Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Various environmental groups are pushing for boycotts of BP and even bans on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The ban on drilling, especially in light of the recent disaster, might initially seem like a good idea. It is, however, merely another component of the left’s subversive strategy to undermine American strength. The idea of a boycott, on the other hand, has no rational defense. Punishing BP in order to exact some measure of revenge for the spill is a destructive and emotional response. A boycott of BP would simply undermine that company’s ability to fund the cleanup and payoff legal claims. Why would someone interested in reversing the damage caused by the spill weaken BP’s ability to do so? Who knows? It does not make any sense. In fact, it is almost as if these environmental groups are more concerned with their communist, anti-capitalist, agenda than the environment.
Obama is the manmade disaster
The Mechanical President
Saturday, July 17, 2010
It was only a short time ago that any talk about a hidden liberal agenda, Marxism, Communism, destruction of the U.S. or the world economy was in strictly in the realm of the blogosphere and your good old garden variety conspiracy theorist chatter. Today, that baseless nonsense has been put to rest because increasingly major publications are starting to report on events as well as credible sources which state facts and points of concern regarding many of the dizzying changes we are currently undergoing. This week, in back to back days for example, the Wall Street Journal printed articles that should have raised more than a few eyebrows but didn’t because they were ignored. The second article about - Obama's recently appointed Heath Care Czar - titled Dr. Berwick and That Fabulous Cuban Health Care: The death march of progressive medicine, goes on to talk a little about Dr. Berwick's admiration for the slowly collapsing U.K. healthcare system and debunks many of the myths of the utopian Cuban health care. The most interesting article however was printed just one day before on July 12th, 2010. In an interview with John Malone - Yale educated engineer/economist and self made billionare investor that started off discussing the future of cable ended off in somewhat of a bizzare note…
WSJ: What are you doing to protect against the weak American economy?
Mr. Malone: Well, my wife, who is very concerned about these things, moved all her personal cash to Australia and Canada. She wants to have a place to go if things blow up here.
Canada has a lot more fiscal and bank responsibility than most places in the world and lots of natural resources.
We have a retreat that's right on the Quebec border. We own 18 miles on the border, so we can cross. Anytime we want to we can get away.
It would probably be illegal but we could go. Actually our snowmobile trail goes right on the border.
WSJ: Do you have faith in the dollar?
Mr. Malone: None. I think we're enjoying right now the fact that it's a race to the bottom with Europe. The concern about the Mediterranean countries, I think perhaps is overdone. But it led to a flow of cash into the U.S. and therefore strengthening the dollar.
And keep in mind you have all these corporations that are cash rich now because they fear for the worst. So they've built up cash hoards. But where do they put the money? They put it in money-market funds. What does the money market invest in? Short-term government securities. That's how we're financing this federal deficit.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Is it too much to ask for that our leaders be checked-out before they run for office? I don't think so, but some on the left, for obvious reasons, might object. They will refer to such a policy as "un-American" and probably cite the Bill of Rights--a document that they abhor, except of course when it serves their immediate needs, as a defense. When that fails, they will likely complain about the costs involved. The media will run a seemingly endless stream of stories, complete with graphs and information on the national debt and budget, in order to highlight the inability of the nation to pay for such a policy. We could then counter with something like: Ok, then why don't we at least check the backgrounds of prospective senators and presidents? That's not a large number of people, especially when one considers the amount of power these people will wield. Also, just about every applicant to a mid-level government job, like those in the State Department, FBI and CIA, goes through a pretty extensive background check. So why not the guys who can send us to war? If that is still too much for our adversaries to stomach, we compromise. Ok, since that's too much to ask for, how about the one guy who can launch a nuclear strike against our enemies? This would be hard for them to argue against. After all, when you look at it that way, it does not sound like too much to ask for. And then we have them right where we want them. No more Obamas.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Is it me or are leftist women extremely ugly? I remember hearing a leftist comedian a few years back make a joke about how ugly Republican women are. I don't remember exactly which women he was referring to, but judging by the left's and right's current female figureheads, I'd have to say that this view has been squashed. If you compare the two freaks of nature nominated to the Supreme Court by president Zero, and the women who speak for the conservative movement these days (Palin, Malkin, Coulter) I think that you would have to agree with me that the winners are on our side.
Why are the women on the right so much better looking than those on the left? I'm not sure, but I think that it might have something to do with the Stoic idea that God makes that in nature which is good beautiful, and that which is evil, ugly.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Supreme Court has ruled to abide by the Second Amendmant--barely. A 5-4 rulling is dispicable. There is no reason why the rulling should not have been unanimous. The 4 dissenters have shown that they are not judges, but political idealogues. Once again, the left displays its allegiance. Their interests are not those of real Americans.