I read an article in Raleigh's far-left leaning INDY magazine today, entitled "How the Democrats Lost Their Way." (http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-the-democrats-lost-their-way/Content?oid=1739423) It includes possibly the best, most rational and concise (not short) explanation of contemporary "rank and file" progressive thought that I can recall ever seeing in one place. To gain a better appreciation of the progressive's world view, I highly recommend it. If you are a conservative, however, fair warning: you will subject yourself to some of the typically annoying Republican stereotypes and liberal elitist dogma. Still it's worth a read. Once finished, you can either come back and view my comments here, or at the end of the article. They follow:
Despite the plethora of mischaracterizations of conservatism herein, this article offers the most clear and succinct explanation of rank and file idealogical progressivism I think I have ever seen. There is much on which righties and lefties can agree. And that's important for a productive outcome. If these ideas were put forth boldly and in a straightforward manner by politicians and pundits as the author suggests, we could have rational debate. The American people could then decide for themselves whether they prefer to see the future America look more like the tepid and tumltuous European socialist states of today, or the rough and tumble libertarian capitalist "monster" that defined the American exceptionalism of our past. It's a fair debate. The problem is, global socialism requires America's capitalism to survive. If you remove the battleship from the bathtub, the water level falls for everyone. And whether or not rank and file progressives know it, or understand it, or admit it, the powers that lead them on the left have no ambition for a parochial American egalitarianism. They are focused on global management and redistribution in a utopian view that places a ruling elite in control of the world's resources and peoples. There is no upside to this for the US.
.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Hypothetical Politics: "Jobs Created or Saved"
I've long maintained that liberals live in an alternate reality. Now, the evidence of their hallucinations is becoming ever more clear.
Here's the thing: Never before has an administration tried to take credit for "jobs saved." What kind of a metric is that? It is impossible to calculate or substantiate. What constititutes a "saved" job? One that would have been lost if it hadn't been saved? How do you measure a hypothetical?! How do you know if would have been lost if it wasn't?! Therefore, how was it saved? How was it calculated or counted? And since the "created or saved" numbers are always combined, exactly which were created and which were "saved?" You see, this is nothing more than a cynical manipulation. A phantom metric. A fabrication. A farce!
In this world of shadows and illusions, the cause and effect relationship is lost. There are no absolutes. We deal in feelings and dreams rather than facts and figures. Bits of data are related in irrational ways to invent unsubstatiated and unsubstantial crises and solutions solely for the purpose of manipulating people and property for personal and political gain. Hence, the sunny propaganda of the "Summer of Recovery" and the extolled virtues of jobs created and saved.
But if the Obama administration is to take credit for jobs that owe their salvation to TARP, bail-outs, stimuli ad nauseum, green jobs, healthcare reform, et. al., should they not also take blame for all those directly lost or destroyed as a consequence of their policies? It's only rational, of course.
From coast to coast business owners--employers--say they are not hiring due to uncertainty about the uncalulated or incalculable effects of Obama policies from healthcare to financial reform. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx?page=2
The investment class are camping their cash. Looming tax hikes and punitive policies that threaten to dramatically increase costs or dampen demand for an array of services and goods have paralyzed capital and created a menacing cloud of uncertainty over the economy. The demonizing of Wall Street and government takeover of industries (banking & credit, student loans, auto, and energy) have frozen capital and consumer markets leaving banks unwilling to lend, consumers unable to borrow, and pretty much everyone unmotivated to buy. And we have 7.2 million LOST jobs to show for it. Yet to listen to "right direction" Obama, Biden, and the progressive pudits in their tank, you'd think the "roaring tens" were in full swing. That's reality?
But the economic malaise isn't the only fantasy fueling foolish liberals. They've got a million of 'em like, we can 'absorb' terrorist attacks, wealth redistribution works, global warming is man-made and cap 'n trade will cure it, border enforcement is racist, 'green jobs' are the way out of recession, oil is evil, extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, the government can spend us out of recession, Social Security and government pensions are solvent and sustainable, Obamacare will cut healthcare costs, and capitalism is evil.
It's time to get a grip America. At best, you're being led by a bunch of hallucinagenic hippies on a romp through the eutopian tulips. At worst, you're being deliberately manipulated and systematically dismantled by malevolent marxists whose aim is global government by compulsively "redistributing" your wealth into the hands of the 2nd and 3rd worlds in the name of equality and charity; while THEY siphon the gravy off the top. Either way, the ends are the same. You lose, they win. Is that rational?
Here's the thing: Never before has an administration tried to take credit for "jobs saved." What kind of a metric is that? It is impossible to calculate or substantiate. What constititutes a "saved" job? One that would have been lost if it hadn't been saved? How do you measure a hypothetical?! How do you know if would have been lost if it wasn't?! Therefore, how was it saved? How was it calculated or counted? And since the "created or saved" numbers are always combined, exactly which were created and which were "saved?" You see, this is nothing more than a cynical manipulation. A phantom metric. A fabrication. A farce!
In this world of shadows and illusions, the cause and effect relationship is lost. There are no absolutes. We deal in feelings and dreams rather than facts and figures. Bits of data are related in irrational ways to invent unsubstatiated and unsubstantial crises and solutions solely for the purpose of manipulating people and property for personal and political gain. Hence, the sunny propaganda of the "Summer of Recovery" and the extolled virtues of jobs created and saved.
But if the Obama administration is to take credit for jobs that owe their salvation to TARP, bail-outs, stimuli ad nauseum, green jobs, healthcare reform, et. al., should they not also take blame for all those directly lost or destroyed as a consequence of their policies? It's only rational, of course.
From coast to coast business owners--employers--say they are not hiring due to uncertainty about the uncalulated or incalculable effects of Obama policies from healthcare to financial reform. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx?page=2
The investment class are camping their cash. Looming tax hikes and punitive policies that threaten to dramatically increase costs or dampen demand for an array of services and goods have paralyzed capital and created a menacing cloud of uncertainty over the economy. The demonizing of Wall Street and government takeover of industries (banking & credit, student loans, auto, and energy) have frozen capital and consumer markets leaving banks unwilling to lend, consumers unable to borrow, and pretty much everyone unmotivated to buy. And we have 7.2 million LOST jobs to show for it. Yet to listen to "right direction" Obama, Biden, and the progressive pudits in their tank, you'd think the "roaring tens" were in full swing. That's reality?
But the economic malaise isn't the only fantasy fueling foolish liberals. They've got a million of 'em like, we can 'absorb' terrorist attacks, wealth redistribution works, global warming is man-made and cap 'n trade will cure it, border enforcement is racist, 'green jobs' are the way out of recession, oil is evil, extending unemployment benefits creates jobs, the government can spend us out of recession, Social Security and government pensions are solvent and sustainable, Obamacare will cut healthcare costs, and capitalism is evil.
It's time to get a grip America. At best, you're being led by a bunch of hallucinagenic hippies on a romp through the eutopian tulips. At worst, you're being deliberately manipulated and systematically dismantled by malevolent marxists whose aim is global government by compulsively "redistributing" your wealth into the hands of the 2nd and 3rd worlds in the name of equality and charity; while THEY siphon the gravy off the top. Either way, the ends are the same. You lose, they win. Is that rational?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Voters Have Spoken...
It's not at all surprising that the left is up in arms about the recent electoral upset in Deleware that nominated conservative underdog Christine O'Donnell as the state's Republican US Senatorial candidate. After all, she soundly rousted the 40-year veteran Congressman, Mike Castle (also a popular former Governor for the state) a politician frequenly wooed by the entrenched establishment powers in Washington. The decisive victory underscores the power and effectiveness of the Tea Party movement in activating their base and the vibrant anti-incumbant sentiment that has old-guard elements in both parties shakin' in their boots.
What is surprising is that after the fact, conservative pundits and party leaders came out swinging as well. A cacophany of high-profile, so-called "conservative" Republicans like Karl Rove and even the revered Charles Krauthammer, not to mention a thundering herd of no-name talk show hosts, quickly repudiated the candidate and castigated Tea Partiers for selecting and "unelectable" Senate candidate.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Republican establishment was rocked by the upset. But I am rocked by the aftershock. Since when do we, WITHIN the party, so disrespect the clearly stated will of the majority of voters at the local level who chose their preferred candidate fairly under the legal and ethical terms of engagement?! It smacks of the same kind of intellectual snobbery and elitism that has become the hallmark of the American left. In effect, "You idiots! Just look what you've done." Democrats, however, are wise enough to shut up and show solidarity despite their internal discord.
The nature of INTERNAL party politics is that the debate comes BEFORE the election, not after the fact. Once the candidate is selected it's time to unite behind him or her, regardless of how dissatisfied you, personally, may be. The only appropriate response is, "the voters have spoken. Now how do we win?"
I'm not sure whether the backlash in this case (and others like Charlie Crist in FL or Joe Miller in Alaska) is a mere yelp by the wounded establishment in the GOP, or whether it reflects the need for some pundits to be seen as "fair minded" or impartial commentators. Perhaps it's a self-protection reflex for those fearful of being associated with the ignorant, trailer-trash, racist, religious zealot image of "right wing tea-baggers" that has been painted by the mainstream media; never mind the fact that such a creature is effectively a myth within the movement.
What I am sure of, is that such disunity and self-abuse is of no constructive value to the conservative cause, to the Republican party, to the candidates who won, or to the voters who courageously stepped up to the plate and pulled the lever to make an unconventional choice. Their action, when all was said and done, reflects exactly the kind of courage and activism in the electorate that is required in our republic to keep it vital, participatory, and FREE! It should be embraced, not condemned by the party leadership and the party faithful.
Liberals and the Democrat Party will prey upon this weakness and pry open the fissure while their own candidate, Chris Coons, a self-avowed Marxist and fellow Black Liberation Theology Anti-Capitalist (along with BHO) will go unscrutinized by the liberal media. Conservative pundits should be using their airtime to expose Coons for who and what he is--not to denegrate the Republican candidate and her supporters with petty complaints, demoralizing and dividing the base.
We've seen some of this same kind of Republican self-abuse in Nevada where greenhorn, Palin-backed Sharron Angle is taking on the formidable Goliath of the Senate, Harry Reid. An even more egregious example of this self-defeating behavior is on display in both Florida and Alaska. The candidates themselves, in a nauseating show of arrogant self-importance, have chosen to continue their races on their own, either as third-party or write-in candidates after primary voters soundly de-selected them from the ballot. I can almost hear Ursula bellowing, "You poor unfortunate souls! You dare oppose me?!"
It's time for Republicans to unite behind the candidates the people have chosen--whether you're enamoured with them, or not. If you want to armchair quarterback, do it after the general election when it's too late to do any real damage. You'll save yourself the embarrassment of being wrong, or be able to revel in "I told you so's" if you're proven right. But don't make your gloomy prophesies self-fulfilling! No candidate will please all the people. Each will be too conservative for some, too liberal for others, or have weaknesses that opponents will try to exploit. However, they ARE the people's choice. We can get behind them now, or let the Democrats dictate who our representatives will be and in what direction our republic will move. I'm not a staunch partisan. But I am a pragmatist. That's two-party politics in America and that's rational.
What is surprising is that after the fact, conservative pundits and party leaders came out swinging as well. A cacophany of high-profile, so-called "conservative" Republicans like Karl Rove and even the revered Charles Krauthammer, not to mention a thundering herd of no-name talk show hosts, quickly repudiated the candidate and castigated Tea Partiers for selecting and "unelectable" Senate candidate.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Republican establishment was rocked by the upset. But I am rocked by the aftershock. Since when do we, WITHIN the party, so disrespect the clearly stated will of the majority of voters at the local level who chose their preferred candidate fairly under the legal and ethical terms of engagement?! It smacks of the same kind of intellectual snobbery and elitism that has become the hallmark of the American left. In effect, "You idiots! Just look what you've done." Democrats, however, are wise enough to shut up and show solidarity despite their internal discord.
The nature of INTERNAL party politics is that the debate comes BEFORE the election, not after the fact. Once the candidate is selected it's time to unite behind him or her, regardless of how dissatisfied you, personally, may be. The only appropriate response is, "the voters have spoken. Now how do we win?"
I'm not sure whether the backlash in this case (and others like Charlie Crist in FL or Joe Miller in Alaska) is a mere yelp by the wounded establishment in the GOP, or whether it reflects the need for some pundits to be seen as "fair minded" or impartial commentators. Perhaps it's a self-protection reflex for those fearful of being associated with the ignorant, trailer-trash, racist, religious zealot image of "right wing tea-baggers" that has been painted by the mainstream media; never mind the fact that such a creature is effectively a myth within the movement.
What I am sure of, is that such disunity and self-abuse is of no constructive value to the conservative cause, to the Republican party, to the candidates who won, or to the voters who courageously stepped up to the plate and pulled the lever to make an unconventional choice. Their action, when all was said and done, reflects exactly the kind of courage and activism in the electorate that is required in our republic to keep it vital, participatory, and FREE! It should be embraced, not condemned by the party leadership and the party faithful.
Liberals and the Democrat Party will prey upon this weakness and pry open the fissure while their own candidate, Chris Coons, a self-avowed Marxist and fellow Black Liberation Theology Anti-Capitalist (along with BHO) will go unscrutinized by the liberal media. Conservative pundits should be using their airtime to expose Coons for who and what he is--not to denegrate the Republican candidate and her supporters with petty complaints, demoralizing and dividing the base.
We've seen some of this same kind of Republican self-abuse in Nevada where greenhorn, Palin-backed Sharron Angle is taking on the formidable Goliath of the Senate, Harry Reid. An even more egregious example of this self-defeating behavior is on display in both Florida and Alaska. The candidates themselves, in a nauseating show of arrogant self-importance, have chosen to continue their races on their own, either as third-party or write-in candidates after primary voters soundly de-selected them from the ballot. I can almost hear Ursula bellowing, "You poor unfortunate souls! You dare oppose me?!"
It's time for Republicans to unite behind the candidates the people have chosen--whether you're enamoured with them, or not. If you want to armchair quarterback, do it after the general election when it's too late to do any real damage. You'll save yourself the embarrassment of being wrong, or be able to revel in "I told you so's" if you're proven right. But don't make your gloomy prophesies self-fulfilling! No candidate will please all the people. Each will be too conservative for some, too liberal for others, or have weaknesses that opponents will try to exploit. However, they ARE the people's choice. We can get behind them now, or let the Democrats dictate who our representatives will be and in what direction our republic will move. I'm not a staunch partisan. But I am a pragmatist. That's two-party politics in America and that's rational.
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Truth...and ONLY THE TRUTH...Shall Make You Free
In our united quest for a better, freeer, more just Republic we must seek out and build on truth--whether or not it squares with our world view. Only in truth are we empowered to bring about unity and virtuous ends.
This morning I was made aware of an email which apparently has been circulating for years impuning the President (Obama) for expressing blatantly caustic and anti-American sentiments during an interview on a Sunday morning talk show. Among them:
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides." And, "there are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The [National] anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."
Obama is proported to have continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'... " and further, "It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments."
A few minutes of research, not surprisingly, reveals this story to be a complete hoax that has it's roots, at least in part, in a piece of conservative satire by a columnist for the Arizona Conservative during then Senator Obama's Presidential campaign.
To bring unity out of the enmity and chaos that is American partisan politics today, we all must stop trading in inuendo, invective, half-truths, and outright lies. Seek the TRUTH! Gather the facts. Verify your sources and THEN form, propagate, and act upon your findings. There is much on which we can unite and agree. For us to succeed as a nation, we must come together on these vital eternal principles of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A body politic built on any other principle is destined to fail and to fall.
This morning I was made aware of an email which apparently has been circulating for years impuning the President (Obama) for expressing blatantly caustic and anti-American sentiments during an interview on a Sunday morning talk show. Among them:
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides." And, "there are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The [National] anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."
Obama is proported to have continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'... " and further, "It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments."
A few minutes of research, not surprisingly, reveals this story to be a complete hoax that has it's roots, at least in part, in a piece of conservative satire by a columnist for the Arizona Conservative during then Senator Obama's Presidential campaign.
To bring unity out of the enmity and chaos that is American partisan politics today, we all must stop trading in inuendo, invective, half-truths, and outright lies. Seek the TRUTH! Gather the facts. Verify your sources and THEN form, propagate, and act upon your findings. There is much on which we can unite and agree. For us to succeed as a nation, we must come together on these vital eternal principles of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A body politic built on any other principle is destined to fail and to fall.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Libertarians & Conservative Republicans: United We Stand
I read this interesting (albeit verbose) article debating the merits of Libertarians uniting with "mainstream" Republicans. http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-libertarians-belong/
Philosophically, I identify strongly with Libertarian principles. I first voted for Ron Paul in 1988. But I also maintain a so-called "Christian Conservative" bent in favor of a traditional definition of marriage; that the right to life is the preeminent right and that abortion is a blight on our society; that drug abuse is not victimless and therefore can legitimately be subject to appropriate limits and controls by the consent of the governed; and that in the spirit of the Founders, religious expression has a positive, if not necessary place in the public square. It saddens me that people who fundamentally agree on the big issues i.e. fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, limited government, states rights, etc. would be thwarted in their purpose by petty divisiveness and intellectual snobbery. Here's my response to the Article by Brink Lindsey:
"Oh boy! Sadly, this Libertarian's view carries the same condescending elitest stench that is characteristic of so many of the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" on the extreme left. Having "done the Libertarian thing," myself, some 30+ years ago and reading some of this article today, it's easy to see why the L party has gone nowhere since then. Success in returning the country to a free enterprise, capitalist, secular republic with a limited federal government will only happen when subsets on the right learn to work together.
Like it or not this is a two party country. From a pragmatic standpoint, that's not going to change anytime soon. Diminishing so-called Populist Conservativism by denegrating those who feel strongly about moral social values ALONG WITH libertarian socio-economic and Constitutional principles will only consign both to a permanent seat in the bleachers while progressives reform America into just another Euro-styled socialist state. Now is the time to unite in defense of the principles and policies upon which we can agree. Not to engage in intellectual snobbery and petty name calling. Lindsey may have some legitimate points, but his divided approach is disastrous both for Libertarians and mainstream Conservatives."
Philosophically, I identify strongly with Libertarian principles. I first voted for Ron Paul in 1988. But I also maintain a so-called "Christian Conservative" bent in favor of a traditional definition of marriage; that the right to life is the preeminent right and that abortion is a blight on our society; that drug abuse is not victimless and therefore can legitimately be subject to appropriate limits and controls by the consent of the governed; and that in the spirit of the Founders, religious expression has a positive, if not necessary place in the public square. It saddens me that people who fundamentally agree on the big issues i.e. fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, limited government, states rights, etc. would be thwarted in their purpose by petty divisiveness and intellectual snobbery. Here's my response to the Article by Brink Lindsey:
"Oh boy! Sadly, this Libertarian's view carries the same condescending elitest stench that is characteristic of so many of the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" on the extreme left. Having "done the Libertarian thing," myself, some 30+ years ago and reading some of this article today, it's easy to see why the L party has gone nowhere since then. Success in returning the country to a free enterprise, capitalist, secular republic with a limited federal government will only happen when subsets on the right learn to work together.
Like it or not this is a two party country. From a pragmatic standpoint, that's not going to change anytime soon. Diminishing so-called Populist Conservativism by denegrating those who feel strongly about moral social values ALONG WITH libertarian socio-economic and Constitutional principles will only consign both to a permanent seat in the bleachers while progressives reform America into just another Euro-styled socialist state. Now is the time to unite in defense of the principles and policies upon which we can agree. Not to engage in intellectual snobbery and petty name calling. Lindsey may have some legitimate points, but his divided approach is disastrous both for Libertarians and mainstream Conservatives."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
PEE-BO's Assault on Big Oil--Ingenious or Insane? The Deepwater Drilling Moratorium
I consider myself a rational person. I beleive my political convictions are based on a fairly clear understanding of the core principles upon which our unique republic was built. I'm not an historian, an economist, or a political scientist, but I am a well-informed, reasonably intelligent and at times active patriot who loves his country and the liberatian, free-enterprise, capitalist, and religious values enshrined in our founding documents and expressed so fruitfully in our history over the past 234 years. I have found that I can generally hold my own in a debate on points of principle and common sense. I can do it with pretty much anyone advancing an opposing view as long as the debate remains intellectually honest and doesn't weave too far into the lanes of legalism or sophistry. And I can do it because the ideas and principles of truth stand on their own.
But I may be loosing my cool rationale. I feel my blood beginning to boil! President Obama issued an edict collapsing a huge portion of America's oil industry in the form of a 6-month moratorium on ALL offshore drilling at depths of 500 ft. or more. While some measure of caution or inspection is reasonable in the wake of the gulf spill, this reaction is both extreme and devastating to the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of Americans not to mention our already insufficient energy security. At least one district court judge (not to mention over 60% of Americans) agrees with me and struck down Obama's overreaching mandate.
Yet, in an act of defiant contempt for the legal system and the will of most Americans, Obama vows to both appeal the decision AND reword the executive order so he can issue it again!!! WHY??? Why would he persist in this irrational assault on an industry that has a remarkable record of safety and success (99.998%) and is so vital to regional and national economic interests--particularly at this time? This is TOTALLY irrational UNLESS...
Unless it's a deliberate attempt to harm this industry or this nation. Now I admit, that sounds like an absurd assertion--especially when directed at a campaign oil money hoe who's been uncovered in bed with BP and its flatmates. But what other conclusion can you draw when the measure is so unmeasured and destructive? That he merely wants to protect the environment from further damage? Well that sounds good. But can't he accomplish that without this draconian response? You don't ground all airplanes when one falls out of the sky. You may step up inspections, increase scruitiny, or tighten up loose regulations to ensure the safety of the other planes but you don't shut down all air traffic pending a 6-month investigation!
So what IS Obama up to? Why is he doing this with such brazen defiance? Why has he rebuffed the offers for help from other nations? Why take so long to approve Jindahl's sand barriers? Why has he engaged so slowly and so insufficiently to actually help solve this problem in the Gulf? What is he trying to pull?
And why is he lending $2 BILLION of scarce U.S. taxpayer dollars to Petrobras, the multi-billion dollar Brazillian "big oil" firm owned partly by puppetmaster, George Soros for expanded drilling in waters THREE TIMES THE DEPTH of the Deepwater Horizon disaster?! Who is to benefit from America's energy demise and how? What's wrong with this picture?
Maybe Obama is a genius with nothing personal to gain. Perhaps he tuly believes that collapsing American oil and advancing cap and trade will speed us on to a bright, beautiful future of windmills shushing in the breeze and corn powered cars popping down the motorway with their canola sheen sparkling in the globally cooler, carbon-diminshed, clear-aired summer sun. It's a lovely picture, indeed!
But the evidence is mounting that the real benficiaries of Obama's perverted policies are corrupt "inside traders" who stand to bilk billions of taxpayer dollars through unholy alliances between favored enterprises and federal force while the rest of us get "equalized" into oblivion. Perhaps that's the real genius of Chicagoland's "Community Organizer" and Marxist-in-Chief, Barrak Hussein Obama.
But I may be loosing my cool rationale. I feel my blood beginning to boil! President Obama issued an edict collapsing a huge portion of America's oil industry in the form of a 6-month moratorium on ALL offshore drilling at depths of 500 ft. or more. While some measure of caution or inspection is reasonable in the wake of the gulf spill, this reaction is both extreme and devastating to the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of Americans not to mention our already insufficient energy security. At least one district court judge (not to mention over 60% of Americans) agrees with me and struck down Obama's overreaching mandate.
Yet, in an act of defiant contempt for the legal system and the will of most Americans, Obama vows to both appeal the decision AND reword the executive order so he can issue it again!!! WHY??? Why would he persist in this irrational assault on an industry that has a remarkable record of safety and success (99.998%) and is so vital to regional and national economic interests--particularly at this time? This is TOTALLY irrational UNLESS...
Unless it's a deliberate attempt to harm this industry or this nation. Now I admit, that sounds like an absurd assertion--especially when directed at a campaign oil money hoe who's been uncovered in bed with BP and its flatmates. But what other conclusion can you draw when the measure is so unmeasured and destructive? That he merely wants to protect the environment from further damage? Well that sounds good. But can't he accomplish that without this draconian response? You don't ground all airplanes when one falls out of the sky. You may step up inspections, increase scruitiny, or tighten up loose regulations to ensure the safety of the other planes but you don't shut down all air traffic pending a 6-month investigation!
So what IS Obama up to? Why is he doing this with such brazen defiance? Why has he rebuffed the offers for help from other nations? Why take so long to approve Jindahl's sand barriers? Why has he engaged so slowly and so insufficiently to actually help solve this problem in the Gulf? What is he trying to pull?
And why is he lending $2 BILLION of scarce U.S. taxpayer dollars to Petrobras, the multi-billion dollar Brazillian "big oil" firm owned partly by puppetmaster, George Soros for expanded drilling in waters THREE TIMES THE DEPTH of the Deepwater Horizon disaster?! Who is to benefit from America's energy demise and how? What's wrong with this picture?
Maybe Obama is a genius with nothing personal to gain. Perhaps he tuly believes that collapsing American oil and advancing cap and trade will speed us on to a bright, beautiful future of windmills shushing in the breeze and corn powered cars popping down the motorway with their canola sheen sparkling in the globally cooler, carbon-diminshed, clear-aired summer sun. It's a lovely picture, indeed!
But the evidence is mounting that the real benficiaries of Obama's perverted policies are corrupt "inside traders" who stand to bilk billions of taxpayer dollars through unholy alliances between favored enterprises and federal force while the rest of us get "equalized" into oblivion. Perhaps that's the real genius of Chicagoland's "Community Organizer" and Marxist-in-Chief, Barrak Hussein Obama.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Blind swipes at Tea Party reveal lockstep libs' hypocricy
Saw this post on SodaHead and had to comment, but since I wouldn't join and agree to get their newsletter, they won't post my comment. So here it is for your enlightenment and entertainment pleasure:
Travis J. Quibbert:
The greatest new development since their crushing defeat with regard to health care is their vague threats of Civil War Part Deux. Sorry, but we're not too worried. Actually, it sounds adorable! Imagine a ragtag group of seniors with Confederate caps, their Rascals all gassed up and rarin' to go! Doesn't that sound cute?
Me:
BTW, if "not that" doesn't count, how DO you explain Barak Obama? The big "O" is the quintessential NOT THAT; the anti-Bush--a guy who ran and won on virtually nothing else. Elected by idiots who quite literally knew nothing more about the man but chanted triumpantly on election day, "well at least he isn't Bush." Yeah, they got their dream-come-true! And a few are even still chanting. What a bargain, eh?
Travis J. Quibbert:
The Tea Party remains a loosely coalesced band of strict constitutionalists and fundamentalist Christians (that doesn't sound like any kind of party to me!), despite efforts to project the image of a cohesive force capable of defeating ... whatever. Republicans? Democrats? Reform? Whatever it is, well by golly they don't like it!
The greatest new development since their crushing defeat with regard to health care is their vague threats of Civil War Part Deux. Sorry, but we're not too worried. Actually, it sounds adorable! Imagine a ragtag group of seniors with Confederate caps, their Rascals all gassed up and rarin' to go! Doesn't that sound cute?
We won't ever get a clear list of actual things they want (and "not that" doesn't count), so what is it really that they believe? Take a look at the delusions of the Tea Party.
Me:
Guess your idea of a party is a welfare check, a long line at the underpaid, overworked doctor's office (and just about everywhere else), and a shorter, less prosperous, but more useful (to the state) existence. Sounds like a rip-snortin' good time, to me!
BTW, if "not that" doesn't count, how DO you explain Barak Obama? The big "O" is the quintessential NOT THAT; the anti-Bush--a guy who ran and won on virtually nothing else. Elected by idiots who quite literally knew nothing more about the man but chanted triumpantly on election day, "well at least he isn't Bush." Yeah, they got their dream-come-true! And a few are even still chanting. What a bargain, eh? Ironic that the next Chief Executive (and I use the term loosely for Barak's sake) will most likely have won on the exact same platform; substitution: Barak=Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)