From Bill O’Reilly to the US Senate instead of simply working to the logical solution of improving supply; O’Reilly and the Senate along with the multitude of innocuous contrarian’s best described as they, them, and those would rather cloud the simple with the contrived.Read More »
If the economic story presented by the liberal biased media and all of the predominate democrats are to be believed America, land of the free home of the brave, is on the brink of economic disaster. Obama says, all proposals to the contrary of that descriptive are gimmicks unworthy of discovery; the answer, the only acceptable answer, resides solely in a revamp of political infrastructure starting with the Democratic Party majority control of congress and a Obama administration in the White House.Read More »
June 27, 2008
For years I’ve been saying that a person can bring applicable experience to a new job, including a legislative job, and be effective right away. An accountant might get elected and still, as a freshman legislator, look at a state budget and say, “Uh, folks, the government is spending more than it takes in.”
Maybe even a pilot or belly dancer could figure that out.
Incumbent lawmakers also say experience is important. But they’ll add that the only way to get experience relevant to legislation is by accumulating years in a single seat of power. They explain that they can’t learn the job until they’ve been around eight, ten, twenty years or so.
Such confession of incompetence might seem, to most people, more an argument for resigning than for being awarded permanent tenure. Or an argument for term limits. But the self-serving assertions of American incumbents now receive a powerful boost from overseas. From Cuba. From a son of the sainted communist soldier and mass murderer Che Guevera, head of the revolution.
Seems Camilo Guevera has endorsed Raul Castro’s ascendancy to the presidency of Cuba. Fidel, dictator for decades, has been ill. Earlier this year his brother Raul, one of Fidel’s most important flunkies for almost 50 years, took over. Camilo says “it would stupid not to take advantage of all that experience.”
Hey, that’s just what our “experienced” politicians say! Maybe we can send them to help Raul?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
The post-contest pundits have a number of reasons as to the whys of Hillary’s loss to a politically far left, untried, multiracial contester who considers himself a member of the black community; most of these reasons are obvious all of them covered under the umbrella of strategic and tactical mistakes.
Nevertheless, what stood out (at least for me) from these obvious campaign mistakes was the most willing, almost gleeful, abandonment of Clinton by the purple toga elements of the traditional Democratic Party. Even more outstanding, many of the once Clinton faithful, who in fact, directly, owe their present political positioning to a Clinton era anointment, dropped Clinton in favor of Obama with willful disdain and abrupt disregard. For these former members of the Clinton political family it was if they were under some form of extortion or parental abuse and finally the kidnapped family member was freed or the children had grown up.
Now there could be another reason for the failure of the Clinton political machine falling short on achieving their party’s nomination. The reason has ample historical reference and fits tightly into the Democratic primaries actual; possibly, the core leadership of the party decided they could control and manipulate an Obama administration much better than they could manage a Hillary Clinton.
After all, the entrenched Democratic leadership is interested in their personal preservation of preeminence; one should not minimize the grand November election opportunity: To control congress and the presidency. Once in place with a probable veto proof majority the Democrats will have the ultimate weapon of political utility. Their first offensive will be to chastise the chosen corporate belligerents via the statutorily monetarism of private interest into public power. The Clintons have too many friends within the corporate hierarchy to allow the kind of change the Obama faithful would straightforwardly implement. Interestingly; and somewhat contradictory, all of the Democratic leaders are multimillionaires, Ivy League members of the patrician class whose ethos of elites’ belief prompts the ideal that their wise benevolent consul of paternal superintendence would be cheerfully received by a President Obama. It is their reckoning that a President Obama would surrender, (for less consideration then a President Clinton) the governing prerogatives, as long as; he is appointed the Prince of the Canaille and permitted to speak to their salubrious need for communitarian socialism paid for by a tax policy of ultra progressive implication resulting in a meaningful redistribution of wealth.
Bread and beer to the multitude and power to the multimillionaires of the Democratic purple toga; Obama the uncommon politician who will change Washington as it has never been changed before is a beckoning reality.
By a narrow decision the Supreme Court of the land has equated the constitutional rights of alien dangerous terrorist, captured on the battlefield, who are not even on American soil, to that of an American citizen. Thirty of these aliens incarcerated in Guantanamo have in the past been set free; they, in response to their liberation have rejoined the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. I do wonder if those in the majority have any clue as to the long-tail liability incurred to their fellow Americans fighting the war against terrorist. The bad-guys must be laughing up a storm; imagine these jurists have extended to Jihads what was not extended to Nazis.
Recently, Obama was quoted as saying “contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear”. That statement clearly does not agree with what he said during the CNN/Youtube debate:
Question – Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
Reply – “I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them”.
He was also quoted in May as saying “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off of the planet.'” “The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have one.”
It seems as though Obama’s stance on negotiations with Iran have changed due to what he feels are the desires of the country. He now touts a “tough and principled diplomacy” compared to ‘’we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward..”
How can you negotiate with terrorists? His belief that Iran has no nuclear weapons is both naive and dangerous.
We also must remember that Iran has the second largest oil reserve in the world. However, since the regime headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken over, the production of petroleum has declined from 6 plus million barrels a day to under four million barrels a day. 85% of all of Iran’s revenues come from their oil and gas exports. Iran presently does not have either the technology or foreign investment it needs to sustain or increase its petroleum output. This causes vulnerability that creates isolation from the rest of the world and minimal economic growth. The Iranian people support the nuclear quests of the present regime, but are not willing to pay the price of international isolation.
If Obama were to try to negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it would send the message to the Iranian population that they are part of the international mix and must be dealt with accordingly. Such a message would add power to the present regime…not topple it.
It is also important to remember that Iran’s present regime wishes to destroy both the United States and Israel. You cannot be “pro Israel” without prohibiting Iran from becoming a nuclear powerhouse. That alone would give Iran the support it needs from other “rogue” forces that also wish to destroy the United States.
Authored By: William Robert Barber
A couple of weeks ago, I was chatting with my mentally alert and physically spry eight-eight year old mother; I posed a question as to who she thought should be the next President of the United States. She responded with no hesitation: “Obama!” I follow up with why? She said, “well, I think he will take care of the poor people, you know the common folk.” I paused for a moment and continued my inquiry. I said, “Mother, who is the poor and common people?” She laughed and said; “People who have no money, you know Bill, the manual laborers, people with little formal education, we have many poor people that need taken care of.”
I found my mother’s response provoking and reminiscent of ideas formed as a child; ideas that bind conviction, but ideas, with little or no evidence to substantiate their worthiness. But then my dear mother was far from a child; by sight and hearing, she was influenced to conclude Obama would be the best choice for president. As she stated, he would help the poor people; she gave little thought as to who were the poor people or how the poor people would be helped; she simply believed that Obama over the other candidates would be the best choice because he would take care of the poor people. There are many ideas proposed by Obama to criticize him about but one that stands out and has great implications is the Global Poverty Act Obama supports.
There is always the possibility that unfounded ideas molded into conviction and executed into action could prompt disastrous results. The belief that Obama, unlike any other candidate, would do something special for poor people (whatever that means) is one such idea. Firstly, defining the poor, as defining ‘middle class’ in this country is a chore in its self; I am going to take a stab at it and conclude that poor people are those peoples making $36,000 per year or less. I justify this gross income number founded on the amount of federal income tax these peoples pay.
Now these ‘poor people’ have an income supplement that is not taken into account by the number crunchers in the treasury, the budget office, and the IRS. It would be fair to suggest that these ‘poor people’ are and should include the blackjack dealers, valets, service persons, waiters, bartenders, and the people who wash one’s car etc., these are also the peoples who make their money from tips; yes, and of course they declare their tips according to an IRS induced formula, nevertheless, they retain a significant portion of residual undeclared monies that feed into America’s undeclared income. This undeclared ‘cash’ discretionary income is very important to the overall American economy because it greases the wheels of a free wheeling economic machine. This undeclared (free of income tax) money feeds the coffers of state and federal ‘use tax’ or the pay as one goes tax which would include the taxes associated with any sale.
I wonder if these are the ‘poor people’ Obama pledges to uplift? Are these the people Obama speaks of when he accuses the Bush administration of ‘full employment’ but at a lower than market wage?
My mother did mention that people with little formal education are ‘poor people’; implying that if one has less than a college degree one is domed to making less money in ones lifetime; a conclusion that If one would exclude lawyer, certified public accountant, some licensed professions including medical doctor, is not factual. From a financial measurement prospective, the electrician, plumber, builder, craftsperson, salesperson, and the many practitioners within the service sector contribute significantly to the tax base of their federal, state, and city governments. Now that is a fact.
The idea that a college level education is essential to financial success has no basis of fact. An uncontestable test of the myth would be to utilize personal tax statements as a reference such a test would definitively corroborate voluminous amounts of evidence to the contrary. That of course begs the question. Why does the general public believe a college education is the bridge to financial success? The answer: Because it services the interest of an ever growing public funded college level bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that directly feeds off of a conceptual idea that a college education is essential to financial success. The fact is that a college education does feed the coffers of the academic community; a community, wholly dedicated to its self service via the surety of tax supported higher education institutions. As if motivated by some unquestionable noble idea, a sense of sacrifice, a moral quest, these within the academic community pedants seek employment though the perpetuation of an idea founded on a false premise.
Those within the profession of facilitating the ‘false premise’ have amazing influence on our society; in the interest of perpetuating their agenda of endorsing the merits of a higher education they validate inwardly and outwardly the idea that higher education is the bridge to financial success. For example, an applicant for federal, county, or city employment at any mid management or senior level must have a college degree. Any college degree will do…the academic community has instituted a discriminatory benchmark, an impediment to career advancement on the assumption that a college degree is essential to implementing every specific job description.
There is an old Marine Corps saying, “That assumption and presumption will get you killed in combat.” I noticed that the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton graduates of Enron ended in jail; hell what was the sense of sending them to school in the first place?
Anyway back to my dear mother; I asked my mother to seek differing even contrary sources of information when deciding on whom should be President of the Untied States, I gently cautioned her to never allow the influence of the extraneous and collateral to inhibit the exercise of good sense principles, I pleaded with her to get pass visual distortions, seek out the objective substance of the issues espoused by the office seeker. Emphasizing that a decision as important as the highest office in the land should not be summed on the youthful dynamic appearance of the candidate nor should one be mesmerized by the myth that white hair is synonymous with wisdom; this is a decision of such magnitude it warrants empirical evidence and deductive logic; I stressed to my dear mother, that in this next election, more than any other, there is little room for error.