Stimulus or More Liberal Spending?

Suffice it to say that I'm one of the proud Conservatives who does NOT believe a stimulus plan is either necessary, nor likely to work. That being said, it is clear that the leftist government is not going to let us go without spending billions (possibly trillions) on stimulus plans because their recollection of history has them believing that government spending leads to economic security (even when this had never worked).

So, we are going to get stuck footing the bill for a stimulus plan. With dems in control of the House and Senate and a leftist in the White House, we don't have many other options. The lefts answer for everything is "spend more money." However, this stimulus plan is beyond absurd. Republicans who oppose it might be labeled as "being difficult" or "being soar losers" because of the economic "crisis."

Moreover, Obama and the democrats claim to want bipartisanship, but are unwilling to listen to the Republicans in the House and Senate who are pointing out many problems with this stimulus plan. Sure, they throw a few tax cuts in there to pretend they are working with conservatives, but they don't even reach Obama's "plan" to have 40% of relief in the form of tax cuts. The bill would offer a payroll tax cut of $500 to individuals who earn less than $75,000 a year, and a $1,000 credit to married couples who earn less than $150,000 a year. If that is tax relief than I'm the Queen of England.

Most egregiously, this bill is overflowing with pork that will force tax payers to pay for things that are in no way useful to stimulating the economy, even if you do buy into the argument that spending can stimulate. How do these examples fit into stimulating the economy or even creating jobs (though that is not the Governments job).


$44 million for repairs at the Agriculture Department headquarters in Washington.

$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall.

$360 million for new child care centers at military bases.

$1.8 billion to repair National Park Service facilities.

$276 million to update technology at the State Department.

$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install bomb detectors at airports.


$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles.

$2.5 billion to upgrade low-income housing.

$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research.

$426 million to construct facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

$800 million to clean up Superfund sites.

$150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed a hazard to navigation.

$6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.

$400 million to replace the Social Security Administration's 30-year-old National Computer Center.

$50 million outlay for the National Endowment for the Arts

$87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs that would allow states to expand their family planning services.

$726 million for an after school snack program.

I think these numbers speak for themselves. And is it any wonder why Obama and his buddies in the House are pushing this through as quickly as possible? Because anyone with half a brain sees this stimulus package for what it is: A liberal spending agenda masked as a necessity for the good of the economy. They are pushing through spending on products that the American public would not support and calling it "stimulus." It's 100% bull!

I hope you will call you're Senator and demand that he/she vote down this bill which in nothing more than stealing from the pockets of the American people to force a liberal agenda on us all.

Freedom of Choice, or Imposed Morality?

I've just discovered a very scary bill, backed by the left, that is making it's way around the House and Senate. It's called The Freedom of Choice Act. It would, if passed, invalidate every restriction on an abortion before the stage of viability, in every state, even those previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements of full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Let me first say that I am pro-choice. I believe the Row V. Wade was ruled on shaky constitutionality, at best, but I can't say I'm unhappy with the recognition of a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother, in the same way men have always been able to choose. Having said that, this bill is scary and completely unconstitutional. It is one thing to force a pharmacist to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill, as it would be anarchy to allow pharmacists to make a moral judgment on the perscriptions they fill. What if they are morally opposed to Vicadin or Oxy-Cotin, for instance? But it is QUITE another to force surgeons to perform abortions if the are morally opposed to the practice.

What does this mean for America? First of all, it is an example of the Democratic House and Senate trying to skirt public desire to pass liberal legislation now that there is an incoming liberal President. These "morals" that the left are pushing are not congruent with pubic opinion, but rather fit into the left's idea of what society should be. Some would call that social engineering. And it's interesting that the political party that condemns the right as "christian fanatics" and that thinks Republicans are trying to push morality on the masses, find it completely fine to push their own moral agendas.

And what does this mean for doctors? If the "big brother" democratic government is going to force doctors to perform abortions, no matter what their moral opposition to the surgery, then isn't that an infringement of his/her most basic constitutional rights? Even if I'm pro-choice, i cannot fault a person for being pro-life? Trying to protect unborn children is not a crime, is it? I guess according to Obama and the leftist nuts in congress it IS a crime.

And, finally, what will this mean to the medical industry? If Catholic Hospitals shut down, as they have threatened to do if this passes, the country's medical industry is going to be in dire straits. What is the left trying to do? Do they really thing imposing this sort of thing will be beneficial to the country? They cannot be that dumb? Do they really want to ostracize their Catholic voters? That's not smart?

And what about Roe v. Wade? The left declares that the ruling is under attack ever other minute (though one should keep in mind that Roe v. Wade has never been challenged, even under a Republican Congress and President). Don't they realize that by aggravating the pro-life community, which makes up more of the population than you might think, they are putting Roe v. Wade in danger. There is no way that the pro-life movement or the republican party would let a ridiculous bill like this pass into law unchecked. Therefore, its constitutionality will be rules upon (and will be foudn unconstitutional). Since one already has to squint to see the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, the right will not stop at this bill. They will, once they win a Supreme Court battle on the Freedom of Choice Act, move to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Don't the democrats realize this? Of course they wouldn't care. They are far left ideology, with Messiah Obama as their leader. They believe in a secular progressive world where all religions are allowed but Christianity, where morality is only the morality of the left, where socialism reigns supreme, where America is an apologetic country and Europe and Canada walk all over us. These things seem stupid, right? Well that's the leftist agenda, and if you think Obama is "really a moderate," you should know that he considers this bill "extremely important" and would "sign it immediately" should it make its way through the House and Senate. Interesting...

What Are You Fighting For?

This is an open invitation for anyone who understands the Pro-Palestinian movement to clarify exactly what you are fighting for.

It can't be for innocent lives, because Israel was attacked first and have lost civilians in this on-going battle with the Palestinians. Not to mention, looking at these anti-Israeli rallies, most are calling for the destruction of Israel, not caring what happens to the Israeli citizens.

It can't be for a desire to spread freedom through the world, or the Middle East. Because Israel is the only country that allows for gay rights, women's rights, Arab rights, Christian rights, etc. Palestinian authority figures, on the other hand, support a tyrannical theocracy that would force conversions to Islam an all its inhabitants...and don't get me started on how women in the region would be treated.

It can't be because Israel is an "illegal" state, because the UN (who these people look to for all important international relations cues) mandated its creation from land that the British held ownership of.

It can't be because Israel is the only entity to endanger the Palestinians because Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan were all given the opportunity to take in refugees, and refused to do so.

It can't be because they want a two state solution because the only player in this game who has worked for that goal has been Israel. Not to mention, these pro-Palestinians are not calling for a two-state solution, but rather a destruction of Israel(Good Luck with that). That is not a two-state solution, that is eerily like a movement over 60 years ago that called for the irradiation of the Jews from Europe.

Someone, anyone, please explain it to me because from a rational standpoint...there is not argument against Israel in this case. That is, unless you support the idea of wiping Israel off the face of the earth, and if that's the case, then how is it that Israel are the barbarians?

Political Correctness Will Be the Death of the West

Western civilization has overcome many murderous movements (Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Imperialism, etc), due in large part to our overwhelming understanding of right and wrong and our ability to combat these forces dead on. This is no longer the case. The greatest threat to Western society, and to the world, is Islamism, and we are not taking it seriously.

In fact, it the the same political correctness that was supposed to welcome Muslims, and help them to adapt that had created the problem of widespread Islamic fascism in our own country, as well as Europe. These people know how to use our legal systems against us, and scare opposition into silence.

Did you know that 40% of Muslims living in the United Kingdom wish to have Shariah Law implemented in Europe? That would mean stoning, amputations, mandatory veil wearing, and permission to beat your wife, just to name a few. 32% of Muslims in the United Kingdom believe Western society should come to an end. HELLO! ARE YOU LISTENING!?!?!

The problem is that European countries, in the attempt to liberalize and be politically correct, have made it hard to crack down on this growing Islamic problem. The European people are making as statement by going further to the right politically, but how can you fix this problem without infringing on the right of these people to practice their religion (even if it is crazy)?

This is not just a problem for Europe though. On the left-coast in San Fran, there has already been a push to remove the Holocaust from the curriculum as it might be offensive to Muslims. Ummmm, first of all, how is it offensive to Muslims? And secondly, Who the hell cares if it is?

This political correctness has got to stop. There is a right and a wrong here. Islamic extremest are WRONG on all counts, in all ways, with no exceptions. There was a time when we used to believe in right and wrong. Now, the media and the left tried to paint everything gray and make us feel morally ambiguous. This is why the Islamists might win. Not because we can't beat them, but because we seem to have lost the will to fight.

It amazes me that the people who fight so hard for the rights of Islamofacists are the same people that, if given the change, Muslims would have violently killed. Do you think Muslim states allow for gay-pride parades? Or interracial/faith marriages? Or women's rights? Hell no!

Wake up Western Society! Help us save our culture from being raped and murdered by a faction of people who should not even have a voice! If you don't there WILL be dire consequences because Islamofacists will not give us the same mercy we seem so happy to give them.

Leave Caroline Alone!

For all of you out there giving Caroline Kennedy a hard time, leave her alone! Sure, she's unqualified. Sure, she's missed out on the last few elections. Sure, she talks like a crack head on speed. But who really cares? Is she any less qualified than her would-be peers?

Think about it. There are roughly 530 senators and congressman on Capitol Hill. Of those 530+ people, about 30 of them are worth a damn. Congressmen and Senators in Washington are part of the problem and appointing Caroline Kennedy or anyone else will not change that. When the Washington idiots become comfortable they stop working for the people. That is what has happened in the House and Senate.

If you think that Senators work for anything more than themselves, you are terribly mistaken. The Senate is where good politicians go to die. It doesn't matter what you stood for before, once you are in the Senate you principles and morals go to the wayside in the protection of the elite Washington bureaucracy. Therein lies the problem with the 2008 election. There were 3 too many senators on the ticket. Sarah Palin might have been the butt of everyone's jokes, but she was the only one with executive experience and her principles still intact.

So, give Caroline the seat. Frankly, one only needs to be able to walk upright to do the job of a Senator. She seems to have mastered that. Hell, the majority of the people she'd be working with are little more than trained monkeys, so what does it matter?

Honk If You Are Nervous!

I know...I know...its in poor taste to criticize the President-Elect before he's even taken office. Whatever. I'm a concerned American so I'm compelled to point out a pertinent question that everyone keeps ignoring. What the hell is Obama going to do on foreign policy?

Now, we all know he was an utter embarrassment on all foreign policy questions during the debates (that was why he picked the ever brilliant Biden as a running mate). That didn't seem to matter much considering he was "oh-so-cool," but the campaign is over and now its time to be a big boy and deal with the problem that has faced George W. Bush for the last 7+ years: The Global War on Terror.

Sure, he wooed the American public with pipe dreams of "redistribution of wealth," paying for our gas and taxes, offering health care to the masses...but what good will any of these things do in a world polluted by the toxic affliction of Terrorism? On that issue, we are all still in the dark about what Obama could and would do.

Here's the problem: We've got a number of serious foreign policy situations falling right into the lap of Barack Obama on Jan. 20th, not the least of which is the situation in Gaza and a possible nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. Call me a pessimist, but i'm not sure Barack Obama, with no experience, no reverence for this country, and no understanding of the magnitude of his new job can deal with these situations...nor can his entertaining side-kick, Biden.

We may not want to be the World Police, but the fact remains that we are the beacon the rest of the world looks to in these situations. And we are handing that responsibility over to a man who is best known for surfing, teaching law, and wearing he baseball cap backward at the gym? I'm nervous as hell...honk if you're with me!

Even more interesting is the populous response. While people were crying in the streets to get Obama elected, while people lined up for miles to hear him speak, while Obama turned out a record breaking vote; none of his followers are around to defend his inaction on these situations. None of of his followers are breaking down the door to talk about Israel/Palestine. None of his followers are even talking about his absurd economic plan. Seems to me they were CRYING for change, but they don't even really care what kind of change that is.

Obama was a movement, not a set of ideas. He was a symbol, not a leader. And because of this, he will be devastating not only to the economy but to foreign relations. We did not elect a man who can handle these problems. We elected a man to make us feel warm and fuzzy on Jan. 20th. But after Oprah boards her plane back to Chicago; after hotel rooms in Washington DC return to normal; after Obama redefines his "Yes We Can" speech to a "Yes We Did" speech, and after the "new" wears off, what will Barack Obama stand for? The answer is: We don't know. And the problem is, we don't have the luxury of time for him to figure it out.

The United Nations of Idealism

Okay, I'll make this quick. Everyone is waiting on the edge of their seats to hear the statement from the United Nations on the issue in Gaza. Save the stress. I'll tell you exactly what that statement is going to be: They will call upon both parties to lay down their weapons and implement a ceasefire. I'm not a mind reader or a psychic...I just know that ceasefire is the UN's answer to everything.

And the idealists of the world will unite with the UN and call upon both sides to lay down their weapons for the "good of the people" mostly because the idealists of the world are too stupid to know how these ceasefires work. All that happens is Israel's hands are tied and the terrorists win. The end.

If Israel does not agree to a ceasefire, they are murderous evil-doers. If they agree, they are binding themselves to a system of rules that Hamas is not bound to, as they are terrorists, cannot be reasoned with, and are not even members of the United Nations. Hello, didn't we learn in Vietnam that you cannot fight a war against guerrillas and terrorists if you are playing by "rules" while they are not?

And how can we even put stock into an organization like the United Nations who supports the right of a leader like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak before them when it is Iran who is funneling money into the very terrorist groups who start this violence in the first place? The UN can't even stand up to Iran when it comes to their catastrophic nuclear program. I'm sorry...I really don't care what the UN thinks, or how they plan to "fix" the problem in Gaza considering their bureaucracy creates more harm than good most of the time.

Try explaining these logical factors to the "Free Palestine" crowed who would crap their pants after 2 minutes in Israel under attack. Its so irritating to clearly see the RIGHT in this situation and watch ignorant idealists fight for terrorist and those who support terrorist all because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

You tell me what "proportional response" is. What should Israel do? Should they strap bombs to themselves and walk onto buses, blowing up innocent men, women, and children? Would that be "proportional enough." Should Israel dumb down its military to be the same as Hamas'? Would that be a good strategic military plan? Should Israel just let these evil bastards attack them EVERYDAY and turn a blind eye? Would that make the whiners of the world happy?

No, seriously...i wanna know.