I'm being serious here. No sarcasm. This is a legitimate question that I'd LOVE for anyone and everyone to weigh in on, because honestly, I want to understand.
Criticism of Wall Street and corporate bonuses, which I'm not taking a position on for the purpose of this blog, has reached a crescendo. Everywhere you turn these days, someone ... from the general public to the media to Democrats ... are demonizing any CEO or any company that pays millions (or billions) in bonuses.
Heck, one executive recently was raked over the coals for more than a week over his extravagantly remodeled office.
That's fine and great. If someone ... or everyone ... wants to hold these people to certain standards in these tough economic times, particularly when they're receiving taxpayer-funded government bailouts, more power to them.
More power to the media, too, for expressing its collective outrage.
What I'd like to understand is why then are few in the general public, even fewer in the media, and no one at all on the Left side of the political aisle, expressing similar outrage over some of Barack Obama's Cabinet appointments?
I'd suggest there's a serious double-standard, dare I say a heaping portion of hypocrisy, in what's going on in Washington D.C. when:
A man (Tim Geithner) who failed to pay two years' worth of taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars can become Secretary of the Treasury ... in other words, the head of the IRS, the person who will oversee you and I paying exorbitant penalties, possibly losing our homes and/or businesses or even going to jail for doing the same thing.
Another man (Tom Daschle), another acknowledged tax cheater (only because he got caught), is nominated as Health Secretary ... a man who has spent his political career bemoaning the "tax gap" in America, in which those who pay the most taxes anyway are allowed tax incentives or tax breaks that prevent them from paying even more ... or criticizing corporations for operating or moving overseas to escape the world's second-largest corporate tax rate.
A woman (Hillary Clinton), who along with her husband, have received hundreds of millions THAT WE KNOW ABOUT from foreign governments in a plethora of dealings ... and many others whose details remain hidden despite Obama's claim of "more transparency in government" ... can become Secretary of State, a job in which she'll play a major role in shaping foreign policy.
A man (Eric Holder), who as deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, not only played a major role in the pardon of federal fugitive Marc Rich (a huge Democrat donor, by the way), but also the pardons of FALN terrorists despite the objections of the FBI and Justice Department, not to mention pleadings from surviving family members an associates of those murdered by those terrorists, can become Attorney General.
The list goes on and on. And what about all the lobbyist ties these and others in the new administration have, when Obama SPECIFICALLY claimed he'd put an end to such practices, let alone the appointment of such people to his "team"?
I asked earlier "where's the outrage" ... heck, where are the QUESTIONS? Why is no one even talking about this stuff? Why is the media giving this guy a complete pass on EVERYTHING, and, more important, why are WE giving the MEDIA a pass on not doing its job?
If you have any input, I'd truly like to be enlightened.
(Imported from Feb. 2, 2009)
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
We the paupers
You've seen them. They occupy the corner at the light at the end of highway off-ramps. They wander downtown streets and take up position outside stadiums, arenas, concert halls ... anywhere there is a large crowd of people.
Ever wonder to yourself what it would be like to beg for loose change?
To our government, it's almost as if that's what we've become ... a nation of beggars, crowded along a sidewalk waiting for passing royalty on the off-chance they'll toss a tuppence our way.
The economy has slowed, sputtered, hiccuped ... call it what you like, a slowdown, a recession, worse than The Great Depression. Inflation is building steam. Perhaps not overall. But in terms of what means most to many of us ... groceries and gas ... the pinch is happening.
And so to help us through this "rough patch" our government hatched this Economic Stimulus rot. Oh sure, lots of us will be more than happy to cash a check for $300, $600, $1,000. And the idea is for us to go out and spend our money, thereby boosting the economy.
But at the end of the day, what do we have? More stuff, probably. And the numbers rise in a lot of places, giving economists happy news. For what? A month? Two months? For however long it takes the government to distribute checks and the subsequent amount of time it takes the recipients to run out and buy something? And don't even get me started on the fact that the government still has no idea how it's going to pay for this nonsense.
I remember reading poll stories when this plan was being bandied about in both chambers of Congress, stories that suggested the majority of people weren't going to spend their money. They were either going to save it or pay off debt.
And I laughed to myself. Save it? For what? Retirement? Invest it, perhaps? $600 or $1,000? What? Somebody's going to buy 15 shares of Exxon? (Actually not a bad idea all things considered, but more on that later.) Pay off debt? Yeah, $600 is going to make a huge dent in that 10 or 20 grand of debt Joe Citizen is laboring under.
So again I ask. While it might be nice to get a check, a bonus of sorts if you will, how is that going to have any effect whatsoever six months from now? Easy answer: It's not. It's not going to spell relief on the ridiculous electric bills that are a month away here in Texas. It's not going to help anyone more easily afford that weekly trip to the grocery store. It sure as hell ain't gonna help when you stop to fill the tank this summer.
No, it's a quick fix, a bucket under a leaky pipe. Leak's not gonna go away, folks.
We've made a number of quick fixes lately. And we've managed to devalue the dollar on the world market to levels not seen in 30 or more years. That, in turn, is driving up our cost when we buy overseas. Like oil. And that, in turn, drives up the cost of everything else, because oil, gasoline, is what helps makes commerce go. At least in parts of the country where goods aren't toted to market on the backs of mules.
It'd be bad enough if we just had our monthly gas bill doubling or more over the last 18 months. And, you got it! Our government has a quick fix for that one, too!
John McCain says we should suspend the federal gas tax for the summer. A whopping 18 cents per gallon. Yes, I know, it's something. Here's what it is to me: I fill up twice a week. If I knock 18 cents off each gallon I buy, at the end of the month, I'll have saved $18.72.
Not quite sure what exactly that would do for me on the ol' monthly budget to be honest.
And I say "would" because it's a smokescreen. Even McCain's plan, if implemented, would drive up consumption, which in turn would only serve to drive up the price. Like it or not, we live in a supply/demand world.
Hillary, aka The Shrill, has an even more debilitating scheme. Of course, to a Lib, we can't cut ANY tax. So in exchange for suspending the federal gas tax, she'd institute a windfall profit tax on Big Oil.
We've covered this ground before, people. You own a business, you stay in business by making money. You have a profit margin, and you stick to it. The cost of producing your product goes up, you charge more for your product.
Or ...
Say you and two friends each have an apple. Friend A helps you out by giving you his/her apple. But, Friend A recoups the lost apple by taking Friend B's apple. Well, Friend B wants an apple. So he/she, in turn, takes one of yours.
Where are you? You and your two friends each have an apple. But, I guess, you somehow feel better about Friend A, don't you? That's the Lib way. It's nothing more than smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, you have no more than what you started with. Well, except good feelings.
Serve that up for dinner sometime.
I say we've had enough of the breadcrumb approach our elected "leaders" have been taking. We're not freaking beggars or serfs or some lower, ignorant form of life.
You want to stimulate the economy? How about letting us keep more of OUR OWN damn money to begin with. Keep that "stimulus" check and CUT taxes. I don't want a little more money ONE month. I want more of MY OWN money EVERY month.
Do that for businesses, as well. The confiscatory taxes on business in this country are hideous. And all they do is fuel inflation. (See four or five paragraphs up if you're lost.)
I don't give a rat's ass how much money somebody else makes. This is AMERICA, dammit. You don't have to apologize for making money. The more money more people make here, the better it is for everyone. That's the way it works. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.
And, for God's sake, stop fiddling with this gas tax nonsense, put a muzzle on the freakin' tree-hugging environmentalists once and for all, and tap into those oil-rich shelves in Alaska, the Dakotas, any number of places off shore and restore at least a measure of sanity to those bi-weekly stops at the gas station.
That is all.
(Imported from May 30, 2008)
Ever wonder to yourself what it would be like to beg for loose change?
To our government, it's almost as if that's what we've become ... a nation of beggars, crowded along a sidewalk waiting for passing royalty on the off-chance they'll toss a tuppence our way.
The economy has slowed, sputtered, hiccuped ... call it what you like, a slowdown, a recession, worse than The Great Depression. Inflation is building steam. Perhaps not overall. But in terms of what means most to many of us ... groceries and gas ... the pinch is happening.
And so to help us through this "rough patch" our government hatched this Economic Stimulus rot. Oh sure, lots of us will be more than happy to cash a check for $300, $600, $1,000. And the idea is for us to go out and spend our money, thereby boosting the economy.
But at the end of the day, what do we have? More stuff, probably. And the numbers rise in a lot of places, giving economists happy news. For what? A month? Two months? For however long it takes the government to distribute checks and the subsequent amount of time it takes the recipients to run out and buy something? And don't even get me started on the fact that the government still has no idea how it's going to pay for this nonsense.
I remember reading poll stories when this plan was being bandied about in both chambers of Congress, stories that suggested the majority of people weren't going to spend their money. They were either going to save it or pay off debt.
And I laughed to myself. Save it? For what? Retirement? Invest it, perhaps? $600 or $1,000? What? Somebody's going to buy 15 shares of Exxon? (Actually not a bad idea all things considered, but more on that later.) Pay off debt? Yeah, $600 is going to make a huge dent in that 10 or 20 grand of debt Joe Citizen is laboring under.
So again I ask. While it might be nice to get a check, a bonus of sorts if you will, how is that going to have any effect whatsoever six months from now? Easy answer: It's not. It's not going to spell relief on the ridiculous electric bills that are a month away here in Texas. It's not going to help anyone more easily afford that weekly trip to the grocery store. It sure as hell ain't gonna help when you stop to fill the tank this summer.
No, it's a quick fix, a bucket under a leaky pipe. Leak's not gonna go away, folks.
We've made a number of quick fixes lately. And we've managed to devalue the dollar on the world market to levels not seen in 30 or more years. That, in turn, is driving up our cost when we buy overseas. Like oil. And that, in turn, drives up the cost of everything else, because oil, gasoline, is what helps makes commerce go. At least in parts of the country where goods aren't toted to market on the backs of mules.
It'd be bad enough if we just had our monthly gas bill doubling or more over the last 18 months. And, you got it! Our government has a quick fix for that one, too!
John McCain says we should suspend the federal gas tax for the summer. A whopping 18 cents per gallon. Yes, I know, it's something. Here's what it is to me: I fill up twice a week. If I knock 18 cents off each gallon I buy, at the end of the month, I'll have saved $18.72.
Not quite sure what exactly that would do for me on the ol' monthly budget to be honest.
And I say "would" because it's a smokescreen. Even McCain's plan, if implemented, would drive up consumption, which in turn would only serve to drive up the price. Like it or not, we live in a supply/demand world.
Hillary, aka The Shrill, has an even more debilitating scheme. Of course, to a Lib, we can't cut ANY tax. So in exchange for suspending the federal gas tax, she'd institute a windfall profit tax on Big Oil.
We've covered this ground before, people. You own a business, you stay in business by making money. You have a profit margin, and you stick to it. The cost of producing your product goes up, you charge more for your product.
Or ...
Say you and two friends each have an apple. Friend A helps you out by giving you his/her apple. But, Friend A recoups the lost apple by taking Friend B's apple. Well, Friend B wants an apple. So he/she, in turn, takes one of yours.
Where are you? You and your two friends each have an apple. But, I guess, you somehow feel better about Friend A, don't you? That's the Lib way. It's nothing more than smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, you have no more than what you started with. Well, except good feelings.
Serve that up for dinner sometime.
I say we've had enough of the breadcrumb approach our elected "leaders" have been taking. We're not freaking beggars or serfs or some lower, ignorant form of life.
You want to stimulate the economy? How about letting us keep more of OUR OWN damn money to begin with. Keep that "stimulus" check and CUT taxes. I don't want a little more money ONE month. I want more of MY OWN money EVERY month.
Do that for businesses, as well. The confiscatory taxes on business in this country are hideous. And all they do is fuel inflation. (See four or five paragraphs up if you're lost.)
I don't give a rat's ass how much money somebody else makes. This is AMERICA, dammit. You don't have to apologize for making money. The more money more people make here, the better it is for everyone. That's the way it works. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.
And, for God's sake, stop fiddling with this gas tax nonsense, put a muzzle on the freakin' tree-hugging environmentalists once and for all, and tap into those oil-rich shelves in Alaska, the Dakotas, any number of places off shore and restore at least a measure of sanity to those bi-weekly stops at the gas station.
That is all.
(Imported from May 30, 2008)
Liars and hypocrites
There's your modern-day Democrat Party. The two biggest stars (three if you count Rev. Al and his Church of Global Warming) today are a liar and a hypocrite.
Let's start with The Shrill and her bullet-ridden arrival in Bosnia back when Slick Willie was president. She "misspoke," she said, of her claim that she had landed in Bosnia 12 years ago under sniper fire and that her traveling group had to run with their heads down.
We all misspeak often. We are, after all, human. Some of us are a little old in the tooth, too, and have a difficult time remembering last week sometimes. But enough about me.
Near-death experiences rarely fade to the back of one's memory bank, where they later become confused with insignificant details.
No, The Shrill is a liar, plain and simple. In this case, as well as one I was recently reminded of (but the media ... surprise, surprise ... hasn't picked up on). Hillary, in the mid-90s, visited New Zealand and met Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to conquer Mount Everest.
Hillary, the woman, professed to Hillary, the mountain climber, that her parents were so impressed by his exploits that they named her after him.
The media, of course, ran with this gem of a story. The First Lady finally got to meet her namesake! Slick Willie even included it in his book a decade later.
The only problem: Sir Edmund scaled Mount Everest in 1953 and did nothing of note (he worked as a beekeeper in New Zealand) until that time. Madame Hillary was born six years earlier on the other side of the world.
Fabrication with these people is a way of life.
Hypocrisy, meanwhile, flows on the other side of the Lib race to Denver.
Without going into overkill, because I'm sure everyone is MORE than intimately familiar with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright saga, we are asked to ignore the racial, hate-America ravings of an angry black preacher with whom Obama has maintained a 20-year relationship.
Actually, we're not asked, we're told. We don't understand, they say. And to question Obama's relationship with Wright or to even question Wright's attitude, makes US the racists.
Essentially, if you're on the left and scream profanely from the pulpit about whites and Jews and "God damned America" ... well, you're safe.
If, however, you're, say, a senior Republican senator from Virginia ... someone who more than a few higher-ups in the party are pushing to run for president some day ... and you use the word "macaca" ... ONE WORD! ... you are branded for life.
Or if, say, you're a Republican presidential candidate who happens to be a Mormon, your religion, along with some of its teachings from a half a century ago or more, makes daily headlines ... and somehow makes you unfit for office.
I've lost count, just in the last five or six years, of the number of instances in which Libs begin frothing and screaming INVESSSSSTIGAAAAAAATION! or HE MUST RESIGN! and the media simply will not let it go after someone on the right side of the aisle utters anything even on the fringe of being considered racist or sexist or what have you. Or if someone is in ANY way connected to anyone who has uttered anything that can be construed as racist or sexist or what have you.
But they'll defend to the hilt a guy like Wright, whose ravings cannot, with any shred of honesty, be taken as anything BUT hate speech ... and, of course, their presidential candidate to whom this man is some kind of spiritual swami.
Just more Lib bullshit, I say.
(Imported from April 1, 2008)
Let's start with The Shrill and her bullet-ridden arrival in Bosnia back when Slick Willie was president. She "misspoke," she said, of her claim that she had landed in Bosnia 12 years ago under sniper fire and that her traveling group had to run with their heads down.
We all misspeak often. We are, after all, human. Some of us are a little old in the tooth, too, and have a difficult time remembering last week sometimes. But enough about me.
Near-death experiences rarely fade to the back of one's memory bank, where they later become confused with insignificant details.
No, The Shrill is a liar, plain and simple. In this case, as well as one I was recently reminded of (but the media ... surprise, surprise ... hasn't picked up on). Hillary, in the mid-90s, visited New Zealand and met Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to conquer Mount Everest.
Hillary, the woman, professed to Hillary, the mountain climber, that her parents were so impressed by his exploits that they named her after him.
The media, of course, ran with this gem of a story. The First Lady finally got to meet her namesake! Slick Willie even included it in his book a decade later.
The only problem: Sir Edmund scaled Mount Everest in 1953 and did nothing of note (he worked as a beekeeper in New Zealand) until that time. Madame Hillary was born six years earlier on the other side of the world.
Fabrication with these people is a way of life.
Hypocrisy, meanwhile, flows on the other side of the Lib race to Denver.
Without going into overkill, because I'm sure everyone is MORE than intimately familiar with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright saga, we are asked to ignore the racial, hate-America ravings of an angry black preacher with whom Obama has maintained a 20-year relationship.
Actually, we're not asked, we're told. We don't understand, they say. And to question Obama's relationship with Wright or to even question Wright's attitude, makes US the racists.
Essentially, if you're on the left and scream profanely from the pulpit about whites and Jews and "God damned America" ... well, you're safe.
If, however, you're, say, a senior Republican senator from Virginia ... someone who more than a few higher-ups in the party are pushing to run for president some day ... and you use the word "macaca" ... ONE WORD! ... you are branded for life.
Or if, say, you're a Republican presidential candidate who happens to be a Mormon, your religion, along with some of its teachings from a half a century ago or more, makes daily headlines ... and somehow makes you unfit for office.
I've lost count, just in the last five or six years, of the number of instances in which Libs begin frothing and screaming INVESSSSSTIGAAAAAAATION! or HE MUST RESIGN! and the media simply will not let it go after someone on the right side of the aisle utters anything even on the fringe of being considered racist or sexist or what have you. Or if someone is in ANY way connected to anyone who has uttered anything that can be construed as racist or sexist or what have you.
But they'll defend to the hilt a guy like Wright, whose ravings cannot, with any shred of honesty, be taken as anything BUT hate speech ... and, of course, their presidential candidate to whom this man is some kind of spiritual swami.
Just more Lib bullshit, I say.
(Imported from April 1, 2008)
Nurse Hillary
Guess it's time I get back to this. Lots of misinformation out there, as usual. Tons. On some pretty critical issues, too.
I blogged several months ago about SCHIP, a government program created in the 1990s to provide health care for children in families whose income was "slightly" above the poverty line and, thus, disqualified them from receiving Medicare benefits. I use quotes around "slightly" because the program's benchmark was 200 percent of what was considered the poverty line or roughly $40,000 per year for a family of four.
Thing is, individual states were allowed to create their own benchmarks, and then those darn limits and standards got all pliable, and that's how we wound up with families making more than $80,000 getting free health care on the taxpayers' dime. Not only that, but the definition of a child apparently varies from state to state to the point that in some places, you can be 25 years old, live on your own and still, somehow, qualify.
Well, SCHIP, as anyone who follows the news knows, is about to expire. And The Shrill's plan, put into motion in recent weeks by the Democrat-led Congress, approved a newer and better SCHIP (with a drastically increased price tag, of course). And President Bush, as he promised he would, vetoed that bill yesterday.
And as I predicted earlier this summer, the headlines screamed "Bush denies health care for children!" The Libs, as I also predicted, ran to microphones screaming that "Bush hates poor children!" And the media, which I didn't need to predict, failed to correct the record.
Perhaps SCHIP wouldn't need almost twice as much money to continue operating if our taxes weren't insuring people who make more money than a lot of us do. Maybe the program could continue operating as is (which Bush would have gladly signed off on, by the way) if we weren't insuring 20-somethings who, apparently in Rhode Island, are considered children.
This is one of the oodles of reasons I cringe when I think about The Shrill becoming president and, with the help of what likely will still be a Lib Congress, instituting her socialized medicine scheme. You’ve heard about this one, no doubt. Nurse Hillary is promising FREE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYBODY.
Hurray! Let’s run out and vote!
Not so fast. Let's start with some numbers first, shall we?
Depending on which Lib’s lips are moving, there are roughly 45 to 50 million uninsured in this country. Mark my words that by the end of next summer, that number will grow to 75 million. It may even hit 100 million. After all, it'll be the height of election season, and the media certainly won't correct a mere slip of 25 million or so.
Libs occasionally will cite a 2005 census bureau statistic when using 45 million. There's another census bureau number from the same year, though, that's pegged at around 19 million. How can that be, you ask? Well, the 45 million represents those not privately insured. That word just seems to be omitted an awful lot.
Also omitted are a few facts the census bureau included in its findings. Among them:
--Over 9 million of that number aren't even Americans. They're foreign nationals living and working or studying here temporarily, and most are covered in their countries of origin.
--Another 9 million or so aren't even uninsured. They're on Medicare or caid or what have you. It also doesn’t include the more than 6 million insured under the SCHIP program.
(A quick injection here. I was talking with a co-worker about all this recently, and when I brought up that Medicaid factor, his response was "Medicaid?? You consider that suck-ass program health care?? My response? "No, I don't. I consider that government-run health care.")
--The census bureau also notes that the 21 million remaining includes a rotating population of sorts ... those who were insured but aren't at the moment because they changed jobs along with people who are between jobs. And then there is the vast army of 18- to 34-year-olds (the bureau puts that number at about 18 million) who simply decline health care coverage because they're single, seemingly immortal and would rather spend their money elsewhere (or live in states like Rhode Island, which sees them as really big children and allows them SCHIP coverage).
Side note: Many of those 20-somethings also do not carry life insurance. Or pay homeowners insurance. They live their lives unencumbered by the mind-numbing "just in case" trappings of middle age.
--The census number also includes a handful of the filthy rich, who don't carry insurance because their semi-annual trips to Doctor Improvement wouldn't be covered anyway, and, well, if they slip a disk getting down off the massage table, they simply write a check.
So where’s that number now? It’s certainly not a very accurate 45 million, is it? The actual number, and we can dicker over a million here or there, is hardly a reason, in my mind, to rip apart an existing system that works and institute something that’s been an utter failure everywhere it’s been tried.
Seems to me that if there’s a percentage (and a pretty low one at that) of the population that’s having a problem, we could offer a tweak here or there to help. The problem is overseeing these programs, because Medicare is basically bankrupt, and I’ve illustrated just the tip of the iceberg where fraud associated with SCHIP is concerned.
It’s just like the aftermath of Katrina, like welfare and several dozen other government programs. The waste is enormous, and that often is the case of mismanagement and fraud. The government has proven, time and again, that it cannot do the job. Any job.
But Nurse Hillary, as she has since 1993, wants the government to control all of our health care. In fact, her plan would make health insurance mandatory. Just like car insurance. In order to get a job, you’d have to prove you’re insured. Unless, of course, you hail from Guadalajara and aren’t supposed to be here in the first place.
But I digress.
What of the price tag? The Shrill puts that number at $110 billion per year, which is laughable considering the fact taxpayers already foot the bill for 40-some-odd social programs to the tune to $400 to $500 billion per year. And estimates for 2005 on what was spent for health care in this country was $2 trillion.
Nobody knows what the price actually will be. But I’d bet my last dollar that you could take her number and the most exaggerated guess out there, and the actual cost will wind up closer to the latter.
The Shrill is quick to point out that this isn’t government health care. And she’s right … to a degree. (This is really a precursor to socialized medicine, which she’s been on record pining for since the day she stepped foot in Washington, and something we can discuss in a future entry.)
No, this is merely the government saying we must all have health insurance.
Here’s the rub. The 10s of millions of us who can afford it and/or work for companies which offer it as a benefit already have it. That won’t change … yet. And those who can’t afford it or work for smaller companies that don’t offer it?
Nurse Hillary rides to the rescue! Well, actually, you and I do. Because for every social program, and this one is no different, there is a price tag. And for every government price tag there is?
You got it. A tax increase. In this case, The Shrill says “the rich” will write the checks. Libs always say that.
One way or the other, though, you and I always end up footing the bill.
(Imported from Oct. 11, 2007)
I blogged several months ago about SCHIP, a government program created in the 1990s to provide health care for children in families whose income was "slightly" above the poverty line and, thus, disqualified them from receiving Medicare benefits. I use quotes around "slightly" because the program's benchmark was 200 percent of what was considered the poverty line or roughly $40,000 per year for a family of four.
Thing is, individual states were allowed to create their own benchmarks, and then those darn limits and standards got all pliable, and that's how we wound up with families making more than $80,000 getting free health care on the taxpayers' dime. Not only that, but the definition of a child apparently varies from state to state to the point that in some places, you can be 25 years old, live on your own and still, somehow, qualify.
Well, SCHIP, as anyone who follows the news knows, is about to expire. And The Shrill's plan, put into motion in recent weeks by the Democrat-led Congress, approved a newer and better SCHIP (with a drastically increased price tag, of course). And President Bush, as he promised he would, vetoed that bill yesterday.
And as I predicted earlier this summer, the headlines screamed "Bush denies health care for children!" The Libs, as I also predicted, ran to microphones screaming that "Bush hates poor children!" And the media, which I didn't need to predict, failed to correct the record.
Perhaps SCHIP wouldn't need almost twice as much money to continue operating if our taxes weren't insuring people who make more money than a lot of us do. Maybe the program could continue operating as is (which Bush would have gladly signed off on, by the way) if we weren't insuring 20-somethings who, apparently in Rhode Island, are considered children.
This is one of the oodles of reasons I cringe when I think about The Shrill becoming president and, with the help of what likely will still be a Lib Congress, instituting her socialized medicine scheme. You’ve heard about this one, no doubt. Nurse Hillary is promising FREE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYBODY.
Hurray! Let’s run out and vote!
Not so fast. Let's start with some numbers first, shall we?
Depending on which Lib’s lips are moving, there are roughly 45 to 50 million uninsured in this country. Mark my words that by the end of next summer, that number will grow to 75 million. It may even hit 100 million. After all, it'll be the height of election season, and the media certainly won't correct a mere slip of 25 million or so.
Libs occasionally will cite a 2005 census bureau statistic when using 45 million. There's another census bureau number from the same year, though, that's pegged at around 19 million. How can that be, you ask? Well, the 45 million represents those not privately insured. That word just seems to be omitted an awful lot.
Also omitted are a few facts the census bureau included in its findings. Among them:
--Over 9 million of that number aren't even Americans. They're foreign nationals living and working or studying here temporarily, and most are covered in their countries of origin.
--Another 9 million or so aren't even uninsured. They're on Medicare or caid or what have you. It also doesn’t include the more than 6 million insured under the SCHIP program.
(A quick injection here. I was talking with a co-worker about all this recently, and when I brought up that Medicaid factor, his response was "Medicaid?? You consider that suck-ass program health care?? My response? "No, I don't. I consider that government-run health care.")
--The census bureau also notes that the 21 million remaining includes a rotating population of sorts ... those who were insured but aren't at the moment because they changed jobs along with people who are between jobs. And then there is the vast army of 18- to 34-year-olds (the bureau puts that number at about 18 million) who simply decline health care coverage because they're single, seemingly immortal and would rather spend their money elsewhere (or live in states like Rhode Island, which sees them as really big children and allows them SCHIP coverage).
Side note: Many of those 20-somethings also do not carry life insurance. Or pay homeowners insurance. They live their lives unencumbered by the mind-numbing "just in case" trappings of middle age.
--The census number also includes a handful of the filthy rich, who don't carry insurance because their semi-annual trips to Doctor Improvement wouldn't be covered anyway, and, well, if they slip a disk getting down off the massage table, they simply write a check.
So where’s that number now? It’s certainly not a very accurate 45 million, is it? The actual number, and we can dicker over a million here or there, is hardly a reason, in my mind, to rip apart an existing system that works and institute something that’s been an utter failure everywhere it’s been tried.
Seems to me that if there’s a percentage (and a pretty low one at that) of the population that’s having a problem, we could offer a tweak here or there to help. The problem is overseeing these programs, because Medicare is basically bankrupt, and I’ve illustrated just the tip of the iceberg where fraud associated with SCHIP is concerned.
It’s just like the aftermath of Katrina, like welfare and several dozen other government programs. The waste is enormous, and that often is the case of mismanagement and fraud. The government has proven, time and again, that it cannot do the job. Any job.
But Nurse Hillary, as she has since 1993, wants the government to control all of our health care. In fact, her plan would make health insurance mandatory. Just like car insurance. In order to get a job, you’d have to prove you’re insured. Unless, of course, you hail from Guadalajara and aren’t supposed to be here in the first place.
But I digress.
What of the price tag? The Shrill puts that number at $110 billion per year, which is laughable considering the fact taxpayers already foot the bill for 40-some-odd social programs to the tune to $400 to $500 billion per year. And estimates for 2005 on what was spent for health care in this country was $2 trillion.
Nobody knows what the price actually will be. But I’d bet my last dollar that you could take her number and the most exaggerated guess out there, and the actual cost will wind up closer to the latter.
The Shrill is quick to point out that this isn’t government health care. And she’s right … to a degree. (This is really a precursor to socialized medicine, which she’s been on record pining for since the day she stepped foot in Washington, and something we can discuss in a future entry.)
No, this is merely the government saying we must all have health insurance.
Here’s the rub. The 10s of millions of us who can afford it and/or work for companies which offer it as a benefit already have it. That won’t change … yet. And those who can’t afford it or work for smaller companies that don’t offer it?
Nurse Hillary rides to the rescue! Well, actually, you and I do. Because for every social program, and this one is no different, there is a price tag. And for every government price tag there is?
You got it. A tax increase. In this case, The Shrill says “the rich” will write the checks. Libs always say that.
One way or the other, though, you and I always end up footing the bill.
(Imported from Oct. 11, 2007)
War votes: What are they good for?
Absolutely nothing.
I'm sure y'all have heard that the House once again spent a week's worth of taxpayer money huffing and puffing to come up with a narrow decision to end the Iraq War and begin bringing troops home. The result of this posturing will be the same as if 20 of us got together and voted to end famine in Africa. Tomorrow.
Ain't gonna happen, folks. They may as well have voted in favor of Neptune moving a tad bit closer to earth.
The President of the United States is also known as the commander in chief. In other words, he's the head coach when it comes to war and our military. He calls the plays. The players don't. And that's all Congress is. Yes, they have the right to cut off funds and not play. The Libs just don't have the collective nads to do so.
So they posture. They run to TV cameras and microphones at every opportunity, which is all they've done for seven years. No wonder their approval numbers range anywhere from 16 to 24 percent. They piss and moan about the war. Six weeks ago, Congress voted in favor of a troop surge with the qualification that certain benchmarks had to be met by OCTOBER.
Guess with amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants (notice how they're called "migrants" now by the media? Wonder when they'll start calling prostitutes entrepreneurs?) off the table, they couldn't wait even half that long. They have no other agenda, after all.
But let's talk about the war for a second. As I've blogged about before, we get about a story a day out of Iraq. Most of the time, the day's story details a roadside or suicide bomb or firefight where a number of Iraqi and/or American soldiers are killed. Now, if the media were covering, say, Waco, Texas, I'd say we have a serious problem in Waco. But we're talking about a freakin' COUNTRY. One would have to assume, based on our wonderful media's coverage of Iraq, that NOTHING ELSE happened today, in an entire COUNTRY.
Imagine if, in World War II, the only "news" coming from Europe was that day's number of American casualties. Wonder how Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi would have dealt with 29 THOUSAND American soldiers dead in less than three months during the Normandy Invasion? Of course, we would have never been part of that, because three years earlier, we lost the Philippines and 2,500 American lives (not to mention more than 100,000 more who became POWs, many of whom died during the Bataan Death March) in five months.
But I regress. What of the Iraq War? Well, as I've also blogged before, the war went swimmingly in my mind. With relative ease, we deposed the late Sadaam Hussein, overran his military (which shattered the French Army's record for fastest modern-day retreat) and installed an interim government. "Mission Accomplished," which the Libs enjoy bringing up with the frequency of the sun rising in the East, was, in fact, mission accomplished.
Here's where we shifted into what I'll refer to as our Oprah Strategy, though.
We ... as in America ... forgot back in 1945 or so what war is. It's nasty. Shit gets broken. People die. But when you take a seat at the table, you play to win, because if you don't, the other guy will. We didn't defeat Hitler's Germany by being nice or civil or anything else. We pounded the living shit out of the Nazis. And when they retreated within their own borders, we continued pounding the living shit out of them. Did the same with Japan.
Guess we and the rest of the world had learned after World War I what treaties were worth ...
Well, we forgot it soon after. We allowed Europe to divide, and what was the result? Anyone remember the Cold War? Or have they stopped teaching that in school, too? Then there was that little "police action" in Korea, where we begrudgingly allowed Douglas MacArthur to go into North Korea but stopped him cold (fired him, in fact) before he could chase the Korean communists into China.
Quick review of that negotiated "peace" ... we still maintain a fairly hefty military presence in South Korea AND we're now dealing with a nuclear-capable communist North. FIFTY-SOME YEARS LATER!
And forget Vietnam. We didn't fight a war there. We placed more restraints on our military in that cesspool than a womanizing alcoholic gambler would find during a week's stay at the Vatican. If anything, Vietnam's lesson should have been that you fight a war to obliterate the enemy however and wherever. THAT is how you win the peace.
But we didn't learn. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we assembled the biggest, baddest coalition of force imaginable. The Iraqis couldn't run fast enough. But then we stopped. We pretty much walked away. And a decade later? Well, the WORLD knew what Sadaam was up to at the turn of the century, even if the Libs don't want to admit it now. But I've also posted Hillary's and her husband's quotes from the late 1990s, along with what other world leaders (including U.N. officials) said about what he was doing. And, after 9/11 showed us that oceans no longer protect us, we had someone in office who, unlike his predecessor, took an offensive stance.
And yes, I've heard the intellectually vacant argument that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That wasn't the reason we went in. Next to the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Sadaam's Iraq was making a strong bid to become Afghanistan's successor as the world's major staging ground for terrorism.
And it still would become so again ... QUICKLY ... were we to capitulate in our effort to build stability there.
Are things all rosy in Iraq? Of course not. The biggest problem is that we STILL don't know or have forgotten how to fight to win. We're playing by a vast set of rules while our enemy abides by none ... there and elsewhere in the world. We haven't captured/killed the bearded wonder who leads Al Qaida, or any number of the extremist organization's hierarchy, because we don't want to anger poooooooor Pakistan.
Well, know what? Phuck Pakistan. I'm relatively certain that if we had turned that mountainous region where bin Laden was hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan to dust in late 2001, the media would have focused on innocent civilian deaths, Libs would have called for investigaaaaaaaaations and so forth. But I'm also certain that Al Qaida's strength would not be what it is today and that Pakistan would have happily continued cashing billions of dollars in U.S. aid checks and cleaning up terrorist cells here and there, same as they're doing today.
And why would they? Simple. Because, as the saying with which I was raised went, you phuck with the bull, you get the horn. Same principle exists in Iraq. These militants run into poor Shiite neighborhoods? Or they hide in mosques? Know what? We blow these places to hell and back to get the bad guys ... which is the whole idea here, folks ... fewer Shiite neighborhoods or mosques are gonna house the bad guys!
But we're not fighting a real war here. Ask veterans who were around in the 1940s. We're wearing white gloves and playing nice, so people won't think badly of us. We want to confer rights we give to American citizens on prisoners of this war, whose fate doesn't even fall under the Geneva Conventions because they're not legitimate enemy combatants. (And if you don't believe that, READ the Geneva Conventions). Hell, we treat these captured terrorists ONE HUNDRED times better than any POW in the history of this world has been treated.
But then, we won't even look twice at a 25-year-old Muslim at an airport anymore for fear of racial profiling charges -- brought by him AND a great number of "American" attorneys, politicians and members of the media. But we'll practically strip search the 80-year-old Caucasian grandmother two places ahead of him in line and the 12-year-old Girl Scout three places behind ... because we're serious, by God, about security!
I'm sorry, but know what? Maybe we ought to just throw in the towel. God love the guys and gals in the military who are doing the heavy lifting.
But for what purpose? At least half this country has and never had the will to fight. And we certainly haven't shown, collectively, in a VERY long time the will to do what it takes to win.
(Imported from July 14, 2007)
I'm sure y'all have heard that the House once again spent a week's worth of taxpayer money huffing and puffing to come up with a narrow decision to end the Iraq War and begin bringing troops home. The result of this posturing will be the same as if 20 of us got together and voted to end famine in Africa. Tomorrow.
Ain't gonna happen, folks. They may as well have voted in favor of Neptune moving a tad bit closer to earth.
The President of the United States is also known as the commander in chief. In other words, he's the head coach when it comes to war and our military. He calls the plays. The players don't. And that's all Congress is. Yes, they have the right to cut off funds and not play. The Libs just don't have the collective nads to do so.
So they posture. They run to TV cameras and microphones at every opportunity, which is all they've done for seven years. No wonder their approval numbers range anywhere from 16 to 24 percent. They piss and moan about the war. Six weeks ago, Congress voted in favor of a troop surge with the qualification that certain benchmarks had to be met by OCTOBER.
Guess with amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants (notice how they're called "migrants" now by the media? Wonder when they'll start calling prostitutes entrepreneurs?) off the table, they couldn't wait even half that long. They have no other agenda, after all.
But let's talk about the war for a second. As I've blogged about before, we get about a story a day out of Iraq. Most of the time, the day's story details a roadside or suicide bomb or firefight where a number of Iraqi and/or American soldiers are killed. Now, if the media were covering, say, Waco, Texas, I'd say we have a serious problem in Waco. But we're talking about a freakin' COUNTRY. One would have to assume, based on our wonderful media's coverage of Iraq, that NOTHING ELSE happened today, in an entire COUNTRY.
Imagine if, in World War II, the only "news" coming from Europe was that day's number of American casualties. Wonder how Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi would have dealt with 29 THOUSAND American soldiers dead in less than three months during the Normandy Invasion? Of course, we would have never been part of that, because three years earlier, we lost the Philippines and 2,500 American lives (not to mention more than 100,000 more who became POWs, many of whom died during the Bataan Death March) in five months.
But I regress. What of the Iraq War? Well, as I've also blogged before, the war went swimmingly in my mind. With relative ease, we deposed the late Sadaam Hussein, overran his military (which shattered the French Army's record for fastest modern-day retreat) and installed an interim government. "Mission Accomplished," which the Libs enjoy bringing up with the frequency of the sun rising in the East, was, in fact, mission accomplished.
Here's where we shifted into what I'll refer to as our Oprah Strategy, though.
We ... as in America ... forgot back in 1945 or so what war is. It's nasty. Shit gets broken. People die. But when you take a seat at the table, you play to win, because if you don't, the other guy will. We didn't defeat Hitler's Germany by being nice or civil or anything else. We pounded the living shit out of the Nazis. And when they retreated within their own borders, we continued pounding the living shit out of them. Did the same with Japan.
Guess we and the rest of the world had learned after World War I what treaties were worth ...
Well, we forgot it soon after. We allowed Europe to divide, and what was the result? Anyone remember the Cold War? Or have they stopped teaching that in school, too? Then there was that little "police action" in Korea, where we begrudgingly allowed Douglas MacArthur to go into North Korea but stopped him cold (fired him, in fact) before he could chase the Korean communists into China.
Quick review of that negotiated "peace" ... we still maintain a fairly hefty military presence in South Korea AND we're now dealing with a nuclear-capable communist North. FIFTY-SOME YEARS LATER!
And forget Vietnam. We didn't fight a war there. We placed more restraints on our military in that cesspool than a womanizing alcoholic gambler would find during a week's stay at the Vatican. If anything, Vietnam's lesson should have been that you fight a war to obliterate the enemy however and wherever. THAT is how you win the peace.
But we didn't learn. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we assembled the biggest, baddest coalition of force imaginable. The Iraqis couldn't run fast enough. But then we stopped. We pretty much walked away. And a decade later? Well, the WORLD knew what Sadaam was up to at the turn of the century, even if the Libs don't want to admit it now. But I've also posted Hillary's and her husband's quotes from the late 1990s, along with what other world leaders (including U.N. officials) said about what he was doing. And, after 9/11 showed us that oceans no longer protect us, we had someone in office who, unlike his predecessor, took an offensive stance.
And yes, I've heard the intellectually vacant argument that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That wasn't the reason we went in. Next to the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, Sadaam's Iraq was making a strong bid to become Afghanistan's successor as the world's major staging ground for terrorism.
And it still would become so again ... QUICKLY ... were we to capitulate in our effort to build stability there.
Are things all rosy in Iraq? Of course not. The biggest problem is that we STILL don't know or have forgotten how to fight to win. We're playing by a vast set of rules while our enemy abides by none ... there and elsewhere in the world. We haven't captured/killed the bearded wonder who leads Al Qaida, or any number of the extremist organization's hierarchy, because we don't want to anger poooooooor Pakistan.
Well, know what? Phuck Pakistan. I'm relatively certain that if we had turned that mountainous region where bin Laden was hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan to dust in late 2001, the media would have focused on innocent civilian deaths, Libs would have called for investigaaaaaaaaations and so forth. But I'm also certain that Al Qaida's strength would not be what it is today and that Pakistan would have happily continued cashing billions of dollars in U.S. aid checks and cleaning up terrorist cells here and there, same as they're doing today.
And why would they? Simple. Because, as the saying with which I was raised went, you phuck with the bull, you get the horn. Same principle exists in Iraq. These militants run into poor Shiite neighborhoods? Or they hide in mosques? Know what? We blow these places to hell and back to get the bad guys ... which is the whole idea here, folks ... fewer Shiite neighborhoods or mosques are gonna house the bad guys!
But we're not fighting a real war here. Ask veterans who were around in the 1940s. We're wearing white gloves and playing nice, so people won't think badly of us. We want to confer rights we give to American citizens on prisoners of this war, whose fate doesn't even fall under the Geneva Conventions because they're not legitimate enemy combatants. (And if you don't believe that, READ the Geneva Conventions). Hell, we treat these captured terrorists ONE HUNDRED times better than any POW in the history of this world has been treated.
But then, we won't even look twice at a 25-year-old Muslim at an airport anymore for fear of racial profiling charges -- brought by him AND a great number of "American" attorneys, politicians and members of the media. But we'll practically strip search the 80-year-old Caucasian grandmother two places ahead of him in line and the 12-year-old Girl Scout three places behind ... because we're serious, by God, about security!
I'm sorry, but know what? Maybe we ought to just throw in the towel. God love the guys and gals in the military who are doing the heavy lifting.
But for what purpose? At least half this country has and never had the will to fight. And we certainly haven't shown, collectively, in a VERY long time the will to do what it takes to win.
(Imported from July 14, 2007)
Monday, July 6, 2009
Liar, liar (but what else is new?)
I've maintained since before the 2004 election that if the mainstream media did even 50 percent of its job and called Democrats (namely John Kerry then) on their constant misrepresentations of facts and endless array of blatant lies, President Bush would have been re-elected by a margin that would have made Nixon's landslide over McGovern in 1972 look like a dead heat.
The most recent example of that bias involves Hillary in Iowa last weekend, spouting her B.S. about Iraq and the authority that Congress gave Bush to go to war.
What she's saying now: "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority."
What she said in 2003: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision.
"With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective."
I guess there are people who can read hidden meanings into what she said in 2003 and come up with an excuse ... they're good at doing so. But you listen to what these Democrats actually said back then AND the fact they went back to the Senate floor to come up with a second, more staunch resolution backing this war, and compare that with what they're saying now ...
Kind of obvious, I'd say.
(Imported from Jan. 30, 2007)
The most recent example of that bias involves Hillary in Iowa last weekend, spouting her B.S. about Iraq and the authority that Congress gave Bush to go to war.
What she's saying now: "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority."
What she said in 2003: "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision.
"With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective."
I guess there are people who can read hidden meanings into what she said in 2003 and come up with an excuse ... they're good at doing so. But you listen to what these Democrats actually said back then AND the fact they went back to the Senate floor to come up with a second, more staunch resolution backing this war, and compare that with what they're saying now ...
Kind of obvious, I'd say.
(Imported from Jan. 30, 2007)
Shrillary is at it again
Hillary Clinton over the weekend, spouting her usual garbage about North Korea's reported nuclear test:
"Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now."
Typical. Two truths are at play here. The Libs say this kind of crap because they know that the media won't call them on it, won't ask the question that Mrs. Clinton deserves thrown in her face, and because they're counting on a majority of voters to be dense enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
The facts are that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, with an assist from Jimmy Carter, "negotiated" a deal with North Korea in 1994 that called for the communist state to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program and, in return, we'd help them build two nuclear reactors (for peaceful purposes ... wink, wink). Clinton also later agreed to drastically ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
What the North Koreans have done since that time is increase their nuclear capability with reactors, equipment, etc., that the Clinton administration gave them, all the while laughing in the world's face over the "negotiated" agreement. For Hillary to make that statement is ludicrous, albeit completely parallel with the Democrats' playbook of "Blame Bush" for everything.
What Mrs. Clinton and other Libs are saying is that if only we weren't concentrating so much on Iraq, we'd be better able to deal with North Korea, Iran, etc.
OK, what of the Iraq War's role in North Korea's and Iran's venture into nuclear weapondry? Well, let's say for a moment that we weren't in Iraq these last four years. How exactly would the diplomatic path that the Libs (here and around the world) insist we follow in every crisis situation change? They'd insist we talk and negotiate and only then pursue sanctions, and all the while, the North Koreans and Iranians would be busy doing exactly what they've been doing.
After all, they've thumbed their noses at every other negotiated deal. How did all those U.N. sanctions and resolutions on Iraq from the mid-'90s until 2002 work out? How about those U.N. resolutions that the Hezbos disarm in Lebanon? Heck, the U.N. even threw in some trooops to make sure that would happen. And when the Israeli-Lebanon conflict erupted earlier this year, turned out the Hezbos were better armed than some countries!
And that negotiated deal with North Korea? Kinda obvious how that one worked out, huh?
And we're supposed to continue talking to these people or pursuing "negotiated" deals or more U.N. sanctions? How many more deals do we need to make with these tinhorn dictators before we learn that they've no intention of living up to their ends of the bargains? How many more sets of U.N. resolutions and sanctions before we learn that body has morphed into an utter failure?
What exactly is it going to take for this country to wake up?
(Imported from Oct. 10, 2006)
"Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration, and I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now."
Typical. Two truths are at play here. The Libs say this kind of crap because they know that the media won't call them on it, won't ask the question that Mrs. Clinton deserves thrown in her face, and because they're counting on a majority of voters to be dense enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
The facts are that Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, with an assist from Jimmy Carter, "negotiated" a deal with North Korea in 1994 that called for the communist state to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program and, in return, we'd help them build two nuclear reactors (for peaceful purposes ... wink, wink). Clinton also later agreed to drastically ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
What the North Koreans have done since that time is increase their nuclear capability with reactors, equipment, etc., that the Clinton administration gave them, all the while laughing in the world's face over the "negotiated" agreement. For Hillary to make that statement is ludicrous, albeit completely parallel with the Democrats' playbook of "Blame Bush" for everything.
What Mrs. Clinton and other Libs are saying is that if only we weren't concentrating so much on Iraq, we'd be better able to deal with North Korea, Iran, etc.
OK, what of the Iraq War's role in North Korea's and Iran's venture into nuclear weapondry? Well, let's say for a moment that we weren't in Iraq these last four years. How exactly would the diplomatic path that the Libs (here and around the world) insist we follow in every crisis situation change? They'd insist we talk and negotiate and only then pursue sanctions, and all the while, the North Koreans and Iranians would be busy doing exactly what they've been doing.
After all, they've thumbed their noses at every other negotiated deal. How did all those U.N. sanctions and resolutions on Iraq from the mid-'90s until 2002 work out? How about those U.N. resolutions that the Hezbos disarm in Lebanon? Heck, the U.N. even threw in some trooops to make sure that would happen. And when the Israeli-Lebanon conflict erupted earlier this year, turned out the Hezbos were better armed than some countries!
And that negotiated deal with North Korea? Kinda obvious how that one worked out, huh?
And we're supposed to continue talking to these people or pursuing "negotiated" deals or more U.N. sanctions? How many more deals do we need to make with these tinhorn dictators before we learn that they've no intention of living up to their ends of the bargains? How many more sets of U.N. resolutions and sanctions before we learn that body has morphed into an utter failure?
What exactly is it going to take for this country to wake up?
(Imported from Oct. 10, 2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)