Obama the Foreign Policy bungler

There is no question that democracy subverts patriotism. In a country like ours the days of true love of country by the majority is long gone. Most Americans, in their comfort, lack any real understanding of nationhood. We are so rich, strong and free that we do not feel the need to unite against our enemies. In fact, we revel in our own so-called faults and diminish the threat our enemies pose. The New York Times breaks the law by publishing national secrets. They will not be prosecuted. In fact, they are applauded for doing their "civic duty" no matter the cost to the country. It is clear that many more Americans will have to die before we wake up and stand together against our enemies. But how many more? For some "Americans" no amount of American deaths will ever justify war.
And in this atmosphere where our enemies laugh at our disunity and moral confusion, Barack Obama would like to hold high level talks with Ahmadmanijad. Pericles has some advice for Obama:

"And with the foreknowledge that you will have a noble future as well as a present free of shame, do not send heralds to the Spartans and do not let them know you are tormented by your present suffering." (italics mine)

What does he hope to accomplish? High level talks will be a demonstration that extremists can bring the US to heel. If Obama thinks the US has been diminished under George Bush's leadership wait until he meets with Mahmoud--in that instant we will lose 75% of our diplomatic clout. Here's an analogy: do you negotiate with your children? If you do, you're a fool and you have validated all kinds of childish and destructive behavior. Iran is an especially childish nation.

And if you think Biden helps Obama on foreign policy--think again.

Huh?

So, the RNC spending $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe is news but Obama's millions of dollars in foreign and fraudulent donations isn't?

The media is simply a propaganda unit of the Obama campaign.

Also, check out this stuff from zombie on Ayers.

Green Lies

This story from the LA Times refers to a study by an eco-lobbying outfit, Next 10. The lead author is a "professor" of ag and resource economics (that's my major!) at UC Berkeley, David Roland-Holst. I put professor in quotes because some of the things he says and the conclusions reached in his "study" are nonsense. The conclusions are preconceived and not supported by any economic logic. He claims that regulation in California over the last thirty years increased employment and income. There is no question that regulation creates jobs, the question is whether there is a net increase in employment and income. The study tries to claim that we are better off economically due to the regulations because of the jobs created, the money saved from higher energy efficiency and the money spent on things other than energy. Are we to believe that, absent government regulation, there would have been less efficiency? It can be claimed, maybe, that we have spent less on energy due to government regs but that does not necessarily mean we have been more efficient in our use of energy resources. Money spent on jobs and projects due to regulation is money we could have spent on other, more desirable investment and it is a certainty that California's economy would have grown more without the regulation. By constantly referring to jobs and industries bolstered by regulation "economists" like Roland-Holst avoid this crucial issue. If jobs created were the metric to judge such things by we should just hire all the unemployed to dig giant holes in the desert. They would have jobs, we would have holes, and we would have spent millions of dollars for holes in the desert. When considering such things government is supposed to conduct cost-benefit studies. And as I have mentioned before jobs created by regulation are a COST of that regulation, not a BENEFIT.

The article also says that some businesses agree with this analysis but they only name one: "Applied Materials". AM is a company that stands to gain from the proposed regulations hence their support is rent-seeking of the worst sort. But of course the LA Times leaves that out. And what, exactly, is the relationship between Applied Materials and Next 10? The head of AM is quoted on the Next 10 website. Are Roland-Holst and Next 10 investors in AM?


The key problem with all the economic studies commissioned by CARB and this one is that they lack clear cost-benefit analyses of the proposed regulations. Instead they focus on job creation and alleged higher state income. The studies are simply works of economic prophesy that are non-falsifiable on their own terms. And they are logically unsound.


If green technology is the gold mine that these guys say it is why do we need government regulation to make it happen? If we can produce all our energy from solar and wind at relatively low cost why do we need government regualtion to make it happen? I'll tell you why: these guys may not talk about cost-benefit analysis but they know what it shows. Absent, government mandates oil, coal, and nuclear are the most efficient sources of energy.

If you ran a business and the government told you to hire ten guys to be in regulatory compliance would that strike you as "efficient"? I am sure those ten guys would say yes and that is the gist of Professor Roland-Holst's argument.

President for LIfe Obama and his propaganda unit, the AP

In a story about Jerome Corsi being deported from Kenya by the AP:

"Corsi's book claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president and includes innuendoes and false rumors — that he was raised a Muslim and attended a radical black church."

I don't care for Jerome Corsi but how is it a "false rumor" that Obama attended a radical black church? The AP is simply lying here. It may be a "false rumor" that Obama was not raised a Muslim, but why is his religion listed as "Islam" on his Indonesian school records? Certainly the AP has no idea if Obama was or was not raised a Muslim, at least for a time, in his youth. And why exactly does it matter in our glorious multicultural society if he was?

The AP is a tool of the Obama campaign. They are not an objective news organization--they are a propaganda organization. And as such, they can suck on my ballsack.

Is Obama going to rule as an African strongman? Let's see if he nationalizes the oil companies and lines his pockets with oil money. I wonder if has already opened his Swiss bank accounts.

Obama the Brainiac

Much is made of Obama's intelligence in comparison to Sarah Palin's supposed lack of it. Obviously, he isn't dumb but let's remember that intelligence alone is not sufficient to be president:

"The man who founded the Third Reich, who ruled it ruthlessly and often with uncommon shrewdness, who led it to such dizzy heights and to such a sorry end, was a person of undoubted, if evil, genius." (emphasis mine)

--From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer

I am not saying that Obama is Hitler (I think he's more like Stalin) but just pointing out that there are other traits important in a president: like pride in America, optimism, a belief in the individual freedom to pursue happiness, and extremely high skill at managing people. I just don't think Obama possesses any of these qualities.

Obama and the Terrorist

This is from Obama's website:

RHETORIC: He was then asked about his association with William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground, a radical group from the 1960s and '70s. Ayers was quoted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as saying he did not regret setting bombs and that "we didn't do enough." [Washington Post, 4/17/08]

REALITY: AYERS COMMENTS WERE PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 11; THE INTERVIEW OCCURRED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION

On September 11, 2001, A Story About William Ayers' Memoir Was Published In The New York Times; The Interview Occurred Prior To Publication. "'I don't regret setting bombs,' Bill Ayers said. 'I feel we didn't do enough.' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago." [New York Times, 9/11/01]

Ayers wishes he had bombed and killed more. That wish is evil, heinous, disgraceful and bloodthirsty. If he had said it after 9/11, he would be merely callous in addition to evil, heinous, disgraceful and bloodthirsty. For the Obama campaign there is only a problem if Ayers is callous.

ANd you gotta love when Obama says he was only eight years old when Ayers committed his crimes. I get it, Obama, you didn't have anything to do with the WU! But you still don't associate with the scum who did! But, "he was a respected educator"!? Then I guess you have to question all the premises of those who respect him--but that would mean giving up hard left liberal politics and you just couldn't do that, could you Obama? The truth is, Obama is right there with him in spirit trampling on the American flag. But so are very many Americans--MoveOn, Huffington, Hollywood, the Ivy League, etc. It is going to be very hard to live with eachother.

"A storm is coming..."--Helo (on Battlestar Galactica).

Blame it on Roosevelt

I am going to go all the way back to the beginning of massive government intervention in the economy---the New Deal. All of the federal government's social engineering policies are rooted in FDR's policies. The overarching policy to put everyone, regardless of income, in their own home is rooted in the democrat party's idea that everyone deserves every possible benefit without paying the cost. Republicans deserve blame for going along with this and not trying to repeal these policies. But, of course, all the democrats have to do when any Republican tries this is to shout: "Republicans hate poor people!". And then any reform is dropped.

It is always good to remember the proverb: "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime." FDR, the New Deal, the Great Society and all democrat party policy is just giving a man a fish...until we don't fish left and we have a problem.

Congressman Xavier Becerra, hyper partisan jerk

Congressman Becerra sent out his latest email claiming that poverty has "steadily risen" during the Bush administration. He purposely starts the rise in 2001, the lowest point in the poverty rate since the glorious Ford administration. And he also uses raw numbers, saying that 4,400,000 more people are now in poverty. This translates to a less than 1% increase since 2001 and a poverty rate lower than most years since 1959 (the year the Census Bureau started measuring the poverty rate). Nevermind that "poverty" in the United States means living in a house, having cable TV, plenty of food, etc. So you might have to go without a flatscreen, an iPhone, high speed intenet, etc. By any measure Americans are better off now than ever before but Congressman Becerra chooses to score partisan points with misleading statistics. He's a jerk, But it doesn't matter: in the glorious democracy of California politics he is running unopposed.

Also...Congressman Becerra was a critical part of Speaker Pelosi's plan to kill the "bailout" bill while seeming to support it. He is the "Assistant to the Speaker" and he has no fear of being punished for a yes vote. Clearly, Nancy told him he should vote no and he could "take a stand".