I was sitting here thinking about the stimulus package that Obama pushed through congress and how it was a massive failure of the bipartisanship that Obama promised to advocate for in Washington.
Anyways, I think the reason this failed so massively is because it was drawn up solely by Obama and the Democrats and the Republicans were not invited in until the Democrats had already counted on all of the pork that they drew up.
I would compare it to falling in love with a car while car shopping than having your friend (that came with you to be your wing man while you finish the deal with the car salesman) tell you that you shouldn't get it for this or that reason, making some valid points in their argument. Meanwhile, you've already test drove the car, told all of your friends how great it is and the whole nine yards, and you're like, sorry, but I don't care, I've already made up my mind.
To me, this is precisely what happened in this bill. If the Republicans had been invited, from the beginning, to help craft this bill, it would have been a much larger bipartisan effort and would have not only given the American people a better bill, but it would have been a show of confidence in the government by the American people, as opposed to us watching the news and seeing that all 176 Republican members of congress voted nay.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Contrasting the "bipartisanship" between the Bush and Obama presidencies.
One of the platforms Barack Hussein Obama ran on during his 2008 presidential campaign was "change", more specifically, a different kind of Washington politics. Less than a month after his inauguration, Obama has spearheaded an economic stimulus plan that will allow the government to unleash a fury of spending that the United States has never before seen.
As if the spending that will take place under this bill is not bad enough, the bill will go down as one of the most partisan in history as a mere 3 Republicans out of the 217 (1.38%) in the House and the Senate voted for this bill.
Many Democrats will defend the partisan way in which this bill went down as Republicans not willing to work across the aisle, but I think it is more likely an example of an inflexible Democrat party taking advantage of their new found power while showing an unwillingness to compromise on anything. As we all know, shit tends to run downhill, therefore, I place a large percentage of this blame on BHO and the Democratic leadership of Pelosi and Reid.
I thought it would be interesting to go back in time to one of the biggest pieces of legislation passed during the Bush administration, whether or not to proceed with the invasion of Iraq, to see what kind of bipartisan support this bill received. As you remember, this legislation was very controversial and the vote came at a time when Republicans did not need a single vote by the Democratic party in order for the legislation to succeed, just as the Stimulus bill did not technically need one Republican to achieve the necessary votes.
As you can see from the pie graph below, despite the need for any Democratic vote to support the invasion of Iraq, Democrats in the house voted for it in wide numbers. In my opinion, this vote showed that their was a sense of bipartisanship going on during this period in DC, a period that was governed by the Republicans. It also shows me that concessions for a bill that would allow an invasion, as well as evidence supporting its necessity, were made in a way that convinced many Democrats that it was necessary in order to secure America's safety.
The same thing was also evident in the Senate.
To insinuate the the only reason Republicans did not vote for the stimulus bill is because of partisanship is insane, imo. It is fairly obvious at this point that the Democrats that have hijacked control of our government and are on a spending spree that will not be ended until 2010.
As if the spending that will take place under this bill is not bad enough, the bill will go down as one of the most partisan in history as a mere 3 Republicans out of the 217 (1.38%) in the House and the Senate voted for this bill.
Many Democrats will defend the partisan way in which this bill went down as Republicans not willing to work across the aisle, but I think it is more likely an example of an inflexible Democrat party taking advantage of their new found power while showing an unwillingness to compromise on anything. As we all know, shit tends to run downhill, therefore, I place a large percentage of this blame on BHO and the Democratic leadership of Pelosi and Reid.
I thought it would be interesting to go back in time to one of the biggest pieces of legislation passed during the Bush administration, whether or not to proceed with the invasion of Iraq, to see what kind of bipartisan support this bill received. As you remember, this legislation was very controversial and the vote came at a time when Republicans did not need a single vote by the Democratic party in order for the legislation to succeed, just as the Stimulus bill did not technically need one Republican to achieve the necessary votes.
As you can see from the pie graph below, despite the need for any Democratic vote to support the invasion of Iraq, Democrats in the house voted for it in wide numbers. In my opinion, this vote showed that their was a sense of bipartisanship going on during this period in DC, a period that was governed by the Republicans. It also shows me that concessions for a bill that would allow an invasion, as well as evidence supporting its necessity, were made in a way that convinced many Democrats that it was necessary in order to secure America's safety.
The same thing was also evident in the Senate.
To insinuate the the only reason Republicans did not vote for the stimulus bill is because of partisanship is insane, imo. It is fairly obvious at this point that the Democrats that have hijacked control of our government and are on a spending spree that will not be ended until 2010.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Who are the Democrats that voted against the revised stimulus bill on March 13th?
The only bi-partisanship showed by the House of Representatives in the voting of this bill was in opposition to it! That is a fact. Obama should be absolutely embarrassed by the fact that every single Republican in the House voted NAY to this bill.
This is supposed to be a change from politics of usual? The largest spending bill in the history of the United States that does not have the support of one Republican?
Anyways, this being said, I would like to thank the 7 DEMOCRATS who stood up to their party and it's leadership of Reid and Pelosi. Below, you will find a picture of each of these courageous men accompanied by their name and which state they represent.
Additionally, here is a link to the roll call vote that took place in the house today, March 13, 2009. Republicans are italicized, Democrats are in roman and Independents are underlined.
Walt Minnick - Idaho
Bobby Bright - Alabama
Parker Griffith - Alabama
Pete Defazio - Oregon
Collin Peterson - Minnesota
Heath Shuler - North Carolina
Gene Taylor - Mississippi
This is supposed to be a change from politics of usual? The largest spending bill in the history of the United States that does not have the support of one Republican?
Anyways, this being said, I would like to thank the 7 DEMOCRATS who stood up to their party and it's leadership of Reid and Pelosi. Below, you will find a picture of each of these courageous men accompanied by their name and which state they represent.
Additionally, here is a link to the roll call vote that took place in the house today, March 13, 2009. Republicans are italicized, Democrats are in roman and Independents are underlined.
Walt Minnick - Idaho
Bobby Bright - Alabama
Parker Griffith - Alabama
Pete Defazio - Oregon
Collin Peterson - Minnesota
Heath Shuler - North Carolina
Gene Taylor - Mississippi
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Finding a Cure for the Socialist Virus
Here’s how I see the US’ economic plight: Right now, the world has the flu. The US had a serious cold and then the world caught the bug. You might ask: well, what is behind the virus causing this condition? Is it really subprime mortgage debts? Is it really a drop in demand? Is it really over spending by Americans?
The answer to all of this is “not really”. Sure, some of these factors are at play and have had a domino effect in different sectors. But there’s actually a better place to point your currently unemployed finger.
You see, the real reason for our country’s instability, uncertainty, and volatility is fear – and the reason for all this fear is the prospect of socialist leadership at the helm for 4 to 8 more years. Socialist leadership is not conducive to business – or economic growth – and until business leaders, employees, and other professionals have their fears assuaged, the economy is going to continue to sputter along like a car that’s out of gas.
Everyone wants to speculate: how quickly can consumer confidence come back? When will stability return to the markets? How quickly can we pass a socialist bailout to make things return to “normal”?
Well guess what: things aren’t going to return to normal until the lingering fears of socialism are absolved.
Seeing as you have the flu, your body is in a very fragile state – you aren’t sure whether the flu is going to get better in a matter of hours (24 hour socialist flu), whether you’re going to be under the weather for months (mono), or whether this could even be the end of an era (black plague). There’s a lot of uncertainty in your health and your future.
When you’re under the weather, you are sort of afraid of ‘what’s coming next’. You know the feeling - you’re afraid to eat anything because you don’t want to throw up again, and you would rather just “wait it out” on the couch for a few hours/days until you can better assess your physical health. At the moment, your life is a waiting game. You won’t go back into the kitchen until you feel like your body is ready to eat. You won’t try to exercise until you think your body can handle the strenuous activity. You won’t even move until your fever has peaked and the virus is on its way out. Instead you’ll simply spend a few quality hours on the couch with Dr. Phil and wait out the virus’ attacks. You’ll only begin to feel better after the virus has thoroughly ravaged your body and your immune system has dragged out every weapon of mass destruction in its power to combat the invaders.
Well this is exactly how the country is feeling.
No one wants to take in any food because they’re all afraid of what’s next.
Who wants to ingest [or invest] if they’re just going to throw up soon [markets drop again by half]?
Who wants to buy a car or house if prices are going to continue to fall and it will be even cheaper in a few weeks?
Who wants to take on a mortgage when they’re afraid of their job’s stability?
Who wants to spend money if they’re going to be slammed with giant tax bill(s) for the next 75 years?
Who wants to hire more employees if the socialist dictators mandate significant changes in employer-sponsored healthcare?
Who wants to invest in their business if the socialist dictators are going to impose stringent environmental regulations that will bankrupt their industry?
Who wants to keep working to pay for the free healthcare, housing, and education of those who are not?
According to webMD, the socialist virus has the following symptoms:
The answer to all of this is “not really”. Sure, some of these factors are at play and have had a domino effect in different sectors. But there’s actually a better place to point your currently unemployed finger.
You see, the real reason for our country’s instability, uncertainty, and volatility is fear – and the reason for all this fear is the prospect of socialist leadership at the helm for 4 to 8 more years. Socialist leadership is not conducive to business – or economic growth – and until business leaders, employees, and other professionals have their fears assuaged, the economy is going to continue to sputter along like a car that’s out of gas.
Everyone wants to speculate: how quickly can consumer confidence come back? When will stability return to the markets? How quickly can we pass a socialist bailout to make things return to “normal”?
Well guess what: things aren’t going to return to normal until the lingering fears of socialism are absolved.
Seeing as you have the flu, your body is in a very fragile state – you aren’t sure whether the flu is going to get better in a matter of hours (24 hour socialist flu), whether you’re going to be under the weather for months (mono), or whether this could even be the end of an era (black plague). There’s a lot of uncertainty in your health and your future.
When you’re under the weather, you are sort of afraid of ‘what’s coming next’. You know the feeling - you’re afraid to eat anything because you don’t want to throw up again, and you would rather just “wait it out” on the couch for a few hours/days until you can better assess your physical health. At the moment, your life is a waiting game. You won’t go back into the kitchen until you feel like your body is ready to eat. You won’t try to exercise until you think your body can handle the strenuous activity. You won’t even move until your fever has peaked and the virus is on its way out. Instead you’ll simply spend a few quality hours on the couch with Dr. Phil and wait out the virus’ attacks. You’ll only begin to feel better after the virus has thoroughly ravaged your body and your immune system has dragged out every weapon of mass destruction in its power to combat the invaders.
Well this is exactly how the country is feeling.
No one wants to take in any food because they’re all afraid of what’s next.
Who wants to ingest [or invest] if they’re just going to throw up soon [markets drop again by half]?
Who wants to buy a car or house if prices are going to continue to fall and it will be even cheaper in a few weeks?
Who wants to take on a mortgage when they’re afraid of their job’s stability?
Who wants to spend money if they’re going to be slammed with giant tax bill(s) for the next 75 years?
Who wants to hire more employees if the socialist dictators mandate significant changes in employer-sponsored healthcare?
Who wants to invest in their business if the socialist dictators are going to impose stringent environmental regulations that will bankrupt their industry?
Who wants to keep working to pay for the free healthcare, housing, and education of those who are not?
According to webMD, the socialist virus has the following symptoms:
- Excessive whining about the notion of fairness.
- Undue idealism and belief in the “common good”
- Failure to understand basic biology (money does not grow on trees), basic math (you can’t take out more $$ than you put in), and basic engineering (you can’t put more stress on the top of the [class] structure than you put on the bottom).
- Childlike ideals that everyone is the same.
- Interest in making sure everyone is treated as an “equal” –unless you’re a minority because then you should be treated “differently” with extra special treatment
The only way to cure this virus is to shut your mouth, pick up a hammer, shovel, calculator or other man-made tool and get to work. Stop expecting anyone to do anything for you. Everything that’s worth anything in this life comes from hard work – that is, your own hard work – no one else’s. Don’t ask your neighbor for a free lunch. Don’t give your other neighbor a free lunch. Stop being a whiny idealist and start thinking realistically. Bottom line: grow up. The virus breeds in the body of anyone who has the mindset of a five year old. Only after you experience some mental and philosophical maturity can the socialist virus can leave your idealism-ravaged body.
*Disclaimer: The author is not a medical professional. If you believe you or a loved one is currently experiencing the socialist virus you should seek help immediately from the most conservative news outlet in your immediate reach.
...All of this might just make you think:
What’s the point of getting off the couch until the virus has peaked?
Maybe one of the few conservative news outlets out there could try and organize a “Race for the Cure” marathon whose goal is to cure the country of socialism – an epidemic that is so deepset and widespread by our Washington traitors that it stands to suffocate every ounce of economic potential this nation has left.
Now THAT’s a cause for which I’d run a marathon!!!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Free Choice Act
The Free Choice Act is a piece of legislation that is currently being examined by the United States Congress. This Act involves changes to the rules that must be followed in order for a union to be established at a work place. Currently, in order for a union to be established, a majority of the workers have to sign valid written forms indicating their preference for a union.
At this point, a company can either recognize the union OR require a "secret" ballot, which is a vote that is performed anonymously and requires a majority to pass. Most companies are against the unionization of their workers, especially in this day and age, and will generally opt for the secret ballot as opposed to recognizing the union after a majority have signed valid forms.
The Free Choice Act attempts to change the law so that employers do not have the option of requiring a secret ballot prior to a union being recognized, all that would be needed is a majority of workers to sign valid written forms stating that they would prefer a union. Proponents of this bill will tell you that a secret ballot is unfair because it allows employers to influence the results of the vote.
Personally, I think this is a complete crock of shit and sounds very similar to all of the homosexuals who are bitching and moaning about the prop 8 vote in California (hello people, it is an anonymous vote, how can it not be fair?!?) Also, do you honestly believe that the union supporters and representatives that have been bused in from union organizations (in an attempt to sway an impending vote) won't attempt to influence things to satisfy their own agendas?
My step-father has been in the corporate world for 35 years and he has told me stories of pro union workers keying peoples cars who have refused to sign union papers. So let me guess, if we placed this act into law and did away with the secret ballot, the union and their minions wouldn't go ape shit with their new found powers and attempt to influence workers at job sites all across America to join the cause? Remember, the union organizations collect dues from their employees, follow the money trail.
I am all for capitalism and I don't think there is any more fair a way to determine whether or not a union should be implemented into a work place than to have an anonymous vote. So what if Joe Schmoe corporate prick boss told you he would make you pay if you voted for the union, the vote is ANONYMOUS and no one will know if you did or not.
If there is shady stuff going on and somehow the employers are tampering with the election, of course there will be problems and any employer who does this should be be held accountable, however, to me, this isn't justification enough to implement a law that will make it ridiculously easy to implement a union anywhere the labor organizations please.
Why don't the unions concentrate on the enforcement of the current laws and the enforcement of fairness during any subsequent secret ballot elections that are taking place instead of attempting to force their hand on Americas corporations through the hope and change declarations of Obama!
I did a little digging into the politics behind this abomination of an act and discovered that Representative George Miller (D – California) is one of the leading proponents. Ironically, in 2008, Miller was the campaign manager for Henry Waxman (the ugly dude from California who looks like Mr. Bean), who was in a bitter race against Representative John Dingell (D – Michigan), the top Democrat on the panel for the last 28 years, for the chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee.
The chair was ultimately decided by a SECRET BALLOT VOTE in which Waxman was victorious by a count of 137-122. Additionally, in 2001, Miller wrote a letter to the Mexican government alongside 10 other Democrats encouraging the use of “secret ballot votes in all union recognition elections.” The letter went on to state “We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.”
Rep. Miller is now saying that this letter confused his intent and that their demand was for secret ballot votes only when “workers seek to replace one union with another.” Interestingly enough, this letter made no mention of this assertion and instead referred to “all union recognition elections.”
I’m sure this reversal of opinion has nothing to do with the unions who helped the Democrats secure a majority in congress.
At this point, a company can either recognize the union OR require a "secret" ballot, which is a vote that is performed anonymously and requires a majority to pass. Most companies are against the unionization of their workers, especially in this day and age, and will generally opt for the secret ballot as opposed to recognizing the union after a majority have signed valid forms.
The Free Choice Act attempts to change the law so that employers do not have the option of requiring a secret ballot prior to a union being recognized, all that would be needed is a majority of workers to sign valid written forms stating that they would prefer a union. Proponents of this bill will tell you that a secret ballot is unfair because it allows employers to influence the results of the vote.
Personally, I think this is a complete crock of shit and sounds very similar to all of the homosexuals who are bitching and moaning about the prop 8 vote in California (hello people, it is an anonymous vote, how can it not be fair?!?) Also, do you honestly believe that the union supporters and representatives that have been bused in from union organizations (in an attempt to sway an impending vote) won't attempt to influence things to satisfy their own agendas?
My step-father has been in the corporate world for 35 years and he has told me stories of pro union workers keying peoples cars who have refused to sign union papers. So let me guess, if we placed this act into law and did away with the secret ballot, the union and their minions wouldn't go ape shit with their new found powers and attempt to influence workers at job sites all across America to join the cause? Remember, the union organizations collect dues from their employees, follow the money trail.
I am all for capitalism and I don't think there is any more fair a way to determine whether or not a union should be implemented into a work place than to have an anonymous vote. So what if Joe Schmoe corporate prick boss told you he would make you pay if you voted for the union, the vote is ANONYMOUS and no one will know if you did or not.
If there is shady stuff going on and somehow the employers are tampering with the election, of course there will be problems and any employer who does this should be be held accountable, however, to me, this isn't justification enough to implement a law that will make it ridiculously easy to implement a union anywhere the labor organizations please.
Why don't the unions concentrate on the enforcement of the current laws and the enforcement of fairness during any subsequent secret ballot elections that are taking place instead of attempting to force their hand on Americas corporations through the hope and change declarations of Obama!
I did a little digging into the politics behind this abomination of an act and discovered that Representative George Miller (D – California) is one of the leading proponents. Ironically, in 2008, Miller was the campaign manager for Henry Waxman (the ugly dude from California who looks like Mr. Bean), who was in a bitter race against Representative John Dingell (D – Michigan), the top Democrat on the panel for the last 28 years, for the chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee.
The chair was ultimately decided by a SECRET BALLOT VOTE in which Waxman was victorious by a count of 137-122. Additionally, in 2001, Miller wrote a letter to the Mexican government alongside 10 other Democrats encouraging the use of “secret ballot votes in all union recognition elections.” The letter went on to state “We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.”
Rep. Miller is now saying that this letter confused his intent and that their demand was for secret ballot votes only when “workers seek to replace one union with another.” Interestingly enough, this letter made no mention of this assertion and instead referred to “all union recognition elections.”
I’m sure this reversal of opinion has nothing to do with the unions who helped the Democrats secure a majority in congress.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Change is sure ringing through the valleys.
I thought that Obama becoming the first “black” President, behind a campaign that called for the unity of Americans, racially and culturally, would have a profound effect on the nation. Apparently this is not the case as a very troubling youtube video that has been uncovered by our friend Bill O’Reilly @ Fox news. BTW, thank god for Fox news, because if they were not around, videos like the one that I have posted below would NEVER be aired.
Anyways, this video, which was filmed during one of the many concerts that took place in DC on Inauguration night, involved rappers Jay-Z and Young Jeezy. At some point during the show, which was labeled “A Concert on the Eve of Change”, Young Jeezy had this to say (and for the record, no I haven’t heard of this guy either):
“And I wanna thank the motherfucker overseas who threw the two shoes at George Bush.
And I want to thank. Listen.
I wanna thank the motherfucker who helped them move their shit up out of the White House.
Keep it moving bitch. My president is motherfucking black!"
These class comments were then immediately followed up by Jay-Z who had this to say:
"...never thought I'd say this shit, baby I'm good. You can keep your pussy because
I don't want no more Bush. No more war, no more Iraq, no more white lies, my
President is black"
The comments are bad enough, however, the video is almost unwatchable as it is so hate filled and full of classlessness. Are these and other rap artists so ignorant, so classless, to believe that this type of behavior would be welcomed by the man they’re celebrating? And how about their contempt for George Bush? Seriously, does anyone actually believe these idiots know a damn thing about what is really going on in this world politically?
Furthermore, Jay-Z is married to Beyonce Knowles, who was also in DC that night, however, she was singing to the Obama’s themselves during their celebratory “first dance” as President and first lady. Ironically, she was singing the song by Etta James titled “At Last”. I wonder what her opinion of her husbands rant was?
Also, I can’t help in find humor at the fact they’re celebrating the election of a “black” man while slamming his white predecessor and his and other white peoples “lies” while ignoring the fact that Obama was raised by his white mother and white grand-parents in part because his African father abandoned him during childhood.
Finally, I mentioned earlier that Fox news is the only station that aired this tape (not to be confused with the Michael Richards, AKA Kramer, tape, which took place at a comedy club with 23 people in it and was aired by every liberal media outlet and their brother). I can't help but wonder if Toby Keith said the following in either 2012 or 2016, after a white candidate successfully runs for and wins the election for President, if Fox news will be the only station airing the tape:
“And I wanna thank the motherfucker overseas who threw the two shoes at Obama.
And I want to thank. Listen.
I wanna thank the motherfucker who helped them move their shit up out of the White House.
Keep it moving bitch. My president is motherfucking white!"
I rest my case.
Anyways, this video, which was filmed during one of the many concerts that took place in DC on Inauguration night, involved rappers Jay-Z and Young Jeezy. At some point during the show, which was labeled “A Concert on the Eve of Change”, Young Jeezy had this to say (and for the record, no I haven’t heard of this guy either):
“And I wanna thank the motherfucker overseas who threw the two shoes at George Bush.
And I want to thank. Listen.
I wanna thank the motherfucker who helped them move their shit up out of the White House.
Keep it moving bitch. My president is motherfucking black!"
These class comments were then immediately followed up by Jay-Z who had this to say:
"...never thought I'd say this shit, baby I'm good. You can keep your pussy because
I don't want no more Bush. No more war, no more Iraq, no more white lies, my
President is black"
The comments are bad enough, however, the video is almost unwatchable as it is so hate filled and full of classlessness. Are these and other rap artists so ignorant, so classless, to believe that this type of behavior would be welcomed by the man they’re celebrating? And how about their contempt for George Bush? Seriously, does anyone actually believe these idiots know a damn thing about what is really going on in this world politically?
Furthermore, Jay-Z is married to Beyonce Knowles, who was also in DC that night, however, she was singing to the Obama’s themselves during their celebratory “first dance” as President and first lady. Ironically, she was singing the song by Etta James titled “At Last”. I wonder what her opinion of her husbands rant was?
Also, I can’t help in find humor at the fact they’re celebrating the election of a “black” man while slamming his white predecessor and his and other white peoples “lies” while ignoring the fact that Obama was raised by his white mother and white grand-parents in part because his African father abandoned him during childhood.
Finally, I mentioned earlier that Fox news is the only station that aired this tape (not to be confused with the Michael Richards, AKA Kramer, tape, which took place at a comedy club with 23 people in it and was aired by every liberal media outlet and their brother). I can't help but wonder if Toby Keith said the following in either 2012 or 2016, after a white candidate successfully runs for and wins the election for President, if Fox news will be the only station airing the tape:
“And I wanna thank the motherfucker overseas who threw the two shoes at Obama.
And I want to thank. Listen.
I wanna thank the motherfucker who helped them move their shit up out of the White House.
Keep it moving bitch. My president is motherfucking white!"
I rest my case.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Great Global Warming Meltdown
Yesterday (1/23/09) the NYT published an article that surely made their editorial board burst into tears.
The article, Environmental Issues Fall in Poll of Public's Concern, highlights the fact that as the economy has worsened, people are caring less and less about the "environmental" issues said to be plaguing our future (read: global warming). The original article by Pew research can be found here.
Now don't get me wrong -- I'm all for preserving the environment in the sense that I want my children to have a nice, clean earth to call home..., and whether or not a person "believes" in 
global warming, I think we can all agree that we want the earth to be habitable for generations to come. This is only in the best interests of our entire species. ... But at the same time, I also don't believe in being a martyr for a vain cause. There is absolutely no reason for the US to commit economic suicide in order to save an earth that's going to be destroyed by our economic competitors in the meantime. In the long run we lose both ways.
It's about time that people started to realize what's really at stake every time the phrase global warming is circulated around in the MSM. 'Global warming' and 'economic growth' are polar opposites - I may not be a meterologist, but I don't believe you need any formal training to recognize that you can't have a snowstorm and a hurricane on the same day.
If nothing else, hopefully our current economic challenges might trim the ranks of reigning liberals who tout global warming as a harbinger of the future.
Along with cheaper energy prices, falling immigration numbers, and falling trade deficits, maybe the authors of the article Why the Recession Might Be Good For Us As A Country can add the collapse of the global warming ponzi scheme to their list.
A documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was produced in 2008, here is the first part of that documentary.
The article, Environmental Issues Fall in Poll of Public's Concern, highlights the fact that as the economy has worsened, people are caring less and less about the "environmental" issues said to be plaguing our future (read: global warming). The original article by Pew research can be found here.
The article's author seems stunned to learn that Americans rank the issue of global warming as NUMBER TWENTY on a list of top 20 concerns.
global warming, I think we can all agree that we want the earth to be habitable for generations to come. This is only in the best interests of our entire species. ... But at the same time, I also don't believe in being a martyr for a vain cause. There is absolutely no reason for the US to commit economic suicide in order to save an earth that's going to be destroyed by our economic competitors in the meantime. In the long run we lose both ways.It's about time that people started to realize what's really at stake every time the phrase global warming is circulated around in the MSM. 'Global warming' and 'economic growth' are polar opposites - I may not be a meterologist, but I don't believe you need any formal training to recognize that you can't have a snowstorm and a hurricane on the same day.
If nothing else, hopefully our current economic challenges might trim the ranks of reigning liberals who tout global warming as a harbinger of the future.
Along with cheaper energy prices, falling immigration numbers, and falling trade deficits, maybe the authors of the article Why the Recession Might Be Good For Us As A Country can add the collapse of the global warming ponzi scheme to their list.
A documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was produced in 2008, here is the first part of that documentary.
Who yuans to revalue their currency?
There's an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Stance on the Yuan Gets Tougher" (1/23/09) concerning treasury secretary nominee Geithner's position on the Chinese currency. The article describes how Geithner openly called out the Chinese on their currency manipulation practices - and if appointed, this stance will likely affect the treasury's stance on foreign currency manipulation.
This topic is really interesting because it provides insight on the somewhat counter-intuitive positions of a liberal and a conservative administration on the issue of "fair trade". One would expect that the Bush-admin would have pushed for a fairer currency in order to stimulate US exports and help foster the US manufacturing sector.
It seems strange that the Obad (Obama administration) would push for a fairer currency, knowing that this will a) hurt the Chinese and b) help support US manufacturing. Liberals have enjoyed the decrease in US manufacturing as it has "reduced" pollution (though just by exporting the pollution overseas) and it has increased our dependence on foreign trade (they love globalization). Perhaps this seemingly strange relationship can be added to the list of liberal paradoxes.
The Chinese aren't the only ones engaging in this currency manipulation, but they are one of the biggest contenders (along with the Japanese). This list from the U.S. Treasury U.S. Dollar Holdings shows some of our most generous dollar buyers. Here are some of the things I find most amazing over the one year period from 11/07 to 11/08 (in billions):
It's very surprising that Japan has decreased their dollar holdings so significantly -- in fact, it's pretty troublesome to consider that their actions might be hinting at continued sell-offs in coming months... this will only improve our economic situation if we continue to unleash billions in bailout money.
It will be interesting to see if this topic comes up again in coming months as we beg foreign nations to buy up our bailout debt. Everyone seems to pussy-foot around the topic, fearful of causing a "red sea" of backlash. It seems pretty unlikely that the Chinese will continue revaluing their currency any time soon though - they're not about to start playing fair now with their economic stability on the line in terms of export figures.
Bottom line: if the Chinese want to be a major player on the global scene, it's about time they start playing by the rules. It seems like every other nation can get away with breaking a few rules, but if the US tries to do the same, everyone attacks the US for their 'unfair' behavior (think Kyoto treaty).
I think it's about time we revalued our definition of double standard.
This topic is really interesting because it provides insight on the somewhat counter-intuitive positions of a liberal and a conservative administration on the issue of "fair trade". One would expect that the Bush-admin would have pushed for a fairer currency in order to stimulate US exports and help foster the US manufacturing sector.
It seems strange that the Obad (Obama administration) would push for a fairer currency, knowing that this will a) hurt the Chinese and b) help support US manufacturing. Liberals have enjoyed the decrease in US manufacturing as it has "reduced" pollution (though just by exporting the pollution overseas) and it has increased our dependence on foreign trade (they love globalization). Perhaps this seemingly strange relationship can be added to the list of liberal paradoxes.
The Chinese aren't the only ones engaging in this currency manipulation, but they are one of the biggest contenders (along with the Japanese). This list from the U.S. Treasury U.S. Dollar Holdings shows some of our most generous dollar buyers. Here are some of the things I find most amazing over the one year period from 11/07 to 11/08 (in billions):
- China's dollar holdings have increased from $460b to $680b
- Japan's dollar holdings have actually slightly decreased from $590b to $577b
- Russia, the U.K., and Caribbean banking centers have basically doubled their dollar holdings
- Oil exporting nations have increased their holdings from $140b to $200b
It's very surprising that Japan has decreased their dollar holdings so significantly -- in fact, it's pretty troublesome to consider that their actions might be hinting at continued sell-offs in coming months... this will only improve our economic situation if we continue to unleash billions in bailout money.
It will be interesting to see if this topic comes up again in coming months as we beg foreign nations to buy up our bailout debt. Everyone seems to pussy-foot around the topic, fearful of causing a "red sea" of backlash. It seems pretty unlikely that the Chinese will continue revaluing their currency any time soon though - they're not about to start playing fair now with their economic stability on the line in terms of export figures.
Bottom line: if the Chinese want to be a major player on the global scene, it's about time they start playing by the rules. It seems like every other nation can get away with breaking a few rules, but if the US tries to do the same, everyone attacks the US for their 'unfair' behavior (think Kyoto treaty).
I think it's about time we revalued our definition of double standard.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Maxine Waters - Idiot Liberal
Maxine Waters is a member of the United States House of Representatives in California’s 35th district and one of this blogs liberal idiots. Granted, Ms. Waters was only recently brought to our attention with her views on the socialization of the oil industry (I will go into that later), however, a query into her past reveals a plethora of incidents that rightly justify her on our list.
First things first, anyone that is an adamant supporter of Jesse Jerkson err Jackson’s presidential bid is obviously lacking a few brain cells. In fact, Waters was Jesse Jackson's most vocal backer in both the 1984 and 1988 presidential races and was his campaign manager in the latter. In an article for the Nation, Waters wrote: "The Democrats cannot win the presidency without us and without Jackson and others who will work for the party." Obviously we don’t have a re-incarnated Nostradamus here.
She later popped up on the national radar during the L.A. Riots of 1990. Is it me or are we sensing the race card here? Seems that Ms. Waters loves to come out of hiding anytime an issue of race rears its ugly head. Getting back to the riots, however, Waters excoriated the urban policies of President Bush and former President Reagan and even went as far to make the remark that the riots were “the voice of the unheard." In a scathing editorial the conservative National Review claimed she was trying to shift the blame for the riots from the rioters to everybody and everything else and in the process was giving tacit permission to riot again.
Being in Chicago, we are familiar with what is known as the Chicago machine. This includes everything from corruption to nepotism. Speaking of nepotism, Waters has also been involved in these allegations. Maybe she should consider a change of scenery from her California roots? Apparently, her grandson, Mikael Moore, is also her Chief of Staff and Press Secretary. Even though he claims to call her “Congresswoman” and swears that he never once called her grandmother! Gotta love it!
Finally, and most importantly, there was the incident that occurred in May of 2008 in which Waters told Shell Oil President John Hofmeister at the House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws, that if he did not guarantee reduced gasoline prices in exchange for Congress allowing the oil industry to drill where it wished, she would favor socializing American petroleum companies (see the video below f0r proof). In a widely reported exchange, she stated: "Guess what this liberal will be all about, this liberal will be all about socializing....taking over and the government running all of your companies.” Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up.
This blogger doesn’t believe Ms. Waters is a socialist or that she is even necessarily a mean person, this blogger just believes that Ms. Waters is a flaming idiot.
First things first, anyone that is an adamant supporter of Jesse Jerkson err Jackson’s presidential bid is obviously lacking a few brain cells. In fact, Waters was Jesse Jackson's most vocal backer in both the 1984 and 1988 presidential races and was his campaign manager in the latter. In an article for the Nation, Waters wrote: "The Democrats cannot win the presidency without us and without Jackson and others who will work for the party." Obviously we don’t have a re-incarnated Nostradamus here.
She later popped up on the national radar during the L.A. Riots of 1990. Is it me or are we sensing the race card here? Seems that Ms. Waters loves to come out of hiding anytime an issue of race rears its ugly head. Getting back to the riots, however, Waters excoriated the urban policies of President Bush and former President Reagan and even went as far to make the remark that the riots were “the voice of the unheard." In a scathing editorial the conservative National Review claimed she was trying to shift the blame for the riots from the rioters to everybody and everything else and in the process was giving tacit permission to riot again.
Being in Chicago, we are familiar with what is known as the Chicago machine. This includes everything from corruption to nepotism. Speaking of nepotism, Waters has also been involved in these allegations. Maybe she should consider a change of scenery from her California roots? Apparently, her grandson, Mikael Moore, is also her Chief of Staff and Press Secretary. Even though he claims to call her “Congresswoman” and swears that he never once called her grandmother! Gotta love it!
Finally, and most importantly, there was the incident that occurred in May of 2008 in which Waters told Shell Oil President John Hofmeister at the House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws, that if he did not guarantee reduced gasoline prices in exchange for Congress allowing the oil industry to drill where it wished, she would favor socializing American petroleum companies (see the video below f0r proof). In a widely reported exchange, she stated: "Guess what this liberal will be all about, this liberal will be all about socializing....taking over and the government running all of your companies.” Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up.
This blogger doesn’t believe Ms. Waters is a socialist or that she is even necessarily a mean person, this blogger just believes that Ms. Waters is a flaming idiot.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
HUD commercial
Why is it that Liberals want to constantly remind white America that we should feel guilty of our past transgressions and that we are the root of all discrimination in this country? Add a new HUD (Housing and Urban Development) advertisement to this movement which I and many others have begun to call "White Guilt"!
As I was driving home from work today, I heard an ad that started out with a younger sounding (presumably white by his linguistics and tone of voice) man speaking with what sounded to be a woman representing a newspapers classified ad service.
The man began by saying that he has a two bedroom, 850 sq. ft. apartment for rent, with new floors, an outdoor patio, and that the cost is 1,000 usd. per month. Then comes the fun! As the lady is seemingly entering this into her computer, there is a brief pause, followed by the man stating "Oh, and by the way, can you put on the ad that I will not rent the apartment to any blacks, asians, indians or any other minority (no mention of whites)" and finishes with the statement "oh, and before I forget, make sure you put in the ad that dogs are allowed" as if to state that having a dog living in the house would be more acceptable than having a minority.
I can't begin to tell you how typical this is coming from a liberal organization such as HUD! I was so turned off by the ad, that I actually called the number given at the end of the advertisement. To be honest, I didn't know who I would reach, but I wanted to let them know that minorities are not the only people in this country that are discriminated against and that their commercial (in no other words) was a pile of crap.
Perhaps the funniest moment of this whole situation was when I finally got to the end of a long automated call in which they stated that the organizations hours are 9-5 and that I should leave a message (I never got to speak to a representative). What time was it you ask? 4:51. I love government workers!
As I was driving home from work today, I heard an ad that started out with a younger sounding (presumably white by his linguistics and tone of voice) man speaking with what sounded to be a woman representing a newspapers classified ad service.
The man began by saying that he has a two bedroom, 850 sq. ft. apartment for rent, with new floors, an outdoor patio, and that the cost is 1,000 usd. per month. Then comes the fun! As the lady is seemingly entering this into her computer, there is a brief pause, followed by the man stating "Oh, and by the way, can you put on the ad that I will not rent the apartment to any blacks, asians, indians or any other minority (no mention of whites)" and finishes with the statement "oh, and before I forget, make sure you put in the ad that dogs are allowed" as if to state that having a dog living in the house would be more acceptable than having a minority.
I can't begin to tell you how typical this is coming from a liberal organization such as HUD! I was so turned off by the ad, that I actually called the number given at the end of the advertisement. To be honest, I didn't know who I would reach, but I wanted to let them know that minorities are not the only people in this country that are discriminated against and that their commercial (in no other words) was a pile of crap.
Perhaps the funniest moment of this whole situation was when I finally got to the end of a long automated call in which they stated that the organizations hours are 9-5 and that I should leave a message (I never got to speak to a representative). What time was it you ask? 4:51. I love government workers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)