CBO Finds Baucus Bill reduces defecit...the question you should be asking is HOW?

It's compassionate to increase taxes. We're having a holocaust each and every day because we cannot pass healthcare tax increases and reduce the incentive for actual advances in medical care. Such a savage people we are. Below link is to Cato's analysis on CBO report on the Baucus bill. The reason the bill is deficit neutral is because it raises taxes by 40% many healthcare plans.

http://tiny.cc/1ZwOr

Gallup Results for Congress

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/07/polling/

The independents are abandoning the democratic party faster than expected. GOP now has 9 point lead over Dems among Indy's on who they're more likely to vote for in 2010 midterm.

Sen. Feingold challenges Admin. on Czars

Finally, a legit challenge from a democrat legislator on Obama's usurping of legislative power.
Sen. Feingold of Wisconsin holds a hearing questioning the President's unchecked expansion of the executive branch and consequential tipping of the tenuous balance of power at the federal level. A true liberal is not a bad thing, an opportunistic one like the vast majority in Congress who are overtly committed to the advancement of their party at the financial and political expense of the voters are.

http://tiny.cc/Hem9V

Homecoming King to National Office: A Small Step Indeed

Did you really care about who was class president or homecoming king/queen? I sure didn't, and certainly would not base my judgment of a person based on such titles. If anything, you have to wonder about the type of person who would even allow themselves to be nominated for such a meaningless victory, where the only reward is a healthy dose of self-indulged and delusional popularity. To succeed in one's academic career, it takes a whole lot more than a popularity contest decided by indifferent, possibly intoxicated voters.

Oh wait, that's exactly how we've been deciding political elections for well over a century now.

In fact, I have little doubt a national random sample of homecoming king/queens would have done less damage to the financial security of our dear land than the past 20 or so Congresses. For the finance and budget committee chairs, lets have a couple of randomly selected high school accounting club member. Surely they would have a better grasp of simple to understand concepts such as balanced budgets and the inherent flaws of baseline budgeting.

I'd suggest a chess club champion for the senate intelligence chair. Rest assured, such a analytical mind would make better use of the pieces allotted to him, without leaning on constant funding hikes to stay ahead of the dark side.

Has anyone noticed how Yes We Can has turned into no, you really, really shouldn't. The thrill of electing a popular class President fades fast when the winner fails to take down the banners and posters from the halls. It's no small wonder why no one bothers to vote one election day anymore; who can remember which day is election day when Presidents never stop campaigning. Perhaps a national lottery would put a stop to this, simply have the winner occupy the Oval Office for a year with the original limitations set forth by the framers. What harm could he/she do? Statically, every ethnic group would have a "fair" chance of being represented; surely that's the aim of "social justice" right?

The Last Stand? Only if Obama Chooses.

The left is circling the wagons, the right smells blood for the first time in a long time, and every side is hyping tomorrow night's address as the best and last hope for a successful Obama Presidency(in political terms, not factual).

Hold that thought.

The comparisons to the current healthcare debate to Clinton's effort in 93' have been used to the point of exhaustion by news analysis across the networks. Is Obama not being forceful enough with Congress as many in his party now whisper? Yet, Clinton is considered to have been too dictatorial towards Congress with Hillarycare.
Another complaint from the left is the back room deals made with prominent drug companies to secure their support for the healthcare push. Yet, such resistance from the drug companies is seen as being crucial for the defeat of Clinton's attempt in 93.

The fact is Obama is either not willing or unable due to paralysis from his party to have a truly bi-partisan bill become law. There is broad support for ending pre-existing conditions as a barrier to coverage, broad support outside the DNC headquarters for tort reform, and even a decent majority willing to support a healthcare bill that makes the billing process more transparent between doctors, patients, and insurance companies.

Unfortunately, such reforms can only be made possible with a closely divided Congress instead of a supermajority dem controlled. Like Clinton did with balanced budgets and welfare reform, Obama would be able to pass truly good legislation on healthcare in such an environment. Regulation sells, takeover doesn't. Unless the President is willing to sacrifice the sacred cow of public option/trigger/co-op, he won't get either. A successful Presidency after 10'and re-election depends on it.

Comfort

Is freedom is too much of a burden for us now? Should we us create a government that easies the pain of liberty in favor of the sweet silence of national socialism. How can one ever be truly free anyway? Freedom to vote, then you are free to be uninformed and not participate. Free to make a living, slave to the need of making a living. Free to choose one's health care, a slave to the need of health care. Have the ability to advance yourself with an education? You now are bound to the obligation to make something of yourself.

The debate between statism/progressivism, and libertarianism/conservatism boils down not to simply tyranny or freedom, but what kind of freedom do you what? To be free to make your own choices in life and be able to fail or succeed based on your own decisions, effort, and determination, or be free from the dangers such an undertaking inevitably create. It is not comtorable to be free, it hurts. Bad. You will fail, be taken advantage of, ignored, and even die trying to make your mark in this life. However, I still believe it is best for us all and thus our government to take that risk, let the people keep their right to succeed or fail. Many people have died in one form of bondage since man was put on this earth, very few have done so with the choice to live as they see fit. America is a people that once chose to triumph and fall through that risk. I hope we have not traded the chance of failure for the guarantee of bondage.

Problems with America

Right now America is in a crisis. I don't even watch that much t.v. and I know that the economy kinda sucks right now. I also know that the U.S. government is doing what it thinks is right by throwing money at the problem and working hard to fix it (while I do not agree with their philosophy, I do actually believe that at least some politicians are out to help the people). How did we get to this point in America? We got here because there were people in banks in America who said "Lend money to people that we know will default on their loans and then we can take advantage of them." Believe or not that is exactly what a lot of banks did. The problems with this are inherent. First, banks were (and probably are) blatantly ripping off the American people with no concern for anyone's welfare (other than their own). Second, they are setting up a system that causes people to become impoverished. And finally they are creating a system in which they will eventually go down because they lent out money that cannot be paid back because too many people defaulted on their loans.

So what does this have to do with religion (which I mentioned at the beginning of article)? So glad you asked. Here's the thing. Whether you accept it or not our country was founded by people who absolutely believed in the Christian God. I cannot say irrevocably that the founding fathers were absolute Christians, but they did believe in God. They set up our government with a Christian mindset. The thing about capitalism is that without Christianity it simply does not work. The fact that banks have taken advantage of the American people like they have demonstrates that with no morality capitalism simply becomes a system where the rich CAPITALIZE on those with less. Some might say that any religious system would do. I will disagree with this because of my religious beliefs. And you are free to disagree with me. The point here is that for a system such as ours to work in the favor of the majority there must be a moral code of ethics that says "People are what is important." More importantly than that though is that there must be a code of ethics that says "Others are more important than ME".

This past year the presidential election was held (if you didn't notice). Obama ran a campaign that focused in on Hope. Hope for the American people that we could get out of this mess that we have gotten ourselves into. That's all well and good. But throwing money at a problem that involves a lack of money doesn't seem like a wise decision to me. The thing is that true hope is found in Jesus Christ and that hope is eternal. The only problem is that America today is sick and tired of hearing about the hope that Christ has to offer. They have decided that a hope that seems more tangible is the way to go. But WHY? What happened to the greatest message that the world has ever heard to make people not want to hear it? Christians happened to it. Many Christians feel like they are Christians and that they should have perfect lives and they ignore those in desperate need of the hope that true Christianity is all about. The real problem in that is that they feel the need to live perfect lives. So while they may be having major issues with their wife at home, they go to church each Sunday and pretend that everything is perfect. Many Christians come off as fake and way too happy. It doesn't seem like a lot of Christians really live in the same world as everyone else. And some of those that take the time to look at the world see a place that is evil and full of Satan instead of a world that is broken in need of healing. It's no wonder that most people see Christians as hypocritical. It's no wonder that people turned to a political leader for HOPE. Hope that should have been provided to the people by Jesus and through His Church.

I know this is ridiculously long and if you stuck with it for this long thank you (I am almost done). Here's the whole purpose of this thing: Jesus Christ is where true hope comes from and without him and what he brings there is no hope for our nation. I know everyone isn't going to believe this but the fact of the matter is that nations have fallen time after time because of a lack of morality. In my opinion (and what is in fact Truth whether you like it or not) Jesus is the only way for true morality to thrive. The reason that we have problems with Muslims has little to do with the fact that we are "a Christian nation" but the fact that they believe us to be immoral and completely corrupt. Once morality becomes something that is not absolute people begin taking advantage of others and then everything goes to crap. So my final thoughts on this matter for now are these. Christians: ACT LIKE CHRIST!!!! Seriously, if we would Love as Christ loved then maybe, just maybe, we can change the minds of those who have written Him off because of His stupid followers. Non-Christians: Don't judge all Christians based on your experiences with a few, most, or all of the ones that you have interacted with. I know that that is difficult, but the thing is Jesus was actually a really cool guy and he actually does love you whether or not His followers always demonstrate it. I know it seems ridiculous but it's true.

Obama... Why?

When John McCain considers taxing health benefits, it's worthy of a political ad...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07PCWZEYZO4

Then, when several current healthcare plan proposals include taxing certain people's health benefits, you're not as vocal? No denouncing the idea with an "I approve this message."

Am I not justified in worrying about all of these healthcare proposals? Or am I just in favor of the status quo?

Why is it when running for the Democractic presidential nomination and running for president, you were against a mandate for health insurance...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceOG90OCCRw

Now, http://www.msnbc.msn...th_care/page/2/

"But I've changed my mind on this because what I've — was persuaded of was
that, if we can phase this in so that we know there's affordable insurance out
there — and, in fact, a lot of the uninsured are relatively young people who
could be insured fairly cheaply — that that actually will drive down the cost
for everybody."

Am I not justified to be worried about all of the healthcare proposals? Or am I just supporting the status quo?

Why did your tax increase plan change? First, your proposed tax rates wouldn't exceed the rates of the 1990's under Bill Clinton.

Austan Goolsbee currently a White House economist, from less than a year ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z38coMjhkpU

Now, in regards to paying for the healthcare plan....

http://www.huffingto...7_b_244731.html/

"Obama said that taxing millionaires did "meet his principle" that the middle
class wouldn't have to pay for the bill."

So if the surtax passes, tax rates will exceed the rates of the 1990's under Bill Clinton.

Ok, move along, there's nothing more to see.

...but who will protect the clunkers?

Sure, they don't have the freshest coats of paint, GPS, or posh interiors. They may smell like mildew on the inside, have who knows what under the driver's seat, and may even need an extra push to get out of 3rd.

But....

They still work. In fact they get millions of Americans to work everyday. They save American workers alot more than a measly 4,500 most of the time by allowing them to avoid the car payments(don't forget interest) associated with buying a new or used car from a dealer. The clunker is not under warranty, but it does allow people the joys of learning to take care of their possessions, escaping the throw away society that has created an economy based on impulse buying, not educated spending. If taken proper care of, a clunker can far outlast the residual value of a federal program by an average of 20 years.
In fact, Congress could learn alot from owning a clunker. Instead, Congress seems to be threatened by them judging the fact that all turned in clunkers' engines will be locked up with a very nasty chemical instead of simply being scrapped for parts. Could it be our saviors in DC fear the humble little clunker's message of frugality and responsibility?

You better believe it.

A So So Sotomayor.

A boring judicial nominee hearing is a beautiful thing.

There should never be fireworks at Supreme Court nominee hearings anyway. To protect and uphold the Constitution is a pretty straightforward task, don't let Congress or POTUS shred it to pieces. Yet the right was annoyed by not getting Sotomayor to answer questions that would show her liberal viewpoints, and the left is starting to feel a bit edgy on how much she is for "the cause" because Sotomayor stuck to strict legal terminology and theory when answering questions.

I could not ask for more.

I really don't care what her views are if she is humanly able to squelch them in favor of upholding the Constitution. Heck if she never makes news again for the rest of her career as a Justice, America should be thrilled. That means the Court is leaving legislating up to legislators, who believe me do not need any help. I hope one day Sotomayor is a Jay-Walking question that some UCLA grad student makes a fool of themselves on.

Isn't that a measure of greatness for a Justice?

Apocolypse Now!

Which is the bigger joke, that health care can be free or that the government can improve the health of anything it touches? I suggest every loyal citizen take a course in first aid for you may soon find yourself on a central planned population control wait list for those excessive MRI's you have become spoiled on.

You see its not that the compassionate fascist are not sincere about healthcare reform, its just that the goal is not improved health, its reduced populations. An example is our brand new "science czar" (what a scary thought) who is quite convinced there are just too darn many of us running around and we've become quite a burden dear mommy earth. Ideas? Hmm forced abortions, or maybe a drug in the water or food supply to cause you guys to be shooting blanks. I am beginning to see the connections now, to save the environment we must reform healthcare just like to save the economy we must create green jobs and have healthcare reform. It's all so relevant yes?

I personally believe Americans would be much more receptive to such ideas as spermicide tap water if our leaders simply lead by example. For instance if you feel the earth is overpopulated, jump off a building. But you see the experts are just too valuable for us to lose; do as I say, not as I do.

The New Middle in a Post-Progressive Age

Why must the middle consist of wishy-washy parasites?

If a Congressman does not have strong beliefs, why would he or she run? Might I suggest power, wealth via public expense, lack of job skills?

Surely the American people could see through such perversions of governance.

The fact is true progressivism, liberalism, socialist-fascism, whatever you care to call it, is totally incompatible with Conservatism. There is no more a workable middle than there is common ground between oil and water.

Nor should there be.

You may ask how to solve this? Change the debate.
There is one political ideology that can achieve successful governance using moderation of its left and right wings. Libertarianism. Imagine how much freer the US would be if the political debate was between a secularist Libertarian and say a Religious Right Conservative with Libertarian coloring. The objective remains, minimize government in people's lives, no matter which wins. There would be culture war battles, but balanced budgets year in and year out would do more for this country than any short term takeover of power by either party we currently have.

What is needed is a revolution in the way Americans look at their government. When they see it not as a provider but a hindrance and danger, real progress and Liberty will naturally find their step as intended by the fathers of old.

A proposal to homosexuals from a Southern Methodist.

To all homosexuals who want to get married, I have an idea on how to make conservative Christians of minimalist government persuasions and homosexuals quite happy.

Let's strike a bargain to suit common needs. We both hate the government telling us what is best for us. The problem is, homosexuals feel the need to embrace the entire progressive thought process over the single issue of gay marriage. Christian conservatives simply do not want the government telling them a lifestyle totally against their religion should be accepted against their will.

Marriage is a religious institution before God going back a very long time. Gays, you got to respect this. However, most of us traditionalist do not care what you do on your off time as long as you do not expect us to change our beliefs to accommodate yours. If you want to start your own church for your religious beliefs, feel free. We'll stick to what we believe about God as well.

As for the government, well we have a common enemy.

Therefore, end government recognition of marital status. Leave recognition and records of marriages up to religious institutions. Couple that with the elimination of the federal income tax, and there is no marital deduction to fight over as there is no income tax in the first place.

The gay marriage debate is a needless and false confrontation between citizens who have the same feelings toward the government from two different viewpoints. The real problem is statist government, per usual. So the invitation is open, I welcome all takers.

Is There a Compassionate Left?

It's an honest question. I mean we all know the stereotype of the general left is to care about the world, show empathy as President Obama put it, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it.

That is, until you understand the motives.

To know if a person, group, or party genuinely feels for another being is beyond the reach of my knowledge. I have to rely on their actions to pass my judgment as I hope you the dear reader makes a habit of doing as well.

Agreed? Good lets proceed.

Remember how upset the activist were at the most recent Bush administration's inaction over Sudan. It appeared as though Iraq was worth liberating since it had oil and strategic importance for the American Middle East strategy, but poor Sudan had neither the oil or the political value. It just had genocide of Christians. So the heartless Republicans ignored the helpless and only gave freedom to those who would benefit the US financially.

So....where is the outrage over Sudan now? I mean, shouldn't Obama do something about that? It certainly isn't getting any better. Would it not fall in line with his view that America is better off gaining the approval of the world rather than acting in its own self-interest?

Don't hear much from the ONE campaign lately either.

Let's remember who's watch Rwanda happened under. Oh yeah, Clinton who "felt our pain". Except Black Hawk Down made him nervous about sending in troops anymore and political coverage was more important than saving millions from machetes.

Sudan suffers because it is Christians being persecuted by the Muslim government, and it wouldn't be cool for the US to support Christians over Muslims on the world stage. That's why it continues. As for Rwanda, nobody cares about Africa when it counts. Sure the West will throw some aid money at it, but until free, stable capitalist based governments are the norm, it will remain the Dark Continent.

Heck we had the French help us out during our Revolution...oh yeah Britain was their sworn enemy....hmmm strategic value or compassion?

Politicians may say they care about all people, but sometimes it takes more than aid or gestures to solve a problem.

It takes courage.

There is nothing "good" about Democracy.

Yes,

thats right,

I just killed the sacred cow of Western civilization. Ever since President Wilson's vision of a more moral world order, American and generally Western Civilization has preached the gospel of free and fair elections. American sympathy for democracy movements in general can be found much further back concerning the French Revolution until the frenchies got a little too carried away with rolling heads. Now, it it certainly true concentration of power in the hands of some dictator or top-heavy governmental system is not the way to go unless you always hated the nagging responsibilities of free will does not change the fact that 100 million people can be just as wrong and dangerous as 1 really powerful one. For example, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election to a second glorious term. No doubt, there were probably plenty of voter fraud in one form or another but regardless many millions of Iranians thought he'd done a commendable job since 2005. Or look north to Iran's benefactor Russia, or there's Venezuela and almost all of Central America, western Europe, or even the US the past century or so. All are examples of voters willing to give away some portion of their power in exchange for state sponsored goody bags. It is quite common for humans to freely vote away their freedom when they find no value for it in their daily lives. Material gifts, feelings of national pride, empathy are all much more valuable to many of us to a degree than having absolute control of our lives.

Man is flawed. There is no other explanation. We are not striving towards perfection, we are skipping into oblivion where comfort and ease trumps all. The people are dangerous, as is the state. The founders knew this very well that the danger to society comes from the top and the bottom, thus an elaborate yet simple system of checks and balances was built into USA 1.0. Only a people that practice basic morality like self-sacrifice towards their neighbor(not government cohered wealth redistribution) can operate the levels of power effectively. It cannot be forced by the state upon the people, it must be taught at the family level freely and gladly. Will such notions prevail?

Don't hold your breath.

While I was away...

First and foremost I do apologize for the silence. As you the reader well knows, I have not posted in several months now due to scholastic distractions, logistical interference, and general laziness.

It ends now.

I will try to write more like a "blogger" than columnist as is my habit and thus have shorter, but more frequent posts in the future to change the scenery. However, do not expect me to dwell on trivial subjects as so often is the content of a "blog". Registered Heresy strives to be aggressive, confrontational, and thought-provoking, not absent minded nothingness.

Instead of dwelling on the dull drums of today's headlines which aren't all that interesting unless your drooling over the prospect of a Fiat/Chrysler compact econo-can, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the best way to at least reduce the influence of federal power in the smallest level of governance, your personal life. First off let us ask why the Federal level is so powerfully(or at least powerfully in debt). I mean, why do states care what the feds say anyway? Minus an invasion from a foreign power or another state sending its guard to fight a neighboring state, the feds should in theory not be that important. However, state governments and then county governments rely heavily on the federal printing press to provide all those pressing social services to their citizenry. How to stop this?

END THE DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL

Now, how to do this? What would make citizens realize the true cost of government in their personal lives? Make them directly pay it. End income tax withdrawals from paychecks so reality burns hot as hell in April. When the true cost is made apparent, the demand will shrink naturally. The invisible hand of Smith's will reveal the invisible fist of statist policy. Once most state legislatures are populated with politicians who are committed to ending federal money flow, they will then be able to cut off state tax revenues to the federal level. Why pay taxes when you have no need for the services? This will destroy the federal level's ability to determine domestic policy from DC, and let it be determined from the kitchen table as intended.

Next, end artificial inflation by reverting back to the gold standard and suspending all federal spending until the national debt is under 1% of GDP. It is fine with me if you wish to increase spending, but only if you balance your checkbook and pay off each generations debt's before the next takes over.

Third, term limits for Congress, and no salary, only provide room and board. If a senator cannot accomplish what he sets out to do in 6 years, he's not much of a senator. Representatives can serve 3 terms as they have more frequent elections, but 6 years is plenty. I'd also consider changing the Presidential term to 6 years with one term, but I am open to debate on that idea.

These are only a starting point, focusing mainly on domestic agenda. I will have to save foreign policy for another post.

Remember, the government needs you more than you need it.

Pork: The Other Pandemic Flu?

Admittedly, we've seen this movie before, only with feathers. I only hope this time next month we aren't all under quarantine, but this is a political commentary site so let's toss around what an actual pandemic means in a political sense, especially in a Statist administration and congress.

I certainly can sleep at ease knowing Janet Napolitano is on the job protecting us all from flu-carrying right wing extremist running about in the dark. Perhaps those crazy religious nuts who still believe in the "tired old ideas" like state's rights and balanced budgets created the super bug in their hatred of a black president, or perhaps it was those scary veterans coming back. The very idea of someone actually volunteering to fight for their country is certainly an unsettling thought, such a violent nature could very well want to harm all those they volunteered to protect.

In keeping with their promise to never waste a crisis, perhaps the Obama administration could use a pandemic to gain the needed support for universal healthcare, affordable healthcare, enthusiasia, whatever they're calling it these days. With only so much vaccine to go around, federal healthcare guidelines would help healthcare providers and patients know when they are past their usefulness to society, especially in pandemic crisis where the weak must make patriotic sacrifices for the rest of us.

If the Statist are really feeling giddy they could push for increased global cooperation to stop the pandemic. Sovereignty would only get in the way of handling the crisis. The world of course could not risk independent nations actually acting in their own self-interest ahead of the global community's needs. We would all need to look to a new world system of cooperation and unity and set aside any obstacales such as individual liberty or independence in order to save the collective human race.

The possibilities are endless. We can all only hope such a horrible crisis never comes to past, and I am sure all the Statist completely share my sentiments.

Political Pageantry: Dissent only flows in one direction

The ideology of tolerance is showing its impotence when asked to actually allow dissenting opinion. The culture wars leaked that into the Miss USA pageant highlight this fact of life. One has to wonder why ask a question in the first place if there is only one answer that will not deduct points from your score...could it possibly be an attempt to garner buzz for the gay advocacy lobby? To the judge's disgust, what happened instead is a new cultural icon was created for the pro-marriage movement, and a very good looking one at that.
It serves them right. How arrogant and narrow minded to demand only one response to a charged question. And the defense of the judge's actions is well, she should have known what to say since several judges were gay or supportive of that particular viewpoint. So we want the winner not to say what they believe but be politically savvy enough to say what is necessary to get ahead?
I think this issue is deeper than the gay marriage sidetrack. It goes to women's rights. Women are now only allowed to claim achievement and success if they say what their bosses want to hear. There is no women's empowerment, only empowerment of what is politically correct according to our lords of tolerance. Miss California didn't deserve to win because she was a dumb bitch who was naive to say what was in her heart and soul and regurgitate the collectivist dogma the judges and all the vanity of Hollywood demanded.

The lords of tolerance obviously only allow us loyal subjects to hold views in line with their own. The answer to tyrnanny is therefore not tolerance, the death of such intellectual decay is only pure, unbridled liberty. This same attitude was on full display in the formally opposition left's dismay at having anyone demonstrate against their Statist policies for the citizenry's lives. There can only be protest against those deemed intolerant. There can only be freedom when tolerance is cast off, leaving only a free minds and honest hearts on full display.

What Iranian threat?

Today the Russian ambassador to the US made the statement that Iran was not a real threat to the United States, at least as far as he could see anytime in the near future. My first reaction upon hearing this was to chuckle and roll my eyes as this sounds like classic, quotable Russian doublespeak. However, after some thought I do believe the ambassador is right. There will be no Iranian troops in Florida anytime soon, and Iran is quite a ways away from being able to launch an ICBM all the way over to the East Coast. It would be quite easy to pass the Iranian situation off to the UN Security(or lack thereof) council. If Israel feels compelled to use military means to stop Iran, let them go for it. Even with a full-blown middle east war, American soil will not be in jeopardy. In fact, Mexican drug cartels pose a much greater threat as far as incursion on American soil goes.

But that's not the point.

Iran is a threat to United State's interests, not actual land. A hot war with Israel and probably other Islamic nations would no doubt draw in American troops in Iraq and even Afghanistan possibly.

The US could possibly lose priceless strategic leverage gained by placing a pro-American democracy right smack dab in the middle of the well, middle east. Even if war does not break out in the aftermath of a nuclear-armed and capable Iran, its power in the region will grow exponentially. Smaller sunshine Arab states that are currently mostly friendly towards the US and the west will be sucked into the new Iranian sphere of influence. Much of the area used to be under Persian control anyway, the changing of the guard could bring a historical sense of deja vu to the locals.

So the question remains, why did the Russian ambassador say such a thing? Why is Russia so reluctant to support the EU and US's clampdown on Iran at the UN? Why is Russia not willing to halt economic and militaristic support to Iran even as its elected (although admittedly puppet) President says anti-semantic things on a regular basis?
Because, my dear reader the only way Russia can grow its own influence is to diminish the United States. That is true in Eastern Europe, that is true in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Korean Peninsula. Russia is surrounded by an invisible fence of American interest and assets. Let us hope the new President choses not to let the bear out of its cage.

The Party of Ideas.

One of the most popular tactics in politics is distraction, with the objective being to keep the press and hopefully population focused on your negative narrative of the opposistion. This gives you cover and avoids the sunshine illuminating your own shortcomings.

Keep that in mind.

The budget debate is slowly rising to a boil, making the beloved "blue dog" democrats squirm a little as they contemplate voting for 3.6 trillion dollars of whatever, and then having to go home and explain why. The liberal trifecta of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will assuredly get almost all they want and give up nothing they care about. There will be a staged compromise with the "moderates" and the promise of deep, sincere bi-partisanship is kept. As for those insignificant Republicans, well all they do is say no and are obstructionist. This is very dangerous we are told by the press, for how do they possibly oppose such a deeply popular President, their President.

I've noticed the Left's latest label for the GOP is they are the party of no ideas. I'm not going to dwell on the quality of GOP counterproposals to Obama's agenda so far, its not relevant. I've noticed alot of political commentators drumming up love for the big O by writing that finally we have a President that is doing something. Never mind what he's doing, if it is a good idea, or if it will actually work. At least he tries, at least he cares. So the bar is met as it is lowered and finally removed altogether. Because it is the idea of Obama's mystic that counts, not his actual policy. He has big ideas alright, and they are horrible. Given a choice between no ideas and horrible ones, I'll take inaction everytime. How many times have you heard politicans say about government intervention on the economy "we have to do something"? I suppose if Congress did a rain dance outside the capitol they would be doing something. Prehaps yoga lessons would help them concentrate. If the point is just to be seeen doing something I don't understand why that means spending record amounts of yet to be printed money.

But again its all a distraction. The truth is the Left has such bad ideas they have to keep the attention on a super minority GOP who has no power whatsoever for having a lack of an agenda. Perhaps the Dems would like to let the Republicans have power back and see if they have any ideas then to their liking. Its the Democrat's burden to have GOOD policy right now, and on that front they are failing. Their majority is too big not to fail I am afraid.

Liberalism, Pacifism, and Afghanistan: The "recaptured" moral highground.

Let's talk about stereotypes. When I say Liberal foreign policy, the auto-response from Conservatives will consist of key words like "weak", "naive," or "hippies." The Left is very famous for its Vietnam antics and most recently the opposition of Iraq War II. Yet it is very inarticulate to categorize the majority of liberals as anti-war. To the contrary, some of our greatest war leaders were "Liberals" of their time. It is hard to call the founding fathers anything but radical, rebelling against the established British Empire, or Lincoln as he waged the most brutal war in history against the established order(although industrialization not abolitionist feelings is the order I am referring to). Take Woodrow Wilson, the quintessential Liberal when it comes to diplomacy, yet he had absolutely no reservations about spending American blood in old Europe. Do I really even have to mention FDR? So, clearly Liberals do like war when it suits their agenda and when they are in charge. It is when the opposition party starts a war that it becomes a problem. Wars can make or break a party for a long time depending on their outcome. It is hypocritical to call Bush 2 an Imperialist for only maintaining the empire built by the liberal's wars before them. It is clearly not evil to expand our country's international power or why have progressives done it with such vigor and excellence for the past 200 plus years? Until Reagan took office and finished off the Soviets, it was often the Paleo-Conservatives that opposed outside diplomatic ties and especially overseas wars.

We have evidence of this secret liberal love of wars they deem "just" today in Obama's authorizing of 17,000 Marines to Afghanistan. The commanding general made remarks that he expected to be in full combat operations for at least 5 more years....yet no liberal outrage. Where is the talk of quagmires? Where is Osama? Show me the smoking gun! No, it was reported as a wise decision by the omnipotent Obama. Where are the anti-war rallies at now? Have you heard about the daily death toll in Afghanistan every single evening on the nightly news? No, and you won't.
Also, Pacifist are not always liberals. The anti-war crowd of the democratic party is simply a large gathering of shrill, ignorant, hippies who fail to realize the democratic party is just as much interested in combat activities as the Republican Party. They just know how to sell it better to the press and academia.

There are a faction of Pacifist conservatives, mainly due to Christian or other religious faith who simply cannot support war from a religious standpoint no matter who is in charge. I have the utmost respect for this group as their stance is constant through the decades. There were Quakers opposed to the Civil War for such reasons, and they will be against the Afghanistan conflict for the same reasons. Consistency is honesty and they are a testament to that fact.

I ask Conservatives not to attack the modern Democratic party as being weak stomached, but as shamelessly opportunistic. That being said, I still want the Left to win the war and expect conservatives to support our combat efforts in Afghanistan, even when it comes politically viable to oppose them. This country needs at least one loyal opposition party afterall.

R.H. President's Day Style

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/presidential.survey/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Above is the address to the latest ranking of Presidents with, morality, leadership, economic management, and foreign diplomacy. No surprise Lincoln comes in first, but there are some underrated Presidents that we fail to pay homage to. It would be a safe assumption that only about 25% of the American population can name all of the Presidents and that figure is quite optimistic to put it nicely. We tend to focus on the big names, from the Founding Fathers, skip to Lincoln, Wilson, Teddy, FDR, and on to modern times. You never hear about Calvin Coolidge, who staved off worse a worse economic recession than 1929 crash originally was by refusing to interfere in the economy.

We always think of the roaring 20's as a time of greed and foolish extravagance against the backdrop of the coming depression, but perhaps it is the governance of the depression that should be viewed foolishly. The other side quickly made the comparison of Hoover to Bush, a bumbling idiot who's purpose was to make way for the heroic FDR, or now Obama. I would agree but for different reasons. Hoover tried to appease those who wanted government intervention in the economy. President Hoover presented to Congress a program asking for aid to business, additional help for farmers facing mortgage foreclosures, banking reform, a loan to states for feeding the unemployed, expansion of public works, and drastic governmental economy. Sound familiar? Just like President W. Bush, Hoover tried to use the government to fix a private business cycle. Strangely enough, it did not work at all but only worsened the crisis, paving the way for a radical to sweep into office and foresee the biggest "change" this country has ever seen in peacetime. The popular notion is FDR came in and introduced social programs to put the unemployed to work in infrastructure programs and helped the poor, but his predecessor had already started that process to no avail. Interestedly enough, by 1936 the economy crashed again due to protectionist trade policies, (can you say Pelosi's Buy American). The parallels are indeed very striking, but for reasons far different than the modern Left likes to think of history. This is all tied to Hoover panicking, abandoning the traditional fiscal policies of the Republican Party, and turning a painful but necessary recession into a social and economic disaster this country has not yet recovered from. If anything, we slide further down the slope of activist governance each election cycle, save a brief 8 year slowdown during Reagan.

Obama quipped at a recent press conference that he didn't understand why conservatives were arguing about how FDR handled the economy, saying that debate was long over. I am sure it is at Harvard University Mr. President, but there will always be a few curious minds who look to the mistakes and triumphs of past Presidents with an open mind. Change and hope in the future is all grand, but wisdom and prudence are timeless.

Christopher Hitchens on Iran

Another example of why Hitchens is the most under-rated international relations mind in the world. I won't say much on the matter because Hitchens put it adequately already. A must read. -Nate

"Don't Let the Mullahs Run Out the ClockObama must talk directly to the Iranian people.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Saturday, Feb. 14, 2009, at 8:21 PM ET

It's strange how some totalitarian types feel the urge to be blunt and honest, even almost confessional. I call as my witness the senior member of the Robert Mugabe coterie who was quoted in the New York Times on Feb. 11 concerning the sham swearing-in of Morgan Tsvangirai as prime minister of Zimbabwe. After the ceremony, according to Celia W. Dugger's report:


[A] veteran ZANU-PF official who belongs to the party's politburo said of Mr. Tsvangirai, speaking on the understanding that he would not be quoted by name: "He will not last. I swear to you. We just want to buy time."

I thought that I knew that, but it's often useful to have one's suspicions confirmed.

Now, does anyone—I mean anyone at all—imagine that the Iranian government's flirtation with "direct talks" is anything—anything at all—but a precisely similar attempt to run out the clock while the centrifuges spin and to buy (or, more accurately, to waste) time until sufficient fissile material is ready and the mask can be thrown off?

Estimates differ, but it seems quite plausible that Iran will be able to make some such announcement before the end of this year. That would mean that all international agreements, all negotiations with bodies like the European Union, all "inspections" by the International Atomic Energy Authority had been, in effect, farcical and void. It would mean being laughed at by the mullahs in the here and now. And it would involve, for the rest of the future, having to treat them with exaggerated politeness. What a wonderful world that would be.

For decades, we have wondered what might happen when or if an apocalyptic weapon came into the hands of a messianic group or irrational regime. We are surely now quite close to finding out. I am not one of those who believe that the mullahs will immediately try to incinerate the Jewish state. This is for several reasons. First, the Iranian theocracy is fat and corrupt and runs a potentially wealthy country in such a way as to enrich only itself. A nuclear conflict with Israel would be—in a grimly literal sense—the very last thing that it would embark upon. Second, and even taking into account the officially messianic and jihadist rhetoric of the regime, it remains the case that a thermonuclear weapon detonated on the Zionist foe would also annihilate the Palestinians and destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. (Even Saddam Hussein at his craziest recognized this fact, promising with uncharacteristic modesty only to "burn up half of Israel" with the weapons of mass destruction that he then boasted of possessing.)

Nor, I think, would the mullahs hand over their hard-won nuclear devices to a proxy party such as Hezbollah or seek to make a nuclear confrontation with the United States or Western Europe. What they almost certainly will do, however, is use the possession of nuclear weapons for some sort of nuclear blackmail against the neighboring gulf states, most of them Arab and Sunni rather than Persian and Shiite, but at least one of them (Bahrain) with a large Shiite population and a close geographical propinquity to Iran. Already you hear the odd rumble in hard-line circles in Tehran to the effect that Bahrain ought properly to be part of the Persian motherland. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had acquired a nuke before invading Kuwait. (This is why so many Arab governments and newspapers have been so tepid about supporting Iran's proxies Hamas and Hezbollah in the most recent confrontations with Israel.)

Faced with the appalling contingency of regional nuclear bullying disguised as "strategic ambiguity," the Bush administration managed, as so often, to achieve the worst of both worlds. It used to be that Bush officials, when asked about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, would reply in a dark and meaningful manner, "We will not leave this problem to the next administration." But, as you may have noticed … Still, one has to hope that the Obama administration does not make the opposite mistake and substitute a "make nice" policy for a policy that displayed neither soft speech nor the big stick. In that instance also, the Iranian reactors continued to hum and the centrifuges to whirl while in the wings, the missiles were also being acquired or tested (and something very odd was happening at a North Korean-built Syrian reactor site nearby).

The idea of direct and transparent negotiations with the Iranians is not wrong in principle, but it depends on which Iranians are the actual or potential partners. The president can address the Iranian people directly if he chooses, from the podium of the United Nations (as I urged Bush to do). He can tell them that just as the United States can and will help them to build civilian nuclear reactors, so it will not stand still and watch all Iran's agreements with international bodies be flagrantly broken. He can tell them that the mullahs' sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas is a reason for Iran's continued isolation. He can add—as I've suggested before—that in its zeal for armaments, the theocracy has been culpably negligent in preparing Iran and its people for the likelihood of a serious earthquake in the next few years and that the United States stands ready to share its seismological expertise in the here and now.

There are, in other words, several options and stages in between the polar opposites of confrontation with Iran and mute passivity in the face of clerical defiance of international law. But the time in which this "space" can be employed is diminishing, and it ought to be clearly stated and understood that if a confrontation does arise, it will not have been of Obama's making."

http://www.slate.com/id/2211267/?from=rss

An earmark free bill. The leaders say it is, so they must be right.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/

"These projects are not part of the stimulus bill. They are candidates for funding by federal grant programs once the bill passes."

Checkout the link. All of the projects listed are in contention for billions of dollars.

The members of Congress and President Obama are so slick.

They can claim there are no 'earmarks' better known as pork, and get away with it.

It's like saying everything is legal until you get caught.

Funds are being earmarked for earmarks.

I'm all giddy; which of these projects will make the cut?! I'm rooting for the dog park in California as folks won't be getting a state refund, but there's a better of chance of them getting a dog park. Also, some folks in Mississippi are wanting doorbells. I guess those folks didn't come from the school of hard knocks...on doors.

Couldn't resist.
Still not as bad as some of those lame newspaper headline writers huh?

Too many projects to list. Hopefully, you'll check the site and it eats at you like the vultures who will be feasting on D.C. in antipation of Obama's signature.

2010: Will it really matter?

Democratic Congressional Campaign Chairman Chris Van Hollen recently went on record stating he did not see a "3rd wave" of democratic wins in 2010 in the mid-term elections, as such an occurrence would go against almost every pattern of American political history. The public of course hates one party rule for extended periods of time as all things bad are an extension of the party in power, while all the promise for good is given to the minority party. This is nothing new, and only extreme circumstances like the Civil War, Great Depression/WW2, and briefly 9/11 upset this natural cycle. Van Hollen said his goal was to try to maintain as many seats as possible, or in realistic terms not give up the majority in the House and especially the Senate. Too early to say what 2010 will look like, but good ole' populist angst against record-breaking government spending should do the trick for the Grand Ole' Party. The real issue is this, will it matter if the GOP does take Congress? At the rate the democrats are going presently with just the stimulus bill having provisions for expanded welfare with incentives for states to increase their enrollment numbers, the foundation for nationalized healthcare, and possibly the Census used to fudge the numbers a little more towards the left, by the time Republicans get back in power it may be meaningless. Once entitlements are increased, it is near impossible to cut them back. That is how government has always grown, once you increase the number dependent on government services, they will always vote to make sure they are not suddenly cut off. They say withdrawal is the hardest part. After Republicans are back in a position of power, the media will push hard to create sympathy for Obama the downtrodden, struggling so hard for our interest against an uncaring GOP obsessed with tax cuts and national defense. The economy will turn around eventually, just in time for 2012, then the One can win re-election promising to maintain a balance of power with the GOP and reaping the thanks of a greatfull nation for saving us from "apocalypse" and other demonic activity thanks to his stimulus package and total government transparency.

"Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back"

The bombshell this afternoon was Sen. Gregg withdrawing his nomination for Commerce Sec. for the Obama White House. This is great news for Senate Republicans. You could almost hear the last dying gasp of "no-drama Obama" and its for the better of both parties. Obama now is free to nominate someone who will manipulate the census to further the democratic party using guesstimation instead of head counting in hard to reach(Democratic) areas of the country. Of course, it will be up to the administration to determine what areas are too much trouble to actually head count, and when to use projected statistics instead. Transparency at work no doubt. Another cited reason was Sen. Gregg's refusal to go along with Obama's vision for the American economy based on government planning via Keynesian economic theory. I cannot think of a good reason Gregg ever agreed to accept the nomination of an White House in polar opposite of what he believed other than he was promised autonomy behind closed doors and obviously that didn't happen. It was a match made in hell and I think both sides will be better off politically in the end. Obama won't have a prop for a Commerce Sec. with no power, and Gregg can do his work in the Senate where he is so effective and revered. This also adds another GOP vote in the Senate as insurance against Coleman losing his legal challenge to funny-man Franklin.

The Grand Compromise?

Today we learned the tax-cuts bargained for by the three crossover GOP senators will total the grand amount of about $13 a week. With such massive tax cuts in play for our workers, one can surely see why the esteemed senators broke ranks with their fellow Republicans. I suppose we could each take one of the senators out to lunch once a week with the massive savings that is rushing our way. Senators Collins, Snowe, and Spector get the bipartisan hero of the week award for putting aside their principles and making sure serious tax relief gets to the American worker. I think the favor will be returned during the next Republican primary for each of the "terrific three". However, I urge the readers not to spend too freely as the massive $13 a week will be cut to $8 next year. One can certainly see why democrats detest tax cuts. When they think $13 a week is tax cut, I'd look for another way to stimulate the economy too. Perhaps send every American a $15 Starbucks gift card so we can all go buy fancy coffee. After all, gourmet coffee sales are a sign of economic prosperity.

We Don't Care

He's right. Politics is only perception. We must do something, so don't bog down the American people about the details on how it will work, how we will know its working, the costs, the risks etc. Just make sure they all know you're doing something very big and that inaction means "apocalypse." I certainly enjoy such movements of honesty by Congress, I suppose Obama's transparency goals are starting to really take effect.

Obama's Press-Conference For The Stimulus Package

Tonight Obama got some national air-time to campaign for his stimulus bill, which has taken some good hits from the Republican opposition last week. Considering how small the Republican presence in Congress is, not to mention how hostile the media is towards their arguments, they should be quite happy with their efforts to mount a successful opposition to a piece of legislation that is nauseating to conservatives on multiple fronts. Rasmussen and Gallop had the stimulus package slipping by the day until Obama began his recent push to translate his own personal popularity into support for the stimulus. If you love him, should you not trust him? Any good political relationship is based on the trust of the constituency in their elected leader, and conversely the ability of the leader to translate their trust into tangible results that can be readily seen in mass media. In the Post-Modern world perception is reality, and there is not a politician on earth that better understands this fact than Obama. So Obama used his big blue 747 to soar out of the muck of the beltway into the fabled middle America to remind the voters he indeed feels their struggle and to trust his wisdom in supporting the bill.

The press conference itself was fairly predictable in its content. Whenever Obama was asked a question, he did what he does best, give a speech. The flow and tempo of the exchange between reporters was not often like two opponents sparring, but more like the press was throwing up alley hoops for Obama to dunk with the finesse of his teleprompter athleticism. I don't want to get into every question asked because they were pretty dull for the most part (although I am beginning to think Obama is our national sports czar offering opinions on the state of NCAAF, NFL, and now MLB sports) but here are some points I think were lost upon much of the analysis I caught.

1.When referring to the rate of jobs lost, Obama mentioned we have lost more jobs last month than there are jobs in the entire state of Maine. Of course, it is simply a coincidence that two of the three GOP senators in negotiations with the Dems for supporting the Senate Stimulus bill happen to be from Maine. That surely was not political pressure being applied as Obama is above partisan politics, or as he put it, “..old habits die hard.”
2.Obama's use of Japan as an example of what can happen when a country fails to spend the big bucks to avoid a recession was poorly chosen but will not be questioned due to most American's ignorance of Japanese economic history. During the 90's bet the farm on Keynesian economic theory and deficit spent many, many billions to no avail. Japan could not shake off their depression with deficit spending, they only were successful in providing Obama a poor example a decade later.
3.When Queen Helen of the presidential press corps asked Obama a softball question about “so-called terrorists”, with a clever follow up gotcha on what countries currently have nukes in the Middle East to his knowledge (aka Israel, and possibly Iran), he focused on part one and totally ignored the nuke question. It is an unspoken fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, but refuses to deny or confirm their existence. What really makes this ignorance of the nuke question interesting is an earlier question on how he would deal with Iran diplomatically, answering in part “...their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon -- that all of those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.” Notice the presence tense as if they already have one. I think Obama has intelligence verifying Iran has the nuclear bomb right now and both instances were possibly a slip letting onto that fact. It is not a total shocker as various Intelligence Reports have already pointed to Iran being almost there, but I think they have it and we know it.
Overall, I think Obama went out and accomplished what he had to do in getting out his message. Approval ratings for the bill will slip above 50% by the end of the week, and he'll get his token GOP senators to sign onto the Senate bill. As for whether it will work, that is a different topic for a different post.