It is truly a sad day. My bleeding heart, um, bleeds. (I’ve been meaning to get that checked out). Our President has chosen to deprive government of hundreds of billions of dollars by allowing the filthy rich two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand-aires keep more of their own money. For shame! How will the poor government make do with less? And right before the holidays! Has this man no compassion for the plight of the government? Did not his prior experience as a community organizer – his only pseudo-real world life experience, upon which he was elected to the lofty office he now occasionally passes through – teach him what it means to be in need, with no means to support oneself except by the mandatory contributions under penalty of law from others more fortunate? I gnash my teeth at him!
We must act now to band together to help the government, which cannot do without these hundreds of billions of dollars, not because it needs the money to feed the hungry, but because it cannot bear to part with expanded digital cable and 100 Mbps DSL. Not because it cannot afford to pay rent but because it must have that new 4G iPhone with the maximum voice and data plan. Not because it cannot afford to clothe its 300 million children but because that fat bitch down the street just got the newest Kim Kardashian jeggings and the government’s ass isn’t that fat so shouldn’t the government have a pair of Kim Kardashian jeggings too? Not because… well you get the idea.
Oh, the humanity!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why is the Media protecting Bradley Manning?
* I know the answer, but I’ll get to that. *
Bradley Manning is the little prick that stole all the secret documents distributed by WikiLeaks. If you didn’t know that, or only heard it in passing, but know exactly who Julian Assange is, it’s because the US Media is overtly repressing that information.
I am not saying Assange isn’t at least partially responsible, but consider this. Let’s say I give you one million dollars. Then I tell you it’s stolen. Do you try to spend it? You might not, but Assange is the kind of character that would. You don’t need much to figure his type. Just look at the guy – doesn’t he seem like the kind of nerd that was picked on in school, and who later developed into an egomaniac as a defense mechanism against attacks on his fragile self-esteem? As he gained some small notoriety in the hacker community he became a defensive narcissist, but because he wasn’t as smart as he liked to think he failed to make any kind of impact there, too. A latent Napoleon or Hitler complex set in, and he is now consumed with being notoriously famous, and perhaps enjoys the idea of becoming a martyr, at which point he will finally realize acceptance in his life. If only his father had loved him as a child…
Anyway, who cares? Assange is just the distribution vehicle. Any idiot with a credit card could have done the same thing. And for that matter, I can’t find much fault with the New York Times or the other international media outlets that chose to publish many of the docs. Again, those are the dubious characters that were incapable of resisting such an offer. More to the point, none of them wanted to be scooped, especially the NYT.
Bradley Manning has the most to answer for. Even if Assange convinced him to do it, Manning was still the one actually stealing from his country. And he did it with enthusiasm! Even now he has no regret about his actions. Most of the content is frankly laughable – there are few actual secrets, it just makes Hillary look bad – but if the situation in Yemen, specifically, is influenced by this in such a way where American lives are ultimately put at risk, then what Manning did will have directly caused that.
I see no reason why Manning should not be court-martialed and sentenced to execution. That is the only appropriate outcome.
But it won’t happen for one reason: Bradley Manning is gay. The media and liberals are desperate to keep the focus off Manning because at this very moment they are trying to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and even though Manning’s homosexuality probably has nothing to do with his crime, the perception could be that a gay soldier’s actions cost American lives. So because we’ve been so bludgeoned by political correctness and we are paradoxically now all so conditioned to overreact to homosexuality, we cannot be honest with ourselves as a society enough to punish the actual criminal for his actions, or at the very least we’re not allowed to talk about it. The media is so desperate to protect him that they have once again turned the villain into the victim, labeling him a “funny little guy.” There is nothing funny about exposing your fellow soldiers to unnecessary risk and life-threatening situations.
Screw it. Hang the guy, admit Hillary’s future political prospects are f*cked, and then move on. We have an economy to un-wreck.
Bradley Manning is the little prick that stole all the secret documents distributed by WikiLeaks. If you didn’t know that, or only heard it in passing, but know exactly who Julian Assange is, it’s because the US Media is overtly repressing that information.
I am not saying Assange isn’t at least partially responsible, but consider this. Let’s say I give you one million dollars. Then I tell you it’s stolen. Do you try to spend it? You might not, but Assange is the kind of character that would. You don’t need much to figure his type. Just look at the guy – doesn’t he seem like the kind of nerd that was picked on in school, and who later developed into an egomaniac as a defense mechanism against attacks on his fragile self-esteem? As he gained some small notoriety in the hacker community he became a defensive narcissist, but because he wasn’t as smart as he liked to think he failed to make any kind of impact there, too. A latent Napoleon or Hitler complex set in, and he is now consumed with being notoriously famous, and perhaps enjoys the idea of becoming a martyr, at which point he will finally realize acceptance in his life. If only his father had loved him as a child…
Anyway, who cares? Assange is just the distribution vehicle. Any idiot with a credit card could have done the same thing. And for that matter, I can’t find much fault with the New York Times or the other international media outlets that chose to publish many of the docs. Again, those are the dubious characters that were incapable of resisting such an offer. More to the point, none of them wanted to be scooped, especially the NYT.
Bradley Manning has the most to answer for. Even if Assange convinced him to do it, Manning was still the one actually stealing from his country. And he did it with enthusiasm! Even now he has no regret about his actions. Most of the content is frankly laughable – there are few actual secrets, it just makes Hillary look bad – but if the situation in Yemen, specifically, is influenced by this in such a way where American lives are ultimately put at risk, then what Manning did will have directly caused that.
I see no reason why Manning should not be court-martialed and sentenced to execution. That is the only appropriate outcome.
But it won’t happen for one reason: Bradley Manning is gay. The media and liberals are desperate to keep the focus off Manning because at this very moment they are trying to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and even though Manning’s homosexuality probably has nothing to do with his crime, the perception could be that a gay soldier’s actions cost American lives. So because we’ve been so bludgeoned by political correctness and we are paradoxically now all so conditioned to overreact to homosexuality, we cannot be honest with ourselves as a society enough to punish the actual criminal for his actions, or at the very least we’re not allowed to talk about it. The media is so desperate to protect him that they have once again turned the villain into the victim, labeling him a “funny little guy.” There is nothing funny about exposing your fellow soldiers to unnecessary risk and life-threatening situations.
Screw it. Hang the guy, admit Hillary’s future political prospects are f*cked, and then move on. We have an economy to un-wreck.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
111 Weeks
How do you want to spend the next two years of your life?
Being unemployed sounds like a pretty good option these days. Lame-ass-duck Democrats are going to pass another 12 week extension of unemployment benefits this month, adding to the current 99 weeks that are available. I predicted this would happen when they passed the last extension over the summer. Perpetual unemployment is another method of wealth redistribution, i.e. government dependency, and is therefore a useful tool for liberals in their unrelenting push to destroy prosperity, capitalism, and the American Dream – three major obstacles in the path toward socialism and then communism.
My question is, why 12 weeks? Why not 50 weeks, or 100 weeks, or just make it limitless? The answer is obviously politics. Over the summer Dems accused Republicans of not caring for the unemployed. Conservatives held their ground but lacked the votes to stop the insanity. Dems tried to get the last extension through so it would run out right before the election, but they were delayed by the Oil Spill, but now they see another opportunity. 12 weeks puts the extension to the end of March, which should align nicely with the first legislative push from the new class of conservative legislators looking to cut spending. Democrats can then make their counterproductive emotional arguments and try to score political points in the larger effort to disrupt the momentum conservatives have gained in the last 2 years.
The tactic won’t work – too many people see that perpetually extending unemployment is a scam, and it should serve to underscore the failure of the Democrat economic policy under Bama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Also, I’ve seen and heard of more than one study lately that shows that long-term unemployment is psychologically more damaging than a death in the family. It would seem then that incentivizing unemployment would actually diminish happiness. I’ve said it before, liberals love to share misery.
Being unemployed sounds like a pretty good option these days. Lame-ass-duck Democrats are going to pass another 12 week extension of unemployment benefits this month, adding to the current 99 weeks that are available. I predicted this would happen when they passed the last extension over the summer. Perpetual unemployment is another method of wealth redistribution, i.e. government dependency, and is therefore a useful tool for liberals in their unrelenting push to destroy prosperity, capitalism, and the American Dream – three major obstacles in the path toward socialism and then communism.
My question is, why 12 weeks? Why not 50 weeks, or 100 weeks, or just make it limitless? The answer is obviously politics. Over the summer Dems accused Republicans of not caring for the unemployed. Conservatives held their ground but lacked the votes to stop the insanity. Dems tried to get the last extension through so it would run out right before the election, but they were delayed by the Oil Spill, but now they see another opportunity. 12 weeks puts the extension to the end of March, which should align nicely with the first legislative push from the new class of conservative legislators looking to cut spending. Democrats can then make their counterproductive emotional arguments and try to score political points in the larger effort to disrupt the momentum conservatives have gained in the last 2 years.
The tactic won’t work – too many people see that perpetually extending unemployment is a scam, and it should serve to underscore the failure of the Democrat economic policy under Bama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Also, I’ve seen and heard of more than one study lately that shows that long-term unemployment is psychologically more damaging than a death in the family. It would seem then that incentivizing unemployment would actually diminish happiness. I’ve said it before, liberals love to share misery.
Friday, November 19, 2010
The TSA Security Myth
I’m pretty sick of the TSA controversy already. It’s funny to watch the same libs who cried out in anger about the wiretapping program under George W Bush now saying they don’t mind being physically violated because they know it’s making them more safe. That’s the talking point, almost word for word from Juan Williams and the ladies on the View on Wednesday. (Liz had it on)
So whatever, libs just react the way they are told, what’s new?
It occurred to me that the TSA does not keep us anymore safe than if we were allowed to walk right to the gate like we could 10 years ago. The TSA exists for one purpose: the perception of fairness. If as a country we were serious about security, we would have no qualms about racial profiling. Hello, terrorists look like, well, terrorists! Just like illegals from Mexico look like Mexicans. But America is not mature enough to be honest with itself, so we have to inconvenience everyone else for the sake of equality.
Of course this all stems from a culture of legal retribution. Trial lawyers love civil rights cases because Americans have acquired a great deal of guilt we are not permitted to ignore. If the oppressor happens to be the U.S. Federal government, you can bet your house there will be a line of attorneys salivating at the prospect of a huge payday. So a hundred billion dollars and millions of hours wasted in lines later we all suffer just so one small group or other can’t sue.
But it’s all BS, because behind the scenes the government is profiling, with secret lists of likely suspects who share common skin tones or surnames. That’s where security actually happens, not at the front door of an airport terminal. The TSA is a huge scam, a cover up for the real operation. Unfortunately we just have to deal with it, but what they are doing now with these scanners is too flagrant. People are already starting to talk. It’s too expensive, and it goes too far. The thin curtain of fairness is in serious danger of being torn down. So much the better.
You want to know how safe the TSA makes us? Try this thought experiment. What happens when a suicide bomber walks into an airport and waits patiently until he gets to the middle of one of those long lines queuing up at the TSA checkpoint, and then sets himself off? He can kill just as many people as he would on an airplane if not more, and at the same time totally destroy the myth of TSA “security” forever. What’s the government response then? Put TSA outside the Airport? Just blow up that line, then. You see, wherever you perform fairness is where you expose people to greatest risk!
The TSA is a colossal waste of time and resources, but until the country accepts that terrorists actually do fit a profile all the rest of us can do is complain.
So whatever, libs just react the way they are told, what’s new?
It occurred to me that the TSA does not keep us anymore safe than if we were allowed to walk right to the gate like we could 10 years ago. The TSA exists for one purpose: the perception of fairness. If as a country we were serious about security, we would have no qualms about racial profiling. Hello, terrorists look like, well, terrorists! Just like illegals from Mexico look like Mexicans. But America is not mature enough to be honest with itself, so we have to inconvenience everyone else for the sake of equality.
Of course this all stems from a culture of legal retribution. Trial lawyers love civil rights cases because Americans have acquired a great deal of guilt we are not permitted to ignore. If the oppressor happens to be the U.S. Federal government, you can bet your house there will be a line of attorneys salivating at the prospect of a huge payday. So a hundred billion dollars and millions of hours wasted in lines later we all suffer just so one small group or other can’t sue.
But it’s all BS, because behind the scenes the government is profiling, with secret lists of likely suspects who share common skin tones or surnames. That’s where security actually happens, not at the front door of an airport terminal. The TSA is a huge scam, a cover up for the real operation. Unfortunately we just have to deal with it, but what they are doing now with these scanners is too flagrant. People are already starting to talk. It’s too expensive, and it goes too far. The thin curtain of fairness is in serious danger of being torn down. So much the better.
You want to know how safe the TSA makes us? Try this thought experiment. What happens when a suicide bomber walks into an airport and waits patiently until he gets to the middle of one of those long lines queuing up at the TSA checkpoint, and then sets himself off? He can kill just as many people as he would on an airplane if not more, and at the same time totally destroy the myth of TSA “security” forever. What’s the government response then? Put TSA outside the Airport? Just blow up that line, then. You see, wherever you perform fairness is where you expose people to greatest risk!
The TSA is a colossal waste of time and resources, but until the country accepts that terrorists actually do fit a profile all the rest of us can do is complain.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
High Speed Rail: Pros & Cons
I was listening to WPR yesterday morning while running errands, driving around town wherever I pleased by whatever route appealed to me, on nobody’s schedule but my own, and the topic of the hour was the High Speed Rail initiative. Joy Cardin had two guests, both of them very much in favor of commuter rail. They recited all the Obama talking points for why it is good for Americans generally, and Wisconsinites specifically, and then fielded questions from mostly pro-rail callers.
One of the callers asked why if Europe has been using rail successfully for decades America can’t seem to get it going. This question was asked while I pulled into the massive free parking lot in front of the local Ace Hardware store. Nobody on the radio acknowledged the subtle irony.
I finally decided to run through the pros and cons of railroad travel in my head instead of just listening to people regurgitate talking points. Here goes.
Pros:
- It’s nice to have someone else do the driving once in a while, especially when the distance is long. Anything over 2 hours can be tedious.
- Today’s Amtrak Passenger cars are relatively comfortable, if you can find a newer reclining seat.
- It is often nice to have restrooms and a food car available at all times without having to stop.
- Railways carve through some beautiful country you otherwise do not have a chance to see from a car or plane.
- Once a certain passenger threshold is met, trains are more environmentally friendly than other forms of transportation.
- Trains have the potential to get you from place to place very quickly. Some French trains can go 300 mph!
These are the fanciful arguments you hear from people who want it, appealing to the emotional but impractical ideals of those who don’t think long enough to get to the actual implications of the proposal or the real-world cultural roadblocks that will quickly doom this venture to Amtrak-style failure times a thousand. In the spirit of common sense, here’s my list of cons.
Cons:
- Train travel can be prohibitively expensive. A one-way ticket from La Crosse to Milwaukee costs, on average, $51 per person. An entire family can make the trip in a single vehicle for half that.
- Trains operate on schedules. Americans are conditioned by three generations of travel by car. We leave and arrive whenever we please.
- Trains are political animals, and succumb to the failings of jurisdiction. If a municipality wants a stop, and they are willing to pay for it, they will probably get one. That means one more 20 minute delay for anyone trying get from one side of the state to the other. Ideally a high-speed train would not have this problem, but get serious already.
- Once you get to the end of the tracks you still need to get to your destination. One of the major differences between Europeans and Americans is that Euros walk. Think Americans will be willing to walk a mile or two after getting off the train? Good luck. Oh, but we could take the bus…
- Europe has been resigned to train travel because its cities were not planned around roads or parking lots. Ours were. Americans are not forced to take the train, and the only way to change that is to make car travel much more expensive. This will be accomplished by a gas tax. On a cultural note, Americans are rarely won over by negative reinforcement. That’s the kind of thing that causes landslide elections.
- Trains are incredibly annoying. You cannot control who you share a car with, and you’re just likely than not to be in a car that smells bad or has out of control children and screaming babies, or people taking up more than one seat or coughing or talking too loud and generally being inconsiderate, or the bathrooms being disgusting and the food car being out of just about everything.
- Security is impossible. First of all, nobody has brought up the ominous prospect of installing and operating TSA-like security at every train depot. Imagine airport TSA issues times a hundred in terms of cost and manpower and logistics and delays. And don’t forget unions!
- It will be a simple matter for terrorists to walk up to any length of track in the middle of nowhere Wisconsin and put a bomb on the track and detonate it from the comfort of a sunny hillside and watch the speeding train pile into the surrounding fields and kill hundreds or more. If I have thought of this, trust me, terrorists already have stretches of track in mind. They’re just waiting for Obama to supply them with human targets.
- Our current infrastructure of freight track cannot handle so-called bullet trains. Trains that move at 300 mph need tremendous lengths of straight, flat track. The cost to get the United States up to French standards could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
- We do not have enough track to simultaneously accommodate current freight traffic with desired passenger traffic. The cost of the current plan includes a proposal for new track, but expect freight lobbies to want in on the new track or use it as leverage for massive public expenditures to upgrade existing track. The cycle never ends.
- Finally, the current proposal creates a supply for which there is insufficient demand. If there were, Amtrak would be profitable, or at least break even. Americans enjoy the freedom of travel by car, and until that fundamental right is legislated away high speed rail will not be viable.
I’m sure there are many more considerations, including all the political infighting in every municipality the trains will travel through. I cannot imagine this thing ever getting beyond the planning phase, but I am certain the debate, now that it’s started, will never, ever, end.
One of the callers asked why if Europe has been using rail successfully for decades America can’t seem to get it going. This question was asked while I pulled into the massive free parking lot in front of the local Ace Hardware store. Nobody on the radio acknowledged the subtle irony.
I finally decided to run through the pros and cons of railroad travel in my head instead of just listening to people regurgitate talking points. Here goes.
Pros:
- It’s nice to have someone else do the driving once in a while, especially when the distance is long. Anything over 2 hours can be tedious.
- Today’s Amtrak Passenger cars are relatively comfortable, if you can find a newer reclining seat.
- It is often nice to have restrooms and a food car available at all times without having to stop.
- Railways carve through some beautiful country you otherwise do not have a chance to see from a car or plane.
- Once a certain passenger threshold is met, trains are more environmentally friendly than other forms of transportation.
- Trains have the potential to get you from place to place very quickly. Some French trains can go 300 mph!
These are the fanciful arguments you hear from people who want it, appealing to the emotional but impractical ideals of those who don’t think long enough to get to the actual implications of the proposal or the real-world cultural roadblocks that will quickly doom this venture to Amtrak-style failure times a thousand. In the spirit of common sense, here’s my list of cons.
Cons:
- Train travel can be prohibitively expensive. A one-way ticket from La Crosse to Milwaukee costs, on average, $51 per person. An entire family can make the trip in a single vehicle for half that.
- Trains operate on schedules. Americans are conditioned by three generations of travel by car. We leave and arrive whenever we please.
- Trains are political animals, and succumb to the failings of jurisdiction. If a municipality wants a stop, and they are willing to pay for it, they will probably get one. That means one more 20 minute delay for anyone trying get from one side of the state to the other. Ideally a high-speed train would not have this problem, but get serious already.
- Once you get to the end of the tracks you still need to get to your destination. One of the major differences between Europeans and Americans is that Euros walk. Think Americans will be willing to walk a mile or two after getting off the train? Good luck. Oh, but we could take the bus…
- Europe has been resigned to train travel because its cities were not planned around roads or parking lots. Ours were. Americans are not forced to take the train, and the only way to change that is to make car travel much more expensive. This will be accomplished by a gas tax. On a cultural note, Americans are rarely won over by negative reinforcement. That’s the kind of thing that causes landslide elections.
- Trains are incredibly annoying. You cannot control who you share a car with, and you’re just likely than not to be in a car that smells bad or has out of control children and screaming babies, or people taking up more than one seat or coughing or talking too loud and generally being inconsiderate, or the bathrooms being disgusting and the food car being out of just about everything.
- Security is impossible. First of all, nobody has brought up the ominous prospect of installing and operating TSA-like security at every train depot. Imagine airport TSA issues times a hundred in terms of cost and manpower and logistics and delays. And don’t forget unions!
- It will be a simple matter for terrorists to walk up to any length of track in the middle of nowhere Wisconsin and put a bomb on the track and detonate it from the comfort of a sunny hillside and watch the speeding train pile into the surrounding fields and kill hundreds or more. If I have thought of this, trust me, terrorists already have stretches of track in mind. They’re just waiting for Obama to supply them with human targets.
- Our current infrastructure of freight track cannot handle so-called bullet trains. Trains that move at 300 mph need tremendous lengths of straight, flat track. The cost to get the United States up to French standards could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
- We do not have enough track to simultaneously accommodate current freight traffic with desired passenger traffic. The cost of the current plan includes a proposal for new track, but expect freight lobbies to want in on the new track or use it as leverage for massive public expenditures to upgrade existing track. The cycle never ends.
- Finally, the current proposal creates a supply for which there is insufficient demand. If there were, Amtrak would be profitable, or at least break even. Americans enjoy the freedom of travel by car, and until that fundamental right is legislated away high speed rail will not be viable.
I’m sure there are many more considerations, including all the political infighting in every municipality the trains will travel through. I cannot imagine this thing ever getting beyond the planning phase, but I am certain the debate, now that it’s started, will never, ever, end.
Californicating With Itself
I went home for lunch and turned on FoxNews and watched reports on two separate, totally unrelated stories.
The first was on the recent California court ruling that illegals in that state are eligible for in-state tuition. California isn’t alone in this – you might be surprised to know that Texas offers the same benefit. Incredulous, I asked myself, “Self, what is the point of in-state tuition? Why give someone a discount just for being a resident?” Universities know that the cost structure for educating some number of students is relatively unaffected by providing education for that number plus 1. Higher education institutions, despite claims to the contrary by professors and administrators who say they are “overworked”, can absorb many more students than are enrolled. The game they play is to extract as much tuition as possible and also as much state subsidy as possible, and encouraging in-state tuition for illegals accomplishes both. The bottom line is that illegal immigrants are good for the business of education.
The problem comes when the professors and administrators who complain about being “overworked” convince enough of the Regents or legislators, depending on the funding source, that they need either more teachers, more administrators, or more infrastructure and buildings to meet the greater demand for education posed by the exploding population of illegal immigrants.
Which leads me to the second story.
Students in California are rioting over proposed 8% college tuition and fee increases in their state.
I wonder how many of them voted Democrat two weeks ago. Do you think they understand cause and effect? Just wait until Jerry Brown gets his hooks into things.
The first was on the recent California court ruling that illegals in that state are eligible for in-state tuition. California isn’t alone in this – you might be surprised to know that Texas offers the same benefit. Incredulous, I asked myself, “Self, what is the point of in-state tuition? Why give someone a discount just for being a resident?” Universities know that the cost structure for educating some number of students is relatively unaffected by providing education for that number plus 1. Higher education institutions, despite claims to the contrary by professors and administrators who say they are “overworked”, can absorb many more students than are enrolled. The game they play is to extract as much tuition as possible and also as much state subsidy as possible, and encouraging in-state tuition for illegals accomplishes both. The bottom line is that illegal immigrants are good for the business of education.
The problem comes when the professors and administrators who complain about being “overworked” convince enough of the Regents or legislators, depending on the funding source, that they need either more teachers, more administrators, or more infrastructure and buildings to meet the greater demand for education posed by the exploding population of illegal immigrants.
Which leads me to the second story.
Students in California are rioting over proposed 8% college tuition and fee increases in their state.
I wonder how many of them voted Democrat two weeks ago. Do you think they understand cause and effect? Just wait until Jerry Brown gets his hooks into things.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Obama, Foreign Policy Disabled
Clearly the media has dramatically understated the scope of epic failure that was Obama’s foreign policy mission to India and the Far East this month. He completely failed to negotiate even one useful trade agreement. He couldn’t even get the South Koreans, one of our closest allies in the entire world, to agree to a minor addition to the existing trade agreement brokered by President Bush. Basically, Obama wants the rest of the world to agree to buy more American cars, specifically GM so he can give a boost to the IPO and the “Government Motors” debacle won’t be such a bad deal for American taxpayers. Nobody's buying.
Obama is an international laughing stock. Fresh off his party’s historic drubbing at the midterms, the Campaigner-In-Chief’s gravitas is at an all-time low. You’ll remember that he made an ass of himself when he grovelled around the Mideast apologizing for America’s “arrogance”. The message to the world was crystal clear: Obama is weak, and by association the United States is also weak. By the way, the first rule of diplomacy is, ALWAYS NEGOTIATE FROM STRENGTH. So now when Obama says that a strong US economy is good for everyone, he may be right, but he's got no balls so the rest of the world just says, “Whatever, dude.”
Obama further undercut his chances before leaving by signing off on Bernanke's plan to effectively devalue the Dollar. The purpose for this is to make US exports relatively cheaper and therefore more attractive. The problem is that most of these countries also own a significant amount of US debt, which is also devalued! Not only that, but how in the world does Obama expect other countries to enter into binding trade agreements in good faith when he is brazenly unwilling to do the same??? I can’t believe this story is not getting more attention, at the very least for the inexplicably bad timing of the Bernanke maneuver with Obama’s Trade trip.
This has to rank among the absolute worst foreign policy gaffes of all time!!
He couldn’t get one single country to agree to condemn China’s currency manipulation strategy. No shit Sherlock – you've got the US doing it to! Way to go, BO!
Idiot.
Meanwhile, why do we even have a State Department? Still a frighteningly popular figure among Democrats, Hillary was conspicuously deployed oversees during the last two weeks of the campaign season, but during that time she had zero impact priming G20 countries for Obama. What’s that term for a porn actress who’s not attractive enough to be seen on film so she sits off camera and her job is to keep the male star ready to go? Oh yeah, fluffer. Hillary is Obama’s personal fluffer, but apparently she’s terrible at it. That explains Bill’s behavior.
America needs to get rid of these bozos, grow a new pair, and resume telling the world how its gonna go down, or we are Greece in our lifetimes.
Obama is an international laughing stock. Fresh off his party’s historic drubbing at the midterms, the Campaigner-In-Chief’s gravitas is at an all-time low. You’ll remember that he made an ass of himself when he grovelled around the Mideast apologizing for America’s “arrogance”. The message to the world was crystal clear: Obama is weak, and by association the United States is also weak. By the way, the first rule of diplomacy is, ALWAYS NEGOTIATE FROM STRENGTH. So now when Obama says that a strong US economy is good for everyone, he may be right, but he's got no balls so the rest of the world just says, “Whatever, dude.”
Obama further undercut his chances before leaving by signing off on Bernanke's plan to effectively devalue the Dollar. The purpose for this is to make US exports relatively cheaper and therefore more attractive. The problem is that most of these countries also own a significant amount of US debt, which is also devalued! Not only that, but how in the world does Obama expect other countries to enter into binding trade agreements in good faith when he is brazenly unwilling to do the same??? I can’t believe this story is not getting more attention, at the very least for the inexplicably bad timing of the Bernanke maneuver with Obama’s Trade trip.
This has to rank among the absolute worst foreign policy gaffes of all time!!
He couldn’t get one single country to agree to condemn China’s currency manipulation strategy. No shit Sherlock – you've got the US doing it to! Way to go, BO!
Idiot.
Meanwhile, why do we even have a State Department? Still a frighteningly popular figure among Democrats, Hillary was conspicuously deployed oversees during the last two weeks of the campaign season, but during that time she had zero impact priming G20 countries for Obama. What’s that term for a porn actress who’s not attractive enough to be seen on film so she sits off camera and her job is to keep the male star ready to go? Oh yeah, fluffer. Hillary is Obama’s personal fluffer, but apparently she’s terrible at it. That explains Bill’s behavior.
America needs to get rid of these bozos, grow a new pair, and resume telling the world how its gonna go down, or we are Greece in our lifetimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)