Meaningless Blather

Seriously…there are  plenty of reasons to dislike Barack Obama.  His alleged (and that’s all it was) stab at Jessica Simpson is definitely not one of them.  Matt Lauer (msnbc) interviewed Barack Obama and addressed the issue of Us Weekly Magazine that showed the Obama family on the cover…only Barack did not appear.  He was on the right-hand-side of the photo, which was covered by a side-bar picture of Jessica Simpson with the tagline from her story.  When asked about it, Obama said he was a little hurt and disappointed.  Matt Lauer said “You were replaced.  You were replaced by Jessica Simpson.” To which Mr. Obama replied “yes…(looks at magazine closer, squinting) who is in a weight battle…APPARENTLY.”  It is readily obvious from watching the interview that he is reading and jabbing at the headline, not the singer.  There was a misquote on the Internet transcript of this which read “who’s losing a weight battle…apparently.”  Even if Mr. Obama said that, he still wasn’t judging Simpson, but reading the words on the page.  But that didn’t happen and he didn’t say that so the point is moot.  So all you bloggers and intarwebzites out there, cut him a break…on this issue.  I would also like to recognize (I must be in some alternate universe) CNN for attempting to clarify the situation by re-broadcasting the interview.  This is the same juvenile garbage that plagued the Bush administration.  Although it’s nice to see that the media hates everyone equally, I’d still prefer some proof-reading and a little more responsibility on the part of massive media agencies.

Barack Obama went on the record and said “I screwed up” in regards to his picks for cabinet nominees.  It’s a step in the right direction.  Let’s be honest here.  He didn’t exactly inherit a nation that was running smoothly.  We are in the middle of a global economic crisis and Mr. Obama has chosen to dive headfirst into the most powerful office in the world.  The stress level has to be unimaginable to you and me.  As if trying to steer the country out of its current crises wasn’t enough, he’s also go to try to meet all of his campaign promises to boot.  It was my contention all along that he shouldn’t have been making those promises.  It wasn’t that I didn’t think he intended to keep them, but rather that I knew they’d be impossible to keep.  I understand why Obama would want William Lynn as Secretary of Defense.  Sure there are problems with a possible conflict of interest, but if he’s the best man for the job, he’s the best man for the job.  The problem comes in when you make a promise that out-rightly negates him as a possibility, then ask for an exception not two days later.

My point in all of this?  Mr. Obama, I hope you can prove the conservatives wrong and help us out of the mess we’re in.  I really do.  Furthermore, I think Rush Limbaugh hopes you can do that as well.  But the opinion we share is that we definitely don’t want to see your socialist policies in effect because they undermine the principles that make this nation great…but I digress.  In order to lead this country, you must have its trust.  You obviously had an overwhelming majority of the voting public’s trust when you won the election, but I think everyone can see that you’re rapidly depleting that trust.  Here’s the “golden nugget”…if you will.  Mr. Obama, I will never like your policies, agenda, etc, but that doesn’t mean I can’t trust you, and it doesn’t mean you can’t be a good President.  I would, in fact, argue that Bill Clinton was (by and large) a good President – and I hated his policies.  People loved him and we prospered.  My contention that the tax hike during his second term (tiebreaking vote cast by then VP Al Gore)was the catalyst for this economic mess is secondary (see How to Vote with your Wallet and Why You Should).

This nation will thrive if we can get behind our President, but I, as do many of my peers, refuse to get in line with someone who can’t keep his own policies for as little as a week.  Just be honest with us.  We can handle it.  Just say “Yes XXX XXXXX was a lobbyist for YYYYYYYYY as recent as three weeks ago, but s/he is the best wo/man for the job, and frankly I don’t care about the “potential” for conflict of interest.  I trust that they will do what is best for this nation.”…and be done with it.  I’m positive that you’d catch a lot less flack for that.

I like that you are taking ownership for your “screw-up”, and frankly I don’t care that you were probably dragged kicking and screaming to do so.  I also like that you seem outraged about tax dollars going to pay bonuses for bailed-out execs (perhaps there should’ve been some more regulation as to where the bailout money went…but I’ll give that one a pass for now).  There are glimmers of hope here, and I want to make it obvious to my readers that this is not just a “slam Obama” blog.  It’s a blog that provides political/economic analysis.  Is it unbiased?  Sometimes, but I’m conservative…and when I think (or know) I’m right about something, I’m not going to hold it back.  So, that being said…to Mr. Obama:  Impress me.  Make me trust you.  I will not like your policies, but we chose you to lead us out of this mess, and now it’s your job to do so.

If I haven’t made it clear, I don’t think too highly of Barack Obama.  I think he’s manipulative, deceitful, and he possesses just about every character flaw a person could possibly possess.  Needless to say, I still cannot believe the people of America decided they wanted HIM as their President.  But nevertheless, he won.  I choose to live in a country where we vote, and right or wrong(and in this case most definitely wrong) majority rules.  My problem isn’t that the worst candidate won, it’s that he refuses to admit he’s lying even when he’s caught repeatedly.   In case you don’t remember, during your campaign you had this to say:

“I know that in every campaign, politicians make promises about cleaning up Washington. And most times, you end up disappointed when it doesn’t happen.  So it’s easy to become cynical — to believe that change isn’t possible; that the odds are too great; that this year is bound to be no different from the last. But I also know what I’ve seen and what I’ve done. I know that for me, reform isn’t just the rhetoric of a campaign; it’s been the cause of my career.”

You say that, then go on to say “The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president.”

I know I made a point of this before, but attempting to appoint William Lynn was only the beginning.  After that, you wanted to appoint Governor Richardson (NM) – accused of pay-for-play schemes.  Next you moved to Tim Geither, your pick for Treasury Secretary, who not only doesn’t know how to pay taxes, but was also a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.  I know that’d be my pick for the head of the tax system…Or how about Tom Daschle as head of Health and Human services…did you forget about HIS massive tax mishap?

Here’s the thing…you’re still running your sales pitch long after you sold your (faulty) product.  There is absolutely no need for it.  You’re not going to convince the people who voted for McCain that you’re at all competent…mainly because it’s obvious you’re not.  Furthermore, if you’ve ever taken any sort of classes in sales, you’d realize that continuing to “sell” your product after the purchase was made usually results in buyer’s remorse.  That being said, Mr. Obama, if you’re going to screw up the country with your ridiculous socialist policies and cronyist social agenda, at least be honest about it.  If you think the lobbyists you’re trying to appoint are the best people for the jobs, then go ahead and appoint them.  Don’t give us the B.S. about how you’re going to strip lobbyists of their power.  If you think someone who doesn’t know how to pay his own taxes (or just chooses not to) should run the National Tax program, so be it.  I would expect nothing less (and nothing more)from you, but don’t tell us you’re going to stop the cronyism.  We’re ready.  Don’t sugar coat it.  Just tell us what you want to do and do it.

The House Republicans released a list of the items they thought were unnecessary as it pertains to stimulating the economy.  The viewpoint is not necessarily that the programs have no warrant, but that they will not create jobs, and in no way will they be immediately beneficial to the economy.  Here is that list:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD’s.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a “security training” facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

FOCA, or the Freedom of Choice Act (2007) is a bill that would eliminate any and all restrictions on abortions in the United States and its territories.  I was recently informed of the existence of this bill.  My first thought was: “it was drafted in 2007 and never went anywhere.  There is nothing to worry about.”  In fact, I even referred to it as “old news.”  Then I looked at the list of sponsors for this bill.  Who do you think I found?  You guessed it!  Barry-O.  I would like to take a little time today to discuss this bill (to which I have a PDF link above…it’s only 9 pages, I would urge you to read it).

In S2.8 and 2.9 of FOCA, it tells how South Dakota placed a ban on abortion in “almost all circumstances.”  By “almost all circumstances”, what they mean is “except in the case of rape, incest, and the mother’s health.”  Moving on to 2.9, it tells how the Supreme Court recently upheld the first ever ban on an abortion procedure “without an exception for the mother’s health.”  This procedure is partial birth abortion.  The reason for not having an exception under the ban is because under no circumstances would having a partial birth abortion save a woman’s life.  There is ABSOLUTELY no need for this provision.  These arguements are the foundation for this bill…already on shakey ground in my humble opinion.

Let’s get right down to it..shall we?  The bill basically states that no government, or government entity, in any form, may interfere with a woman’s “right” to have an abortion.  This is the case irrespective of viability if their exists a chance of harm to the mother.  This, on the surface seems bad enough.  But it gets worse when you start to read between the lines.  It has already been stated that laws protecting Doctors who choose not to perform abortions would be repealed.  This would mean that if you CAN give an abortion, you MUST give an abortion.  Catholic hospitals, public hospitals…they all must provide abortions, regardless of their religious beliefs.  Anything less would be “interference.”  Remember those waiting periods and information sessions about fetal development?  They’ve been deemed “Pro-Life Propoganda” and interefere with a woman’s “right”.  They’d be gone too.  Here’s one the whole family can enjoy:  Mandatory parental notification for abortions for minors interfere with the woman’s “right” to an abortion.  Doctors would no longer be able to tell the parents of a 14 year-old about an abortion.  This actually seems to contradict S2.2 of the same bill which states: “[the decision to have an abortion is] best made by women IN CONSULTATION WITH THEIR LOVED ONES AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.”  Only, the health care providers can’t say anything anymore, and the loved ones don’t even have to know.  Lastly, the bill would mandate federal funding for abortions, because a lack thereof would “interfere” with the “right” to choose.  I think it’s funny that a woman would have a right to choose under the Freedom of Choice Act, but a Doctor/Hospital would NOT.  After all, the Hippocratic oath states: “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and NEVER DO HARM TO ANYONE. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”  I guess we can throw that out the window too.  I also think it is particularly scary that there is no limit for how late a woman can decide to terminate the child’s life.  In fact, it says it is legal to terminate after fetal viability when necessary to protect the HEALTH or life of the woman.  There is absolutely no clarification as to what that means.  It’s only a matter of time until some whackjob makes a compelling argument that a 2 year-old is detrimental to the woman’s health.

Here’s a little food for thought for all those pro-choicers out there.  Why is it that if a pregnant woman gets murdered that the killer gets 2 charges of murder, but the mom is free to kill her own baby?  Why is it that in a botched aboriton, if the woman (and child) die, that the doctor is liable for both deaths when clearly he was only TRYING to kill ONE person, and that would’ve been legal?  Why is it that if the father of the baby beats the mom while the child is still in the womb, and the child dies, that he is liable for the child’s death?  Why is it that (under FOCA) we can kill people that CAN live on their own, but we won’t allow people who CAN’T live on their own to die?  (mercy killing/assisted suicide)

Let’s take religion out of the equation for a bit and work solely with logic.  If abortions are legal, then the “fetus” (logically) must not be a person until it is born (as we know, it’s not legal to kill anyone for any reason other than self-defense – and this includes people who have debilitating, painful diseases that will absolutely  kill them anyway).  If this is the case, then if a pregnant mother is killed and the fetus dies, there should logically, be only 1 crime.  Furthermore, if a woman is beaten and caused to miscarry, there should only be a charge of assault and battery.  However, since husbands are allowed to beat their wives, it should be totally OK in this case – no charges.  If, and only if, all of these were true would abortions actually make legal sense.  If this seems absurd to you…it’s because it  SHOULD.

Once again, I would like to clarify that this bill was drafted in 2007.  It is not (to my knowledge) in current circulation in Congress, but with Obama being one of the co-sponsors, I would think that it is only a matter of time until he tries to push this part of his liberal agenda through.  Unlike many agencies out there, I’m not going to urge you to write your congressmen(yet), but I’m also not going to discourage you either.  However, I’d encourage you to use some clever wording if you do.  Perhaps:  “Dear Sir/Madam Congressperson:  I would like to make it clear that if you vote in favor of FOCA, that we, your constituents, we’ll see to it that your stay in congress will be aborted at the end of this term.”  Or something similar

Let me provide a little more insight into the “brilliance” that is the economic stimulus bill. It provides:
$325 Million for STD Prevention Education.
$420 Million for flu pandemic prevention
$100 Million for lead paint removal in homes
$50 Million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$650 Million in Analog to Digital TV Conversion
$200 Million for better volcano monitoring equipment…(really?? yes really.)
$600 Million for better climate change study equipment
$800 Million to Amtrak
and 8 BILLION to renovate federal buildings

And the fact that Democrats call THAT economic stimulus isn’t even the scary part. THAT comes when you realize that there are now radio and TV ads urging citizens to tell their Republican Senators that if they do not vote for the bill, that they will be voted out of office. Obama is still campaigning, LONG after the election is over. In studies of world history, we call that propaganda.

I know this is a bit short for one of my posts, but Shakespeare said “brevity is the soul of wit.” I am thus going to pretend that his statement applies here. After all, it IS Friday. With that, I would like to say thanks for stopping by. MB is officially back and looking for ideas, so if you’ve got them, leave a comment and let me know what you’d like me to write about. Have a great weekend!!!

I’m beginning to realize that with our current president, the name of my blog could not be more appropriate.

Obama said that he wanted to crack down on “business as usual”, so here’s what he did:

In a speech 3 days ago he said…”The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president.”

Two days after making the statement, Mr. Obama is trying to make an exception…to his OWN rule.  Here’s what happened:  You may have heard of Raytheon.  They’re a major defense contractor.  Well, as it turns out, William Lynn is a lobbyist for Raytheon.  He’s ALSO Obama’s number one pick for Deputy Defense Secretary.  Wait…I thought I just read… “If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on”.  Yes.  Yes, I did.  I’ll ignore the obvious grammar mistake (ON matters you lobbied ON…you DID go to college… right Mr. Obama?), but I won’t ignore the blatant hypocrisy one week into the Presidency.  Perhaps this is why the Democrats had such a problem with us using Haliburton.  Raytheon has the Democrats, including the President, in their pocket.

Mr. Obama, I reccomend that you change your prior statment to: “As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history…except when it’s not convenient for us.  In that case we’re just going to do what we want because we’ve got majorities in both houses.”  That would probably be more representative of what you ACTUALLY think.

No.  Seriously.  Let’s break this whole thing down.  Two Hundred Fifty-Eight pages later, I’ve come to realize that the “stimulus” bill is absolutely not a stimulus bill, but rather socialism in a box.  This is not blind accusations or conspiracy.  It’s there.  The bill is posted on my site for those of you who want to read it.  That being said.  Why do Democrats feel they need to lie about it?  Why call it stimulus when it really isn’t?  Why not just say “This is socialism.  Is this what you want?”  We should paint a clear picture of how things will actually look and let people decide if it is really what they want.  (Before I go any further, the banks, mortgage companies, health system, schools, and auto industry will all be socialized under the “stimulus” bill)  The government will be a one-stop shop for practically everything and it will be available to everyone.  Sounds pretty good right?  Well…yeah, on paper.  But think about it this way:

Sally does most of her shopping at Megamart because she can get not only all of her groceries, but also cleaning supplies and household items in one fell swoop.  Sally loves iced tea, but specifically Johnson Family Southern Style.  Megamart only carries HugeCo Southern “style” iced tea.  The quality is, well, poor.  Sally decides that she’s going to go to Momanpop, a local grocery store, because they carry Johnson Family Southern Style iced tea.  All is well with the world.  –<<enter socialism>>–  Now, all grocery stores are Megamart, and they can only carry the brands that megamart allows.  This means no more Johnson Family Southern Style iced tea (among many many other brand losses).  Now Sally is either stuck buying HugeCo brand or none at all.  Parables not your thing?  It’s a pretty mundane problem, to be sure, but I will up the anty, if you will:

Dr. Joe Smith is an Oncologist, specializing in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma, a very rare cancer.  Dr. Smith works at Chicago General Hospital, but sees patients from all over the country who have this very rare form of cancer.  This is possible because these people have insurance that allows them to choose their doctor and specialist.  Dr. Jane Been works in Philadelphia at Jefferson Hospital.  She is a general Oncologist.  She is very smart, and an excellent doctor.  Our story begins.

Max Overbaum lives in Philadelphia and has Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma.  Under normal circumstances, his excellent insurance provided by his employer would allow him to go to Chicago to see Dr. Smith, but under this new socialized system, he must go to Jefferson to see Dr. Been.  As I’ve said, she’s an excellent doc, but doesn’t know a lot about ACC.  On the other hand Jenna Panwell in Chicago has Melanoma.  She is told to be seen by Dr. Smith.  Dr. Smith, under the new system – irrespective of his speciality – is relegated to “general” cancer because there just simply aren’t that many people with ACC.  Ms. Panwell will be in good hands, but it appears that Dr. Smith’s talents are being, well…wasted…no?  Dr. Been in Philadelphia could very well treat Ms. Panwell, as could any other Oncologist at Chicago general, but Dr. Smith is her mandated doc.  How does that strike you?  Go ahead and ask a Canadian what they think about socialized healthcare.  Or ask a German, or an Italian.  They hate it.  There is a reason why people from all over the world come to the United States for medical treatment.  You can ACTUALLY get it here…for now.  The lines are enormous in countries with socialized healthcare.  You think the emergency rooms are packed now?  Wait until we all have to go to clinics to be treated.

It gets worse.  Under the “stimulus” plan, you will have to (without the choice to opt-out) submit your medical records to the government’s electronic medical record system.  That’s right people.  Everyone’s personal data will be known by the government who will be free to distribute it to over 600,000 agencies.  Here is an article about this specific aspect of the bill.

That’s just the medical system.  Remember, we’re also socializing the auto industry, education, banking, and mortgages as well.  What does that mean for you?  You know all those people who can’t pay their mortgages because they were irresponsible and took out loans for more than they could handle?  No problem, we’ll just pay for them.  How about Phil Meeyup who has 5 illegitimate kids (from 3 moms)and no job?  He needs a car to tote those kids around, so we get to buy it for him.

This is not fiction.  This is not propaganda.  Read the bill.  Is this really what you want?  If it is, so be it.  I live in a country where majority rules.  If most people really want this, even after seeing it, so be it…that’s what we should do.  If that’s the case though, I’m out of here.  If I’m going to live in a socialist country I’m at least going to live in one that’s already established and does not have to go through growing pains.

If you thought I was going to blast Obama granting his first interview as President to a foreign news agency, you’re wrong. (I don’t particularly care that it’s Muslim – my allegations of Obamunism/communism do not make me a conspiracy theorist, they make me a realist)  I’m all for promoting peace.  If we can do it by just simply saying “hey, don’t attack us, we’re not your enemy”…GREAT.  Though it reminds me of what parents tell their kids when a bully is picking on them.  “Just be nice to him, he was probably picked on and he just needs a friend.”  Sounds great until he sucker punches you in the face and shoves you head-first into a toilet.  The other problem here is this:  Muslims are OBVIOUSLY not our enemy.  Muslims are a peaceful people.  Just because a small sub-set of their religion happens to want to kill us doesn’t mean the entire population is bad.  It’s like saying “Timothy McVeigh is white; so therefore, all white people want to bomb buildings.”  The statements are equally absurd.  The cynic in me wants to say that stating this in a news broadcast is wholly unnecessary.  Unfortunately however, there are plenty of ignorant people in the United States and around the world who DO associate all Muslims with Al Queida.  So…<gulp> Mr. Obama, I think what you did was actually intelligent, and showed good-will.  I respect that.  I sincerely hope that we CAN restore some of our damaged relationship with Muslims at home and around the world.  I think this has absolutely nothing -AT ALL- to do with national security – Al Queida isn’t going to care that you want to be friends -, but It is equally, if not more important for America and its people to be tolerant of all races, religions, and beliefs.

Bet you didn’t see that coming.