Obama Dithers... Troops Die!

Afghan, Pakistan carnage raises heat on Obama

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet - Times Online

Are you kidding me? What is this moron's intention... to kill every pig and cow on the earth? Well, newsflash: thats what we are doing, and while we're at it, we are eating the killed pigs and cows. The problem is more Pigs and cows are being born. Its a vicious cycle.

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet - Times Online

Americans’ Views on Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

from the 'Ya think?' department:

Americans’ Views on Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Howdy

Hi. I haven't posted anything here for a while. I couldn't bring myself to a place that I can put myself out there for the public to view. Although I thought about blogging as a therapy to my condition.

I am suffering from depression. I have no idea for how long, but it became extreme when i was laid-off in January from a very good job that I had just landed 3 months earlier. Prior to that, I was unemployed for 8 months. In those 8 months, I woke up with a sense of optimism, and began each day anew looking for a job, or a consulting position or a bartender job.

I landed a nice job in NYC that paid very well. I upgraded my entire wardrobe with new suits, new shoes, new shirts, new ties. I really enjoyed the bus ride to/from the city, and it was a blast being in the most exiting, vibrant place in the world. I was downsized after 3 months (last in/first out).

This was devastating. I now had to start all over with the job search, but with one major difference: I found that my optimism reserves completely drained ... replaced with feelings of being worthless/helpless/hopeless. I couldn't even get out of bed. I ate because I had to, I bathed because I had to. I put on the best face I could in front of my children, but it was difficult at times to hide the tears.

During this period, my inner scream was deafening with terrible thoughts. I feared the kitchen and thankfully i had nothing more powerful than an aspirin in the house.

I had a girlfriend until April. But she too suffers from depression. She could not help me and it became a further downward spiral with her, so I probably did the best thing I could do: I broke up with her.

I read an article somewhere about a guy who was in a similar situation. He had made a decision to get a dog. As he described it, having something around that is an eternal optimist, always happy, and gives you unconditional love is a tremendous gift. So, after always having cats as pets, I shocked everyone (including my kids) and got a dog.


Bella saved me. She gave me a reason to get up in the morning, she got me off the couch. She jump started my attitude. I got her in May from Animal Rescue (this is another story), and she gave me the courage to reach out for help. I began seeing a therapist, but it was Bella who's therapy of her happiness and optimism that really worked.

I landed a job in September and it is going very well. I feel better about myself but I know that I still suffer from depression. Depression isn't something that can be turned on and off, it can be controlled, but it can't be eliminated. I am now way to busy to focus on that.

With all of that said, I hope to begin blogging again because my inner scream has finally quieted down do a dull roar, and there are lots of things to scream at.

French Military Engagement

Well the French finally had a military engagement where they DIDN'T surrender.

BRITISH and French nuclear submarines which collided deep under the Atlantic could have sunk or released deadly radioactivity, it emerged last night.

Amen, brother!

The silver lining for this 'Jimmy Carter II" administration is that there might be a 'Ronald Reagan II' administration in 4 years.

Even when the economy and the securities markets are sluggish, the Fed's financing of big federal deficits can be inflationary. We learned that in the late 1970s, when the Fed's deficit financing sent the CPI up to an annual rate of almost 15%. That confounded the Keynesian theorists who believed then, as now, that federal spending "stimulus" would restore economic health.

Inflation is the product of the demand for money as well as of the supply. And if the Fed finances federal deficits in a moribund economy, it can create more money than the economy can use. The result is "stagflation," a term coined to describe the 1970s experience. As the global economy slows and Congress relies more on the Fed to finance a huge deficit, there is a very real danger of a return of stagflation. I wonder why no one in Congress or the Obama administration has thought of that as a potential consequence of their stimulus package.

Israel launches air strikes on Gaza...

...and its about F'n time!

About the Bradley Effect

Back in 1982, the LA mayor Tom Bradley (who was black) ran for governor. He was ahead in the poles by about 9 points and he lost the election. The problem was that people would tell pollsters that they were voting for Bradley, but then voted for the other guy. Of course racism was blamed, and it was probably true.

This year, there are now concerns that the Bradley Effect may happen. If it happens, a lot of people will begin pointing fingers at who the racists are. I will just say this: Those that say they are voting for McCain probably will. Those that say they are voting for Obama may not vote for him. Those that say they are voting for Obama are predominantly Democrats. Therefore, if the Bradley Effect takes place, the racists are predominantly Democrats.

Now for the fun part: they can utilize the Kerry Effect and say 'well I voted for Obama (in the primary) before I voted against him'.

How's that Global Warming coming along?

Read this from John Hawkins. Picked from the Drudge Report headlines comes this:


In a few years, when we all begin to realize that the only man-made warming going on is centered around Al Gore's mouth, what will humanity do to heat up the planet again? I mean it will be a calamity when the growing season is cut short due to global cooling, less food means higher prices, more demand on fur coats, overcrowded ski resorts etc.

Should we stop being green and become brown? should we trade in our Prius for Hummers? should we plug back in our old light bulbs and start using aerosol sprays?

Was Robin Hood a Socialist?

Robin Hood is famous for 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor'. This, to most people is the justification for his greatness. Isn't this exactly what the Democrats are advocating from their tax policies... to tax the rich even more and give it to people who aren't even paying taxes? After all, everyone needs money to survive and everyone needs a fair chance at the American dream... right?

Isn't this exactly what Obama is advocating, when he had this exchange over the weekend?

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama just let slip his true colors by living up to the following statement: "from those with means to those with need". This is the central tenant of socialism as stated by Karl Marx. It sounds great with lofty ideals, but the reality is that it punishes those that are succesful and rewards those that are not. This creates a disincentive for those who are the earners, and creates an incentive for those who are not. In the end, there will be fewer and fewer people who are motivated to do well.... to create and grow businesses that hire people only to be taxed more and more as the succeed... to create wealth that will be confiscated to give to people who don't earn it. Just look at European countries with their high unemployment and very expensive governments.

My view is that Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich to give to the poor. What he did was take back from the tax collectors the punitive taxes leveled on the people, and gave back that money to those that really owned it... the people. Robin Hood was not a socialist, he was against an all powerful government trying to suppress it's people and he led a revolt against that government.

In modern day politics, Obama is not the Robin Hood, he represents the repressive government who will send out his tax collectors. Unfortunately, there is no modern day Robin Hood in American Politics. The GOP and DEM parties are both spending our money like drunken sailors and increasing the size and scope of FEDGOV to a point where they have to confiscate more and more of our earnings.

The Last Robin Hood we had in America was Newt Gingrich who led the GOP into power in 1994 and brought some sanity back to FEDGOV. He led the GOP to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful spending, reduced welfare and balanced the budget. Unfortunatly, that was short lived as the culture of Washington overcame these reformers. In 2006, Conservatives got tired of this and didn't come out to vote figuring that if the GOP was going to act like DEMS, then what's the difference?

The GOP will remain in the wilderness until they can get their 'Robin Hood' soul back.

btw, who is john Galt?

What a frustrating game

I am a Giants fan. I don't think I have ever yelled at the tv more than I did tonight. Cleveland played a good football game and the Giants were playing cricket.

Not once did Jason Tuck's name get called. Not once did any defense player's name get called. Not once did the Cleveland QB get even touched... no sacks... no knock downs.... no pressure. THERE WAS NO DEFENSE AT ALL! You'd think they would have made some adjustments during halftime.

The Offense wasnt looking much better. Eli wasn't on his game and Burris wasn't on Eli's page.

It's like the Giants didn't prepare for this game. It's like they took the game for granted.

The Giants better get their act together this week or they won't survive Dallas... with or without Romo.

ACORN is the seed...

ACORN is the seed to this growing financial crisis. via Powerline

As John says "One of the common themes of modern American history is that liberals will create a problem by ill-advised government action, then benefit from it politically by proposing ever more intrusive government action to solve it. That appears to be happening again in connection with today's credit crisis."

Why can't the MSM do their job objectively?

Worst Case Scenario for GOP an Hillary

I usually agree with the Powerline guys. Their analysis is usually spot on. In this case, while I agree with the conclusion, I don't agree with the premise.

Here is the premise (the bolding is mine):

The worst thing is that the left-wing Dems are poised to take control at a time of apparent economic crisis, or something approaching it. History suggests that under these circumstances, the party that gains control keeps it for longer than normal. FDR's victory in 1932 was the start of 20 years of Democratic control. After Reagan prevailed in 1980, the Republicans occupied the White House for 12 years. Clinton came to power towards the end of a mild recession. But for a quirk in the electoral process, the Dems would have held the White House for at least 12 years thereafter.

Clinton came to power because Ross Perot took about 20% of the vote that otherwise would have gone to George Bush. Clinton may have won in the next election, however we'll never know.

Here is the conclusion that I think is spot-on:

It's not mysterious that canddiates and parties elected in bad times do well in subsequent elections. First, it is natural to give them time to "fix" things. Second, the business cycle, and the underlying strength of our nation, are such that we tend not only to recover fairly quickly from downturns, but to emerge from them stronger than before. Both the law of averages and the laws of economic suggest that our economy will be in significantly better shape in October 2012 than it is today. In that scenario, a President Obama would have a huge advantage over any challenger.

Weighing slightly against this analysis is the fact that voters today are, I believe, much more impatient -- i.e., spoiled -- than in the past. We certainly are not likely to wait five to ten years for a full recovery, as voters did in FDR's day. On the other hand, the gang set to take over power this time seems far more prepared to rely on Chicago-style machine politics, voter fraud, and perhaps additional anti-democratic methods than were their counterparts in 1980 and 1992.

This is why Hillary doesn't want Obama to win. She'll need to wait 8 years before she can get elected. However, she doesn't want a Republican to win either for the same reason outlined above.

Is this the year Capitalism Died?

20 years from now, when historians are writing the history books about this current time, will they mark 2008 the year capitalism died? When we tell stories to our grandchildren about a time when we individuals had economic freedom, freedom to purchase what we wanted, not just what we needed, a time when we had freedom to work where we wanted, not where society said to work, a time when American ingenuity drove the success of our nation, will we remember how we lost our freedoms? Will we remember the gradual loss of freedom, started by the New Deal and continuing to this day by ever increasing FedGov scope and size? Will we remember when FedGov began confiscating people's wealth and property in the name of a greater society and in the name of environmentalism? Will we remember when Fedgov began taking over companies like AIG, and began controlling Health Care, Insurance, Lending and other industries?

Will we remember who John Galt was?

It Sounded like a good idea at the time

This financial bailout is a major shit in the way we view America, and what America stands for. I don't think this bailout should be rushed, nor should anyone play politics with the bill.

We stand to lose a great deal of freedom and liberty if this bill is not done correctly. If we lose our ability to fail, we will soon loose our ability to succeed.

After all of the reading about this, and I'm no financial wizard, it seems the root cause is that FedGov, in a time of economic surpluses, wanted to force the 'trickle down' allow home ownership assistance to those who may be in positions to really afford it. Thus, lending institutions were forced to make loans that were that much more risky. It sounded like a good idea at the time.

Freddie and Fannie, being government enterprises, backed these loans. These institutions grew too large and didn't reserve enough cash to ensure these institutions would not fail in worse economic conditions. Now, We the People must make a choice, and it is not a good choice. We need to either spend at least 700 billion (and since when did any fedgov program not cost way more) to shore up the financial market by buying up the bad debt at a discounted price. If this is done right, all of the money will be eventually repaid by selling the assets at a higher price when the market goes up. If this is done wrong, we will not only eat the cost, but transfer so much power to FedGov that we may as well call ourselves the Peoples Republic of America because FedGov will have direct ownership of banks and lending institutions as well as Insurance companies (AIG).

The other option is for Fedgov to do nothing to bail out these institutions. Rather, they should rescind the legislation that was created in the first place that caused this mess. This may cause another stock market crash, and a real recession in the short term. However, the market will correct itself and we will be stronger for it. This is probably the right thing to do, but highly unlikely in an election year. Nor will our congresscritters admit that fedgov is the problem rather than the solution.

We don't hear press reports about the root causes. there is a very good reason for this: the press has an agenda that is to do no harm.... to Democrats. I have linked to video showing the history of the problem, and you see that Bush, GOP leaders and McCain has all said we need to fix the problem before it gets out of hand. Here is another link. Well, it is out of hand now thanks to inaction by the Donkeys.

No matter what congress decides, we are in for tough times.

Watch This!

If there is one thing you must do today, you must watch this:

PETH-etic

Holy Cow, Batman!

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is asking Ben and Jerry's to stop it's use of cow milk and substitute human milk instead.

VERMONT -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman."PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.

So PETA would rather we stop exploiting cows, which incidentally were put on this earth so us humans can consume them (If god didn't intend us to eat cows, she wouldn't have made them out of steak), and begin to exploit humans.

Just for sake of argument, (like I really need to make one to show what a really stupid idea this is) we begin to milk humans for our daily dairy needs. A cow can produce about 19,500 pounds of milk per year. One human can only produce a tiny fraction of this. For the amount of milk that the world's population needs, it will take almost every human capable of producing milk to be constantly hooked up to a milking machine. What will the National Organization of Women think about this? How can a women perform in the workplace while she is hooked up to a milker? How can title IX survive when a women's soccer team has to stop every so often to milk their players? I can just see it now.... world leaders demanding we produce more girls to raise the overall milk production.

Meanwhile, happy healthy cows are wandering around in perfect bliss because we are not molesting them for their milk nor are we eating them.

For this reason, I am creating a new advocacy group called PETH - People for the Unethical treatment of Humans. We can call this idea pethetic.

Who's to blame?

Who is to blame for the current financial crisis?

Watch this:



From all accounts, President Bush has been raising this issue from almost his first inaugural. We see Alan Greenspan signaling problems, and we see John McCain sponsoring legislation to place some over site board over Freddie and Fannie. It looks like the Democrats had blinders on to the future of the GSE's.

It is no wonder harry Reid et al has no clue how to resolve this... they are the ones who allowed this mess to happen.

McCain's Gambit

Here we have a situation where Bush (who has a plan), Democrats (who don't have any plans), Conservatives (who are not fond of bailouts), McCain (who has also put forth a plan) and Obama (uh...if.. uh...uh...If I'm uh needed, I'll uh... come to uh... Washington) are all in desperate need of someone to pull it all together and get it done. What is needed is someone to take a leadership role. Enter John McCain.

McCain will go to Washington and meet with Bush, leaders of both parties and Barrack Obama to hammer out the details. The Conservatives do not want McCain lose the presidentsy, so they will eventually support (albeit reluctantly) whatever Bush and McCain hammer out. Democrats, who want to take action but don't know how, will also go along with the deal but they will try to add silly things to the bill so they can also claim victory. Obama is just window dressing as he has shown that he does not have a real voice of power at the table.

Only McCain can deliver the deal. Harry Reid and the Democrats knows this. If the Democrats then oppose this deal, they will look like obstructionists who will oppose anything the GOP does without offering any viable alternatives (once again...referring to an energy policy).

This is clearly a win-win for McCain, and a lose-lose for Obama. How many more times can Reid, Pelosi get snookered? I don't know, but it seems that it is very seasy to do.