A Persistent Source of Annoyance

I'm sure I do far more complaining about the (very) conservative republicans who I'm surrounded by than is absolutely necessary. But quite a lot of it is true. And they do annoy me. And since this is my blog, I'm allowed to complain about them all I like, no matter how much this is going to come back to bite me in the rear at some point in the future.

With the election season really getting started now (you know, what with the GOP having finally chosen their death, Romney having officially made a complete fool of himself numerous times, and Obama being hailed as All Things Good by the left), it seems that the beautiful citizens of this great nation are falling all over themselves to proclaim which party hack it is they want to live in the White House for the next four years.

do we want this unprincipled corporatist hack

Everybody from a Walmart checker to the people in our local government get in on this ritual. No joke, I encountered a Walmart checker a couple days ago who, seeing my mom's Ron Paul shirt, asked who she was going to vote for now that Paul wasn't in the running (I give her props for actually knowing who's in the race. That takes work. Sort of). My mom's response, that she was going to vote for Gary Johnson, was greeted with a huffy, disbelieving stare, as if she'd just said that she was going to sacrifice her children on the altar of the liberal media.

I don't know. Maybe this lady thought that was what she said. In any case, she recycled the old lines--about how Romney was the "best choice" we had, how we "couldn't live through another four years of Obama", and how we "only have two choices anyway."

or this one oh gosh choices choices so difficult halp us world

So perhaps the last part's true. Maybe we really do only have two choices that have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected--and these two choices are so alike in all but a few aspects, that they might as well be one. Add to that the fact that only one of those two "choices" will, realistically, have anything close to a shot. Romney lacks the charisma and broad appeal that his opponent has in plenty. So in reality, the entire machine of American media and politics has presented me with one option, wearing two different faces, with only one face that will actually manage to "win".

And I really just don't like that much. Perhaps it's simply the overwhelmingly almost-anarchist part of myself. Perhaps it's simply that I'm a rebellious teenager and can't stand authority. Either way, I don't like being told how to vote.

Besides that, I don't think that our system is supposed to be a sort of one-size-fits-all, let's stick to the status quo kind of thing. Remember that whole freedom and justice and no-taxation-without-representation thing that people once fought a war over? Yeah, that. Perhaps you've read about it. I get this distinct feeling that those guys wouldn't have quite approved of the current idea of what a free election is supposed to be. I think they would vote for the person who most accurately reflected their own ideas, and to the dickens with whatever the rest of the world.

And so, as this gentleman stated, I am voting for Gary Johnson, and not because he will win. I am voting for him because he ought to win, and that's really all that matters.

This is Not a Joke

This morning, the Obama campaign sent out an email to all their supporters--plus two ardent libertarians who like to laugh at said emails--that was, of course, full of self-congratulatory propaganda. What else do you expect from the beautiful American election cycle? Freedom? Choice? A hassle-free consideration of all the options?

Of course not. That's naive and idealistic. No, what works far better is being beat over the head by how one side's right and the other's wrong...from both sides. But don't worry. It's for your own good. After all:

We also know that candidates who take these extreme positions can, in the right circumstances, win not only a primary but also a general election in just about any state.

It's true. And we just can't expect you to know who to vote for, so we have to kindly inform you that, number one, all the Republicans are corporatist hacks. Even though Barack Obama received more in corporate funds than any other candidate in the 2008 elections. Not to mention the horror of this:

The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

Yes. That evil, extremist Tea Party that's led by...Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney, who has all but said that he wants to do the same things as Obama, just dressed up in a facade of conservative Christian principles. Just like practically every other Republican. Including Santorum and Perry and Gingrich and Bachmann. And especially Huntsman. And other than the obvious that the troops were supposed to be brought out of Iraq in December--Wall Street isn't capitalist, Medicare is already broken, gay rights and abortion don't belong on the federal docket... and Social Security is both already gutted and bankrupt anyway.

In closing, it is interesting to note how, sometimes, the Democrats seem to realize more about the Republican party than the Republicans do.

But it's curious that no one can really explain how, when or why the 70-plus percent of Republicans saying in polls and in Iowa that Mitt Romney's not their candidate will suddenly come around.

Yes, that is a curious thing to try and explain. Which is probably why Mitt Romney shan't win, and Obama will have to contend either with the Flavor of the Day, Santorum, or Ron Paul--I mean, He Who Shall Not Be Named. We'll see how that works out.

"Anyone But Obama"

Last night's GOP debate sickened me. There were a few exceptions, of course--Ron Paul's answers were, typically, quite good, and Romney was surprisingly well reasoned in a few places. Gingrich was his usual slimy self, and I've discovered that Huntsman just doesn't sit well with me; he strikes me as too much of an oily politician playboy for me to enjoy listening to him talk. Bachmann regaled us with her usual ignorance and then protestations that she wasn't ignorant, sprinkled with several ill-timed jabs against Obama, Santorum trailed behind the rest of the candidates, and Ron Paul made everybody uncomfortable when he said Iran wasn't a threat--and was heartily ridiculed by the commentators, who set themselves up as "rational Americans".

And then we reached the end of the debate, and I decided that the Republican Party, en masse, has entered their bid for a personal vendetta. Because winning this election isn't about helping the American people. It isn't about lowering taxes. It isn't about bringing freedom back into our society. Heck, it isn't even about the triumph of civil discourse over the evil liberal hordes.

No, of course not. This election is about one man: Barack Obama, duly elected ruler of the United States of America. At least, according to everyone but Ron Paul at last night's debate. Apparently, the GOP field has only one goal, and that goal trumps all others: to beat Barack Obama on November 6, 2012.

Naturally, this sentiment was heartily embraced by Newt Gingrich, who is convinced that he (with his upstanding moral record and his proven ability to follow through on his political promises) is the only one who can beat Obama. In fact, he had quite the moment up on stage as he all but said--"If you don't vote for me, you're voting for Obama and you'll rot in hell." The others heartily backed up this sentiment (except of course for Ron Paul, who offered a somewhat inspiring speech about political discourse and its place), and every single one of them managed to put in a plug about their future administrations. Of course.

But what really concerns me is that so many people who aren't sitting on a cushion are buying into this idea. That is, the idea that anybody (absolutely anybody) would be better than Obama.

Hey, at least his replacement wouldn't be a Democrat.

Because that makes a whole ton of difference, you know. I mean, it kept Obama from starting wars--just like Bush--and giving out taxpayer money to wasteful businesses--just like Bush--and ramping up government control of things that aren't theirs to control--just like Bush--and used the media to propagandize the public so they'd accept ridiculous security measures--just like Bush. As we can see, having someone from a different party in office can completely change the government's policies. And changing from "Democrat" to "Republican" next year will completely reverse this trend. Because a Gingrich/Romney/Bachmann/Perry/Santorum administration would be utterly different from an Obama one.

Honest.

Let's just put it this way: If I see another "Anyone but BO" bumper sticker, I think I'll puke.

Drama in High Places

President Obama, in attempting to curry favor with the Republican bloc, has made his own party just a tad angry. The President finally reached some sort of compromise with the Republicans on the issue of tax cuts. To give you the short story- they're being extended. Again. And economists are predicting we'll be $900 billion deeper into our deficit before they expire again.

Of course, the one thing everybody is forgetting is that, if we didn't have so much darn spending on our plate, to the tune of some 3,500 billion, we might not have to levy so many taxes. But since that logic is soooo fourth grade, we're not going to go that route. No siree. It's so much more fun to dig ourselves deeper into debt, but hey, at least we'll be happy while we do it! Sort of.

On another note, I thought I'd say something about the drama surrounding the Wikileaks fiasco.

Heh. I find it ridiculous, the furor that's arising over all this. Our government is paralyzed with fear that, horror of horrors, we'll figure out what backroom deals they've been negotiating, where our money is being sent, and what they've been doing in other countries all these years.

In any case, I don't understand why some people are calling for Assange to be either thrown in jail to rot for all eternity, or, alternately, to be hunted down like an al Qaeda operative. Meh. If we're going to hunt him down like we do the leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban, Mrs. Palin, he's quite safe. Trust me on this one. Of course, if we're going to hunt down Assange that way, then it would also make sense to hunt down some New York Times writer or editor or somebody. Yes, indeed.

In any case, I think much of the blustering is just attempted distraction. Our government doesn't want the rest of the world to suddenly realize that we've been total junior-highers and have been saying bad things about them behind their backs, not to mention trying to pull all sorts of shenanigans. That would be bad. v.v

Obama...Muslim?

So I was thinking about this the other day. And you know, if Obama is a Muslim, he is an incredibly backslidden one.

You see, to be a true Muslim one has to follow the "Five Pillars of Islam-" Iman (faith), Salah (prayer), Zakah (tithing), Sawm (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage).

So I haven't seen Obama doing ritualized fasting like Ramadan, because I'm sure we'd have seen something about how he doesn't eat until the sun goes down. One pillar down. Nor, to my knowledge, has he made a Hajj to Mecca. That's two. We don't see Obama praying five times a day (something else we most assuredly would have heard about, and that would have been passed around the Republican blogosphere and radio). There's three pillars. Nor have I seen Obama pronounce Iman, as he should if he is a Muslim.

So hence, even if Obama ever was or is now a Muslim, he is a severely backslidden one.

Bushama the Valiant

Yet more proof that there is really very little difference between Bush and Obama- unless, of course, you count the fact that Obama seems to be more commited to the wars than Bush ever was. Especially given this tidbit from this article (written, by the way, by a republican sympathizer):

"But Obama has rejected this advice and instead increased the Bush defense budget from $513 billion in fiscal year 2009 to $537 billion for fiscal year 2010 and $549 for 2011. If defense budgets are one of the best indicators of the direction of policy, Obama's defense budgets mark him as no leftist."

And so we discover that Obama is not only a quasi-Republican, at least in defense issues, but he's even more Republican defense-wise than Bush was!

Big surprise.

Thanks to Don Emmerich for the link to the article. :)

State of the Union, Part II

See Part I here...and yes, this is still overdue. ^.^

"Let's try common sense, a novel concept."

Something that will never cease to amaze me- both sides claim to be on the side of 'common sense'. Does that make sense at all? Of course, the logical conclusion is that neither of them has common sense on their side.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

As I've said, I can't really find it in me to dislike this move. For starters, I think a lot would be helped if Americans would actually pay attention, and let those little alarm bells go off when they see someone getting an excess of money from corporations. Sadly, that doesn't happen so often anymore. So I can see the danger with this move by the Court.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities."

Unfortunately, the entirety of America is bankrolled by foreign countries. Let us think of the Federal Reserve- a central bank run by foreign investors. Our government is trillions of dollars in debt with other countries. That's not foreign bankrolling, oh no, not at all.

"Now, I'm not naive. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony and some post-partisan era."

Especially not when Obama himself is so extremely partisan, he can't do a single thing without mentioning the opposite party as some sort of scape goat- when both parties are equally to blame.

"But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home."

Something I can agree with. And I hope it isn't just rhetoric, because if it is, I'll be very disappointed. But I would like to say that I agree with his current plan to bring the troops in Iraq home by this August. I think that is commendable- if they don't get shipped out again to Pakistan within the month, which, from the sound of Obama's rhetoric, might very well happen.

"That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation and stronger sanctions, sanctions that are being vigorously enforced."

Sanctions only hurt ordinary people. The ordinary people are the ones who get hurt because of the limits bigger countries impose on them. It is wrong. Yes, nukes may be terrible, but is it really any of our business whether they have them or no? Have we considered that maybe they'd like to be able to defend themselves from other countries?

"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law, you should be protected by it, if you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else."

For someone who constantly talks about the Constitution, he really understands very little about it. Especially, oh you know, those little parts about the limits on the government.

"This year -- this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do."

For the record, gay people aren't kept from serving. They just aren't supposed to trumpet it to the skies. And I don't see why they should want, or feel the need, to. Does anyone care which sex you engage in relations with? I certainly do not, and I don't see how it should have any bearing on your military service, job status, or your life outside of the personal.

Anyway. I have effectively reached the end of this review. The rest of his speech was just like the beginning- talking about how great America is (or possibly just was) and how we have to move forward...

Obama and Executive Power

Apparently, Obama is still having trouble pinning down that slippery Constitution stuff. Especially the second article.

He's making plans to use his executive power (whatever that is) to advance his agenda.

From the article:
"But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign."

I love it. I've seen both sides do this- the Republicans lose their majority, and the Democrats are just evil. The Democrats lose a majority, and the Republicans are evil. It has nothing to do with their policies and the fact that the American people are sick of them, and that their ideas have failed. Oh no. It's Fox News' fault. Or CNN's fault.

Anyway.

The article claims that the executive branch has the power to basically pass legislation through executive orders, and 'administrative fiat'. Um, I could be totally off-base, but I don't think that was what those things were intended to do.

Another way our lovely President is trying to get around his now-divided Congress is through threatening to use his recess appointment power. That's pretty wrong, if you ask me. He's forcing Congress' hand, and that's not how it's supposed to be.

Once again from the article:
"Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so."

This kind of stuff completely defeats the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution instituted three major branches of government, and they did that so that no one branch could grab too much power- thus keeping the people safe. (Of course, the Constitution also operates from the basic premise that the people actually care one whit about it and what their leaders do.)

Obama, in my estimation, doesn't even deserve kudos for trying. He's trying to circumvent the Constitution, and that just doesn't work well.

State of the Union, Part I

**I know, I know, I was supposed to do this last week. Shoot me. :P**

Well, I'm going to read over the transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address, and comment on a few of his comments...and politely applaud if I actually agree with him. :P And yes, it's late. Oh well. ^.^

First off, I'd like to rant about the many times applause interjected. It was quite annoying. Like really, really, really incredibly annoying.

Simply put, at least at first, President Obama's address seemed to be yet more of the hopey-changey mumbo jumbo we were subjected to during the campaign. Nothing much of consequence, no real solutions offered; just "moving forward" and hope. Yeah, sorry, but moving forward doesn't pay the bills.

"And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal."

He hated the bank bailouts? Well we sure didn't see that when he was pushing for them so hard, and when he quite eagerly crammed it into his budget, despite the economic ramifications that would almost certainly ensue (chief among them a higher debt and deficit, higher taxes, more spending on a federal level, but less on a state and individual level).

"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."

He cut taxes on small businesses. Really? My dad owns his own business, as I think I've mentioned before. This year, he paid $12,000 in taxes. Twelve thousand dollars. My family is not rich; my dad's business is not rich. He has five employees, plus a CPA. This year, we couldn't even draw a profit check. Yet our capital gains taxes went up.

I'd also like to add that just because paper says a business made a 'profit' doesn't mean they have that money. On paper, my dad's electrical company made a profit. Yet we have no extra money in the business' bank account. **Pet Peeve Moment**

"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act."

Ah. So the fact that the American people are just resilient has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the market is doing its job, at least in part. Oh no. It was all the doing of the Almighty Government.

I'd also like to point out that...um...well, most of that money hasn't even been spent. So unless they managed to (through some conniving on the part of the Fed, no doubt) stretch each dollar by several hundred thousand, I don't see how that much good came out of the little they actually spent. (The rest is, apparently, still sitting in a treasury somewhere. Or currently coming off the presses in the Federal Reserve mint.)

"And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America."

Excellent idea. I mean, like imagine that- companies leave because they have to pay high taxes!

But just giving them tax breaks isn't enough. One of the most basic rules of economics is that people will not do things unless there is an incentive to do them. If there is no incentive (money) for companies to hire people here, they won't- and I don't think miniscule tax breaks will do much to add said incentives.

We need to make it easier for companies to keep workers, especially smaller businesses. They can't, not because there aren't enough tax breaks, but because they have to a) pay so much to their workers, b) pay so much in benefits to their workers, and c) they have to pay so many taxes for their workers.

Yes, yes, we all feel sorry for the poor laborers of America who unjustly toil while their evil bosses, the ones who really benefit from capitalism, drive them unmercifully hard. But then again, that picture isn't real. So it's really a nonissue.

Workers in America don't need to be paid so much. There's something messed up when a person can get paid $7.50 an hour at Walmart for putting my bleach and apples together. Pay should be by merit, not by what the government says employers have to pay. This is simple- if someone does a good job, they get more money. If they do a crappy job, they don't get money. Too bad for them. Maybe they'll grow up and see that "Hey, I need to do a better job!"

Something I just noticed- Obama likes setting Goals. Perhaps we should give him a button- Honorary Goal Setter of the United States of America.

"Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job."

What constitutes "a good job"? Sorry, but not everybody can have a job that pays $100,000 a year. We have to have garbage men and plumbers and electricians and sewer scrubbers and all sorts of other people. Those are still good jobs. We need people who can flip burgers and stock shelves and sew shirts and do nails. Those are still good jobs.

Someone has to do them. And if everybody has a college degree, there will be no one to flip burgers or take out the garbage or clean out our blocked sewers or fix our lights. Then your college degree is pretty much worthless. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to pursue their dreams...but people shouldn't be pushed to do something they cannot feasibly do, whether because of money, time, or other constraints. That is just as wrong. (And besides, I've met a few people whose highest goal is to be a garbage man or a plumber.)

"And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service..."

...Wow. No. This isn't how debt works. If people get into debt so they can go to college, that's their problem. Too bad for them. If they knew they wouldn't be able to pay for it, they shouldn't have gone, or they should have made better money choices.

Secondly, I don't think we should be telling college students the taxpayer will foot the bill for them. My goal is to be able to either work or pay my way through college. Yeah, it might be difficult. It probably will be. But I'm not going to steal from others, or chain myself to a huge debt because I couldn't plan ahead and manage my money.

Of course, I do think college tuition could go down. Significantly. How much they charge for the privilege of going to college is nuts, and I'm pretty sure those deans and board members aren't exactly hurting for money. They could lower rates. (But they won't, because they know their education can only be gotten in certain places, they're some of those places, and people will pay whatever it takes.)

"I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics."

Nevertheless, it is good politics, and I haven't seen anything but rhetoric that says otherwise. The political reality is this- if he doesn't get this passed ASAP, he's going to be in big trouble with his base.

It still amazes me how much Obama throws into the Federal government's court. Sorry, but ensuring everyone has affordable coverage is not the Federal government's job. You might- might- be able to swing it through state governments. But not the Federal government. It is so unconstitutional on so many levels. That is the job of the free markets and (my, here's a concept!) the people. If people wouldn't blindly follow the insurance companies and their elected officials (*coughRepublicanscough*) we would be in a lot smaller mess.

"By -- by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

This I can agree with. Bush did do a lot of bad things, and a lot of it left us a lot deeper in debt. But that doesn't mean Obama has to continue the process. I thought the point of "Change" was to change the past administration's bad policies and find good ones...not just continue the old bad ones.

"I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do, but families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."

Agreed. Like oh, cutting back on spending. And to be quite frank, adding trillions to the debt heap with a healthcare bill that won't do a thing isn't going to help us dig out of said debt heap. Believe me.

"To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it."

We could if we'd start scaling back programs that are already bankrupt and have fundamental flaws. Like Medicare. Instead of adding more bandaids to the huge gash in it, let's just let it go down. Or welfare. Too many people are dependent on it. Wean them off. Or the Department of Education. Guzzles money, and our literacy rates are declining. Let's rethink that one, make it so that it works better, for less money.

Or Social Security. Good idea, bad results. Too many people get it, too much taxes get taken to pay for it. DHS, TSA...yeah, those could go and I don't think anyone would cry bucket loads of tears. The wars. And our foreign bases. Excess foreign aid. All those things could go, and there are other things I'm sure I'm missing...or rather, it would take much too long to list them all. Like the Administration on Aging. Or the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee (Seriously, it's a real committee).

Endless Programs, Endless Possibilities for Fund Reduction.

"And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."

Something that would really help us- either bribing the Federal Reserve, or getting rid of it. It has a past history of artificially inflating our currency, then letting it plummet back- or the other way around. Either way, it isn't good. Now, I see no problem with a pay-as-you-go policy. It's actually quite a wise way to do things. But um, well, I don't think it'll help much when the Senators keep raising their incomes. And sending money to special interests. Nope nope nope.

"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.

The problem is, that's what we did for eight years."

Actually, that's really not what we did for eight years. What we did for eight years is Regulate, Spend Some More, Start A War, Make A Gaffe, Distract the Pesky People, Start Another War, Regulate, Spend Some More...

Not exactly a recipe for success, or debt reduction.

Part II soon to come.

Current Events

Yes, yet another combined-issue post. I've been pretty busy lately, trying to raise funds for a missions trip to Africa I'm taking this summer. But I thought I'd just go over a few recent issues, and give my take.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abdulmutallab too

The Obama admin caved. They're not going to hold Mohammed's trial in NYC anymore, which really shows yet another incredible lack of political backbone. But I digress. Apparently, too many people found it unpalatable for him to be tried in NYC, which for myself I see as a very proper venue. It would show that we're not afraid to face our past demons.

(And of course, any event like this can't go without its mention of the most recent big, bad, scary terror plot- this time in the form of the "Underwear Bomber". Dianne Feinstein, a senator from California, stated-
"Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qaeda and its affiliates," (!!!!) "Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat."

I find it quite hilarious that people actually think this kid who couldn't even light the bomb right was actually part of al Qaeda. We're talking about the organization that managed to coordinate attacks on some of the most famous landmarks in the US, not to mention plan and execute simultaneous attacks on embassies thousands of miles apart. And this kid, who had a bomb that wouldn't even take out his own seat, is representative of their organization?! Yeah, sure.)

Anyway, back to Mohammed. A bunch of people have been protesting trying Mohammed in NYC- or anywhere on US soil. Why? Well, you never know- it just might be that American values might forever be undermined if we were to take this incredibly drastic step.

Of course, this move is not without precedent. Bush also tried al Qaeda and other terror suspects- in civilian courts. 87 terror suspects, in fact. And (just an interesting little tidbit), Bill O'Reilly (one of the most outspoken voices against trying Mohammed on US soil) vigorously defended Bush's decision to allow these trials to move forward!

Healthcare and Scott Brown

Scott Brown the Republican Liberal won Massachusets, and thereby ensured that a watered-down version of healthcare reform will get through. I say watered down because he does want socialized healthcare, but just doesn't think the current plan will adequately fix things.

I happen to agree with him on the latter point. But I also happen to think we don't need another plan. I think his idea that individual states should take care of healthcare (though he seems to only half-heartedly believe in that, at best) is a good one, not to mention Constitutional.

'Course, Obama has already decided his healthcare bill ain't doing so hot, and has switched to other issues, probably in an attempt to dispel murmurs against him in the Democratic phalanx. (I think his time could be better spent trying to get DOMA or the PATRIOT act repealed, like he promised.

Middle Eastern Issues

So we're toughening sanctions on Iran (and planning to launch missiles at them), Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban, an imam got shot by American troops in Kabul, and the Brits are doing investigations into Tony Blair's (Former Prime Minister of the UK) conduct concerning Iraq.

To start with Iran- I have to wonder what morality we're appealing to that gives us the right to impose sanctions on anyone, especially someone who is innocent. And Iran, to all appearances, is innocent. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that they don't have nukes, have never had nukes, and have no intention of having nukes anytime in the near future.

And, lets face it, sanctions do very little except make third-world countries even worse off. Cuba, a country that has had sanctions against it for years (while we simultaneously do business with them) is no closer to getting rid of Communism now than it was ten years ago. The people are starving, but our lofty goals of ridding the world of evil...mm, well not much progress. That is all sanctions do, in any case- rid the average people of food and supplies they need to survive.

Karzai, our lovely puppet-President in Afghanistan is opening peace/"moving forward" talks. At least he's trying. In fact, the Taliban (with the interesting stipulation that they must be "moderate" Taliban) is invited to said talks.

And the Brits are investigating Tony Blair, their former Prime Minister. Why? Because of Iraq, and his ardent support of it (and his friend, Bushie). I applaud the Brits for their ability to do so. I think we ought to do the same thing to Bush, but that might just be me. Of course, we lack the British capability to detach ourselves from our emotional turmoil. It might not work here.

Corporate Campaign Contributions?

As most of you probably know, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a 2001 ban (Feingold-McCain) on corporate campaign contributions. I agree. Sort of, and let me explain.

I see nothing wrong with corporations exercising the first amendment right to free speech, which includes using money as leverage in a political campaign. But I also think that voters should be informed enough to watch where their prospective elected officials are getting their money.

Hence, if prospective Senator Ronald McDonald has gotten $200,000 in campaign donations from McDonalds, it might be wise for voters to wonder if there is some sort of ulterior connection between said Ronald McDonald and McDonalds, and decide their vote accordingly.

***

I can't help thinking there was something else I needed to cover. Oh well. I'm going to be doing a post on the President's State of the Union sometime this week...a week after he gave the speech. But it should be up here soon. :)

The 'Healthcare' Plan

“Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke. What could possibly go wrong?”

(Unquiet Voice)

Bush-ism With a Human Face

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

Waaaay back in the 1960s — yes, during that tiresome decade of Woodstock and flower power and Vietnam — something remarkable happened in Czechoslovakia.

From the end of World War II in 1945 until 1989, Czechoslovakia was dominated by the Soviet Union, which was the 20th-century’s nom de voyage for the Russian Empire. Its official ideology was communism. Its official governing method was oppression.

In 1968, a reformer named Alexander Dubček became leader of the Czech Communist Party, which was the country’s ruling party. He wanted to keep the egalitarian goals of communism (such as equality and social welfare) but get rid of its oppressive aspects. His government allowed free speech, including open dissent from government policies. He reined in the secret police.

Dubček called his movement “communism with a human face.”

Naturally, the Russians couldn’t allow it. They invaded Czechoslovakia and put an end to that experiment.

How little things have changed. In 2009 under President Obama, the United States is now being treated to “Bush-ism with a human face.”

One must admit that it is a slight improvement. Instead of having to endure the smirking, murderous, simian countenance of Dubya Bush, we now hear very similar policies from the serious, calm, intelligent visage of President Obama. It cuts the nausea factor by quite a bit. It’s been months since I threw my shoes at the TV set.

But it’s still Bush-ism: Bail out the Wall Street sharks who wrecked the economy, but not the unemployed whose jobs and lives the Wall Streeters destroyed. Sell out health care reform to the in$urance companies, the drug companies, and their hired lackeys in Congress. Crank up the war against Afghanistan. Slow down the exit from Iraq. Beat the drums about largely imaginary terrorist threats. Provide legal defense for the Bush regime’s chief torture apologist, John Yoo. Leave in place the instruments of oppression established by the Bush regime, such as the Transportation Security Agency, no-fly lists, warrantless wiretapping, and the Department of Homeland Security: instruments that never stopped a real terrorist threat, but hyped plenty of fake ones and beat down the American people into cowed submission lest they be put on a “watch list.”

An article in today’s New York Times recalls the worst paranoia and propaganda of the Bush years, when hapless loudmouths and street thugs were framed as dangerous terrorists. The Times article, “Domestic Insecurity,” uses the same weasel-words that we saw over and over in propaganda from the Bush-Cheney regime: the supposed terrorists were “accused of being drawn into terrorist scheming,” “accused of helping plan the killing spree in Mumbai,” “accused of going to Pakistan for explosives training,” and they “allegedly participated in a rocket attack against U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”

Anyone can be accused of anything, and since the Bush-Cheney regime’s signature event of 9/11, they have been. Jose Padilla was accused of plotting to explode a “dirty bomb,” and was then tortured in an unsuccessful attempt to get any evidence at all that would implicate him in such a plot. The “Miami Seven,” who couldn’t have assembled a bomb even if they’d bought it “ready to assemble” at Wal-Mart, were led by an FBI agent provocateur to take an “oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda” before being framed for a virtually non-existent plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. There are many more such cases.

Are any of our current “accused people” actually guilty of anything? The Bush years taught us to doubt it. The Obama administration hasn’t given us good reasons not to doubt it.

I still believe that President Obama is trying to do the right things. The problem is that he’s not trying very hard. Instead, he’s “going with the flow.” Since 2001 (and even before that, to a lesser degree), the flow has been in the wrong direction.

Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com/) are included.

Afghanistan Part II

The second part to my former Afghanistan post- which is below.

I am critiquing President Obama's recent strategy/policy speech for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. "

Yes and only we can do that. Because we are the all-important American people. The fact that we did this to two countries already (well, maybe not the second one...not all the way) is of no import. The only thing that matters right now is that....

Terrorists are evil. They want to kill us. Allah is evil. Muslims are evil. Terrorists are evil. Kill them!!!

"We will insist that action be taken, one way or another, when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets."

I have an idea. When you hear about some high-level al-Qaeda operative somewhere...send an assassin! A good assassin- you know, like one from a movie or something. It would be cheaper, and vastly more effective than our current regimen of invade - occupy - switch countries.

"The government's ability to destroy these safe havens is tied to its own strength and security."

I love how he makes it sound like we're going to be helping the Pakistani people. They don't want our help. They've been feeding us low-lifes from the Taliban for years- many of whom have absolutely no knowledge of anything.

And now we're going to invade them. Despite his high-flown words, that is basically what we're doing. We're going to send in troops. And occupy them.

"It's important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after Al Qaida. .... And that's why we must focus on military assistance on the tools, training, and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists."

Uh-huh. Military assistance, my eye. We'll be giving military assistance as in oh, a bunch of troops occupying them.

"And after years of mixed results, we will not and cannot provide a blank check."

Really? I mean, that's worked so well for us in the past. You know, what with the Afghan-Soviet war (where we channeled funds to the Mujahideen...through Pakistan), or 'Nam. Or Korea. Or pretty much any other country where we went in to help and ended up making a bigger mess than we started with.

The fact is President Obama, that you can't provide a check at all. Maybe you haven't noticed, but your country is like...bankrupt. There is no money. There is no more money to pursue your dreams of imperialism, begun by your predecessor. Sorry. But there is no way we can pursue this or any other war!

"To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. "

What mistakes of the past would that be?

Because I seem to remember...oh let's see, a failed mission in Vietnam. Or a blood bath in Korea. Or the Afghan-Soviet debacle that ended in (recently) disastrous outcomes for us. Or a war in Iraq/Kuwait that was waayyy out of our proper role.

So maybe this time, just this once, we could pursue a policy of non-interventionism. After all, if we don't mess with them, I doubt they'll feel inclined to mess with us.

"Now a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaida offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something from the time."

Oh yeah. We see how beautifully an American invasion turned out for the Iraqis. And the Afghans. I mean, they're dancing in the streets, they're so....wait.

Oops. Was that our bomb?

"So, today, I'm calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years, resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy. I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co- sponsored by Maria Cantwell and Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border regions to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence. "

No. No. That is not the way it's done. Of course, considering the precedent that has been set by previous presidents, it's no wonder he's a bit confused.

When you invade a country, you have to declare war on them. Not just send in soldiers and give them money. That is way unconstitutional.

"As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong inspector general at both State Department and USAID and include robust funding for special inspector generals for Afghan reconstruction."

Unfortunately, your budget is already bankrupt. Sorry.

"I remind everybody the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001 for doing nothing than going about their daily lives. Al Qaida and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries."

Apparently, President Obama, just like his predecessor, sees no problem with invading an entire sovereign country to get at a couple hundred terrorists. And going over there and attacking them simply confirms what the terrorists think of us.

In Osama bin Laden's announcement of the inauguration of the World Islamic Front, he proclaimed their purpose in attacking the US and her people:

"The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food ... No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone: ...

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples ... If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. ...

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."

Considering this (which was written during the Gulf War), its easy to see that we're merely repeating past mistakes. And that Osama bin Laden's points, at least in his mind and the minds of his followers, are still quite valid. We are confirming his position and his beliefs about us.

And I am quite sure that others will see that he still has a point. And though they may not join his organization to perpetrate violence, they will still agree with him, and bin Laden wins a PR victory.

Well, I guess that's the end. The rest of it is just kumbaya, everybody loves everybody else.... ^.^

Here's a link to the transcript, if you'd like to read.

Afghanistan Part I

I went through and read the transcript of President Obama's Afghanistan/Pakistan speech.

And my thoughts on the matter are still unchanged. But I'm going to go through the speech and detail why, just to be objective and all that.

"Many people in the United States and many in partner country that have sacrifices so much have a simple question. What is our purpose in Afghanistan?"

Really? You're just now noticing that is a question? Hmm. What was your first clue? The upswell of public opinion on the polls?

The fact of the matter is that we have no purpose, despite his professed reasons- which sound eerily like something out of the Bush administration. Say hello, once again, to the Bushama Administration.

"Al Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Oh. I see now. And it makes so much sense to attack an entire country just to get at a few underground people who are hidden where you'll never find them. Ah, but he already knows that:

"They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, and communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan."

Ah. So we're going to fight not one, not two, but three senseless wars on the basis of the fact that these men are...hidden? Uh-huh. I see how this makes sense. We're going to throw our entire army at an underground organization that we will probably never track down.

I say we will never track them down because we haven't yet. We've managed to get what, five of the men who actually knew a single thing beyond "Oh yeah, we were gonna' blow up a building." Yeah, our track record is impressively amazing.

Let's see- Osama bin Laden was first put on the FBI's Most Wanted List in 1998 or thereabouts. Al Qaeda was formed in 1988. That means we have had almost twenty years to catch he or his organization leaders. Twenty years. Twenty years in which we fought four years and wasted lots of time- oh, and we launched some cruise missiles at where we thought bin Laden might be.

Also, one bit of trivia that never ceases to amaze me- we helped the Afghanis get weapons. In fact, we gave them weapons. During the 80s', when the Soviets were locked in a war with the Afghanis for control of their country, we gave the Mujahideen weapons and money. Bin Laden benefited from this in a rather round-about way, by joining a man named Abdullah Azzam in Afghanistan- who was a Mujahideen.

Bin Laden and Azzam created the splinter group Maktab al-Khidamat- which, in the long run, only trained 100 mujahidin and only funneled $2 mil to the Afghan Mujahideen. Al Qaeda rose out of Maktab al-Khidamat. During the Afghan-Soviet war, the US and bin Laden were basically working together, in the common pursuit of getting rid of the Soviet threat.

The Taliban also rose out of the Mujahideen- they replaced the constant fighting of the Mujahideen, with some sort of stability and order. This gave them great popularity amongst ordinary Afghans. And the Taliban also took advantage of the weapons we channeled to Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war. We created the monster we all hate now.

How ironic.

"But this is not simply an American problem, far from it."

I didn't know Afghanistan was an American problem. Or maybe it is- since we created it, we should fix it....despite the fact the Afghanis didn't want us to fix it. They're tired of us being there, tired of us destroying their way of life, and they just want us to leave.

Neither is Pakistan our problem. Bin Laden may or may not be our problem, but a full-scale invasion of a sovereign country is not the answer.

"For the Afghan people, the return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially, women and girls."

And that works for them. Just like having Saddam worked for the Iraqis. What, are we the International Meanness Police now too?

We have enough problems here at home. Like our economy. This constant warfare is killing us. It is killing our economy, it is killing our military, and it is slowly and surely killing our country. We cannot maintain this steady rate of warfare and conflict without serious consequences.

"A return in force of Al Qaida terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence."

Perhaps President Obama should study his history. Before the Taliban took control, there was constant in-fighting between the Mujahideen. After the Soviets left, the Mujahideen aimlessly turned on each other. The Taliban conquered them. Too bad for the Mujahideen.

And the Taliban brought stability to the region. They established a steady government that worked for them. True, they were a bit kooky and some weird rules (according to us) but it worked for them.

"We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future."

Oh really. So we're just there to....ruin their infrastructure...and kill their people...and destroy their government....and stay there forever...and....dictate...what they can do.

Not the same thing at all.

"We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends, and our allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists."

President Obama has a mistaken idea of what terrorism- and terrorists- are. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are the people that use the tactic. In this case, they are Muslim extremists. We cannot 'confront' the terrorists, for the simple reason that a) we have absolutely no idea where they are, b) they won't let us know where they are, and c) did I mention we don't know where they are?

Once again- the decision about their regime is the Afghani peoples'. Yes, the Taliban had quite a hold. But the Afghani people have proven time and time again that they can conquer despite a stronger enemy. If they truly wanted out from under the Taliban, I have no doubt they would do something about it.

They do not need our help for their freedom- especially not so we can impose our idea of what freedom is.

"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future."

Ah yes. And how do you plan to do this again, Mr. President?

I guess he shares the mistaken ideas of his predecessor- if we tear up enough roads, kill enough civilians, and dismantle enough regimes, bin Laden will hand himself to us on a silver platter.

Sorry, but I don't think it works that way. Bin Laden has proven that our meddling merely makes his resolve stronger. The more innocent civilians we kill, the more territory of theirs we take over, the more Muslims come around to his way of thinking and join him. We cannot fight a radical ideology with guns and troops.

And maybe, just maybe, the man has a point. Even Hitler had some sort of logic under his depraved, mentally unstable ravings. Bin Laden's point is simple- Americans are inhabiting their countries. We need to leave.

I do not agree with his way of trying to get us to see that. But I definitely agree with his point. We are meddling way too much in the politics and dynamics of that region. We need to stop while we're ahead. And by stop, I mean cease and desist completely. Not leave a few half-hearted squads of soldiers to guard their state secrets, not leave advisors there to continue telling their new regime what to do.

"And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same. We will defeat you."

Keep saying that. If you say it often enough, it might come true!

That we will defeat the terrorists has been the mantra for the past eight years. Guess what. The terrorists are still at large, and there is no indication that our inept intelligence services and our futiley struggling army will be able to catch them any time soon.

"To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter, and comprehensive strategy."

I have one for you- leave the people alone! After all, the strongest way we can make these people see that we mean them no harm is by showing that we trust them to make their own decisions.

Ah but yes...they're just like the average American- too dumb to know what's best for them.

"To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support."

That might be difficult to do. Especially in light of the fact that Britain isn't all that keen on the way they got into Iraq....I doubt they'll be feeling too eager to jump head-first into yet more conflicts.

"And to defeat an enemy that heeds no border or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan..."

If they heed no borders, then we cannot fight them in the conventional sense of the word. They don't have borders. They don't recognize borders. They spread like a disease. There are terrorists everywhere- there are even terrorists here in the US!

The fact of the matter is that we cannot pinpoint where the terrorists are. They could be anywhere in the Middle East, in North Africa, East Africa...practically anywhere in the world. It is impossible to fight them with conventional means.

"Al Qaida and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state."

And what are we going to do?

We're going to go in like we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, destroy their infrastructure, take over their government...and when we get down to it, the terrorists will be long gone.

Look out for Part II.

A Bi-Partisan Interview

Recently, I sat down for an interview between two of the (alleged) brightest minds in the political debate- Barack Obama and Sean Hannity. Both agreed to see me on a set date, and we were going to discuss a few things.

We sat down, and I started the conversation.

Liberty: I'd like to discuss the current wars and the recent actions that have been taken.

Barack Obama: Yes, about that- I uh, I'd have to say that my actions in Afghanistan are wholly justified.

Sean Hannity: What, giving up?

Liberty: Mr. President, before your recent lengthy deliberations on the subject of further troop increases, you sent yet more troops into Afghani territory. Do you think that was justified?

Obama: Wholly.

Liberty: And do you think the troops will be able to do their job with what they have?

Obama: You know, I'm listening to my advisers, and they tell me that the troops will be able to.

Hannity: But you're basically surrendering.

Obama: No, no I'm not. We're pursuing a new line of attack, that is all.

Liberty: Would you care to expand on this new line, Mr. President?

Obama: Well, uh...it's going to be revolutionary.

Hannity: You didn't answer the question.

Liberty: I agree with Mr. Hannity, Mr. President. Would you please expand on your new plan of attack in Afghanistan?

Obama: You know, I just think that I am unable to currently reveal our plans.

Liberty: Well, you'll let me know once you can, right sir?

Obama: You'll be right behind Fox News.

Liberty: Well then. What about the Iraq conflict? What are your plans there?

Obama: You know, we're really trying to get out of that.

Hannity: That's a mistake. Those people are trying to kill us.

Liberty: Do you have any proof of that Mr. Hannity?

Hannity: well...uh, you know, I didn't bring it with me. It's on my other laptop.

Liberty: Of course it is. Now in my research, I've found that there is no actual proof that Iraq was giving aid to terrorists, including al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators. Three studies, two from the congress and one independent bear this out.

Hannity: You know they're skewed towards the liberals.

Obama: I always thought it was the other way around.

Liberty: Gentlemen, let us pretend for one moment that all these studies are unbiased- which they are, for the most part. What would you say then?

Obama: That obviously, Iraq was not giving aid to al Qaeda.

Hannity: I would say that the reports were sketchy, just as they are now..

Liberty: Thank you gentlemen. Now then, Mr. Hannity- on your show, you have defended some of Bush's less-than-constitutional measures multiple times, including the PATRIOT act. How do you line up the nature of the PATRIOT act with your professed love of the Constitution?

Hannity: You know, I don't think there's any way those two things can be adverse to each other. The PATRIOT act is good- it protects us from terrorists.

Liberty: But it strips us of our fourth amendment rights. How can it be in keeping with the Constitution?

Hannity: Sometimes, certain liberties have to be compromised in the interest of keeping the American people safe.

Liberty: The founding fathers warned against that. Patrick Henry famously declared "Give me liberty or give me death," and Ben Franklin specifically said that any people that would give up liberty for safety deserved neither. What would you say to that?

Hannity: I would say that desperate times require desperate measures.

Liberty: So you're saying that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen what is happening today, and so what they said- including the Constitution- is basically moot?

Hannity: Uh, no, not at all.

Liberty: So what are you saying?

Hannity: I'm saying that sometimes, we have to compromise.

Liberty: But where do we stop compromising? You've said it yourself- once we start giving up liberties, we're well on the road to socialism.

Hannity: Yes, I have said that.

Liberty: Right. So, how does that bear out with your stance on the PATRIOT act.

Hannity: I don't see any contradiction.

Liberty: Yes. I'll let you think that contradiction over that for a while. Mr. President, do you have anything to add?

Obama: Well, I'd just like to say that I don't think the PATRIOT act was a mistake, and that there comes a time when the traditions of the past should be forgotten. It's time we moved on.

Liberty: So tell me, if we move on past the Constitution, what is left of our system of government?

Obama: We still have the men and women of America, as well as her leaders.

Liberty: But the whole point of the Constitution was to keep her leaders in check.

Obama: I don't see why they need to be kept in check.

Liberty: I think the logic is quite indisputable. It is common knowledge that power corrupts, and checks have been put in the place of people who would try to grab too much power- namely, the Congress, the President, and even state governments.

Obama: I'm guessing you watch Fox News.

Hannity: Talking like this? No she doesn't.

Liberty: Mr. Hannity is correct, Mr. President. Would you agree with me that power corrupts and we should have checks in place of too much power-grabbing.

Obama: I think that would be safe to say.

Liberty: So if we move on past the Constitution, what checks will be in place for that power-grabbing?

Obama: Well, some restrictions would have to remain in place, of course.

Liberty: So you're basically saying that we should pick and choose what we want out of the Constitution?

Obama: Uh...no. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that some of the restrictions and regulations in the Constitution are outmoded, and I don't think we should be so fanatically bound to the stuffy traditions that people had 200 years ago.

Liberty: If you study history, our system of government and the Constitution that was made isn't exactly a 'tradition.' The Constitutional Republic was a very new, revolutionary idea in that day and age.

Obama: Uh...

Liberty: If we wanted to be held to the traditions of that day, we'd be held to a monarchist system with repressive royalty.

Hannity: Heh. She's got you.

Liberty: Mr. President?

Obama: Yeah, well, maybe we should talk about the merits of change.

Liberty: This discussion is not about abstract concepts Mr. President.

Obama: Of course. You know, I have a press conference at four.

Liberty: You'll be out of here in plenty of time. Both of you, what is your opinion of the new healthcare bills in the Congress?

Obama: It is an admirable expression of the way this country is going. Of course, it could be improved, but that'll come.

Liberty: It is my understanding that earlier in your career, you were an avid proponent of a single-payer system.

Obama: I never said that.

Liberty: You were captured on video saying that you wanted this. If you do, why don't you just come clean and say so now that you are in power?

Obama: I do not recall that incident.

Liberty: You didn't answer the question, Mr. President.

Obama: I think that this country is just simply not ready for that kind of program.

Liberty: Very well. Mr. Hannity, what is your opinion?

Hannity: This bill will give undue power to the executive branch.

Liberty: But letting the executive branch use 200+ signing statements for it's own ends, and letting it put people in jail for nothing but the suspicion of terrorist activity is alright?

Hannity: I didn't think that was what we were discussing.

Liberty: But it is related. Would you mind answering the question?

Hannity: No, I don't think so.

Obama: Time is ticking.

Liberty: I'll take up just a few more moments of your time Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about your recent Nobel Prize. Do you think you acted in the best interest of the US as a whole?

Obama: Totally. I didn't personally receive the prize, not really. The prize was more like something that was awarded to the US as the whole.

Hannity: That didn't prevent you from taking it.

Liberty: Some have suggested that you could have refused the prize as an undue honor and instead conferred it upon the military or simply refused it.

Obama: You know, I really have to get going.

Liberty: Would you mind responding first, Mr. President?

Obama: Not at all. You know, I think I responded with as much humility and gratitude as possible. I think that I needed to accept the prize so as to give the world a better opinion of us.

Liberty: What does taking a token of the personal opinion of five Norwegians do for the world's opinion of us? Wouldn't having a revolutionary new foreign policy accomplish that more directly?

Obama: You know, it's over now, and I have to get going.

Liberty: Of course. Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

Hannity: Yeah, uh, I've got to get outta' here too- show comin' up!

Liberty: Certainly. Thank you for your time and your patience sirs.

Note- Unfortunately, this interview has not yet occurred. Apparently, neither President Obama nor Sean Hannity care about my opinion. However, I'm still holding out hope. In the meantime, this will have to do.

Presidential Peeve

Barack Hussein Obama.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
BHO
bHo.
Osama bin Lyin'.

I hate it. It is getting very annoying- people (especially on the right) making a big deal out of his middle name, or the similarity of his last name to someone else we all know. Is this seriously the biggest piece of ammunition we can bring out on this guy?

Frankly, it's annoying when people make such a big deal out of his name. Hussein is a common name in the Muslim community. So it also happened to be the name of a tyrant. So? Is that your ultimate problem with the man? Can the President help that his name is the same? Do you think the baby intentionally chose it because he foresaw that Saddam would become a dictator?

Or making a pun on his last name and Osama bin Laden's. His last name came from his father. Could his father help it?

This kind of nit-picking and completely un-subtle hinting is petty and- to be totally honest- pretty dumb. It doesn't matter what his name is. Let's focus our attention on what really matters: the fact that his policies are going to hurt America.

A Nobel Peace Prize

Our President won the Nobel Peace Prize, apparently because he's made such strides in peacemaking, what with sending more of our boys and girls into danger in Afghanistan, and trying his darndest to start a war in Iran!

The committee for the Peace Prize stated that this was the reason for Obama receiving the prize- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Of course, this prize is not due to any personal achievement (whatever that unimportant council that actually awarded the prize says), but to some mystical "affirmation of American leadership." Last I checked, he saw himself as the American leadership, so...wait a minute! That means that this prize is due to personal achievement!

Whatever that personal achievement is, I think it is just a little freaky that he was nominated, not a few weeks ago, but on Febuary 1. That means that Obama had only been in office for rougly two weeks. Before that time, he hadn't done anything. (Except of course, getting those pesky Bush recriminations out of the way and rearranging the furniture in the kids' bedrooms. Apparently, he promoted inter-country peace by having a mix of Arabian and Israeli bedroom furniture.)

I'll end with this little tidbit- "Some analysts have speculated that the prize could give Obama additional clout as he forms a strategy for the war in Afghanistan and attempts to engage Iran and North Korea."

Oh yes! Attacking people will sooo promote "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Obama's Personality Cult

This is scary for a multitude of reasons. Number one- Barack Obama is, just to clue you in, the President of the United States. He is not the Messiah, the Savior, or Superman. He's basically a figurehead for the nation who (Constitutionally) gets to veto bills he doesn't like and look pretty for the cameras.

This cult of personality that has grown up around the man is frankly frightening. Not to mention its idiocy, it brings undue attention to someone who really, in the grand scheme of things, isn't (or shouldn't be) all that important.

I've put the text to the songs in the top video below for your...enjoyment.

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

The Racist Test

Are you racist? Let's find out...

'Stolen' from Track-A-'Crat.

The 'Czars'

Recently, a great furor has broken out all over America. And rightly so. President Obama has appointed several so-called 'czars' to oversee various parts of his administration.

Prior to President Obama, every president since FDR has appointed 'czars' to head various parts of his administration. FDR set the precedent with only 12 czars, and after his terms, the number began to decline. Until, that is, Bill Clinton. Clinton upped the ante with 7 czars, but HBush far out-appointed him, with 31.

President Obama has quickly outpaced even Bush, eight months into his four-year term, with 32 czars as of last count.

According to Politico, President Obama's czar positions range from an 'Afghanistan Czar' to 'WMD Policy Czar.'

Apparently, the czars are yet another layer of government, reporting directly to the President, as well as a few to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. These czars work on solutions and policy. In a way, they are somewhat like the advisement department of a company.

Of course, in the grand company of which Obama is the CEO, that role is supposed to be filled by his cabinet. But oops, somebody didn't tell that to FDR or to Obama. Quite an oversight there.

According to a professor of government at Dartmouth College, Linda Fowler, "presidents often appoint czars in a symbolic move to show they care about an issue. They also are trying to control a sprawling bureaucracy..."

Personally, I think this system of czars is messed up. The President isn't supposed to control policy on any issue at all! Having czars to do his bidding is even more unconstitutional. The czars are filling a role which is supposed to be handled by Congress.

Of course, if Congress wasn't so busy with all the other junk they deal with, they might be able to fill their Constitutional capacity better.