Is there too much government in your life?
View Results
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL HAS HIM FIGURED OUT!
The Obama Presidency – by Eddie Sessions:
I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.
In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a “communist with a small ‘c’” was the real author.
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.
He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?
He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984’s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.
The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.
Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.
Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain .
The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.
Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.
Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life.
When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.
We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?”
That’s my Reetzality for the day. Thank you Mr. Sessions.
Thanks for the read.
Brett Reetz
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said Sunday that American, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, US Airways and JetBlue Airways each have committed to him that they would not institute fees for carry-on bags. He said he was hopeful other carriers would follow suit. Spirit airlines will charge fees for carry on baggage. Mr. Schumer said he planned to meet with the leadership of Spirit Airlines in the coming week. Mr. Schumer’s intention is to change Spirit’s mind. He will have an uphill battle. Ben Baldanza, Spirit’s president and CEO, told the Associated Press on Sunday that his airline still plans to go forward with its carry-on bag fee.
Good for Mr. Baldanza! The audacity of Senator Chuck Schumer to even think that somehow he as the authority to tell a private enterprise how much to charge is amazing, not to mention un-American. What are these Washingtonians thinking? Do they need a refresher course on free enterprise and liberty? They do. In fact a bunch of them need a refresher course, a “what for” in their faces. For example:
Representative Henry Waxman called upon the CEO’s of Verizon Communications, AT&T, Deere & Co. and Caterpiller to testify as to why they wrote internal memos to their employees describing how President Obama’s takeover of the health care industry will cost millions of dollars – billions in the case of AT&T. The non-political memos stated how their company’s would be affected by ObamaCare. The corporations that are under fire are required by law, the Security and Exchange Commission, to report this information.
President Obama, twelve days after being elected as President of the United States, was quoted to saying in a one-on-one television interview on 60 Minutes with Steve Kroft what he wanted to do for college football’s maligned championship game selection. Kroft asked “As president of the United States, what can you do, or what do you plan to do, about getting a college football playoff for the national championship?”
President Obama answered: “I think any sensible person would say that if you’ve got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there’s no clear decisive winner that we should be creating a playoff system. Eight teams. That would be three rounds, to determine a national champion. It would it would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don’t know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I’m gonna throw my weight around a little bit. I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Senator Orin Hatch: The Obama administration and top Republican Orrin Hatch may become the driving force behind a legal move to force a college football playoff system.The AP says the Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review. In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch’s request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates anti-trust laws.
Of course, there’s AIG, General Motors, Chrylser, Obama-Care, and the new push, financial regulation. How convenient that the Justice Department filed a civil action against Goldman Sachs just days before Obama visists New York City to push financial reform. Obama’s financial reform plan would create a new government body, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), which would “write rules, oversee compliance and address violations by non-bank providers (!), as well as banking institutions.” This agency would have to enforce its rules and would, according to the Obama design, be able to go after any firm that offers credit to consumers. Any firm! Obama’s plan would allow the CEO of the United States, him, to determine which company is “too big to fail.” His plan has a “back stop” for these firms. Government backstopping will allow these firms to be able to borrow at lower interest rates, just as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have for years. (the biggest failures and by coincidence the most protected by government, with no hope of paying us back) have for years. If a firm gets in trouble, wala! Uncle Sam steps in and controls. Uncle Sam loves to control as of late.
Here’s the problem with all of these control tactics. I thought this was the land of the free. Free to succeed, free to fail. I thought if a company charged too much, then the free market would judge. I thought if a group of universities wanted to structure their playoffs in a certain way, go for it, it’s a free country. I thought that if a CEO spoke out, especially if the speaking out was simply complying with the law, go for it Mr. CEO, he wouldn’t get subpoenaed to Congress to explain why he was dissenting. I thought a lot of things, but then the cancer called Washington, led by the ultimate government carcinogenic, Obama, grew malignant. Now I question my thoughts. All of these control tactics are ignorant and contemptuous of American principles, such as liberty, for one. Let’s face it folks, these guys in Washington don’t have a clue about what makes this country tick. They actually believe that it is they who make this country tick. They could not be more wrong. They are parasites and we are the host. They should know that the parasites future does not shine bright when they kill the hosts.
We need to fix this mess. We need to vote the bums out this year, all of them. We need to get to work.
That’s my Reetzality for the day.
It is past time to aggressively confront those who support Obama and his minions, which include unions, special interests, communists, socialists, Maoists, unrepentant terrorists, career politicians, and other un-Godly sorts. Obama is spending our children and our children’s children into the grave and its not only a vile economic policy, it’s down right evil. This past week the administration vicariously through others sent the message out; the current economic policy of government is unsustainable. Taxes will need to be increased immensely or by 2020 (the year varies according to which economist is speaking) 100% of federal revenue will be used to pay the interest on our national debt. What level of “immense” are we talking about? Eighty to ninety percent income tax brackets will be required to have money to turn the lights on at the Federal level alone, that immense. Not withstanding the truth that nobody will be willing to work under the albatross of a tax rate anywhere near these rates. Not withstanding the truth that Obama-Washington spending will destroy America as we know and love it. The truth is that it is more than that. It is child abuse at the most sophisticated level. Don’t believe me? Give me a chance. I’m going to tell you about India and then ask a few questions; on to India and then on to us.
India has many crises affecting it at this time. Among them is the important and sad issue of child labor. There are approximately 60 to 115 million child laborers in India (Human Rights Watch, 1996). Most child laborers work in the agriculture field but most organizations for human rights focus on the bonded laborers in the cities. Bonded child labor “refers to the phenomenon of children working in conditions of servitude in order to pay off a debt” (Human Rights Watch, 1996). In bonded child labor a creditor loans the parents a small amount of money in exchange for their child’s labor. The labor is extremely cheap and the children work until the loan can be paid off in one lump sum. This almost never happens because the interest rates are greater than the wages of the child. Their children after inheriting their parents’ debts are forced into a life of poverty, which creates an almost never-ending cycle.
That’s India, on to us. Obama and Washington are spending trillions of dollar on entitlements, ear marks, special interests, government expansion, etc., all things that have relatively present tense benefits to the adults of today that get benefited. But there not paying for much of it at all. Instead they’re borrowing the money, running up massive amounts of debt, and deferring the responsibility to future generations to pay for benefits received now by the present generation.
What’s the difference between the Obama-Washington policy and the atrocious evil reality of debt inheritance in India? In India there is a middle man between the parent who incurs the debt and the company that benefits from the child labor. The middle man is private in India. In the United States there is a middle man named “government” which, through employers working as their collection agency, will take the workers’ productivity. That’s not much of a difference. Both situations impose a massive evil burden on future generations.
What’s the difference between the cost of the child labor in India and the cost of labor in the United States that will be enslaved in the future to pay off the debt we are now incurring and requiring future generations to pay? Not much. The tax rates will be so high that the net, the actual cost of the labor, the actual amount of productivity the labor gets to keep, will be small. Let’s face it folks, the bottom line is what you take home. I would take no pleasure claiming a million dollar a year salary encumbered by a ninety five percent tax rate.
In India the system forces the children into a life of poverty which creates a never ending cycle. Is that not what is happening in America now? Is our country not being lead down a path to poverty? Of course it is. How do I know? History for one. Countries that have long term policies of exploding their debt get impoverished, every time. Countries that become socialistic get impoverished. Every time. Countries that encourage dependency and reliance upon government impoverished, every time. Another reason, Economics 101. A third reason, mathematics.
Come on folks! Would you run up massive debt within your family, waste the debt revenue on spurious purchases, and then look your kids in the eye and say, “there you go kids. Now pay for it. And this too Kids; if you don’t pay the debt I incurred, I might throw you in jail for not paying it.” This is precisely what we as a nation, lead by the socialist Obama, is doing. Still don’t believe my analogy. Try evading taxes and see where that gets you. See my point. (I’m not even touching on the seizure of our childrens’ liberty, opportunity and hope for a better future.)
The evil practice of debt inheritance India is the same evil practice that Obama and his minions (Republicans too) are practicing right here in America. The only difference is that the evil we are fighting here is more clever and sophisticated than the evil in India. In America, evil has camouflaged itself in rhetoric, faux good will, deception and strategic bribery. Our evil is worse than India’s.
That’s my Reetzality for the Day.
Thanks for the read, and special thanks to the Doctor who suggested this topic last night by announcing upon the birth of my new son, Ralph Hatcher McConkey Reetz, “Congratulations, you’re one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars in debt.” Thank you Doctor B.
Note: I know, I know, it is child labor in India. We don’t have child labor, we have age requirements. Sorry folks. The age thing doesn’t make that much of a difference to me. We are just delaying the debt repayment process until a child reaches sixteen. Or is it twenty six since a child can now, under Obama-care, stay on their parents insurance until they’re twenty six? Did Obama just raise the definition of a child to twenty-six? Could the bad parent I described above get off the hook by saying, “Lad, you’ve got to pay all my debt for all my spurious spending but no problem, I’ve fixed it so you don’t have to start doing it until you’re sixteen.” I don’t think this gets the scoundrel off the hook. But that’s just me being me.
A great article by Charles Krauthammer revealing the utter ignorance (correct word, Obama is doing some “ignoring”) by Obama of the real nuclear weapon threat to America. Read on:
April 16, 2010
Obama’s Nuclear Posturing, Part Deux By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON — There was something oddly disproportionate about the just-concluded nuclear summit to which President Obama summoned 46 world leaders, the largest such gathering on American soil since 1945. That meeting was about the founding of the United Nations, which 65 years ago seemed an event of world-historical importance.
But this one? What was this great convocation about? To prevent the spread of nuclear material into the hands of terrorists. A worthy goal, no doubt. Unfortunately, the two greatest such threats were not even on the agenda.
The first is Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.
Nor on the agenda was Pakistan’s plutonium production, which is adding to the world’s stockpile of fissile material every day.
Pakistan is a relatively friendly power, but it is the most unstable of all the nuclear states. It is fighting a Taliban insurgency and is home to al-Qaeda. Suicide bombs go off regularly in its major cities. Moreover, its own secret service, the ISI, is of dubious loyalty, some of its elements being sympathetic to the Taliban and thus, by extension, to al-Qaeda.
So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.
What a relief. I don’t know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they’re capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn’t scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there’s no telling what might have ensued.
Let us stipulate that sequestering nuclear material is a good thing. But, it is a minor thing, particularly when Iran is off the table, and Pakistan is creating new plutonium for every ounce of Canadian uranium shipped to the U.S.
Perhaps calculating that removing relatively small amounts of fissile material from stable friendly countries didn’t quite do the trick, Obama proudly announced that the U.S. and Russia were disposing of 68 tons of plutonium. Unmentioned was the fact that this agreement was reached 10 years ago — and, under the new protocol, doesn’t begin to dispose of the plutonium until 2018. Feeling safer now?
The appropriate venue for such minor loose-nuke agreements is a meeting of experts in Geneva who, after working out the details, get their foreign ministers to sign off. Which made this parade of world leaders in Washington an exercise in misdirection — distracting attention from the looming threat from Iran, regarding which Obama’s 15 months of terminally naive “engagement” has achieved nothing but the loss of 15 months.
Indeed, the Washington summit was part of a larger misdirection play — Obama’s “nuclear spring.” Last week, a START treaty, redolent of precisely the kind of Cold War obsolescence Obama routinely decries. The number of warheads in Russia’s aging and decaying nuclear stockpile is an irrelevancy now that the existential U.S.-Soviet struggle is over. One major achievement of the treaty, from the point of view of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is that it could freeze deployment of U.S. missile defenses — thus constraining the single greatest anti-nuclear breakthrough of our time.
This followed a softening of the U.S. nuclear deterrent posture (sparing non-proliferation compliant states from U.S. nuclear retaliation if they launch a biochemical attack against us) — a change so bizarre and literally unbelievable that even Hillary Clinton couldn’t get straight what retaliatory threat remains on the table.
All this during a week when top U.S. military officials told Congress that Iran is about a year away from acquiring the fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. Then, only a very few years until weaponization.
At which point the world changes irrevocably: the regional Arab states go nuclear, the Non-Proliferation Treaty dies, the threat of nuclear transfer to terror groups grows astronomically.
A timely reminder: Syria has just been discovered transferring lethal Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Middle East’s most powerful non-state terrorist force. This is the same Syria that was secretly building a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor until the Israeli air force destroyed the facility three years ago.
But not to worry. Canadian uranium is secured. A nonbinding summit communique has been issued. And a “Work Plan” has been agreed to.
Oh yes. And there will be another summit in two years. The dream lives on.
Thank You Mr. Krauthammer, and thank you readers.
That’s my Reezality for the Day.
Now I’m feeling better. Yeah Right! Here’s what U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today: ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT, April 13 (Reuters) – Iran is not expected to be capable of producing nuclear weapons for at least a year, maybe more, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
Asked about reported comments that Iran might be able to join the nuclear club in months, Gates said: “I don’t believe it.”
“I think that most estimates that I’ve seen, haven’t changed since the last time we talked about it, which is probably at least a year, and maybe more,” Gates told reporters on a flight to South America.
Well that’s a relief. Iran won’t have nuclear weapons for a year. And why wouldn’t this be a relief? I mean, well, check out the following:
1. Obama said al Qaeda would use nukes if they had them.
2. The State Department on both Obama and Bush has labeled Iran as the biggest facilitator of al Qaeda.
3. Iran will have nukes in no less than a year, per Gates today.
So carrying out and reversing the logic, here’s how I see it:
1. Iran will get nukes.
2. Iran will give one to al Qaeda.
3. al Qaeda will use it.
4. We’ve got at least a year before this happens.
That’s great, my children will be twelve, six and one years old when there is a chance that al Qaeda gets a nuke, maybe a suitcase bomb. Just Great!
Mr. President, would you please get your act together? Why won’t you take the Iranian nuclear threat seriously? Do you want a nuclear attack on America? Maybe you do Mr. President. Here’s my prediction of a part of your speech immediately after the attack:
“This is a tragedy of the greatest magnitude, not just to America, but to our friends and allies, it is a world tragedy. At this point it would be easy to dig in and lash out unilaterally, against our enemies, but that is the attitude, the policy, that brought this tragedy upon us. Now is the time to re-think our failed strategy. Now is the time to unite with the world and be one with the world. Now is the time to fundamentally change our relationship with the world, to embrace other cultures, to create a world where strengths are shared and weaknesses are resolved. This is not going to be an easy or even, at times desirable task, but it is a necessary task. Therefore I now announce that I have signed two executive orders. I have signed an executive order suspending habeas corpus because now is not the time to have dissent, but is the time to unite. . .”
So Mr. President, you lay down on the job of fighting the most significant threat to our nation in history, and then when the threat materializes, you use the tragedy to further depreciate the strength of our nation. Is that your plan Mr. President? Sadly, I think it is a possibility.
Here’s some WASHINGTON (AP) news for the day. President Obama said, “If al-Qaida acquired nuclear weapons it “would have no compunction at using them.’ He said this today on the eve of a summit aimed at finding ways to secure the world’s nuclear stockpile.
“The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama said. “This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come.”
“If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating,” the president said.
“We know that organizations like al-Qaida are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them,” Obama said.
Sounds good right? Sounds like our President is on top of things. But wait, isn’t Iran in the process of building nuclear weapons?
Here’s what Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, said, “Iran’s nuclear program is facing problems, and as a result, Tehran is not expected to emerge with a nuclear weapon this year. The exact details of when U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran will have a nuclear bomb are classified, but the time line for developing a nuclear device has “thankfully slid to the right a bit,” he said. On Tehran’s ties to al Qaeda, Gen. Petraeus said the group “continues to use Iran as a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaedas senior leadership to regional affiliates.” The good news is that Iran’s quest for nukes has slowed down. The bad news is it hasn’t stopped. Remember, Patraeus is Obama’s guy.
The above Patraeus statement is a 2010 statement.
Here’s what our State Department said while Bush was in office: The United States State Department lists Iran as the “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice elaborated stating, “Iran has been the country that has been in many ways a kind of central banker for terrorism in important regions like Lebanon through Hezbollah in the Middle East, in the Palestinian Territories, and we have deep concerns about what Iran is doing in the south of Iraq. Further, The United States State Department claims that this organization provides support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad in Israel. They also say that Pasadaran has given much support and training to terrorists supporting the Palestinian resistance. They are also accused of aiding the Iraqi insurgency in southern Iraq. On September 26, 2007, the United States Senate passed legislation by a vote of 76-22 designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. Former U.S. President George W. Bush and Congress labeled the group under the guidelines established by Executive Order 13224 issued after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
So we’ve got a President saying that al Qaeda will use nukes if they get them. We’ve got the Presdient’s man saying that Iran is facilitating al Qaeda. And we’ve got Iran building nukes. Let’s break it down in more simple terms, maybe the President’s logic checkers will read this. Here I go:
1. Iran is building nukes. 2. Iran facilitates al Qaeda. 3. al Qaeda will use them if they get them.
So my intellect, my logic, would have stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons to be a top priority. What’s the President doing? Check it out.
As reported by Time on January 25th, 2010, “Obama has promised to curtail Iran’s nuclear program by simultaneously offering talks and threatening sanctions. After a year of trying, both approaches appear on the verge of failure. The President has given Iran two deadlines to demonstrate good faith. Last spring, his Administration told reporters that if Iran didn’t show willingness to engage in talks by September, sanctions would follow. Then, in September, when Iran hinted that it might possibly talk, Obama delivered another deadline, this time the end of 2009.
Iran’s response to these deadlines has been repeated delays and obfuscation. First, in the spring it delivered a lengthy manifesto about global peace irrelevant to the issues at hand. The summer months were taken up with Iran’s election turmoil, but following talks with the U.S. and its international partners in the fall, Iran hinted that it might be willing to accept a deal under which it would export most of its enriched-uranium stockpile to be converted into reactor fuel — and then quickly backpedaled as the proposed deal came under a hail of criticism from across Iran’s political spectrum. In recent weeks, Iran has made a counteroffer to export its uranium in small parcels over a longer time period that State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley described as “clearly an inadequate response.”
As reported by the Gloria Center, Global Research in International Affairs: Obama Administration sanctions on Iran (if they ever arrive) will have three functions. First, as a public relations’ campaign “to avoid alienating the Iranian public” while striking at their rulers. Second, to “force the Tehran government to the negotiating table, rather than to punish it” for being an oppressive dictatorship or for seeking nuclear weapons. Third, it will supposedly bring the most fanatical group of rulers to their knees by attacking their pocketbooks.
It would be hard to device a worse strategy, other than doing nothing at all. The U.S. government thus signals the Iranian regime in advance that it won’t go too far because it wants to avoid making the regime too angry to negotiate. In addition, the strategy encourages Iran’s rulers to manipulate American eagerness for talks in order to stall for time. Then, too, it makes clear that there won’t be a serious effort to undermine the country’s economy. So why should Iranians pressure the regime to change course due to sanctions since it isn’t costing them anything?
Finally, the strategy “hits” the current rulers in their least vulnerable spot. Once again we see the West’s absolutely classical mistake in dealing with revolutionary Islamism: the belief it is responsive to materialist punishments. What are the Revolutionary Guard and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the supreme guide going to say: Oh, my! The Americans are reducing my income! Unless I give up nuclear weapons I won’t be able to buy that new country house, that sports car I’ve been eyeing and the Paris original evening gown for my wife!
But there’s more. Ordinary people may not understand the uses of sanctions yet leaders of great nations should. Of course, the ideal is to use sanctions to force the target to change its policies. Just because sanctions don’t succeed in doing that, however, doesn’t mean they failed because there are other goals involved:
–Sanctions seek to weaken the target so that it might be more easily defeated or fall in future.
–Another purpose is to deny the enemy resources, making it less able to carry out its programs.
–Still another is to show one’s own allies a high degree of resolution in containing and countering a threat, thus encouraging their own defiance of the mutual foe.
–Sanctions seek to isolate and discredit the target, denying it allies and the help of others.
For example, sanctions against South Africa and the USSR failed to force directly any major policy shift yet by succeeding in the other categories they eventually contributed to the regime’s downfall
The administration is ignoring all these functions to focus merely on one-which will inevitably not work
Are you getting this folks? On the one hand Obama is saying that al Qaeda will use nukes if they get them and on the other, he is using an incompetent foreign policy on Iran, al Qaeda’s primary facilitator, to prevent them from building nukes.
Come on Mr. President, be a little logical. If you really believe that al Qaeda will use nukes if they get them, and if you believe your man Patraeus, then you should re-think your strategy, big time. 911 was a tragedy, but a nuclear detonation in the United States, that would be unforgivable under the circumstances.
I’m listening to Laura Ingram who is replacing Bill O’Reilly as I write this. There is some tree hugger defending Obama’s initiative to open up off-shore drilling. Now, before you rush to your email accounts to attack me for using the term “tree hugger” slow down. I’m a tree hugger. I love cleanliness and a pure environment. My biggest gripe is that approximately eighty percent of our rivers are contaminated. Clean rivers are awesome. We need to, bare with me on this one, redistribute some wealth to get our rivers clean. You can raft, fish, kayak, canoe, swim, frolic, on a clean river. The reality is that we don’t have, the big picture, a high percentage of clean rivers. It’s about eighty percent toxic rivers as of late. What concerns me is this passion about our atmosphere. Why? Our atmosphere is pretty clean. We aren’t dying of lung disease, like China. We aren’t scraping smog off our cars, but the reality is, our rivers are sordid. They stink. I want to clean them and I want them to be a priority. Why aren’t they? I mean, if the rivers were clean, folks in Chicago could frolic in the Des Plaines river. Instead, they hold their nose while Obama preaches about carbon dioxide, the stuff you, a human, exhales. Why not clean up the rivers? Here’s the sad answer. There’s no control and domination in that solution to the dirty river problem. Obama’s claim to care about a clean non ice-cap melting world has nothing to do with the environment. Why would it? He doesn’t fish, hunt, camp, kayak, hike, anything in the environment. He is a city boy. Yet, he claims to be an environmentalist. Why? Because of control. Have you read the cap and trade bill of late? It is all about control and not about the environment. This is scary stuff.
It is time for the people on the “right” to sell the truth that they care, sincerely, about the environment. And the people on the right need to sell the other truth, that the left, the Obama folks, only care about the environment as a tool to grow government and take control of our individual liberties. If you read the stuff, the cap and trade bill, it’s a no brainer. If you don’t, you might fall victim to the Obama fraud which is more government and a dirtier environment.
Please, please, please, read the bills. Get to know what they are imposing under the guise of their environmental statements, that on their face, are appealing, but underneath, are appalling.
Obama wants control. He could care no less about a clean environment. It is simply his tool to control. I want a clean environment. I don’t want a fascist one.
WHO ARE THE REAL MEN, LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES?
Foremost, I am not a chauvinist. I do not see much difference in male and female abilities other than physical ability and even when considering physical abilities, there are thousands of women who ski better than me, can kill me in tennis, swimming, certainly karate, running, ice skating, surfing, the list is endless. So when I use the term “men” I am not being “politically correct” because I find political correctness oft times to be offensive and dishonest. If a person is short, they are short. If discussing height and you use another term, i.e. “stature challenged,” aren’t you really skirting the truth? Sure you are. But, if I was to be politically correct, I would have written the title this way: WHO ARE THE REAL PEOPLE, LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES? Let’s check it out.
Before we do, let us hit Webster’s for a definition of “real.” Here it is: “True, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.” Let’s go the whole nine yards. The definition of “merely” is “being nothing more nor better than what is specified.” The definition of “ostensible” is “outwardly appearing as such.” The definition of “nominal” is “being such in name only.” The definition of “apparent” is “readily seen; open to view.” Houston, we have a measuring stick. Let’s take a look at the basic tenants inherent in the beliefs of Liberals and Conservatives. Here they are:
CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.
Let’s break it down:
Personal Responsibility: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Limited Government: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Free Markets: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Individual liberty: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Sometimes.
Traditional American Values: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Strong National Defense: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Government to Provide Freedom: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Individual Solve Their Problems: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Government is The Solution: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.
Government Solves Social Ills: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.
Government Protects Civil Liberties: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Depends.
Government Protects Human Rights: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Depends.
Government Guarantees No-one in Need: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.
Believes People Are Basically Good: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Questionable.
Now, back to the analysis. Who is the real man? Who is “true, not merely ostensible, nominal or transparent?”
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Liberals don’t regardless of what they say. They are constantly not holding persons responsible for their status, whether it is financial, health care, housing, eating, education, drug addiction, and on and on and on. So, the liberals are not being real, no matter what they say.
Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals don’t. Yet, liberals endlessly talk about cutting deficits, ending waste and increasing efficiency. If you don’t believe me, Google a few of the speeches in support of health care. Yet, their programs do not cut the deficits, do not end waste and are inefficient. Again, the liberal is not being real.
Conservatives believe in free markets. Liberals don’t, again, regardless of what they say. Obama has said he believes in the free market while he, at the same time, has an endless love affair with unions, regulation and government control. Not to real Mr. President.
Conservatives believe in individual liberty. Liberals only do so if the individual liberty is exercised consistent with the liberal philosophy. Want an example. How about two. We’ve just lost our individual liberty to “not” buy health insurance or buy health insurance of our choice. Number two. The current administration is desirous of implementation of the Fairness Doctrine which will limit the individual freedom to speak by taxing the popular view to subsidize the liberal view. Here’s a third example of the non-belief of individual freedom; card check. The liberals want the secret ballots in union votes to no longer be secret. Yet, they profess that they are huge supporters of individual freedom. They are not being real. In fact, as a collateral point, liberals will scream individual freedom when it comes to an abortion or when it comes to pooping on an American Flag. I guess they’re for specified individual liberty as long as they are the ones specifying.
Conservatives believe in traditional American Values. Liberals don’t. Just check out same sex marriages, diversity, and our President fawning over never ending anti-American cultures. Yet, and again, liberals say they are all in favor of traditional American values. This is not true, and therefore not real.
Conservatives believe in a strong national defense. Liberals don’t. Yet, liberals claim to have national security in their hearts. They don’t. They favor appeasement, see Iran, Russia, Venezuela. They cut military spending. They attack the military with words and budgets. Once again, they are not being real.
Conservatives believe it is the government’s role to provide freedom. Liberals don’t. What is the best way to take away freedom, well next best to imprisonment? Taxation. And liberals love taxation. Taxation literally enslaves a portion of an individual’s productivity. Freedom to a liberal is to classify a person by race, creed, color, sexual orientation, or age, and then to take away freedom in the free market, i.e. affirmative action and quotas. They also take away the freedom to fail, freedom to compete, freedom to make a student loans, freedom to profit, see Obama on the insurance industry, etc. Not a very real endorsement of freedom.
Conservatives believe that an individual is best suited to solve his or her problems. Liberals think the government is while at the same time arguing that they have nothing against the individual. Get real Liberals. Your endless mantra is that government is the solution notwithstanding the fact, yes the fact, government has a monopoly on failure. Our federal government is breaking the world record every day on being “up-side down” on it’s debt to equity ration. Liberals are not in the universe of reality on this one.
Conservatives believe that the Government is not the solution. Liberals do. See above paragraph. No reality here with the liberals.
Conservatives do not believe that government solves social ills. Sure, conservatives believe in civil rights, like don’t discriminate based upon race, creed, religion, or color, But liberals, those naïve folks, think government does solve social ills. Have they checked out the condition of the under-class since Johnson’s Great Society went into play. Have they looked at drop out rates, out of wedlock birth rates, crime statistics? I’ll give them a pass and determine they haven’t because Government doesn’t solve social ills, it creates them. Is there anything real about liberals?
Conservatives do believe that government should protect our civil liberties. Liberals say the same thing, but then expand the definition of a civil liberty to include the mandate that a private employer must hire a transvestite dressed in drag so as not to violate the transvestite’s civil liberties. Liberals also use “civil liberties” to support religious segregation, i.e. no manger at the town hall at Christmas. So, in effect, liberals use the guise of civil liberties to accomplish the limitation of civil liberties. Not real at all.
Conservatives believe government should protect human rights. Of course they do. However, once again the liberals have used the “expanded definition tactic” to define such things as free health care as a human right. It’s not. It’s not in the constitution. Even more ironic, hypocritical if you will, is that within the Liberal agenda to take care of the human right to free health care, are massive seizures of a person’s right to choose his or her own health care. Go ahead, attack me on this one lefties, but bring some ammunition with you, for example a day of reading the Obama-care bill. Liberals are not really for human rights. How could they be with their endless embracing of regimes and cultures that absolutely violate the very basics of our culture. Last time I checked, we don’t stone rape victims. Is it a human right not to be stoned to death after you are raped? (See fundamental Muslim culture, Saudi Arabia) By the looks of the Presidential’ genuflecting of late, apparently it is not. And hey Mr. President, how are you handling Darfur? You know that Genocide in the Sudan. See? No reality in the liberal human rights agenda.
Conservatives believe that we the people, through private, and public charity should take care of the truly needy. The liberals, once again, use the “expand the definition tactic” to take care of millions of folks who aren’t truly needy. On the top side, there are the banks, GM, Chrysler, the Unions. On the bottom side, there are the disgustingly large number of folks who get subsidized for housing, food, medical, etc. that simply don’t apply themselves to personal problem solving. They are perfectly healthy individuals who would find a way without the government if they had to do so. But why worry when you got your rich Uncle Sam? I’ll tell you why, Uncle Sam is broke folks. The party is over, at least it is soon to be. So they say they want to take care of the needy, but then they use government to addict folks, to make them needy, folks who aren’t. So they aren’t being real.
Conservatives believe most people are basically good. Liberals say they do, they say, “look, I care about the down-trodden, you know those folks that we’ve addicted to welfare and subsidies. These are good people. You conservatives shun the poor. They vote for me because I give them money. Wait, I wasn’t supposed to say that last part.” The reality is that I don’t think liberals think most people are good people if the definition of a “good person” includes a person who is personally responsible. Can we truly say this, “Yeah, Joe’s a good guy, on welfare, hasn’t worked in three years, spends his money on booze and cigarette’s, can’t even keep a roof over his three kids and the three baby’s mama’s heads without government assistance, but still, he’s a good guy?” Not if we’re being real. Liberals do though, because they’re not real. Conservatives do not think old Joe is a good guy. We think he’s a capable guy though. Liberal analysis, by design, doesn’t even get close to the issue of capability or culpability, they’d lose the vote.
Well, there’s the analysis folks. Now here will be the response. It will be the “two wrongs make a right” response. What did Bush do about Darfur. Bush passed Tarp. What about corporate welfare? Let me stop you right there. This is about conservative versus liberal philosophies, not politics, not Republican versus Democrat. The Republican Party reeks of liberalism. It’s what destroyed it. So don’t go there, because I’ll agree with you.
So who’s the real man, the liberal or the conservative? Who is “True, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent?” Sorry folks, it’s the conservative. My analysis accurately demonstrates that liberals are merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent. Thus, they are not real. The conservative believes in the right things, the things that actually work. Liberals don’t, unless their agenda is to addict the nation’s citizens to government and to insure that, as the nation cascades downward into the abyss, their chosen people are on top of the ever depreciating pile of ruination. If that’s the liberals’ agenda, then my hat is off to them. They are doing a great job. Just think, in a couple of generations we could conceivably have a president bowing to the president of Zimbabwe.
Note: In a future posting I am going to consider why it is that folks become liberal. I haven’t figured it out yet, certainly not to enhance their masculinity, to be a real man. Uh oh, there goes my political incorrectness again.
A FOLLOW UP ON THE CLANDESTINE SURRENDER POST!
So Obama is not going to use nukes if we are attacked with biological or chemical weapons or a crippling cyber attack is launched? What? Here’s the question in this relatively short posting; WHY? Why in the world would a person entering a fight or who might be attacked, announce and make public what he won’t do? I have no idea why.
Let me see if I can apply this to an alley fight between me and, let’s say an ex-client who despises me. Now let’s say the ex-client has threatened me, like, let’s see, like the radical extreme Muslims in Yemen threaten the United States. Let’s also say that I’ve got a big gun, an automatic pistol, much like, let’s see again, a nuke like we as a nation do have. Now this angry threatening ex-client has been and is constantly thinking about how to get me and if he should come and get me. When he considers whether to assault me, or in the case of the Muslim extremist, attack, he thinks, “Damn, I might go in there and put up my dukes, but that Reetz, he’s got a gun and I don’t. He might shoot me, or in the case of the Muslim extremist, “I really want to use a weapon of mass destruction to attack, but that pesky United States has a nuke and they might nuke us.” Personally, call me crazy but I like the idea that my enemy is concerned about my armament, my gun. I like the idea that our nation’s enemies consider the fact that we have nuclear arms and might use them.
But my enemies, worry no more. “We aint going to use the nukes.” Our president said so. So now back to why? Why in the world would you tell your enemy what you aren’t going to do to them if they attack? Would you get in a poker game and get dealt two Aces, and then announce to the table, “By the way folks. I aint going to play these Aces? Place your bets.” If somebody was out to kill you and they were going to use Karate to do so and they knew you had a gun and might just shoot them, would you call them up and say, “in case you were wondering, I’m not going to use my gun?” Even if you had no intention of using your gun, or in our nation’s case, our nukes, why telegraph your intentions. Why tell the enemy what we won’t do to them if they attack? I do not know. Do I hear incompetent anyone, anyone, anyone, going once, twice, three times, . . . sold?
Now let’s switch shoes. If I’m the bad guy, or the radical Muslims in Yemen, and I hear in the bad guy case that my enemy with a gun isn’t going to use it or in the radical Muslim case the United States isn’t going to use their nukes, don’t I, they, say, “Excellent! The potential consequences if I do attack just got a lot better?” Of course I do. Of course they do.
Obama has just lowered the bar, the risk reward ratio, for the bad guys. Incompetently with no apparent purpose, Obama has increased the chances of an attack on America. So I ask again. Why? Of course, the left will say that it sends a good signal to the world, a signal of non-nuclear proliferation. Great! Right? Wrong! Here’s a news flash folks: The folks who want to kill us are not sitting back and saying, “Great! The United States isn’t going to use nukes if we attack them. We can call off the attack. We love the United States now. Great guys those Americans.” Sorry folks they are saying just the opposite. They are saying “the consequences of an attack have just tilted immensely in our favor.” Guaranteed. Does Obama want an attack? Who knows? I do know this: He’s made it more likely.
Bad job Mr. President, bad job. You’re going to have to edit your rhetoric. You know Mr. President, the “If they bring a knife, I’ll bring a gun,” rhetoric. You’ll need to change it to “If they bring a knife, I will not bring my gun. I’ll bring a pillow.” As was said at the ending of each Family Ties sitcom, Mr. President, “SIT UBU, SIT!” And please, think before you speak. Fire your teleprompter too.
That’s my second Reetzality for the day.
Note 1: Obama is back pedaling. They are saying they’ll only go nuke if the strike on us is devastating. My thought? Let’s go to Bill Clinton. “It depends on the definition of “is.”” Now I feel better. I’m joking here. The Reetzality here is that it depends on the definition of “devastating” which the president will define and since we don’t know the president’s definition of “devastating, we don’t know his policy or in the more probable alternative, he has no actual policy. Heck, who needs a policy when it comes to the use of nukes?
Note 2. What if a near devastating attack occurs on our soil? What if Obama determines that we need to impose martial law, maybe even suspend Habeas Corpus? Oh, that would never be done. Oh no? Lincoln did it.
Note 3. If habeas corpus is suspended the first thing that will occur is the silencing of Obama’s critics. Maybe this is his plan.
Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. For example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyber attack. White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike. Great, so we only go nuclear when the President determines the strike is devastating.
In the fall of 2009, Obama abandoned plans for basing elements of the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Some argue it was an act of appeasement directed at Russia. It is certainly a strategic victory for the Kremlin. It represents an abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and now America’s allies now have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises. It will also leave the U.S. and Europe more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic missile attack. The Third Site installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic – Ground-Based Mid-course Defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic – were cost-effective, proven technologies which offered protection from long range missile attack to both Europe and the United States. The alternative deployments which President Obama said he would pursue will not satisfy those criteria. Washington secured no great concession from Russia. Further, Russia is still uncooperative in addressing the, then growing, now near present, Iranian nuclear threat. At present Europe has no capacity to defend itself against long-range missile attack while America only has limited defenses against such an attack. This undermines the concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO’s Article V security guarantees.
Mr. Obama’s budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years — to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade. American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama’s budget isn’t adequate to meet those challenges.
So, our military pre-eminence is on the intentional wane, thanks to Obama. We are backing down. Well now, that sounds like a component of surrender. It doesn’t stop there.
There was the European Diplomatic tour of 2009. President Barack Obama, on his European diplomatic tour, aggressively apologized for the last few years of American foreign policy – a direct repudiation of the historic role of American primacy in world affairs. In less than 100 days, he apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors. He said, “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” Concession, that sure sounds like a surrender.
Then there was Haiti. France’s tricolor, Britain’s Union Jack and even Croatia’s coat of arms were lifted above those nation’s installations in Haiti. But in the United States camp, whose contributions dwarfed the rest of the world’s, no flag was allowed to fly because Obama forbade it. Lowering one’s flag is the historic sign of surrender. Go figure.
We must acknowledge the bow to the Saudi King, the personal exchange between Hugo Chavez and Obama, the disrespect shown to Israel’s (an ally) Benjamin Netanyahu when he recently visited the white house without photographers, entering through the back door. Writing in the Israeli Maariv, columnist Ben Caspit said “there was no humiliation exercise the Americans did not try on Mr Netanyahu. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.” Deference to the enemy, contempt to the ally, very surrender sounding.
Then there is the distancing of Obama from our fundamental Judaeo-Christian Principles. He said, “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation . . .” He also said, “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.” He doesn’t go to church. He didn’t participate in prayer day. More giving in, more faux surrendipity. (Surrendipity is my new word. It means the inadvertent act of concession. The phrase, faux surrendipity means that the inadvertence is not actually fake or inadvertent.)
Let’s go on. There’s the attack of the First Amendment by the Obama Administration through the Fairness Doctrine and Internet Neutrality as well as the specific targeted attacks on Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jerome Corsi and others. There is the Obama position that our Constitution is flawed because it came up short by not including redistributive justice. There is the Obama position of denouncing American Excellence, professing that we are no better than others. He is running up deficits that make George Bush look like a tight wad, indebting us to China to the point that China used financial threats to influence our arm sales to other countries. Obama surrounds himself with folks who are fundamentally in disagreement with core American principles, for example, communists. He is passing or pushing socio-economic policies (health care, corporate takeover, cap and trade, immigration policy, fairness doctrine, internet neutrality) that embrace the redistribution of wealth, attack freedom and liberty, conflict with our Constitution, and leave our borders as porous as the center of a hula hoop.
I ask you the reader this question? What fundamental American principle or tradition does Obama defend, truly defend? My answer? Upon review, my answer is NONE!
But my readers, is he surrendering? Here’s the definition of surrender: “To deliver up or yield to the possession of power of another on demand or under duress.” Here’s my answer: NO! Obama is not surrendering. Why? Obama is already on the other side, that’s why. So where is the “clandestine surrender” occurring. Here’s the definition of clandestine: “held or done in secrecy or concealed, especially for purposes of subversion or deception.” So where is the clandestine surrender occurring folks? Right here, that’s where. It is Obama’s agenda to get the American people to surrender to his un-American agenda. It is Obama’s concealed agenda to subvert us, through rhetoric and deception, to the point that we surrender without even being aware that we have done so. That’s the Clandestine Surrender Obama seeks. It is classic bait and switch marketing. It is a looming disaster for our nation if we don’t wake up and realize that the clandestine surrender occurring is not him to them, but us to him.
Note: This post is a collection of “cut and pastes” taken from many sources, too many to post when working during the day. Therefore, the final amalgam is my only literary claim.
