Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Senator Barack Obama - AIPAC Policy Conference June 4, 2008
"Before I begin I also want to mention that I know some have been receiving provocative emails that have been circulated throughout the Jewish communities across the country and a few of you may have gotten them. They’re filled with tall-tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for President and all I want to say is let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama because he sounds pretty scary."
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Is it "religious fundamentalism" in general?
The following comment is based on Robert Spencer's "13 Myths About Jihad".
Islam came around 600 years after the birth of Jesus. It was the Muslims who conquered the holy land in an imperial conquest.
The common myth of course is that the world's problem is "religious fundamentalism" in general, not Islamic jihad in particular.
The fact is that Islamists commit violent acts in the name of Islam THE WORLD OVER. Fundamentalists from no other religious tradition have organized into violent groups worldwide. That is because violence and violent imperialism is "fundamental" to the teachings of Islam in a way and to an extent that is not true of ANY other religion.
Islam came around 600 years after the birth of Jesus. It was the Muslims who conquered the holy land in an imperial conquest.
The common myth of course is that the world's problem is "religious fundamentalism" in general, not Islamic jihad in particular.
The fact is that Islamists commit violent acts in the name of Islam THE WORLD OVER. Fundamentalists from no other religious tradition have organized into violent groups worldwide. That is because violence and violent imperialism is "fundamental" to the teachings of Islam in a way and to an extent that is not true of ANY other religion.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
"Moderate Muslims"
I think this thesis was originally offered on Tundra Tabloids.
I know this isn't the original verbiage, but the thesis is basically the same.
The Islamic religion in its purest (political) form is totalitarian in nature and therefore anti-democratic. We speak about the meaning of the word "moderate" in relation to Islam and find it as something no longer holding any meaning. The reason for this is simple: many so-called "moderates" have been praised in the west, only later being found to have been supporting jihad (whether by peaceful or violent means) against non-Muslims from the very beginning.
The Muslims we look to with hope are the "modernists", who truly believe in liberal democracy such that Islam should be a matter of personal faith, not politics. And above all, our modernist Muslim allies fully realize that Sharia has no place as a system of government in a modern industrial, democratic nation.
Those who refuse to condemn (restrict) sharia (Islamic law) as being incompatible with modern day society, are the Muslims we take issue with. It is these Muslims who present a clear and present danger to our American republic.
I know this isn't the original verbiage, but the thesis is basically the same.
The Islamic religion in its purest (political) form is totalitarian in nature and therefore anti-democratic. We speak about the meaning of the word "moderate" in relation to Islam and find it as something no longer holding any meaning. The reason for this is simple: many so-called "moderates" have been praised in the west, only later being found to have been supporting jihad (whether by peaceful or violent means) against non-Muslims from the very beginning.
The Muslims we look to with hope are the "modernists", who truly believe in liberal democracy such that Islam should be a matter of personal faith, not politics. And above all, our modernist Muslim allies fully realize that Sharia has no place as a system of government in a modern industrial, democratic nation.
Those who refuse to condemn (restrict) sharia (Islamic law) as being incompatible with modern day society, are the Muslims we take issue with. It is these Muslims who present a clear and present danger to our American republic.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Rio gets the 2016 Summer Olympics
Did anybody bother to tell the IOC that it's WINTER in Rio that time of year?
DUH!!!!
DUH!!!!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
President O'Bama Negotiates Secretly With the Pharmaceutical Lobby
My friend KGS59 of the Tundra Tabloids has posted an interesting article. It concerns recent news that President O'Bama has negotiated pharmaceutical prices in private with a leading representative of the industry (otherwise known as a lobbyist).
This is an excellent presentation. It clarifies something important.
I never had a problem with the President negotiating drug prices. I didn't mind the fact that the negotiation was held privately.
Most GOP/partisan blogs are just complaining that the President negotiated drug prices. This was something most people thought needed to be done. Moreover, it was seen as a major shortcoming in the GOP Medicare prescription plan.
There is also major GOP/partisan griping about who President O'Bama negotiated with, a leading lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. I wonder who they expected the President to negotiate with. Who did the GOP negotiate with when they formulated their plan? Are GOP partisans trying to tell us the Bush Administration and their congressional allies never negotiated public policy with lobbyists? Who's President O'Bama supposed to negotiate with?
So here's where I draw the line. I have ALWAYS said that the negotiation results need to be scrutinized. The real question that has to be asked is this: Did the American people get the best deal possible?
This presentation actually does something to answer that key question and it seems like we certainly did NOT get the best deal possible. The 2% savings bandied about in the presentation was against total sales. That's actually a more significant amount than the presentation says. The 2% savings against total sales might not seem like much, but it's a much larger percentage of gross profit margin.
Here's the rub! Most financial analysts specializing in the pharmaceutical business believe the industry could have comfortably doubled the price concessions made to President O'Bama. In other words, President O'Bama left aLOT of money on the table; money that the American public will have to pay. Moreover, the legitimate partisan question can be raised: was there a tangible political reward to President O'Bama and the Democrats for failing to push for more drug price concessions?
That's the issue I would like to see argued! I was glad that the Tundra Tabloid presentation cast some light on the issue of whether or not we got a good deal, but if we're really serious about this issue, there's more to shed light on. Merely quoting a dubious source like AirAmerica only makes a partisan GOP point America
Oh! One more thing. There's another thesis offered in the Tundra Tabloids column. It states that the O'Bama Administration is conducting business as usual. Not only was that obvious long before he got elected, but it is also obvious along the entire front of issues facing the country. If you voted for President O'Bama and you believed he'd conduct the business of government differently than before, then you are someone who is easily fooled.
The American system of government has its flaws, but it's still a pretty good system. The people who manage it make the difference. President O'Bama couldn't really do business any different than before because it's very difficult to do so. The only question lies in his sincerity to represent the American public consensus fairly in matters of public policy.
The evidence of his first 7 months in office suggests that he's torn between two entities and neither of these are the general American public consensus. Either he's pressing the agenda of:
1. The extreme left of the Democratic party.
2. Corporate interests
Hey! I saw the guy in action while he was inIllinois Chicago , Illinois
In the grand attempt to make medical care part of the American public infrastructure (a mistake, in my view), negotiations between the government and corporations are absolutely necessary. However, like all other forms of infrastructure, these negotiations and their results must hold up to public scrutiny.
We are seeing our first signs of failure in the O'Bama Administration's dealings in THIS story. It's really one of the first stories we can sink our teeth into since he became President. I think this story deserves more public scrutiny.
This is an excellent presentation. It clarifies something important.
I never had a problem with the President negotiating drug prices. I didn't mind the fact that the negotiation was held privately.
Most GOP/partisan blogs are just complaining that the President negotiated drug prices. This was something most people thought needed to be done. Moreover, it was seen as a major shortcoming in the GOP Medicare prescription plan.
There is also major GOP/partisan griping about who President O'Bama negotiated with, a leading lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. I wonder who they expected the President to negotiate with. Who did the GOP negotiate with when they formulated their plan? Are GOP partisans trying to tell us the Bush Administration and their congressional allies never negotiated public policy with lobbyists? Who's President O'Bama supposed to negotiate with?
So here's where I draw the line. I have ALWAYS said that the negotiation results need to be scrutinized. The real question that has to be asked is this: Did the American people get the best deal possible?
This presentation actually does something to answer that key question and it seems like we certainly did NOT get the best deal possible. The 2% savings bandied about in the presentation was against total sales. That's actually a more significant amount than the presentation says. The 2% savings against total sales might not seem like much, but it's a much larger percentage of gross profit margin.
Here's the rub! Most financial analysts specializing in the pharmaceutical business believe the industry could have comfortably doubled the price concessions made to President O'Bama. In other words, President O'Bama left a
That's the issue I would like to see argued! I was glad that the Tundra Tabloid presentation cast some light on the issue of whether or not we got a good deal, but if we're really serious about this issue, there's more to shed light on. Merely quoting a dubious source like Air
Oh! One more thing. There's another thesis offered in the Tundra Tabloids column. It states that the O'Bama Administration is conducting business as usual. Not only was that obvious long before he got elected, but it is also obvious along the entire front of issues facing the country. If you voted for President O'Bama and you believed he'd conduct the business of government differently than before, then you are someone who is easily fooled.
The American system of government has its flaws, but it's still a pretty good system. The people who manage it make the difference. President O'Bama couldn't really do business any different than before because it's very difficult to do so. The only question lies in his sincerity to represent the American public consensus fairly in matters of public policy.
The evidence of his first 7 months in office suggests that he's torn between two entities and neither of these are the general American public consensus. Either he's pressing the agenda of:
1. The extreme left of the Democratic party.
2. Corporate interests
Hey! I saw the guy in action while he was in
In the grand attempt to make medical care part of the American public infrastructure (a mistake, in my view), negotiations between the government and corporations are absolutely necessary. However, like all other forms of infrastructure, these negotiations and their results must hold up to public scrutiny.
We are seeing our first signs of failure in the O'Bama Administration's dealings in THIS story. It's really one of the first stories we can sink our teeth into since he became President. I think this story deserves more public scrutiny.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cronkite Remembers
I bought the 1996 VHS edition of "Cronkite Remembers" several years ago. Unfortunately, when I tried to play it a couple weeks ago when Walter Cronkite died, the tape broke. I was really angry about that and issued a few choice swear words in frustration.
I went on the internet and used Amazon.com to locate the tape. It was not to be found. Rather, there is a 3 DVD set by the same name. I figured it was probably a very similar production and bought it.
Mrs. TINSC and I have just spent the past 3 days watching this 7-1/2 hour series. It's worth every cent of the $20 or so we paid.
What can I say about Walter Cronkite? I dunno. The first thing that comes to my mind is: WHAT A LIFE!
Walter Cronkite was an eye witness to so much American history that this 7-1/2 hour series couldn't possibly cover it all.
He flew 8 combat missions over Europe during World War II as a war correspondent. He saw that war up close and personal. He covered the Nuremberg trials and later; even covered the Eichmann trial in Israel. He lived in Moscow immediately after the war and witnessed Stalinism in a most personal way. He flew a combat air mission over Vietnam. He attended BOTH the Democratic and Republican national conventions of 1928 (not as a reporter).
To hear the 20th century history of America from Walter Cronkite is a treat no matter what your politics are.
There are people who berate Walter Cronkite because he was a liberal. He was a liberal. There are those who berate Walter Cronkite for causing America to lose the Vietnam War. America didn't lose the Vietnam War; the RVN lost it. If the South Vietnamese couldn't stand up and fight against the Communists, then there was never a war to be won.
I'd also add that I heard some absolute falsehoods stated in that documentary. For example, Walter Cronkite states that America spent the 1930's preparing for World War II. Few concur with that view. Most historians rightly believe that America was quite unprepared for war on September 1, 1939 and hardly more prepared on December 7, 1941 when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.
But these are things he said in passing; so briefly you'd hardly even notice it. By and large, this DVD set is like listening to Grandpa tell old stories; except these stories shaped our world. There is no question that Walter Cronkite was in the thick of so much of it.
Walter Cronkite took from the Nuremberg Trials an opinion that we need a "World Court" and a "World Government" to diffuse conflict. That he was holding onto such beliefs well into the late 1990's is a mystery to me. Let me just say that I certainly don't agree with him on THAT one.
I need to check to see what the copyright date is on the DVD set. I think there were some things left out of the DVD set that were in that original 1996 VHS edition. For example, I could SWEAR Walter Cronkite talks about his daughter Kathy going to Woodstock on the original 1996 edition. I'm going to find a VHS tape repair service someday and have that restored so I can tell you whether my memory serves me correct.
I also remember that the 1996 edition covered the assassination attempt on President Reagan. This was certainly absent from the DVD set although as I'm sure you can imagine, there was plenty of time devoted to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Yet while Walter Cronkite can be fairly criticized for being liberal, even having liberal bias in his news reporting, nobody can say he was naive about the totalitarian aspects of Communism. This is where his worst critics and I part ways. Walter Cronkite was opposed to Communism and fully recognized it as a means to impose totalitarian rule. Moreover, he fully recognized the imperialist nature of the Soviet Union and the anti-American sentiment that American Communists held. Walter Cronkite was no fool and he was no tool.
He called the news the way he saw the news; sometimes regretting afterward. He did his best to get it right and if he reported the news through his liberal preferences, well... that's the way it was. Compared to the clods anchoring network news today, Walter did his job reasonably well.
I went on the internet and used Amazon.com to locate the tape. It was not to be found. Rather, there is a 3 DVD set by the same name. I figured it was probably a very similar production and bought it.
Mrs. TINSC and I have just spent the past 3 days watching this 7-1/2 hour series. It's worth every cent of the $20 or so we paid.
What can I say about Walter Cronkite? I dunno. The first thing that comes to my mind is: WHAT A LIFE!
Walter Cronkite was an eye witness to so much American history that this 7-1/2 hour series couldn't possibly cover it all.
He flew 8 combat missions over Europe during World War II as a war correspondent. He saw that war up close and personal. He covered the Nuremberg trials and later; even covered the Eichmann trial in Israel. He lived in Moscow immediately after the war and witnessed Stalinism in a most personal way. He flew a combat air mission over Vietnam. He attended BOTH the Democratic and Republican national conventions of 1928 (not as a reporter).
To hear the 20th century history of America from Walter Cronkite is a treat no matter what your politics are.
There are people who berate Walter Cronkite because he was a liberal. He was a liberal. There are those who berate Walter Cronkite for causing America to lose the Vietnam War. America didn't lose the Vietnam War; the RVN lost it. If the South Vietnamese couldn't stand up and fight against the Communists, then there was never a war to be won.
I'd also add that I heard some absolute falsehoods stated in that documentary. For example, Walter Cronkite states that America spent the 1930's preparing for World War II. Few concur with that view. Most historians rightly believe that America was quite unprepared for war on September 1, 1939 and hardly more prepared on December 7, 1941 when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor.
But these are things he said in passing; so briefly you'd hardly even notice it. By and large, this DVD set is like listening to Grandpa tell old stories; except these stories shaped our world. There is no question that Walter Cronkite was in the thick of so much of it.
Walter Cronkite took from the Nuremberg Trials an opinion that we need a "World Court" and a "World Government" to diffuse conflict. That he was holding onto such beliefs well into the late 1990's is a mystery to me. Let me just say that I certainly don't agree with him on THAT one.
I need to check to see what the copyright date is on the DVD set. I think there were some things left out of the DVD set that were in that original 1996 VHS edition. For example, I could SWEAR Walter Cronkite talks about his daughter Kathy going to Woodstock on the original 1996 edition. I'm going to find a VHS tape repair service someday and have that restored so I can tell you whether my memory serves me correct.
I also remember that the 1996 edition covered the assassination attempt on President Reagan. This was certainly absent from the DVD set although as I'm sure you can imagine, there was plenty of time devoted to the assassination of President Kennedy.
Yet while Walter Cronkite can be fairly criticized for being liberal, even having liberal bias in his news reporting, nobody can say he was naive about the totalitarian aspects of Communism. This is where his worst critics and I part ways. Walter Cronkite was opposed to Communism and fully recognized it as a means to impose totalitarian rule. Moreover, he fully recognized the imperialist nature of the Soviet Union and the anti-American sentiment that American Communists held. Walter Cronkite was no fool and he was no tool.
He called the news the way he saw the news; sometimes regretting afterward. He did his best to get it right and if he reported the news through his liberal preferences, well... that's the way it was. Compared to the clods anchoring network news today, Walter did his job reasonably well.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Republicans and Democrats
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that one group tries to push the country over the cliff. The other group tries to pull the country over the cliff.
The two sides argue about which is better but the end result is the same.
The two sides argue about which is better but the end result is the same.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Have you ever noticed?
Have you ever noticed that individuals and factions generally partial to greater state control of economic life, have found the evidence for global warming to be quite compelling?
Just thought I'd ask again since a cap-and-trade bill is winding its way through Congress right now.
Just thought I'd ask again since a cap-and-trade bill is winding its way through Congress right now.
Friday, May 01, 2009
U.S. Government moves to dismiss AIPAC case
Of course the U.S. Government was eventually going to drop these scurilous charges.
You'll note that the charges were covered in depth by the news media when they were made. That is because the news media goes into high gear when there's Jews to hate.
But now, with the charges dropped (because they were baseless to begin with) the end of the story is not being covered.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees or hears it, did it happen?
The charges against Rosen and Weissman were covered extensively complete with accusations of nefarious intent. The final conclusion of the prosecutors that they do not have a case, has not garnished much news media attention. Not like I'm surprised.
***** UPDATE *****
I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Alex Safian of CAMERA tonight on this subject. Alex noted the storm of coverage when the story first broke and agreed that statistically, the coverage of the exoneration received far less media coverage. Alex made note that this is common in news media coverage and not inimical to coverage of Israel and/or Jews.
That being said, Alex professionally documents anti-Israel bias in the news media. My claim that initial coverage of the "AIPAC spy story" exhibited anti-Israel bias has merit. Some examples of the anti-Israel bias surrounding the original story (2004) are documented on CAMERA's web site.
You'll note that the charges were covered in depth by the news media when they were made. That is because the news media goes into high gear when there's Jews to hate.
But now, with the charges dropped (because they were baseless to begin with) the end of the story is not being covered.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees or hears it, did it happen?
The charges against Rosen and Weissman were covered extensively complete with accusations of nefarious intent. The final conclusion of the prosecutors that they do not have a case, has not garnished much news media attention. Not like I'm surprised.
***** UPDATE *****
I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Alex Safian of CAMERA tonight on this subject. Alex noted the storm of coverage when the story first broke and agreed that statistically, the coverage of the exoneration received far less media coverage. Alex made note that this is common in news media coverage and not inimical to coverage of Israel and/or Jews.
That being said, Alex professionally documents anti-Israel bias in the news media. My claim that initial coverage of the "AIPAC spy story" exhibited anti-Israel bias has merit. Some examples of the anti-Israel bias surrounding the original story (2004) are documented on CAMERA's web site.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Some Good News
While Mahmoud Ahmadinijad got slobbering coverage by the LIB media, it looks like the Durban II conference has not turned out to be a frothing-at-the-mouth frenzy of anti-Semitism that characterized Durban I. It looks like the diplomatic efforts of the countries that did not participate sent a valuable message.
From the Jerusalem Post:
But although Durban II was preceded by a two day anti-Israel conference by non-governmental groups and a number of small anti-Israel rallies were held - including one that compared Israel's actions in Gaza with those of the Warsaw ghetto - the atmosphere around the conference did not replicate Durban I.
Link to the whole article
From the Jerusalem Post:
But although Durban II was preceded by a two day anti-Israel conference by non-governmental groups and a number of small anti-Israel rallies were held - including one that compared Israel's actions in Gaza with those of the Warsaw ghetto - the atmosphere around the conference did not replicate Durban I.
Link to the whole article
Monday, April 20, 2009
Thank you
The There is NO Santa Claus blog would like to thank the leaders of the following countries for boycotting the Durban II conference:
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Poland
4. Holland
5. United States of America
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. New Zealand
9. Sweden
10.Israel.
1. Germany
2. Italy
3. Poland
4. Holland
5. United States of America
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. New Zealand
9. Sweden
10.Israel.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
About Global Warming
Let's get something straight!
The problem isn't global warming. The problem is people who say government can fix problems of global magnitude by taking more of your money and controlling the way you live.
The problem isn't global warming. The problem is people who say government can fix problems of global magnitude by taking more of your money and controlling the way you live.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
President O'Bama's dog
I think it's very nice President O'Bama got his children a dog. One has to wonder what took him so long. That he conditioned getting a dog on his victory in a Presidential election makes me wonder how much of a present it was to his children. OTOH, he's not going to be home too much so the dog is a fine idea.
And besides, Muslims don't like dogs. Muslim households rarely keep dogs. So all you hysterical O'Bama-bashers need to find something else to kvetch about. Our President isn't a Muslim, yet.
But what of the LIB media? Why the hype? President Bush had a dog. Did anyone know its name? President Clinton had a dog. Did anyone know its name? Where was all the media hype then? There hasn't been this much hype for the President's dog since Lyndon Johnson lifted his beagle up by the ears 45 years ago.
And apparently, there doesn't seem to be any of the usual hypersensitivity to "racism" given that the President has named his dog "Bo". If George Bush had brought a black dog into the White House and named it "Bo", I think we would never have heard the end of it. But alas! This is a new era of "hope and change".
The dog is cute and the most important thing is that the children are happy and do not experience an allergic reaction to Bo. After all, Bo shares a breeding blood line with Sen. Ted Kennedy's dogs.
Does this make the O'Bamas and Kennedys "family"? :+)
And besides, Muslims don't like dogs. Muslim households rarely keep dogs. So all you hysterical O'Bama-bashers need to find something else to kvetch about. Our President isn't a Muslim, yet.
But what of the LIB media? Why the hype? President Bush had a dog. Did anyone know its name? President Clinton had a dog. Did anyone know its name? Where was all the media hype then? There hasn't been this much hype for the President's dog since Lyndon Johnson lifted his beagle up by the ears 45 years ago.
And apparently, there doesn't seem to be any of the usual hypersensitivity to "racism" given that the President has named his dog "Bo". If George Bush had brought a black dog into the White House and named it "Bo", I think we would never have heard the end of it. But alas! This is a new era of "hope and change".
The dog is cute and the most important thing is that the children are happy and do not experience an allergic reaction to Bo. After all, Bo shares a breeding blood line with Sen. Ted Kennedy's dogs.
Does this make the O'Bamas and Kennedys "family"? :+)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Gov. Granholm, your silence today is deafening
The Big Three "bailout" is turning out to be anything BUT a rescue plan. Moreover, there's one rule for New York bankers and another rule for Michigan auto workers.
I'd like to think Gov. Granholm would speak out on this disparity. Don't you?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AIG - A media feeding frenzy
OK folks! The AIG bonus scandal is quickly turning into another one of those media feeding frenzies. Let's back up, take a deep breath and look at it.
We (da taxpayers) recently loaned AIG $30 Billion. Or did we just give it to them in exchange for an equity position in the company? It would be nice if the media actually informed us of the details of the "bailout". Wouldn't it?
Don't hold your breath. For now, I'll call this a loan.
Had we not loaned AIG $30 Billion, they would have gone bankrupt and pulled down other banks in a domino effect. I understand that. The plan is necessary to stabilize the banking system.
Had AIG gone bankrupt, I doubt they could have paid these bonuses. Therein lies the problem. The beneficiaries of this lavish compensation are being directly paid by taxpayers for running a company whose financial performance does not warrant lavish compensation. That's putting it mildly.
The big friggin' outrage is that something like $150 million has been paid out to AIG execs as retention bonuses. OK kiddies! Let's do the math! $150(EE6) divided by $30(EE9) times 100% equals 0.5%. In other words, less than 1% of this money has been paid out in bonuses.
Back in the wild and wooley days of the Casino business in Los Vegas, this was called "skimming". The government stopped it. Strange that the government didn't stop this! I understand your anger.
That does not mean we had to let the entire world banking system melt down. This problem doesn't mean it was wrong to rescue the banking system. It just means that the government once again, let a hundred executives of a large corporation get rich at taxpayer expense for no good reason.
Unheard of! Eh?
Today, I've heard news reports of Congressmen shouting from the highest mountaintops that this is an outrage. What is an outrage is that Congress didn't do any due dilligence to prevent this.
And what of the O'Bama Administration. This is an Administration that told us just a few weeks ago that banking bailout money would have "strings attached"; executive compensation would be limited to real-world levels for those banks accepting federal assistance. Either the O'Bama Administration was NOT sincere, or they failed to follow through with their own promise. No wonder the President is madder than a hornet.
I just wish our elected leaders had the HUMILITY to express a sense of embarassment over this issue. I think the money paid out to these executives can probably be recovered. If not, the government can certainly make these executives sorry they ever kept it.
Yet the media feeding frenzy on this story is focusing on public anger and the anger of our elected leaders. I can certainly understand the public anger. As far as our elected leaders are concerned, they should be EMBARASSED.
Oh! And one more thing before I sign off. I sure hope that our elected leaders in Washington D.C. take better care of how that "stimulus" money is spent better than they took care of the AIG rescue money. The stimulus package is law, but the money hasn't been spent yet. There's still time to prevent further embarassment to our elected leaders.
Do you think they'll use this time wisely?
We (da taxpayers) recently loaned AIG $30 Billion. Or did we just give it to them in exchange for an equity position in the company? It would be nice if the media actually informed us of the details of the "bailout". Wouldn't it?
Don't hold your breath. For now, I'll call this a loan.
Had we not loaned AIG $30 Billion, they would have gone bankrupt and pulled down other banks in a domino effect. I understand that. The plan is necessary to stabilize the banking system.
Had AIG gone bankrupt, I doubt they could have paid these bonuses. Therein lies the problem. The beneficiaries of this lavish compensation are being directly paid by taxpayers for running a company whose financial performance does not warrant lavish compensation. That's putting it mildly.
The big friggin' outrage is that something like $150 million has been paid out to AIG execs as retention bonuses. OK kiddies! Let's do the math! $150(EE6) divided by $30(EE9) times 100% equals 0.5%. In other words, less than 1% of this money has been paid out in bonuses.
Back in the wild and wooley days of the Casino business in Los Vegas, this was called "skimming". The government stopped it. Strange that the government didn't stop this! I understand your anger.
That does not mean we had to let the entire world banking system melt down. This problem doesn't mean it was wrong to rescue the banking system. It just means that the government once again, let a hundred executives of a large corporation get rich at taxpayer expense for no good reason.
Unheard of! Eh?
Today, I've heard news reports of Congressmen shouting from the highest mountaintops that this is an outrage. What is an outrage is that Congress didn't do any due dilligence to prevent this.
And what of the O'Bama Administration. This is an Administration that told us just a few weeks ago that banking bailout money would have "strings attached"; executive compensation would be limited to real-world levels for those banks accepting federal assistance. Either the O'Bama Administration was NOT sincere, or they failed to follow through with their own promise. No wonder the President is madder than a hornet.
I just wish our elected leaders had the HUMILITY to express a sense of embarassment over this issue. I think the money paid out to these executives can probably be recovered. If not, the government can certainly make these executives sorry they ever kept it.
Yet the media feeding frenzy on this story is focusing on public anger and the anger of our elected leaders. I can certainly understand the public anger. As far as our elected leaders are concerned, they should be EMBARASSED.
Oh! And one more thing before I sign off. I sure hope that our elected leaders in Washington D.C. take better care of how that "stimulus" money is spent better than they took care of the AIG rescue money. The stimulus package is law, but the money hasn't been spent yet. There's still time to prevent further embarassment to our elected leaders.
Do you think they'll use this time wisely?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Celebrating the O'Bama Inauguration
I celebrated the O'Bama inauguration tonight. Having voted for Clinton twice, Gore and Kerry and never being liberal ENOUGH, the cover of Ann Coulter's latest book, GUILTY caught my eye in the local West Michigan grocery store. In honor of the O'Bama inaguration, I bought the book.
"Liberals always have to be the victims, particularly when they are oppressing others. Modern victims aren't victims because of what they have suffered; they are victims of convenience for the Left.... Playing the game of He Who Is Offended First Wins, the keyt o any political argument is to pretend to be insulted and register operatic anger. Liberals are the masters of finger-wagging indignation. They will wail about some perceived slight to a sacred feeling of theirs, frightening people who have never before witnessed the liberal's capacity to invoke synthetic outrage. Distracted by the crocodile tears of the liberal, Americans don't notice that these fake victims are attacking, advancing and creating genuine victims."
Gotta love it.
"Liberals always have to be the victims, particularly when they are oppressing others. Modern victims aren't victims because of what they have suffered; they are victims of convenience for the Left.... Playing the game of He Who Is Offended First Wins, the keyt o any political argument is to pretend to be insulted and register operatic anger. Liberals are the masters of finger-wagging indignation. They will wail about some perceived slight to a sacred feeling of theirs, frightening people who have never before witnessed the liberal's capacity to invoke synthetic outrage. Distracted by the crocodile tears of the liberal, Americans don't notice that these fake victims are attacking, advancing and creating genuine victims."
Gotta love it.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
It's (not) Israel's Fault
It's Israel's Fault
An excellent essay by By Rabbi David Fass.
I encourage you to read it. My thanks to PRIMER and primerprez for posting this excellent essay.
An excellent essay by By Rabbi David Fass.
I encourage you to read it. My thanks to PRIMER and primerprez for posting this excellent essay.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
What a shame!
What a shame! I wish the IDF had killed this creep!
>There are other pictures that haunt me. The Israeli army issued a video of the bombing of the Hamas-run government compound, which it posted on YouTube. In it, I also can see my home being destroyed, and I watch it obsessively.<
In other words, ole Ibrahim Barzak lived in the heart of Hamas' neighborhood in easy walking distance from their government compound. He is a member of the club. He knows the secret handshake. And since Hamas PURGED Fatah some time ago, the only explanation for Barzak being alive is that he's part and parcel of the HAMAS propaganda machine.
>Al Dera, a beautiful hotel on the Mediterranean shore, was a place where young men and women smoked water pipes and flirted, and where families went for dinner on Thursdays.
Those days are gone now.<
Ah! The good old days!
But wait! According to Barzak, there were NO "good old days", only occupation, blockade and misery. I'll bet you can find reams of his articles claiming such.
>Samir, who is 9, told me his family has no water at home and he wanted to bring enough for a bath because he and his brother smell.
That's a problem for most people in Gaza right now.<
How many of you really think this is a problem that has just recently manifested itself?
>There were few cars on the roads, and most of those were media cars, ambulances and vehicles packed with civilians. Some looked like they were fleeing, with mattresses tied to the roofs, but who knows where they can go.
Israeli helicopters flew overhead. I heard blasts in the distance. The roads were ripped apart by explosives. <
There are 22 Arab League states stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. If these states aren't welcoming Arabs from Gaza, it certainly isn't Israel's fault. But hey! Why mention that when the primary agenda of a HAMAS apparatchik is to demonize the Jews?
As an AP employee, I'll bet the IDF has Ibrahim Barzak's cell phone number. I'll bet they called him and told him to get the heck out of the way before they bombed the HAMAS government complex that is in easy walking distance of his home. If he had the courage to report that, the HAMAS might not like the fact that he was talking to "the Jews".
Khaled Abu Tomeh of the JERUSALEM POST has reported on what happens to Gazans who are suspected of collaborating with Israel. According to Tomeh's report:
>Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations.<
While Ibrahim Barzak plays the LIB media pity game, he knows darn well that HAMAS continues to insist that they will NOT stop attacking Israel; they will NOT end the war. Barzak knows that HAMAS is bragging about sacrificing their lives and the lives of Gaza's citizens in the holy war against the Jews. HAMAS doesn't care who they murder. Too bad Ibrahim Barzak is unwilling to report it.
HAMAS propagandists like Ibrahim Barzak deserve to be treated like a combatant.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Gaza
It is long forgotten that Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005 under diplomatic pressure from the United States.
If the United States doesn't back Israel's defense from artillery attacks emanating from Gaza, we can forget about Israel ever again making territorial concessions to the Arabs on America' s behalf. Keep that in mind when you're scratching your head wondering why the United States and others are backing Israel in the current war.
If the United States doesn't back Israel's defense from artillery attacks emanating from Gaza, we can forget about Israel ever again making territorial concessions to the Arabs on America' s behalf. Keep that in mind when you're scratching your head wondering why the United States and others are backing Israel in the current war.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
I AM A PALESTINIAN!
Once upon a time, Israel and the US had a policy of not talking to terrorists. Now they're talking to Al-Jazeera.
Who are the Palestinians? There has never, in the history of humankind, been an Arab nation of "Palestine".
Palestine is a region. The modern State of Israel is part of that region. JEWS ARE PALESTINIANS TOO!
Yet for some reason, everybody has bought into the "no Jews allowed" definition of "Palestinian"; even the Likud.
It's time we spoke up and ended this sham that "Palestine" is an exclusive Arab land where Jews have no national rights.
The left (including the Israeli left) has long held fast to the belief that the War Against Israel is a competition between two national liberation movements. This is a LIE.
The War Against Israel is between one national liberation movement (Zionist) against a totalitarian, imperialist Islamo-Fascist movement which seeks to conquer all lands once ruled by Muslims and then onward to rule the world.
Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish People. The Jews established a nation in Palestine called Israel. The Arabs established a nation in Palestine called Jordan.
Therefore:
I AM A PALESTINIAN! I AM A JEW! I AM A ZIONIST!
It is time to end the "no Jews allowed" aspect of defining a "Palestinian".
I am sick and tired of people talking of the "Palestinians" expecting everyone to understand that they're talking EXCLUSIVELY about Arabs.
Who are the Palestinians? There has never, in the history of humankind, been an Arab nation of "Palestine".
Palestine is a region. The modern State of Israel is part of that region. JEWS ARE PALESTINIANS TOO!
Yet for some reason, everybody has bought into the "no Jews allowed" definition of "Palestinian"; even the Likud.
It's time we spoke up and ended this sham that "Palestine" is an exclusive Arab land where Jews have no national rights.
The left (including the Israeli left) has long held fast to the belief that the War Against Israel is a competition between two national liberation movements. This is a LIE.
The War Against Israel is between one national liberation movement (Zionist) against a totalitarian, imperialist Islamo-Fascist movement which seeks to conquer all lands once ruled by Muslims and then onward to rule the world.
Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish People. The Jews established a nation in Palestine called Israel. The Arabs established a nation in Palestine called Jordan.
Therefore:
I AM A PALESTINIAN! I AM A JEW! I AM A ZIONIST!
It is time to end the "no Jews allowed" aspect of defining a "Palestinian".
I am sick and tired of people talking of the "Palestinians" expecting everyone to understand that they're talking EXCLUSIVELY about Arabs.
IJCTDE
I think it is time to let you all know, I am the undisputed leader of IJCTDE. IJCTDE stands for the "International Jewish Conspiracy That Doesn't Exist".
You may kiss my ring now. :+)
You may kiss my ring now. :+)
Friday, January 02, 2009
About that Gaza evacuation in 2005
Is there anyone left who thinks the Bush Administration's pressuring Israel to leave Gaza in 2005 has been a diplomatic success?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
