Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Institutionalizing Racism To Divide The Country, Dangerously Irresponsible Foreign Policy, And Lying Through Clenched Teeth

This is a simple equation, like 1+1+1=3.

Bye Bye Hawaii

Last night, Neil Abercrombie got his farewell gift from the House, a vote on their version of the Akaka bill, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (six Republicans voted for it). Over in the Senate, Lamar Alexander issued an immediate push-back:

"I'm disappointed that the House of Representatives passed legislation which the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposes because the bill would 'discriminate on the basis of race.'  The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would create a new sovereign government within our borders based solely on race.  But in America, we say, 'One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'— not 'Many nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some.' I urge the Senate to reject this ill-advised legislation as it has done in the past."

On August 28, 2009, in a letter to members of Congress, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights expressed opposition to the Senate version of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S. 1101), which it noted is "substantially similar" to legislation rejected by the Senate on June 8, 2006.  In its letter, the Commission quoted its 2006 report opposing the bill because it "would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege."

How 'bout that nuclear Iran?

When you think of a nuclear Iran, you probably think of atomic bombs or nuclear-tipped missiles. But few people think about the implications of an Iranian nuclear umbrella providing a cover for terrorism and subversion.

At Israel's recent Jerusalem Conference, Dr. Dore Gold, former ambassador from Israel to the United Nations, predicted a possible 2012-2014 scenario in which the United States might face an attack from Shiite or Sunni terror groups. Could America respond to such an attack, as it did after 9/11, if it occurs under the threat of a nuclear Iran?

According to Gold, prevention of a nuclear Iran isn't just about the security of Israel, nor does it concern only the free flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

Prevention of a nuclear Iran has implications in the overall war against radical Islamist terrorism. And, because Iran has shown that it has the ability to provide support and sanctuary for both Shiite and Sunni groups, the effects of a nuclear Iran are huge.

He explained that at the time of 9/11, the U.S. security establishment stated that they would go after terrorist regimes, and they did. It was an important demonstration that made it clear that if a country supported terrorism, there would be a price to pay. 

However, what about a future era of nuclear proliferation, when many Arab states try to acquire a nuclear weapon as an act of self-defense in the face of a threatening nuclear Persian Empire?

You lie like a rug

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." That is what Barack Obama promised the American people when he was asking for our votes during his 2008 election campaign. Not just this one time, but over and over throughout the campaign. You could ask Joe the Plumber.

Truly, this pledge was the centerpiece of his 2008 election success. I remember during one Presidential debate, Obama hotly disputed McCain's charge that Obama would run up spending so much that he would inevitably bury voters with tax increases. Obama responded by reiterating the above no tax increase pledge, and insisted further that for those making less than $200,000 per year, "your taxes will go down," emphasizing the point with a downward sweeping motion of his arm.

But after only one year in office, in a shocking Business Week interview on February 9, President Obama cavalierly dismissed these core campaign pledges. In response to a question asking, "If your deficit commission comes back and says we would recommend raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year, would you accept that as part of a larger deal?" President Obama said,

"I don't want to prejudge the commission because the whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table, and let's see what folks can come up with. What I want to do is to be completely agnostic in terms of solutions."

Looks to me like President Obama owes John McCain an apology. ...

Included in that political system unable to deal with those necessary big, tough choices is President Obama, who greatly exacerbated the deficit problem with his nearly $1 trillion, failed "stimulus" package just a year ago, followed just a few weeks later by the $400 billion omnibus spending bill, followed by his budget providing for an 18% increase in total federal spending in just one year, and for a one-third increase in federal welfare spending over two years. After those big, tough choices, with the "stimulus" money mostly flowing in this election year to try to buy votes, President Obama is now "agnostic" on tax increases on working people. Isn't this exactly what John McCain said would happen? ...

"The whole point" of President Obama's Commission is precisely to obtain political cover to abandon his central 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He can then say that it wasn't his idea. The "experts" on the Commission made him do it, right after he says the tax increase is actually really Bush's fault.

None of the rest of us should let him get away with that garbage.

Thus, the answer is: YOU SUCK!!!

Voter unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports as 71% now say the legislature is doing a poor job.

That's up ten points from the previous high of 61% reached a month ago.

Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Nearly half of Democratic voters (48%) now give Congress a poor rating, up 17 points since January. The vast majority of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party also give Congress poor ratings.

Let the election fun begin.

There's my two cents.

No comments: