictions seems more appropriate.
Now with the current legislation we have a real test of how bipartisanship and compromise can work in Washington and who is and who is not in favor of it. This bill is not a perfect bill by any measure. Senator Jim Demint termed it best when he stated that his biggest problem was that the tax cuts should be made permanent. Making them permanent would allow businesses to plan 5-10 years in advance and would allow them to hire more workers on a long term basis. The other thing to hate about this bill is the extension of unemployment coverage for those who have been on it for 99 weeks. Really? 99 weeks and we need to extend it? We have never had unemployment coverage for this long prior to the Obama administration and can anybody really say that if we extend it say... 50 more weeks that in another year we wont see the same people out there demanding that it continue to be extended? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough and if you haven't been able to find a job by now,I simply don't believe your trying hard enough. Lets also not mention that this bill adds deficit spending and therefore is not fiscally responsible at all. Sigh, not perfect at all, but hey, the Dems apparently want more, so let the American people see them for what they are and have always been.
As of today house Dems have voted not to even bring the tax deal to the floor for a vote without some changes and speaker Pelosi has said she will not bring it to a vote without changes. In sum, they are saying "no" to the President. They are saying "no" to the Republicans willing to make a deal. They are saying "no" to the American people who, for whatever reason known to God, they believe will back them in this stance, guess they were asleep during last months election. The dems in their last month as a majority in both houses have shown who the real "party of no" is and sadly, will likely remain for the next two years as well.
-Zach
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The GOP wave, the Tea Party
Well well. It has once again been a long time since I posted anything on my much beloved blog and so I will briefly cover many topics in a fodder type format.
At the beginning of this month the Republicans made much expected gains in both houses of Congress. They have obtained the majority in the house of representatives and have trimmed the democratic majority in the Senate. This is absolutely great news for the country as this will finally end a congress that along with the white house maintained a policy of spending their way out of economic turmoil that has so far done nothing recognizable to help our country recover and has only served to add to our mounting national debt.
About the Tea Party. They deserve credit for being a vocal critic against the fiscal irresponsibility of the President and of the congress. They also deserve credit for keeping their own criticism's not only party based, lambasting the GOP for preaching one policy while campaigning and following a very different policy once they were elected and sent to Washington. Thanks to their devotion to fiscal responsibility we will have many great new congressmen to follow their campaign promises closely, as well as what I believe will be great Senator's in Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marc Rubio of Florida. Along with the good comes the bad though, and they also deserve the blame for blowing what should have been Senate wins in Nevada, Delaware, and depending on your point of view, Alaska.
In Nevada, my home state, we had a very unpopular Senator in Harry Reid. The state leads the country in unemployment at 14% and has the highest foreclosure rate for about three years running. Add to that Reid's very anti-mining voting nature since he became majority leader and this should have been a cake walk. Enter the tea party to insist that not only must Reid's challenger be fiscally solid, they must be solid on social issues as well, in fact if they are known more for their social conservatism the better. What? That makes about as much sense as a donkey in the kentucky derby, but so it goes and Sharron Angle manages to win the Republican nomination. Sharron Angle, who is so polarizing as a State Senate republican that the republican mayors of Reno and Sparks campaigned openly for Harry Reid's reelection. Angle leads at the polls for all of the race though, but makes campaign blunder after another capping it off with an add on illegal immigration that portrays Latino Americans as gang bangers. In the end Reid fucking wins by five points. Thanks tea party.
In Delaware we had what many considered a locked down seat with a popular former Republican governor Mike Castle seeking the GOP nomination. Enter the tea party. Mike Castle is a New England type of republican and so he is likely to not vote party line on ever issue, such as fiscal and some social issues. No, no, no, we absolutely cannot go with this man. He doesn't meet our needs at all. So along with help from the Tea Party and in particular Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel gets the nomination. The rest is history that I won't repeat, but suffice to say that since O'Donnel was such a disaster the race wasn't even close. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Castle, but I'm pretty damn sure he would have been preferable to have in the Senate rather than a man who leans so far to the left he described himself as a "bearded marxist" in college. Once again, thank you tea party.
In Alaska where Sarah Palin had more of a play than the tea party, what seems like a very good candidate, Joe Miller won the nomination for higher office. All things considered I think Joe would have made a fine Senator from Alaska and he doesn't seem to have brought any of the negatives that O'Donnell or Angle brought. His downfall appears to be more to due with the political power of the Murkowski family in the state of Alaska. Lisa Murkowski was the incumbent and she voted as little more than a RINO. Deservedly so she got the boot, but hung around long enough to weigh her options and decide to launch a write in campaign that so far appears to have won her another term. It will remain to be seen whom Lisa will caucus with should she be declared the winner, but I imagine it would be the Republicans and so it technically is not a loss for the GOP, but is a loss on a personal level for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
If it seems I was a little rough on the Tea Party than please do me a favor and re-read my last few paragraphs over. They are a fine group and they deserve recognition, but if they continue on their path of absolute rigid ideology over any and all things than they will eventually become little better than a right wing version of moveon.org. At best they will be marginalized, at worst they will alienate all others who would otherwise vote republican and cause us future losses. Winning elections matters folks. You can't begin to implement the type of policy you want if all you are is the rabble shouting from the streets instead of in the congressional chambers.
That's all for me.
At the beginning of this month the Republicans made much expected gains in both houses of Congress. They have obtained the majority in the house of representatives and have trimmed the democratic majority in the Senate. This is absolutely great news for the country as this will finally end a congress that along with the white house maintained a policy of spending their way out of economic turmoil that has so far done nothing recognizable to help our country recover and has only served to add to our mounting national debt.
About the Tea Party. They deserve credit for being a vocal critic against the fiscal irresponsibility of the President and of the congress. They also deserve credit for keeping their own criticism's not only party based, lambasting the GOP for preaching one policy while campaigning and following a very different policy once they were elected and sent to Washington. Thanks to their devotion to fiscal responsibility we will have many great new congressmen to follow their campaign promises closely, as well as what I believe will be great Senator's in Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marc Rubio of Florida. Along with the good comes the bad though, and they also deserve the blame for blowing what should have been Senate wins in Nevada, Delaware, and depending on your point of view, Alaska.
In Nevada, my home state, we had a very unpopular Senator in Harry Reid. The state leads the country in unemployment at 14% and has the highest foreclosure rate for about three years running. Add to that Reid's very anti-mining voting nature since he became majority leader and this should have been a cake walk. Enter the tea party to insist that not only must Reid's challenger be fiscally solid, they must be solid on social issues as well, in fact if they are known more for their social conservatism the better. What? That makes about as much sense as a donkey in the kentucky derby, but so it goes and Sharron Angle manages to win the Republican nomination. Sharron Angle, who is so polarizing as a State Senate republican that the republican mayors of Reno and Sparks campaigned openly for Harry Reid's reelection. Angle leads at the polls for all of the race though, but makes campaign blunder after another capping it off with an add on illegal immigration that portrays Latino Americans as gang bangers. In the end Reid fucking wins by five points. Thanks tea party.
In Delaware we had what many considered a locked down seat with a popular former Republican governor Mike Castle seeking the GOP nomination. Enter the tea party. Mike Castle is a New England type of republican and so he is likely to not vote party line on ever issue, such as fiscal and some social issues. No, no, no, we absolutely cannot go with this man. He doesn't meet our needs at all. So along with help from the Tea Party and in particular Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel gets the nomination. The rest is history that I won't repeat, but suffice to say that since O'Donnel was such a disaster the race wasn't even close. Now, I'm not a huge fan of Castle, but I'm pretty damn sure he would have been preferable to have in the Senate rather than a man who leans so far to the left he described himself as a "bearded marxist" in college. Once again, thank you tea party.
In Alaska where Sarah Palin had more of a play than the tea party, what seems like a very good candidate, Joe Miller won the nomination for higher office. All things considered I think Joe would have made a fine Senator from Alaska and he doesn't seem to have brought any of the negatives that O'Donnell or Angle brought. His downfall appears to be more to due with the political power of the Murkowski family in the state of Alaska. Lisa Murkowski was the incumbent and she voted as little more than a RINO. Deservedly so she got the boot, but hung around long enough to weigh her options and decide to launch a write in campaign that so far appears to have won her another term. It will remain to be seen whom Lisa will caucus with should she be declared the winner, but I imagine it would be the Republicans and so it technically is not a loss for the GOP, but is a loss on a personal level for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
If it seems I was a little rough on the Tea Party than please do me a favor and re-read my last few paragraphs over. They are a fine group and they deserve recognition, but if they continue on their path of absolute rigid ideology over any and all things than they will eventually become little better than a right wing version of moveon.org. At best they will be marginalized, at worst they will alienate all others who would otherwise vote republican and cause us future losses. Winning elections matters folks. You can't begin to implement the type of policy you want if all you are is the rabble shouting from the streets instead of in the congressional chambers.
That's all for me.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Obama: A GOP Congress would mean "hand to hand combat"
This weeks post brought to you by the words "unity" and "post-partisanship." Those words sound familiar? If not, think of the words "hope" and "change we can believe in" and it will probably become a little clearer. President Obama ran in 2008 based on empty promises. His supporters touted him as the kind of man that once elected would bring out an era of post partisanship and that there would be a new unity throughout the land.
The reality after the election has been something quite different. President Obama pushed through a wasteful stimulus with the promise that if passed, unemployment would not go above 8%. Republicans knew the likelihood of what would happen and so voted against it. The result? Obama and the Dems complain about lack of Republican willingness to go along with them. BTW, unemployment is currently at 9.6% and has been hovering around there for the past year and then some.
Next President Obama and his white house went on a media blitz to talk down fox news and radio commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. He complained that these news networks did a disservice for the country by not reporting more positively about the white house. Keep in mind that a UCLA study found that Fox News is the only news cable channel that leans to the right, that the newspapers are so tilted to the left that the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal are the ONLY ONES IN THE COUNTRY that trend to the right and that radio talk shows are opinion, nothing more nothing less. With so much of the media in his corner Obama took the time to complain about the one section that isn't. Guess that's what his supporters call open minded.
And of course the health care bill in which he allowed the federal funding of abortions and attached a massive cost to go along with some attempt to reduce medical costs and forces people to buy insurance. This was completely unpalatable for Republicans for the obvious reasons, but once again after turning down Obama's token offer for them to go along with it they were branded as the "party of no" by the bringer of post partisanship. Nice.
Today we find ourselves about three weeks away from an election in which the Republicans are expected to take control of at least one house in Congress. Although it should be expected that the President would campaign for his party and encourage people to vote early and often for Dems the language he has used again highlights his own partisan nature. This is a time where even in the face of heaby losses he could make overtures to the GOP and the country and state his willingness to work with any elected officials for the better of our country. It's what President Bush, that guy they love to blame for everything, did in 2006, but unlike President Bush who endorsed candidates on their merit Obama chooses instead to use doomsday rhetoric calling Republicans out of touch, in the hands of special interests. He's even gone so far to state that a GOP congress would mean "hand to hand combat" between his admin and the GOP. In another recent speech he says "They're counting on black folks staying home."...
That is the man that was supposed to bring post partisanship to this country. That is the man that was supposed to heal the racial wounds and bring about a new period of unity, and yet time and time again he has shown himself to be the opposite. Folks, you need to remember this man and what he says. We need to see this man for who he is, what he represents and the damage that he has done to this nation. Election day is three weeks away. I hope you all will stand with me on that day and send a strong message back to Washington, one that the world and President zero will be unable to ignore.
Yeesh, kind of a bad post, not structured at all the way I usually like to, but been a bit of a long day and I imagine you get my point by now.
Take Care.
-Zach
The reality after the election has been something quite different. President Obama pushed through a wasteful stimulus with the promise that if passed, unemployment would not go above 8%. Republicans knew the likelihood of what would happen and so voted against it. The result? Obama and the Dems complain about lack of Republican willingness to go along with them. BTW, unemployment is currently at 9.6% and has been hovering around there for the past year and then some.
Next President Obama and his white house went on a media blitz to talk down fox news and radio commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. He complained that these news networks did a disservice for the country by not reporting more positively about the white house. Keep in mind that a UCLA study found that Fox News is the only news cable channel that leans to the right, that the newspapers are so tilted to the left that the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal are the ONLY ONES IN THE COUNTRY that trend to the right and that radio talk shows are opinion, nothing more nothing less. With so much of the media in his corner Obama took the time to complain about the one section that isn't. Guess that's what his supporters call open minded.
And of course the health care bill in which he allowed the federal funding of abortions and attached a massive cost to go along with some attempt to reduce medical costs and forces people to buy insurance. This was completely unpalatable for Republicans for the obvious reasons, but once again after turning down Obama's token offer for them to go along with it they were branded as the "party of no" by the bringer of post partisanship. Nice.
Today we find ourselves about three weeks away from an election in which the Republicans are expected to take control of at least one house in Congress. Although it should be expected that the President would campaign for his party and encourage people to vote early and often for Dems the language he has used again highlights his own partisan nature. This is a time where even in the face of heaby losses he could make overtures to the GOP and the country and state his willingness to work with any elected officials for the better of our country. It's what President Bush, that guy they love to blame for everything, did in 2006, but unlike President Bush who endorsed candidates on their merit Obama chooses instead to use doomsday rhetoric calling Republicans out of touch, in the hands of special interests. He's even gone so far to state that a GOP congress would mean "hand to hand combat" between his admin and the GOP. In another recent speech he says "They're counting on black folks staying home."...
That is the man that was supposed to bring post partisanship to this country. That is the man that was supposed to heal the racial wounds and bring about a new period of unity, and yet time and time again he has shown himself to be the opposite. Folks, you need to remember this man and what he says. We need to see this man for who he is, what he represents and the damage that he has done to this nation. Election day is three weeks away. I hope you all will stand with me on that day and send a strong message back to Washington, one that the world and President zero will be unable to ignore.
Yeesh, kind of a bad post, not structured at all the way I usually like to, but been a bit of a long day and I imagine you get my point by now.
Take Care.
-Zach
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Meg Whitman and Christine O'Donnell, the two new women Libs love to hate
One thing that I've said for a number of years now is that if you want to see a closet racist or sexist come out of the closet, than just watch a lib's reaction when they face a woman or black man/woman that happens to be a conservative. You'll hear every distasteful name under the sun thrown at this people, names like ditz, barbie doll, uncle tom, house... well you know. These names are thrown ironically from the very people who like to pride themselves as "tolerant" due to their mostly high support from minority groups within the US, and yet when faced with a opposing view, a rather benign test of one's real tolerance they often fail time and time again.
Perhaps the best and most recent case of this on a national scale was the nomination of Sarah Palin for VP. Most people in America understood that the media tilted towards the left, but even the public was repulsed for the most part with the complete tabloid style in which the media sought to embarrass Palin and drag what is a very unassuming family through the mud. Although Palin's folksy way of talking may have made her a fair target for late night comedians it was still amazing to see such people who claim support for diversity to use the "ditz" language with Palin. Palin even recalls in her book "Going Rouge" how during a stop in Philly her daughter Willow spotted a sign that read "Palin is a C---." My my, the very tolerant left. Palin by then of course knew it was national politics and shrugged it off while only lamenting that this was exposed to her children.
Fast forward two years and now we see very similar behavior in two different races, well three if we count the South Carolina Governor's race, but I only have so many lines. Anyway recently NJ Gov Chris Christie appeared in California at an event to support Meg Whitman. During the event some loudmouth started shouting at Meg and becoming disrupted, reportedly stating that "You look like Arnold in a dress" no word on if the left will call this sexism or not. Christie stood up to the man stating "if you want to yell at someone yell at me" in a very good exchange that I'll link below. More recently Whitman is facing a charge that she kept a maid on her payroll for 9 years with knowledge that she was an illegal. She has since proven that to be false by providing the false paperwork that the maid used to obtain the job. All this is a blatant political ploy that will ultimately not hurt her IMHO. Still, it's amazing that the left can be comfortable with this kind of blatant dishonesty. For them the end always justifies the means and that kind of attitude never will be conducive towards bringing this nation towards a less partisan climate, in fact it only serves to further the divide. Any chance someone can pass that along to President Obama?
On to Christine O'Donnell. Admittedly I have not followed this woman much and I know little about her politics, but what I do know is she is a tea party endorsed candidate in Delaware that will vote to repeal Obamacare and will be a reliable vote for reduced spending and a balanced budget and folks, that's all I really care about at this point. I couldn't care less what she "dabbled" in ten years ago and I miffed that the same folks that don't mind sending a cocaine user to the white house would make such a big deal about this, but their libs, hypocrisy hasn't be added to their dictionary yet. O'Donnell has had some miscues though, shortly after winning the nomination she declined an interview in which she could have put her comments into context and in some of her other public appearances she does appear somewhat Palin like which of course, the left hopes to ride to get a "bearded Marxist" elected instead of Christine.
Sigh, folks, why is it we can't simply have a discussion on the issues? Why is it that when a conservative wants to talk about the need for a balanced budget the left comes back with "well you look like a dude in a dress" or "oh, don't you dabble in witchcraft like when you were in high school?" Why is it that many of the are quick to call racism and mock the right for a lack of minority support and than turn around and attack minorities when they embrace conservative views? There is not rational to this stance, never has been and never will be and this.... this is the attitude that has had control of our congress for four years and the white house for two and this.... this is why our country is in the sad shape that it is in today. There is no running from it, but sadly we can expect the partisan trash talk from the left to only ratchet up in a desperate attempt to maintain the Congress past November's election. We can only hope that the public sees past this and Republicans gain back control of both houses. Only then can we begin to repair the damage which has been done and perhaps finally get on a road to post partisanship.
-Zach
Perhaps the best and most recent case of this on a national scale was the nomination of Sarah Palin for VP. Most people in America understood that the media tilted towards the left, but even the public was repulsed for the most part with the complete tabloid style in which the media sought to embarrass Palin and drag what is a very unassuming family through the mud. Although Palin's folksy way of talking may have made her a fair target for late night comedians it was still amazing to see such people who claim support for diversity to use the "ditz" language with Palin. Palin even recalls in her book "Going Rouge" how during a stop in Philly her daughter Willow spotted a sign that read "Palin is a C---." My my, the very tolerant left. Palin by then of course knew it was national politics and shrugged it off while only lamenting that this was exposed to her children.
Fast forward two years and now we see very similar behavior in two different races, well three if we count the South Carolina Governor's race, but I only have so many lines. Anyway recently NJ Gov Chris Christie appeared in California at an event to support Meg Whitman. During the event some loudmouth started shouting at Meg and becoming disrupted, reportedly stating that "You look like Arnold in a dress" no word on if the left will call this sexism or not. Christie stood up to the man stating "if you want to yell at someone yell at me" in a very good exchange that I'll link below. More recently Whitman is facing a charge that she kept a maid on her payroll for 9 years with knowledge that she was an illegal. She has since proven that to be false by providing the false paperwork that the maid used to obtain the job. All this is a blatant political ploy that will ultimately not hurt her IMHO. Still, it's amazing that the left can be comfortable with this kind of blatant dishonesty. For them the end always justifies the means and that kind of attitude never will be conducive towards bringing this nation towards a less partisan climate, in fact it only serves to further the divide. Any chance someone can pass that along to President Obama?
On to Christine O'Donnell. Admittedly I have not followed this woman much and I know little about her politics, but what I do know is she is a tea party endorsed candidate in Delaware that will vote to repeal Obamacare and will be a reliable vote for reduced spending and a balanced budget and folks, that's all I really care about at this point. I couldn't care less what she "dabbled" in ten years ago and I miffed that the same folks that don't mind sending a cocaine user to the white house would make such a big deal about this, but their libs, hypocrisy hasn't be added to their dictionary yet. O'Donnell has had some miscues though, shortly after winning the nomination she declined an interview in which she could have put her comments into context and in some of her other public appearances she does appear somewhat Palin like which of course, the left hopes to ride to get a "bearded Marxist" elected instead of Christine.
Sigh, folks, why is it we can't simply have a discussion on the issues? Why is it that when a conservative wants to talk about the need for a balanced budget the left comes back with "well you look like a dude in a dress" or "oh, don't you dabble in witchcraft like when you were in high school?" Why is it that many of the are quick to call racism and mock the right for a lack of minority support and than turn around and attack minorities when they embrace conservative views? There is not rational to this stance, never has been and never will be and this.... this is the attitude that has had control of our congress for four years and the white house for two and this.... this is why our country is in the sad shape that it is in today. There is no running from it, but sadly we can expect the partisan trash talk from the left to only ratchet up in a desperate attempt to maintain the Congress past November's election. We can only hope that the public sees past this and Republicans gain back control of both houses. Only then can we begin to repair the damage which has been done and perhaps finally get on a road to post partisanship.
-Zach
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Colbert Congress and the new Contract with America
This week's post will be a short one as I will comment on just a few things and call it a night. In the week that was we were treated today to comedian Steven Colbert testifying before Congress. No that is not a mistake, a comedian, IN CHARACTER, was brought in to testify before congress. The mid-term elections are 39 days away, the dems and repubs couldn't get "don't ask don't tell" repealed despite support from both party bases, unemployment stands at 9%, the country remains in a recession and congress.... brings in a comedian for their entertainment.
Can someone please explain what was the value that Colbert added? Cuz I don't see it.
Speaking of 9% unemployment, what is with the National Bureau of Economic Research declaring that the recession is over? Not only do they declare that it is over, but that it has been over since June 2009?! Almost everyone from all political angles disagree with this announcement and are shocked at the huzpuh it takes to even try and pass this off. As far as I can gleam the NBER bases their data on GDP per capita and note that as of June 2009, it stopped going down and has since risen, but still isn't quite to the level it was prior to the recession. Thus far it has climed back a little over 2%. It will need to continue to climb another 3% for us to reach that pre-recession level. This can be reached but it should be noted that should the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire and the Congress moves forward with cap and tax that it will be significantly shortened.
A note on disaffected people of both political classes. A lady who spoke of being "exhausted" in her defense of Obama and all the change he promised but has not delivered has highlighted the ugly side of the left yet again. Obama has been a pretty big disappointment for many who voted for him and this is evident in his sinking approval numbers, last listed at 46%. It shouldn't be too far of a reach to think that such a person such as this lady would remind Obama of how much he has come short, but those on the left seem to be completely oblivious to the reality that is this man they elected President. They have called this lady a plant, accused her of being a fraud etc etc. None of them have ventured to ask themselves just what the hell Obama has done that is of any good to anyone in this country since he took office. Folks, sometimes you run into people who "gasp" can think for themselves and express something known as opinions. If you disagree with them than it is proper for you to disagree with their ideals while still respecting their independent thinking process. To leap to such conclusions on this lady, IMHO, only highlights the narrow ideology of many on the left. Disappointing, but sadly typical of both the left and right today.
Lastly Republicans gathered recently to publish and announce their support for a new contract with America. As can be expected the central themes of this pledge is to cut spending, taxes and for all spending to be conducted in a respectful manor. This is a policy that should be expected from our policymakers IMO and so I support it and I do humbly hope it becomes a reality following the elections.
That's all for now kids. Catch ya next week.
-Zach
Can someone please explain what was the value that Colbert added? Cuz I don't see it.
Speaking of 9% unemployment, what is with the National Bureau of Economic Research declaring that the recession is over? Not only do they declare that it is over, but that it has been over since June 2009?! Almost everyone from all political angles disagree with this announcement and are shocked at the huzpuh it takes to even try and pass this off. As far as I can gleam the NBER bases their data on GDP per capita and note that as of June 2009, it stopped going down and has since risen, but still isn't quite to the level it was prior to the recession. Thus far it has climed back a little over 2%. It will need to continue to climb another 3% for us to reach that pre-recession level. This can be reached but it should be noted that should the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire and the Congress moves forward with cap and tax that it will be significantly shortened.
A note on disaffected people of both political classes. A lady who spoke of being "exhausted" in her defense of Obama and all the change he promised but has not delivered has highlighted the ugly side of the left yet again. Obama has been a pretty big disappointment for many who voted for him and this is evident in his sinking approval numbers, last listed at 46%. It shouldn't be too far of a reach to think that such a person such as this lady would remind Obama of how much he has come short, but those on the left seem to be completely oblivious to the reality that is this man they elected President. They have called this lady a plant, accused her of being a fraud etc etc. None of them have ventured to ask themselves just what the hell Obama has done that is of any good to anyone in this country since he took office. Folks, sometimes you run into people who "gasp" can think for themselves and express something known as opinions. If you disagree with them than it is proper for you to disagree with their ideals while still respecting their independent thinking process. To leap to such conclusions on this lady, IMHO, only highlights the narrow ideology of many on the left. Disappointing, but sadly typical of both the left and right today.
Lastly Republicans gathered recently to publish and announce their support for a new contract with America. As can be expected the central themes of this pledge is to cut spending, taxes and for all spending to be conducted in a respectful manor. This is a policy that should be expected from our policymakers IMO and so I support it and I do humbly hope it becomes a reality following the elections.
That's all for now kids. Catch ya next week.
-Zach
Friday, September 17, 2010
Book Review: Three Cups of Tea, by Greg Mortenson
I just finished reading "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. Overall the book is a very compelling read of the difference one determined man has made to tens of thousands of children in the remote areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He literally through his own commitment has allowed for tens of thousands of poor children to receive a education at a cost that is extremely low making his accomplishments all the more remarkable. One negative for me though, would be the one sided nature of the talk of the US war on terror and my disagreement with this notion that through the promotion of peace and building schools alone, that somehow this will win the war on terror.
The book starts out with a story of Greg before he started his humanitarian work. He was a avid climber and was taking on K2, in Pakistan where he hoped to honor his recently deceased sister by leaving her necklace at the peak. Unfortunately as fate would have it Greg was unable to complete the climb and through a series of bad turns of luck ended up wondering into a Balti village by mistake. The village takes care of Greg and seeks help to guide him the rest of the way down the mountain. While there Greg, a son of teachers and humanitarians, asks to see the towns school. He is shocked to see that there is no school and children are unable to obtain an education. He promises the village elder that he will have a school built for the school.
A very big promise considering at the time the guy was broke and living out of his car. Without detailing it too much, Greg through a lot of hard work, and some luck returns to the village a year later with the building materials ready to complete his promise. Once he's there he is told that while a school would be appreciated the village is in need of something more important... a bridge. For whatever reason Greg never considered just how he was going to get the supplies to the village. Lesson learned. Through his contact with a wealthy supporter Greg is able to have the bridge built and three years after his initial promise the school is completed.
Finding he has a passion for helping the poor in Pakistan Greg's wealthy supporter establishes a non-profit organisation called the Central Asia Institute, hires Greg as the director, and endows it with a million dollars before passing on. Greg accomplishes much with little, and with the story of what his organization does gaining more national attention the CAI gets generous donations from many Americans making it a great success. According to the CAI's website, as of 2010, CAI had successfully built 145 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan and that these schools had provided an education for 64,000 students with an emphasis on girls education. Simply incredible.
A few negative notes though. The book was a very enjoyable read except for the last few chapters as the book covers the US war in Afghanistan. Greg admits that he initially supported the war but currently does not approve of the conduct of the war after hearing of many civilian casualties along with a lack in US interest in rebuilding the country. Not sure exactly where Greg gets the bulk of his info on the civilian casualties, but in what war did he ever read about where there were none? The US does do it's best and it never targets civilians deliberately, but at the same time casualties are going to happen and it's a fools task to try and fight a war where you're singular biggest worry is civilian casualties. Throughout this section of the book it is rife with anecdotes on how accommodating people can be who Greg meets while lamenting a Washington that doesn't care about the effect it has on these people's lives. While Greg's work is very impressive it should be noted that during his work in Pakistan the Taliban grew and took over Afghanistan. Madrassa's went up near the towns where he worked offering a militant education to a ignored mass. If it weren't for the US military's actions Greg would be unable to work in Afghanistan and it would not be possible for him to have made the gains he has made there. Lament our lack of cultural understanding all you want, but don't act like it's the only thing that will turn back terrorism, you will need security as well.
The only other negative is the author, and I imagine this is more from Relin than from Mortenson, takes a rather melodramtic view to events that make them fail the BS test. In an early account Greg is getting school supplies for the first school and the whole bazaar of Rawalpindi is watching as this great Angrezzi gathers up the supplies and they gasp at his graciousness and for one fleeting moment they appreciate America and this man and think nothing but good will and good thoughts. Yeah right. Anyone who knows anything about Pakistan and Afghanistan I think had a good chuckle or rolled their eyes at parts like that. Otherwise though, the accomplishments of the CAI are very real and should be supported. If you wish to learn more about the book or how you could donate to this worthy cause, please click on the link below.
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/how-to-help/
-Zach
The book starts out with a story of Greg before he started his humanitarian work. He was a avid climber and was taking on K2, in Pakistan where he hoped to honor his recently deceased sister by leaving her necklace at the peak. Unfortunately as fate would have it Greg was unable to complete the climb and through a series of bad turns of luck ended up wondering into a Balti village by mistake. The village takes care of Greg and seeks help to guide him the rest of the way down the mountain. While there Greg, a son of teachers and humanitarians, asks to see the towns school. He is shocked to see that there is no school and children are unable to obtain an education. He promises the village elder that he will have a school built for the school.
A very big promise considering at the time the guy was broke and living out of his car. Without detailing it too much, Greg through a lot of hard work, and some luck returns to the village a year later with the building materials ready to complete his promise. Once he's there he is told that while a school would be appreciated the village is in need of something more important... a bridge. For whatever reason Greg never considered just how he was going to get the supplies to the village. Lesson learned. Through his contact with a wealthy supporter Greg is able to have the bridge built and three years after his initial promise the school is completed.
Finding he has a passion for helping the poor in Pakistan Greg's wealthy supporter establishes a non-profit organisation called the Central Asia Institute, hires Greg as the director, and endows it with a million dollars before passing on. Greg accomplishes much with little, and with the story of what his organization does gaining more national attention the CAI gets generous donations from many Americans making it a great success. According to the CAI's website, as of 2010, CAI had successfully built 145 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan and that these schools had provided an education for 64,000 students with an emphasis on girls education. Simply incredible.
A few negative notes though. The book was a very enjoyable read except for the last few chapters as the book covers the US war in Afghanistan. Greg admits that he initially supported the war but currently does not approve of the conduct of the war after hearing of many civilian casualties along with a lack in US interest in rebuilding the country. Not sure exactly where Greg gets the bulk of his info on the civilian casualties, but in what war did he ever read about where there were none? The US does do it's best and it never targets civilians deliberately, but at the same time casualties are going to happen and it's a fools task to try and fight a war where you're singular biggest worry is civilian casualties. Throughout this section of the book it is rife with anecdotes on how accommodating people can be who Greg meets while lamenting a Washington that doesn't care about the effect it has on these people's lives. While Greg's work is very impressive it should be noted that during his work in Pakistan the Taliban grew and took over Afghanistan. Madrassa's went up near the towns where he worked offering a militant education to a ignored mass. If it weren't for the US military's actions Greg would be unable to work in Afghanistan and it would not be possible for him to have made the gains he has made there. Lament our lack of cultural understanding all you want, but don't act like it's the only thing that will turn back terrorism, you will need security as well.
The only other negative is the author, and I imagine this is more from Relin than from Mortenson, takes a rather melodramtic view to events that make them fail the BS test. In an early account Greg is getting school supplies for the first school and the whole bazaar of Rawalpindi is watching as this great Angrezzi gathers up the supplies and they gasp at his graciousness and for one fleeting moment they appreciate America and this man and think nothing but good will and good thoughts. Yeah right. Anyone who knows anything about Pakistan and Afghanistan I think had a good chuckle or rolled their eyes at parts like that. Otherwise though, the accomplishments of the CAI are very real and should be supported. If you wish to learn more about the book or how you could donate to this worthy cause, please click on the link below.
http://www.threecupsoftea.com/how-to-help/
-Zach
Friday, September 10, 2010
It's okay for Americans to be offended, but not terrorists?
Recently the Imam behind the ground zero mosque gave an interview to CNN. In the interview he defended the continued building of a mosque near ground zero because, according to him, if he didn't do that than the "terrorists would win." Apparently the logic behind this is that terrorists abroad are paying attention of the American outrage surrounding the building of this mosque and if it is stopped they will utilize such a thing to promote bad PR on America and swell their ranks.
What a load of crap. Even should this mosque be built terrorists such as those that make up the ranks of Al Qaida and the Taliban are not going to tone down their rhetoric against America and whatever they don't use from the ground zero mosque they will simply make up in front of the ignorant masses. The blocking of this building would have about zero impact, but this is the excuse this guy has for ignoring causing such an offense to Americans and continuing to push for the building of this mosque.
Lets delve into that a little more. He is well aware that Americans are offended by the building of this mosque and yet continues to justify it by saying it will be offensive to other's abroad. Never mind that other muslim religious leaders in the US and abroad are against this, to go along with the 70% of Americans that are against this, it is that retarded minority that we have to be concerned it. Our anger is understandable, but really, it's not as important as the others.
To top this off the Imam again has been offered decent outs and compromises to this situation and he is continuing to balk at any of these offers. A respected muslim scholar commented for a CNN article recently in which he made his opposition clear, but also noted a sympathy for the Imam's position. Still, even he said a good compromise that would bolster the Imam's position as a diplomat would be to walk away from the building and act as a sort of ambassador to Pakistan as it deals with it's current flood crisis. No word has come out on if the Imam even considered this. The reverend of a small church in Florida has suspended plans to hold a kind of Koran bon fire after assurances that the mosque would be moved. Faced with this the Imam again balked, apparently "muslim" terrorists are better to appease. Lastly and most recently it appears that Donald Trump has offered to buy the holding share of the rights to the property where the mosque is to be build, offering 25% above what the holder paid. No word on the Imam's response but a lawyer for the stakeholder blasted it calling it a "pathetic attempt at PR" and again out and out disrespecting what should have been viewed as a respectful way to resolve this dispute.
In closing I will say that I hope that Americans are more angry and more fired up, as I am, following the Imam's interview. This is ridiculous, it needs to be stood on it's head and shown for the ugliness that is the Imam's disregard and disrespect for those that oppose this mosque. As I said before, this man claims to be a diplomat and a man that seeks peaceful solutions to bitter situations, well time to put up or STFU.
The link below is to the referenced CNN article.
-Zach
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/08/profile-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-the-man-behind-the-nyc-islamic-center/?iref=allsearch
What a load of crap. Even should this mosque be built terrorists such as those that make up the ranks of Al Qaida and the Taliban are not going to tone down their rhetoric against America and whatever they don't use from the ground zero mosque they will simply make up in front of the ignorant masses. The blocking of this building would have about zero impact, but this is the excuse this guy has for ignoring causing such an offense to Americans and continuing to push for the building of this mosque.
Lets delve into that a little more. He is well aware that Americans are offended by the building of this mosque and yet continues to justify it by saying it will be offensive to other's abroad. Never mind that other muslim religious leaders in the US and abroad are against this, to go along with the 70% of Americans that are against this, it is that retarded minority that we have to be concerned it. Our anger is understandable, but really, it's not as important as the others.
To top this off the Imam again has been offered decent outs and compromises to this situation and he is continuing to balk at any of these offers. A respected muslim scholar commented for a CNN article recently in which he made his opposition clear, but also noted a sympathy for the Imam's position. Still, even he said a good compromise that would bolster the Imam's position as a diplomat would be to walk away from the building and act as a sort of ambassador to Pakistan as it deals with it's current flood crisis. No word has come out on if the Imam even considered this. The reverend of a small church in Florida has suspended plans to hold a kind of Koran bon fire after assurances that the mosque would be moved. Faced with this the Imam again balked, apparently "muslim" terrorists are better to appease. Lastly and most recently it appears that Donald Trump has offered to buy the holding share of the rights to the property where the mosque is to be build, offering 25% above what the holder paid. No word on the Imam's response but a lawyer for the stakeholder blasted it calling it a "pathetic attempt at PR" and again out and out disrespecting what should have been viewed as a respectful way to resolve this dispute.
In closing I will say that I hope that Americans are more angry and more fired up, as I am, following the Imam's interview. This is ridiculous, it needs to be stood on it's head and shown for the ugliness that is the Imam's disregard and disrespect for those that oppose this mosque. As I said before, this man claims to be a diplomat and a man that seeks peaceful solutions to bitter situations, well time to put up or STFU.
The link below is to the referenced CNN article.
-Zach
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/08/profile-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-the-man-behind-the-nyc-islamic-center/?iref=allsearch
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque
Well once again I have been neglecting my duties to all my fans by not posting regularly on my blog. Their have been a number of incidents that have happened over the past few months which I would have liked to comment on, but for the purpose of this post I will focus on the controversy surrounding the islamic center which is currently planned to be built around two blocks from where the World Trade Center stood. First off let me say that I am completely against the building of this Islamic center because of the location and also because of the very odd and questionable behavior of the Imam and his supporters who are funding this project.
The first thing I want to dismiss is this ridiculous notion that America is somehow islamophobic and that if you oppose this particular mosque it is because of religious intolerance. For anyone to claim such a thing they have to ignore a large amount of evidence to the contrary, the biggest one being that a consistent 70% of Americans oppose the building of this mosque. Are we to believe that 70% of Americans are religiously intolerant or could they, oh I dunno, have reasons other than religion to oppose this building? The next thing these guys have to ignore is that there are currently around 1209 mosques in America, 140 of them being in New York. Think that number is low? Well to put it in perspective that's more mosques than are in some Muslim majority countries such as Egypt. Lastly on this issue it is worth noting that the US is spending 6 million of our tax dollars to help build and renovate mosques in 27 different countries. If anyone still some sort of islamophobia in spite of this I hope they can at least back it up, but typically people who make such claims never plan on presenting any actual evidence of their claim. They simply yell it out, use some obscure reference they hope bolsters their claim and then hope their shouts drown out other more reasonable voices.
The real reason that people like me oppose this building has little to nothing to do with Islam, but the site of the building. I couldn't care less about someone going to their place of worship and praising God as they see fit. It is good that they have this right and I would want to do nothing to stand in their way. However, they want to build this Islamic center two blocks, or around 60o feet (two football fields) from a place where over 2500 people lost their lives in an act of terrorism committed by islamic terrorists. It doesn't get much more inappropriate than that and while they may have the right to practice their religion, I and others maintain our rights of free speech to call them the assholes they are for building such a thing so close to ground zero.
Still though, the media focuses on some supposed religious intolerance. Today in USA Today I find a front page article about a Muslim woman who lost her son in the 9/11 attacks. He was a EMT who when into the World Trade Center and unfortunately lost his life when it collapsed. The paper goes on to describe the reaction in America as a wave of islamophobia. I guess the paper feels that people should be more understanding when 3000 people are killed. The paper than tries to paint the picture that a supposed large amount of muslims were killed on that day stating that "hundreds of muslim families where affected" but later lists the number of muslims killed at 60 noting that it was much more than the "19 hijackers" but not noting that it amounts for all of 2% of the victims that day. I do feel sorry for this mother's loss. It shouldn't be trivialized but frankly this article was pathetic and just another example of a media reporting on a incident without even fully understanding why there is such strong opposition to the building of this center. It has nothing to due with religious intolerance or a hatred of islam, it's about location.
The last thing I want to point out with this issue is the lack of engagement by the Imam behind the building of this mosque. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has written three books concerning Islam in western society, ever notice you don't see many books concerning Christianity in the modern middle east? I digress. Imam Rauf is a well respected Islamic Scholar and appears to have earned a reputation has someone who seeks a peaceful outcome to many of our current conflicts with Islamic extremists. He has even gone so far as to refuse to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization stating that doing so would preclude any ability on his part to act as a intermediary. He further claims that the point in building the islamic center is to rebuff extremism and to hopefully have the effect of bringing communities together, promote dialogue and improve Islamic relations in America. It's fair to say right now that this center has had the opposite effect. No one views this center as a rebuff of extremism. They view it as a mocking victory marker. It hasn't improved dialogue between faiths, it's made it worst. In fact, and this is something I find as galling as the building itself, the supporters of such a mosque have been absent from the discussion over this building. They have refused to meet with NY Gov. David Patterson when he sought to resolve the issue and they have refused what would be seen by most peacemakers as a great opportunity for dialogue. To appear on TV to discuss the positives of your faith. To lament the loss of life on that day and to create a visual image for those of you absolutely condemning the actions of those on 9/11. All this has been rather arrogantly dismissed and instead they simply call those who oppose the building bigots and leave it at that.
Why is it that a man can claim to want to be an intermediary between Hamas and Israel, and yet when it comes to easing the minds of Americans and allowing for discussion on this issue that so many find painful he turns a deaf ear? Why is it that a man can claim to want dialogue and yet clams up when given the opportunity?
In the end there are many reasons to oppose this mosque, none of which has to due with an intolerance of Islam. So I close hoping against hope that the American discussion on this issue begins to focus on the location itself and the appropriate pressure is applied until the plans for the building are eventually moved to a better location.
-Zach
The first thing I want to dismiss is this ridiculous notion that America is somehow islamophobic and that if you oppose this particular mosque it is because of religious intolerance. For anyone to claim such a thing they have to ignore a large amount of evidence to the contrary, the biggest one being that a consistent 70% of Americans oppose the building of this mosque. Are we to believe that 70% of Americans are religiously intolerant or could they, oh I dunno, have reasons other than religion to oppose this building? The next thing these guys have to ignore is that there are currently around 1209 mosques in America, 140 of them being in New York. Think that number is low? Well to put it in perspective that's more mosques than are in some Muslim majority countries such as Egypt. Lastly on this issue it is worth noting that the US is spending 6 million of our tax dollars to help build and renovate mosques in 27 different countries. If anyone still some sort of islamophobia in spite of this I hope they can at least back it up, but typically people who make such claims never plan on presenting any actual evidence of their claim. They simply yell it out, use some obscure reference they hope bolsters their claim and then hope their shouts drown out other more reasonable voices.
The real reason that people like me oppose this building has little to nothing to do with Islam, but the site of the building. I couldn't care less about someone going to their place of worship and praising God as they see fit. It is good that they have this right and I would want to do nothing to stand in their way. However, they want to build this Islamic center two blocks, or around 60o feet (two football fields) from a place where over 2500 people lost their lives in an act of terrorism committed by islamic terrorists. It doesn't get much more inappropriate than that and while they may have the right to practice their religion, I and others maintain our rights of free speech to call them the assholes they are for building such a thing so close to ground zero.
Still though, the media focuses on some supposed religious intolerance. Today in USA Today I find a front page article about a Muslim woman who lost her son in the 9/11 attacks. He was a EMT who when into the World Trade Center and unfortunately lost his life when it collapsed. The paper goes on to describe the reaction in America as a wave of islamophobia. I guess the paper feels that people should be more understanding when 3000 people are killed. The paper than tries to paint the picture that a supposed large amount of muslims were killed on that day stating that "hundreds of muslim families where affected" but later lists the number of muslims killed at 60 noting that it was much more than the "19 hijackers" but not noting that it amounts for all of 2% of the victims that day. I do feel sorry for this mother's loss. It shouldn't be trivialized but frankly this article was pathetic and just another example of a media reporting on a incident without even fully understanding why there is such strong opposition to the building of this center. It has nothing to due with religious intolerance or a hatred of islam, it's about location.
The last thing I want to point out with this issue is the lack of engagement by the Imam behind the building of this mosque. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has written three books concerning Islam in western society, ever notice you don't see many books concerning Christianity in the modern middle east? I digress. Imam Rauf is a well respected Islamic Scholar and appears to have earned a reputation has someone who seeks a peaceful outcome to many of our current conflicts with Islamic extremists. He has even gone so far as to refuse to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization stating that doing so would preclude any ability on his part to act as a intermediary. He further claims that the point in building the islamic center is to rebuff extremism and to hopefully have the effect of bringing communities together, promote dialogue and improve Islamic relations in America. It's fair to say right now that this center has had the opposite effect. No one views this center as a rebuff of extremism. They view it as a mocking victory marker. It hasn't improved dialogue between faiths, it's made it worst. In fact, and this is something I find as galling as the building itself, the supporters of such a mosque have been absent from the discussion over this building. They have refused to meet with NY Gov. David Patterson when he sought to resolve the issue and they have refused what would be seen by most peacemakers as a great opportunity for dialogue. To appear on TV to discuss the positives of your faith. To lament the loss of life on that day and to create a visual image for those of you absolutely condemning the actions of those on 9/11. All this has been rather arrogantly dismissed and instead they simply call those who oppose the building bigots and leave it at that.
Why is it that a man can claim to want to be an intermediary between Hamas and Israel, and yet when it comes to easing the minds of Americans and allowing for discussion on this issue that so many find painful he turns a deaf ear? Why is it that a man can claim to want dialogue and yet clams up when given the opportunity?
In the end there are many reasons to oppose this mosque, none of which has to due with an intolerance of Islam. So I close hoping against hope that the American discussion on this issue begins to focus on the location itself and the appropriate pressure is applied until the plans for the building are eventually moved to a better location.
-Zach
Sunday, July 18, 2010
NAACP plays the race card against the Tea Party. Really?
Recently the NAACP passed a resolution against the tea party condemning what it stated where racist elements within the tea party. Shortly after it was passed Ben Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP stated "Expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take the responsibility for them and their actions. We will no longer allow you to hide like cowards.'' Wow, how civil and open minded of the man.
Now lets get one thing straight. The Tea Party movement was founded on a belief in responsible government and as a reaction to the policies of the Obama administration which many Americans disagree with. While I have yet to see any supposed "racist" signs at any pictures of this rally I will proceed with the assumption that they are there somewhere on the outskirts of these events as more of a fringe element. Now most people will acknowledge that you have a few "crazies" and the fringe at just about any event, family, or organization and that they, the fringe, are to be considered representative of the movement as a whole. In fact in one interview with a NAACP rep he acknowledged that yes, they know it's just the far out fringe and that the Tea Party has little to no involvement in that part of their ideology, but gosh all the NAACP really wants is for some leader of the Tea Party, whomever that may be since it's a grassroots movement, to come forward and denounce these activities.
The accusation here is nothing more than a red herring and so far as I can see those who are identified as part of the Tea Party movement have done the right thing in calling it what it is and refusing to bow to the needs of some thin skinned race baiters. Let them go pound sand and shout to the heavens in indignation for all conservatives care. We will not bow down and ask forgiveness for a sin we have not committed no apologize for a wrong in which members of the NAACP organization acknowledge there is no proof of. If there is to be a discussion between conservatives in the tea party and the NAACP than it should center around the issues of fiscal responsibility. Sit down at a table and talk over these differences and see if some common ground may be found and the tea party will find a way to gain a more diverse crowd at their rallies. The first thing that will need to happen though is the NAACP will need to rescind their resolution condemning these elements because such a measure undermines any effort by either organization towards mutual respect.
Only when the rights of both are respected despite differing political views can progress be made in national dialogue in this country. No greater example of the good that such a dialogue can bring can be found in our own founder father's debate and discussion over the union of our great country. If the best of mankind can find that out and work together over the petty politicians this world will be a great place. Till than it will be the same snipes and gripes that do nothing but keep us all down and worse yet, divided.
-Zach
Ref: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/17/1734535/naacp-made-the-right-call-on-racists.html#ixzz0u38D7vqo
Now lets get one thing straight. The Tea Party movement was founded on a belief in responsible government and as a reaction to the policies of the Obama administration which many Americans disagree with. While I have yet to see any supposed "racist" signs at any pictures of this rally I will proceed with the assumption that they are there somewhere on the outskirts of these events as more of a fringe element. Now most people will acknowledge that you have a few "crazies" and the fringe at just about any event, family, or organization and that they, the fringe, are to be considered representative of the movement as a whole. In fact in one interview with a NAACP rep he acknowledged that yes, they know it's just the far out fringe and that the Tea Party has little to no involvement in that part of their ideology, but gosh all the NAACP really wants is for some leader of the Tea Party, whomever that may be since it's a grassroots movement, to come forward and denounce these activities.
The accusation here is nothing more than a red herring and so far as I can see those who are identified as part of the Tea Party movement have done the right thing in calling it what it is and refusing to bow to the needs of some thin skinned race baiters. Let them go pound sand and shout to the heavens in indignation for all conservatives care. We will not bow down and ask forgiveness for a sin we have not committed no apologize for a wrong in which members of the NAACP organization acknowledge there is no proof of. If there is to be a discussion between conservatives in the tea party and the NAACP than it should center around the issues of fiscal responsibility. Sit down at a table and talk over these differences and see if some common ground may be found and the tea party will find a way to gain a more diverse crowd at their rallies. The first thing that will need to happen though is the NAACP will need to rescind their resolution condemning these elements because such a measure undermines any effort by either organization towards mutual respect.
Only when the rights of both are respected despite differing political views can progress be made in national dialogue in this country. No greater example of the good that such a dialogue can bring can be found in our own founder father's debate and discussion over the union of our great country. If the best of mankind can find that out and work together over the petty politicians this world will be a great place. Till than it will be the same snipes and gripes that do nothing but keep us all down and worse yet, divided.
-Zach
Ref: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/17/1734535/naacp-made-the-right-call-on-racists.html#ixzz0u38D7vqo
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Second Amendment. Why is this so difficult?
Recently the supreme court, in a case similar to DC V Heller, struck down a hand gun ban in Chicago in McDonald V Chicago. The vote on this case, again like two years ago, was split down the middle 5-4 with the court deciding that the second amendment allows individuals the right own firearms and that no form of government may take this right away.
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
WOW, amazing right? Truly revolutionary, or at least that's probably what our founding fathers were thinking when they made it the second amendment in the bill of rights. Those would be the same bill of rights that all states across the U.S. made clear would be required for them to ratify the constitution. You see they were concerned that without such a bill of rights a government might start to take their individual rights away. Those crazy overreacting colonists, like THAT could ever happen.
Anyway, what I wrote above any person with a high school diploma who has attended a basic US History course could tell you. It's that simple to understand that the second amendment is an individual right and yet for the second time in TWO years 4 very highly educated supreme court justices have answered in the negative when asked what the second amendment. In both cases it has been made clear that the four dissenting justices are applying their own personal views to how they will make their judgements with goes beyond their responsibilities as judges, which is simply to interpret and uphold the constitutionality of our system of government. Their actions have left us with a dangerous situation where if they acquire one more vote like them they have gone from a neutral arbitrating body to one that effectively is seeking to set policy and write laws themselves.
Folks, this is not something that should be taken lightly. If we as a country think it is unwise for people to own firearms than we have the option of repealing the second amendment through our representatives. THAT is the proper channel to make such a change and our constitution is set up as such to prevent government tyranny over individual liberty. When a Supreme Court has such a hard time making such an easy call as to what the hell the second amendment is we are very close to finding ourselves in a situation where that safety net the founding fathers gave us is now gone. I urge all that hear this to write to your local papers and your representatives making it clear that this kind of conduct from judges on this countries high court is simply not acceptable.
-Zach
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Follies of the Obama Adminstration's Afghan policy
Recently President Obama decided to relieve General McCrystal from overall command from US forces in Afghanistan. The move comes not because of the continued rising violence in Afghanistan. It comes not as a result of a stalled offensive in Helmland province or a delay in even beginning an offensive in Kandahar province due to lack of "local support." It comes not as it becomes more and more known that the ROE that our forces are operation with over there are making us a joke. No, none of these are the reasons for General McCrystal's removal. The reason the man is getting canned is because of a Rolling Stone article in which General McCrystal and his aides were noted not saying very nice things about people in the Obama administration.
Now while I will not defend what was in the article, it is ridiculous on the Generals part that he allowed this piece to be published, there were numerous reasons for the General to be canned. The biggest reason IMO was that the man either sucked at implementing a counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan or he was forced to implement a policy he didn't himself believe in. In either case he should have been canned and Americans should be upset of the half hearted nature in which the Afghan war appears to have been waged during his time. If you can't do your job than man the hell up and resign so that someone else can and so that fewer of our men and women come home in boxes.
While I could go on and on about this subject I will cut it short for now because it's the morning and darn it, I'm hungry. I will only also note that the President has asked the head of CENTCOM and brains behind the Iraq surge policy, the one that President Obama refused to credit with success during his 2008 campaign, General Petreaus to step in and command the forces in Afghanistan and implement an insurgency strategy that will work. I am hopeful that the General will be able to get the job done both because of his proven ability and sway in Washington to make changes on the ground without much risk of being undermined by civilian bosses back home. It's already become known that Petreaus is reviewing the ROE which hopefully will be revised to allow our forces to actually go after insurgents when we find them.
-Zach
Now while I will not defend what was in the article, it is ridiculous on the Generals part that he allowed this piece to be published, there were numerous reasons for the General to be canned. The biggest reason IMO was that the man either sucked at implementing a counter insurgency strategy in Afghanistan or he was forced to implement a policy he didn't himself believe in. In either case he should have been canned and Americans should be upset of the half hearted nature in which the Afghan war appears to have been waged during his time. If you can't do your job than man the hell up and resign so that someone else can and so that fewer of our men and women come home in boxes.
While I could go on and on about this subject I will cut it short for now because it's the morning and darn it, I'm hungry. I will only also note that the President has asked the head of CENTCOM and brains behind the Iraq surge policy, the one that President Obama refused to credit with success during his 2008 campaign, General Petreaus to step in and command the forces in Afghanistan and implement an insurgency strategy that will work. I am hopeful that the General will be able to get the job done both because of his proven ability and sway in Washington to make changes on the ground without much risk of being undermined by civilian bosses back home. It's already become known that Petreaus is reviewing the ROE which hopefully will be revised to allow our forces to actually go after insurgents when we find them.
-Zach
The Obama Adminstration's Lawsuit against Arizona
Recently it became known that the Obama administration has decided to file a federal lawsuit challenging Arizona's recently passed immigration law on the grounds that enforcing immigration is a federal responsibility and not a state one. On a personal note this is disappointing because IMO, this is a "issue" that should have been dead and gone inside of a week. The other thing that is very disappointing is that this lawsuit will likely be unsuccessful, which the Obama administration knows, but they will waste the federal dollars anyway in an obvious ploy meant to rally the liberal base and distract from Obama's sinking poll numbers.
Talking about the Arizona law as an issue, the first thing that many opponents yelped about was that it would lead to the targeting of a certain group of people. Following up on this these same proponents of inactivity made inaccurate statements that this would lead the Arizona police to likely just walk up and ask any random Hispanic about their legal status. Even President Zero made this mistake when he lamented how some Latino grandfather who has lived in the US his whole life could now take this grandkids out for some icecream and be subject to harassment should the gestapo Arizona PD feel the need to "check up" on the old man.
The truth is that the Arizona law only allows for local police to check into a person's legal immigration status provided that the person is already subject to arrest and their is reasonable suspicion on the police officer's part that the person is an illegal. So the old Latino grandfather and take heart. Unless he has robbed a bank to pay for that expensive ice cream the dreaded Arizona local PD cannot just randomly question him or his grand kids.
The truth above is easily found by those that look into the law, but those that oppose it have and likely will maintain the position already mentioned about the poor immigrant now being a target in Arizona. It is unfortunate that the truth does not matter in this instance, but when dealing with the masses you need to make radical comparisons to the worst case possible scenarios, and as in this example, even lie in order to draw out opposition or support on a issue. For anyone who actually looks at the law there is no basis for this opposition which is likely why the Obama administration's lawsuit was over federal responsibilities and not over any supposed discriminatory practices by the Arizona state government.
Even so the lawsuit is likely to fail. Even though it is the federal government's responsibility to set up immigration laws it is up to the states to decide how best to enforce these laws. The only way this lawsuit would have a chance for success is if the law allowed for Arizona to create a different immigration process different from the federal government. Since it only allows for the state to enforce federal laws already in place there is little basis for this lawsuit. IMO the obama administration knows this and this is nothing more than a political ploy on their part in which they hope this lawsuit will serve to rally the liberal base in boost Obama in the polls after consistent sinking in the face of the oil spill in the gulf. In the end this will be just another waste of tax dollars all thanks to a couple of liberal morons who don't even take the time of day to read and understand the law they oppose.
Talking about the Arizona law as an issue, the first thing that many opponents yelped about was that it would lead to the targeting of a certain group of people. Following up on this these same proponents of inactivity made inaccurate statements that this would lead the Arizona police to likely just walk up and ask any random Hispanic about their legal status. Even President Zero made this mistake when he lamented how some Latino grandfather who has lived in the US his whole life could now take this grandkids out for some icecream and be subject to harassment should the gestapo Arizona PD feel the need to "check up" on the old man.
The truth is that the Arizona law only allows for local police to check into a person's legal immigration status provided that the person is already subject to arrest and their is reasonable suspicion on the police officer's part that the person is an illegal. So the old Latino grandfather and take heart. Unless he has robbed a bank to pay for that expensive ice cream the dreaded Arizona local PD cannot just randomly question him or his grand kids.
The truth above is easily found by those that look into the law, but those that oppose it have and likely will maintain the position already mentioned about the poor immigrant now being a target in Arizona. It is unfortunate that the truth does not matter in this instance, but when dealing with the masses you need to make radical comparisons to the worst case possible scenarios, and as in this example, even lie in order to draw out opposition or support on a issue. For anyone who actually looks at the law there is no basis for this opposition which is likely why the Obama administration's lawsuit was over federal responsibilities and not over any supposed discriminatory practices by the Arizona state government.
Even so the lawsuit is likely to fail. Even though it is the federal government's responsibility to set up immigration laws it is up to the states to decide how best to enforce these laws. The only way this lawsuit would have a chance for success is if the law allowed for Arizona to create a different immigration process different from the federal government. Since it only allows for the state to enforce federal laws already in place there is little basis for this lawsuit. IMO the obama administration knows this and this is nothing more than a political ploy on their part in which they hope this lawsuit will serve to rally the liberal base in boost Obama in the polls after consistent sinking in the face of the oil spill in the gulf. In the end this will be just another waste of tax dollars all thanks to a couple of liberal morons who don't even take the time of day to read and understand the law they oppose.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Random comments
Well it's once again been a long time since I posted anything on my blog. I hope my many fans will excuse me as I have been a very busy person over the past few months.
Looking over the news it looks like it's been all oil spill all the time for the past two months which really makes me thankful for my current situation witch allows for a limited intake of the national news media. We as Americans seemingly always need something to cry fowl over or to create drama. We are addicted to it and the news media lives off it and we as the gullible classless droolbots that we are lap it up and move from one "crisis" to the next. In the mean time the real world faces much bigger challenges.
In Krygystan I must say that I am surprised by the violence and chaos that has erupted in the southern part of the nation following the overthrow of Bakilev's(sp?) government which was replaced not by a dictator, but by a caretaker government that is busy drafting a new constitution and which hopes to hold elections sometime next year. I say I am surprised because the coup itself came and went rather quickly without much opposition in Bishkek. With that in hand I felt there maybe some opposition but figured that it would be disorganized and that it would go away quickly. It seems not though, in the south where there is a significant amount of Uzbek citizens, Krygs who had been supporters of Bakilev targeted the Uzbeks and have been systematically attacking and killing what appears now to be a couple thousand people and quickly creating a crisis in central asia. The interim government has failed to establish security in the south and has requested Russian military assistance, which the Russians have declined. How amazing it is that a group of people could live together for so long, be each others neighbor and than so quickly turn on one another for really nothing. Frankly it's just another situation that makes me shake my head at the callous and selfish nature of mankind.
That's about it for now, will post more later.
-Zach
Looking over the news it looks like it's been all oil spill all the time for the past two months which really makes me thankful for my current situation witch allows for a limited intake of the national news media. We as Americans seemingly always need something to cry fowl over or to create drama. We are addicted to it and the news media lives off it and we as the gullible classless droolbots that we are lap it up and move from one "crisis" to the next. In the mean time the real world faces much bigger challenges.
In Krygystan I must say that I am surprised by the violence and chaos that has erupted in the southern part of the nation following the overthrow of Bakilev's(sp?) government which was replaced not by a dictator, but by a caretaker government that is busy drafting a new constitution and which hopes to hold elections sometime next year. I say I am surprised because the coup itself came and went rather quickly without much opposition in Bishkek. With that in hand I felt there maybe some opposition but figured that it would be disorganized and that it would go away quickly. It seems not though, in the south where there is a significant amount of Uzbek citizens, Krygs who had been supporters of Bakilev targeted the Uzbeks and have been systematically attacking and killing what appears now to be a couple thousand people and quickly creating a crisis in central asia. The interim government has failed to establish security in the south and has requested Russian military assistance, which the Russians have declined. How amazing it is that a group of people could live together for so long, be each others neighbor and than so quickly turn on one another for really nothing. Frankly it's just another situation that makes me shake my head at the callous and selfish nature of mankind.
That's about it for now, will post more later.
-Zach
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Arizona Immigration law, facebook, and knee jerk liberals
Recently the state of Arizona passed immigration law which, gasp, allows local law enforcement officer to enforce immigration law. This of course has aroused the typical liberal angst against the largely conservative state. Epitaphs of racism, accusations that this will lead to racial profiling, etc. all have been leveled at this state. Frankly I'm happy Arizona has the good sense to pass such a measure and I shake my head that something so simple drives so many otherwise fine people to hate their neighbor and call them a racist. It's more par for the course though and I was content to let it pass, but a recent incident has caused me to decide to comment fully on it.
Yesterday after logging into facebook to see what my friends and family are up to back home I came across a posting by a cousin of my girlfriend, random thought, why do we make people we barely know friends on facebook? Anyway, her views trend to the left and I generally ignore it but saw this posted by her "WTF. Arizona immigration law?" It had quite a few responses and my curiosity made me check out the idiocy I knew laid inside. Sure enough there were the typical responses equating Arizona's laws to fascism. In fact in 12 responses all i saw as gestapo/nazi this and fascist that. So, being the nice guy I am I responded "yeah, a country that enforces it's laws, crazy concept." Along with another note taking a shot at such liberal use of a term like "fascist" by people who apparently had little to no knowledge on what it actually means. This morning I saw that my GF's cousin, well didn't appreciate it too much and asked me to refrain from posting my political views on "her wall." To be more exact it was keep my views on my wall and she will do the same. First signs of leftist tolerance i see. I also saw one of her friends gave the always delightful response to the tune of "if you don't agree with our group think, that STFU." No differing views allowed here. Another sign of that leftist tolerant attitude we hear so much about.
In the end of course I will respect her wishes as I would expect her to respect mine and I only baited the STFU guy a little, it's the most fun i can have right now. Really, this got me thinking though, what is the big deal about this? Is there perhaps something in this law that I have overlooked that would and should cause such protestations? There could be and so in the hopes of becoming better informed I looked it up and shockingly, it was exactly what I heard it could be. Basically it says that a cop my have "reasonable suspicion" that the person he is speaking with is an illegal immigrant. After having that the officer may than request that the suspect provide documentation proving he is a legal resident or immigrant in our nation. That is it folks.
Now if your looking for the outrageous part in all this, it is in the term "reasonable." That's right, reasonable is an unreasonable term that will inevitably allow those mean police officers to target Hispanic immigrants in this country. President Zero even expressed some concern about this by notice that this law would allow an immigrant to be here for generations and suddenly be stopped by those men no doubt wearing jackboots and have to answer their unreasonable inquiries. Oh the horror.
In the end folks, the law does little but assist the federal government in their enforcement of immigration laws. Other than that the State of Arizona will remain as serene as it always has been.
-Zach
Yesterday after logging into facebook to see what my friends and family are up to back home I came across a posting by a cousin of my girlfriend, random thought, why do we make people we barely know friends on facebook? Anyway, her views trend to the left and I generally ignore it but saw this posted by her "WTF. Arizona immigration law?" It had quite a few responses and my curiosity made me check out the idiocy I knew laid inside. Sure enough there were the typical responses equating Arizona's laws to fascism. In fact in 12 responses all i saw as gestapo/nazi this and fascist that. So, being the nice guy I am I responded "yeah, a country that enforces it's laws, crazy concept." Along with another note taking a shot at such liberal use of a term like "fascist" by people who apparently had little to no knowledge on what it actually means. This morning I saw that my GF's cousin, well didn't appreciate it too much and asked me to refrain from posting my political views on "her wall." To be more exact it was keep my views on my wall and she will do the same. First signs of leftist tolerance i see. I also saw one of her friends gave the always delightful response to the tune of "if you don't agree with our group think, that STFU." No differing views allowed here. Another sign of that leftist tolerant attitude we hear so much about.
In the end of course I will respect her wishes as I would expect her to respect mine and I only baited the STFU guy a little, it's the most fun i can have right now. Really, this got me thinking though, what is the big deal about this? Is there perhaps something in this law that I have overlooked that would and should cause such protestations? There could be and so in the hopes of becoming better informed I looked it up and shockingly, it was exactly what I heard it could be. Basically it says that a cop my have "reasonable suspicion" that the person he is speaking with is an illegal immigrant. After having that the officer may than request that the suspect provide documentation proving he is a legal resident or immigrant in our nation. That is it folks.
Now if your looking for the outrageous part in all this, it is in the term "reasonable." That's right, reasonable is an unreasonable term that will inevitably allow those mean police officers to target Hispanic immigrants in this country. President Zero even expressed some concern about this by notice that this law would allow an immigrant to be here for generations and suddenly be stopped by those men no doubt wearing jackboots and have to answer their unreasonable inquiries. Oh the horror.
In the end folks, the law does little but assist the federal government in their enforcement of immigration laws. Other than that the State of Arizona will remain as serene as it always has been.
-Zach
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Heros and the way we honor and remember them
Recently I received an e-mail from one of my friends. The e-mail was one of those chain e-mails that usually have some sort of story that is designed to be compelling and to cause the e-mail reader to forward it to many contacts. Normally I am always suspicious of these e-mails simply because whatever message they are selling is usually false, but sounds plausible enough to the casual reader that they will simply forward it without thinking.
The e-mail in question concerned the supposed recent passing of Capt. Ed Freeman (USAF retired) who was awarded the medal of honor for his actions in Vietnam. The e-mail gave a vivid description of the battlefield, of certain death for many young American men, and how many of them lived to come home because of Capt. Freeman medevacing over 70 wounded men, ignoring heavy machine gunfire while flying an unarmed helo. He would even keep flying after sustaining 4 bullet wounds to the leg and arms. Truly his actions were those that embody what we as a country expect in a MOH awardee and selfless acts of heroism like his are what inspire so many who have served this nation before. At the end of this e-mail it takes a few pot shots at the American media complaining about coverage given to Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson while this man died and received so little coverage. That alone should have and to some degree did set off a red flag about this e-mail to me, but being a bit lazy and thinking of the man's heroism I decided to forward it than check the validity.
Of course as soon as I typed in Capt. Freeman's name I found out that he did not pass away recently, but actually passed in August of 2008. I also found that one of the first links to come up was to snopes.com, a website that specializes in debunking these kinds of e-mails. Sure enough I found that while Freeman was a real man and his actions were not embellished in his e-mail, the rest had been circulating for some time with the original version coming out some six months after the man had passed. Frankly reading the snopes report on this e-mail had an effect of really pissing me off. This man was a hero and his actions were of such courage that I can not imagine what it was that kept him flying into that hell, but six months after he died some douchebag who apparently wanted to run his fucking pathetic mealy mouth about the American media used this hero's death for a very selfish purpose. The sad thing is the originator of such an e-mail probably considers himself patriotic and a "real American." At the end of the chain e-mail it stated "shame on you American media for not covering this man's death." Frankly I'm more inclined to want to find the originator of this e-mail so that i can knock his ass out for doing this. Not that I'm a fan of the American media, but like any seller of a product they are catering to what the public wants. If they are reporting on Jackson or Woods it's because Americans are dumb and pathetic enough to value that more. So in the end it should be shame on the American public for not having their priorities straight.
Back to the original point though. folks, this is not the way to honor those who have served, and this sure as shit is no way to honor a man like Capt. Freeman. Too many men have sacrificed their youth, their lives, their sanity, and their health so that we can as a nation continue to live our lives the way our founders intended. Almost everyone of them has served selflessly and given this sacrifice for their own reasons. For them the most that they would want is for their actions to be remembered and for it to serve to inspire those who serve today. To remember such a sacrifice and remember the valor that lives in the heart of those that serve is the best way to honor these men. It serves no purpose and no honor to these men to cheapen their work by using it for something as trivial as politics and the national media.
The only good thing about this e-mail is that the vast majority who have been exposed to it and forwarded it likely did so for the same reasons I did, they were amazed by the Captains actions and forwarded it without waiting to think about it. Their focus was in the right place and that was on furthering the story of the man's actions and in that sense the e-mail was a good thing. In the future though, lets honor these men and leave the politics out of it.
-Zach
The e-mail in question concerned the supposed recent passing of Capt. Ed Freeman (USAF retired) who was awarded the medal of honor for his actions in Vietnam. The e-mail gave a vivid description of the battlefield, of certain death for many young American men, and how many of them lived to come home because of Capt. Freeman medevacing over 70 wounded men, ignoring heavy machine gunfire while flying an unarmed helo. He would even keep flying after sustaining 4 bullet wounds to the leg and arms. Truly his actions were those that embody what we as a country expect in a MOH awardee and selfless acts of heroism like his are what inspire so many who have served this nation before. At the end of this e-mail it takes a few pot shots at the American media complaining about coverage given to Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson while this man died and received so little coverage. That alone should have and to some degree did set off a red flag about this e-mail to me, but being a bit lazy and thinking of the man's heroism I decided to forward it than check the validity.
Of course as soon as I typed in Capt. Freeman's name I found out that he did not pass away recently, but actually passed in August of 2008. I also found that one of the first links to come up was to snopes.com, a website that specializes in debunking these kinds of e-mails. Sure enough I found that while Freeman was a real man and his actions were not embellished in his e-mail, the rest had been circulating for some time with the original version coming out some six months after the man had passed. Frankly reading the snopes report on this e-mail had an effect of really pissing me off. This man was a hero and his actions were of such courage that I can not imagine what it was that kept him flying into that hell, but six months after he died some douchebag who apparently wanted to run his fucking pathetic mealy mouth about the American media used this hero's death for a very selfish purpose. The sad thing is the originator of such an e-mail probably considers himself patriotic and a "real American." At the end of the chain e-mail it stated "shame on you American media for not covering this man's death." Frankly I'm more inclined to want to find the originator of this e-mail so that i can knock his ass out for doing this. Not that I'm a fan of the American media, but like any seller of a product they are catering to what the public wants. If they are reporting on Jackson or Woods it's because Americans are dumb and pathetic enough to value that more. So in the end it should be shame on the American public for not having their priorities straight.
Back to the original point though. folks, this is not the way to honor those who have served, and this sure as shit is no way to honor a man like Capt. Freeman. Too many men have sacrificed their youth, their lives, their sanity, and their health so that we can as a nation continue to live our lives the way our founders intended. Almost everyone of them has served selflessly and given this sacrifice for their own reasons. For them the most that they would want is for their actions to be remembered and for it to serve to inspire those who serve today. To remember such a sacrifice and remember the valor that lives in the heart of those that serve is the best way to honor these men. It serves no purpose and no honor to these men to cheapen their work by using it for something as trivial as politics and the national media.
The only good thing about this e-mail is that the vast majority who have been exposed to it and forwarded it likely did so for the same reasons I did, they were amazed by the Captains actions and forwarded it without waiting to think about it. Their focus was in the right place and that was on furthering the story of the man's actions and in that sense the e-mail was a good thing. In the future though, lets honor these men and leave the politics out of it.
-Zach
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
only a liberal deals in absolutes
Todays tittle brought to you by the good folks of Star Wars. I hope they don't mind me borrowing one of there lines.
Anyway, it's been awhile so now is the time to post some random musings of which you may or maynot gain some intelletual stimulization or consitpation from.
As we all know, President zero and the rest of the brain squad recently forced through healthcare despite the clear "no" that the public had sent them for months. In dealing with arguing the finer points on what to do with the healthcare system most conservatives got reaquainted with an old truth about liberals, and that is that if you do not agree ver batum with exactly their line of thought, than you are evil, ignorant, apathetic, a blight on humanity, or some combination of the four. For example, If you did not vote for President Obama and if you did not support his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the supreme court than despite the soundness of your reasoning, you probably just a racist to some liberals.
With the healthcare debate the tactic seems to have been by most knee jerk libs to claim that if you oppose the healthcare bill than you do not care about the uninsured and that you do not care about "people who will die in the streets." Often times when prodded to state how the healthcare bill will make this better you usually get some rambling, mostly incoherrant bit about holding insurance companies responsible and forcing them to not deny coverage. When pointed out that this will not lessen the rates and actually may raise it as companies seek to make up the added cost for doing business you usually get a shrug or a non response. If you suggest that people who are happy with their current coverage offered by their business will now lose it as those same business's seek to adjust to a government that taxes them more and so they move to a bare minimum option that the government ok's you again get a shrug of indifference from the compassionate leftists.
In january Obama in his hopes to gain support for the healthcare bill and to marginalize Republican opposition invited them to a open press conference in which both parties could offer ideas on reform. After zero's stunt backfired and Republicans gained more support, rather than seek to adopt the changes that Republicans called for or to scratch the plan all together and start fresh as the country and the Republicans stated would be the best option, zero pushed ahead because gosh darn it, he knows better than your just a dummy who doesn't get it.
In the coming election zero has dared Republicans to "go for it" in campaigning for the november elections on a repeal healthcare ticket. Clearly the plan here will be to charge that once again that Republicans want to take away "your healthcare" and let people die in the streets. Frankly, this thing needs to be taken down and quickly because if it's allowed years to take root and feaster there will be enough of a class of Americans dependent on this corrupt system that they will buy into it the same way they buy into the "republicans want to take your social security, abortions rights, minority rights" away.
In the end this is the liberal way. They deal in absolutes and there will be no room for discussion while they are still a majority in the house.
-P.S. A note to those that want to run Dem rep Bart Stupak through the mud for his compromise on healthcare i say lighten up. The man is a Dem who held up healthcare for about a month and his steadfast determination will keep federal funds from going to support abortions. The man was placed in an awkward position where lesser politicians would yield to party pressure and instead gave us one positive in this bill so lets show some class and not make this man a target as the tea party for whatever reason appears to want to do.
-Zach
Anyway, it's been awhile so now is the time to post some random musings of which you may or maynot gain some intelletual stimulization or consitpation from.
As we all know, President zero and the rest of the brain squad recently forced through healthcare despite the clear "no" that the public had sent them for months. In dealing with arguing the finer points on what to do with the healthcare system most conservatives got reaquainted with an old truth about liberals, and that is that if you do not agree ver batum with exactly their line of thought, than you are evil, ignorant, apathetic, a blight on humanity, or some combination of the four. For example, If you did not vote for President Obama and if you did not support his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the supreme court than despite the soundness of your reasoning, you probably just a racist to some liberals.
With the healthcare debate the tactic seems to have been by most knee jerk libs to claim that if you oppose the healthcare bill than you do not care about the uninsured and that you do not care about "people who will die in the streets." Often times when prodded to state how the healthcare bill will make this better you usually get some rambling, mostly incoherrant bit about holding insurance companies responsible and forcing them to not deny coverage. When pointed out that this will not lessen the rates and actually may raise it as companies seek to make up the added cost for doing business you usually get a shrug or a non response. If you suggest that people who are happy with their current coverage offered by their business will now lose it as those same business's seek to adjust to a government that taxes them more and so they move to a bare minimum option that the government ok's you again get a shrug of indifference from the compassionate leftists.
In january Obama in his hopes to gain support for the healthcare bill and to marginalize Republican opposition invited them to a open press conference in which both parties could offer ideas on reform. After zero's stunt backfired and Republicans gained more support, rather than seek to adopt the changes that Republicans called for or to scratch the plan all together and start fresh as the country and the Republicans stated would be the best option, zero pushed ahead because gosh darn it, he knows better than your just a dummy who doesn't get it.
In the coming election zero has dared Republicans to "go for it" in campaigning for the november elections on a repeal healthcare ticket. Clearly the plan here will be to charge that once again that Republicans want to take away "your healthcare" and let people die in the streets. Frankly, this thing needs to be taken down and quickly because if it's allowed years to take root and feaster there will be enough of a class of Americans dependent on this corrupt system that they will buy into it the same way they buy into the "republicans want to take your social security, abortions rights, minority rights" away.
In the end this is the liberal way. They deal in absolutes and there will be no room for discussion while they are still a majority in the house.
-P.S. A note to those that want to run Dem rep Bart Stupak through the mud for his compromise on healthcare i say lighten up. The man is a Dem who held up healthcare for about a month and his steadfast determination will keep federal funds from going to support abortions. The man was placed in an awkward position where lesser politicians would yield to party pressure and instead gave us one positive in this bill so lets show some class and not make this man a target as the tea party for whatever reason appears to want to do.
-Zach
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obamacare and unprecedented arrogance
Amazing, absolutely amazing. I knew, but still dreaded what was an eventual outcome this past sunday as the Democrates snuck in healthcare. I hoped for another Scott Brown like moment that would delay or finally derail this damn thing, but knew there was little to no hope as the Dems made their intentions clear for the previous month.
After thinking about it for a bit, the first thing that comes to my mind is the incredible amount of arrogance and disconnect with America it took for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to continue to push for this bill. Obama ran his presidential campaign on a policy of being open with the American people and responding to their needs as he believed he was elected to do. Coming into office one of Obama's first priorities was to take advantage of his mega majorities in Congress and to pass national healthcare reform. He was convinced with his popularity coming into office that he could push for this change and gain the support of the American people. When the expected outcries of conservatives and the Republicans came about he was confident that he and the house democrates could neutralize it enough to force the Republicans into an awkward situation of voting in mass against a policy that presumably the American public would support only... of only President zero explained how important it was.
This did not work for a few reasons. First being the failure of the stimulus that Obama pushed Congress to pass in January 2009. Obama stressed that without the stimulus that unemployment could go above 8% and so it must be passed right away. After it was passed unemployment not only went past 8%, but then 10%. Later Obama displeased the public by weighing in on . This along with other incidents such as Sotomayor's nomination to the supremem court and the rediculous "beer summit" and of course a President that seems to prefer constant campaigning to actual governing has soured a public and so his message on healthcare increasingly viewed in a negative light.
Still though, even with the public increasingly against this and tea party rallies increasing across the country Obama and the democrates knew they had the numbers in Congress and through a side show production could easily pass what they wanted in healthcare reform by Christmas 2009. Enter Scott Brown. His election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat made amending the Senate bill in the house untennable because the Republicans now could and certainly would fillibuster the process. No worries thinks Obama and Pelosi, we can pass the Senate bill and tell others that we can change it afterwards. All this done again while taking the case to the American people who again and again tell them, we hear you and we don't want this.
What kind of ignorance and arrogance it must take to fail on all these levels to sell your policy to the opposition and to the American people and yet pass it under assumption that "they'll take us later." Even after signing the bill into law the President has stated he will hit the road again to tell us how great it is. For having such a great education this guy is about as clueless as Mr. Magoo. He's campaigned over and over and over and over on this same damn thing and now thinks somehow doing the same thing will change it? When he sees an angry public he will simply pat himself on the back and tell himself that "this is the way it must be, but give it time they will agree with me." November can't come soon enough. Every single one of this fucking dems needs to get tossed out on their ass where they will be forced to sit and watch as we repair or attempt to repair this unprecedented damage that has been done to our country.
Eh, kind of a bad write up, but dawg gone it I'm ticked about this and needed to type something.
-Zach
After thinking about it for a bit, the first thing that comes to my mind is the incredible amount of arrogance and disconnect with America it took for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to continue to push for this bill. Obama ran his presidential campaign on a policy of being open with the American people and responding to their needs as he believed he was elected to do. Coming into office one of Obama's first priorities was to take advantage of his mega majorities in Congress and to pass national healthcare reform. He was convinced with his popularity coming into office that he could push for this change and gain the support of the American people. When the expected outcries of conservatives and the Republicans came about he was confident that he and the house democrates could neutralize it enough to force the Republicans into an awkward situation of voting in mass against a policy that presumably the American public would support only... of only President zero explained how important it was.
This did not work for a few reasons. First being the failure of the stimulus that Obama pushed Congress to pass in January 2009. Obama stressed that without the stimulus that unemployment could go above 8% and so it must be passed right away. After it was passed unemployment not only went past 8%, but then 10%. Later Obama displeased the public by weighing in on . This along with other incidents such as Sotomayor's nomination to the supremem court and the rediculous "beer summit" and of course a President that seems to prefer constant campaigning to actual governing has soured a public and so his message on healthcare increasingly viewed in a negative light.
Still though, even with the public increasingly against this and tea party rallies increasing across the country Obama and the democrates knew they had the numbers in Congress and through a side show production could easily pass what they wanted in healthcare reform by Christmas 2009. Enter Scott Brown. His election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat made amending the Senate bill in the house untennable because the Republicans now could and certainly would fillibuster the process. No worries thinks Obama and Pelosi, we can pass the Senate bill and tell others that we can change it afterwards. All this done again while taking the case to the American people who again and again tell them, we hear you and we don't want this.
What kind of ignorance and arrogance it must take to fail on all these levels to sell your policy to the opposition and to the American people and yet pass it under assumption that "they'll take us later." Even after signing the bill into law the President has stated he will hit the road again to tell us how great it is. For having such a great education this guy is about as clueless as Mr. Magoo. He's campaigned over and over and over and over on this same damn thing and now thinks somehow doing the same thing will change it? When he sees an angry public he will simply pat himself on the back and tell himself that "this is the way it must be, but give it time they will agree with me." November can't come soon enough. Every single one of this fucking dems needs to get tossed out on their ass where they will be forced to sit and watch as we repair or attempt to repair this unprecedented damage that has been done to our country.
Eh, kind of a bad write up, but dawg gone it I'm ticked about this and needed to type something.
-Zach
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Deem and pass? Absolute lunacy
So the latest scuttlebut from DC was an idea floated from Dem leadership in Congress, or Nancy Pelosi that house dems could attempt to pass healthcare reform through a process called "deem and pass." Basically the way this rule works is that the house deems the bill sufficient or the same as a bill previously passed and sent to the Senate and with this rule they could conceivably send the bill to President Obama's desk without the need for another vote on it.
Frankly there is no other world for such a procedure than sheer madness on the Dems part should they try it. This bill has been hyped and has been in front of the public for over a year now and to pass it in a way clearly due to it's unpopularity and the fact that they can't pass it with the votes would kill the dems more than a thousand gay sex scandals in the polls this upcoming novemeber. Frankly, I doubt that even they would be so bold as to go that far and recent news may make it so that they don't have to take such an undesirable route.
The CBO came out with their projections on Obamacare and for the dems the news was very encouraging. According to the non-partisan CBO they estimate that the healthcare reform bill would cost the country 940 Billion dollars over ten years and would save the country some cash by bringing down or controling healthcare costs more than our current system allows. The problem with these estimates though is that they are exactly that, estimates. In almost every other government system the estimates have been woefully lower than what was found to later be the ultimate cost of the bill. In Medicare the costs versus what the estimates were were so far off that Medicare ended up costing nine times more and as of now is still in need of massive government funding to keep from going bankrupt. Add on to that a system in which seeks to subsidize or take over a fifth of the US economy from the private sector and we still have a recipe for a system that could massivly baloon in cost.
Alas, with this score it will or may give some wavering Dems enough cover to vote yes on the bill and force through this bill as soon as this Sunday. From there it would then go to the Senate were the game plan for the Dems will likely be to pass it without any changes so it may go to Obama's desk for signature into law.
Sigh, I can now only hope that my own views on this bill and it's impact on our country are wrong, much the same way that I have hoped that my opinion of Obama was wrong during his campaign and how he would govern in office. Sorry to say, more often than not I have been right, but this time let's hope if this passes it does help our country.
-Zach
Frankly there is no other world for such a procedure than sheer madness on the Dems part should they try it. This bill has been hyped and has been in front of the public for over a year now and to pass it in a way clearly due to it's unpopularity and the fact that they can't pass it with the votes would kill the dems more than a thousand gay sex scandals in the polls this upcoming novemeber. Frankly, I doubt that even they would be so bold as to go that far and recent news may make it so that they don't have to take such an undesirable route.
The CBO came out with their projections on Obamacare and for the dems the news was very encouraging. According to the non-partisan CBO they estimate that the healthcare reform bill would cost the country 940 Billion dollars over ten years and would save the country some cash by bringing down or controling healthcare costs more than our current system allows. The problem with these estimates though is that they are exactly that, estimates. In almost every other government system the estimates have been woefully lower than what was found to later be the ultimate cost of the bill. In Medicare the costs versus what the estimates were were so far off that Medicare ended up costing nine times more and as of now is still in need of massive government funding to keep from going bankrupt. Add on to that a system in which seeks to subsidize or take over a fifth of the US economy from the private sector and we still have a recipe for a system that could massivly baloon in cost.
Alas, with this score it will or may give some wavering Dems enough cover to vote yes on the bill and force through this bill as soon as this Sunday. From there it would then go to the Senate were the game plan for the Dems will likely be to pass it without any changes so it may go to Obama's desk for signature into law.
Sigh, I can now only hope that my own views on this bill and it's impact on our country are wrong, much the same way that I have hoped that my opinion of Obama was wrong during his campaign and how he would govern in office. Sorry to say, more often than not I have been right, but this time let's hope if this passes it does help our country.
-Zach
Friday, March 5, 2010
The National Debt and the Obama administrations first year in office
I came across this from another conservative commentator and thought I'd repost it in it's entirety here for those interested. I will also follow it with some brief comments of my own to keep this thing from being completely plagerized.
"How many times have we heard Obama say that he "inherited" the problems we now have? And one of those problems is our national debt. So it is time to take a good look at that debt, and how we got where we are:At the end of 2000, our national debt was $5.6278 trillion. During the first six years of the Bush administration, and under a Republican held Congress and Senate, our debt increased to $8.4514 trillion (at the end of 2006, the year the Democrats took control of both Houses). An increase of $470.45 billion a year ($2.8227 trillion in six years). Remember that number; $470.45 billion/year.Within two years (at the end of 2008) of Democratic control, our nation debt had increased to $9.985 trillion, an annual average of $767.2 billion, almost $300 billion a year more than under Republicans.In the 8 years of the Bush administration, our national debt increased by $4.2988 trillion.At the end of 2009, the first year of the Obama administration, our national debt had risen to $12.3114 trillion, an increase in one year $2.3265 TRILLION. ONE YEAR, only $500 billion less than the entire first six years of George Bush.Our projected national debt at the end of this year is over $14 trillion. That means that in just two years, Obama, and the Democratically held Congress will have increased our debt by more than Bush did the whole 8 years he held office.I don't want to read one more person on the left complain about the debt that was created under Bush or the Republicans. Not one."
The numbers there are pretty solid and while they again show us that congressional Republicans and President Bush were not fiscally conservative as many of us expected, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have increased spending at an incredible pace. Some might wonder where this massive spending increase has come from and to me, the first thing that comes to mind is the 780 billion dollar "stimulus" package that Obama pushed Congress to pass in January 2009 with the expectation that it would keep unemployment under 8%, today it is at 9.7%. Think that's bad? Well keep in mind that even though a large portion of that approved stimulus as yet to be spent the Obama administration is starting to push for yet another stimulus package. Perhaps the slogan on that one should read, "third times the charm."
Back to the topic of the national debt. Keep in mind that those numbers don't even take into effect the costs that will take effect should Congress pass the healthcare legislation. So far according to a WSJ editorial written by Congressman Paul Ryan the costs in deficit for this program over the next ten years would add 460-1.4 trillion bucks. That's all for one program and that's the best case scenario we can hope for. The more likely scenario would have this program ballooning in costs as Medicare has done and as the state provided medical care in Mass. has done. Either way you slice it we are spending at unprecedented levels and it will be much better for us to become fiscally responsible as a country by our own choice before we are forced into it.
-Zach
"How many times have we heard Obama say that he "inherited" the problems we now have? And one of those problems is our national debt. So it is time to take a good look at that debt, and how we got where we are:At the end of 2000, our national debt was $5.6278 trillion. During the first six years of the Bush administration, and under a Republican held Congress and Senate, our debt increased to $8.4514 trillion (at the end of 2006, the year the Democrats took control of both Houses). An increase of $470.45 billion a year ($2.8227 trillion in six years). Remember that number; $470.45 billion/year.Within two years (at the end of 2008) of Democratic control, our nation debt had increased to $9.985 trillion, an annual average of $767.2 billion, almost $300 billion a year more than under Republicans.In the 8 years of the Bush administration, our national debt increased by $4.2988 trillion.At the end of 2009, the first year of the Obama administration, our national debt had risen to $12.3114 trillion, an increase in one year $2.3265 TRILLION. ONE YEAR, only $500 billion less than the entire first six years of George Bush.Our projected national debt at the end of this year is over $14 trillion. That means that in just two years, Obama, and the Democratically held Congress will have increased our debt by more than Bush did the whole 8 years he held office.I don't want to read one more person on the left complain about the debt that was created under Bush or the Republicans. Not one."
The numbers there are pretty solid and while they again show us that congressional Republicans and President Bush were not fiscally conservative as many of us expected, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have increased spending at an incredible pace. Some might wonder where this massive spending increase has come from and to me, the first thing that comes to mind is the 780 billion dollar "stimulus" package that Obama pushed Congress to pass in January 2009 with the expectation that it would keep unemployment under 8%, today it is at 9.7%. Think that's bad? Well keep in mind that even though a large portion of that approved stimulus as yet to be spent the Obama administration is starting to push for yet another stimulus package. Perhaps the slogan on that one should read, "third times the charm."
Back to the topic of the national debt. Keep in mind that those numbers don't even take into effect the costs that will take effect should Congress pass the healthcare legislation. So far according to a WSJ editorial written by Congressman Paul Ryan the costs in deficit for this program over the next ten years would add 460-1.4 trillion bucks. That's all for one program and that's the best case scenario we can hope for. The more likely scenario would have this program ballooning in costs as Medicare has done and as the state provided medical care in Mass. has done. Either way you slice it we are spending at unprecedented levels and it will be much better for us to become fiscally responsible as a country by our own choice before we are forced into it.
-Zach
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The week in review
Well it's been sometime since I posted something here so let me type something out for the sake of keeping my blog somewhat current.
In the last week we had the oh so important health care summit in which President Obama brought together congressional leaders from both parties in what was supposed to be a last attempt to find compromise on the unpopular bill. In reality what it was to those who follow politics was nothing more than a stage play in which both sides essentially stuck to their talking points and which showed that compromise on this bill would not be coming. The purpose of such an event is that the President wanted another media event in which he could appear to be reaching across the aisle and seeking compromise and he when nothing was reached that pubic perception would be turned by some degree against Republicans and lessen any backlash Democrats will receive should they pass this bill.
So far that i can see though, the President's event did not have the effect that he hoped it would. Republicans showed up prepared and Congressman Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and Senate leaders John McCain and Lamar Alexander all showed excellent reasons exactly why Republicans oppose this bill and why compromise on this rather than starting fresh is so unappealing. Numerous polls conducted with voters who watched the event came away with a positive view of the Republicans as this event allowed them to see where the Republicans stood on this bill and surprise surprise, they oppose it on principle as this bill would allow the government take over of 20% of the US economy, would still see a rise in health care costs, would dramatically raise the debt, and would likely cause small business owners who do provide insurance to dump their current coverage for the bare government minimum in order to offset increased taxes on their business. Lamar Alexander himself brought up one part of the bill that will likely draw enough Dem detractors away from the bill to endanger it's passing, and that is that this bill would for the first time in 35 years pave the way for government funding of abortions. In short this bill is a big sloppy soup sandwich and if real reform and bipartisanship is to be achieved it should be shelved in order to start fresh with reforms that will work.
Last word on this, after the summit talking heads who support Democrats have continued to push for the passage of this bill despite it's unpopularity all with the logic that if they walk away with nothing that it will hurt them MORE at the polls than if they allow it to die. Sadly this again is where partisan politics works against the American people when we have representatives hoping to help their party rather than represent the best interests of their voters as they were voted in to do.
In other news the Marines, NATO, and Afghan forces have been on a offensive in Afghanistan in the southern province of Helmland. This is part of the new offensive against the Taliban and to date the combined forces have gotten the Taliban out of Marjah and have raised the Afghan flag over the town. This is all well and good but the thing that pissed me off recently was a story in which Afghan President Karzai appeared in his Parliament holding a picture of a young child killed in the offensive and denouncing NATO for not doing more to lower civilian deaths. This is not the way to win a war, Karzai, while he maybe making his statements to broaden his appeal to all Afghans is effectively legitimizing Taliban's narrative of the war as one in which NATO forces kill civilians. Simply put, you don't win a damn war by making statements that your enemy is right and more just than your own forces. General McCrystal and our NATO allies need to have a sit down with this moron and remind him how many civilians have been killed by the Taliban and how many of them have been used as human shields by this people. That is the narrative you need to have from out of Kabul. You need to deligitimize the Taliban so that after we kick their ass out of the battlefield the winning of hearts and minds becomes easier and keeps the Taliban from coming back.
I think that is enough for now. Till next time.
-Zach
In the last week we had the oh so important health care summit in which President Obama brought together congressional leaders from both parties in what was supposed to be a last attempt to find compromise on the unpopular bill. In reality what it was to those who follow politics was nothing more than a stage play in which both sides essentially stuck to their talking points and which showed that compromise on this bill would not be coming. The purpose of such an event is that the President wanted another media event in which he could appear to be reaching across the aisle and seeking compromise and he when nothing was reached that pubic perception would be turned by some degree against Republicans and lessen any backlash Democrats will receive should they pass this bill.
So far that i can see though, the President's event did not have the effect that he hoped it would. Republicans showed up prepared and Congressman Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and Senate leaders John McCain and Lamar Alexander all showed excellent reasons exactly why Republicans oppose this bill and why compromise on this rather than starting fresh is so unappealing. Numerous polls conducted with voters who watched the event came away with a positive view of the Republicans as this event allowed them to see where the Republicans stood on this bill and surprise surprise, they oppose it on principle as this bill would allow the government take over of 20% of the US economy, would still see a rise in health care costs, would dramatically raise the debt, and would likely cause small business owners who do provide insurance to dump their current coverage for the bare government minimum in order to offset increased taxes on their business. Lamar Alexander himself brought up one part of the bill that will likely draw enough Dem detractors away from the bill to endanger it's passing, and that is that this bill would for the first time in 35 years pave the way for government funding of abortions. In short this bill is a big sloppy soup sandwich and if real reform and bipartisanship is to be achieved it should be shelved in order to start fresh with reforms that will work.
Last word on this, after the summit talking heads who support Democrats have continued to push for the passage of this bill despite it's unpopularity all with the logic that if they walk away with nothing that it will hurt them MORE at the polls than if they allow it to die. Sadly this again is where partisan politics works against the American people when we have representatives hoping to help their party rather than represent the best interests of their voters as they were voted in to do.
In other news the Marines, NATO, and Afghan forces have been on a offensive in Afghanistan in the southern province of Helmland. This is part of the new offensive against the Taliban and to date the combined forces have gotten the Taliban out of Marjah and have raised the Afghan flag over the town. This is all well and good but the thing that pissed me off recently was a story in which Afghan President Karzai appeared in his Parliament holding a picture of a young child killed in the offensive and denouncing NATO for not doing more to lower civilian deaths. This is not the way to win a war, Karzai, while he maybe making his statements to broaden his appeal to all Afghans is effectively legitimizing Taliban's narrative of the war as one in which NATO forces kill civilians. Simply put, you don't win a damn war by making statements that your enemy is right and more just than your own forces. General McCrystal and our NATO allies need to have a sit down with this moron and remind him how many civilians have been killed by the Taliban and how many of them have been used as human shields by this people. That is the narrative you need to have from out of Kabul. You need to deligitimize the Taliban so that after we kick their ass out of the battlefield the winning of hearts and minds becomes easier and keeps the Taliban from coming back.
I think that is enough for now. Till next time.
-Zach
Saturday, February 6, 2010
A caution to Republicans counting victories 10 months early
I am more and more amazed as I listen to folks like Sean Hannity and other conservatives who seem absolutely certain in a massive conservative, read Republican, victory in the November elections later this year. Those elections are ten months away, so much in the political landscape can change from now to than that is seems the definition of foolishness to me to talk of victory as a forgone conclustion.
I also tend to think that it's a turn off for average Americans to hear Republicans talk of this gives me and others the impression that they are more interested in exploiting Democrates political weakness rather than attempt to govern and represent as they were elected to do. It isn't hard for me to imagine that the Dem label of the Republican party as the "party of no" starting to stick with time for the political pendulum to swing back in their direction. Now is the time to rather take advantage of a public who will be much more receptive to hearing Republican alternatives. It is time for Republicans to take a part in healthcare reform and bring down the cost of the bill while enacting free market reforms that will actually have an impact in lowering healthcare costs such as tort reform and expanind health insurance coverage across state lines. It is time to start our other narritive and let it stand because it is that, more than anything, that will bring Republicans and a Republican form of government back to where it should be.
A short post, but it's been a somewhat dull week in politics.
-Zach
I also tend to think that it's a turn off for average Americans to hear Republicans talk of this gives me and others the impression that they are more interested in exploiting Democrates political weakness rather than attempt to govern and represent as they were elected to do. It isn't hard for me to imagine that the Dem label of the Republican party as the "party of no" starting to stick with time for the political pendulum to swing back in their direction. Now is the time to rather take advantage of a public who will be much more receptive to hearing Republican alternatives. It is time for Republicans to take a part in healthcare reform and bring down the cost of the bill while enacting free market reforms that will actually have an impact in lowering healthcare costs such as tort reform and expanind health insurance coverage across state lines. It is time to start our other narritive and let it stand because it is that, more than anything, that will bring Republicans and a Republican form of government back to where it should be.
A short post, but it's been a somewhat dull week in politics.
-Zach
Friday, January 29, 2010
Obama cannot take any criticism at all
One thing I think that conservatives and political moderates may remember from the Presidential campaigns is Obama's unusual attention to Foxnews and to Sean Hannity in particular. At the time Obama received light treatment from the mainstream media and never really faced tough questions his affiliations with radical leftists. One of the few consistent voices against the then Senator was Sean Hannity, who was one of the first to report on Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and later will leftist radical and Chicagoan Bill Ayers. Hannity constantly hammered these relations while the media ignored it.
To most politicians this would be enough for them to look past it and keep on with their campaign, you never really saw President Bush rail against the leftist media for attacks against him, he certainly never called anyone out by name, and he carried on with the business of governing and campaigning when the time was right. With Obama though, during his campaign he mentioned Sean Hannity by name numerous times, about five, in which he would denigrate the man or call on others to stop listening to the man. One man criticising him and it bugged him so much that he had to fit it into his campaigns at the time.
After the election he found himself in an environment where he was elected President comfortably and his party has also won dominating control of both houses of Congress. No other politician could realistically want to be in a better position to enact policy and yet when he found himself in interviews where a reporter would remind him of the favorable coverage he typically received he was only too clear to mention "well there is one station in particular that seems to always have a problem with my administration" "you mean Foxnews" "yes." The more and more I saw this man the more and more that it came to me that he for whatever reason must be a very insecure man to have so much, to have been riding so much of a high politically and yet still not find solace because it was not absolute adoration. Such a thing is a figurative unicorn in politics.
I would have hoped that a year into office and more experience on the national stage would have gotten Obama past this stage in his life, but recent events have highlighted this trait even more. Following the election of Scott Brown and poll numbers that show that the President and his party have currently alienated a large sector of the American public Obama has lashed out again at those that disagree with him. Rather than attempt to deescalate the situation through an invitation of dialogue on such things as healthcare, he has escalated it through language that frankly will only inflame the partisan divide in this country. Case in point would be the recent state of the union address. I did not catch this address myself, and perhaps thankfully so, but from the highlights to things stuck out to me, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" which i support, but think that this change should come from the military brass, not politician suits who want to score political points playing social experiments with an instrument designed to protect this nation.
The other thing is his calling out of the Supreme Court on their recent decision to allow cooperation's to fund political campaigns. A decision that I currently feel is a bad one, but Obama mischaracterized this decision in stating that it would allow foreign entities or companies to donate to American politicians. It does not and there is still a law in place against this. A day after having this pointed out the Obama White House still could not admit the error, but that is beside the point. The point would be the unprecedented nature of a President openly chiding the Supreme Court during a event that is supposed to be about proposals for the agenda in the next year. It was partisan politics as has never been seen before and one that should concern Americans IMHO.
Now if that wasn't enough the President today accepted an invitation to speak with House Republicans at a retreat in Baltimore, why the hell would anyone go to B-more to relax? Anyway while there the President once again went on the attack accusing Republicans of painting falsehoods against his administration and in portraying healthcare as "'Bolshevik plot' and telling their constituents that he’s 'doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.'" Both very false, Republicans opposed healthcare because of the massive cost and the way that it would make for an easy government takeover of healthcare down the road. They opposed it because it would make the quality of healthcare in America go down while not reducing the costs and fining individuals who did not buy health insurance. They opposed it because there are better ways to reform healthcare, ones that Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has gone to great deals to highlight, only to be ignored by Dems and the white house. They opposed it because it was bad legislation Mr. President, not because they don't like you.
Folks, As I stated earlier Obama is ratcheting up this rhetoric at a time when he has already been in office for one year, one year in which he could have gone to great lengths to bring the real change he promised. His lashing out at others for his failures is concerning to me as I consider that the man has three more years, years in which he will more than likely have less control that he previously had. If he continues to lash out like this than the divide in this country will only become worse as he alienates those that only have marginal dislikes of the man, and encourages those on the far left who seek to impose their agenda no matter what the support for such measures maybe. This is the wrong path and the wrong tact to take and I can only hope that he see's his errors and corrects himself in the future.
To most politicians this would be enough for them to look past it and keep on with their campaign, you never really saw President Bush rail against the leftist media for attacks against him, he certainly never called anyone out by name, and he carried on with the business of governing and campaigning when the time was right. With Obama though, during his campaign he mentioned Sean Hannity by name numerous times, about five, in which he would denigrate the man or call on others to stop listening to the man. One man criticising him and it bugged him so much that he had to fit it into his campaigns at the time.
After the election he found himself in an environment where he was elected President comfortably and his party has also won dominating control of both houses of Congress. No other politician could realistically want to be in a better position to enact policy and yet when he found himself in interviews where a reporter would remind him of the favorable coverage he typically received he was only too clear to mention "well there is one station in particular that seems to always have a problem with my administration" "you mean Foxnews" "yes." The more and more I saw this man the more and more that it came to me that he for whatever reason must be a very insecure man to have so much, to have been riding so much of a high politically and yet still not find solace because it was not absolute adoration. Such a thing is a figurative unicorn in politics.
I would have hoped that a year into office and more experience on the national stage would have gotten Obama past this stage in his life, but recent events have highlighted this trait even more. Following the election of Scott Brown and poll numbers that show that the President and his party have currently alienated a large sector of the American public Obama has lashed out again at those that disagree with him. Rather than attempt to deescalate the situation through an invitation of dialogue on such things as healthcare, he has escalated it through language that frankly will only inflame the partisan divide in this country. Case in point would be the recent state of the union address. I did not catch this address myself, and perhaps thankfully so, but from the highlights to things stuck out to me, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" which i support, but think that this change should come from the military brass, not politician suits who want to score political points playing social experiments with an instrument designed to protect this nation.
The other thing is his calling out of the Supreme Court on their recent decision to allow cooperation's to fund political campaigns. A decision that I currently feel is a bad one, but Obama mischaracterized this decision in stating that it would allow foreign entities or companies to donate to American politicians. It does not and there is still a law in place against this. A day after having this pointed out the Obama White House still could not admit the error, but that is beside the point. The point would be the unprecedented nature of a President openly chiding the Supreme Court during a event that is supposed to be about proposals for the agenda in the next year. It was partisan politics as has never been seen before and one that should concern Americans IMHO.
Now if that wasn't enough the President today accepted an invitation to speak with House Republicans at a retreat in Baltimore, why the hell would anyone go to B-more to relax? Anyway while there the President once again went on the attack accusing Republicans of painting falsehoods against his administration and in portraying healthcare as "'Bolshevik plot' and telling their constituents that he’s 'doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.'" Both very false, Republicans opposed healthcare because of the massive cost and the way that it would make for an easy government takeover of healthcare down the road. They opposed it because it would make the quality of healthcare in America go down while not reducing the costs and fining individuals who did not buy health insurance. They opposed it because there are better ways to reform healthcare, ones that Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has gone to great deals to highlight, only to be ignored by Dems and the white house. They opposed it because it was bad legislation Mr. President, not because they don't like you.
Folks, As I stated earlier Obama is ratcheting up this rhetoric at a time when he has already been in office for one year, one year in which he could have gone to great lengths to bring the real change he promised. His lashing out at others for his failures is concerning to me as I consider that the man has three more years, years in which he will more than likely have less control that he previously had. If he continues to lash out like this than the divide in this country will only become worse as he alienates those that only have marginal dislikes of the man, and encourages those on the far left who seek to impose their agenda no matter what the support for such measures maybe. This is the wrong path and the wrong tact to take and I can only hope that he see's his errors and corrects himself in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)