Congress richly deserves our thanks

Within this most recent little spat in Congress over the 2 month tax cut, the largest "fail" was by the press. They failed to recognize that the citizens did not see much of anything in this bill, whether it passed or not. It was an event that was significant only to the ruling elite and their circle of news mongers and pundits. It was an exercise in not dealing with our real and pressing issues. Congress and the press merit a bitter and reproachful "Bundy" thanks. tha-anks

Christie on Obama and the SuperCommittee

A short comment on uTube by Chris Christie (Rep, Gov. NJ) about the failure of the Super Committee and President Obama. Christie said,
"I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration about the failure of the super committee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well, then, what the hell are we paying you for? 'It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved?' Well, what have you been doing, exactly?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=byvb5nrvPXU

Failure to make the tough decision

It won't be long before the world faces nuclear blackmail from Iran. There will be a nuclear arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Possibly nuclear war between Israel and Iran. And the U.S. is using sanctions? Obama and Clinton should realize that they will be alive when Iran goes nuclear, and they'll have to live with themselves. If they have any shred of conscience, they will not sleep easy, nor will people stop asking them, why only sanctions?

When the press says Al Davis defied the league

When the press says "...defied the league..", what is reality is that Pete Roselle saw Davis as competition, and it was war between the 2 since the merger of the AFL and NFL. Roselle knew Davis was a keen negotiator. Roselle bypassed Davis when Davis was commissioner of the AFL, and did a secret deal with some owners to merge the leagues. This set up a rivalry between the two. Now skip to 1980. Davis had an understanding with the City of Oakland to improve the stadium. Pete Roselle went behind Davis' back again to assure that the City that the league would block the Raiders from leaving the city, and the city could negotiate a sweeter deal with the Raiders. Finding this out, Davis moved the team to L.A.. The press ain't about to tell you about that. Davis finally won the anti-trust lawsuits between the league (Roselle) and the Raiders (Davis). Now skip to the Raiders coming back to Oakland. Oakland promised him a good deal, but screwed the team with exorbitantly priced seating. And then it was Jerry Brown, who was pitted against Davis. Brown refused to negotiate a more realistic deal with the Raiders for lower seat prices. Even today, as the Calif. Guv, Jerry Brown opposes any help with a new stadium for the Raiders and 49's. Both teams play in the worst stadiums in the NFL. Yes, there have been many lawsuits, but that's how big money settles grievances. And Davis was not somebody to shrink away from a fight, and I defy anybody to tell us why he should have been a wilting flower. He stood up for his team like a man, even as the press was trashing him.

Enough already with higher taxes

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23470.html

Grow Jobs Not Government

~Bullet Points~
Obama has been killing jobs in America and helping our enemies in OPEC -
--By not promoting a nat gas pipeline down from Canada.
--By not allowing drilling in ANWR
--By not allowing drilling in the Gulf, and off the coasts of Florida and California.
--By not promoting LNG ports on the east and west coasts.
--By not promoting conversion of our truck fleets over to nat gas.
--By not promoting an upgrade of the electrical grid to enable wind farm electrical generation in the windy states.


Mad Magazine Online

Socialism as a government operating system

Socialism bolts out of the starting gate with 3 incorrect assumptions. Socialists don't understand about the inherent wisdom of a capitalism, which makes an incalculable amount of distinct localized decisions far more accurately than any group of elitist bureaucratic central planners. Socialism hopes and assumes that people will act with something other than their own interests in mind. If the do-gooders had a better understanding of human nature, they'd understand that people have to be appropriately motivated. Socialists refuse to understand the greater benefit to society of invested money as compared to government revenues.

This is not to say that there isn't need for unemployment insurance, social security and other programs. But, when government grows and gains power, we must push back against that expansion.

Why not raise taxes?

My answer to the question posed by NPR’s Michael Krasny this morning, about why Republicans are against raising taxes on the rich.


Higher taxes have unintended consequences. Raising taxes, beyond a certain 'sweet spot', lowers revenues for more than one reason. Generally, the people who are supposedly helped by raising taxes on the rich, namely the poor and the middle class, are the ones most hurt by the tax.

If you ask an adult whether they'd rather be on unemployment insurance or working, the overwhelming answer would be working. If your intention is to help the downtrodden and the lower classes, you would naturally promote an economy that provided jobs. The more jobs to choose from, the happier the worker. But when jobs are scarce, the selection of jobs is low, and there is downward pressure on both wages and conditions. Money runs out for the long term unemployed and they become desperate. I know because I experienced extended unemployment, when I got out of the army in 1972, again in 1991 and in 2005.

But why would revenues decrease if we raise taxes on the rich? One reason is the rich don't want to pay increased taxes, so they hire tax consultants to help them avoid taxes. I lived next door to a tax consultant, who explained that he found ways for rich people and businesses to invest their money to avoid taxation. The result is that the rich avoid taxes as much as possible by investing their resources in businesses they are not familiar with. It results in a decrease of efficiency. To the extent that elevated taxes does sting the rich, that much money is taken out of the private sector. It's money that is not being put at risk, by investing in factories or new small businesses. Less factories and fewer start ups means fewer jobs. And because there are fewer jobs, revenues fall short of expectations.

Obama not the worst President

Obama the worst President ever?In Obama's defense, there are 4 POTUS who were worse. The worst were:
Andrew Johnson (1885-69) - for his botching Reconstruction that led to 90 years of Jim Crow America.
James Buchanan (1857-61) - was a traitor for arming the South before Lincoln could assume office.
LBJ (1963-69) - For his disastrous and far reaching failures, both in Vietnam and his Great Society programs.
Tricky Dick Nixon (1969-74) - for drafting me in 1971, for his war on drugs and creating the DEA, for price fixing, and for his Watergate coverup.

One can argue that Herbert Hoover and/or FDR were also failed Presidents, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were up against a powerful depression that economists were still grappling with as what was the best policies. They both raised taxes, spending, and Hoover raised the tariffs, as Roosevelt was regulation crazy, and with hindsight, we can conclude they made grave mistakes. It's something future leaders should have learned from.

Obama (2009-13) has trumped Jimmy Carter (1977-81) to gain control of the number 5 spot on the list of worst POTUS. Both of them prolonged a bad recession and lowered U.S. influence around the world, as well as lowering U.S. morale at home. I give the tip to Obama for allowing Pelosi and Reid to drive the U.S. so deep in debt. Then there's Obama's incompetent energy policy, which he has time to fix, but I doubt he can ever understand why his Green energy policy is a non-starter. And what a failure of leadership with Obama not pressing for the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Obama has 2 more years left and he might just add another failure to his legacy if the Muslim Brotherhood gains control of Libya.

Lieberman calls for moritorium on nukes

In light of the nuclear meltdowns in Japan, Lieberman has called for a moratorium on nukes.
That is not the only reason to re-think nuclear energy. Due to technological advances and discoveries of vast stores of natural gas, it is now our cheapest source of energy. The fact is that the U.S. is rich in natural gas. It would cost half as much to power our trucks and fleets, compared to diesel. The present administration has green energy blinders on and would wish natural gas just go away, even though natural gas is the cleanest by far of the fossil fuels. It is the duty of the press to begin to ask, if not badger, the Obama Administration why they are ignoring this great resource, which is environmentally friendly, very cheap and could go a long ways to making the U.S. energy independent... not to mention increase employment.

Chileans use violence on Easter Island

BREAKING NEWS - PRESS RELEASE FROM RAPA NUI
December 29, 2010

Today, December 29th just before 7 PM, an contingency of 200 armed police began violently dislodging the Rapanui Parliament from their headquarters in the

enter of the town of Hanga Roa, Rapa Nui. The police have beaten dozens of Rapa Nui with clubs, including children and women. They have arrested at least

two dozen people.

This action was a unilateral decision made by the Regional Indendent, Raul Celis. The operation was directed by the Police Commander,

Oscar Salazar who confirmed, "Celis gave the order."

Lola Tuki, who was there said that it was "unbelievable to see the degree of violence and inhuman treatment and prejudice. The police were

cursing at the women calling them, "Goddamn indian bitches", and grabbing them violently.

Many of the people taken from the Tuki and HIto clan were defending the President of the Rapa Nui Parliament, Leviante Araki.

This is a developing story.

CONTACT:

Lola Tuki 011 569 62144264

Santi Hitorangi 845 596 5402

NPR Ends Williams' Contract

NPR Ends Williams' Contract After Muslim Remarks
by David Folkenflik
October 21, 2010

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737

-The brief article starts with:

NPR News has terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams
after remarks he made on the Fox News Channel about Muslims.

Williams appeared Monday on The O'Reilly Factor, and host Bill O'Reilly asked
him to comment on the idea that the U.S. is facing a dilemma with Muslims.

O'Reilly has been looking for support for his own remarks on a recent episode
of ABC's The View in which he directly blamed Muslims for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set in the middle of his appearance.

Williams responded: "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about
the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see
people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and
foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians
shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

But strong criticism followed Williams' comments.

-Go here for the rest of the article.

My view is that NPR is leftist. Leftists generally believe in cultural relativism, meaning all cultures, except in the U.S., are equally valid. With this foundation on the left, it's unacceptable to them, to consider that Muslims could possibly be more of a threat than any other group. Leftists are in denial that organized Muslims, led by religious leaders, are in a violent expansionary mode, at war with the world including Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, secular Westerners, and esp. Jews. These Muslim expansionists are not all of the same ilk. The Sunnis are at odds with the Shiites, who are at odds with the Baathists, who are at odds with the Wahhabis...which doesn't preclude temporary cooperation between these groups against a common enemy. And one tactic of these groups is suicide bombing, especially utilizing public transportation. So, Juan Williams is rational in his fear of Muslims on planes.

Hiroshima, 65 years later

Critics claim that intercepted communiques indicated
that Japan was considering surrender. But were the
Allies supposed to assume that the diplomatic communiques
spoke also for the military? Because it's doubtful
they did, and the military held the power.
The Kamikazees were sinking U.S. shipping, with
sailors dying, while Japanese civilians (including
women and children) were being trained to
fight to the death. How long was President Truman
supposed to wait for Japan to decide to surrender?
Weeks? Months? And after weeks or
months the Japanese did not surrender, then what?
Invasion**, and millions of military and civilian
casualties. While Truman was weighing these factors,
he had to worry about the Soviets moving in to claim
Japanese territory. Atomic bombs are horrible, but
so is death in a fire storm which took more lives,
yet there's not the outcry against fire bombing that
the atomic bombs have. Keep in mind that in 1945, the
destruction caused by atomic bombs did not hold the
horror and condemnation it rightly gained after their
use. There is something haunting about one bomb causing
such devastation and human suffering due to burning
and radiation. If the U.S. had fire bombed Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, perhaps more people would have burned to
death, and also, the Japanese may not have been convinced
to surrender. Even with hindsight, we don't know. And
Truman did not have the advantage of any hindsight.

----------

** Excerpt from:
August 11, 2010
A Rather Angry America
by Victor Davis Hanson
Pajamas Media
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081110.html

History Is Negotiable

We sent our first delegation to the services marking the bombing of Hiroshima. Fine, but will we do the same with the Philippines, Manchuria, South Korea, and all the other places^^ where the Imperial Japanese Army by early 1945 was killing on average well over 5,000 a day in its occupied co-prosperity sphere? To understand why Hiroshima, understand 50,000 American casualties, 100,000 Japanese dead, and 100,000 Okinawan dead at the conclusion of Okinawa ten weeks earlier, and then multiply it by a factor of 10 for the upcoming Japanese homeland invasion.

------------

^^Add to that list:
The Rape of Nanking, of which the Japanese still do not recognize.
Do not teach their children about.
Recommended reading or listening

More analysis on the commando boarding off of Gaza

Excerpt from The Local, a Swedish online news source.


"Who actually profited from what happened?
Well, most analysts agree that the biggest beneficiaries
are the radical Islamists of the Middle East, notably Hamas,
the terrorist organization which currently rules Gaza.
Hamas won a major PR victory and gained valuable
international legitimacy at the expense of moderate
Palestinians and the Fatah leadership of the West Bank.
Politically this is a boost for those Palestinians who
object to peace negotiations with Israel, and prefer
the more violent path of jihad, the so-called holy war
against Israel and the non-Muslim world.

In Turkey, Islamist extremists are milking the incident
to win easy points against secular and modernising forces.
Iran is delighted that the world’s attention is being
diverted away from its nuclear programme and arms deals
with Hezbollah and Syria. As so often before in the
Middle-East, the rhetoric of peace and freedom becomes
a tool to strengthen despotic, terror-sponsoring regimes
which scoff at both. This happened largely because,
as Israeli author David Grossman put it, Israel acted
like a puppet on strings pulled by a small fanatical
Turkish organization.

It's hard to tell if this is what the Swedish activists
on the flotilla were hoping to achieve. If it wasn't,
and their only aim was to deliver humanitarian aid to
Gaza and protest against Israel's blockade, they must
be extremely naïve if they call the flotilla a success.
Assuming their intentions were good, they might want
to consider a few changes next time they embark on
Middle East mission.

First, it's always good to know who your partners are.
In this case, the IHH, the Turkish movement behind the
Mavi Marmara, has proven links to terrorist organizations
and global Jihad. It is now obvious that their aim wasn't
only humanitarian aid: they have boasted that they were
looking for violent confrontation and sadly Israel gave
them more than they needed to make their point. Now they
have their martyrs.

In reality, the flotilla was an unfortunate alliance of
idealistic peace activists and hard-core Islamic extremists."

Israeli commando raid on flotilla

Excerpt from an OpEd piece in the ChiTribune online,
about the Israeli commando raid on the Turkish flotilla:

"The Israelis tried to avoid a lethal confrontation.
Israeli officials reportedly offered the vessel the
same deal that was accepted by at least one previous
flotilla — divert to the Israeli port of Ashdod and
unload the cargo for inspection. As long as the cargo
doesn't contain weaponry, it will be shipped into the
Gaza Strip by land."

Nobel-winning Elders deplore Gaza flotilla attack

Re: "Nobel-winning Elders deplore Gaza flotilla attack"
in the THE HINDU, Johannesburg, May 31, 2010 online edition


Dear Editor,

I am a concerned that the article did not mention that there
were other boats in that flotilla that did not fight the Israeli commandos,
and in those boats, there were no casualties. The men on that one ship,
armed with steel clubs, hammers, knives and other crude weapons,
initiated hand-to-hand combat with the commandos, and so I'm concerned that the
article did not mention that. Why omit that? Other questions arise,
such as why was there an armed resistance on that one ship
in the flotilla? Who, exactly, organized them? Who was the leader
of those men? Was it the captain of the ship, or a sailor, or was it a
passenger? What organization plotted this violence?
I'm certain that the editors of the THE HINDU are curious about
those same issues and more, and I would appreciate it if THE HINDU
would look into these questions and report to the public.

In support of the 2 party system, as bad as it is.

I'm sorry George Washington and John Quincy Adams, politics inevitably divides into parties.
But, I do not understand why every new form of democratic government on this planet embraces the Parliamentary model. Is it because they think that multi-parties are a good thing? A party for the communists, one or two for the socialists, a party for the reactionaries, one for the conservatives, perhaps one for the middle of the road voters, plus the environmentalist's Green party. Not to forget a party for every religious sect, every race and ethnic group, because they represent the highest potential for violence in society. But democracy is about something higher than pandering to the eternally squabbling hard heads. It is about liberty, both economic and political. So the issues are, roughly, big government versus small government and the dynamic tension between those opposites, boiling down the multi-parties into the 2 party system. The separate factions resolving their differences in the caucus of each party, instead of on the ballot, where, as seen in Britain and in Iraq, a compromise is not up to the people, but up to the power players in Parliament and the reining Prime Minister.

Illegal Aliens

The liberals are shooting themselves in the foot on this issue. Illegal aliens are putting downward pressure on the wages of the lowest tier of workers. How is that good for the worker? It's good for the corporate farmer and consumer as it helps keep prices down on crops. The groups of illegals that mill around in the parking lots of hardware stores are actually a temporary labor resource for individual homeowners. If we eliminate the alien worker, then homeowners will have to resort to legal temp worker outlets. Are we a nation that upholds the law or do we favor illegal labor and a 2-tiered society?

And please note Shakira (I love her, BTW), with the high school drop out rate being incredibly high among Hispanics, the illegal aliens are robbing jobs from the Hispanic community.

After the Surge, judging the Iraq Invasion

A discussion of whether the Surge worked in Iraq. Abu Muqawama argues that the Surge
did work, contrary to blogists like Andy Sullivan and Thomas E. Ricks. Muqawama says the
war was stupid, but the Surge worked.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/04/just-admit-it-surge-worked.html


I can understand the conclusion that the Iraq invasion was stupid, and the cost in lives
high, but....
We don't know how many Iraqis would have died if Saddam Hussein were still in power.
Or how many children would be deprived of medical care. How many Iraqis would die in
prison and be tortured (and I'm not talking of panties on the head). We don't know
how long the U.S. would have maintained the No Fly Zone, protecting the Kurds in the
North and Shia in the South from hellfire from above. We don't know if Saddam Hussein
would activate his chemical factories and possibly nuclear technology after the inspectors
left the country. We don't know what terrorism outside the borders of Iraq that Hussein
would bankroll. We don't know the numbers of UN officials Hussein would have bribed.
We don't know the extent to which nations and their industries would have dealt with
Hussein's dictatorship. And we don't know how long Hussein could have maintained
his dictatorship and how many deaths would happen with his downfall. And we don't know
what organization would take control after Hussein. Al Qaeda? Iran? More Baathists?
Or if Iraq's neighbors would have invaded. We don't know yet if establishing a democracy
in Iraq was a turning point in the war against al Qaeda, the Wahabis and the Ayatollah.
This drama is still unfolding, and the historians will have a different view than the majority
of contemporaries in media.

Disrespect and lack of empathy in politics

Helen Smith talks about the problem of the entrenched party politics
in her article at Pajamas Media
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-should-conservatives-deal-with-the-lefts-disrespect-and-lack-of-empathy/

I left the comment: there are people on both sides of the spectrum who hold little empathy and are intolerant, after all politics involves millions of people. But, as a centrist and it’s my experience that the left has this affliction in spades. Helen Smith has some good ideas there, and I like her approach to the topic. I’d like to add that like the dog whisperer, political intercourse should be calm and assertive. There are the important political issue such as taxes, regulation, national defense, education and so forth. But there are minor issues, which the press emphasize, that are soap opera-like, melodramatic, including personality destruction which derail our attention from the important issues. These side dramas have to be commented upon, of course, but it’s critical not to dwell on them and be caught up in the emotional maelstrom. We must calmly steer political intercourse back on track of the important issues.