In a blog I wrote on Oct. 1, 2008, I stated that the US should place a moratorium on Capital Gains Taxes in order to stimulate the Economy, instead of giving away $700 billion. In this Wall Street Journal article by Rush Limbaugh, he essentially states the same thing but also adds the caveat that the Corporate Tax Rate should be cut too. In another blog entry on Oct. 15, 2008, I copied an article entry from the Tax Policy Center that the Corporate Tax Rate should be cut, from 35% to 25%, to put it in line with the European average tax rate.
As long as the Federal Government continues to bail out industries by taking our tax dollars and giving them away, there will be no moral hazards in our financial system and the problem will exacerbate because of the larger correction that will need to take place in order to fix the market. When Investors resume investing, our market will begin the repair process and eventually we'll witness growth. My greatest fear is that the Government doesn't stop this reckless "Economic Stimulus" behavior and we'll be forever indebted to foreigners who are the ones that pick up our tab by buying our Treasury Bills.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
These Republicans
I can't believe the Republicans actually have the temerity to complain about Obama's Economic Stimulus package. The Republicans had six years of control under Bush to exemplify fiscal restraint and reign in budget spending. However, our debt went from $4 Trillion to $10 Trillion under them. Their actions are transparent and overstate the need for a new Political Party to force accountability. It's not longer good enough to spout lower taxes, smaller government. The Republican leadership fortitude was lacking during Bush, now Republicans want to pretend they're against wasteful government spending? Pathetic. The same thing is occurring here in CA under Schwarzenegger, and he also has the temerity to state he's against wasteful government spending when it's also increased under him. He also states he's against taxes, that he loathes taxes, but he's going to increase them by $14.7 billion. The Republican Party is a joke. It's been a joke since 2004.
Speaking of the Devil
In my Guess the State blog the other day, I talked about how the Post Office is over budget, in the red, asking for more money, and delivering the same services but at ever increasing costs. Well, in this AP article on Breitbart.com, the Postmaster General told Congress that "massive deficits could force the post office to cut out one day of mail delivery." If you go to the USPS website and look up "Postal Facts" you can read the following; $75 billion budget, $54.6 billion spent on employee salaries and employ 685,000 people which means they make on average $79,708 a year. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind an easy job like mail delivery if that's how much they make.
But let's recall, this is a Federal Agency. It exists because our Constitution requires it. It's the only monopolized business allowed to exist, and it's a Nationalized business at that. But this is the type of system you can expect to see in place at your local bank if the Obama Administration and his lackeys in Congress go ahead and Nationalize our banking system. Diminished services at ever increasing costs.
But let's recall, this is a Federal Agency. It exists because our Constitution requires it. It's the only monopolized business allowed to exist, and it's a Nationalized business at that. But this is the type of system you can expect to see in place at your local bank if the Obama Administration and his lackeys in Congress go ahead and Nationalize our banking system. Diminished services at ever increasing costs.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama on Middle East Policy
Obama granted his first interview as America's first half-white President to Al Arabiya. Of note in the AP News article and Yahoo News article is his opinion on America's past involvement in the Middle East. Obama would like to have "that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that." Obama believes this can happen as long as we listen "because all too often the United States starts by dictating." He also believes this can be achieved through "mutual respect and mutual interest" and goes on to list his upbringing in Indonesia and his relatives that are Muslim.
Let's first ask ourselves, what type of relationship did we have with the Muslim world in the last 30 years. In 1979 Islamic radicals disposed the Shah of Iran and held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days in the US Embassy. In 1983 Lebanese Terrorists bombed a barracks in Beirut killing 241 American Servicemen. In 1993, 18 U.S. Servicemen were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia. Also in 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed, killing six people. In 1996 the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 19 U.S. Servicemen. In 1998 our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed killing 12 Americans and hundreds of foreigners. In 2000 the USS Cole was bombed in the Yemeni port of Aden, killing 17 U.S. Servicemen. Culminating with the September 11, 2001 Terrorist attacks that brought down the WTC, and the attacks in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. killing in all approximately 3,000 Americans. This list of attacks on American targets doesn't even begin to take into account the attacks on Western targets in general.
Does one infer that "mutual respect" is one sided like it's always been, in that we make sure to never offend the Muslims and just transfer our wealth via buying their oil and allow them to carry out attacks on our installations and do nothing like during the Clinton Administration? After all, we practically have the same Administration under Obama and I'm sure the advice will be similar. Even his Middle East Envoy, George Mitchell, is the same guy appointed by Bill Clinton to find out what caused the Intifada in 2000. George Mitchell equally blamed both the Israelis and Palestinians. Big surprise in this Anti-Semitic world.
Which brings up one last statement from Obama regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "'I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people,' he said, calling for a Palestinian state that is contiguous with internal freedom of movement and can trade with neighboring countries."
In every Israeli-Palestinian conflict we witness indiscriminate killing of Israeli Civilians and Israeli reprisals against Palestinian Terrorists like Hamas and Fatah. The ones who desire "prosperity" and "peace" are not the ones indiscriminately killing Civilians. Actions speak a thousand words, and when the Palestinians continually walk away from Palestinian Statehood, it's obvious they don't want "prosperity" and "peace" but temporary breaks in violence in order to continue their attacks against Israel at a future time. Also, I can't believe that Obama would want a Palestinian state that is contiguous. I hope that's a misstatement, or Bushism, because the West Bank and Gaza are not connected, therefore how does he propose creating a contiguous state without Israel dividing itself in half?
I believe this interview was just another taste of the naivete of this Administration regarding anything beyond Community Organizing and making sure that Abortion is available to everyone, including foreigners. I have a solution though, if Abortion is a good thing like Democrats want us to believe, then bring it to Gaza and the West Bank, and help fight future Terrorism at the same time.
Let's first ask ourselves, what type of relationship did we have with the Muslim world in the last 30 years. In 1979 Islamic radicals disposed the Shah of Iran and held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days in the US Embassy. In 1983 Lebanese Terrorists bombed a barracks in Beirut killing 241 American Servicemen. In 1993, 18 U.S. Servicemen were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia. Also in 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed, killing six people. In 1996 the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 19 U.S. Servicemen. In 1998 our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed killing 12 Americans and hundreds of foreigners. In 2000 the USS Cole was bombed in the Yemeni port of Aden, killing 17 U.S. Servicemen. Culminating with the September 11, 2001 Terrorist attacks that brought down the WTC, and the attacks in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. killing in all approximately 3,000 Americans. This list of attacks on American targets doesn't even begin to take into account the attacks on Western targets in general.
Does one infer that "mutual respect" is one sided like it's always been, in that we make sure to never offend the Muslims and just transfer our wealth via buying their oil and allow them to carry out attacks on our installations and do nothing like during the Clinton Administration? After all, we practically have the same Administration under Obama and I'm sure the advice will be similar. Even his Middle East Envoy, George Mitchell, is the same guy appointed by Bill Clinton to find out what caused the Intifada in 2000. George Mitchell equally blamed both the Israelis and Palestinians. Big surprise in this Anti-Semitic world.
Which brings up one last statement from Obama regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "'I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people,' he said, calling for a Palestinian state that is contiguous with internal freedom of movement and can trade with neighboring countries."
In every Israeli-Palestinian conflict we witness indiscriminate killing of Israeli Civilians and Israeli reprisals against Palestinian Terrorists like Hamas and Fatah. The ones who desire "prosperity" and "peace" are not the ones indiscriminately killing Civilians. Actions speak a thousand words, and when the Palestinians continually walk away from Palestinian Statehood, it's obvious they don't want "prosperity" and "peace" but temporary breaks in violence in order to continue their attacks against Israel at a future time. Also, I can't believe that Obama would want a Palestinian state that is contiguous. I hope that's a misstatement, or Bushism, because the West Bank and Gaza are not connected, therefore how does he propose creating a contiguous state without Israel dividing itself in half?
I believe this interview was just another taste of the naivete of this Administration regarding anything beyond Community Organizing and making sure that Abortion is available to everyone, including foreigners. I have a solution though, if Abortion is a good thing like Democrats want us to believe, then bring it to Gaza and the West Bank, and help fight future Terrorism at the same time.
Monday, January 26, 2009
No Truce for You
In this Jerusalem Post article, Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri said on Sunday, "Hamas is prepared to reach a one-year truce with Israel if the border crossings into the Gaza Strip are opened" but "that a Hamas delegation currently holding talks in Cairo with Egyptian government officials made it clear that the movement would not agree to a long-term or permanent truce" and in "Cairo, Ayman Taha, a member of the Hamas team, said after meeting with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman that Hamas rejected an Israeli offer for an 18-month truce."
One must ask themselves, who just lost the war in Gaza, Hamas or Israel? Hamas actually has the chutzpah to dictate to Israel what the terms of the truce will be and even has the impudence to state that they won't accept a long-term or permanent truce! Why is that? Why won't they accept peace? Is it because they don't want peace? What Nation on Earth would even waste their time with such a stupid organization? Only in Israel would they negotiate with these "people" and only on this planet would the International community force them to. Anywhere else we would resume bombing until they were ready to acquiesce to our demands.
One must ask themselves, who just lost the war in Gaza, Hamas or Israel? Hamas actually has the chutzpah to dictate to Israel what the terms of the truce will be and even has the impudence to state that they won't accept a long-term or permanent truce! Why is that? Why won't they accept peace? Is it because they don't want peace? What Nation on Earth would even waste their time with such a stupid organization? Only in Israel would they negotiate with these "people" and only on this planet would the International community force them to. Anywhere else we would resume bombing until they were ready to acquiesce to our demands.
Guess the State
"The [blank] State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. "
You might be able to guess what type of state is mentioned in the aforementioned quote, but I'll make the case first how our country seemingly lines up with it. In this International Herald Tribune article by David E. Sanger, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) states, "If we are strengthening them [banks], then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization." I don't know what that retard from SF thinks nationalization is, but when the government buys the controlling shares of any company, by definition it's nationalization.
When the government starts nationalizing any industry, it's a foregone conclusion that all industries are subject to nationalization under the original rationale that nationalization is a good thing. Currently, the banking industry is subjecting itself to nationalization in order to bail itself out from their unscrupulous lending practices, but at a future point, who's not to say that all banks must be nationalized. If the banking sector is that crucial to our Economic livelihood, what about Agriculture? Transportation? Automotive? Other Industries?
I think about how our United States Post Office is run. Always over budget and in the red, asking for more money, delivering the same services but at ever increasing costs (i.e. postage stamp increases). Their employees are unionized and run the Post Office as efficient as the DMV. These employees make $52,747 to start, plus all their other benefits according to their own Union website and the US Postal Employee Network website and move as slow as snails when you walk in and take a number. Another wonderful example of American Nationalization, is Amtrak. Ever used it? It's less efficient than carrying home groceries in a wet paper sack. I used Amtrak once, my first and last time, to get from Riverside to Davis, CA. It took over 14 hours. I could have driven to Oregon by that time. I had to even take a bus for two of three portions of the trip. I'm an isolated example, but I've never heard a positive story from anyone that ever had the experience of riding on an Amtrak train. I can't wait to see what services I lose and the upcoming costs that I'll incur once the Govt. takes over Citibank. Just one last example to think about is after 9/11 the Transportation Security Agency nationalized Airport Security.
When it comes to Education in this country, there's no doubt about which Political Party has a hegemony on what our children are taught. I think Ann Coulter said it perfectly, "More fifth graders know how to put on a condom than can name the first US President." I believe the downfall of our Education System started with the Scopes trial which allowed the teaching of a theory in our school system, Evolution. Nowadays, Evolution is taken as fact, and anyone that challenges it is labeled [insert pejorative]. Also recall that when Liberals are confronted with facts, they have to use a pejorative to dismiss your argument. Currently our Public Education system is a failure, especially when compared with other Industrialized Nations, and even sometimes 3rd world countries as read in this CBS News article. With the Democrats solution being to give more money to schools, the underlying causes of our Public Education failure will never be addressed and thus our education will never improve and Taxpayers will be further burdened.
With humanism as our moral compass, and Obama rescinding Executive Orders that ban Federal funding of Abortion for example, it's not hard to imagine what direction we're headed when we deem Infanticide a Federally funded right. It's laughable when anyone states this is a Christian Nation. How is that so when Happy Holidays are what's said during Christmas time. How is that so when God is being removed from public? Like School Prayer? Pledge of Allegiance? How soon before our currency has "In God We Trust" removed? How laughable was it when Al Gore quoted his favorite passage of Scripture and fandangled it, and he was actually praised by the media for quoting the Bible.
I conclude by stating that "[blank] State" mentioned in the opening quote is a Fascist State and the quote is from Benito Mussolini in 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism."
You might be able to guess what type of state is mentioned in the aforementioned quote, but I'll make the case first how our country seemingly lines up with it. In this International Herald Tribune article by David E. Sanger, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) states, "If we are strengthening them [banks], then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization." I don't know what that retard from SF thinks nationalization is, but when the government buys the controlling shares of any company, by definition it's nationalization.
When the government starts nationalizing any industry, it's a foregone conclusion that all industries are subject to nationalization under the original rationale that nationalization is a good thing. Currently, the banking industry is subjecting itself to nationalization in order to bail itself out from their unscrupulous lending practices, but at a future point, who's not to say that all banks must be nationalized. If the banking sector is that crucial to our Economic livelihood, what about Agriculture? Transportation? Automotive? Other Industries?
I think about how our United States Post Office is run. Always over budget and in the red, asking for more money, delivering the same services but at ever increasing costs (i.e. postage stamp increases). Their employees are unionized and run the Post Office as efficient as the DMV. These employees make $52,747 to start, plus all their other benefits according to their own Union website and the US Postal Employee Network website and move as slow as snails when you walk in and take a number. Another wonderful example of American Nationalization, is Amtrak. Ever used it? It's less efficient than carrying home groceries in a wet paper sack. I used Amtrak once, my first and last time, to get from Riverside to Davis, CA. It took over 14 hours. I could have driven to Oregon by that time. I had to even take a bus for two of three portions of the trip. I'm an isolated example, but I've never heard a positive story from anyone that ever had the experience of riding on an Amtrak train. I can't wait to see what services I lose and the upcoming costs that I'll incur once the Govt. takes over Citibank. Just one last example to think about is after 9/11 the Transportation Security Agency nationalized Airport Security.
When it comes to Education in this country, there's no doubt about which Political Party has a hegemony on what our children are taught. I think Ann Coulter said it perfectly, "More fifth graders know how to put on a condom than can name the first US President." I believe the downfall of our Education System started with the Scopes trial which allowed the teaching of a theory in our school system, Evolution. Nowadays, Evolution is taken as fact, and anyone that challenges it is labeled [insert pejorative]. Also recall that when Liberals are confronted with facts, they have to use a pejorative to dismiss your argument. Currently our Public Education system is a failure, especially when compared with other Industrialized Nations, and even sometimes 3rd world countries as read in this CBS News article. With the Democrats solution being to give more money to schools, the underlying causes of our Public Education failure will never be addressed and thus our education will never improve and Taxpayers will be further burdened.
With humanism as our moral compass, and Obama rescinding Executive Orders that ban Federal funding of Abortion for example, it's not hard to imagine what direction we're headed when we deem Infanticide a Federally funded right. It's laughable when anyone states this is a Christian Nation. How is that so when Happy Holidays are what's said during Christmas time. How is that so when God is being removed from public? Like School Prayer? Pledge of Allegiance? How soon before our currency has "In God We Trust" removed? How laughable was it when Al Gore quoted his favorite passage of Scripture and fandangled it, and he was actually praised by the media for quoting the Bible.
I conclude by stating that "[blank] State" mentioned in the opening quote is a Fascist State and the quote is from Benito Mussolini in 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism."
Friday, January 23, 2009
America loves killing babies
In this Foxnews article, it's being reported that Obama will sign an Executive Order overturning the ban on groups that promote or perform abortions. It really makes me happy to know that killing 50 million unborn children since Roe v. Wade isn't enough, but we're going to pay for it in other countries too. This is no different than the Babylonians who threw children into fiery bronze oxes to sacrifice them to their god, Moloch, only in this case, Abortion is a sacrifice to the god of Humanism. I reject the notion we're a Christian Nation, or that God blesses us, when we're guilty of infanticide. I'm curious whether the doctors, nurses, patients and activists that all supported this act of infanticide, whether they'll be goats or sheep at judgement, and what excuse in vanity will they employ to justify their actions. It's an abomination. Not even one week into his Presidency, and Obama has already offended God. I shudder to think about what the next 3 years, 361 days will bring us.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
If you're white, f you
In this Breitbart.tv video clip, NY Rep. Charlie Rangel discusses how best to get money into State coffers in order to revitalize our Economy. Pres. Obama's Economic Advisor Richard Reich also wants to achieve the same goal, however as long as white male construction workers aren't the ones receiving the money, only minorities including women. This is absolute overt discrimination towards white people. Imagine the outrage if the same were said about keeping money from black construction workers, or Latino construction workers.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
When White will embrace what is Right
Rev. Joseph Lowery led the Inauguration Benediction of President Obama. A Benediction is a type of religious blessing, sometimes ceremonial as in the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. However, in this "blessing" of Rev. Lowery, he stated:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen. And Amen"
This is the same type of racist crackery that Obama's former Rev. Jeremiah Wright spewed from his pew for the 20 years Obama sat in his pulpit, only that Rev. Jeremiah Wright happened not to spew that racist rhetoric on days Obama attended church. However, on this day, Obama was there to listen to this crap. When has a black person been asked to get to the back of the bus? Where is the institutionalized racism that once occured and was practiced by whites exist? What does "yellow will be mellow" and "red man can get ahead" mean while we're at it? In a country that's nearly 75% white, how the hell does a black man get elected President if we're a bunch of racists?! Obama should reject this bullshit and put his sloganeering "Hope and Change" to use. This whole speech is predicated on the notion that there is truth to what he's stating.
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen. And Amen"
This is the same type of racist crackery that Obama's former Rev. Jeremiah Wright spewed from his pew for the 20 years Obama sat in his pulpit, only that Rev. Jeremiah Wright happened not to spew that racist rhetoric on days Obama attended church. However, on this day, Obama was there to listen to this crap. When has a black person been asked to get to the back of the bus? Where is the institutionalized racism that once occured and was practiced by whites exist? What does "yellow will be mellow" and "red man can get ahead" mean while we're at it? In a country that's nearly 75% white, how the hell does a black man get elected President if we're a bunch of racists?! Obama should reject this bullshit and put his sloganeering "Hope and Change" to use. This whole speech is predicated on the notion that there is truth to what he's stating.
But... Obama said he respects the 2nd Ammendment
Seen here on the new WhiteHouse.gov website, one can start to go through Obama's policy goals to anticipate what's going to happen in the next four years. Check out his Urban Policy for example: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
At first glance it doesn't sound so bad, strengthen law enforcement, always a good thing, right? It makes me feel good too to know that Obama and Biden both favor "commonsense measures" that keep guns away from children and criminals. I question now what type of measures other than requiring all guns be sold with cable locks, which they already do, or waiving that if they owner has a gun safe. How much more "childproof" can a gun be? I fear that more "childproof" "commonsense measures" will increase the cost of owning a gun, as well as make it more difficult to obtain one if the purchasing process is more complicated than the mandated 10 day waiting period that already exists, along with the Department of Justice background check that occurs during those ten days. Heck, one even has to take a "test" to obtain a DOJ Handgun Safety Certificate to even buy a pistol/revolver in the first place.
Lastly, I oppose any type of ban on weapons. I question since when did "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean that the Federal Government can ban "Assault Weapons" or simply stated when did the Government receive the authority to infringe on our right to keep and bear Arms? The Federal Government has no right to tell We the People what type of guns we can and cannot own. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is necessary to the Security of a Free State.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
At first glance it doesn't sound so bad, strengthen law enforcement, always a good thing, right? It makes me feel good too to know that Obama and Biden both favor "commonsense measures" that keep guns away from children and criminals. I question now what type of measures other than requiring all guns be sold with cable locks, which they already do, or waiving that if they owner has a gun safe. How much more "childproof" can a gun be? I fear that more "childproof" "commonsense measures" will increase the cost of owning a gun, as well as make it more difficult to obtain one if the purchasing process is more complicated than the mandated 10 day waiting period that already exists, along with the Department of Justice background check that occurs during those ten days. Heck, one even has to take a "test" to obtain a DOJ Handgun Safety Certificate to even buy a pistol/revolver in the first place.
Lastly, I oppose any type of ban on weapons. I question since when did "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean that the Federal Government can ban "Assault Weapons" or simply stated when did the Government receive the authority to infringe on our right to keep and bear Arms? The Federal Government has no right to tell We the People what type of guns we can and cannot own. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is necessary to the Security of a Free State.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Stupidity of Islamic Terrorism
In this AP News article by Ibrahim Barzak and Amy Teibel, a second rocket attack on Israel occurred again from Lebanon. Thankfully no Israelis were injured.
What's interesting about this article though is the fact that Israel is currently conducting an operation in Gaza to route Hamas and decimate their ability to launch mortars and rockets into Israel. In case the Lebanese Terrorists haven't paid attention, Hamas is getting wiped out. Perhaps it's arrogance from their 2006 war with Israel that Lebanese Terrorists believe they can attack Israel, but I call it stupidity.
I know the Muslim world is outraged over the current operation in Gaza, but do they ever stop to think about what Muslims are doing to bring this on themselves? For over two years Hamas launched rockets and mortars into Israel and Israel did nothing. Finally Israel launches an attack, and the Muslim world is outraged. Iran's Ayatollah issued a religious decree called a Fatwa declaring "the purchase of any Israeli goods or trade with Israeli companies to be forbidden." Osama bin Laden in this AP News article "urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel."
You can read throughout the AP News article about how targets are hit that contain Hamas' weapons caches in graveyards, in homes, in schools, etc. Yet Hamas does not stop firing the rockets and mortars. Israel's demands are simple, stop the rocket and mortar attacks and end the smuggling of weapons from Egypt to Gaza. How can the Muslim world oppose these demands? I think Muslims refusal to think rationally is caused by their irrational hatred of the Jews and thus they can't make rational decisions. I think any rational person can discriminate between indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into Israel killing random civilians and the targeted killing of Hamas Terrorists and their weapons cache and the unfortunate collateral damage that results.
What's interesting about this article though is the fact that Israel is currently conducting an operation in Gaza to route Hamas and decimate their ability to launch mortars and rockets into Israel. In case the Lebanese Terrorists haven't paid attention, Hamas is getting wiped out. Perhaps it's arrogance from their 2006 war with Israel that Lebanese Terrorists believe they can attack Israel, but I call it stupidity.
I know the Muslim world is outraged over the current operation in Gaza, but do they ever stop to think about what Muslims are doing to bring this on themselves? For over two years Hamas launched rockets and mortars into Israel and Israel did nothing. Finally Israel launches an attack, and the Muslim world is outraged. Iran's Ayatollah issued a religious decree called a Fatwa declaring "the purchase of any Israeli goods or trade with Israeli companies to be forbidden." Osama bin Laden in this AP News article "urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel."
You can read throughout the AP News article about how targets are hit that contain Hamas' weapons caches in graveyards, in homes, in schools, etc. Yet Hamas does not stop firing the rockets and mortars. Israel's demands are simple, stop the rocket and mortar attacks and end the smuggling of weapons from Egypt to Gaza. How can the Muslim world oppose these demands? I think Muslims refusal to think rationally is caused by their irrational hatred of the Jews and thus they can't make rational decisions. I think any rational person can discriminate between indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into Israel killing random civilians and the targeted killing of Hamas Terrorists and their weapons cache and the unfortunate collateral damage that results.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
It's your fault
In this Fox News article a 275 pound 5-ft. woman by the name of Carolyn Ragan was told to go to the Kansas City Zoo to get an MRI because she was too big for the hospital's MRI machine. The article seems a bit cruel at first until further reading reveals that, "She was too heavy for the table and too wide to slide through the opening." So she was literally too big for the MRI machine at the hospital.
This brings to mind three thoughts. First, how could someone let themselves get that big. I know that calories in versus calories out either makes a person gain weight or lose weight depending on which which is greater, "in" or "out." A healthy BMI for a 5-ft. individual is 128 pounds at most. Which makes her 150 +/- pounds overweight. How come she never made much effort to stop gaining weight?
Second, what perspective does she have of her weight? When reading her response to the hospital not having an MRI machine capable of accepting her massive body, she stated "They should have machines that fit most everybody." Her statement is crazy. Why should hospitals be forced to buy bigger MRI machines to accept fatter people? This also answers the last question in my previous paragraph, which brings me to my third thought.
She at the least, our society at worst, has succumbed to selfishness. She could go on a diet and decrease her "calories in." She could go to the gym and do an hour of cardio with her heartbeat at 65% max and thus increase "calories out." She could do both and do a double whammy on her morbid obesity. But she doesn't, she wants others to accommodate her. She probably wants bigger gurneys, wider airplane seats, larger booths at restaurants and more oak on her chairs.
This lack of personal responsibility is upsetting. She allowed herself to get that fat. She made the decision to eat copious amounts of food. I think this mindset permeates our society when we ponder the notion that people affix blame to something other than themselves. When a person murders, it's not their fault, it's their upbringing. When someone doesn't receive good grades in schools, the school failed them (or sometimes a white person suppressed their success). When Illegal Immigrants break our Immigration laws, it's because they're lured by the job opportunities to "provide for their family." When Republicans win Elections, it's because they "stole" it. When Democrats receive more votes than Registered Voters (like in the Minnesota Senate race) it's because Norm Coleman is attempting to win the Election (reread what happens when Republicans win Elections again for a laugh). When the hospital MRI machine is too small, they should buy a bigger one.
When Obama was running for President, he promised a Middle Class Tax Cut for anyone making less than a "quarter million bucks," promised to help Main Street because of the greed on Wall Street (ha, as if sub-prime borrowers weren't greedy when they applied for loans they could never afford to repay), talked about providing health care for all Americans, talked about ending the War in Iraq and going after bin Laden in Pakistan, etc. Right now he's proposed $800 billion in spending (Public Works projects, extending welfare and unemployment benefits, small stimulation checks to spur spending) to jump start the Economy, and this is in combination with our projected $1.2 trillion deficit. I'm just waiting for him to turn water into wine, cure cancer with his tears, and create a seven year peace treaty in the Middle East. Then I'll know for sure the 'end' has come. Until then, I'll continue trash talking fat people that want to be accommodated rather than lose weight and other selfish individuals who are to apathetic about their own circumstances to even bother investigating what role they play in it.
This brings to mind three thoughts. First, how could someone let themselves get that big. I know that calories in versus calories out either makes a person gain weight or lose weight depending on which which is greater, "in" or "out." A healthy BMI for a 5-ft. individual is 128 pounds at most. Which makes her 150 +/- pounds overweight. How come she never made much effort to stop gaining weight?
Second, what perspective does she have of her weight? When reading her response to the hospital not having an MRI machine capable of accepting her massive body, she stated "They should have machines that fit most everybody." Her statement is crazy. Why should hospitals be forced to buy bigger MRI machines to accept fatter people? This also answers the last question in my previous paragraph, which brings me to my third thought.
She at the least, our society at worst, has succumbed to selfishness. She could go on a diet and decrease her "calories in." She could go to the gym and do an hour of cardio with her heartbeat at 65% max and thus increase "calories out." She could do both and do a double whammy on her morbid obesity. But she doesn't, she wants others to accommodate her. She probably wants bigger gurneys, wider airplane seats, larger booths at restaurants and more oak on her chairs.
This lack of personal responsibility is upsetting. She allowed herself to get that fat. She made the decision to eat copious amounts of food. I think this mindset permeates our society when we ponder the notion that people affix blame to something other than themselves. When a person murders, it's not their fault, it's their upbringing. When someone doesn't receive good grades in schools, the school failed them (or sometimes a white person suppressed their success). When Illegal Immigrants break our Immigration laws, it's because they're lured by the job opportunities to "provide for their family." When Republicans win Elections, it's because they "stole" it. When Democrats receive more votes than Registered Voters (like in the Minnesota Senate race) it's because Norm Coleman is attempting to win the Election (reread what happens when Republicans win Elections again for a laugh). When the hospital MRI machine is too small, they should buy a bigger one.
When Obama was running for President, he promised a Middle Class Tax Cut for anyone making less than a "quarter million bucks," promised to help Main Street because of the greed on Wall Street (ha, as if sub-prime borrowers weren't greedy when they applied for loans they could never afford to repay), talked about providing health care for all Americans, talked about ending the War in Iraq and going after bin Laden in Pakistan, etc. Right now he's proposed $800 billion in spending (Public Works projects, extending welfare and unemployment benefits, small stimulation checks to spur spending) to jump start the Economy, and this is in combination with our projected $1.2 trillion deficit. I'm just waiting for him to turn water into wine, cure cancer with his tears, and create a seven year peace treaty in the Middle East. Then I'll know for sure the 'end' has come. Until then, I'll continue trash talking fat people that want to be accommodated rather than lose weight and other selfish individuals who are to apathetic about their own circumstances to even bother investigating what role they play in it.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama talking with Osama
In this UK Guardian article, it comes to light that Obama's Administration will conduct low level talks with Hamas, which is a US State Department designated Terrorist Organization. Hamas is the same group that controls the Gaza Strip in Israel, which was voted to power by the Palestinian people, and is the same group that Israel is currently battling to eliminate their ability to fire rockets and mortar rounds into Israel.
I remember reading before the election that Obama Campaign Officials had met with members of Hamas. One can read in this post-election article by Haaretz, an Israeli news source, that Hamas announced their officials met with Obama officials during Obama's visit to Israel in July 2008.
It's unsettling that Obama would give credence to Hamas, a Terrorist Organization, by having any type of official talks with them. I find this analogous to President Bush sending Condoleeza Rice to meet with Ayman al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's No. 2, to discuss how the US and Al Qaeda can live in peace. I just don't understand the logic in meeting with a Terrorist Organization. I think if anything, we should help Islamic Terrorists meet their 72 virgins as quickly as possible. We did know during the Election that Obama had no qualms about engaging in dialogue with rogue regimes, this is just the beginning. Unfortunately this unqualified man will be our President and will direct our policies, both foreign and domestic, and one can only pray he doesn't make things worse.
I remember reading before the election that Obama Campaign Officials had met with members of Hamas. One can read in this post-election article by Haaretz, an Israeli news source, that Hamas announced their officials met with Obama officials during Obama's visit to Israel in July 2008.
It's unsettling that Obama would give credence to Hamas, a Terrorist Organization, by having any type of official talks with them. I find this analogous to President Bush sending Condoleeza Rice to meet with Ayman al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's No. 2, to discuss how the US and Al Qaeda can live in peace. I just don't understand the logic in meeting with a Terrorist Organization. I think if anything, we should help Islamic Terrorists meet their 72 virgins as quickly as possible. We did know during the Election that Obama had no qualms about engaging in dialogue with rogue regimes, this is just the beginning. Unfortunately this unqualified man will be our President and will direct our policies, both foreign and domestic, and one can only pray he doesn't make things worse.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
In this SF Gate article by several Chronicle Staff Writers, details about the mob riot in Oakland come to light. After unarmed African-American Oscar Grant was shot on New Year's Day by a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Police Officer, protesters of the shooting left a speech by Mayor of Oakland Ron Dellums to wreck havoc on the City of Oakland. Protesting the shooting of an African-American, the Protesters destroyed African-American businesses, African-American and minority owned vehicles, and essentially acted like Terrorists.
One particular quote stood out amongst all: "'I feel like the night is going great,' said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. 'I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male.' Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids. 'She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life,' Sykes said."
I can't help but scratch my head in amazement that protesting the death of an unarmed black man justifies the destruction of a African-American owned business. Just what role did the business owner play in the shooting death of Oscar Grant? I don't understand the logic of Nia Sykes.
Towards the end of the article, it becomes apparent why the logic of Nia Sykes doesn't make sense, "The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the 'Revolution' newspaper - whose tagline is 'voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A.' - as he shouted 'This whole damn system is guilty!'"
Anyways, makes me glad Obama won the Election, otherwise who knows what "injustice" people would conjure up in order to justify their theft, destruction and mayhem.
One particular quote stood out amongst all: "'I feel like the night is going great,' said Nia Sykes, 24, of San Francisco, one of the demonstrators. 'I feel like Oakland should make some noise. This is how we need to fight back. It's for the murder of a black male.' Sykes, who is black, had little sympathy for the owner of Creative African Braids. 'She should be glad she just lost her business and not her life,' Sykes said."
I can't help but scratch my head in amazement that protesting the death of an unarmed black man justifies the destruction of a African-American owned business. Just what role did the business owner play in the shooting death of Oscar Grant? I don't understand the logic of Nia Sykes.
Towards the end of the article, it becomes apparent why the logic of Nia Sykes doesn't make sense, "The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the 'Revolution' newspaper - whose tagline is 'voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A.' - as he shouted 'This whole damn system is guilty!'"
Anyways, makes me glad Obama won the Election, otherwise who knows what "injustice" people would conjure up in order to justify their theft, destruction and mayhem.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Sick Anti-Semite
In this Fox News article, one reads about the protests in Ft. Lauderdale, FL between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli Protesters. However, when watching the video, one pro-Palestinian female shouts for the pro-Israeli Protesters to, "Go back to the oven" and "You need a really big oven." The reference obvious to students of history of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.
It's really sickening, disturbing, and unsettling that this girl, who lives in the US and isn't subject to the propaganda that Middle Eastern countries decimate to their Citizens, and yet she has the gaul to make such a vile statement. I wonder how she can yell such things. I wonder how deranged an individual must be in order to make a statement like "Go back to the oven" when six million people were murdered by the Nazis. In a way I feel comforted by my earlier statement in another blog that the Palestinian people are not innocent and are accomplices to Hamas terrorism. The distinction between Israeli targeted killings of terrorists and their bases plus the unfortunate collateral damage and Hamas indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into Israel killing whomever, is obvious to all except the anti-Semites. I hope that Israel finishes this current undertaking successfully, doesn't bow to International pressure to agree to a cease fire that only benefits Hamas, and that Israel continues as it has to minimize collateral damage while destroying Hamas tunnel networks and its ability to harm Israeli citizens.
It's really sickening, disturbing, and unsettling that this girl, who lives in the US and isn't subject to the propaganda that Middle Eastern countries decimate to their Citizens, and yet she has the gaul to make such a vile statement. I wonder how she can yell such things. I wonder how deranged an individual must be in order to make a statement like "Go back to the oven" when six million people were murdered by the Nazis. In a way I feel comforted by my earlier statement in another blog that the Palestinian people are not innocent and are accomplices to Hamas terrorism. The distinction between Israeli targeted killings of terrorists and their bases plus the unfortunate collateral damage and Hamas indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into Israel killing whomever, is obvious to all except the anti-Semites. I hope that Israel finishes this current undertaking successfully, doesn't bow to International pressure to agree to a cease fire that only benefits Hamas, and that Israel continues as it has to minimize collateral damage while destroying Hamas tunnel networks and its ability to harm Israeli citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)