Libya is liberated, and Moammar Gadhafi has gone into hiding.
It would appear that the final rout of the Libyan rebels justified President Obama's foreign policy of "kinetic military action" in the civil war.
On the contrary, his unconstitional, and wasteful, foray of American Armed forces is a mere accidental within the wider scheme of British and French pressure, combined with the flagging moral of Loyalist forces who could no longer stem the Arab Spring that has already swept through the neighboring states of Tunisia and Egypt.
President Obama overstretched his powers as Commander in Chief, failing to report or request permission to send American military personnel into the region. The ends do not justify the means.
He insisted that our entry into the North African theater would merely maintain humanitarian protection of the Benghazi stronghold and the rebels safeguarded there. Yet Obama's confused policy did nothing to clarify how our presence was advancing the ouster of Gadhafi and Sons while not targeting them directly-- while yet also bombing their Tripoli compound.
Obama's actions for armed engagement never matched up with his liberal-internationalist rhetoric of coalition reliance, including the increasingly irrelevant NATO. We still committed blood and treasure to another conflict which never fell within the scope of the United States' strategic interest.
And what impact did our forces ultimately play in the Libyan civil war? No matter how strenuously President Obama insists that his warped half-measures hastened victory of the rebels, the world is reeling from the sudden turn of events, bringing down the longest-reigning dictator in the Middle East.
Even if the President can spin the transition of power to the rebels as a plus, he will never be able to shake off the failed domestic policies which have alienated his base and independents, nor his economic agenda, which has merely stalled a recovery which free market forces would have more quickly and efficiently ushered in.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Maxine Waters and The Tea Party
Hell hath no fury like a populist movement scorned!
Maxine Water, racing bating, too-long entrenched Congresswoman from South Los Angeles has fired off the latest vapid missive:
“I’m not afraid of anybody,” Waters said at the summit in Inglewood, Calif. “This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned, the ‘tea party’ can go straight to Hell.” (source, Washington Post)
In point of fact, Congresswoman Waters has plenty to be afraid of. Running for reelection in recast districts which will shake-up her complacent core constituency, she, along with her Congressional colleagues Karen Bass and Laura Richardson, launched a job summit in Inglewood to give the flimsy appearance of caring for the vast number of minority constituents struggling with high unemployment and dim job prospects.
If she really cared about her voters, if she really wanted what is best for the minority interests whom she claims to serve, she would vent more of her frustration at the current Elitist-in-Chief, who insists on running this country on obsolete Keynesian economics. Stimulus packages, extended unemployment benefits, regulation as long as the red-taped eyes of bureaucrats can see, plus a shell game medical mandate have all spooked businesses from expanding and hiring, for they are still guessing as to whether they can invest time and money or not in a still-uncertain economic climate.
Ms. Waters, inundated with scandal and still under scrutiny from the ethics committee in the House of Representatives, has far more to worry about, as in whether the confirmed bloc of African American voters will continue to be strung along be race-baiting Democratic politicians who scream empty epithets at free-market populist movements, which actually have the best interests of this nation in mind.
As if she needed another problem to shake her standing, Waters faces the prospects of an uphill reelection in recommissioned Congressional districts, which may force her to run against other entrenched politicians. Now she will have to justify to her constituents whether her lackluster legacy to secure economic recovery justifies her continued presence in Washington.
Maxine Water, racing bating, too-long entrenched Congresswoman from South Los Angeles has fired off the latest vapid missive:
“I’m not afraid of anybody,” Waters said at the summit in Inglewood, Calif. “This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned, the ‘tea party’ can go straight to Hell.” (source, Washington Post)
In point of fact, Congresswoman Waters has plenty to be afraid of. Running for reelection in recast districts which will shake-up her complacent core constituency, she, along with her Congressional colleagues Karen Bass and Laura Richardson, launched a job summit in Inglewood to give the flimsy appearance of caring for the vast number of minority constituents struggling with high unemployment and dim job prospects.
If she really cared about her voters, if she really wanted what is best for the minority interests whom she claims to serve, she would vent more of her frustration at the current Elitist-in-Chief, who insists on running this country on obsolete Keynesian economics. Stimulus packages, extended unemployment benefits, regulation as long as the red-taped eyes of bureaucrats can see, plus a shell game medical mandate have all spooked businesses from expanding and hiring, for they are still guessing as to whether they can invest time and money or not in a still-uncertain economic climate.
Ms. Waters, inundated with scandal and still under scrutiny from the ethics committee in the House of Representatives, has far more to worry about, as in whether the confirmed bloc of African American voters will continue to be strung along be race-baiting Democratic politicians who scream empty epithets at free-market populist movements, which actually have the best interests of this nation in mind.
As if she needed another problem to shake her standing, Waters faces the prospects of an uphill reelection in recommissioned Congressional districts, which may force her to run against other entrenched politicians. Now she will have to justify to her constituents whether her lackluster legacy to secure economic recovery justifies her continued presence in Washington.
Zenga Zenga Spin Doctor, Shavat Shalom
Shibber, Shibber
Dar Dar
They finally ousted Moammar!
Shibber, Shibber
Dar Dar
Now they're after you, Bashar
Kudos again to Israeli spin doctor Noy Alooshe.
His send-up of the FORMER Libyan dictator is making waves across the Arab World.
When the Arabs take out the Syria, Iran will shake, and the Middle East will have a new song to dance to: Freedom.
Dar Dar
They finally ousted Moammar!
Shibber, Shibber
Dar Dar
Now they're after you, Bashar
Kudos again to Israeli spin doctor Noy Alooshe.
His send-up of the FORMER Libyan dictator is making waves across the Arab World.
When the Arabs take out the Syria, Iran will shake, and the Middle East will have a new song to dance to: Freedom.
Tripoli Taken, Gadhafi Gone, Further Comments
The Libyan rebels have taken Tripoli. Finally, the legacy of the Barbary pirates is brought to justice, and by their own, no less.
Rebel forces are ransacking the palaces of the Colonel who styled himself the leader of a 42-year revolution, a revolution 41-years too long.
At last, the instigator of Lockerbie is ousted. The
Mitt Romney's call to recapture, retry, and recondemn Lockerbie Bomber is more than fitting, an evil man whom the United Kingdom heinously handed back to Libya for hapless hospice. Yet until the final downfall of Gadhafi's regime, Abdel Baset al- Megrahi stood by his man, the notorious back-water butcher of North Africa.
The Transitional National Council of Libya is taking power. The world has yet to see if in their plans they will transform their nation from petroleum kleptocracy to Jeffersonian Republicanism, if they do decide on the democratic route.
It's delightfully ironic that for all his self-delusional chanting about his people loving him and would die to protect him, Gadhafi must now accept that his people, who were dying under his rule for decades, were willing to die to get rid of him.
Let us hope that the future of Libya and North Africa will bring forth good things for a brighter future for the entire region.
Rebel forces are ransacking the palaces of the Colonel who styled himself the leader of a 42-year revolution, a revolution 41-years too long.
At last, the instigator of Lockerbie is ousted. The
Mitt Romney's call to recapture, retry, and recondemn Lockerbie Bomber is more than fitting, an evil man whom the United Kingdom heinously handed back to Libya for hapless hospice. Yet until the final downfall of Gadhafi's regime, Abdel Baset al- Megrahi stood by his man, the notorious back-water butcher of North Africa.
The Transitional National Council of Libya is taking power. The world has yet to see if in their plans they will transform their nation from petroleum kleptocracy to Jeffersonian Republicanism, if they do decide on the democratic route.
It's delightfully ironic that for all his self-delusional chanting about his people loving him and would die to protect him, Gadhafi must now accept that his people, who were dying under his rule for decades, were willing to die to get rid of him.
Let us hope that the future of Libya and North Africa will bring forth good things for a brighter future for the entire region.
Rick Perry and the Treasonous Head of the Fed
Shortly after officially entering the Presidential race, Texas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry made the following controversial declaration:
“If this guy [Federal Reserve Director Ben Bernanke] prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion.” (Source: Washington Post)
Governor Perry is right! Though an outspoken politician who has let slip crass and off-color remarks at times, his indictment of the subversive economic damage of the eternal-printing press Fed is right on the money (both the figurative and the fiat).
Pushing paper into the system undermines every person's power to purchase, pure and simple. The ugly process has been devaluing our currency for decades, pushing prices up while undermining our savings and enabling Washington to spend, spend, spend; for when the Fed forces fiat money onto the nation, the government gets first dibs to spend the made-up money, taking advantage of stable prices. With all the crap-currency crushing down into lesser and private markets, more money means more buyers willing to spend, which automatically triggers higher prices, erodes confidence in the currency, and plants more power in the hands of the federal government at the expense of the people.
If this shameful cycle of legal fiscal fraud is not treason, then what is?
Finally, the nation is hearing from an executive not afraid to tell it like it is, besides New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. By the way, when was the last time that the Mainstream Media hammered the Sumo Wrestler from Trenton for his brash rhetoric? Seems like an unseemly double-standard, to say the least.
“If this guy [Federal Reserve Director Ben Bernanke] prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion.” (Source: Washington Post)
Governor Perry is right! Though an outspoken politician who has let slip crass and off-color remarks at times, his indictment of the subversive economic damage of the eternal-printing press Fed is right on the money (both the figurative and the fiat).
Pushing paper into the system undermines every person's power to purchase, pure and simple. The ugly process has been devaluing our currency for decades, pushing prices up while undermining our savings and enabling Washington to spend, spend, spend; for when the Fed forces fiat money onto the nation, the government gets first dibs to spend the made-up money, taking advantage of stable prices. With all the crap-currency crushing down into lesser and private markets, more money means more buyers willing to spend, which automatically triggers higher prices, erodes confidence in the currency, and plants more power in the hands of the federal government at the expense of the people.
If this shameful cycle of legal fiscal fraud is not treason, then what is?
Finally, the nation is hearing from an executive not afraid to tell it like it is, besides New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. By the way, when was the last time that the Mainstream Media hammered the Sumo Wrestler from Trenton for his brash rhetoric? Seems like an unseemly double-standard, to say the least.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Response to "1930s' WPA could work today" From the Daily Breeze 8/17/2011
The writer contends that the Works Progress Administration, one of the Alphabet Soup handout organizations established during the Great Depression, would keep "young men off the streets and working". He implies that state-sponsored work projects would improve the morale, if not the money, of current unemployed.
No, the WPA would not work. It did not work then, and it would not work now to get men and women working again, for the short or long haul. Government does not, cannot, should not create jobs. Jean-Baptiste Say, French economist of the nineteenth century, assailed this nonsensical distribution of resources long ago. All the money and labor invested in fixing broken windows, or filling ditches, or painting unnecessary paintings, only transfers wealth which could be just as well, if not better, invested by private persons, partnerships, or corporations.
It is a feel-good illusion that government can push shovel-ready projects to resolve indeterminable unemployment and economic stagnation. Yes, state public works projects get people working, but they do not create sustained employment or expansive wealth. What happens when the state funds run dry? And who, by the way, is paying these state-sponsored workers' salaries? The same tax-payers who cannot get work themselves. Plainly, the government cannot create and sustain lasting economic growth.
Instead of the government mismanaging taxpayer money further, the Federal and state governments need to leave well enough along. The same economist posited convincingly that if we allow markets to correct themselves, with neither help, hindrance, or regulation from the state, supply and demand will even out resources, provided new opportunities for investment, and thus create wealth.
A final word: the writer acknowledges "Not everyone can work for 40 years for the government. But it is a good start." That sentiment may have been true when government had money to spend, or spare. Yet now that government coffers are so sparse, we need to encourage government to make do with the nothing that it still has, and let the people make better use of their own resources.
No, the WPA would not work. It did not work then, and it would not work now to get men and women working again, for the short or long haul. Government does not, cannot, should not create jobs. Jean-Baptiste Say, French economist of the nineteenth century, assailed this nonsensical distribution of resources long ago. All the money and labor invested in fixing broken windows, or filling ditches, or painting unnecessary paintings, only transfers wealth which could be just as well, if not better, invested by private persons, partnerships, or corporations.
It is a feel-good illusion that government can push shovel-ready projects to resolve indeterminable unemployment and economic stagnation. Yes, state public works projects get people working, but they do not create sustained employment or expansive wealth. What happens when the state funds run dry? And who, by the way, is paying these state-sponsored workers' salaries? The same tax-payers who cannot get work themselves. Plainly, the government cannot create and sustain lasting economic growth.
Instead of the government mismanaging taxpayer money further, the Federal and state governments need to leave well enough along. The same economist posited convincingly that if we allow markets to correct themselves, with neither help, hindrance, or regulation from the state, supply and demand will even out resources, provided new opportunities for investment, and thus create wealth.
A final word: the writer acknowledges "Not everyone can work for 40 years for the government. But it is a good start." That sentiment may have been true when government had money to spend, or spare. Yet now that government coffers are so sparse, we need to encourage government to make do with the nothing that it still has, and let the people make better use of their own resources.
Tripoli Taken: Gadhafi on the Run
The Rebels have taken Tripoli.
Gadhafi is on the run.
The 42-year reign of terror is drawing to violent, protracted close.
One Arab Spring, scores of oppressed rising up across the Arab World, and now even the most entrenched of strongmen are being swept away.
What will wash up on shore following the the global rebellious tide against status quo tyranny?
The United States has every right to rejoice, yet we must remain cautious. The Transitional National Council which members states have slowly recognized has yet to show its true colors, friend or foe of the West, Israel, and freedom for its people; or a more savage and radical Muslim regime dedicated to Sharia law.
At any rate, let the world rejoice to see one more outrageous, self-parodying dictator removed forever from power.
Gadhafi is on the run.
The 42-year reign of terror is drawing to violent, protracted close.
One Arab Spring, scores of oppressed rising up across the Arab World, and now even the most entrenched of strongmen are being swept away.
What will wash up on shore following the the global rebellious tide against status quo tyranny?
The United States has every right to rejoice, yet we must remain cautious. The Transitional National Council which members states have slowly recognized has yet to show its true colors, friend or foe of the West, Israel, and freedom for its people; or a more savage and radical Muslim regime dedicated to Sharia law.
At any rate, let the world rejoice to see one more outrageous, self-parodying dictator removed forever from power.
Jon Huntsman: Executive Experience, Same Romney Bind
Jon Huntsman pushes ahead for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. His executive experience is much needed, much wanted, yet also compromised. Sadly, he is in a bind similar to Romney, who has the practice, but whose legacy is tainted with the very liberalism that they are trying to run against and replace.
Just as Romney proved his prowess as presidential material, unfortunately, in a woefully liberal constituency, Mr. Huntsman is compromised by progressive political drag.
Unlike Romney, who served wholesome in a left-dragging state, Huntsman distinguished himself in one of the reddest states in the Union, and a Mormon community, to boot.
Yet his international star rose in light of his appointment as ambassador to China, an appointment he received from the Lead Liberal Loony himself, President Obama.
Huntsman's resume is crowed out not exclusively by the population he catered for, but the object of Republican, and growing American hatred. A man who served the opposing incumbent will be hard-pressed why he received a diplomatic post from the same man whom he wishes to replace. How will he dismiss the political affinity which drew the two together? Romney has Romneycare, painful reminded of the Obamacare mandate which the majority of Americans wish to repeal. Huntsman has the man himself draining the enthusiasm from his campaign.
Romney can attempt to explain away his state-mandate, or he can denounce it, as he has repudiated his moderate social views. Mr. Huntsman will have to shake free of the positional influence of the man who hired him, the same man whom he would be debating across the country up to election day. Huntsman has more than his work cut out for him.
Yes, Huntsman has the requisite executive experience to be President, and he has served as chief diplomat to China, major rival and reluctant trade partner. Yet his rise in the shadow of the very executive he wishes to replace casts a dark hue over his chances of winning the election, let alone the Republican nomination.
Just as Romney proved his prowess as presidential material, unfortunately, in a woefully liberal constituency, Mr. Huntsman is compromised by progressive political drag.
Unlike Romney, who served wholesome in a left-dragging state, Huntsman distinguished himself in one of the reddest states in the Union, and a Mormon community, to boot.
Yet his international star rose in light of his appointment as ambassador to China, an appointment he received from the Lead Liberal Loony himself, President Obama.
Huntsman's resume is crowed out not exclusively by the population he catered for, but the object of Republican, and growing American hatred. A man who served the opposing incumbent will be hard-pressed why he received a diplomatic post from the same man whom he wishes to replace. How will he dismiss the political affinity which drew the two together? Romney has Romneycare, painful reminded of the Obamacare mandate which the majority of Americans wish to repeal. Huntsman has the man himself draining the enthusiasm from his campaign.
Romney can attempt to explain away his state-mandate, or he can denounce it, as he has repudiated his moderate social views. Mr. Huntsman will have to shake free of the positional influence of the man who hired him, the same man whom he would be debating across the country up to election day. Huntsman has more than his work cut out for him.
Yes, Huntsman has the requisite executive experience to be President, and he has served as chief diplomat to China, major rival and reluctant trade partner. Yet his rise in the shadow of the very executive he wishes to replace casts a dark hue over his chances of winning the election, let alone the Republican nomination.
Mitt Romney: The Catch-22 of Executive Experience
Mitt Romney, long-running candidate for President: executive experience, check.
A desperately needed skill, Romney's previous tenure as Governor accords him a talent and traits much needed for the Presidency.
Jon Huntsman is another former governor running for the Republican nation, but the focus on candidate Romney is more pertinent because of his status as long-winning, long-winded, and now winding-down front-runner
Yet his legacy as executive is marred by the status, or state, of his experience, the Bay State, Massachusetts, whose electorate is 3-to-1 liberal, like the City by the Bay.
Running a liberal bastion from a moderate stance makes him damaged goods, or at least a difficult bill of sale.
The biggest set-back, his crowning achievement: Romneycare, the state-mandated insurance program which is hemorrhaging cost overruns while failing to provide every resident of the state with affordable health insurance.
Romney's premier accomplishment as executive, Romneycare is the walking-talking argument against Obamacare, which every Republican Presidential candidate wants to repeal. Romney, wanting to tout his executive experience, must lug a liability as left-leaning as the President he would run against if he were to win the nomination.
It is a shame that a Mormon, born in Michigan to another celebrated governor, cut his teach as a governor in state so liberal, that any finesses and panache he could boast is irrevocably marred with statist policies which will hardly endear him to the fiscal-limited government advocates swelling the ranks of the Republican party, and primaries.
Mr. Romney cannot run against his history. He has experience, yet his legacy hinders an electorate desperate for leadership from assessing his previous practice.
In addition to Romneycare, there are the numerous waffles on social issues, from his failed run against Ted Kennedy to his solidified election wins as governor. Defending a women's right to choose--terminate a baby before birth, and government-sanctioned alternatives to marriage, which now impinge on religious dissent within the Bay: these and other marginal views will inevitable marginalize a once electric and energized front runner, with the necessary executive experience becoming a future President.
A desperately needed skill, Romney's previous tenure as Governor accords him a talent and traits much needed for the Presidency.
Jon Huntsman is another former governor running for the Republican nation, but the focus on candidate Romney is more pertinent because of his status as long-winning, long-winded, and now winding-down front-runner
Yet his legacy as executive is marred by the status, or state, of his experience, the Bay State, Massachusetts, whose electorate is 3-to-1 liberal, like the City by the Bay.
Running a liberal bastion from a moderate stance makes him damaged goods, or at least a difficult bill of sale.
The biggest set-back, his crowning achievement: Romneycare, the state-mandated insurance program which is hemorrhaging cost overruns while failing to provide every resident of the state with affordable health insurance.
Romney's premier accomplishment as executive, Romneycare is the walking-talking argument against Obamacare, which every Republican Presidential candidate wants to repeal. Romney, wanting to tout his executive experience, must lug a liability as left-leaning as the President he would run against if he were to win the nomination.
It is a shame that a Mormon, born in Michigan to another celebrated governor, cut his teach as a governor in state so liberal, that any finesses and panache he could boast is irrevocably marred with statist policies which will hardly endear him to the fiscal-limited government advocates swelling the ranks of the Republican party, and primaries.
Mr. Romney cannot run against his history. He has experience, yet his legacy hinders an electorate desperate for leadership from assessing his previous practice.
In addition to Romneycare, there are the numerous waffles on social issues, from his failed run against Ted Kennedy to his solidified election wins as governor. Defending a women's right to choose--terminate a baby before birth, and government-sanctioned alternatives to marriage, which now impinge on religious dissent within the Bay: these and other marginal views will inevitable marginalize a once electric and energized front runner, with the necessary executive experience becoming a future President.
The Need of Leadership and Executive Experience as Ipso Sine Qua Non
If there is one thing that the United States Government desperately needs now, it is leadership. The courage to formulate policies, articulate them, and present them persuasively to the electorate at large. If nothing else, that is the greatest power and potential that the President of the United States possesses.
By these standards, Barack Obama has failed inexorably. He has spent more time walking in lock-step with process politics, articulating nothing reasonable, coherent, or consistent, despite making a repeated, tone-deaf case to the American people for Obamacare, which shifted steadily away from the grander progressive vision of a single-payer system to be transformed into European socialized medicine.
Obama has spent more time collecting, aggrandizing, and witnessing power slip through his effete fingers as the American people push a necessary center-right correction on his far-left agenda.
And still the nation craves leadership.
A junior senator from a liberal Mid-western state with two years of service at the federal preceded by limited engagement in a state legislature, community organizing, and some dazzling speeches at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: not a sufficient resume for a President.
Yet the people elected Obama, the Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican in a year when both were so deeply unpopular, that even left-wing pacifist George McGovern could have been elected.
From January 20, 2009 to today, this country has suffered under a child who wanted to play grown-up. This country needs a leader, someone with executive experience, or a tried and tested composure to move and shake in Beltway politics without sacrificing principle or personality.
A chief executive with previous executive experience--that is a sine qua non for the next President, Democrat or Republican.
By these standards, Barack Obama has failed inexorably. He has spent more time walking in lock-step with process politics, articulating nothing reasonable, coherent, or consistent, despite making a repeated, tone-deaf case to the American people for Obamacare, which shifted steadily away from the grander progressive vision of a single-payer system to be transformed into European socialized medicine.
Obama has spent more time collecting, aggrandizing, and witnessing power slip through his effete fingers as the American people push a necessary center-right correction on his far-left agenda.
And still the nation craves leadership.
A junior senator from a liberal Mid-western state with two years of service at the federal preceded by limited engagement in a state legislature, community organizing, and some dazzling speeches at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: not a sufficient resume for a President.
Yet the people elected Obama, the Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican in a year when both were so deeply unpopular, that even left-wing pacifist George McGovern could have been elected.
From January 20, 2009 to today, this country has suffered under a child who wanted to play grown-up. This country needs a leader, someone with executive experience, or a tried and tested composure to move and shake in Beltway politics without sacrificing principle or personality.
A chief executive with previous executive experience--that is a sine qua non for the next President, Democrat or Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)