Categories
Uncategorized

There is Finally Hope for the Liberal Media!

I’m the first one who will criticize the liberal media. However, when credit is due, they should justly receive it. Today is one of those days. Above is the cover of the most recent Newsweek magizine. Traditionally liberal, the cover conveys the sentiments of most of us informed Armericans. Between the scalndals, his vow to enter us into another war, the debt and the lagging economy, there is more than enought reasons to conclude that our president is failing us. The only thing more impressive than the cover of this magazine was the opinion article which it included. I have added it to this post so you all can see that there are true journalists out there:

I Too Have Become Disillusioned
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist – Opinion Writer)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor;” a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were ‘a bit’ extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth –
it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
(An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.
Categories
Uncategorized

No One is Working!

So the unemployment number last month was 7.3%. It should be good news. Obama is, of course, taking praise for his “achievements” but is it praiseworthy? I’ll let you decide:

The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided not to participate in the nation’s labor force has pushed past 90,000,000 for the first time, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS counts a person as participating in the labor force if they are 16 years or older and either have a job or have actively sought a job in the last four weeks. A person is not participating in the labor force if they are 16 or older and have not sought a job in the last four weeks. In July, according to BLS, 89,957,000 Americans did not participate in the labor force. In August, that climbed to 90,473,000–a one month increase of 516,000. In January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, there were 80,507,000 Americans not in the labor force. Thus, the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 9,966,000 during Obama’s presidency.

The Labor Department’s snapshot of the job market in August had several discouraging details underneath a relatively mundane headline number, which showed the economy added an estimated 169,000 jobs which a disproportionate number were part time.

Because many of the jobs are only part time or that previous full time jobs were switched to part time, the US food stamp usage has escalated astronomically. Now, over 48 MILLION people require food stamps. That’s over 11 MILLION more in less than 3 YEARS. Just click on the following link, and you can personally see how its has risen in your area:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/04/food_stamp_recipients_by_county_an_interactive_tool_showing_local_snap_data.html

So you be the judge. Are we really moving in the right direction? Is our economy improving? And not to be a pessimist but just think of the negative impact Obamcare will have on the economic scenario?

Categories
Uncategorized

Why Republican Men are Happier

Categories
Uncategorized

Obama’s Foreign and Domestic Policies

That about sums up Obama’s foreign and domestic policies.

Categories
Uncategorized

Occupy Wall Street Sues Fast Food Restaurants

As the Occupy Wall Street movement of hippies is coming to a well overdo demise, these same people are now turning their attention to fast food restaurants. On their website it reads the following:
Rise Up New York! Smash Austerity! Support Workers! The article had the above picture along side of it. Call me a little paranoid but doesn’t their slogans and the picture have a strikingly similarity to the slogans and pictures of the 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin? Well if it doesn’t, it should.

Now the Occupy Wall Street movement has turned their misguided attention and communistic diatribe to the fast food industry. Calling for a living wage, they demand fast food companies increase their minimal wage from 7.25 up to 14 or 15 dollars. Emotionally, I hope one day all people can earn a livening wage. Rationally, what I know that these people in the Occupy Wall Street movement fail to realize, is that such a rise would essentially bankrupt all small business.

You may scoff at this statement, but crunch some of these numbers. I will low ball it. Say McDonalds is open 16 hours a day and has on average 6 employees there at a time. It would be an increase of 7 dollars an hour X 16 hours X 6 employees = 672 dollars a day. Then you times that by 363 days open and you have a total of $243,936 dollars per year.

Because the profit margins are relatively low for fast food restaurants, there is not much room to make up the difference. Fast food comes cheap and for a reason. The only way they would be able to pay 15 dollars an hour is if they raised their prices. And if they did that, no one would go there- especially when the hot ticket items exclusively come off the dollar menu.

Plus, who would have to make up the quarter of a million dollar increase in expenses? The answer is, the owner of the local McDonalds chain. And I can tell you that if that owner received a pay cut of a quarter of a million dollars, they would be bankrupt. Then, they would have to shut down their store and not ever open a new one. And where does that leave all those employed by that McDonalds or the possible future employees if the owner opens up a few more restaurants? It leaves them unemployed. Also, not to point out the elephant in the room, but who is going to pay all their health benefits once Obamacare comes into play? Money doesn’t grow on trees.

You want a true American solution to the problem and not another socialistic/communist approach that raises taxes or makes running a business no longer profitable? How about the government make proper monetary incentives for the business owner to raise the employees’ income and start new businesses. Instead of making the economic burden always on the entrepreneur or tax payer, give that person financial incentives to raise their employees pay and grow their business. That’s how the government can help. That’s why Obama’s plans are all failures and the Occupy Wall Street movement has no legitimacy- because neither understand how the real world works!

Categories
Uncategorized

Are we Doing More Harm than Good in the Middle East?

I’d like to add onto the post that I wrote yesterday and ask the question, “Are we doing more harm than good in the Middle East?”. The answer over the 2 years seems to be a resounding no. Yes, we have made great strides in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And yes, our returning military say they have been seeing a significant amount of good being done in those countries. When President Bush went in there was a clear policy, goal and directives to our military presence.

And then came Obama with no consistent or even rational foreign policy. As I mentioned previously, Egypt was and is a failure. However, what people don’t know the continuing disaster unfolding in Libya. Nor do most realize the gravity of the situation in that country or the high potential of an exact same  scenario unfolding in Syria if we intervene. The following was an article I just read on the Drudge Report:

A little under two years ago, Philip Hammond, the Defense Secretary, urged British businessmen to begin “packing their suitcases” and to fly to Libya to share in the reconstruction of the country and exploit an anticipated boom in natural resources.Yet now Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters.

Mutinying security men have taken over oil ports on the Mediterranean and are seeking to sell crude oil on the black market. Ali Zeidan, Libya’s Prime Minister, has threatened to “bomb from the air and the sea” any oil tanker trying to pick up the illicit oil from the oil terminal guards, who are mostly former rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and have been on strike over low pay and alleged government corruption since July.

As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country.
Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.

Though the Nato intervention against Gaddafi was justified as a humanitarian response to the threat that Gaddafi’s tanks would slaughter dissidents in Benghazi, the international community has ignored the escalating violence. The foreign media, which once filled the hotels of Benghazi and Tripoli, have likewise paid little attention to the near collapse of the central government.
The strikers in the eastern region Cyrenaica, which contains most of Libya’s oil, are part of a broader movement seeking more autonomy and blaming the government for spending oil revenues in the west of the country. Foreigners have mostly fled Benghazi since the American ambassador, Chris Stevens, was murdered in the US consulate by jihadi militiamen last September. Violence has worsened since then with Libya’s military prosecutor Colonel Yussef Ali al-Asseifar, in charge of investigating assassinations of politicians, soldiers and journalists, himself assassinated by a bomb in his car on 29 August.

Rule by local militias is also spreading anarchy around the capital. Ethnic Berbers, whose militia led the assault on Tripoli in 2011, temporarily took over the parliament building in Tripoli. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has called for an independent investigation into the violent crushing of a prison mutiny in Tripoli on 26 August in which 500 prisoners had been on hunger strike. The hunger strikers were demanding that they be taken before a prosecutor or formally charged since many had been held without charge for two years.

The government called on the Supreme Security Committee, made up of former anti-Gaddafi militiamen nominally under the control of the interior ministry, to restore order. At least 19 prisoners received gunshot shrapnel wounds, with one inmate saying “they were shooting directly at us through the metal bars”. There have been several mass prison escapes this year in Libya including 1,200 escaping from a prison after a riot in Benghazi in July.  

The Interior Minister, Mohammed al-Sheikh, resigned last month in frustration at being unable to do his job, saying in a memo sent to Mr Zeidan that he blamed him for failing to build up the army and the police. He accused the government, which is largely dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, of being weak and dependent on tribal support. Other critics point out that a war between two Libyan tribes, the Zawiya and the Wirrshifana, is going on just 15 miles from the Prime Minister’s office.
Diplomats have come under attack in Tripoli with the EU ambassador’s convoy ambushed outside the Corinthia hotel on the waterfront. A bomb also wrecked the French embassy.

One of the many failings of the post-Gaddafi government is its inability to revive the moribund economy. Libya is wholly dependent on its oil and gas revenues and without these may not be able to pay its civil servants. Sliman Qajam, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, told Bloomberg that “the government is running on its reserves. If the situation doesn’t improve, it won’t be able to pay salaries by the end of the year”.

Categories
Uncategorized

Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize?

It just dawned on me yesterday that during the first month of Obama’s ignominious reign he won the esteemed Nobel peace Prize. I thought it was laughable back then but now I find it disgraceful.

To begin, let’s break down his Middle East Foreign policy. He came into office with the promise of getting us out of Iraq and ending the ongoing war in the Middle East. However, when the first test came to this policy during the Arab Spring in Egypt, we saw it almost immediately dissolve. Muhammad Hosni El Sayed Mubarak was our ally that we’ve been giving billion of dollars to each and every year. He was also the leader with peace agreement with Israel, and tensions between the two countries were at an all time low. Plus and more importantly, we had him under control. Then, an uprising came about and instead of supporting our ally of many years, we supported the rebels- many of whom were our enemies? We then went on to legitimize Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood as he brought in terrorists and raped the country of its wealth and morality. Now that Arab Spring has turned into a disaster as poverty and death run ramped in that impoverished country.

Next came Libya. I’m not saying Muammar Gaddafi was a good guy by any means. However, we had him under control and he willingly gave up his weapons of mass destruction. Then, when another rebel group wanted to seize power, we again chose not to endorse the man who we had under our belt. Now, Libyans suffer from ongoing violence, with tribal clashes, deadly attacks on foreign diplomatic missions and international organizations, the destruction of Sufi religious sites, kidnappings for financial and political reasons, and targeted killings of former Gaddafi security officers. Non-Libyans from sub-Saharan Africa face arrests, beatings, and forced labor. Plus, the Libyan jihadist militia known as Ansar al-Sharia was blamed for the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th that led to the death of the American ambassador.

Now is Syria we again want to intervene. Plus, Syria poses absolutely no threat to American security and has the potential to erupt into a major international crisis. Has two failures not taught us anything? Have we not learned that we don’t know who the good guys verse the bad one ones are? Does anybody realize that we have done more to empower our enemies in Middle East than stabilize the situation or help our allies. Has anybody seen the signs in the US army which state that they didn’t enlist to fight a Syrian civil war?

In summary, you can all plainly see that Obama’s Middle East foreign policy has turned into a nightmare- destabilizing the region, empowering the terrorists and costing countless lives. Good job Nobel Peace Prize winner!

Categories
Uncategorized

Obama’s Middle East policy

I think this drawing adequately sums up Obama’s Middle East policy

Categories
Uncategorized

Somebody Talks Sanity to Obama

Thank God somebody talked sense into Obama. The following was just released by the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he has decided that the United States should take military action against Syria in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack.
But he says he will seek congressional authorization for the use of force.
He says congressional leadership plans to hold a debate and a vote as soon as Congress comes back in September.

Obama says he has the authority to act on his own, but believes it is important for the country to have a debate.Military action would be in response to a chemical weapons attack the U.S. says Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government carried out against civilians. The U.S. says more than 1,400 Syrians were killed in that attack last week.

This solution is a simple and efficient way for an egotist like Obama to save face. Though he still looks like a complete ass and warmonger, this decision allows his ego not to be harmed. It’s sad to say that is the truth. It was never about teaching Syria a lesson, removing some presumed weapons of mass destruction, keeping us out of an other war in the Middle East or possible starting an international crisis across the globe. It was all about obama and his narcissistic ego. It’s a pitiful situation when the fate of possibly the entire world rests upon obama’s self-centered shoulders.

When you think out it, isn’t ironic how the tides have turned. Now, Obama and the democrats are calling for war based upon suspect evidence when a few years ago they were crucifying President Bush for the same thing. Hyporacy runs wild.

Categories
Uncategorized

Why Does Obama Want to Attack Syria?

I’m not writing this post to defend Bashar al-Assad, nor am I writing this post to expound upon all the qualities of life the Syrian people enjoy under Assad’s leadership. Truthfully, I think he is as crazy as Hussein (not Hussein Obama), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and all of the leaders and former leaders in the Middle East. Why I am writing this is to question the rationale for any military action against Syria.

First of all, the premise for the strike is that Assad allegedly used chemical weapons on his own people. Yet, the UN inspectors have yet to finish their report or come to any conclusion. However, when you look at the facts, the alleged chemicals behind the Aug. 21 attack that killed up to 1,300 Syrians could not have been weapons-grade material from the Russians. If it were, the entire area would be vacated and no life could survive there for months, if not longer. With that obvious conclusion reached, you may ask yourself that if chemical weapons were used, what type would they be. The answer is that they would be certain unstable, and difficult to manufacture chemicals that quickly degrade and lose their efficacy rapidly. Such a gas would be similar to, if not the same as the Sarin gas that was used in Japan. We can remember how quickly the gas degraded and how the amount of carnage was minimal as compared to a weapons-grade gas attack.

However, let me step back a second. We also must ask if the pictures of the carnage is real or not. It seems reasonable to ask, especially if we are ready to start possible a world war over it. Remember the alleged Syrian massacre in Houla that turned out to be a 2003 picture taken in Iraq? Or how about the other alleged massacre in the Sunni Muslim village of Tremseh? That one also turned out to be a scam. Those that were killed were “rebels” organized by the CIA and NATO to overthrow the al-Assad regime and were killed by the Syrian Army. So after 2 false alarms, why do now want to commit ourselves to another military action when we still have no proof of the authenticity of this massacre? And Obama said President Bush was a war monger.

Also, you must ask yourselves, “Who could have access to non-weapons grade chemical weapons?”. Could it be another NATA/CIA backed group of rebels attempting to perpetrate an atrocity in order to incite a US attack against Syria? Could it be a Muslim Brotherhood backed group of rebels who also wanted to commit a chemical atrocity in order to incite American intervention and march in amongst the political instability? It’s not like we don’t have convincing evidence that show different rebel groups with these suspected chemical (wait, we do). Both of these explanation are at least a thousand times more plausible than Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. With so much to lose, and with different rebel factions having so much to win, it seems more than reasonable to believe that if chemical weapons were used, they did not come from Assad.

So now the final question, after all this evidence, is, “Why does Obama want to attack Syria?”. It seems absolutely illogical that Obama would want to attack Syria- especially after he and Biden vehemently condemned any military use by President Bush. Is it because Obama’s ego is at stake after he drew an arbitrary red line in the sand? Is it because he wants to flex his muscles? Is it because he is really just a puppet who is being controlled by higher forces? Or is it because he is similar to all the other egotistical, narcissistic socialist dictators in the 20th Century who wanted to expand their power and influence unsuccessfully all over the world?

I don’t have the answer.