Are We Learning Anything?

The Diplomacy of the Obama Administration
During his campaign our President spent a considerable amount of time denouncing the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. He made bold statements about how we needed to talk more, listen more, and compromise. After his election, inside of three months, he went on an international tour in which he not only criticized the the former President, but essentially revoked decades of foreign policy. His plan was to establish a dialogue with countries such as Iran and North Korea, and to find some common ground with organizations such as the Palestinians, Hamas, the Taliban and Al Queda. This "new tone" and admission of "mistakes" that had been made on the past was supposed to endear us to these nations and reasonable leaders that just wanted someone to understand them; just wanted us to see their side of the issue.

So, how is that working out so far?

Lets look at just the last few weeks to really get a feel for which direction the world is going. Lets see if the world is a safer place when the the USA negotiates from a position of weakness.
First, Israel. President Obama has a meeting with Netanyahu, and "lays down the law". Telling Israel and Palestine how things are going to go and what they need to do to fix their problems. What is his plan? Appeasement of terrorist and more negotiations. The response: Hamas came out with statements that essentially negated the whole meeting. From the Jeruselum Post:

Hamas reacted with pessimism on Tuesday to the meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama, saying that while the comments made by the two leaders professed hope, they were really just meant to deceive the world.

"Obama's remarks and expressions of hope were intended to deceive the international community regarding everything connected to the continuing behavior and existence of the racist and radical Zionist entity," a spokesperson for the group said in a statement published early Tuesday morning.

The spokesperson added that Obama's remarks were nothing but an "ensemble of wishes" on which the group hangs little hope.

In other words - all your talking is useless until you do exactly what we want you to do. Which is essentially to get out of our way and let us destroy Israel. Who, by the way, was not exactly blown away by the charm and grand ideas of our President. They made it very clear that they will not bow down to the demands of the Obama administration:

"The demand for a total stop to building is not something that can be justified and I don't think that anyone here at this table accepts it," Netanyahu told his cabinet, referring to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, according to an official.

Netanyahu said Israel had no plans to set up any new West Bank settlements. But he told Obama, according to the official, that his government "does not accept limitations on building" within what Israel defines as its capital, the Jerusalem municipality, an area that includes Arab East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank captured in a 1967 Middle East war. Reuters

Then, during the same week, Iran (another country that Obama thinks we can negotiate with) not only test fires a missile capable of reaching Israel and US military bases, but it decides to send naval vessels out into international waters is a "show of force". While at the same time continuing to tell the rest of world that they are going to complete the development of their nuclear program.

Oh, and did you miss the story back in March where the Russians are moving their military back into this part of the world. They are working with Cuba and Venezuela on establishing bases for their bombers. Now, who would they be thinking about bombing in this part of the world? And don't forget how tight Chavez is getting with China and Iran. He is working with China on building oil rigs and the latest report is that he is the one supplying Iran with Uranium.

And last, but surely not least, North Korea goes ahead and detonates a NUCLEAR BOMB, then proceeds to test fire missiles capable of strikes within South Korea and Japan. Now they have announced that they are no longer going to be bound by the terms of the armistice that ended the Korean War and they will respond militarily to any attempts to prevent nuclear bomb making materials into their country.

Why is all of this happening now? What made all of these countries and dictators decide now was a good time for defiance? Because they know there is no one with the will to stand up to them. And it is not just conservative Americans that know this; the international community has figured it out too.

What will it take for President Obama to take a stand? Will he have the nerve and will to protect and defend this country and our allies? How many American deaths will it take? As has been said before: If you are not scared, you are not paying attention.

Remember...And Give Thanks

It is the very least we could do. Today is the day we as a Country have set aside to honor the fallen heroes of our armed services. It is a shame, really, that it usually takes an established holiday for us to truly acknowledge what our military does for us. It is even more shameful that the majority of us will not take the time to think about the importance of this day. It is the kickoff of the Summer, a day off from work, the end of the school year: It is so much more and should be honored as such. Take the time to thank a serviceman, visit a memorial or military cemetery, explain to your children what today is about, and pray for those that serve our country. Again, it is the least we could do.
Read the words of Ronald Reagan:

When our Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, they came not as conquerors, but as liberators... when our forces marched into Germany, they came not to prey on a brave and defeated people, but to nurture the seeds of democracy among those who yearned to be free again.

Today, in their memory, we celebrate the triumph of democracy... our alliance, forged in the crucible of war, tempered and shaped by the realities of the post-war world, has succeeded. The threat has been contained, the peace has been kept. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for. It is enough to say about all the men of honor and courage who fought for us decades ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.

Watch the video:


For more great comments and memorials to our heroes, please see Michelle Malkin's web site.

Whether you are Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, or anything in between, today be thankful to a soldier that you are free to think as you do, act as you please and be whomever or whatever you want. Those freedoms do not come without a cost.

To all of those who proudly serve: Thank You! Today we remember your sacrifices. It is the least we can do.

Like I Said Before...

...Read George Will. This editorial really nails the situation in California. It perfectly outlines the facts and motives behind California's ongoing financial collapse and impending bailout; places blame precisely where it belongs; and clearly defines the dangers of where this is all leading. What happens when the Obama administration bails out the State of California and tries to take over it's management? Just as it is doing with some of the largest businesses in the country? That is going to go well. The insanity is spreading.

Is anyone paying attention? California is in the beginning stages of what will inevitably happen to the country as a whole if we continue down this path to quasi-socialism and the era of the nanny-state. The process is fairly easy to follow:

• The politicians figure out that there is a large voting block that is, or wishes to be, dependent on the government for some portion of their life
• Said politicians instigate programs that further enable dependency
• Those who are dependent on the government programs begin to feel that it is their right to be supported by the government
• The dependents begin to demand more and more of their support be provided for, and politicians listen, because the dependents vote and are becoming more numerous
• Meanwhile, these programs have to be paid for; so the politicians have to raise revenues, and the only way they have to do that is through taxes.
• It goes pretty well at first: the voting block is happy, their numbers continue to increase and they outnumber the ones paying the taxes. So the politicians continue to get elected, which is all they are really interested in anyway.
• Then a curious thing starts to happen: the demands of the dependents start to overwhelm the resources of the government.
• About this time the government discovers that the rolls of the taxable are starting to decrease; or at least the amount of the revenue has reached its maximum.
• At this point the government has to make a decision: It cannot raise anymore money, so it has to start cutting services.
• Who suffers? Who gets to do without? And what do they get to do without? Well, the dependents have turned this choice over to the government, and the government has to start deciding what is important in their life.
• The starting point will be "tough decisions" that include the rationing of services. Some of the initial phases will include withholding medical care for non-essential treatments and prescriptions from those that might not really need them. And the government gets to decide who gets rationed. Don't think that is possible: just take a look at what is happening currently in the UK and Canada. Ask someone who lives there how long they have to wait to have a test performed; or which terminal patient has to do without meds that may make them comfortable. It is happening. NOW. In the great realms of socialized medicine, it is happening now, because there is not enough revenue to take care of everyone dependent on the system.
• It will have to continue, just cutting the medical will not be enough. It will continue. How far does it go? Does anyone remember bread lines in the Soviet Union? They were all dependent on the government, too; led to believe they would be provided for by the politicians they trusted.

Do we see the pattern? Can we not tell that California has reached capacity. It can no longer maintain services it has promised to provide it's citizens, and it can no longer raise taxes. The providers have had enough; the achievers have been bled dry.

What do they do now?

SAY WHAT?!?!?!?

I am very confused:

Wednesday the House passed a bill that had already been approved by the Senate that would make it legal to carry concealed and loaded weapons in National Parks. How did that get through the Democrat led Congress? A victory for the Second Amendment! Applause and accolades to those that voted to pass this bill.

Not only does it turn out that this is a positive statement for the 2nd, but also for State's rights. The wording of the bill respects the laws of the States, stating that the law would apply in States where State law allows it. Perhaps the most bizarre statement in the whole thing came from the office of Harry Reid:

A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), one of the Democratic backers of the bill, said Reid viewed the bill as defending the Second Amendment. (WP)

Harry Reid? HARRY REID?!?!?!? The lord high King Liberal himself (co-King with our President, of course) backing a bill defending the Second Amendment. I am very confused. Glad, but confused. There are still plenty unhappy about this of course.

"We have a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and we're passing more gun legislation than when there was a Republican in the White House," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate. "It's disappointing."

Don't get comfortable; don't think they are going to go away and let this lie. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Disturbing

There are couple of items out there that deserve some attention and some "big picture" thinking. Fox News reported Sunday about a bill that has been introduced for the stated purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of known or suspected terrorist. Now, there are several problems with this proposal, some of which are outlined in the article. Among the potential pitfalls is the simple definition of terms: what is a terrorist? Just last week the Department of Homeland Security released the list of "extremist" organizations. Are they going to be on the list of those denied their rights under the Second Amendment? Will I be told I cannot purchase a legal firearm because I belong to a religious organization the government considers extreme, or because I do not believe in abortion? And don't think the liberals are immune; they got there own version of the extremist watch list. How long before Greenpeace is denied a zodiac?

I think my biggest arguments against this bill are these:

1. How will this really effect the "terrorist". Don't get me wrong: I do not want someone just released from Guantanamo (you do remember the people they keep there are terrorist, right) to walk into the local gun show and leave with an AK-47. However, there are already laws in place to prevent that: required background checks, waiting periods, etc. In addition to that, when was the last time a terrorist used a gun as their weapon of choice? Munich? Look at the list: September 11th, box cutters and airplanes; USS Cole, explosives on a boat; US Embassies in Africa, explosives; Oklahoma City, explosives built with fertilizer. It goes on and on, no guns used. Especially in the US. Why? Because citizens have guns to fight back with! Once again, this is real clear: If you make it illegal for law abiding citizens to acquire a gun, the only people who will have guns will be the criminals. Do you really think that a terrorist is going to purchase a gun from your local gun dealer where it can be registered and traced? If they wanted one it be acquired underground; new laws on this subject just will not work. Odds are they will do more harm than good.
2. Possibly one of the most disturbing aspects of this is that we are continuing down a path of punishing people for what they think and believe rather than for anything they have done. Think about this real carefully: they are trying to pass a law that will deny an individual their rights guaranteed under the Constitution because of who they are, what they think or believe, what they say, or what group they might belong to. But not for anything they have actually done. This concept began with the passing of the "hate crime" laws. I have heard Neal Boortz speak many times on how dangerous these laws are. It is one thing to punish someone for their crime, but now they are increasing the punishment because of what you may have been thinking.

Where do we draw the line? They (read as "government", "establishment", "Democrats", "Liberals". Though I do have to say that the gun control measure was introduced by a Republican. But he could no more be a conservative then Specter was) keep trying to impose more and more restrictions on freedom. I learned from another blog site about a law proposed by a California Democrat that would jail bloggers for "hostile speech"; defined as speech that is meant to " coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Can you get any more blatant in your attempts to suppress free speech that may not agree with your point of view? Does it get any more unconstitutional than this?

I am not one that believes that our rights are guaranteed unconditionally. They come with an equal measure of personal responsibility in order to keep them; and, yes, they can be taken away if abused. I have the right to free speech, i can say anything I please. But, I am not free from the consequences of what I say. If I threaten you, or slander you, there are legal consequences to my words. Ask the Dixie Chicks about consequences. They had every right to say what they wished about our country and President, but they were not immune to the consequences of their words. Eight years later, you still cannot find them on a country radio station in the US.

I believe that I have the right to own firearms. But, if I use that weapon in a reckless manner or in the commission of a crime, that right can be taken away from me. And while I do not believe that any American needs to own a fifty caliber machine gun or a rocket launcher (and no, you do not hunt with them, the dinosaurs are dead), I think we are treading on very dangerous ground when we start making distinctions.

The same goes for the free speech issues. When you start drawing lines as to what is appropriate to say or write you start down the road of eliminating freedom. Our laws are designed to protect freedoms, not restrict them. The new laws that are being introduced over the last decade are intended to limit freedom; often at the expense of one group for the benefit of another. The Fairness Doctrine is a glaring example of this. It was not intended to be fair, it was intended to get conservative viewpoints off the airwaves; to eliminate the voices of opposition. Why? Because liberal views cannot be defended in a public debate with free exchange of information and ideas. Therefore, it does not sell in a talk radio format, which was really the target of the law in the first place. How long before that law is extended past the traditional mediums? Think they wont try and shut down political blogs? Read the context of the law mentioned above.

We are treading on very thin ice. Our basic freedoms are under attack. Read through the Bill of Rights. It is all about individual rights; the right of the citizen separate from a group or the government. How do the liberals feel about individual rights. Their Queen (Hillary Clinton) stated it best: "...We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively...". Care to know where you might find similar statements: "The Central Committee... vigorously condemns the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism." (N. S. Khrushchev: Report to the Central Committee, 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 1956; London; 1956; p. 80-81).

Where do you think we are heading?

Oh..., This Will Get Them Going

Be sure and send this to your angry liberal friends:

I have heard Boortz and Hannity speak before about how angry and unhappy liberals tend to be. They are overwhelmingly vindictive and personal in their attacks on conservatives and completely irrational in their approach to most arguments. When logic fails they will result to personal attacks on their opponent. Just look at the current barrage of attacks on Rush and Sarah Palin. They don't debate them on issues; they don't attack their opinions on policy; they go after their personal life. And they hold nothing back.

What's the point? Well, it turns out that liberal's are just generally unhappy people. A recent study reports that only about 30% of Democrats consider themselves to be happy, versus 45% percent of Republicans. There were some other "happiness" indicators that are sure to steam the Liberal groups: People who worship are happier than those who do not; rich are happier than poor; married happier than unmarried.

Some of the best parts of the article are the comments: Roc, Gabby 100 and nepher had some great remarks, especially roc. One of the best though just went to prove the whole point! Read the comments from Haoleman: how angry and unhappy does that person sound? taigsmum's rebuttal is right on point also. Logical, well thought out, not attacking; just a nice reasonable statement of position.

Better Than Me

I was going to comment on the mess that is the Chrysler bankruptcy and insane handover to the unions (see "profit motive" section of prior post). But, it seems George Will has beat me to the punch, and he is much more eloquent and skillful than I (he also comments on the CA debacle I referenced previously). Read his editorial; there is nothing I can add to it. For future reference: If George Will writes it, you should probably read it.

Follow Up - State's rights

Another Federal Power Grab
Friday the all powerful imperial federal government notified the sovereign State of California that they were going to play by the fed's rules, or else. Now, the short version of this infuriating story is that once again this administration is trampling all over State's rights and the 10th Amendment. The part that really gets my blood pressure up though is the details:

1. What is the nature of the threat? What are the feds going to do if CA doesn't shape up and do things the federal way? They are going to withhold "Stimulus" money from the state. To the tune of BILLION$ of DOLLAR$. OF OUR MONEY! Just for a refresher; the feds cannot give something to anyone that it has not first taken from someone else.
2. What was the great offense CA committed that brought down the ire of the almighty? They had the nerve to cut the portion of pay the state contributed to home health care workers. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot a really important word from the previous sentence: "unionized" health care workers. According to the LA Times article this group of workers contributes millions monthly in dues to two very influential unions. Do we need to discuss who the unions supported in the last election?

Now follow the progression here: the federal government passes an illegal stimulus plan; they need trillions of dollars to cover the commitments of this bill; the only way they can acquire the money is through taxation (their only way to generate revenue) or debt - which will have to be paid back later with ... taxes; they are going to insist that these taxes they have confiscated for this illegal bill be used to pay union wages. My head just might explode. Welcome to payback time. Our President is wasting no time returning the favors of those that helped to get him elected.

By any other name....

So, you don't like the sound of "Global Warming"? Not to worry; we will just change the name of one of the most politically charged issues of our time in mid stride. That way you might not notice that we are changing the rules in mid stream. A N.Y. times article yesterday reports that the environmentalist have decided that the reason they are losing the battle has to do with terminology instead of flawed ideology. Their focus groups have informed them that people do not like the term "Global Warming", so they are going to call it something different like "Climate Change". Yea, that sounds better.

The problem they ran into is that the temperatures stopped going up. We got through a warming trend in the 80's and 90's and suddenly temperatures started dropping again and returned to what was considered normal. Amazing! Seeing as how warming and cooling trends have occurred throughout the earth's history, even before man had the capability of having any influence on the climate. So now they are taking the tactic of toning down the language; making it sound less confrontational. Add the dropping temps to the fact that people now have other things to worry about and they are really losing ground. It seems that when the economy was booming and we were not real concerned about terrorist or our jobs, that the environment starting scoring as important in the polls. Why not? I have nothing else to be concerned about, lets save the planet! Now we get to 2009: the world is an unstable place, the economy is taking a beating, people are losing jobs. And what do the latest polls show? Global warming ranked last in a list of 20 concerns people were asked about.

So, what do we do now? Well, lets change the game plan. We are no longer concerned about the environment or global warming. We are concerned about you and your well being.

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington. (NY Times)

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? What happened to the great principles of Saving the Planet? Here is another goody:

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

Don't "confuse people with cap and trade"? Let's just not talk about one of the most economically damaging policies introduced in 60 years. Scare people instead and talk about "refunds". Where do these refunds come from? Those of us paying taxes, that's who.
So the pollsters and advertisers have decided that "climate change" is easier to sell than "global warming." The real problem is that none of them are really interested in saving anything. They are only concerned about bringing about destruction; specifically, the destruction of capitalism. Any perceived damage to the environment is placed directly at the feat of "greedy, evil big business." If they were really concerned with change for the better, they would get out of the way of nuclear power. It is clean and efficient and SAFE. The left are always wanting to follow their socialist brethren in France. Why not follow their lead on this issue? France converted 80% of their power grid in 3 years. No meltdowns.

Sorry folks; I have to agree with Boortz on this one. The environmental movement is nothing more than defeated communist with a new platform. Their cause is the same, the defeat of capitalism. Just the names are changed.

Seriously.........?

There was an article in the Washington Post this week titled "U.S. in Control: Its goal to fix, not run firms." Seriously? Does someone actually believe this? I find it very difficult to to believe that at any time during this process of Nationalizing some of the largest industries in the country that there has ever been any intention of reversing what they started. The intention all along has been to take over these companies and make them a government run enterprise. There are several problems with this concept:

1. It is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional and against every principle established for this countries' government and economy. We are the greatest economy in the world because we are capitalist, not socialist.
2. If, and that is a really big "IF", the goal is actually to fix these companies, the wrong people are in charge. You cannot put a bureaucrat in charge of a business. They are not compatible endeavors. These are lifelong politicians and government employees that have no concept how to run an efficient and profitable organization. Which brings us to ...
3. There has to be a profit motive to have a successful business. A government employee, bureaucrat or politician has no understanding of the concept of profit, and profit is what these business have to have in order to be turned around.

Sticking with point number 3 for a moment: As the largest shareholder in the companies that the Obama administration is taking over, they are starting to implement the policies they think are appropriate for the task at hand. The problem, as pointed out in the WP article, is that the administration is trying to use these companies to achieve their political agenda. They are "in the awkward position of balancing public policy goals with the financial interests of taxpayers as investors in these ailing corporations." The overriding problem that everyone seems to overlook is that it is essentially impossible to accomplish these task simultaneously. A couple of examples:

• Affordable housing and the Mortgage industry - look at what the administration has in mind for Freddie and Fannie. Again from the WP:
  

Having committed $400 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government is directing them to carry out big parts of the Obama administration's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, a $75 billion effort launched last month. The program aims to restructure mortgages that borrowers cannot afford, bolster the sagging housing market and bring down interest rates on home loans.

Does this not sound familiar to anyone? No sense of deja vu? This is how the mortgage industry got in trouble in the first place! If you manipulate the housing market by giving mortgages to people that cannot afford them you are asking for disaster. The Clinton administration encouraged (forced) the same practice resulting in the current problems with the banking and mortgage industry. Giving someone a mortgage they cannot afford will result in foreclosure; bad for the bank, bad for the housing industry, bad for the consumer. Oh, and the mortgage companies that are supposedly being "fixed"? They make money on interest received from loan payments being made. How does a policy of giving away bad mortgages help the mortgage company? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. There is no sound business reason to offer these mortgages, only government intervention with no profit motive.

But the choices the government is making for the companies potentially stand in the way of returning them to profitability, the companies have said. Executives must choose between making decisions that benefit the housing market or save taxpayer dollars. "These initiatives are likely to have a significant adverse effect on our financial results or condition," Freddie Mac warned in its regulatory disclosure.(WP)

• The auto industry has the potential to be an even bigger disaster. With cap and trade on the horizon and the environmentalist running the asylum, there is a realistic possibility that the new bosses are going to insist on increasing production of low profit electric and hybrid vehicles. Combine that with being connected at the hip with the UAW and the government controlled auto companies don't stand a chance.

The only real chance these business that have been taken over by the government have is the fact that they can continue to count on Big Brother to take money from taxpayers that have actually earned it and pumping it into their company. What happens when that well runs dry? What if Atlas were to Shrug? Read the book by Ayn Rand. It will frighten you to your core.