Friday, November 30, 2012
Today an historic vote in the United Nations to allow Palestine to have Observer status has commenced. Unfortunately, after seeking a seat on the Security Council for years, spending millions of dollars ass-kissing the African nations to get their vote and massaging the South Americans and Europeans egos to finally got the position this year. Amazingly Australia's first vote as a Council member is distancing itself from the US and Israel and the values they represent by ABSTAINING.
Past Prime Minister, John Howard has branded Julia Gillard's backdown over her push to vote NO for Observer status as an ''embarrassment'' as the issue reignited internal criticisms within the government about the Prime Minister's judgement and leadership style. He described the cabinet backlash and caucus revolt as ''a very bad sign when you get rolled on something as important as this. I think it is pathetic for Australia to abstain on this.'' He added, ''We are meant to be striking a confident new pose and the first thing we do is abstain. I can't find another word than pathetic.''
Gillard's leadership came close to collapse three days ago after her cabinet refused to back her policy to vote against the UN resolution to give greater recognition to a Palestinian state. After initially going with her rightful instincts and ignoring the majority view, ten ministers spoke against her position in a long Cabinet debate. In the end, rather than face a humiliating defeat, Gillard relented and a crisis was averted, but only narrowly. I am not impressed by some of the reasons given for overturning the Prime Minister's decision -- not principle but political advantage, with reference to multiculturalism and its shifting demographics.
These pussies were afraid of being on the wrong side of history if they stood with the US and Israel against the rest of the anti-Semitic UN. They took the views of its members that the government was too pro-Israel and also because MPs in western Sydney, who are already fearful of losing their seats, are coming under pressure from constituents with a Middle East background. Read my previous posting, ''Stealth Jihad'' comes to Australia (May 18, 2011). That is a very troubling sign for our future if our politicians sell their morality and cater to the wishes of a Muslim minority. Our country's further isolating the US and Israel internationally is already bad enough -- and dangerous.
But here's another of the real reasons to worry about giving Palestine added status at the UN: which is the Palestinian state? Gaza, controlled by the pro-terrorist Ragbags Hamas? Or the Fatah-controlled West Bank under Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas? In the past, Australia has opposed Abbas's UN campaign as a pointless diversion from direct talks to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this stage, however, it might well be worth letting Abbas score a political victory at the UN -- particularly if it reinforces his viability among his own people. However, it violates the notion that the Israelis and Palestinians should negotiate a settlement themselves with neither side taking steps to predetermine the outcome. The danger, of course, is that benefits given to the ''moderate'' Abbas are later seized and exploited by Hamas.
Upgrading the Palestinian delegation's status will is actuality enable the Palestinians to launch a new campaign of diplomatic and legal attacks against Israel in various UN forums and elsewhere, particularly the International Criminal Court -- and to do so as an alternative to direst negotiations with Israel. Any fair-minded person would agree that the UN has a built-in bias against Israel, a country subject to more UN censure than every other country combined. ''It is pathetically sad that the government had gone to all the trouble to have a greater voice on the UN Security Council and on its first significant vote, not to say yes or no but say nothing'' said Malcolm Turnbull, opposition Minister.
The Way I See It....Labor has shamed itself. Good on Gillard for fighting against this self-serving betrayal of our allies and our values. Pity, though, her weakness. Speaking of weakness, I heard Abbas's speech to the UN this morning and the weakness in his proposal was that he did not once mention that he would stop the militants from firing missiles (over 800 since January) into Israel. Plus he quoted Anwar Sadat's treaty with Israel but said nothing about Sadat's sentiment about getting all Palestinians to recognise the right of Israel to exist.
Would Australians in 1970 have backed a deal to take in many Middle Eastern refugees and migrants had they been told up front that this would require changing our foreign policy to throw Israel under a bus, move away from the US, and back a move in the UN that suited the long-term plans of the pro-terrorist Hamas? Is it going to get like the Swedish town of Malmo where 25% of the population has become a nest of Muslim scum that throw stones and cut hoses on the firefighters who come to their neighbourhood to put out fires. They are now all taking sick leave unless they get more police protection when attending fires in these ungrateful areas. Is this Australia's future too?
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Timothy Flannery is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, self-taught environmentalist and global warming activist (read fanatic). He was named Australian of the Year in 2007 and holds a Chair in Environmental Sustainability at Macquarie University and was unfortunately appointed, in 2011, Chief of the Climate Commission by the Australian Government. In an effort to qualify his 3-day-a-week job that pays him $180,000 a year he comes up with dire predictions and outlandish solutions to anthropogenic climate change. His controversial views include shutting down coal-fired power stations for electricity generation and suggesting that sulphur be dispersed into the atmosphere to help block the sun leading to global dimming, in order to counteract the effects of global warming.
The latest effort from this so-called ''chief climate commissioner'' was presented this week when I saw him interviewed on the Channel 10 Morning Show, that really took the cake with his absurd claim that Australia could be powered ''almost entirely by renewable energy.'' Oh yeah! Renewable energy in Australia now provides about 10% of our electricity. Sounds like we've got a running start? We've ''only'' got to expand it tenfold? Except what douchebags like Flannery never tell you in all the headline flummery, is that the overwhelming majority (about 80%) of that comes from hydro-power. Any nobody's building dams anymore because of bans by the Greens and their Labor lackeys. Yes, that means barely 2 percent of Australia's total electricity comes from what the average person would think as ''renewable''....Wind and Solar.
That means even using his optimistic numbers for current wind and solar generation, we would have to increase our installations of wind and solar by at least forty times what thay are today to get 100% of our electricity from these two ''plentiful'' sources. (Hey, wasn't that what drove Spain into bankruptcy?) But that's to produce today's power. Flannery's talking about some decades ahead, when our demands will pobably have doubled. So make that a 160-fold increase in windmills....and perhaps a half-a-million Aussies going mental with that low frequency Hum in their neighbourhood.
''You know, solar and wind could even be the cheapest sources of power for retail users by 2030,'' Flannery trumpeted, ''....as carbon prices rise." Yes, the greatest half-truth of the climate propagandists. Make real power sources ridiculously, unnecessarily expensive and suddenly wind and solar become ''cheap.'' Funnily, Flannery has gone cold on geothermal power. A few years ago it was all he could talk about. He even invested in a Geothermal company and called it a ''relatively straightforward technology.'' He then called for the establishment of ''Geothermia'' -- a new city at the New South Wales-Sth Australia-Queenslnd border -- to take advantage of the location's abundance of natural gas and geothermal reserves.
The Way I See It....his arguement that such a city could be completely energy self-sufficient and would be a model for future city development worldwide is a pipedream. Actually, in a rare moment of honesty, in this week's interview, he said there were ''technical contraints'' -- ie. it doesn't work - and ''high exploration and development costs'' -- ie. that even if it did, it would be even more expensive than already grossly expensive wind and solar -- ''have to be overcome'' before geothermal became commercially viable. This is also from the man who, with his government largess, bought an expensive house at Coba Point on the Hawkesbury River (40 km north of Sydney) that's only accessible by boat. Critics have pointed out some hypocrisy in fact that it is quite close to the waterline if his predictions of a sea level rise are borne out.
All I can say, is Flannery and his Climate Commission are worse than a sick joke. They are an expensive fraud on every Australian brought to them by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her climate minister henchman, Greg Combet. You could only hope that they ''wake up'' one day to the fact that there hasn't been any rise in global warming in the last 16 years and stop wasting billions in trying to stop it.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I came across this insightful item from a Judy Morris, from Freedom Bunker. The sarcasm rings true about the nature of Obama's rule from Goebbel's own history and point of view.
Guten Tag...Herr Obama,
I realize receiving a letter from a time traveler can be disconcerting but bear with me because I'm here to tell you something special. In short: I am impressed. As a propagandist, you have achieved everything I set out to do and did. You soared to victory this month like a Bundesadler in a Leni Riefenstahl film. I'm amazed der Juden und der junge are so devoted to your cause, as it seems you are determined to extinguish them both. Of course, der Schwarzers will follow you to Russia (I mean Hell) and back. But what really impresses me is the blind faith with which more than half of America follows you. These are people who couldn't care less about politics, yet somehow they are in a trance. Why? Because just like mein Fuhrer you promised them you care. Amazing!! An entire generation of young men stand proudly behind you simply because you play basketball. And you're not even good at it!
In New York, a state that hasn't voted for a Republican candidate in almost 30 years I heard New Yorkers saying that they felt ''empowered'' voting for you. I asked many of them to explain your health care program and they had no idea. All they knew was their vote ''made a difference'' and ''that's what counts.'' These are people with the math skills of a 12 year-old. You made an entire nation love you merely because you were black while claiming you were hated for precisely that reason. You are the most brilliant (or is it, devious) Negro I have ever seen. Instead of talking to world leaders and letting people see your penchant for mispronouncing their names, you go on women's talk shows.
I loved it when unemployment soared and you said it would've gone much higher without you. You kill the space program and devote the resources to making Muslims feel better about themselves. You tell those disgusting Zionists to go back to the borders of nearly a half century ago and tell them to leave Iran alone. You convinced anti-war liberals that it's OK to extend the Patriot Act AND create a ''kill list'' AND conduct drone-wars AND keep Guantanamo despite promising the opposite. Then your propaganda machine convinces the country it's your opponent who is a warmonger. I'm so proud!
When you dig the deepest debt any president ever has, you say it had to be done. The nation's young people will inherit this debt but you've convinced them that they don't need to care. You control more young minds than that Ronald McDonald character. When are you going to hand out the brown T-shirts? You have somehow convinced the Obama Youth that any fact that is ''divisive'' is not worth knowing. If someone points out a failure, you blame the previous administration and they blindly agree. You made politics about pop culture and this Dumb Community worships you. You've turned them into dependent infants.
I haven't seen propaganda this effective since (your idol) Franklin Roosevelt. He managed to convince post-Depression America that it was the government's job to make things right. Roosevelt instilled in the lower classes a permanent reliance on government that persists today and will go well past the Second Civil War of 2020. Opps...you didn't hear that from me! I see Fox News appears to be the only responsible media pointing this out and asking questions, but only old people are watching and they will die shortly. Old people ask too many questions. As you well know Barack the most important part of good propaganda is not caring about the truth.
The masses are dumm Kopfs, uneducated fools who can't think for themselves. Just look at that 2011 Pew poll where blacks, young people and liberals all admitted to more positive feelings about ''socialism'' than ''capitalism''. They want the government to solve their problems. Adolf saw that Germans needed a fascist dictatorship, I'm sure you can find a more modern term for it, where one great leader chooses who will run the economy. Your acceptance speech reminded me of all my hard work getting people to accept a hope for change when I told them, ''Germany will again start making history.'' Imagine the joy I felt when, 80 years later, I heard you say,'''We have fought our way back and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America.....the best is yet to come!'' You are the black eagle on my coat-of-arms and I now know America is in good hands.
Auf Wiedersehen und Gute Nacht!
Monday, November 26, 2012
A major European study found that daily aspirin taking among older people doubles the risk of an advanced form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a debilitating eye disease that is a leading cause of blindness. The link was strongest for the so-called ''wet'' form of AMD, and was less pronounced for the common, less serious ''dry'' AMD variety, according to a study published in the Journal of Ophthalmology.
Although the scientists stress that more research could be needed, led researcher Dr Paulus de Jong said the findings are a cause for concern for millions of seniors who routinely take over-the-counter aspirin for pain, inflammation, blood-clot management and to reduce their risk of heart disease or other health conditions. Experts say these findings throw cold water on the idea that even healthy individuals should take a daily aspirin to boost their health and longevity.
''If you look at the big picture, you really have to balance the risks and benefits of aspirin,'' notes Stephanie Haridopolos M.D., a board-certified family practitioner in Melbourne, Florida. ''Should everyone be taking an aspirin for prevention of heart disease and cancer or not? I say 'No,' you really have to talk to your doctor and discuss the risks and benefits to see what's right for you. If you have Wet AMD or are at risk for it, you should probably not take daily aspirin.''
She explains, ''I looked at the studies at Wet AMD, and aspirin is a risk for bleeding into the retina and causing loss of sight fairly quickly.'' She continues, ''So my patients with wet AMD aren't allowed to be on aspirin or any other blood-thinning anti-coagulants. But for patients with heart disease, aspirin can be beneficial, but I wonder how many doctors have kept up with these latest findings. She added, ''Dry AMD accounts for about 90% of cases, so the Wet form is rarer. It's these 10% of cases that have the greatest risk.''
To determine whether aspirin can promote AMD, Dr de Jong and his colleagues tracked the health of nearly 4,700 European and Norwegian men and women over ago 65. The results showed that seniors who took an aspirin every day were twice as likely to suffer late-stage Wet AMD, and to a lesser degree, the onset of early Dry AMD, regardless of their age, history of heart disease, and other factors that increase the predisposition to AMD. ''The findings show that seniors who have early or late AMD should not take aspirin,'' said Dr de Jong, an emeritus professor of ophthalmic epidemiology at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience of the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam.
The Way I See It....the problem is many seniors may have a hard time sorting out the details of studies like Dr de Jong's and reconciling them with other widely reported research findings that have linked aspirin to lower heart disease and cancer risks. That's why it's so important for patients to talk with their doctors before they start taking aspirin. They might even want to inform their doctor of this latest research to see if you are both on the same page.
A consultation can determine if aspirin is the best option or whether other prevention strategies -- such as lowering cholesterol (without using dangerous statins), blood pressure and improving diet and exercise habits -- make more sense and pose lower risks.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Here in Australia we have a Greens party run by Watermelons (Green on the outside, but oh so Red on the inside). Could Greens Senator and admitted Stalinist-lover Lee Rhiannon and the rest of her insanely anti-Israel party explain those hundreds of rockets being fired at Israel from Gaza? You see, Rhiannon even this week was still claiming Gaza was ''the world's biggest outdoor prison and....has been under blockade for quite some time.'' Blockaded by Israel, that is, which Rhiannon wants to boycott ''as a way to promoting Palestinian human rights.'' This Jew-hater has also had previously mounted boycotts of (Israeli owned) Max Brenner Chocolate shops in Australia. My fellow Aussies have rightly told her to get lost.
And it's blockaded so wickedly that Greens leader Christine Milne on Tuesday tabled a motion in the Senate demanding the government get ''Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza." Andrew Bolt, journalist and blogger for the Herald Sun newspaper, asks, ''Has Hamas, the Islamist terrorist group which seized power in Gaza five years ago, learned the lesson from this? That the quickest way to get the deadshit Greens to spruik your cause is to shoot lots of rockets at Jews?''
But about that blockade, Senators. From where came the nearly 2000 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel since January, including some powerful enough to hit Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? The answer? Many from Iran. Some blockade, which lets such weaponry get smuggled in. Perhaps that blockade isn't as strict as Rhiannon claims - certainly not along Gaza's border with Egypt, now controlled by the Hamas-friendly Muslim Brotherhood. So...if Gaza is ''the world's biggest outdoor prison'' , strangled by a blockade so severe that Palestinians are left, as activist idiots such as Professor Juan Cole like to claim, desperately short of food and medicine, why would Hamas be smuggling rockets instead? Strange priorities, especially when rockets are not weapons of self-defence but of offence. Of Terror. Which of course is the stock in trade of Hamas, pledged to Israel's destruction.
Senators, can you now understand why Israel, while actually allowing in food, medicine and other goods, does try to stop imports to Gaza of weapons and material to build them? Why it's so suspicious of what Hamas would do if left free to bring in whatever it wants? Surely you can't be that stupid! If Israel did not restrict dangerous imports to Gaza, would there now be more rockets or fewer? More dying or less? Doesn't seeing Hamas fire off so many rockets make you ladies (I use that term reluctantly) at least consider how much mayhem would be unleashed if you really did manage to lift what blockade there still is? You've become a dupe of terrorists rather than a voice for ''human rights.''
The Way I See It....if Hamas put as much effort into developing Gaza as it does into smuggling rockets, wouldn't its people be safer, richer and more trusted y its neighbours? Would a Hamas that created jobs rather than rockets be more likely to persuade Israel it wanted peace, and not Israel's destruction? Look at those rockets, Senators and ask yourselves how smart it was to only now demand peace -- only now that Israel has finally responded to many months of rockets fired at its civilians.
Consider this morally bankrupt line from Milne's Senate motion, the Greens final shame: The Greens have asked ''that the Senate note the disproportionate Israeli response in Gaza and that the parties to the conflict are not equivalent as Israel is the world's fifth largest military power and Palestine has a weakened and constricted economy and is subject to restrictions on freedom of movement in breach of international law.'' What is grotesque about that paragraph is not what perhaps seems so obvious -- that the Greens characterise this fighting as between ''the military power'' Israel and poor defenceless Palestine -- when in fact Israel is finally defending itself after months of rocket attacks from Hamas terrorists and first and foremost took out their scumbag leader.
No, most repulsive is that the Greens believe Israel self-defence is ''disproportionate'' -- as in not enough Jews have died for Israel to now drop so many bombs on Hamas targets. So excuse me if I ask Rhiannon and Milne one more question, after all: How many Jews must die before you let them defend themselves? Some -- including many in Hamas -- think even six million wasn't enough. What's your figure, ladies?
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Urban Dictionary - Definition of douche bag
NOUN: - a derogatory term, used most to describe males; ''jerk'' ''asshole'' In my day we used the term ''bozo''.
Well it looks like the ''suckers'' who voted this douche bag in office for a second term are getting a true insight into the man's diplomatic skills. Any second thoughts? I'll say it again....God Help America!.
Yesterday, President Barack Obama spoke in Burma -- or as he termed it, Myanmar, despite official U.S. practice to call the country Burma -- and repeatedly botched the name of the country's famed Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, instead calling her Aung YAN Suu Kyi. Then he went on and called President Thein Sein ''President Sein'' which was a diplomatic ''snafu'' (old army term-short for Situation Normal, All F--ked Up), since the president of Burma is to be called by his full name.
His speech was just as bad. After getting through the basics -- acting as though his doctrine, not President Bush's multiple actions on behalf of democracy in Burma, had created more freedom in Burma -- Obama cited Franklin Delano Roosevelt's ''four fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.''
When it came to Freedom of Speech, Obama said all the right things -- after all, he was not talking about an anti-Islam YouTube video in Burma. But he then followed up that glowing language with this bombshell: ''Now, on the other hand, as President, I cannot just impose my will on Congress -- the Congress of the United States -- even though sometimes I wish I could.'' Yes...he does. And he does everything in his power to exceed his constitutional bounds. And he said this in Burma (of all places!) a military dictatorship for decades, shortly after calling it Myanmar, the name for the country used by this wretched military dictatorship. Talk about winning the title ''douche bag'' and undermining America on the world stage. At least the idiot didn't bow before the President Thein Sein like he did in front of Arabia's king.
Obama then moved on to Freedom from Want, which he said was accomplished through private property which could be seized by government. Really? Here's his take on how economics makes peoples prosperous: ''Reforms must ensure that the people of this nation can have that fundamental of possessions -- to own their land in which you live and work. When your talents are unleashed, then opportunity will be created for all people -- as more wealth flows into your borders, we hope and expect that it will left up more people. It just can't help the folks at the top. That kind of economic growth has to help everybody. So Barack, you say property ownership is good, except that it promotes inequality in your own country (as you hammered Romney with that point), so it must be redistributed like a good Marxist. I got it!
When Obama moved on to Freedom of Worship, he moved back into his ''red states and blue states'' nonsense from the campaign. Instead of taking religious differences seriously and recommending a separation of church and state, Obama talked; ''happy talk'' about culture: My own country and my own life have taught me the power of diversity. The United States is a nation of Christians and Jews, Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and non-believers. We have people from every corner of the world. Our history shows us that hatred in the human heart can recede; and what's left is a simple truth: e pluribus unum -- that's America's motto. Out of many, we are one nation and we are one people. It has made our country stronger. It's part of what has made America great. Well....it's e pluribus unum, until such time as Obama needs to win an election. Then the bastard divides Americans by race, religion, ethnicity, age and gender, and they fall for it.
Finally, Obama addressed Freedom from Fear. He didn't talk about about the need to discard tyrannical societies. Instead he talked in vague terms about xenophobia, fear of change, and the like. Some more typical Obama ''happy talk'': In many ways, fear is the force that stands between human beings and their dreams. Fear of a future that is different from the past. Fear of people who look different, or come from a different place or worship in a different way. In her darkest moments, when Aung San Suu Kyi was imprisoned, she wrote an essay about freedom from fear. She said, 'Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.' That's the fear you can leave behind. We see that chance in leaders who are beginning to understand that power comes from appealing to people's hopes, not people's fears.
The Way I See It....Obama's appeals to American's hopes in 2008 went unfulfilled and yet these informational bereft voters have ignored the fear that he could do far worse in the next four years. I'm sure there will many more situations coming that will establish him as a genuine douche bag and prove me right.
Monday, November 19, 2012
The damage goes well past the obvious embarrassments. Those include Mayor Bloomberg's initial resistance that a yuppie marathon in Manhattan proceed -- requiring a massive police and sanitation presence, as well as power sources -- even as citizens on Staten Island were pleading for disaster relief. The embarrassments surely ought to include Mr Obama's 2008 campaign vow that his election would slow the rise of the oceans and so many suckers believed him.
The silliness of those episodes speaks to a serious point about the great vulnerability of 21st-century American liberalism: an inability to set the priorities necessary for good government. As a result, government grows both bigger and less capable (as Romney pointed out), especially for people who do not have the resources to fund other options. As Walter Russell Mead argued recently on his blog ''The American Interest'', America's biggest cities represent ''a colossal failure of blue social policy to create sustainable lower middle class prosperity.'' Mr Mead was writing in reference to the hell that the inner cities have become for many African-Americans (better know as Blacks). But the failure is larger than that, because so many of the government agencies that citizens depend on have morphed into jobs programs, where pensions take priority over performance. Compare, for example, the response of Verizon -- which within 24 hours of Sandy's landfall had 95% of its cell service up and running--with glaring lack of hard information from the government for people shivering in cold homes without power.
In their own ways, Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama embody the obsessions of modern liberalism. Each holds an advanced Ivy League degree. Each believes he would make better choices for others than they could make for themselves. Bloomberg has avoided the modest (but unglamorous) improvements that might have better prepared, say, Staten Island for a dangerous storm. These leaders prefer instead the shiny and large, like the Mayor's huge and costly 2nd Avenue subway project. For all the talk about infrastructure, it never seems to get the repairs or upgrades it needs. For all the talk about public education, it's the racial minorities and the poor who still suffer from a failing school system. What do they get instead? New Yorkers get a mayor who makes war on Big Glup sodas while proving himself inept at basic government functions such as clearing snow.
At the national level, we get a president who vows to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy even though some of them might not be without power if the environmental asskisser regulators in Washington and New York hadn't been making the environment so hostile to new investment. And for all the talk about how the GOP wants to deny Granny her federal entitlements, it was the conservative Republican in the national race, Rep. Paul Ryan, who actually has put forward a highly workable plan that would keep Social Security and Medicare alive for coming generations.
The Way I See It....much of the nation's best new infrastructure --roads, bridges, airports and posts -- have been built in ''red'' cities on the Gulf Coast and Great Plains. By contrast, I'm astounded by the kind of stupid liberalism in California that votes to spend money it doesn't have for a high-speed rail it can't afford. More glamour and glitz! While New York's mayor, who jets down to his mansion in the Bahamas on weekends, tells working-and-middle-class New Yorkers that they really shouldn't be driving to work or living in single-family homes. In many ways, liberalism is increasingly Big Brother meets Blue Nose.
The irony is that modern American liberalism has become a movement grounded less in practical politics than a sort of religious fervor -- and often requiring the same strong faith in the face of disappointment and failure. The difference, of course, is while religions often promise to deliver in the next world, government is supposed to do it in this one.
Hurricane Sandy left in its path some impressive statistics. Its central pressure was the lowest ever recorded for a storm north of North Carolina, breaking a record set by the devastating ''Long Island Express'' hurricane of 1938, not counting the six previously Big and Bad hurricanes in the 18th and 19th Century that have no scientific stats. Along the East Coast, Sandy led to more than 50 deaths, left millions without power and caused an estimated $20 billion or more in damage.
Then you had the leader of the pack of the warmist cultists, Al Gore, expressing almost with glee that Sandy represents the result of continued Global Warming. Even New York's Mayor Bloomberg got sucked into the man-made warming conspiracy with his outburst in the media saying, ''We have been hit by a storm that is not normal....it's the new normal!'' But to call Sandy a harbinger of a ''new normal,'' in which unprecedented weather events cause unprecedented destruction, would be wrong. Earth is a dangerous place, where extreme events are commonplace and disasters are to be expected. In the proper context, Sandy is less an example of how bad things can get than a reminder that they could be much worse.
In studying hurricanes, we can make rough comparisons over time by adjusting past losses to account for inflation and growth of coastal communities. If Sandy causes $20 billion in damage (in 2012 dollars), it would rank as the 17th most damaging storm (out of 242) to hit the U.S. since 1900. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 tops the list, as it would cause $180 billion in damage if it were to strike today, Hurricane Katrina ranks forth at $85 billion. To put things into even starker perspective, consider that from August 1954 through August 1955, the East Coast saw three different storms make landfall -- Carol, Hazel and Diane -- that in 2012 each would have caused about twice as much damage as Sandy. I know, I lived through them growing up as a youth in the New York City suburb of Queens.
While it's hardly mentioned by Al Gore, Tim Flannery (Australia's answer to blind ideology) or the media, the U.S. and Australia are currently in an extended and intense hurricane (cyclone) ''drought.'' The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make U.S. landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century. It also bodes well for the planet that there hasn't been any global warming in 16 years.....so it's about time Mr Gore and his ilk must swallow their rhetoric and shut up. There is reason to believe we are living in an extended period of relatively good fortune with respect to disasters. A recurrence of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake today, for example, could cause more than a $300 billion in damage and thousands of lives according to a study Roger Pielke published in 2009.
Even so, with respect to disasters we really do make our own luck. The relatively low number of casualties by Sandy is a testament to the success story that is the U.S, and Australian National Weather Service and parallel efforts of those who emphasize preparedness and emergency response. Everyone in the disaster-management community deserves thanks. But continued success isn't guaranteed. The bungled response and tragic consequences associated with Hurricane Katrina tell us what can happen when people let their guard down.
The Way I See It....there is another danger. Public discussion of disasters risks being taken over by the climate lobby and its ''watermelon'' allies, who exploit every extreme event to argue for action on energy policy. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared simplistically: ''I think at this point it is undeniable but that we have a higher frequency of these extreme weather situations and we're going to have to deal with it.''
Humans do have some affect on the climate system and it is important to take some action on energy policy -- but to connect energy policy and disasters makes little scientific or policy sense. There are no signs that human-caused climate change has increased the toll of recent disasters, as even the most recent extreme-event report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds. And even under the assumptions of the IPCC, changes to energy policies wouldn't have a discernible impact on future disasters. The only strategies that will help us effectively prepare for future disasters are those that have succeeded in the past: strategic land use, structural protection and effective forecasts, warnings and evacuations. That is the real lesson of SANDY.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
There are THREE major things I must warn Americans about at this stage in their post-election euphoria, not including the previous two postings on the re-tooling of the nation's suburbs instigated by Obama and his socialist allies in the name of regionalism. However, that will mentioned below, but now let me build this Worst Case Scenario for you.
- Firstly.... new evidence points toward an imminent financial collapse and destruction of American wealth -- income, investments, retirement and even personal safety are now at severe risk. Washington and Wall Street have recklessly (or is it intentional?) pushed the United States into the greatest financial bubble in American history. And unfortunately it seems to be beyond the point of no return. The bubble will burst in one of two ways: With QE3, the next big $40 billion stimulus program the White House has planned, the value of the American dollar will get further diluted and will be buying less in overseas trade and hyperinflation will cause a collapse in the value in saving and retirement funds.
- China, with its new leader and regional power, will want to make its presence and strength felt throughout the world politically and in trade as well. China holds approximately $1 trillion dollars of U.S. debt through loans and as the U.S. dollar deteriorates there is a big urge to protect their loan values, which could lead the Chinese government to call upon the White House to repay the loans. That would send shock waves through U.S. financial circles.
- Also, if the Chinese government thought it was getting short-changed in world trade by having to use U.S. Dollars as the standard currency, they might, as they have previously warned, demand that as the U.S. dollar is now a weakly valued currency the Chinese Yuan will now be used instead. We can't ignore the Russians who threaten to launch a gold-backed ruble as an alternative to the weakened dollar.
- Secondly, with the repercussions of a further increase in government indebtedness, continued high unemployment, higher taxes (not of only the rich but the middle class as well) and the aforementioned push by Obama to disenfranchise suburbanites by integrating their administration and taxation under the ''regional'' control of their local city, you could have a huge uprising problem. I have been informed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is already preparing for a civil war in the country of 311 million people who, for the significant portion of the population, are armed.
- In a posting on the 23rd of August, entitled, Can America survive 4 more years of Obama? I revealed that Obama has created government controls with over 900 Executive Orders (bypassing Congressional approval) including a list of ''Emergency Powers'' that sound absolutely sinister. It seems he has covered his bases regarding public dissent with these EOs. One particularly disturbing one, under the National Authorization Defence Act (NDAA), is a section called ''Preventive Detention'' aimed at (I kid you not), people that might commit a crime in the future! A White House spokesman said the Department of Justice is looking to ''developing an appropriate legal regime to make preventive detention legal.'' This could no doubt involve a prolonged detention without a trial and would allow the government to handle any future rebellion using this as a blueprint for Peacetime Martial Law. This would detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of ''an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.''
- Thirdly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with a Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States (see photo of a Wyoming Camp). The government has also contracted to build thousands of railcars, ostensibly to transport detainees. According to diplomat Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled END-GAME, which sets its goal as the removal of potential terrorists.
- The real question is: What kind of "new programs'' require the construction and refurbishment of over 600 detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people? I already revealed Obama's hatred of the suburbs in previous postings, AMERICA: Fooled, Ruled and Re-Tooled (Parts 1 and 2) and his regionalism program and there's further insult to American's consciences with an Obama EO designed to force America to submit to international regulations instead of the Constitution; that includes gun controls. That'll piss a lot of law-abiding people off...I'm sure. The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is now in place and is designed to meet the threat. It is a law that labels those who ''engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass and violent rallies'' as Terrorists. Other groups in the cross-hairs could easily be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, Peace demonstrators and even Second Amendment rights supporters. A frightening scenario seems to be unfolding!.
NOTE: William (Bill) Ayers, one of the founders of the Weather Underground (WU), a radical leftist, anti-American organization formed in 1969 by a group of University of Chicago Marxist students, instigated urban terrorism from 1970-1974. They carried out attacks against the government, including bombings at NYPD headquarters, the Pentagon, the Capital building and a San Francisco police station (killing a policeman). At that time a FBI mole sat in on a WU meeting where Ayers was discussing the WUs ultimate goal, the make-over of America into a Marxist/Socialist country. He said, seriously, to achieve this and the expected opposition, he estimated at least 25 million Americans would have to be killed! Back in 1995 after Ayers was released from prison he became good friends with Barack Obama and is said to have written Obama's book, ''Dreams of my Father'' as well as sharing in their love of Marxist ideology with their Chicago circle of friends..
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
In my previous posting I mentioned that Stanley Kurtz, in his book Spreading the Wealth: Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities was hoping to awaken the voting secular suburbanites to the hidden agenda that Obama and his fellow Marxists intends to severely damage them. However, the majority of those who blindly voted for this ''Manchurian Candidate'' obviously couldn't be bothered to get to read any of the many books that have been on the New York Times Best Seller list over the past 2 years exposing the truth about Obama. Their fate is now in his hands.
These are the ''low-information'' voters who were conned by Bill Clinton and the New Democrats. They were told it was now safe to cast their ballots for Democrat candidates because the party had mostly abandoned the anti-capitalist mindset of the McGovernites. The differences between conservative Republicans and center-left Democrat politicians concerning economic matters were supposedly next to zilch. Barack Obama's election would supposedly continue these common sense measures. That's all changed and he knew that his hostility towards suburban living and his remarks about "spreading the wealth'' would be totally ignored and hidden from the public by the so-called mainstream media that has so much invested in this person they foisted upon the nation to prove that they weren't racists. Now they don't want to admit what their dereliction-of-duty did and how much damage it has already done to the nation.
Kurtz explains, ''David Rusk is out to annex your suburb and pick your pocket. If annoying principles like individual liberty, voluntary association and self-government stand in his way, that's too bad. The contradiction between hard-left redistributionism and traditional American values could hardly be drawn more sharply.'' Most Americans have probably never heard of Rusk, nor Mike Kruglik, Peter Dreier, Linda Hammond or Myron Orefield. Each of these individuals are close political allies of President Obama are are advocates of a movement called ''regionalism'' aka ''metropolitanism'' or more deviously ''smart growth.''
Obama and Kruglik plan to over come the public's suburban mindset is by pitting the suburbs against themselves, creating an alliance between cities and the relatively less well-off inner-ring suburbs. A barrage of new taxation will enhance (read intimidate) the middle class and upper class suburbanites to submit to the ''re-tooling'' of the American landscape. They hope to achieve this major change by expanding cities into regions that will all come under the control of the nearest cities. Obama and his ilk consider everything about the suburbs to be bad. That's where the money has fled. That's where the SUV's and autos pollute the environment. That's where valuable farmland and forests are absorbed to build more residential sprawl.
For a determined administration, the suburbanites also need to have their love affair with the car crushed! Mass transit is intended to stop the building of highways in order to help eliminate the use of automobiles. A tall order I know, but these Marxist bastards have been planning this for years. Even the new health care laws are really designed to help bring about the redistribution of wealth from the suburbs to the poor. I repeat, the president is existentially hostile towards those citizens who have moved outside the city centers and literally considers them racist thieves, and need to be dragged back into the cities to help solve the problems festering there. What Obama and his allies have in common is a deep disdain for the so-called ''American Dream'' and the way of life that so many Americans have worked so hard to achieve.
The Way I See It....many of these anti-American scum have been working on these issues for two decades or more just waiting for the right moment to spring their elaborate ''reforms'' on an unsuspecting public. It was not until they had the great good fortune to have a ''community organizer'' in the White House that they had any real chance of implementing the majority of their radical initiatives. One has to wonder how many tens of thousands of people are going to work each day in various government entities. foundations, non-profits and think tanks plotting the demise of America as we know it.
Basically, there are three major components to this approach. First and foremost, you should know that redistribution is the heart and soul of ''regionalism.'' The ultimate goal of these radicals is for the major cities to annex the surrounding suburbs. In this scenario suburban tax money would be transferred to the cities. Second, those who subscribe to the rationalist model would incrementally implement policies that would ultimately strip suburban cities and towns of their right to self-rule. and finally, these people would champion zoning and tax policies that would ultimately force suburban residents to move back to the cities. It may sound bizarre to you but these leftist filth are bound and determined to do all of this and now that Obama has been re-elected, there is very little that will stand in their way.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Documented meetings have been held in the White House this year and appear in a book, authored by Stanley Kurtz entitled, ''Spreading the Wealth: How Obama will Rob the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.'' It backs up what I have been writing about the past year about Obama's Marxist upbringing, starting with his mother, her friends and family and then on to his fellow Socialist/Marxist/Communist friends and professors in the colleges he attended. His ideology demands that he re-tool American's way of thinking about wealth and its necessary redistribution from the rich to the poor. Hopefully this book and my posting will awaken those misguided voters in their snug suburbs to how Obama plans to abolish their communities and put them, their taxes and their schools under control of the Democrat big city mayors.
Obama has longed believed that the residents who fled the cities are racists and need to be dragged back into the cities to help solve the problems festering there. But it was all hush-hush before the election because if Obama' plans for this forced redistribution became common knowledge, then it would cause his re-election campaign to crash and burn. For those naive suburban voters who have only been paying attention to the biased mainstream media, or not reading any of the recent books exposing the real Barack Obama, I'll put you in the picture. I guess you didn't realize that the so-called trillion-dollar stimulus plan was really just a poverty program that was intentionally mis-named to fool the voters. That's why it had almost no effect and certainly produced no improvements.
For more than two decades, Obama and his fellow radical community activists and agitators, have been working toward punishing all those people who voted with their feet and fled the cities and left them filled with only poor and minority residents. For Obama and company, the suburbs are a defect in the very structure of American life. That is why the president backs his friends ''Regionalism'' movement to abolish them. ''We are battling apartheid in America,'' said Obama's onetime organizing mentor Mike Kruglik in 2005, explaining the twisted philosophy behind his crusade for regional equity. At the time, Kruglik was directing the regionalist efforts of the Gamaliel Foundation, a national network of community organizations that Obama himself had helped launch in the mid-80s. Today, leading Building One America, he fights for regionalism in partnership with the White House, although few Americans have any idea that this is the case.
To Obama's radicals, those suburban ''racists'' deserve to have their wealth taken away from them and given to the less unfortunate. Of course Obama didn't publicly proclaim the details of the regulations to ''re-tool'' the suburbs he had in mind during the election campaign so as not to tip-his-hand and alienate the very supporters (read suckers) he knew would vote for him. So behind the scenes, his plans were under way for a serious push toward wealth redistribution, with the suburban middle class -- not the so-called 1% -- bearing the brunt of it. In the eyes of Obama's former mentors -- followers of leftist Saul Alinsky (see previous posting)-- suburbs are breeding grounds for bigotry and greed. The classic American Dream of a suburban house, high quality locally controlled schools strikes them as selfishness, a waste of resources that should be directed to the urban poor. Karl Marx would be delighted!
The Way I See It....victorious President Barack Obama made the most honest and yet sinister remark of his life last week when he told his cheering deluded supporters: ''The best is yet to come!'' He wasn't kidding. Drawing on previously overlooked sources, Stanley Kurtz cuts through the smoke screen of Obama's rhetoric to reveal what's really going on and going to happen. Radicals from outside the administration -- including key Obama allies from his early community organizing days -- have been quietly influencing policy, in areas ranging from education to stimulus spending. Their goal: to increase the influence of America's cities over their suburban neighbors so that eventually suburban independence will vanish under a blanket of government control. The result would be a profound transformation of American society.
----------------MORE INFORMATION IN THE UPCOMING PART #2 ---------------
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Was the election stolen? Remember all those lawsuits by Democrats demanding that any voter identification laws be repealed? Well, now we know why they filed them. They needed to steal the vote in certain states so that Obama could be reelected! This really means those stories and rumours I heard from Ohio and Florida are true. That bus that rolled up to an Ohio polling station driven by Democrats loaded with 40+ Somalis carrying ''how to vote'' cards and according to an polling attendant, not speaking a word of English. In Florida too an attendant saw Obama supporters herding a group on non-speaking Hispanics into the polling station (see photo) and coaching them on their choices. You wouldn't get this happening in an Australian polling station.
It is more than curious that Obama lost in every state that requires a photo ID to be produced before voting. A list of closely contested states with no voter ID, which narrowly went to Obama include: Minnesota (10), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), Nevada (6), Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), and Pennsylvania (20). This amounts to a total of 66 electoral votes, enough votes to win even without Ohio or Florida.
Romney also likely had the states of Florida and Ohio stolen from him, if those rumours are true, which don't require photo IDs/ Ohio requires a non-photo ID. Would a library card do....''sure, come on in and vote.'' Florida ''requests'' a photo ID, but doesn't ''require'' it. So what happens if they request a photo ID and the illegal alien Haitian doesn't have one? They're too busy to care and just count the vote anyway!
Add to this, electronic vote fraud. An article from TheBlaze website reported that last week in a North Carolina voting precinct using electronic voting machines, that they were experiencing issues where votes for Mitt Romney were being changed to Barack Obama. Now, it's allegedly happened again, this time in both Kansas and Ohio. TheBlaze reporters talked to a vendor supporting the machines about the issue. Nancy from Topeka, Kansas, who asked that her last name not be used for reasons pertaining to her husband's work, told reporters she fears if voters aren't double checking their selections, they would be ''robbed of their vote.''
Nancy explained that while her husband was casting a vote for Romney, the touchscreen highlighted Obama. ''He played around with the field a little and realized that in order to vote for Romney, his finger had to be exactly on the mark.'' She added that, ''the invisible Obama field came down about a quarter of an inch (6 mm) into what should technically have been the Romney area."
The Way I See It....it is funny how this ''glitch'' only benefited Obama while stealing votes from Romney. I wonder how many other ''glitches'' were out there and how big a role they played in Obama's ''victory''.
To sum up: No incumbent president in the last 60 years has won reelection with the unemployment rate as high as it currently is...7.9%. The only way left for the Democrats to keep Obama in office was to steal the election. Obama failed to win ANY states with photo ID laws for voters, but he did win all the swing states which require no voter ID. Add to this electronic ''glitches'' that gave Obama votes meant for Romney, and it's pretty obvious what happened on November 6th, 2012. America just became a Third World country!
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and knows a thing about about Obama's Marxist ideology because he was a Marxist once himself. His experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject Marxian economics in favor of free market economic theory. Sowell is both a syndicated columnist and an academic economist and is considered the leading representative of the Chicago school of Economics. He lends his knowledge to this posting so that he and I may educate Obama-ites to the fact that their messianic leader is leading them down the wrong path.
A recently discovered tape in which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in wealth redistribution may serve a useful purpose -- if it gets people to think about what are the consequences of redistribution are. History is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example. In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce.
As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is also going to be confiscated. And unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country. Financiers are even less tied down. Vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.
If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Obama faces governing in a deeply divided country and a partisan-rich capital, whee Republicans retained their majority in the House and Democrats kept their control of the Senate. He has already shown his disregard for the Constitutional niceties of the Founding Father's separation of powers with his (law-making) Executive Orders, will he devise a way to get around a House stifling his dictatorial urges??
Let's be realistic. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the proverbial wall and act accordingly. When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments, damage can be done to the economy they leave behind. We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for future fish.
The Way I See It....if the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one thing that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held be others. That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of the politicians who want to exercises power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.
The confluence of the Obama's mendicants (addicted liars), environmentalists, the abortion lobby, those in gay lifestyles, the black and brown money grubbers and what I call the cohort of ''damaged'' women, as well as the social sciences know-nothings have proven a formidable combination. They are a new constituency amalgamation that will affect the politics of the United States for the foreseeable future. God Help America!!
Barack Obama should not have been re-elected President. That he was....tells us elections in America are now decided less by heads than hearts. Obama, who four years ago egotistically promised such a transformative presidency that ''this was the moment when the rise in the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.'' has plainly and dismally failed. It seems there were a lot more jackass voters that I hadn't originally been aware of. Yet he's back in the White House and Mitt Romney, the successful businessman and governor is not.
Romney was a picture perfect, moderate conservative candidate with a squeaky clean, highly credentialed and successful background. His only sin was that he was wealthy. Yet he still got pummelled by an incumbent who built a campaign, not on a record of success or of any particular strong idea or any other such noble cause, but fracturing his nation into specific target groups which he then ruthlessly exploited with fear and demagoguery and a billion dollars worth of print and electronic marketing straight out of a slop bucket. Obviously, the recent much-heralded documentary exposing Obama's background and indoctrination into the art of Marxism entitled 2 0 1 6 (above), shown across the U.S., didn't sink into many ossified brains.
When it comes to the leftist media class, Obama's support was strong, united and deeply partisan. Reviewing the 2012 campaign I found five examples how the media elite tipped the public relations scales in favour of Commie-loving Obama and against the rational challenger Romney.
- The Washington Post's ''Obama can do no Wrong'' edition: The Sept 26th edition carried 3 stories casting the president in a positive light. Those headlines were telling: ''Ohio, Florida Give Obama an Edge'' and ''At UN Obama Issues a Challenge'' and ''For Obama the Buckeye State May Be a Bulls-Eye.'' All to indicate the election race was generally over.
- Downplaying al-Qaida's attack in Libya: Outrage from the media was oddly muted following the administration's initial spin that the Benghazi attacks, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, had nothing to do with terrorism. It is disturbing and curious that the media hasn't pursued this in a serious way. As a cascade of truthful information came out and erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi-gate story to the sidelines.
- Burying the Bad Economy: Pundits agreed that Obama's weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of trillion dollar deficits. But the media failed to offer the sustained aggressive coverage of the economy that George W. Bush faced in 2004. In 2004, the economy was far better it is today -- higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline -- yet network coverage was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year.
- Media Biased ''Gaffe Patrol'' Hammered Romney: When Romney was recorded telling supporters a shocking truth, that 47% of voters would cast their ballots for Obama because of their dependence on government aid, the media jumped on it as major gaffe. Yet Obama was caught on tape advocating an unAmerican (read Marxist) redistribution of income, plus establishment of a coalition made up of welfare recipients and the poor, as well as when he infamously declared, ''You didn't build that," the networks didn't report it until Romney brought it up in a speech four days later.
- New York Times slams Ann Romney's horses: In a May expose, an article devoted nearly 2,500 words to Ann Romney's equine endeavors -- a hobby she took up as part of her treatment for multiple sclerosis. To these low-life scumbags this just happened to play into the narrative that the Romneys are out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans. Jackie Kennedy's love of horseback riding somehow went unmentioned. The politics of Envy was riding high.
The Way I See It....this election confirms the suspicion that the politics of seeming is trumping that of achieving. That what counts most in today's politicians is how voters ''identify'' with them, rather that what they do. It also suggests that a culture of Entitlement is eating at a culture of Achievement. I would like to remind you what that French historian, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his 1840 book, Democracy in America (Volume 2);
''A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.''
''When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education....the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint....It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold....they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.''
Obama had a lucky campaign. America will be not so lucky.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Only in America can a president who inherits a deep recession and whose policies have actually made the effects of the recession WORSE get re-elected. Only in America can a president who wants the bureaucrats who can't run the Post Office efficiently to micromanage the administration of every American's health care get re-elected. Only in America can a president who kills Americans overseas who have never been charged or convicted of a crime get re-elected. And only in America can a president who borrowed and spent more than $5 trillion in fewer than four years, plans to repay none of it and promises to borrow another $5 trillion in his second term...get re-elected! What's going on here??? I never realized that there were that many voters suffering from the worst case of ''shit-for-brains'' syndrome across the country.
Actually, what is really going on is the present-day proof of the truism observed by Thomas Jefferson. When the voters recognize that the public treasury has become a Public Trough, they will send to Washington, not persons who will promote self-reliance and foster an atmosphere of prosperity, but rather those amoral persons who will give away the most cash and thereby create dependency. This is an attitude that was created at the federal level by Woodrow Wilson, magnified by FDR, enhanced by LBJ and eventually joined in by all modern-day Democrats. Half the country knows this and so it has gleefully sent Obama back to office so he can send them more federal cash taken from the other half. These entitlements are a cost to taxpayers of about $1.7 trillion a year and will rise further.
The presidential campaign has exposed the fact that a broad segment of the country feels entitled to a free lunch from the government. David Keene, of American Conservative Union says, ''Words like self-reliance and individual responsibility are scary words to maybe a majority of the public now. We are getting closer and closer to a majority of the people believing they have a right to support from the government while there are less and less people paying taxes. We're up to 47%! This is what happened to Greece and another European welfare/socialist countries. He added, ''In 1986, 18.5% of the population was not paying federal income taxes. It's not that they are getting federal subsidies, which is bad enough, it's that everybody thinks that that is the way it ought to be. If the majority of citizens think that they have a right to do that, then the whole American experiment starts to come unglued."
It is fair to say that Obama is the least skilled and least effective president since Jimmy Carter, but he is far more menacing. His every instinct, honed in a Marxist upbringing, is toward the central planning of the economy and the federal regulation of private behavior. He had no interest in intelligence briefings (attending only 34% of them) and protecting American government employees in harm's way in Libya. A previous posting exposed a nasty trait of his; that he never admits he has been wrong about anything. Though he told an oath to uphold the Constitution, he treats it as a mere guideline, whose grand principles intended to guarantee personal liberty and a diffusion of power can be twisted and compromised to suit his purposes. He rejects the most fundamental of American values -- that people's rights come from their Creator and NOT from the government. His rejection of that leads him to an expansive view of the federal government, which permits it, and thus him, to right any wrong, to regulate any behavior and to tax any event, whether authorized by the Constitution or not and to subordinate the individual to the state at every turn.
The Way I See It....Americans are in for very difficult times during Obama's second term. ObamaCare is now to stay, so no matter who you are, federal bureaucrats will direct your physicians in their treatment of you and they will see your medical records. As well, Obama is committed to raising the federal debt to $20 trillion, which will cost close to $1 trillion in interest payments every year! As well, everyone's taxes will go up on New Year's Day, as the Bush-era tax cuts will expire then. The progressive Marxist vision of a populace dependent on a central government and a European-style welfare state is now at hand.
It's anyone's guess how much private wealth the Obama-feds should seize and redistribute and how much private behavior they would regulate, but in another previous posting in August I warned that Obama's many Executive Orders give him many options to bypass Constitutional restraints. It is unsettling to find Obama back in the White House for another four years. That sinking feeling comes from the knowledge that he is free from the need to keep an eye on the dumb electorate and from the terrible thought that he may be the authoritarian that Americans have all known and feared would visit them one day and crush their personal freedoms. GOD help America!!
Monday, November 5, 2012
If you have any doubts that dyed-in-the-wool Marxist Barack Obama should be sent packing from the White House this month, then cast your eyes on this list of reasons he will be a one-term president. It takes some sort of jackass to ignore the glaring truth!
- Jobs, jobs, jobs: While the official unemployment rate had inched down to 7.8% then last month jumped up to 7.9%, that number would be much higher if all the discouraged job hunters who stopped looking for work were included. Obama's record as a job creator is dismal, because the basic tenets of his economic Marxist ideology are woefully misguided. Government doesn't create jobs, it just gets in the way of companies that can.
- Health Care showdown: With the Supreme Court readying its decision on the president's signature initiative, the Affordable Care Act is front and center of his campaign boasting. No matter how the court rules, the nation will be reminded of the highly unpopular health care overhaul that was enacted with legislative bribes, using arcane congressional rules and without a shred of bipartisanship. Now we hear of $716 billion in Medicare cuts....crazy!
- Immigration showdown: The high court will also be issuing its decision on Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, which allows local police to check a person's immigration status. With polls showing a strong majority of Americans favoring the legislation, Obama's suit against the state is highly unpopular. Here again he feels it is the government's right to dictate to the states on any and all matters.
- Dismal economy: The economy is not doing well, given the nation is in the midst of the weakest recovery on record and even that is stalling. With so-called Taxmageddon looming after the election when a host of tax hikes are automatically scheduled to take effect, an Obama victory would ensure a continued weak economy because he will gladly allow them to be enacted. There are 5.5 million homes in Crisis/Foreclosure! And shockingly there are 47 million Americans on Food Stamps!
- Big government run amok: From Obama's fictional ''Julia'' who can't get through life without a raft of government programs, to his failed stimulus package, this president is all about crafting a European-style welfare (big government) solution to every problem. The American people are onto this community organizer spreading the wealth around. They would rather have economic freedom than a government handout.
- Base depressed: The ''hope and change'' enthusiasm from 2008 is long gone as voter registration seems to be lagging among the young and minorities. Many voters seemed attracted to Romney because of his presidential attitude during the debates. Hopefully Obama will not get the turnout he enjoyed four years ago. Millions of voters expected this president to deliver more than high unemployment, a weak economy and lackluster job creation. Those Obama Zombies that have graduated from the hot-bed of leftist universities are getting a dose of reality looking for jobs in Obamaland.
- GOP on fire: Despite a hard-fought primary, conservatives of every ilk are behind Romney, knowing that the real issue is the defeat of Obama's big government leftist agenda. Because turnout is always key in an election, the fact that conservatives and even non-Republicans are fired up to remove Obama from office will make the difference.
- Misguided energy policy: Obama canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, has kept vast amounts of U.S. energy resources off-limits for development, and through the Environmental Protection Agency, is regulating the coal industry into oblivion. His energy policy is misguided by a devotion to the global warming alarmism cult. No wonder gas prices have doubled since he took office.
- Foreign policy misadventures: Obama is making a mess with his haphazard foreign policy, angering allies like Israel, resetting relations with Russia in the wrong direction, while doing nothing about Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Obama has apologized for the country's actions and handed over decision-making to international bodies. Where America was once respected around the world, it is increasingly being seen as a paper tiger.
- Scandal-plagued administration: From the Fast-and Furious gun-running debacle to the General Services Administration's lavish Las Vegas conferences, from the Secret Service agents's romp with Colombian prostitutes, to the decision to dump taxpayer's money on big donators' green energy companies like the now-bankrupt Solyndra and the recent Benghazi lies and denied rescue debacle. This government, run by amateurs, is taking on the look of a scandal-plagued enterprise. Four more years of this? You've got to be kidding!
In the coming weeks I will enjoy pursuing other topics and giving you my perspective on them. The issues I'm looking forward to exploring are, by their very nature, controversial and I hope you will appreciate the insights that are often not expressed in the ''lame-stream'' media. Till then, remember, a vote for Romney will keep the democratic American Dream, not a Marxist/Socialist's dream, alive.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
As news spread of Paul Ryan being named Mitt Romney's running mate, YouTube video of the House Budget Committee chairman's tour de force during the Obama ''health care summit'' in February, 2010 began going viral. But an even more sunstantive--indeed visionary--Ryan's performance regarding Obamacare isn't getting the full attention it deserves during this hotly contested campagine.
During the summit, a gob-smacked President Obama sat frozen as the seven-term Wisconsin congressman in six minutes dazzled the room with his fluency not just of the gimmicks hidden within the Democrats health legislation, but of the comlexities of federal entitlement programs and the Congressional Budget Office's scoring techniques. The episode was so embarrassing for Obama that Ryan's dissection of the plan was excised from the hours of excerpts from the summit featured on the White House website.
A month later, Ryan prophetically warned of the consequences of socialized medicine in America. ''Obamacare,'' Ryan said, was an abuse of the Constitution that moves away from the American Idea and toward a European-style welfare state that will lead millions of Americans into becoming dependent on the government rather than themselves.'' This man who in hopefully in January may be sworn in as vice-president empasized that ''even though it's not single-payer and even without the so-called public option, this is still a government takeover of health care.'' Ryan charged that it would establish ''a Washington-controlled price-setting board'' that would usurp state governments' role in regulating insurance and premiums and will further ''smother the normal market forces that would otherwise encourge innovation and cost-saving efficiences and restrict providers'decisions about what treatments are best for their patients.''
The president's claim that Obamacare would ''not add a dime to the deficit'' was a false pledge, because, as Ryan said, ''the Democrats gamed the system with 'smoke and mirrors' within the legislation for the purpose of getting favorable CBO deficit scoring, including gimmicks and double counting.'' Shortly after the abmoniation of Obamacare was passed, Ryan took to the pages of The New York Times to predict that ''the true costs of this legislation -- concealed by timing gimmicks and hidden spending -- will make the deficit explode, plunging America deeper into debt.!'' Ryan has since offered his own health reform, including shifting Medicare into a program in which the federal government substantially helps seniors pay the premiums of their private insurance plans.
The Way I See It....with the national debt exceeding $16 trillion dollars, going from under 75% of GDP during George W. Bush's last year in office to over 104% of the nation's output today, Paul Ryan's warning in retrospect sounds right-on-the-money. A Kaiser survey of nearly 2,100 private companies and state and local government agencies found that the cost of family coverage rose 9% to $15,075, suggests that Ryan's fears about ObamaCare's costs were well-founded.
The Obama campaign is undoubtedly counting on the majority of the electrorate stupidly ignoring any and all facts exposing the dire stricts America is in and believes promises of a rosey future. Team-Obama has plenty of ideas on how to attack Mitt Romney's partner, but removing the shine from a running mate who correctly predicted that ObamaCare would would bend the cost curve UP -- not DOWN -- may take an awful lot of mud.
Eleven states are likely to have an influence in deciding whether President Barack Obama or Republican Mitt Romney will be elected president. The winner needs to cobble together 270 electoral college votes. Estimates by the website RealClearPolitics.com say that Obama can count on 201 and Romney 191 in areas where they look solid.
That leaves the ''battleground'' states. Spread across the U.S., the swing states often share several characteristics: recent population increases, meaning lots of new voters; growing numbers of Latinos with their hands out, diverse populations that mirror the nation's demographic makeup meaning there's less whites as every year passes; and economies that are recovering slowly.
The biggest prize is Florida, whose 29 electoral votes would give the winner more than 10% of what he needs for election victory. So far the battle is a virtual tie, which is shocking to think that all those retired Jews don't seem to give a hoot that Obama can't stand Netanyahu and actually loves Israel less. Don't these people remember last year when the head of the free world said, ''I'm keeping some space from Israel,'' because he couldn't get Israel to agree to go back to its pre-1968 borders! You'll see...he'll give Israel more pressure and continue to side with the countries surrounding it, that's the kind of ass-kisser he is.
The states to watch first on election night are Virginia and North Carolina. Both went Democratic in 2008 for the first time in decades, but they show signs of inching back to the Republican side. And so they should, because the Obama administration is also ass-kissing the environmentalist movement. There goes those state's Coal industry. Obama promised to slowly wipe that cheap source of energy out to spend billions on Green energy that he specifically mentioned would cost so much more for every family. Suckers!
Moving west, and there's the present day's most reliable bellwether, OHIO. No Republican has won the presidency without it and no one has won the presidency, period, without Ohio since 1964. Already, Obama and his powerful super PACs and well-financed scumbag unions are outspending Romney. No wonder Obama is up by 4.5 percentage points. The state is being saturated with TV and Radio ads 24/7. Again, one has to wonder what kind of idiots Ohioans are. Here again their Coal industry is in the firing line to be phased out and there goes a big chunk of revenue for their weak economy. Wake up people!
Should the race remain tight on Tuesday night, attention will turn further west, first to Iowa and Wisconsin, and then to the final battlegrounds, Colorado and Nevada. Each has seen increases in their Hispanic populations, and surveys show Latinos are overwhelmingly for Obama since he has ''bought-them-out'' with his lack of movement on a tighter immigration policy and the ''if-your-born-here'' waiver. Of course these ''wet-backs'' won't say no to a nice welfare cheque either from Barack.
The Way I See It....the fight for the sliver of undecided voters in the battleground states is unusually fierce. It seems Obama's lies and the horrendous damage he has done to America and Americans with his Marxist/Socialist actions still has so many Smucks sucked in without a thought of what is worse to come. Estimates are that the two campaigns and their parties will each raise more than $1 billion. Obama's forces have opened more than 100 campaign offices in both Florida and Ohio. Romney's camp boasts its workers have knocked on more than two million Ohio doors.
Then there's the October surprise, Hurricane Sandy. Obama left the campaign trail for 3 days so he could monitor and manage the federal response and ''look presidential.'' Romney suspended campaigning for 2 days and helped Ohio supporters prepare relief supplies. Will it help that Obama was able to vividly remind voters that he's in charge? At least the storm buried the cries of ''coverup'' in Benghazi for the moment. Hopefully Romney will score with his relentless assault on Obama's economic record. As Obama gloats that so many more people were hired last month, Romney can remind the Obama Zombies out there, that the actual unemployment rate actually jumped up, to 7.9% from last month's 7.8% . For all intents and purposes...the economy is still stagnant. Hopefully the majority can get past Obama's Cheshire Cat smile and Bojangles style and vote for a man the really looks and acts presidential!