No surprise really. Think the Democrats are going to turn around sometime soon and get a little mad at the media for not properly vetting one of the most liberal and underhanded candidates for higher office in quite some time? Oh, I'm sure they're getting ready. He's already used not so subtle sexist references to Hillary Clinton and has already started discriminating against John McCain's age, this of course, after he supposedly somehow missed the fact that his pastor was a foaming at the mouth lunatic after sitting about 1o feet from him every week and heard every speech the guy gave. Only after it was politically expedient for him to distance himself did he do so. Character guy. He was so unsure of Rev. Wright that he continually called him a "spiritual mentor" and a close personal friend. Friends never hear friends express opinions right?
Well, ABC has a nice story about how Obama diverted Millions upon Millions of dollars to his political allies. His wife also benefited as you already know, from his political activities. In fact, everyone around Obama who was willing to do his dirty work or was a special interest he agreed with, got some money thrown at them, while he hurls disingenuous promises of somehow being "different" than anyone else. In terms of egotistical, he's right on that point.
Worse yet, it's now almost legendary how far MSNBC and the AP as well as other media organizations are in the tank for the guy. An unquestioning media who serves as a propaganda wing is what gets most dictatorships moving along rapidly. Even worse is the whole Messianic idea behind his candidacy, and the photos taken by the media and the presentation of such are extremely disturbing. See here and here. Feel free to Google Chris Matthews and Obama and see the results. You'll also note that many older style Democrats (Clinton, Leiberman, etc) have started to go on record as saying that Fox News really is the only fair network left. That is, the only network where the political analysts aren't fellating Obama.
You'll also be pleased to know he's lied, and blatantly so, on many occasions. One such is his idea of appeasements towards terrorists and dictators, which President Bush called him out on today. He says that's a lie, but check out the video and screen cap that was captured by Hot Air's Allahpundit, taken straight from Obama's website (side note: if you put it on the web, you can't just take it down and say it was never there, moron). The media's reaction? He never said that. Somewhere in the distance I can hear goosestepping from the liberal minions circa 1939 Germany.
-Caomhin
15 May 2008
Liberals In Senate Tried to Ram Amnesty Down Our Throats....Again
What is this, like their 5th try in the last few months? It is utterly disgraceful and politically disgusting that liberals in the Senate stuffed an amendment onto the Iraq funding bill that would have required granting amnesty to illegal aliens, increased the number of work visas for low skilled labor, AND required a price restriction on the labor. How can anyone be so contemptuous for our troops (by putting them in harms way by slowing down the funds necessary for them to fulfill their mission), so anti-free market (by introducing wage freezes, harmful the very same people they propose to give amnesty to), and advocating a lawless, open border? It's insanity, and it's seems fitting its Sen. Feinstein was one of the "champions" of this nonsense.
Let's look at each aspect briefly. First, it is utterly inappropriate to attach amendments to the Iraq funding bill to try to revive the horrendous amnesty act that the Senate tried to push upon our nation. Such issues should, and only should, be considered as separate bills.
Secondly, advocating an open borders policy is a terrible idea in the first place. While individual liberty allows for individuals to move freely, that must be balanced with protecting the liberties and rights of others. For example, we should absolutely allow for legal immigration into this nation, but there is a responsibility now to check to make sure those entering the nation are free from communicable diseases, are clear of a criminal background, etc. This would ensure security for our citizens and allow for a responsible policy of immigration with a secure border. This also is essential to homeland security.
Economic implications include the depression of wages. One argument that you hear is that illegal immigrants took jobs from Americans. In one sense, that is true. It is true in that an artificially large workforce amounts to an oversupply of labor. An oversupply leads to lower prices, essentially a competition to the bottom. People will accept markedly lower wage rates for jobs that normally would pay much higher rates. Secondly, we have the abuse of the social security system, health care benefits, etc and increases in identity theft occurrences (as illegals will undoubtedly look for ways to circumvent the system). You also have a system where employers who break the law by employing people they know to be illegal are much more likely to abuse their workers and provide unsafe work conditions as the illegals are many times less likely to report the violations as they themselves are in violation of the law.
For any elected member of the United States Congress to delay and stall funds from reaching our troops is simply inexcusable. Democrats have long said they supported the troops, while their minions have gone forth and accused them of being murderous thugs for the Bush Administration on one hand, and being victims of underfunded and under armored patsies on the other, both outrageous charges. Democrats themselves have continually held up the funding that the troops rely on to provide them with the ammunition, support, and armor needed to successfully fight the war. They are in no way, shape, or form supporting the troops by accusing them of atrocities and withholding funding from the battlefield. They are attempting to score the cheapest, and most insidious, of political points.
Finally, in terms of economics (which I briefly touched on earlier) any "wage freeze" is a terrible idea that flies in the face of capitalism (not that has ever stopped the Dems before). Any worker that is providing a service is deserving of the highest wage that the market deems to be proper for that particular position, be it higher, or lower. At a lower wage, the workers have an incentive to shift to different, more lucrative position where their compensation given is more agreeable to them. At higher wages, you will see more workers shift into that field, and eventually prices will level off at equilibrium. To deny the free market to work is to punish the workers and the community as a whole.
This whole little scheme Senate Democrats cooked up is indicative of their whole means of operation. They will do anything they can to score cheap political points, to highlight a small segment of the electorate in order to gain some votes, all the while holding everything that has made America successful since its inception in contempt. The free market, national security, rule of law, ability to compete in a free system, the right to earn a wage equal to your talent, etc. Worse, to hold a completely VOLUNTARY Armed Services hostage in order to get some political agenda pushed forward is down right unforgivable.
-Caomhin
Let's look at each aspect briefly. First, it is utterly inappropriate to attach amendments to the Iraq funding bill to try to revive the horrendous amnesty act that the Senate tried to push upon our nation. Such issues should, and only should, be considered as separate bills.
Secondly, advocating an open borders policy is a terrible idea in the first place. While individual liberty allows for individuals to move freely, that must be balanced with protecting the liberties and rights of others. For example, we should absolutely allow for legal immigration into this nation, but there is a responsibility now to check to make sure those entering the nation are free from communicable diseases, are clear of a criminal background, etc. This would ensure security for our citizens and allow for a responsible policy of immigration with a secure border. This also is essential to homeland security.
Economic implications include the depression of wages. One argument that you hear is that illegal immigrants took jobs from Americans. In one sense, that is true. It is true in that an artificially large workforce amounts to an oversupply of labor. An oversupply leads to lower prices, essentially a competition to the bottom. People will accept markedly lower wage rates for jobs that normally would pay much higher rates. Secondly, we have the abuse of the social security system, health care benefits, etc and increases in identity theft occurrences (as illegals will undoubtedly look for ways to circumvent the system). You also have a system where employers who break the law by employing people they know to be illegal are much more likely to abuse their workers and provide unsafe work conditions as the illegals are many times less likely to report the violations as they themselves are in violation of the law.
For any elected member of the United States Congress to delay and stall funds from reaching our troops is simply inexcusable. Democrats have long said they supported the troops, while their minions have gone forth and accused them of being murderous thugs for the Bush Administration on one hand, and being victims of underfunded and under armored patsies on the other, both outrageous charges. Democrats themselves have continually held up the funding that the troops rely on to provide them with the ammunition, support, and armor needed to successfully fight the war. They are in no way, shape, or form supporting the troops by accusing them of atrocities and withholding funding from the battlefield. They are attempting to score the cheapest, and most insidious, of political points.
Finally, in terms of economics (which I briefly touched on earlier) any "wage freeze" is a terrible idea that flies in the face of capitalism (not that has ever stopped the Dems before). Any worker that is providing a service is deserving of the highest wage that the market deems to be proper for that particular position, be it higher, or lower. At a lower wage, the workers have an incentive to shift to different, more lucrative position where their compensation given is more agreeable to them. At higher wages, you will see more workers shift into that field, and eventually prices will level off at equilibrium. To deny the free market to work is to punish the workers and the community as a whole.
This whole little scheme Senate Democrats cooked up is indicative of their whole means of operation. They will do anything they can to score cheap political points, to highlight a small segment of the electorate in order to gain some votes, all the while holding everything that has made America successful since its inception in contempt. The free market, national security, rule of law, ability to compete in a free system, the right to earn a wage equal to your talent, etc. Worse, to hold a completely VOLUNTARY Armed Services hostage in order to get some political agenda pushed forward is down right unforgivable.
-Caomhin
Will CBS Ruin C Net?
I sure hope not, but CBS has purchased CNet for $1.8 billion dollars. I'm a little perturbed by this. I've had CBS on Snarfer for a while and still haven't come across anything useful from them since I installed the program. The last thing they did that was worth mention was Dan Rather's foaming at the mouth "fake but accurate" defense of using fake documents in his liberal rage against President Bush, which of course resulted in his losing his job and his credibility. Brought down by a moron with Microsoft Word, how sad. On the other hand, CNet is one of the most useful tech sites out there, with outstanding reviews provided by both their editors and a community of users. They also provide some cool news blips as well. I've checked CNet with prior to making many a purchases. I really hope CBS keeps their paws off of CNet and allows them to run as an independent site, basically, just let them keep on doing what they're doing, or they will risk ruining a great website.
-Caomhin
-Caomhin
07 May 2008
Political Subprime Madness
Unfortunately, as the subprime woes continue to play out across our country, we are faced with an ever growing possibility of the Democratic Congress using this situation as political power play for votes. The Christian Science Monitor has a solid article on how the Democrats are seriously eyeing a plan to have tax powers bail out Fannie Mae and expose citizens tax payers to increased risk that their “investments” may default. This is a terrible idea on many levels. First, we are disallowing the free market to self correct and once the government gets involved, it will not simply walk away in a year or two. Secondly, this violates a general principle of government, and that is, to do what is good for the majority of the citizens while providing the rules and laws that govern the land. In Congress’ minds, they are doing the “majority” a favor, but statistics will show a vast majority of homeowners have been exceedingly responsible and the current situation, in terms of sheer percentage of foreclosures, does not directly impact a vast majority of the nation. To step in and bail out a select few is yet another way the government is looking to choose winners and losers.
Is it really fair to allow this bail out to assist only those who were irresponsible enough to engage in bad loan behavior in the first place while charging responsible entities extra tax dollars to “correct” the problem? Bad decisions were made both on the part of lenders as well as borrowers and the lessons learned will undoubtedly self correct in short order, that is, of course, if the government does interfere. Additionally, as we see ballooning deficit spending, the government would be extremely irresponsible by exposing itself and the tax payers to high risk loans.
If individuals wish to engage in high risk loans they should rightfully be compensated, the higher the risk, the higher the interest paid and this “investment” would be much riskier than junk bonds. It is the not government’s role to fulfill the type of function they are dangerously close to undertaking. As they pour tax dollars into this program they will widen the deficit. An agency as dysfunctional and wasteful as the federal government has become has no logical reason to get involved in this situation without further damaging itself. If this were even a case of a simple shift in tax dollars in one area to another, I would still oppose this measure. Worse, it will create yet expenditure without a corresponding cut in spending. All for votes. Are we left with no statesmen or even rational politicians?
-Caomhin
Is it really fair to allow this bail out to assist only those who were irresponsible enough to engage in bad loan behavior in the first place while charging responsible entities extra tax dollars to “correct” the problem? Bad decisions were made both on the part of lenders as well as borrowers and the lessons learned will undoubtedly self correct in short order, that is, of course, if the government does interfere. Additionally, as we see ballooning deficit spending, the government would be extremely irresponsible by exposing itself and the tax payers to high risk loans.
If individuals wish to engage in high risk loans they should rightfully be compensated, the higher the risk, the higher the interest paid and this “investment” would be much riskier than junk bonds. It is the not government’s role to fulfill the type of function they are dangerously close to undertaking. As they pour tax dollars into this program they will widen the deficit. An agency as dysfunctional and wasteful as the federal government has become has no logical reason to get involved in this situation without further damaging itself. If this were even a case of a simple shift in tax dollars in one area to another, I would still oppose this measure. Worse, it will create yet expenditure without a corresponding cut in spending. All for votes. Are we left with no statesmen or even rational politicians?
-Caomhin
Salute to A Hero
The word hero is probably a bit overused in today’s world, but no doubt we do see true heroes, people who, after hearing their stories inspire us to be better people and put things in perspective. Joseph Richardson, of Chicago, is such a hero. Mr. Richardson passed away late on Monday after saving his daughter from an oncoming drunk driving, by using himself to shield his 4 year old. Nothing I can say will really do him any justice. What he did was an amazing act of courage and of true, undying love. We should all say a prayer for Mr. Richardson and his family.
-Caomhin
-Caomhin
McCain's Character
The Navy released John McCain’s service record and confirmed what everyone knew, the man was an amazing officer who did everything conceivable, and then some, for his country. The entire article is worth reading to truly digest just how great of an American John McCain is. He did not refuse to go home early from a Vietnamese prison camp for money or promise of political power. He did it because it was the right thing to do. He did not abandon his mission on the doomed flight that resulted in his capture before completing his mission. He was decorated in nearly every way possible.
I will admit that I am not in total lock step with John McCain; I think he is wrong on immigration and that his affinity for the global warming non-sense bothers me a bit. However, Sen. McCain has made his mission in the Senate to seek out common ground on common sense issues in order to reduce corruption and curtail wasteful spending, and he has been successful in doing so. He has irked many within his party for working with hard leftists like Feingold and Kennedy but he has been successful in doing so and has always conducted himself in a professional manner, a man of great leadership ability.
This election is very unique in many ways. Undoubtedly America is fed up with the current state of affairs. Among the major candidates left, however, John McCain is the only one with a proven track record of reconciling major differences between hardened partisans. He is the only candidate who is committed to free market principles as solutions to health care, finance, and the economy as a whole. He is the only candidate who has not made raising taxes a banner of his campaign, in fact, he is the only candidate committed to cutting government spending among the major candidates.
That, my friends, is why we should be supporting John McCain. He may not give electrifying speeches, but he harbors no inner distrust and disgust for First Amendment rights. He does not rebuke a person who has made asinine statements for 20 years only for politically expedient reasons. He has, however, rebuked those who he works closely with every time they have gone off the deep end, and he does so without hesitation. He too is fed up with the corruption and craziness in Washington. He’s the only one will be successful in doing so. He is the only candidate left among the major parties that is not Fascist in nature, a hardened leftist determined to grow the government, punish successful corporations, and take economically suicidal positions against free trade that only benefit certain Union (special interest groups) at the cost of American consumers and taxpayers. That, among many reasons, is why John McCain must win this election.
-Caomhin
I will admit that I am not in total lock step with John McCain; I think he is wrong on immigration and that his affinity for the global warming non-sense bothers me a bit. However, Sen. McCain has made his mission in the Senate to seek out common ground on common sense issues in order to reduce corruption and curtail wasteful spending, and he has been successful in doing so. He has irked many within his party for working with hard leftists like Feingold and Kennedy but he has been successful in doing so and has always conducted himself in a professional manner, a man of great leadership ability.
This election is very unique in many ways. Undoubtedly America is fed up with the current state of affairs. Among the major candidates left, however, John McCain is the only one with a proven track record of reconciling major differences between hardened partisans. He is the only candidate who is committed to free market principles as solutions to health care, finance, and the economy as a whole. He is the only candidate who has not made raising taxes a banner of his campaign, in fact, he is the only candidate committed to cutting government spending among the major candidates.
That, my friends, is why we should be supporting John McCain. He may not give electrifying speeches, but he harbors no inner distrust and disgust for First Amendment rights. He does not rebuke a person who has made asinine statements for 20 years only for politically expedient reasons. He has, however, rebuked those who he works closely with every time they have gone off the deep end, and he does so without hesitation. He too is fed up with the corruption and craziness in Washington. He’s the only one will be successful in doing so. He is the only candidate left among the major parties that is not Fascist in nature, a hardened leftist determined to grow the government, punish successful corporations, and take economically suicidal positions against free trade that only benefit certain Union (special interest groups) at the cost of American consumers and taxpayers. That, among many reasons, is why John McCain must win this election.
-Caomhin
01 May 2008
Global Warming Hoax Becoming More and More Obvious
So what's the leftist, global warming hoax peddling tool to do when it's announced that global warming is on a "10 year break"? Of course that's going forward from now and doesn't account for the DROP in temperatures over the last few years. For starters, they're not about to admit they are completely wrong. They simply can't do it. It would fly in the face of the premise of the hoax in the first place. Global Warming is nothing more than a Leftist agenda to promote global collectivist ideas. They won't admit they are wrong, but even if they did admit it, it would go something like this, "well it was for moral reasons..." Which is exactly the kind of garbage the fascists pedal all the time when their schemes are exposed.
I know that some people reading this will essentially say that I'm something of a "flat Earther" as Al Gore would say, but let's for a moment pause to consider some of the tenets of Global Warming:
1. The world is overpopulated (i.e. abortion as a means of population control is a good thing)
2. Scientists who have produced evidence to the contrary of global warming hysteria or expressed doubts with regard to the theory are silenced (suppress opposing speech)
3. World governments need to pass binding resolutions in order to reach common laws regarding carbon and greenhouse emissions (surrender national sovereignty to an international body)
4. Through these international organizations and restrictions control the means of production and determine what levels are acceptable to be manufactured (the destruction of capitalism)
5. Limit the use of carbon to those who can pay high taxes or "carbon credits" (a type of restoration of creating a class of serfs)
I could make list that goes on and on, but again, I realize that many of you are thinking that I am some nutjob for precisely some of the reasons I touched on earlier. I urge you to consider the destructive ethanol bill and it's impact on the world. When our Congress passes the ethanol mandate and produced huge subsidies for corn, they did so with the best of intentions, but intentions don't make for good policy, as we have seen. In the short time since this bill passed, world food prices have surged, famine and malnutrition are on the rise, and there has been no reduction in our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol can not even be transported with our current pipeline system, meanwhile, we have largely hampered the free market to develop the technologies that are readily available and clean, such as nuclear, solar, etc. Additionally, in the short term expanded drilling and oil production domestically would have a huge impact both on our economy and on our energy supply. The government's intervention, however, has hampered the development and implementation of what many fair minded people would agree would be the fastest and best solution to our energy problems. No one would agree that depending on foreign sources for our energy is a good thing. Meanwhile, you have to give John McCain credit for not pandering to Iowans today when he told them flat out, he's against the destructive farm subsidies.
There are many economic friendly things that can be done to preserve the economy including recycling, using a water filter instead of using tons of bottled water, not littering, using a mulching lawn mower, etc.
Global Warming and they hysterics behind it, however, are nothing more than a political ploy by the left to get individuals to surrender their rights to people who "know better" than they do, and that is a very, very dangerous idea.
-Caomhin
I know that some people reading this will essentially say that I'm something of a "flat Earther" as Al Gore would say, but let's for a moment pause to consider some of the tenets of Global Warming:
1. The world is overpopulated (i.e. abortion as a means of population control is a good thing)
2. Scientists who have produced evidence to the contrary of global warming hysteria or expressed doubts with regard to the theory are silenced (suppress opposing speech)
3. World governments need to pass binding resolutions in order to reach common laws regarding carbon and greenhouse emissions (surrender national sovereignty to an international body)
4. Through these international organizations and restrictions control the means of production and determine what levels are acceptable to be manufactured (the destruction of capitalism)
5. Limit the use of carbon to those who can pay high taxes or "carbon credits" (a type of restoration of creating a class of serfs)
I could make list that goes on and on, but again, I realize that many of you are thinking that I am some nutjob for precisely some of the reasons I touched on earlier. I urge you to consider the destructive ethanol bill and it's impact on the world. When our Congress passes the ethanol mandate and produced huge subsidies for corn, they did so with the best of intentions, but intentions don't make for good policy, as we have seen. In the short time since this bill passed, world food prices have surged, famine and malnutrition are on the rise, and there has been no reduction in our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol can not even be transported with our current pipeline system, meanwhile, we have largely hampered the free market to develop the technologies that are readily available and clean, such as nuclear, solar, etc. Additionally, in the short term expanded drilling and oil production domestically would have a huge impact both on our economy and on our energy supply. The government's intervention, however, has hampered the development and implementation of what many fair minded people would agree would be the fastest and best solution to our energy problems. No one would agree that depending on foreign sources for our energy is a good thing. Meanwhile, you have to give John McCain credit for not pandering to Iowans today when he told them flat out, he's against the destructive farm subsidies.
There are many economic friendly things that can be done to preserve the economy including recycling, using a water filter instead of using tons of bottled water, not littering, using a mulching lawn mower, etc.
Global Warming and they hysterics behind it, however, are nothing more than a political ploy by the left to get individuals to surrender their rights to people who "know better" than they do, and that is a very, very dangerous idea.
-Caomhin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
