Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘WP Political Blogger Alliance’ Category


Iran, Russia, and The Peoples Republic of China are fermenting unrest throughout the world.  In actuality, Iran is the point of this troubling spear and Russia and China are the enablers.  Both Russia and China have important trade arrangements with Iran.  Oil, again, is the root of the unresolved Iranian nuclear problem.  China obtains most of its oil from Iran and this oil is critically necessary to fuel China’s growing economy and military—China will protect this oil life line fiercely.  Russia has a lucrative trade export arrangement with Iran.  This trade includes conventional arms, among other manufactured goods, making Iran one of its key export partners.

Neither China nor Russia is interested in an embargo of Iran because they depend heavily on Iranian trade.  Thus Iran has been able to buy time and hold off the international community in its effort to develop a nuclear weapon.  Without the strongest support of China and Russia, the international community including the United States is neutralized.   Take note of today’s announcement at the international G20 meeting by the leaders of the U.S., the U.K., and France about sanctions, in that neither Russia nor China was present.

The Europeans are afraid of pushing Iran hard and are more interested in appeasement due to the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s grip on the world’s oil supply.  Back in March of 2008, I wrote:  Oil, It will destroy us!

“Have you noticed that there is a direct correlation between worldwide tensions and oil?  If you might be wondering why Russia’s Vladimir Putin [now Medvedev and Putin] has started to flex his muscles and become obstinate in the fight against global terror…you should be. If you are wondering why Iran has become so independent and belligerent of late…you should be. Have you looked at our own hemisphere lately? Take a good look at Venezuela and how Chavez is as bold as can be in creating an anti-U.S. socialist state more powerful than Cuba ever was….Well! It is all about oil!

Ask any military strategist and they will tell you that one of the reasons we cannot leave Iraq as we want to, is that we are afraid Iran will…make Iraq a satellite country in its attempt to create a worldwide caliphate (A caliphate is a fundamentalist theocratic form of tyrannical government, that unites all Muslims covering a wide swath of geography in the world, under one rule). This is not a good thing for the west. This could place Iran in a position to directly control 10% of the world’s oil (includes oil equivalent products in the production) and to indirectly control 44% of the world’s oil exports which are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, by shutting down the Strait or creating the caliphate. In addition, today the group of thugs known as Russia, Iran, Venezuela could conceivably directly control 29% (with Iraq, 32%) of the world’s oil production, and indirectly control exports, when the Strait is included, to bring the overall control to 66% of world oil exports. An Iran controlling Iraq and the Strait of Hormuz would be one very powerful entity–an entity that has a culture and a philosophy directly opposite ours. Iran is a country that does not do well with negotiation, especially when we are in a position to lose and they are in a position to gain. Is it possible to successfully negotiate from weakness? NO! Are we in a position of weakness in such a negotiation? YES!

Considering that since our oil import consumption is at 31% of the world’s oil exports, and the control of 66% of the world’s oil exports by Iran and its new very cash rich friends can be a quick reality, we should be worried and reactive. Yet we are not!…

What do we do?  In the short term we are powerless and our national oil policy has been the problem.  Had we had a robust domestic drilling program for oil and natural gas, we would be in a position to sell China its much needed oil and natural gas.  Instead we allowed China to become dependent on Iran for its economic lifeblood, crude oil, and Iran knows this.

Selling China that oil and natural gas that we have under our land and off shore, and did not go after, would have had far reaching effects internationally:

First it would have made China less dependent on Iran, allowing China to support intense pressure on Iran and have avoided the thwarting of the international community’s efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  In addition, China could also have put pressure on North Korea to keep that rogue power from selling missile technology and parts to Iran.  These missiles are the delivery vehicle for the nuclear weapons.

Second, by selling China oil, we would have had an opportunity to balance our trade deficit with China.  China would have been an equal trade partner and not our banker/lender.

Instead we chose to be flat out dumb on the use of our abundant untapped offshore and arctic natural resources, oil and natural gas.  It is not too late to work toward making China an equal trade partner, rather than the one sided arrangement we currently have.  It may be too late to solve the Iranian matter, but there will be other international troubles, including North Korea.  China can be instrumental in providing support to manage those matters.  They are a pragmatic country when it comes to protecting their self interests and this can work in our favor.

Our country continues to eschew the leverage oil would bring us as an international policy driver.  Why do we continue to do this?  I know, we want to save the planet, but if we don’t obtain the leverage necessary to control the spread of nuclear weapons we may not have a planet to save.  Right now oil and natural gas are the best tools God has given this nation to keep world peace and we are blind to it.  As a peacemaker, oil and natural gas in the right hands are the keys to world stability.  In the wrong hands they are a flash point.

Read Full Post »


When reading print media pundits, like Maureen Down, or listening to cable media pundits and our black Representatives in Congress, I have become seriously distraught.  Throughout my life, I have learned that when you disagree with someone or find them misrepresenting the truth—lying, you could call them out on the statement or statements based on the facts.

Now, I am finding out that when I or another —shall I say it—white person call out or simply question a person of color about a disagreement of ideology or simply thought, I am a racist.  When I need to question statements of incorrect fact from a person of color, formerly known as lying, then again I am a racist.  I am so sorry for the previous indiscretions and failure to understand that I have become a racist.  Apparently I need to apologize.  But how and to whom?

This brings up another bit of recent confusion.  How and to whom do I apologize?  Apparently, as Representative Joe Wilson found out, there is now an extensive protocol to an apology involving dissent of a far left liberal of color.  As a newly identified racist, I apparently must apologize to the party who was misrepresenting the truth, his Chief of Staff, the Vice-President, both in writing and by telephone, and then finally apologize to the political community as demanded by another person of color, Congressman James E. Clyburn.

I wish someone would provide a manual on this racist apology thing.  I also hope that someone includes in the manual a section on:

  • How do I tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth, lying, or that they are just simply misguided?
  • Will this section in the manual suggest that I just sit on my hands and close my mouth—saying absolutely nothing?
  • Would this be acceptable?

Perhaps, there might be some sort of color code.  If I feel a person of color is not telling the truth or is misguided, perhaps I can hold up a color coded card.  Choice of color must be absolutely correct of course or I might inadvertently move to the bigot category.

Maybe we can use a nondescript muted red color to tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth.  A bland off white—oh, that will not work—white may be offensive as I am white, thus it may be interpreted by the far left as I am right and they are wrong.  Wait, we can use a bland gray—the equal mix of white and black can be used to indicate that I disagree with the potentially offended person of color.

I have it now!  When I confront a person of color who is lying, I will just hold up a red card.  When I just disagree, I will hold up a gray card.  This system, I hope will keep me out of racist hell and avoid that bigot label.  I certainly hope this will be acceptable to the far left, the pundit police, and our Representatives in Congress who are not  Caucasians.

Alternatively: All these folks can get real and not use the now heavily over used “racist” label to attempt to intimidate and quiet dissent, as they have been doing.   Generally and often calling a person a racist when they disagree with a person of color can only be the last arrow in the quiver of the far left in their fight to move an unpopular agenda and to quiet the other side by intimidation.

Read Full Post »


The funeral for the main stream cable broadcast media is occurring today.  At this writing, note this post’s date and time of 2:05 PM EDT, the Mall in Washington, D.C. is filled with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents.  TV pictures reveal that the Mall is tightly packed from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, with overflow, as  a CBS affiliate reports, onto Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House.

The Fourth Estate, aptly brought to life by Edmund Burke in the House of Commons on a particular session during the 19th century, is the press.  The clergy, nobles, and commoners being the other three.  These estates were essentially the makeup of the British government at that time.  He referred to the Fourth Estate as the most powerful of the estates present that day in the House of Commons—they were in the gallery.  Closer to home, our Founding Fathers believed the Fourth Estate was similarly powerful and sufficiently independent to keep the three branches of our new government in check.  This is why freedom of the press is clearly written into our Constitution.  They were depending on the press to keep government honest.  In no way did they ever believe that the press would become complicit with the government and withhold key pieces of news, slant the news coverage, and become the house organ of two of the three branches of government.

Incredibly, at this writing CNN is broadcasting a Barack Obama speech on reform before a large  partisan audience.  It is yet another speech by him in three or so days on healthcare reform—are they expecting him to say something new?  The President is stumping in relatively Democratic conclaves trying to repair the breach in his Party over health insurance reform—this breach has gone mostly unreported by CNN.  At this writing, MSNBC had planned a televised mystery / crime documentary which must be quite good and must serve the public interest to allow them to skip reporting about a long time planned event at the Mall in the nation’s capitol, now mostly filled with grass roots demonstrators made up of every day citizen protestors.  It now appears that MSNBC did manage to do some reporting of the event after all.  These protesters are mostly against big government and big spending, regardless of political party.  If this were an anti-war rally, MSNBC would be reporting.  If this was a Obama campaign rally, they would be reporting with flourishes.

The estimate for the attendance by the Park Police is 60,000.  Recently, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, issued a memo claiming that 2 Million will show.  She was setting ultra high expectations, so she could later minimize any protest significance.  Well if the Mall is filled, depending on how tightly packed it is, it can hold anywhere between 1.7 Million to 2.1 Million people.  TV pictures indicate that the Mall is filled.  Remember CBS reported that crowd overflow filled Pennsylvania Avenue.  Of course, government estimates, the Speaker’s estimates, and the news media’s estimates will be substantially minimized to accommodate their agenda.  The Washington Post had an article written at the inauguration of President Obama about how many people the Mall can hold—Mall information found at the Washington Post click here.

Based on the broadbased main stream media failed reporting on the just broken high impact ACORN story and the failed or minimal reporting on the Tea Party protests around the country today, I can only state, if you are depending on this dead media for information, you are uninformed.  The exceptions are those of you who are getting your news from Fox or by searching the internet for real news, not a blog like mine, otherwise you are seriously in the dark and cannot make informed decisions about our nation’s future.  If you meet this uninformed criteria, then careful, you are being manipulated with all the news these “news” operations deem you should have, with the slant they want you to have.

This ideological conspiracy is an attempt at censorship plain and simple.  MSNBC and now apparently CNN among other complicit news organizations are attempting to feed the populace with what they want us to know and are withholding selected news.   If it weren’t for Fox News Channel and the internet—call it the Fifth Estate, they would be successful in using censorship to manage government propaganda.  Are we living in a free nation or are we in a government and media controlled society, like Venezuela and Iran?   

I for one will not be steered and will not comply.  Want more? Read The Acorn Story Truly Exposes Main Stream Media.

Read Full Post »


We can officially declare September 10, 2009 the day honest media was laid to rest.  The breaking ACORN story—a viral internet story—broken by a new internet site “BigGovernment.Com”, and specifically James O’Keefe is a first class newsworthy story.  The story is clearly seriously detrimental to ACORN and the multitude of politicians in Congress and in the White House who have allied themselves with ACORN.

The Story, the back story, and extensive video can be seen at BigGovernment.Com: click here and review all the video clips, including the Glen Beck of Fox News clip.

 The story is big since ACORN receives millions in federal money—our tax money—and will receive Billions from the recent stimulus bill.  We know of ACORN activities from reports of rampant national voter registration fraud allegedly perpetrated by ACORN during the 2008 election cycle.  We also know that our President was a community organizer attorney advising ACORN for years.  We know of his intimate relationship and his history with ACORN during his Illinois Senate days, United States Senate Days, his campaign, and now his enthusiastic interaction with ACORN while President of the United States.

ACORN is clearly affiliated with SEIU, the Service Employees International Union—those folks who wear the purple shirts—through common related management and common addresses.  SEIU was instrumental in fostering an Obama victory by providing heaps of union dues money and plentiful union volunteers.  Of late it was utilized to picket the homes of financial executives in Connecticut over bonuses.

This story is huge from so many directions and it, if completely developed, could lead right to the White House and Congress.  Yet, no major news outlet is running with it to any legitimate extent, except Fox News.

Remember these ACORN folks specialize in helping community people to get the most from their government and regularly provide help and advice on how to maximize their members’ opportunities with applications for welfare, other government monetary assistance.  And now we see they have mortgage specialists providing “special” assistance.

Big Questions:

  • How many mortgages that ended in foreclosure and helped tank our economy were made possible by the apparent “extreme” advice provide by ACORN to non-qualified applicants?  How many non-qualified applicants qualified due to the “extreme” mortgage application and supporting documents advice provided by ACORN around the country?  I use the word “extreme” to indicate that where there is smoke, etc., …well you get the point. 
  • Just how much do our Representatives and Senators, such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd among others in Congress, know about ACORN’s activities and why haven’t we seen any Congressional investigations operate with a full head of steam?  John Conyers was going to initiate an investigation, but cancelled it saying that “powers-to-be decided not to investigate”.  Who are the powers-to-be?  Who is protecting ACORN in the Congress and possibly the White House?
  • Why is the main stream media complicit in playing down or simply not reporting what appears to be massive fraud?  Is there a conspiracy of major media to lead us down the primrose path to socialism with a generous helping of organized community groups and political corruption tossed in for flavor?

The media is more concerned with Fox and now O’Keefe of BigGovernment.Com than with the real story.  The trusting public has been steered by most big media to support the current administration and the current administration was not and is not vetted and challenged.   Either big media is complicit with intentionally steering the populace or it is just terrible incompetent and gullible. Either way Americans who still get their news from the big media, other than Fox and a few other outlets are woefully uninformed.

Recently Robin Roberts of ABC interviewed President Obama about his healthcare proposals and she asked him about the distraction of losing Van Jones.  Bill O’Reilly of Fox News expertly pointed out on his show that Roberts more correctly should have asked him why was Van Jones picked to be in his administration as an unconfirmed Czar.  She should  have asked what is and how deep is Obama’s relationship with this avowed communist and ex-convict.  (Have we ever had an ex-convict be a Presidential advisor?)  It appears that either Roberts is incompetent or she is attempting to help our President achieve his goals regardless of all the issues surrounding those goals. 

We simply cannot trust most main stream media any longer as, with very few exceptions, honest media died some time ago—it was officially laid to rest yesterday.

Read Full Post »


The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade seems to apply to the current debate on health care—the right to privacy.  In that ruling, the Supreme Court established what is said to be “settled law” that a right to privacy is found in the constitution, even though not specifically stated.

Today’s health care bills include companions to H.R. 3200 in the Senate and the House.  These bills and especially H.R. 3200 have a common element.  It is the stripping of privacy from American citizens.  Just as a woman has the sacred right to manage her reproductive rights (per the Supreme Court), millions of Americans who would be fined for not having health care insurance have the right of privacy on how they manage their health care.

An excerpt from Mr. Justice Blackmun’s deliverance of the opinion of the court states:

 “…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

Essentially, I argue that any provision in the various bills circulating through Congress that could or would limit, direct, or propagate medical direction based on age and/or the condition itself is unconstitutional, under the right to privacy and other tenets of Roe v. Wade.

I argue that the degree of medical care suitable and available for the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s medical condition is up to the individual and the individual’s physician.  The available cure, prevention, or repair must be based on equal application of accepted general medical opinion on the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s condition and cannot be restricted or directed by the federal government or any state in any manner. 

I argue that any requirement requiring an individual to attend mandatory counseling sessions on life decisions is a violation of that individual’s right to privacy.

I argue that any fine for failure to keep health insurance is a violation of the right to privacy established under Roe v. Wade. I am a guy, but  I can still do with my body as I choose.

I argue that the federal government in its desire to create a nanny state is trampling on the precious tenets of this 1973 Supreme Court decision—a right to privacy for the individual. 

I argue that any attempt to house my or another person’s medical records with the government or any type of quasi-government agency, a requirement also found in these bills, is a violation of search and seizure and the aforementioned right to privacy.

Read Full Post »


Members of Congress have taken to calling those who are angry and attend health care town hall meetings “un-American” and a “right wing mob”.  Anyone who has viewed segments of these meetings should come to the opinion that while some may be on a mission from an organization, the crowd in general seems to support the more outspoken attendees. Speaker Pelosi has demonized anti-health care bill protesters at town hall meetings.  Her demonization of these very upset and frustrated people confirms that she is a hypocrite—watch in her own words.

Perhaps the anger goes deeper than the actual health care bill.  Perhaps the anger reaches all the way to defending one’s rights against a federal government intent on rolling right over the individual.  In this bill are requirements for citizens to attend counseling sessions and to create a board which will decide what procedures are good or bad for the people based on a formula.  As in other counties being held up as bastions of humane treatment by providing health care for all, this formula will look at a person’s age or health status to determine if the individual is entitled to a procedure, a type of care, or a pill.

Here is the $64 question!  Where does the federal government derive its authority to dictate how an American obtains health care or insurance and where he or she obtains health care or insurance?  What part of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, provides the federal government the right to make these decisions and interfere with the lives of its citizens’ freedom of choice about health care management?

Our Constitution is unique in that it provides the federal government with limited specific powers and it attempts to protect the citizens from their own federal government.  At some point in the last twenty years, we have forgotten this important constitutional keystone of our republic.  We must assume that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Whip of the Democratic Party in the House in their leadership positions should be acutely aware of the freedoms provided citizens in the Constitution and the limits on the federal government.  If they are not aware, then they should not be in those positions.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to minimize the health rights of the citizen, the anger being seen at town hall meetings may very well encompass more than simply a disagreement on healthcare.  These attendees are furious over the federal government’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate the health care of individuals and thus appear to be an unruly organized mob.  Their anger, most likely, also extends to the recent out of control spending by Congress and the prior and present administrations.

If you listen carefully, there is distrust of government and government representatives reflected in the comments of the attendees.  And if you listen more carefully to the comments from the Democratic hosts of these town halls, you will hear often disingenuous and trite statements and a desire not to listen to the attendees.  Often these disingenuous or trite comments inflame the already angry attendees to an even higher degree.

Since much of this healthcare bill is a gross violation of the powers provided the federal government under the constitution (if you don’t believe me, read it here or for a simpler version here), the attendees are being driven to frustrated ugly mob status because no one appears to be listening.  These deaf ears are attributed to the leadership in the House of Representatives and other federally elected officials.

Consider that this healthcare bill, specifically H.R. 3200, is enormous and hard to digest; the Democrats often themselves do not understand what is in the bill; and yet are attempting to unconstitutionally takeover one sixth of our economy while in the dark about the bill.  This is not only inadequate representation, it is also unconstitutional behavior.

If these actions by our elected representatives do not make you angry, you are not paying attention or you are getting your information from the wrong sources.  You need to join the angry mob, if only to defend the freedoms granted you in the constitution.  These freedoms are a bigger issue than little old healthcare.

Read Full Post »


Let’s for a moment put party labels aside.  The Republicans, Libertarians, independents, and the Democrats are no more, for the sake of this post.   Let’s look at politicians and advocates only as proponents of public sector or the private sector.

The proponents of public sector support the government’s caretaking of its people, either through public or co-op option medical care, providing money for car purchases, subsidizing power generation, and so on and so on—spending everywhere.

The private sector proponents seek growth of industry and economies, healthier paychecks for all, faith based options for caretaking, and wealth generation for reinvestment into greater wealth generation for all.

The public sector advocates want to spend resources on all sorts of programs but struggle with how to pay for the largess.  Remember the public sector produces nothing.  It is simply a drain on the economy and cannot be sustained.  Taxing the rich and businesses will generate funds for near term projects, but over time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the cupboard runs bare.  There is a limit to how much money can be pulled out of an economy to pay for public sector programs—the limit is what gets put back into the economy to replace what was spent.  Remember as you grow the public sector you shrink the private sector.  Soon the private sector will disappear and the public sector will have to provide less and less for the populace—rationing.

Remember the empty store shelves in the Soviet Union?  Well this will happen here if the production economy does not grow.  Unless we find a way to grow our economy we will not survive.  This country has been a consumer and not a production economy for nearly 40 years.  All this has done is deplete our reserves, build debt, make the dollar weaker, and make us unable to replenish what we are spending—we simply consume.  As a nation will will run out of whatever wealth we have left.

Just look at how the government has reacted to the current fiscal crisis.  It was brought on by debt.  Now we are fixing the problem by growing the public sector and we are borrowing to get out of debt—does this make sense to anyone. We should have ignited the private sector by placing a moratorium of income taxes for two or three years—it would have cost the same as the unproductive stimulus, but it would have already begun paying big dividends.

 The private sector advocates want smaller government, with the government being a small drain on the results of the private sector economy.  If the private sector is supported by the government through lower taxes, less restrictive rules, use of natural resources that allow the private sector to produce, the economy will produce, export, grow jobs and this will feed on itself, as if it were a perpetual engine—okay I exaggerate a bit.

If this government fosters a strong small business segment and a somewhat controlled big business segment usually through competition, but with legitimate— not choking —government regulation, the private sector over the long term will grow, and provide prosperity.  Since the public sector produces nothing, and is a 100 % drain on resources, it can never produce prosperity, that is unless we can have a replay of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes .

There are those who say that profit is bad, well unless these anti-profit people can offer another way to grow and replenish an economy to continue to deliver these goods and services, private sector profit is the only way to go.  Remember, how long can government deliver these goods and services without replenishing what has been used?  Remember the Soviet Union store shelves. 

Now I make the leap to government medical care.  Forget about the lack of efficiency and effectiveness in anything the government does.  Let us simply look at the non-replenished resources from a stagnant public sector economy.  How much time will pass before medical rationing must occur in a service driven by an economy that does not grow—it only shrinks.

Anyone who has not as yet joined the flat earth society should seriously consider that when you vote for a representative, that representative should be a long term thinker and always vote to build and grow an economy by producing.  If the person is a short term thinker and only believes in picking the fruit from the tree without ever feeding or water it, then you will get the diminishing public sector option and everyone will be equally poor.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: