Illegals Arrested in Atlanta

June 29, 2011

I heard news reports about several demonstrators being arrested as they protested HB87 in downtown Atlanta today.  So, being concientious, I looked at the Atlanta Journal’s website for a story on this.  All I found was a thirty second video from the local ABC affiliate.  Now, this video was pretty stark in its imagery.  A huge yellow sign that said the demonstrators were undocumented and not hiding any more pretty much said it all.  Many of these were kids, brought here by their parents more than a decade ago.  Certainly they had no say in that action.

They did have a say in the action they took today. 

Chanting slogans, in English, they were celebrating the reversal of course imposed upon Georgia by a Federal judge, who blocked the house bill that was set to go into effect on Friday.  This bill is much like the Arizona bill that gives local police the leeway to question someone’s immigration status if they are stopped or involved in another police action.  These people were basically saying “We’re here, we’re illegal.  Whatcha gonna do?” 

For too long, our response to this question has been “Nothing.”  We are going to look the other way because we need slave labor to pick our lettuce.  And that’s what illegal immigrants are.  Slaves.  They will do backbreaking work for next to no money.  They work hard, have a strong family ethic, and pretty much keep to themselves for the most part.  None of that changes the fact that they BROKE THE LAW to come into our country.  Simply by being here, they are criminals.  It doesn’t matter that they are nice people or that they will work for two bucks an hour on a Georgia farm to harvest peaches.  It doesn’t matter to the store owner if my family is starving and I steal food.  I’m guilty of a crime.  The moment I make a decision to break the law and follow through on that decision, I’m a criminal.  Period. 

The illegal invaders are DARING us to do something to them.  Keep in mind that if you sneak into Mexico (maybe you need a burro.  Who knows?) and you are apprehended, your butt goes to jail.  But we have to listen to the Mexican government preach to us about how if we lock up Mexican invaders in our country, we are committing human rights violations.  We have to have the Guatemalan government accuse us of mistreating their citizens who snuck into our country.  By the way, Guatemala also locks you up if you sneak into their country.  Just sayin’. 

Apparently, in Latin America, their version of things doesn’t include that old golden rule.  You know.  Do unto others…

But these governments realize that if we stop their citizens from working in the US and sending money home to their families their economies would collapse.  I mean, if you can work in the US for a few bucks an hour and retire in Mexico like a king after ten years, how good can life be in Mexico?  If I want to retire, I’ll need hundreds of thousands of dollars.  I could retire in Mexico after working a Baskin Robbins for ten years. 

Okay, so things in Mexico are bad.  That does NOT give people the right to sneak into the US.  America has an immigration plan that allows people to become citizens.  It’s cumbersome and takes a long time.  It’s a pain in the butt.  But there are LEGAL ways to become a citizen.  Why don’t these people simply follow these channels to become US citizens?

The answer is simple.  BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO.  It’s better for them to spend a few hundred dollars to get forged documents, get passage into the country, then work for a beef processing plant, and send all of the money home, minus whatever you need to stay alive here.  Now, I don’t have any documentation to show this, but it seems pretty easy to figure out to me.  If I could run away somewhere, say, Canada, and work, tax free, in some freezing hell hole and send all of the money home to my wife and kids, while sharing a one bedroom apartment filled with bedbugs and cockroaches with twenty other guys, then return home in a few years and live like God, I might do that.  Except that I’m a law abiding citizen.  And, I’ve been to Canada.  I did not know that my body would react to that cold that way.  I went outside to get in my car and immediately said “Where in the hell did my testicles go?”  Turns out they were hiding from the cold. 

Now, I feel it necessary to tell you that these kids were only arrested when they sat down in the street and blocked traffic.  Their First Amendment rights (which they would have if they were citizens) were not violated. 

Am I saying there is no need for immigration reform?  Nope.  There is a need for reform.  The system that allows people to come herer and become citizens needs to be streamlined.  I’m even open to a guest worker card.  But first, we need to secure our southern border.  Before anything else happens, we need to stem the tide of illegal invaders coming into America.  After that, we can deal with the people already here.  And, after the border is secured, if you aren’t on a path to citizenship or you don’t have a guest worker card, your ass goes back across the border, to the other side of the wall. Bought a truck while you were here?  Sorry.  It belongs to Border Patrol now.  You have ten grand in a bank?  Too bad.  That’s money that will be spent on the schools in the community to hid out in. 

Until we get serious about dealing with law breakers like they are law breakers, this problem will not go away.  They are not undocumented workers.  They are CRIMINALS.  We need to treat them that way.


Oil Reserve Release Short Term Solution

June 23, 2011

Gas prices are ridiculous.  There is plenty of blame to go around for that.  President Obama is trying his best to deflect the blame from his unbending moratorium on drilling and his unwillingness to explore for our own sources of energy to the greed of the private sector.  So, it should come as a surprise to no one that he is now using a national defense oil reserve to manipulate world oil prices. 

In a purely political move, the president is trying to force speculators out of the oil business by introducing more supply into the market. 

I’m curious, though.  If the speculators are the problem, why would a miniscule amount of oil introduced onto the market affect prices?  The sixty million barrels to be released from US and other countries’ reserves equals less than one day’s worth of demand.  The MSN article above blames speculators for an additional $20 a barrel of trading price.  Why would speculators freak out over such a small amount of oil?  Certainly they are smart enough to know that this is a temporary soulution.  The strategic reserve is limited and cannot be used forever.  Speculators will know that this can’t last. 

Now, how do we know this is a temporary solution?  The idea of a limited reserve is proof enough, but candidate Obama said so in 2008.  In a speech in Lansing, he approved the sale of US strategic oil reserve to reduce gas prices, and called it a temporary solution to a long term problem.  Of course he disapproved of the idea when President Bush wanted to do it. 

Obama’s dedication to green techology is admirable, if misplaced.  This is a guy who doesn’t understand the limitations of technology.  Our best scientists will find alternative energy sources that don’t require us to live in huts and bicycle to work.  But it will take time.  Every advancement a piece of a puzzle.  When all the pieces come together, we will be able to power our homes using the sun, drive a safe car that gets 75 miles to a gallon of helium, and have our factories leave no “carbon footprint.”  Until that time comes, we will use petroleum.  It gives us the most bang for our energy buck.  Sure, you can power a car on batteries.  For about forty miles.  Then what?  Telework from the side of the road? 

Until the United States can secure its own supply of oil, no amount of trickery by the Obama administration will set us free from foreign oil producers.  Once the oil reserve release is over, gas prices will go back up. 

Maybe by that time, we’ll have a president who actually beleives in free market solutions to problems like this one.  Our current president doesn’t. And he never will.

It’s Been a Long Time

June 22, 2011

It has indeed been a while since I wrote on my blog.  A lot has happened since then.  Here’s a recap.

Casey Anthony may be able to wiggle off the hook.  Her attorneys have done a good job of introducing doubt as to the prosecution’s evidence.  I’m not so sure if it’s reasonable.  As a parent, if I had a child missing, I wouldn’t be going out and partying with my friends.  Her lie about the nanny was dispicable, and if the child did indeed die in an accident, why lie about it?  Accidents happen, and there are douchebag parents everywhere.  I think she killed the girl.  She needs to fry.

The Braves got roughed up by the Mets and the Rangers, then swept Toronto.  They have managed to maintain a .500 record in this home stand, and Brian McCann and Dan Uggla have started hitting long balls again.  The second half of the season will be interesting.

Jeff Gordon won a race a Pocono two weeks ago and ran okay at Michigan this last weekend.  I’m encouraged by the good runs.  Here’s hoping he can keep it up.

The Campaigner in Chief has thumbed his nose at Congress over the War Powers Act.  He has pleged to pull out of Afghanistan.  He has claimed to create millions of private sector jobs, which got him a laugh at a speech. 

The media is fawning over Michelle Bachman.  I like her, but to say she won the CNN debate is just nuts.  Every answer was how she raised six hundred kids.  Foreign Policy?  Six hundred kids.  Economy?  Six hundred kids.  Jobs?  Six hundred kids.  Look, the media chose our candidate last time and we got the Campaigner in Chief.  Let’s not let the media choose for us again. 

About that CNN debate, it looked to me like CNN wanted to get the Republican candidates to go after each other, and to make abortion and gay marriage the issues upon which voters choose their next president.  Having CNN host a Republican debate, since they are in the bag for the Campaigner in Chief, reminded me of a courtroom drama.  John King was the defense attorney, Obama the defendent, and the Repulicans were the prosecution witnesses.  If the defense attorney can discredit the prosecution witnesses, his client can go free.  Except that an attorney wouldn’t interrupt the witnesses fifteen seconds into a response.  Herman Cain is still the man. 

Newt Gingrich has had almost his entire team jump ship.  Gotta wonder why.  I’d love to see Gingrich tear into Obama in a debate.  It would be like Stephen Hawking debating a short bus special ed student. 

Athiests are trying to get the mention of heaven removed from a street sign in New York, citing separation of church and state.  They are OFFENDED.  Get over it.  The Constitution does not say anything about separation of church and state, nor does it say you have a right to never be offended. 

Lebron still doesn’t have a ring.  Yay.

So that’s about it for now.  I’m sure there will be more to talk about soon.

Weiner Did It. You Surprised?

June 7, 2011

After a week of claiming his Twitter account was hacked and giving the press the run around, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) finally came clean.  Yesterday, he admitted to sending pictures of himself to a woman in Seattle, as well as having inappropriate conversations with several other women. 

I can’t stand Weiner.  Every time I see him giving a speech or being interviewed, his smugness makes me want to slap him.  Maybe this incident will tone some of that down.  At least temporarily. 

During his presser yesterday, he said he made a mistake, and that he was sorry.  He even had to apologize to Andrew Breitbart.  I’m pretty sure that was a sour pill to swallow.  But he said he won’t resign. 

I don’t think he should resign.  Yes he made a false claim and perpetuated it for a week.  That’s not a crime.  It doesn’t make him a criminal.  It does make him a liar, and untrustworthy.  The sending of the pictures makes him a pig.  That ain’t illegal either.  But let’s flip this around. 

When a Republican sent shirtless pics of himself to a woman he wasn’t married to, the Democrats screamed for his scalp.  Some Republicans have said they want Weiner to resign, but there hasn’t been nearly the uproar that there was in the previous case.  Not from Republicans, and not from the media.  I’d ask why, but we all know why.  The media is biased toward liberal Democrats.  I’ve complained about that before.  Nothing new here.

And there’s nothing new in an elected official showing off for the ladies, and expecting to be able to lie about it and keep his job.  These guys are really above the law.  They know the law and carefully stay inside the boundaries of it, but often go way outside the bounds of decency.  It’s not a surprise to me that Weiner is the kind of guy to send dirty pics to strange women, then lie about it.  I suspect that there are more like him in Washington. 

I hope the voters remember this incident when they go to the polls.  The talking heads, mostly on the left, seem to beleive that they are the only people who matter in all this. 

Maybe Weiner’s wife of less than a year would disagree with them.

Obama and Immigration: Long on Rhetoric, Short on Details

May 12, 2011

Yesterday, the Campaigner in Chief gave a little speech in Texas.  He whined that people wouldn’t think anything he’s done on the border would be enough, even joking that after wanting a taller fence and more border agents, they would want a moat.  With alligators. 

All I can say to that is damn straight, Mr. President.  Whatever it takes.  A fifty foot high fence with spikes and constantine wire on the top, a 500 foot wide moat, alligators, crocodiles, leeches, scorpions, snakes, dingos and ill tempered housecats.  Whatever it takes. 

What does the president want to do?  VIRTUAL SECURITY?  What does this mean?  Cameras and laser beams that alarm when someone tries to get across?  Predator drones to document the “undocumented workers?” 

The problem is nobody knows.  This is by design.  The president doesn’t want to tell what he really wants to do, which is to pick up these clowns in busses as they come across the border and take them directly to the closest poultry plant.  Hand them a green card and get them into government housing.  Sign their kids up for school, and get them Medicaid access. 

Instead we get border agents with non lethal weapons, segments of partially completed fence, and policies that punish American businesses for hiring the cheapest labor they can find. 

Maybe it’s time for real leadership.  Check out Herman Cain.  This guy is NOT a career politician.  He has run corporations, solved problems, and actually knows about business.  He’s the right guy for the job.  And he will take care of the illegal immigrant problem in America.

Liberalism 101: When a Tax Cut is Spending

April 15, 2011

I’ve lamented before that liberals like to muddy the waters in debate by renaming things.  During President Obama’s speech the other day, this muddying continued. 

As I predicted, he did like liberals always do when it comes to spending, and added class warfare for a little seasoning on that meal.  He promised to not renew the Bush tax rates again because giving a “$200,000 tax cut for people like me” just “isn’t right.”  He seems to think this will take care of the deficit.  He’s wrong.  There aren’t enough “millionaires and billionaires” in the United States to make up the deficit if you took 100% of all of their earnings, according to IRS numbers from as late as 2008.  That’s the class warfare.  The predictable part was that he promised to cut defense spending.  Good idea, since the world is at peace.  No conflict anywhere.  No American interests are in peril anywhere in the world, so we can afford to shut down big chunks of the military.  Right?  Wrong again.  We all know about the troubles in the Middle East, and we only have to look as far as the gas pump to see the results.  Of course, if you listen to liberals, speculators are to blame for high gas prices.  Like Bill O’Reilly said the other night, blaming speculators for high gas prices is like saying your horse won because of the bet you placed.  Unless there is collusion between oil companies and speculators, which could be the case, this argument doesn’t hold water. 

But the piece de resistance is that if you are allowed to keep more of the money you earned, it’s spending.  That’s right.  If you are a Democrat, you get to explain that one at the water cooler.  It’s not lower revenue.  It’s spending.  Democrats don’t want to say anything about revenue, because revenue is not the problem.  America doesn’t have a revenue problem.  It has a spending problem. 

I have an idea.  Why won’t government just tell us what they need to operate?  There’s the rub though.  Liberals think that government should provide housing, food, jobs, transportation, college education, manage energy, manage the economy, and a thousand other things, for everybody.  Government should have control of the food you eat, the energy coming into your home, and, most of all, the money you make.  Individuals need not apply.  To a liberal, you are a member of a group.  Some group.  Any group.  Doesn’t matter.  You aren’t an individual with dreams and needs that you want to provide for yourself, thank you very much, and you just want to live your life and be left alone by politicians.  You are a cog in a big machine.  The machine of government.  And, different people think the role of government is different.  I subscribe to the Libertarian idea that government is there to do things that you can’t do for yourself.  Defend the country.  Seal the border.  Build interstates.  Not things you won’t do for yourself.  Get a job.  Feed your kids.  Produce something. 

The mind of a liberal is a wonder.  It’s like one of those corn mazes.  You can walk for hours and get nowhere.  How demented do you have to be to think that keeping your hard-earned money is spending?  Is providing money for college education for kids who don’t belong in college spending?  How about subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes?   Is allowing healthy people to defraud the government to get social security spending?  How about doctors overcharging Medicare and Medicaid because neither will pay the charges they need to keep their business running?  Is that spending? 

I hope this glimpse at the mind of a liberal has been helpful.  You can usually recognize a liberal by the wild eyes and the spittle flying.  Or the tweed jacket.

Budget Deal NOT a Victory for Boehner

April 11, 2011

I’ve intentionally stayed away from talking about the budget stuff going on in DC intentionally.  Democrats and Republicans see things so entirely differently that commenting on it seemed moot.  However, with the left screeching about how they got hammered in this deal, I could no longer restrain myself. 

News outlets all over are proclaiming Boehner the big winner in all this.  The idea is that he stood eye to eye with the Democrats and got what he ultimately wanted. 

Not even close. 

The Republicans threw out a number at the beginning of all this as to what they’d like to get in the way of budget cuts.  They arbitrarily chose $100 billion.  Nice round number.  A number the dumb masses could get behind.  And totally unrealistic.  The Democrats counter offered essentially zero cuts.  $6 billion.  That wouldn’t even be enough to buy Steve Austin in today’s money.  Also, totally unrealistic. 

The Republicans chose the slow bleed strategy of continuing resolutions, each time getting a little more in cuts.  A billion here, a billion there type of thing.  They got serious, however, when the president said he would not sign another continuting resolution.  Then, the game started for real. 

The number of $67 billion was then thrown around.  Two thirds of the original number.  Again, easy to get your brain around.  I did the math without any kind of electronic assistance, without even a pencil.  The Democrats responded.  $12 billion or so.  And on and on.  When it looked like the troops wouldn’t get paid (which they would get paid, since I did when the government shut down in 1995), the blame game started.  Republicans wanted to kill women.  Republicans wanted to destroy a woman’s reproductive rights (which amendment to the Constitution has that one?  I didn’t think so.)  Old people’s bodies would be piled up in the street.  Senior citizens would be deprived of meals, according to Nancy Pelosi.  The Republicans said, rightly, that we wouldn’t even be talking about this if the previous Congress has passed a budget for 2011.  But, since Democrats are political cowards, they didn’t want to do their jobs since it might cost them more seats.  There were meetings in the Oval office.  There were press conferences.  And, finally, with about 90 minutes to go, the sides agreed in principle on a continuing resolution for a week and a way to fund the government for the remainder of this fiscal year. 


Media outlets are proclaiming a victory for Boehner and the Tea Party Republicans.  Uh, Planned Parenthood is still being funded.  So is NPR.  These were the only things we really heard about in the budget battle.  How, exactly, is not getting the only thing the media really spoke about a victory? 

The answer is that it’s not.  $37 billion dollars.  One percent of the annual deficit.  That’s all they got.  Now, we get to listen to the anointed one crow about how he saved the day.  Excellent. 

President Obama will give a speech on Wednesday to outline his budget ideas for the 2012 fiscal year.  Good thing he’s leading on this.  The Republicans have had a proposal out for a week, and only after the 2011 budget was agreed to did he actually do anything.  I guess “lead” has a different meaning to me than it does to the Dems. 

His speech will propose ways to cut the deficit.  They will probably include making rich people pay more in taxes and cut the military.  Why do I say that?  Because Democrats always go after the “rich” one way or another and always find “savings” by weakening our country’s ability to defend itself.  George Washington said that the best way to ensure peace was to always be ready to go to war.  Are we ready to go to war? 

A couple of specific things I’ve heard are dropping the income limit for social security.  Now, here’s how smart Washington DC is.  Pay attention, here.  This is good. 

Right now, people who earn more than $250K stop paying into social security when they reach that amount of money paid to them in a year.  It is ostensibly the idea that these people will not be taking benefits from social security, so it’s not fair that they should pay into a system they won’t use.  If you remove that limit, people who make more than $250K will continue to pay into social security all year.  This is where you say “Ooof.”  This means that the entire system will be heavily funded by people who do not, and probably never will, get any benefit from the system.  It’s not like income taxes, where the American citizen at least gets interstates and military defense for their money.  This is money being tossed down a hole in Washington.  And, if that isn’t enough,  people who paid very little into the system will get the most benefit from it.  I guess to a Democrat, that’s fair. 

The Republicans don’t have any better ideas, really.  Raise the retirement age.  That means you get to pay into the system longer and get less benefit from it.  Why not raise the limit to 90?  100?  Even higher?  That would completely solve the social security problem, and give the politicians in Washington, Republican and Democrat, a bigger bag of taxpayer money to pilfer from. 

I heard on the radio today that we may be looking at $5 a gallon gas by the summer.  Higher taxes, higer fuel prices, higher prices on everything delivered by truck or train, all mean that the economy will not recover.  But, not to be deterred, Obama and the rest of the Democrat hacks will have an answer:  more government spending.  To do that, they’ll have to borrow more money.  To do that, they’ll have to raise the debt ceiling. 

Now, do you see why this won’t be a win for the Republicans or anybody who currently has a job?  The Democrats will say “We compromised with you guys.  Now you compromise with us.”  Even though no compromise should have been necessary.  The Democrat House, Senate, and White House did not approve a budget for this year due to a wobbly spine problem.  So, I say don’t raise the debt ceiling and let the cards fall where they may.  We are already seeing inflation everywhere except our paychecks, mostly becauses Obama embraces the Carterian ideas of managing the economy.  Print more money.  Kill the military.  Let third world jerks like Mohamar Qadaffi walk all over you. 

Is it too outlandish an idea to think all this is itentional?  Maybe the Dems didn’t pass a budget not because they were scared, but because they saw all this coming?  And the timing of it, leading into a presidential campaign, could set up the Dems to really stick it to the Republicans in next year’s election.  “Those guys want to cut your Medicare.  They want you to live in huts.  They want to take away your right to kill your unborn child. We’re your guys.  We won’t do any of that.” 

I hope it is too outlandish.  It means that the leaders of our nation want to destroy our nation.  Turn over control to the UN, or maybe NATO. 

Oh, they already did that.  On a small scale, at least. 

Pray for our country, and vote out people who don’t see things like you do.  Because, even if this is a win for Boehner, it’s a loss for the American people, and for the American way of life. 

If you can read this, thank a teacher.  If you can do it in English, thank a soldier.  If you have to answer the question about reading it in Spanish, thank a Democrat.

Obama Energy Speech Predictable, And Wrong

March 31, 2011

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University to outline energy policy.  He made a few surprise statements, but was overall very predictable.  Predictable in that he stated the obvious and bowed down to the tree huggers.  Predictable in that he took credit for the work of other administrations.  Predictable in that he lied. 

The president surprised me when he said that he understands that prices at the pump affect everybody.  He did not state that higher fuel prices have other consequences like higher prices for food and other consumer goods, since they are shipped on machines that consume diesel and gasoline.  He blamed higher fuel prices on the economic recovery, relating the rising demand for fuel to the anemic economic recovery.  This explains why the president appears to be so clueless.  High prices are causing the economy to flounder.  The economic “recovery” isn’t big enough to warrant the kind of price increases we are seeing at the pump yet.  It has been far too small to lead to a twenty plus percent increase in fuel price.  The economy would recover more quickly if private sector businesses could count on lower fuel cost, both to run their plants and transport their goods.  As usual, the president has his cause and effect backwards. 

President Obama proudly stated that we have lowered oil imports since he took office, and has approved leases in that same time.  These are true, more or less, but the devil is in the details.  Many of the oil leases were approved during the Clinton administration.  President Obama has approved a handful of new leases for exploration, and these are leftovers from previous administrations.  So for him to take credit for opening up the exploration of domestic oil is disingenuous at best, and an out and out lie at worst.  Listening to his speech, you’d think the oil industry is looking for oil on every street corner in the country and offshore of every state in the union.  He even stated that if you believe that his administration was hampering domestic oil production, it was simply not true.  Except that it is true.  Remember the drilling moratorium?  It’s still in place.  Anyone who wants to drill for oil in deep water has a bunch of new regulations to adhere to.  Obama basically said that he wanted drilling in America, as long as he thinks it’s okay.  “Responsible and safe” were the words he used. 

Obama said we need to look in our own back yard for oil.  He wasn’t talking about domestic production.  He was talking about Canada, Mexico and countries like Brazil, that just got approval for loans from the US to drill for oil there. 

All of this is interesting, but not the end game Obama wants.  He admitted that we would need oil for decades to come until alternative sources of energy could be perfected to the point that they would actually be viable and profitable.  (He didn’t say profitable, but it’s a fact that profitability is important, even if profits are evil).  No, the end game is to extract our energy from dandelion roots.  Even if it costs 200% of what oil costs, that’s what Obama wants.  He said we have “invested” a lot of money in high speed rail.  I’ve complained about this before.  High speed rail works in countries where the population is tightly packed together like in Europe and Japan.  If I had to take a “high speed” train to visit my mother, it would take three days to get there, and cost a lot more than two tanks of gas do, although with gas prices rising like they are, that may be changing.  It won’t work in America unless the entire population of the country moves to the city.  Good luck getting a farmer to move into downtown New York. 

The pinnacle of the speech was the renewable energy, or green, part of the speech.  The green movement currently consists of companies that cannot make enough money to stay afloat without government subsidies.  Now, if you are a lefty, this is fine by you.  But for those of us who believe that companies should sink or swim on their own without a lot of intrusion by government, this is absurd.  If a company makes a product that is truly cutting edge, there will be demand for that product, and people will pay for it.  Since there is currently little demand these products, little money is being made.  Yet the government continues to support these ventures, and many of them go out of business anyway, even with government subsidies to help get them going.  What does all this tell you?  We are a LONG WAY from green initiatives being viable.  Until then, oil is the king. 

I think one thing the president is missing here is that if other countries thought we would produce our own oil, therefore reducing the price of that commodity, they may increase production out of fear of losing a big customer.  This happened during the Bush years.  It works.  But, since Obama has never even been a shift manager at a McDonald’s, I wouldn’t expect him to get the nuances of how business works. 

Business and energy are tied together.  Energy is big business.  The truth is that we need our own supply of energy, be it natural gas, oil, or dandelion roots.  And since it takes time for these items to make it market, now is the time to fire up the production of our own energy.  Unlike Obama, I think American ingenuity can only work if you have good tools to work with, and the raw materials to make your ideas work.  Obama acutally said that ingenuity was what would solve our energy problems. 

Obama also dismissively swiped at “Drill Baby Drill,” saying that this didn’t do anything to solve the problems we have on the energy front.  Hey, Mr. President, that’s because we never actually drilled.  It’s a short term help to solve our problems while your tweed jacket wearing friends figure out how to fool Americans into thinking that going without power for two days out of the week is a good thing for them.  Good luck with that, too.

It’s time for us to become independent for our energy.  Unrest in a region of the world should not affect what my family has for dinner.  And right now, that is precisely what is happening to us, as well as other families all over the nation.  The choice between driving to work and food is getting harder to make. 

Drill, Mr. President.  You can have your science projects, too.  Just don’t make me eat peanut butter.  Your wife would think that’s bad, since peanut butter is loaded with fat.

Why Libya?

March 30, 2011

Mohamar Qadaffi is a nut.  Let’s get that out of the way right now.  This guy has killed a lot of people, a lot of Americans no less.  Yet he has managed to survive the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, and Obama administrations and remain in power.  Even now, with bombs and cruise missiles falling on his country, he vows to never give up.  Apparently, he has forgotten the lesson he learned during the Reagan years.  Remain quiet and all will be okay. 

President Obama gave a speech on Monday to explain the Libyan situation to the American people.  In my humble opinion, he failed to do this.  Sure, he said we can’t stand by and watch massacres take place, and we can’t.  America needs to be a force for good in the world.  He said, as he has done many times before, that the price of doing nothing would be too high.  If we do nothing, Qadaffi mass murders his people.  Wow, man, that’s some crystal ball you have there.  I hope the intelligence briefings Obama is getting explain what’s going on in Libya better than his speech did the other night.  Obama used this same argument for the stimulus bill.  If we do nothing, there will be children eating Alpo.  We gotta spend.  Now, this. 

Of course, it took him a month to decide what to do, and he only decided when other countries took the lead, along with  NATO, the UN, and the Arab League.  He waited until the rebels in Libya were no longer in a position to actually win the battle, until Qadaffi’s forces had pushed them to the brink of defeat.  Even today, the rebels face defeat, due in large part to the wishy washiness of our Commander in Chief.  We’re not at war.  Regime change isn’t our goal.  Humanitarian aid is what we are trying to do. 

Humanitarian aid is delivering food and water to people.  Protecting them from belligerent soldiers raping and shooting the citizens of a country.  Not lobbing cruise missiles from a safe distance.  That’s Clintonian. 

Let me say that I believe that we should be taking care of Qadaffi.  This guy has been a friend to terrorists and enemy of the West ever since he stole power in Libya.  Our goal should be pretty clear.  Kill Qadaffi.  That’s it.  Let the Libyans decide for themselves who will lead them.  Of course, this can backfire, too.  The Muslim Brotherhood can easily take over Libya. 

I wonder why we MUST help the Libyans who want regime change, but we ignored the Iranians who wanted regime change.  Or the Syrians.  Or the Bahranians.  I’ve heard a lot of talking heads give reasons for this.  I wonder why the international community was so hot to trot to go into Libya to protect the Libyans from Qadaffi, but they weren’t so quick to go into Iraq to protect Iraqis from Saddam Hussein.  By international community I mean NATO, France and the Arab league.  There was a significantly larger coalition of nations who went into Iraq with us than the one assembled for the Libyan operation.  But, hey, let’s not let fact get in the way of opinion. 

Why did we jump on the train to Libya?  Oil.  The Europeans will have a problem with oil supplies if the unrest in Libya continues too long.  That’s why the Europeans wanted to go in to Libya, but not into Iraq. 

And why not Iran or Syria?  Those nuts are going to be tougher to crack.  Libya looks like an easier target.  Syria’s leader has been praised as a reformer by Hillary Clinton.  If she means that he brutalizes his people and routinely maims women, then she would be right.  Syria makes Libya look like San Francisco when it comes to human rights.  Yet, no interest from our illustrious leader in the problems of the Syrians.  Iran had an uprising recently that was put down by the government of that country with bloodshed.  Protesters were killed.  Once again, Obama showed no interest in stopping those human rights violations.  Why? 

Maybe the administration is afraid of the repercussions of such actions.  Al Qaeda may attack us if we use military force on Iran.  We have tried economic sanctions and other diplomatic sleights of hand to get Mahmoud Ahmedinijad to stop pursuing nuclear weapons and killing his people.  All to no avail.  He continues to stand on his soapbox and screech about how the Jews are bad and America is the great Satan. 

I think is may be even more sinister than that.  I think that our president agrees with Ahmedinijad about a lot of things.  He believes that America deserves the evil we have been subjected to at the hands of Islamic terrorists.  After all, we have a very high standard of living.  People in the middle east poop in holes and live in huts.  How is that right?  Our president promised a “fundamental transformation” of America if he was elected.  Transform to what?    A socialist utopia where everybody has the same stuff?  Where we are all equally poor?  And the “green movement” is a way to redistribute American wealth throughout the world, so that all of the world’s people are equally poor.  We have seen and heard Obama’s devotion to the green movement.  Instead of drilling for oil to become less dependent on foreign oil, he wants to make us all use batteries to heat our hot water, vegetable oil to drive to work, and have control of the electricity coming into our homes by use of  “smart grid” technology.  It’s okay to loan money to Brazil so they can drill for oil, but we can’t develop and drill for it here.  Can you make sense of this? 

Maybe the Europeans can see Libya as a threat because of the impact on their oil supplies, but couldn’t see Iraq as the same.  The Europeans don’t care nearly as much about Libyan death as they do about keeping oil flowing into their countries.  And they sure don’t care about terrorist attacks as much as we do.  Maybe they won’t until kook Islamofascists fly a plane into Big Ben or the Eiffel tower.  Maybe not even then.  European pacifism gave us Hitler and Stalin.  They clearly aren’t learning. 

If, as President Obama says, Qadaffi needs to go, then we need to remove him.  And the international coalition needs to be led by the US.  If we will be providing most of the hardware and weaponry, we need to lead this force.  We need to plan the operation and carry it out, with other nations under our direction.  I mean, the French couldn’t stop Hitler.  Do we really want them leading the operation against Qadaffi?  Victory is clearly a foreign idea to these guys. 

The president needs to understand that he should be consistent in his actions, if not his words.  If we are going to act as the world’s police force, we have to be consistent.  If the Libyan thing is really about humanitarian aid, we have to be ready to act elsewhere in the world. 

Maybe we can start with China.  They seem to have issues with humane treatment of their people.

It’s Not a War

March 25, 2011

With the Obama administration talking out of every side of their mouths that they can, it’s difficult to figure out what the hell is going on in Libya. 

I was watching the president’s news conference with the president of Chile a couple of days ago.  Obama answered every question by saying essentially nothing.  And it took a long time for him to say nothing.  What’s going on in Libya isn’t a war, it’s a mission of mercy to help support the people of Libya.  The goal of the mission is to provide humanitarian assistance, and not to oust Mohamar Qadaffi.  But Qadaffi must go. 


I’ve seen a lot of humanitarian missions executed over the years, and I don’t remember one where cruise missiles were used.  Usually there are people in Red Cross rain slickers passing out food and water.  These folks dig out survivors.  They help get water running and electricity flowing.  They don’t lob high explosives toward the people they are trying to help. 

It looks like a war to me. 

Now, Obama’s supporters on the left are saying that he is doing exactly what he should be doing in this situation.  I respectfully disagree.  They compare Obama’s actions to President Bush’s actions and say that Bush was wrong, and Obama is right.  Except that they are wrong. 

Bush built a multinational coalition before going into Iraq or Afghanistan.  He went to Congress and got their approval before deploying our troops.  He did not, however, clearly state the mission, or what our goal was in these actions.  Obama has made the same mistake. 

Obama unilaterally decided to commit our planes and pilots to enforce a NATO and UN no fly zone.  He waited until even the French said something had to be done, then jumped on the train as a passenger, not the engineer. 

Let’s be honest here.  Whenever NATO or the UN fights somewhere in the world, most of the soldiers and hardware are US soldiers and hardware.  We have the best equipment and best training for our guys of any nation on earth, except maybe for the Israelis.  So, effectively, any NATO or UN action is a US action.  And we usually end up eating most of the cost of these actions, both in blood and in cash. 

If Obama had acted “unilaterally” when the rebels in Libya were on the offensive, the chances of their winning would have been much higher.  Instead, he waited for an international agreement, and in the mean time, Qadaffi’s forces pushed the rebels back.  Now, the chances of the rebels winning are much smaller.  So, our “thoughtful,” “careful” president probably cost a lot of Libyan lives, civilian and military, with his hand-wringing.

This man is not capable of leading.  He can’t make the simplest of decisions.  Now he wants to turn over command and control to NATO.  Our troops and hardware under control of a foreign commander.  That would be fine if we send twenty guys and a truck to the fight.  But we will end up being the bulk of the fighting force.  And our guys will follow orders from someone who doesn’t have America’s interests on his mind. 

Either way, this is a war.  If there are missiles being shot, men and women dying, bullets flying, it’s a war. 

But Obama can’t even decide on that.