US will begin disarming. Is this a good idea?

From CNN:
The United States will swear off the development of new generations of
nuclear weapons and will not use its existing arsenal to attack nonnuclear
states that are in compliance with nonproliferation agreements, the Obama
administration said Tuesday.
Among other things, the new American stance is meant to provide an
incentive for countries to stay within the rules of the 1968 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, a senior administration official said.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Adm. Mike Mullen, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, announced the change two days before President
Obama is to sign a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia that reduces both
countries' missile stockpiles.
The new policy "recognizes that the greatest
threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between
nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation
to an increasing number of states," Obama said later in a
statement.
"Moreover, it recognizes that our national security and that of
our allies and partners can be increasingly defended by America's unsurpassed
conventional military capabilities and strong missile defenses."
Obama stressed that "preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism
is now at the top of America's nuclear agenda."
The position "provides a road map" to help achieve Obama's "long-term goal
of a nuclear-free world," Gates added. It removes a "calculated ambiguity" in
past U.S. nuclear policy while making clear that "this is a weapon of last
resort," he said.
Gates also noted, however, the new policy sends a "strong
message" to states such as Iran and North Korea.
"If you're going to play by
the rules [of the nonproliferation treaty], we will undertake certain
obligations to you," he said. "But if you're not going to play by the rules ...
all options are on the table."

Read the rest of the article at CNN

Normally, I'm not very much for the neo-conservative attitudes of war mongering and spreading Diplomacy through force.

But disarming the one remaining superpower? I'm not sure this is such a good idea.

Here's a real world example: My brother in law is a police officer on the east coast. His mid-size city's population was afraid of the police officers having shotguns in their cars, even in their trunks. So the chief took the shotguns away, and then took their tasers away, and if it weren't against federal law, I'm sure the chief would take away their pistols as well. All because people were scared of the weapons. Isn't that the point?

His department only carries their sidearms now. Their only option for any situation regarding use of force, from the baseball bat wielding teen to the automatic weapon toting terrorist. This is what happened during the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, where the responding officer only had his sidearm and could not stop the killer. The shooter killed 22 people before SWAT put him down. This is the reason officers are heavily armed, so that when the situation calls for it, an officer can stop a shooting spree.

Same with nukes and the US. If we stop producing them, but another county keeps doing so in secret, how do we stop them from using them? Invade them? They'll just start shooting off their nukes, at us, at their own people--much like the shooting spree killer. Often, and I hate to say it, but the threat of existing nukes will oftentimes do what diplomacy cannot: scare the living hell out of dictators trying to produce nukes.

To disarm the US would be like taking guns away from the police. All you'll have left is a bunch of meter maids.

Crossposted to Republicans United

Michael Chandler feels left out of recession.

Michael Chandler looks out the windows of his sun room, past the swimming pool and guest cottage, to the wide backyard where his two children are playing with their pet dalmatian, Scotty. At a time when Americans everywhere are sharing the struggle of a once-in-a-generation recession, Chandler can't help but wonder how he and his family fell through the cracks.

"It's just not fair," said the 49-year-old real estate developer and grandson of oil baron Duncan Chandler. "Everyone is worrying about an uncertain future and coming together to express their outrage, and I don't get to be a part of it."

Staring out at the ornate garden where workers were installing a large marble fountain, Chandler sighed and added, "It's like I don't even exist."

According to the multimillionaire, the past 18 months have been incredibly difficult to endure, as he is often left feeling excluded from an American populace that includes millions who struggle every day to make ends meet. Chandler, who watched helplessly as his enormous fortune easily withstood the market freefall, has been "completely left out" of one of this nation's most significant cultural moments.

"Everybody's suffering," Chandler said. "And here I am, not scrimping and saving at all, with no demoralizing periods of financial hardship, or frantic weeks living paycheck to paycheck. What about me, you know? Where's my struggle?"

"Everyone's supposed to get a fair shake at this misery," Chandler added. "Even incredibly wealthy people of privilege like me."

Throughout the economic downturn, Chandler has tried to tap into the recession and experience some of the sorrow and widespread desperation he has so cruelly been denied. Sadly, all of his attempts have been thwarted by his seemingly insurmountable stack of riches.

According to longtime financial adviser Ben Schultz, Chandler "constantly" inquires as to whether any of his diversely invested mutual funds are losing money, but is always let down.
"Michael's portfolio is better than ever, to be honest," Schultz told reporters. "In fact, his only real connection to the recession is that he helped to cause it by artificially inflating home prices and making millions off unstable derivatives trading."

Chandler has been so devastated by his inability to feel the same anguish and hopelessness the rest of the country is enduring that he took the extraordinary step last week of speaking openly with a chauffeur about how hard the recession has been on everyone. He even went so far as to tip the driver 50 percent less than usual in an attempt to show the man that he, too, was hurting financially.

"I kept waiting for him to say, 'Well, times are tough on all of us,' or 'Who isn't feeling the pinch these days, eh?'" Chandler said. "But he just seemed really angry."

Despite his best efforts, Chandler told reporters he knows that someday the crisis uniting so many of his fellow Americans will pass, and that the far-reaching anger will give way to the worship of money that preceded it.

But until then, he admitted, it will hurt to be excluded.

"Every month they announce tens of thousands of layoffs," Chandler said, "and every time, I'm not one of them. No matter what I say or do, it'll never be me. My only memory of this historic point in time will be the prosperity I have always known."
Added Chandler, "Dear God, when's this recession going to end?".

Source: The Onion

Well, Mr. Chandler, you have Republicans to blame. We just can't help but give you tax breaks. We just can't allow you to have 60% of your income be part of the Federal Reserve. Suck it up and be rich, dude. Just keep voting for Obama and you too can be part of the recession.

Former Obama advisor says efforts aren't enough

Former Obama advisor Steve Hildebrand, who played a huge role in getting Obama elected, has a few harsh warnings for fellow Democrats in Washington.

"I think that there is a real shot we [Democrats] are going to get
slaughtered in elections this fall if we aren't leading the efforts to reform
Washington," Hildebrand said. "We campaigned in '06 and '08, and if voters don't
see that change, we haven't lived up to that promise."
...
He came to the White House on Wednesday for a quiet meeting with the
president's senior adviser, David Axelrod, to express a fear that Republicans
are seizing the high ground on cleaning up Washington, on issues such as the
ethics probe of Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York.

Hildebrand is pushing for a strong outside body to oversee congressional
ethics so that lawmakers are no longer policing themselves, and he is lobbying
on behalf of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would limit federal campaign
contributions to $100 to try and cut the influence of big money donations.

"Voters want solutions, but voters know that it starts with getting
money out of politics first," Hildebrand said before his meeting with Axelrod.
"And I'm going to push that with David, I'm going to push that with anyone that
will listen."

Pressed on whether the president is doing enough on lobbying and
campaign finance reform, Hildebrand said, "I don't think anyone in Washington is
doing enough on this."
...
"Point is, things [are] happening today in Washington under Democratic
leadership that were happening under Republican leadership that we went after pretty hard as a party," Hildebrand said. "We went after that culture of corruption, and I don't believe there is a culture of corruption, but I do
believe there is an image problem that Washington in general has to deal with.
And Democrats are in trouble now and if they don't do anything."

Read the rest of the article here.

I liked some of his ideas, as well as his criticism of the Democrats in Washington. They campaigned on some big promises, and so far, most of them just haven't materialized, if not flat out broken. Sure, little promises have been kept. But big ones, like transparency, closing GTMO, executive priviledge, DADT, and ending croneyism? Those I am still waiting for, and I'm sure many others are as well.

It's nice to hear this from a Democrat, though.

Ron Paul tells Cheney to STFU

CNN:
(CNN) – Dick Cheney is taking criticism from at least one member of his own party over the former vice president's recent and persistent criticisms of the Obama administration's handling of national security issues.
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and upstart 2008 presidential candidate, told CNN's Larry King Monday night Cheney is in no place to criticize Obama's handling of the war on terrorism.
"I think he had his eight years, and he's caused a lot of trouble for our country and perpetuated a war in Iraq unnecessary and wrong-headed," said Paul. "I would say it would be best he not be so critical right now."
Paul was a constant critic of the Iraq war during his unsuccessful presidential run. While he is currently not seeking a higher office, his son, Rand, is seeking the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky.
Paul's comments come several days after Cheney released a tough-worded statement criticizing the president's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day.
"He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war," Cheney said in the statement. "He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."'
White House Communications Director Dan Pffeifer later responded the president "is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action."
----------------------------
I knew I liked Ron Paul. Haven't I been saying this since January of 2009? Hmmm...Cheney needs to shut his mouth unless he's ready to offer real alternatives to Obama's strategies. So far, all he seems to do is naysay and tell Obama to go back to his and Bush's [failed] strategies. If you want to be a real leader, admit your administration screwed up and stop trying to tell Obama to continue to do what you did, what we voted against in November '08...maybe come up with something new for once.

Obama to send 30,000 troops

Washington (CNN) - President Obama is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and is ordering military officials to get the reinforcements there within six months, White House officials told CNN Tuesday.

The president, whom Republicans had accused of "dithering" over the decision, came to the conclusion that the deployment needs to be accelerated to knock back the Taliban, the officials said.

The push for a speedy deployment surprised some observers, because White House officials who defended Obama's slow pace of coming to a decision had said the Pentagon wouldn't be able to get new troops to Afghanistan that quickly anyway.

Asked to explain that seeming contradiction, a White House official told CNN: "The president is saying this has to happen, so the military will make it happen."

------------------------------------------

I'm glad the president finally made a decision on Afghanistan. I mind that he took time to make the decision, that way he makes a sound one. What I do mind is that Obama was voted into office to change things, to be something different. And mostly what I've seen this last [almost] year has been a lot of political pandering. Decisions based more on polls and opinion than on actually doing what needs to be done. I'd rather have a President who makes decisions I don't agree with, but whom I trust is making those decisions because he believes they are the right ones, not because a poll told him to.

Obama needs to step up his game. I believe he is, and I hope the next three years are years of decisions from the man. He needs to do what he promised and make it happen. Once this healthcare debate is over, he needs to make those policies and decisions that will define his presidency. I just hope we don't look back at Obama as the president of polls.

Bush/Obama Derangement Sydrome

I've been running into a lot of Obama Derangement Syndrome recently. In fact, it's why I started blogging. The right, who coined the term Bush Derangement Sydrome in response to the Left's irrational paranoia that George W. Bush was going to turn the country into a Nazi State, has had an equally ridiculous reaction to Barack H. Obama, which has been consequently similarily named Obama Derangement Syndrome. Read my last post's comments and you'll see exactly what I mean.

But let's look at Bush Derangement syndrome first. According to Wikipedia's entry on it, Bush Derangement Syndrome was coined by the conservative political columnist and pyschiatrist Charles Krausthhammer in 2003. He defined it as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush". The entry further says that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic, which is exactly what I'm seeing in many of those that find fault no matter what Obama does. That is irrational and paranoid.

Just as Bush didn't turn this State into a Republican paradise with the government's cameras in everybody's bedrooms, neither will Obama turn us into some socialistic State where the rich aren't anymore and the poor are now the middle class.

People, calm down.

Bailouts DID help...but at what cost?

Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General in Charge of oversight for the bailouts, essentially a government watchdog, is releasing a report today in which he gives a blunt assessment for the TARP bailouts started under Bush and expanded by Obama: The Bailouts saved our economy, but cost us more in the long term.

TIME:

[Barofsky] said the $700 billion bailout for the financial industry played a major role in rescuing the economy over the last year but also engendered anger and distrust among Americans because of secrecy and confusion about the way the program was handled...

"Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success," he wrote, "Treasury's actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP."

Barofsky said public suspicion was fed by Treasury's decision not to require banks to report how they used their rescue money and its "less-than-accurate" statements describing the financial condition of nine large banks that benefited from large infusions of aid...

Overall, Barofsky said the cost of preventing a financial collapse fell into three categories:

•Taxpayers: The government has spent more than $454 billion through TARP programs. Forty-seven TARP recipients have paid back nearly $73 billion. That means more than $317 billion remains available. The program is set to end Dec. 31, but the administration could seek an extension until next October. Despite the repayments several of the program are not expected to yield returns to the taxpayer, including a $50 billion mortgage modification plan and some of the money injected into auto companies.

•The integrity of the industry: Many firms considered "too big to fail" last year, and thus in need of government assistance, are even bigger now. "Absent meaningful regulatory reform, TARP runs the risk of merely reanimating markets that had collapsed under the weight of reckless behavior," the report sates.

•The credibility of the government: Barofsky wrote that public antipathy for the bailout is fueled by "the lack of transparency in the program." Over the course of the year, Barofsky has called on the Treasury Department to seek more information from banks on how they use their taxpayer assistance.
---------------------------------------------

Basically, the bailouts worked in the short term. But because of government ineptitude and all the secrecy, distrust has been seeded instead of consumer confidence, which is what was really needed for the market to correct itself. A full disclosure and better oversight in the bailouts would've helped, but both Bush and Obama almost gave the money away without really looking at the causes of the collapse; in essence both Presidents merely put a bandaid on an infected shotgun wound, when what we really needed was to fix the root of the problem and cover the wound. We should've given the bailouts and broken up the "too big to fail" companies to make sure it never happened again.

W.T.F. Obama wins Nobel Peace prize?

What the...?! Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is alright, whatever, but the Nobel peace prize? C'mon! For what?!?!

Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, yeah, I'm proud that our President got it, that the USA got it, but seriously? Obama has done nothing to deserve it. In fact, he would have had to have been nominated by February 1st, 11 days into his presidency! (thanks Tao)

He was awarded the prize for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Really. What efforts?

For ending the war in Iraq? Oh wait, we're still on Bush's timetable for withdrawal. For ending the war in Afganistan? No, we're putting more troops there. Oh, that's right. For beating the taliban out of Afganistan. Wait again, they control more now than before! And we're sending drones into Pakistan now to fight them! So yeah, Obama sure ended war, the antithesis of peace.

Maybe he got it for closing Guantanamo. Oh, nevermind. He hasn't done that, either. Maybe for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Nope.

I've got it! His speeches have brokered peace in Israel between Israel and Palestine! Oops, they are still killing each other!

Damn. Obama sure hasn't done much of anything after all. He sure deserves the peace award.

Distrust of the Federal Government

The Distrust of the Federal Government, a cause currently being championed by the right, has begun reaching critical mass. With the tea parties, 9/12 marches, and bloggers blaming all the worlds' ills on the Federal Government in general, and Obama specifically, something was bound to happen.

And happen it did, with the murder of Bill Sparkman, a Federal Census Bureau field worker, who was found strung up in a remote section of the National Forest in Kentucky, with the word "Fed" written on his chest.

Currently, people like Glen Beck are trying to fan the revolutionary flames, with his quoting of obscure provisions of the US Constitution, mis-interpreting what the founding fathers intended in States vs. Federal power, taking portions of our history and lamenting a golden age and laws that were in actuality not about States rights, but about continuing slavery indefinately. The founding fathers disagreed amongst themselves whether power should be centralized in the Federal Government or in the States, and they never specified which. We decided to mix them when we went to war with the South, prohibiting them from secession in order to keep the Union strong, which is why we won World Wars I and II, not to mention the Cold War. We wouldn't have been able to win any of them had we been a fractured nation of State-Countries with nothing more than a Federal Mail service for the president to preside over.

I only forsee more of this in the current political climate. While the anti-government sentiment is currently being sown by the Republican Right, it wasn't too long ago it was the Democratic Left when Bush was in office. Both sides are guilty, and both sides forget their own atrocities when the other is in office. The PATRIOT act, Gtmo, wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition are quickly forgotten by the right, while the left forgets it was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall, and it is them that currently is printing trillions of dollars to stop a recession and reinflate the bubble that burst last year.

This has got to stop. The Federal Government, for the most part, does what it is supposed to do. Looks out for the common good. It overreaches at times, and that's why we have checks and balances. But labelling someone as treasonous because they support one party or another is ridiculous, and it needs to stop. Otherwise, more people are going to get strung up on trees.

Dept. of Justice tightening "State Secrets"

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department will continue Bush administration attempts to block certain lawsuits by claiming they threaten state secrets, but the agency announced Wednesday it will try to curb the use of such claims in the future.
Attorney General Eric Holder said he and a group of Justice Department lawyers will personally review such claims.
During the Bush administration, the so-called state secrets privilege was invoked to quash lawsuits filed by people claiming they had been tortured or illegally wiretapped.
The Bush administration argued in those cases -- and the Obama administration still argues in a few cases alive in the courts -- that the lawsuits must be dismissed because evidence in the case would harm national security.
In a statement, Holder said the new policy ''sets out clear procedures that will provide greater accountability and ensure the state secrets privilege is invoked only when necessary and in the narrowest way possible.''
The administration's move could quell efforts in Congress to pass a law curbing the use of state secrets claims.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Wednesday's announcement, but added he remains ''especially concerned'' that the government should be required to show significant evidence to a judge when seeking to assert the privilege, and said he hoped the Obama administration would work with Congress to establish such a requirement.
Under the new approach spelled out by Holder, an agency trying to hide such information would have to convince the attorney general and a panel of Justice Department lawyers that its release would compromise national security.
In the past, such government claims of state secrecy required a lower standard of proof that the information was dangerous, as well as the approval of fewer officials.
The Justice Department press release said the government will also submit evidence to a judge to buttress its claims of state secrets, but Holder's actual legal memo to department lawyers makes no mention of sharing information with judges.
That has been a highly contentious issue in previous state secrets cases.
Asked why Holder's memo does not instruct government lawyers to share evidence with judges, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the new policy will be conveyed internally.
The Bush administration was criticized for invoking state secrets claims in lawsuits challenging post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism programs, and the incoming Obama administration had promised a thorough review of such claims.
Yet in conducting its review, the Obama administration has continued to assert the privilege in all the current cases.
In one lawsuit brought by a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, government lawyers changed their reasoning for invoking the state secrets privilege, but are still asserting it.
The judge in that case ridiculed the effort as two-faced.
''The government's new refrain is heads you lose, tails we win,'' U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth wrote in a recent decision, which was overturned on appeal.

Source

Two things I put emphasis on. First: Obama is a hypocrite. As Tao says, Obama really isn't much different from Bush on most major issues. Iraq withdrawal timetable? Bush's. The Afghanistan war? Bush's. The Bailouts? A continuation of Bush's. Guantanamo Bay? Kept it open, just like Bush did. States Secrets? Just like Bush.

Really, Obama is the democrat version of G.W.B.

Second: In our Federal Government, we have always had checks and balances. States Secrets should be no different. Otherwise, the Executive Branch can (and did) just use it to cover their backsides. We need a judge to review the evidence and decide whether or not it is actually sensitive. If not, then proceed with the case. If it is sensitive, throw the case out. 'Nuff said.

Call Obama's bluff

I read an interesting commentary this morning over at CNN by Gloria Borger. In it, she says the GOP should "call Obama's bluff" on bipartisanship. He says he wants a BiPartisan bill, and both sides say they agree on around 80% of the bill, so why not draft up their own bill on the 80% they agree on? The GOP would look like heroes, and they would be calling Obama's bluff, essentially forcing him to cave.

The GOP's bill should get rid of the mandatory coverage thing. That's stupid, just as comparing it to auto insurance. You are only required to carry auto insurance coverage for your car if you own and drive it, and you only nare required to carry liability insurance. There really isn't a valid comparison to be found here.

The GOP bill should keep other parts of the Senate's bill, such as barring insurance companies from dropping a policyholder in the event of illness as long as that person had paid the premium in full. That should be illegal.

It also should bar insurance companies from refusing to pay for procedures if the policyholder has paid. I know this one from experience: my sister's doctor recommended an MRI because of my sister's dizzyness and chronic earraches. The insurance company denied the claim, saying an MRI was "experimental." My parents paid for it anyway, massively increasing their debt. Good thing they paid for it. The MRI found a life-threatening condition just in time to get her treatment. If they had not, she would have died months ago. And that is unacceptable.

In the current bill there are other things the GOP should keep, such as making it illegal for insurers to have annual caps or lifetime limits. If you pay your premium, the insurance companies need to provide the service you paid for. Period.

There are other things in the new bill unveiled today that the GOP should keep, while they throw out other things that cannot be agreed upon. Call the President's bluff. Stop acting partisan, and do what is best for us.

Supply Side/Reaganomics/Trickle Down: Does it really work?

My friend Josh and I have a sort of perpetual debate going about the theory of "supply side" economics and whether or not it worked. Neither one of us specialized in Economics, but both of us work in the financial sector (he is an accountant, I am in banking). He contends that it works, and I argue that it did not, as we have been using supply side economics in roughly 20 of the last 30 years.



This post is my attempt at trying to understand supply-side economics.



Basically, supply-side economics supporters claimed that by cutting taxes on the top earners in our society that tax revenues would increase, as well as "trickle-down" to the general populace because the top earners are the ones that create jobs. In essence, supply-side economics cuts taxes to the top earners in order to increase supply, since our society runs on supply and demand.



Proponents used the Laffer Curve to theorize that in order to maximize federal revenue one couldn't go too low with tax rates, nor too high. This is true. But Reagan and his financial advisors (and every following Republican President that has used this since) misunderstood the Laffer Curve, thinking that every tax cut would increase revenue. But that is simply not true. If you decrease taxes too much, revenue goes down. Basically, tax rates were far higher during the Kennedy administration than they are now (50-60% vs. today's 35-40% for top-tier earners). They were cut, and revenues went up. But that was the maximization. It already happened in those days. Reaganomics worked for Reagan. But that was the highest part of the Laffer Curve. Continuing to cut, as Bush 43 did, led to our problems today. But this is just the Federal Revenue side of this.

On the public side of this, or the "trickle-down" side, which contends that increasing the revenues for the highest earners will trickle down into the pockets of even the poorest. The rich business owner will gain more in money, invest more of it into his company, hire more workers, raise wages, and the middle class will earn more, which goes to the Starbucks and McDonalds and to the companies that employ the lower class, and they too will get hired more and increased wages. Sounds great, doesn't it? But it doesn't work out that way in reality. Business owners have always looked for the bottom line. But unlike the '80s, when Reagan employed Reaganomics, when it was better for the bottom line to hire American workers and raise wages to keep them happier at your company rather than the competition's, now it has become cheaper to outsource. "Trickle-down" now longer works. It has become "trickle out."

Keynesian economics, however, advocate the laffer curve as well, but with a better understanding. They too advocate cutting taxes, but to the middle and lower class. This frees up more money in the classes that spend their money more freely. Money circulates more. The tax base increases, thereby increasing tax revenues. On the public side, Keynesian economics, a "mixed economy," is better described as "trickle-up." Sometimes, private enterprises screw it up for the macro-economics of a country, as we saw in last year's meltdown.

Keynesian economics utilizes the private sector pre-dominately, but realizes that once in awhile, the private sector needs guidance from the government and public sector. This is theory that saved us from the Great Depression and brought in the Golden Age of Capitalism (1945-1970). Keynesian economics is still capitalism, folks. It just uses the government to make sure that the economy "trickles-up" instead of down, which works better. It isn't the middle class that outsources. It is the upper-class. I'd take "trickle up" over "trickle out" any day.

Let me know if I missed anything. Again, this is just my non-economist's view of macro-economics.

Birthers: Enough. You are all idiots.

Obama is the President. There is nothing you nutty conspiracy theorists can do about it. Get over it. If you disagree with him and his policies, vote someone else in on November 4th, 2012. But until then, there isn't anything you can do whatsoever, especially by claiming this nonsensical craziness. The State of Hawaii says he's a citizen. There are hi-def pictures up all over the internet of the birth certificate (and for those nutjobs who still doubt, I have them posted below as well!)...


I believe this sums it up quite nicely.


“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital
records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement
or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”


Additional links:
http://factcheck.org/2009/07/the-last-word-we-wish/
http://factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Another idiot thinks Obama isn't our President...

...and is trying to use it to get out of military service? W.T.F.?

Source

US Reservist Stefan Frederick Cook received his active duty orders on June 9th, and by July 8th he filed suit under lawyer Orly Taitz, the slime lawyer heading up the class action lawsuit against Obama, challenging his Presidency. This is ridiculous. Cook wanted "conscientious objector" status, because he didn't want to go to Afghanistan if the President isn't a Republican. Oops, I mean because he believes that the President isn't the President. What? This turncoat should be court-marshalled for this. Isn't there some kind of military code against bringing frivilous lawsuits against your Commander-in-Chief?

Good thing the judge had some sense. US District Judge Clay Land dismissed the lawsuit today because the soldier had already received a reprieve from the military, rendering the lawsuit moot. But the Judge had some good stuff to say about this stupid lawsuit:

..."[The Founding Fathers] concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected branch, should not inject itself into purely ‘political disputes,’ and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.”

But here's the clincher: Cook believes this crap.

"...[Cook] fears that if he executed Obama’s orders, he could be prosecuted as a war criminal
for following the orders of an illegitimate commander-in-chief."

But here's where he could, and should be, prosecuted in a court-marshall:

Land asked Taitz whether Cook requested to simply have his orders rescinded, instead of filing a lawsuit.

Taitz said she filed an Article 138 complaint with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen. An Article 138 complaint gives members of the armed forces under the Uniform Code of Military Justice the right to request redress if they believe they had been wronged by their commanding officer.

According to Ausprung, an Article 138 complaint has to go through the soldier’s chain of command. Cook did not go through his chain of command, Ausprung said.

Anyone who believes this garbage is an idiot. But using it to get out of military service? Wow. "Coward" isn't a strong enough word.

Republican and the Cap and Trade Bill

There were eight Republicans that voted for the controversial cap and trade bill that passed Friday. Those Reps were:

Mary Bono Mack, CA-45
Mike Castle, DE
Mark Steven Kirk, IL-10
Leonard Lance, NJ-7
Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
John McHugh, NY-23
Dave Reichert, WA-8
Chris Smith, NJ-4

On some conservative blogs, these eight reps are being treated as "traitors" and are being asked to leave the party. Not a good idea, conservatives. You really can't afford another eight Republicans gone, just over one vote. Dee, at Conservatism with Heart, has a better idea. If you are displeased (and in their districts), call them and let them know. She has links, phone numbers, etc.

I read a great article on this whole thing today on The Progressive Republican, which had some really great points on this whole thing. Basically, these eight Representantives represent districts that favored this bill (Chris Smith being the exception). The author of the article asks "...they were simply reacting to the demands of their constituents. Since when did it become unacceptable to do what one’s constituents want a member of Congress to do?"

Good point. These eight Reps are representing a district. They are supposed to do what is asked of them by their constituents, not their political party. Example: Mark Kirk's district, IL-10, was for Obama's plan 61% for, 38% against.

I wish more Representatives would actually vote on issues based on what their constituents want, and less how their political party's leaders (radio gods nonewithstanding) say they should vote.

By contrast, a quick survey of liberal web sites found no demands that the 44 Democrats who voted against the legislation be purged or punished in any way. This is why the Democrats control Congress and why Republicans won’t for a long time to come.

Obama toughens talk on Iran

As I said in the last post, Obama was right on this one. We shouldn't get involved in the outcome of a democratic election in Iran [again].

Just as was predicted, by myself and others, even Obama's mild rhetoric against the violence there has provoked responses from the Iranian government that those protesting are agents of the US, giving more ammunition.

Today, President Obama brought it up a notch.

"The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days," the president said, adding that he strongly condemns "these unjust actions."

In response to Iran's allegations that we are putting our agents in to instigate the protests:

"This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose."

In response to those that call for a stronger response, or even interference [again] in Iran's election:

"Right after the election I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was," he said.

So. Those of you on the right who have been calling for a harsher response: You have it. He has now condemned it. So, are you going to acknowledge this? Or are you going to find something else to complain about. If your response to this is further criticism, ask yourself this first: What would you approve of? Bomb, bomb, bombs away? If that is the case, then you are suffering from two ailments: Obama Derangement Syndrome, and if you are of the "bombs away" mentality, then you are suffering from neo-conservative ideology.

Source

N. Korea to fire missile at Hawaii

Reports today from Japan are saying that North Korea may be test-firing a Taepodong-2 missile towards Hawaii around July 4th to coincide with the US's Independence Day celebration. The missile reportedly only has a range of 4,000 miles. Hawaii is 4,500 miles from the Korean Peninsula.

Missile defense systems are ready around and on Hawaii, including radar systems and ground based anti-missile systems. Hawaii is now ready, and able, to shoot the missile down mid-air.

Source

As I've said before, in a previous post, I think Obama should order the missile shot down as soon as it enters international airspace. This launch is deliberately testing the US's resolve. We need to give the North Koreans something back: that we will NOT allow them to even come close to harming us.

Seriously, we entered Iraq because of the possibility of WMDs. But we won't shoot down a missile test last month? We better shoot this one down. The North Korean government is as unstable as plutonium. Oh wait, they have that too.

On Thursday, the independent International Crisis Group said the North is believed to have between 2,500 and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, phosgene, blood agents and sarin. These weapons can be delivered with ballistic missiles and long-range artillery and are "sufficient to inflict massive civilian casualties on South Korea."

Barack Dubya Obama: Part II

Thanks to the Impolitic for first posting about this:

Obama Blocks Access to White House visitor log:

So much for "more transparency"!

So much for "[the white house] is the people's house," not the President's.

Ugh.

As BluePitBull is fond of saying, if the voters don't want something that the politician does, "too bad."

Voters overwhemingly voted Obama in office based on his promises of "more transparency" and "change we can believe in"...so far, we're getting more of the same. I posted on another broken promise back in April. You can read it here.

Here we go:

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.

From the Impolitic again:

This isn't change we can believe in. Hell, it's not even a change and all these little incidents are adding up. I'm beginning to wonder if Obama wants to be a one term president after all.

PAYGO.

Finally, the President actually does something fiscally that makes sense.

PAYGO, a simple stragety for bringing down the deficits in the budget, is being pushed by President Obama.

"The 'pay as you go' rule is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere," Obama said, as he announced that he was submitting to Congress a proposal to make PAYGO law.

This is part of the same system used in the 1990s to bring down the Federal Deficit, under President Clinton and the Republican Congress.

Obama repeated his vow to halve the deficit by the end of his first term, and he said PAYGO is an important step toward making that happen.

"Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive," the president said Tuesday.

It would be nice if the Feds could do what the average citizen's household must do: Not spend more than we make, and pay back what is borrowed.

But Republicans were quick to question the administration's sincerity.

Republican Whip Eric Cantor charged that the administration's focus on PAYGO "seems more driven by polling and PR strategy than a serious commitment to fiscal discipline."
"It seems a tad disingenuous for the President and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to talk about PAYGO rules after ramming trillions in spending through Congress proposing policies that create more debt in the first six months of this year than in the previous 220 years combined," Cantor, R-Virginia, said in a statement Tuesday.

Republicans point to the $787 billion stimulus package as evidence that Obama is not following
his own advice.

Cantor and the Republicans have a great point here.

However, a group of fiscally conservative Democratic representatives known as the Blue Dogs say Obama's proposal is responsible and necessary.
"President Obama inherited an economy in free fall and a $10.6 trillion national debt," said Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, vice chairman of the Blue Dog Budget and Financial Services Task Force. "While short-term spending was necessary to get the economy moving again, our long-term fiscal problems became that much more urgent."

I know this seems very partisan. The Republicans against it no matter what Obama proposes, and the Dems supporting it. But I think it goes further than that. The Republicans, while it is true that they come off as whiny, have a great point. Obama, so far, has done the opposite of what he is proposing.

And the flip side, the Blue Dog Democrats, are supporting it. But I think it goes beyond blind support: they believe PAYGO is a good step, but even they doubt the President's promise to halve the deficit:

But when it comes to reducing the deficit, even the Senate Budget Committee's Democratic chairman doubts the president can deliver on his promise.
Asked if Obama could halve the deficit -- given the recent government spending --- Sen. Kent Conrad said, "I don't believe so. I don't believe anybody could."

So, to summarize, the President is finally doing something fiscally responsible. PAYGO is a great and much needed step. But it isn't enough. Let's see some more of THAT, please.

Obama's Speech in Cairo

Those of you who are regular readers of my posts and comments know I am not a total fan of everything Obama says or does.

But in this speech I though he was pretty much right on. I read the entire transcript, and you can too here, and was quite impressed. I didn't agree with all of it, but most of it was pretty good. Here are some highlights:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world—tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate...

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight...There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground...That is what I will try to do today—to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam—at places like Al-Azhar—that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed....

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—kept in his personal library...

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words—within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum—“Out of many, one.”

...Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders...So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations—to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not—and never will be—at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security—because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed—more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction—or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews—is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they’ve endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It’s easy to point fingers—for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations—the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them—and all of us—to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama says the difficult things here. He says that we are not at war with Islam, and that Islam must not be at war with us. We must all confront terrorism.

He calls both sides of the Israel-Palestinian conflict to stop mindlessly killing each other, and that Israel is our ally.

President Obama just gave the best foreign speech since the Cold War.

I just hope he follows through with his promises.