A few random thoughts

• How pathetic are we with regard to the Qur'an burnings / ground zero mosque. People were actually begging that pastor to stop for fear of the muslim world retaliating with terror attacks.  And if we had the courage of our convictions, it would be the Imam in NYC who would be too afraid to build a triumphant conquering symbol in the World Trade Center.  Christianity is all but dead, not just here, but in the West in general.  Indeed, the West is well on its way to death, for we have replace ideals with pragmatism as the ultimate ideal.  Islam is nothing if not pragmatic, and we should fully expect world-wide caliphate within three generations.
• I'm done with conservatism.  Liberty is has become my personal number one priority and only libertarians understand and empathize with this sentiment.  I'm done with the drug war.  I'm done with the huge military budgets.  I'm done with protecting the socialist nations of Europe.  I'm done with the CIA and the FBI and am WAY done with the Dept. of Homeland Security.  I'm done with the FDA, the department of education, the USDA, and pretty much any other agency you can think of.  I'm done with Social Security.  
• Obama deserves some praise for his handling of NASA.  The Ares rocket is a sad joke and he's actually turned to the private sector for assistance with salvaging parts of the shuttle program.  
• I hope more people will read and listen to Ron Paul.  
• Liberty is scary to most people and frankly I too am scared of what the real-life consequences would be if we were much closer to freedom.  
• Humans have almost never lived in freedom.  We seem to crave oppression and tyranny for the sake of expedience, to leverage power against others, to protect us from ourselves, and to align

Alien Rule

So describes Robert Weissberg's feelings about the Obama administration; the fifth column as I've stated before, then retracted, and am again standing by.

Over the past several months I've had a hard time articulating my suspicions regarding Obama. Initially, I had envisioned a Shakespearean-esque plot of foreign or domestic grooming to take the presidency and destroy the country by inviting a war and running it so badly as to lose it. OR, maybe, I thought, he would cripple the economy, enabling a successful assault by a foreign power on our home soil. Nah... that was too conspiratorial and it's not me, it's not my style, and its now how I think. But I knew something was very wrong with him. Call it instinct. I wasn't alone, of course. Many felt like I did and they too couldn't put their finger on it. So for a long time the Left has attempted to put our fingers "on it" for us: it was because we are racists. How stupid. How mentally weak. Really, Left, put a little effort into it. Of course, they were serious, that's really what they thought. Actually, think, is more appropriate.

But like a parent who is trying to solve a difficult problem and the child who keeps pointing out the "obvious" solution (which is completely wrong) the Right tried to explain why the child's solution wasn't right. And like the exasperated parent we've simply tuned the child out; we have a problem to solve and little Billy's endless harping on a point lost on him isn't going to distract us.

Enter Weissberg. He figured it out. Obama is not a fifth column. But he feels like it. And he acts like it. But he's not; at least not in the strict sense. No, Weissberg was able to pull in every abstract notion and feeling and distill into a two-word description of our collective consternation. We feel like we are under "Alien Rule", as he has put it.

Brilliant.

So without further adieu:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/a_stranger_in_our_midst.html

I agree with Bob Barr on this one

Bob Barr (R) blasts Republican criticism of Obama over the underwear bomber:

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/01/07/time-to-give-obama-a-break/

Rightly so, too. This is absurd. I seem to recall a certain shoe bomber and I don't remember everyone impugning Bush's efforts on terror because of it. We laid the blame at Al-Qaeda's feet, where it belonged (no pun intended, btw).

And what's with the sudden rush to profile based on physical characteristics, Republicans? First of all, how would that have helped in this case? The guy was African - Yemenise, NOT Arab! And we start looking for only arabs and persians, we'll completely miss the boat here. In fact, there's a chance we did miss this guy for that very reason ... that he was Black and not Arab.

Anyhow, I had to throw this out there. I'm tired of listening to the people on my side of the aisle salivating over this singular instance when we had nearly the exact same thing happen under Bush and we didn't get this kind of response.

What a strange way to look at the world

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/2009-the-year-wall-street_b_404889.html

I can't relate to this guy's way of thinking. It seems so detached from reality. Reich believes the problem with our economy is that the guys at the top are not sharing enough down below. Sure, I think the $25 million bonuses are undeserved too, but what would Reich have us do about it? Whatever his solution it would surely be government-driven, not market based.

But back to my original point: how odd is it to look at the current economy and blame a few million dollars being ill spent as the primary cause of our economic troubles? Hundreds of billions are misspent every year by the government that we don't even have - we just write IOU's to the Chinese. We have two unfunded wars being waged. Our borders are sivs for cheap labor to harvest our subsidized crops to make our fast food as cheap as it is which makes us as fat as we are which in turn drives up our health care costs that government insists on lowering for us... even though they are indirectly the cause of it. And all of this so that multi-billion dollar companies like GE and ADM can pay their executives $25 million bonuses ...

Does anyone else see the pattern of the government fixing a problem which then creates another and then they fix that one, which in turn creates more unintended consequences? Can they not see that whenever they insert themselves into an area the very nature of that area changes - the rules change, expectations change, and behavior of the populace follows in accordance. Sometimes this is a good thing - sometimes not so much. The NTSB is a good example. As is the USDA.

I just realized: conservatives don't always get this either. They are always harping on regulation as a great evil, when I would argue it's actually very helpful - usually. SOX is a great example of poor regulation. But it's notable because it is the exception that proves the rule: most regulation simply defines the terms of the game and the landscape of the playing field. And truth be told, that's all SOX does too. The real problem with SOX though is in its details - not in its existence. It just needs to be scaled back a bit. Some of the burdensome portions really don't need to be there, or could at least be made less burdensome.

Anyhow, the point I was making is simply that Reich is delusional. That he views executive compensation as the primary cause of our woes is just absurd. And I'm going to go out on a limb here too: I am willing to bet that one of the reasons the compensation is as high as it is due, in some small or not-so-small way to the government's invisible hand. I can't prove that and I may very well be wrong - but with so much evidence of government-inspired problems elsewhere, can one blame me for thinking it possible?

Why would I bother?

On HuffPo today, the day after Thanksgiving I find the following:

1) The lead story is about Dubai's request for a standstill, and fretting another financial "panic". Panic implies a degree of irrationality. I would say that a lack of fear on Wall Street would be the only irationallity. With deficits blossoming, healthcare (snicker) "reform" coming our way, the insolvency of the dollar, why should Wall St. be scared?

2) Arrianna Huffington's opinion piece is entitled "Sharing the Privilege of Abundance". One would assume she is refering to herself: a wealthy heiress. One would be wrong. She is, of course, talking about "sharing" other peoples' money:

The food, fuel, and financial crises have pushed the numbers of those enduring chronic hunger past one billion people for the first time in history. So as we enter the season of colossal Wall Street bonuses and a frenzy of holiday spending, it's time for us to share the privilege of plenty.

By "us" she means Wall St. bonuses (which pale to her inheritences) and yours and my holiday spending. Naturally.

With $3.2 billion a year -- or $1.5 billion less than Americans spend on Halloween annually, and a fraction of America's $300 billion a year in private giving -- we can feed the 66 million children worldwide who go to school hungry. This alone won't end hunger, but it would be a huge step forward.

There are many comparisons should could made. Comparisons that don't involve Americans, or at least not exclusively Americans. But consider; she accidentally gives credit to Americans by stating that 3.2b could be had as a fraction of our private givings of 300b. So what are our private givings going to if not to feed 1/6 the population of the world? Other things, to be sure: medical research, war relief, famine relief ... which I imagine is a part of the global hunger problem.
Two things pop out at me about this: 1) Arianna doesn't question the 1b number at all. 2) She calls American's charitable contributions "private givings". What is the alternative to private givings? Public "givings"? IE, taxes? That's hardly "giving". That's something that is taken by threat of private property confiscation and personal incarseration. Or perhaps we should call it "private" incarceration.
Arriana is not confused though, she chose her words well so as to frame her argument for higher taxes toward the effort of global hunger relief as something altruistic ... e.g. "public giving".

3) And from Marian Wright Edelman:

What kind of nation, blessed to be the wealthiest in the world, lets one in five children be poor? I offer a Thanksgiving prayer for us to commit to end poverty in our time -- beginning with children.

Only an evil greedy selfish nation, of course. We should create a massive program to end poverty and we'll call it something like "The Great Society" and it will be a complete success, just like LBJ's. Does history not matter to these people? If doing X to solve problem Y doesn't work and you KNOW X does nothing, why would you insist on continuing to do X? For one thing, you hurt Y because you redirect resources into X that are supposed to address Y but you know already are wasted. I can only conclude that the author is either an idiot or actually wants Y to continue on forever, while keeping X in place to achieve some other, unknown goal.

4) On Sarah Palin, Keli Goff writes:

Because you just never know what Palin and her clan are going to say or do, those of us constantly looking for stuff to write about owe Palin a humble thank you.

I can't disagree with her, but shouldn't she be more worried about the 1,000,000,000 starving people in the world rather than the strawman and ego massager of the Left, that is Sarah Palin?

5) Another:

Rewriting History To Blame Tim Geithner: An Incomplete Story Of The AIG Bailout

IE, it's not all Obama's fault. No shit dude. This is still more Bush's mess than Obama's. But let me point out that this is a wonderful mess for Obama, one that he relishes. There is no better time than a financial crisis to further increment the implementation of socialism and Pelosi, Obama, et al. have taken full advantage of this fine window of opportunity.

6) Some BS about Lieberman. Who cares.

7) An opninion piece that looks like it might not either try to make you feel bad for being American or try to reach into your wallet. I don't care to find out.

8) Film reviews. Doesn't this guy know he supposed to tell us what our ticket money could better go to? Bad liberal! Bad!

9) RJ Eskow exclaims "Phantom America, Thanks for nothing!".

10) and more blah blah blah. There's a lesson here - one that I've tried to impress upon my liberal friends and one which I would do well to remember myself. I ought not dissect the easily dissectable. Picking on Arianna and her intellectual ilk is too damn easy. They are the strawmen of the Right, as Palin and Bush are for the Left. I need to seek out intelligent and challenging arguments from the Left. I suppose. It's not like it will change anything. We'll still have Palin and we'll still have Huffington.

Hopefully it's ok for me to post this verbatim. Just want to note too that I am aware that the Gitmo terrorist detainees are not receiving the H1N1 vaccine, contrary to earlier reporting.

Anyhow, this is from http://www.semissourian.com/story/1586060.html

Mr. Obama: I'm calling you out

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
By William Piercey Sr.

The new era of government control over our lives and freedoms has begun. This week, it got personal, and I felt helpless.

The doctor overseeing my health care advised me to get an H1N1 flu shot. I've been under a six-year treatment program for a chronic infection, plus I have heart and lung problems. Therefore, I am considered a high risk. Fortunately, my doctor had three shots available, but I would have to get approval from my county health department. Much to my surprise, the woman at the health department apologized and told me that even though I was a senior citizen at high risk, the health department had been instructed to approve shots only for children and pregnant mothers. I asked when a shot for my situation might be available. "We really don't know. Check back with us sometime in December."

What? The terrorist detainees in Gitmo are getting shots this month. Why not a high-risk senior citizen?

Mr. Obama, this is what we call health care rationing, which you claim won't happen under a government-run health care program.

If George W. Bush was considered the Barney Fife of executive power, then welcome to the Chicago-style politics of the new Vito Corleone family. The president himself, like a strong-armed enforcer, said in a nationally televised speech, "If you misrepresent anything in this plan, I will call you out." This administration has turned the once dignified and esteemed Oval Office into a war room for its liberal propaganda.

On his first day in office, the president signed the Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel executive order. During the campaign he vowed to keep lobbyists out of the administration. But in Section 3 of this order is a waiver clause. The director of the Office of Management and Budget "may grant" a written waiver of any restrictions. Former lobbyists were given waivers and now hold key positions in government. Mr. Obama, you lied.

At the same time lobbyists were coming in the front door, dozens of new unvetted, hand-picked ideologues were being shuttled in the back door. Many of these people were placed in key policymaking positions. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was worried about 18 of these unvetted czars, 10 of whom worked in the White House. An amendment to force these appointees to testify in oversight hearings was shot down by the Democratic leadership. Collins was especially concerned about Carol Browner, who negotiated fuel-economy standards with the auto industry. She even sent a letter to Obama, and one of his counsels replied that no one would be made available. This administration fears no one, especially a senator who dares to enforce something as minor as checks and balances. Obama promised transparency. He lied.

On the topic of transparency, the $787 billion stimulus bill was a progressive Trojan horse. It's loaded with political favors and programs that set up the infrastructure for education, health care and climate change. It was passed and signed in a matter of weeks. This was not a bill to put Americans back to work. Obama said it would produce 3.5 million jobs in two years. Over the past year the administration has changed its story daily but finally settled on the "create or save" propaganda. Obama also said the bill would keep unemployment under 8 percent. The rate has climbed to over 10 percent. Either his economic advisers are incompetent and need to be fired, or, once again, Mr. President, you lied.

Mr. President, you said you didn't want to run our car companies and banks, but you do. With the $350 billion in TARP funds left by President Bush, Obama's people continued the surge of bailouts. Americans might be shocked to know the recipients of bailout money now total 727 institutions. This government control in the private sector is unprecedented.

Government-run health care, card check, cap-and-trade, net neutrality, control of radio stations and possible newspaper bailouts are just part of this administration's agenda.

It's time for Americans to get in this government's face and call it out. This coup d'etat can be defeated. We have the numbers, the votes and the will power to turn back this assault on our individual freedoms.

With 15 million unemployed Americans, I'm sure we can find a few willing patriots to fill all those upcoming vacant seats in Washington, especially with an annual salary of $170,000, office, staff, insurance, expense account and, best of all, a three-day workweek. The only requirements for this job are honesty, integrity and a love of country.

William Piercey Sr. is a Cape Girardeau resident.

I'm not the only one ...

... who thinks Obama is willfully destroying the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6241196/Andy-Williams-accuses-Barack-Obama-of-following-Marxist-theory.html

Andy Williams - Republican but close friend to the Kennedy's - has stated as much as well.

This hypothesis of mine is shared by many and an increasing number of people. This isn't a conspiracy theory. This isn't Glenn Beck. It's just common sense. Obama has surrounded himself all his life with Marxists, Communists, and others cut of far-left cloth. His actions betray his words.

So I'll say it again: he is purposely destroying the country. Not to see it become a smoking pile of rubble, but so as to remake it into a Socialist nation. I don't see what's so crazy about this assertion. Isn't it pretty obvious?