Many people have bought the lie that Obama was “wise” and “smart” and “un-Bush like” by saying little about the events in Iran during last weekend. The argument goes something like this: If the President of the United States tip toes around the situation and doesn’t say much then the despotic leaders of Iran, who ordered the shooting of innocent civilians, will somehow not criticize the U.S. and we will all enjoy hot dogs on July 4th.
So how did that whole silence thing work out?
From a story on Politico: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad compared Obama on Thursday to former President George W. Bush.
Reacting to Obama’s comment Tuesday that he is “appalled and outraged” by crackdowns in Iran, Ahmadinejad said, “Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.”
From Fox News: “Definitely by hasty remarks you will not be placed in the circle of friendship with the Iranian nation. Therefore I advise you to correct your interfering stances,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.
From The International News: “After the interfering remarks by American officials regarding the presidential election in our country, the Swiss ambassador in Tehran who represents US interests was summoned to the ministry of foreign affairs,” it said.
“Our protest was handed to the ambassador.”
From Agence France Presse: “The extent of Western and American involvement in Iran’s internal affairs is now clear,” the Shiite militant group’s deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Qassem, told AFP in an interview.
From Reuters: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Barack Obama on Thursday not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs after the U.S. president said he was “appalled and outraged” by post-election violence in the Islamic state.
The quotes could go on and on. What have we learned from this little exercise? Basically that saying nothing that might hurt someone’s feelings in Iran is a no-win strategy because America will be blamed anyway and that, in not supporting the protesters we only help the hard-line mullahs in Iran.
Goodness knows not being allowed into Iran’s “circle of friendship” is bad enough! I guess after Obama uninvited the Iranians to our July 4th barbecue we won’t be in any “circle of friendship.” Iran will instead enjoy UN food rations with the North Koreans who threaten to launch a missile at Hawaii.
What does it mean to be a Republican? Left wingers will assert that they are fascist and only concerned with amassing money, power, and influence. To a certain degree I would have to capitulate, but I posit that the synonymity between the Republican politician and the average citizen is more divergent than people acknowledge. I, myself, am not a Republican in the party sense. I would have to refer to the term republicanism, which is the doctrine of governing a nation as a republic, and not a democracy. To explicate further, democracy has the characteristic dimension of majority rule, and that majority rule can become tyrannical and abuse the rights of the minority if the governmental aspect supersedes its authority. And in my opinion, we currently embody that description. As for my political complexion, I believe an intrinsical element of a republic is negative liberty; “the freedom from interference and coercion by other people,” or in Isaiah Berlin's words, “liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons.” Any restrictions that are self-evident are imposed by a person or authority, and not by some innate incapacity or causal agent in nature. However, as with most things in creation there are counterparts, and the obverse of negative liberty is positive liberty.
John Jay, in agreement with positive liberty, would disagree with me, as he states in Federalist Papers No.2: “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of Government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.” Tibor Machan, who is a Libertarian, ripostes with the following in support of negative liberty: “...required for moral choice and, thus, for human flourishing," claiming that it "is secured when the rights of individual members of a human community to life, to voluntary action (or to liberty of conduct), and to property are universally respected, observed, and defended.” In furtherance, Isaiah Berlin eloquently stated that the unchecked advancement of positive liberty could invariably lead to a condition whereby the state could force upon its citizenry a certain way of life. The state would judge what was the most rational course of action and therefore determine that it's what the peopleshould desire, whether or not it was actually coveted. In response author David Kelley wrote this about positive liberty, “...imposes on others positive obligations to which they did not consent and which cannot be traced to any voluntary act.”
When positive liberty surpasses negative liberty you have a condition paralleling Thomas Hobbes', Leviathan, which was a book that postulated a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. The citizenry mired in such a compact have ceded all of their rights under the auspices of monarchic rule. According to Hobbes the sovereign has twelve principle rights:
because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.
because the covenant forming the commonwealth is the subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.
the selection of sovereign is (in theory) by majority vote; the minority have agreed to abide by this.
every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects, and cannot be accused of injustice.
following this, the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.
because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
to be judge in all cases.
to make war and peace as he sees fit; and to command the army.
to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
to reward with riches and honour; or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
to establish laws of honour and a scale of worth.
Do you see any similarities with our government? I will concede that the relationship may appear to be hyperbolized, but when viewed peripherally connections do begin to manifest themselves, so long as you orientate your attention towards the legislation instituted by governmental action. Meaning, the actions taken by our government have increased their power and influence, and the vehicle that manufactured this egregiousness has been noxious legislation. Their value, if any, is minute compared to the encroachment upon individual liberties. We have let them amass their puissance by removing ourselves from the equation, and sadly, has relegated us to a social contract void of any benefit. One only has to look at the actions of Congressman Waxman from California, as another example of the government superseding its boundaries. The Democrats hired a speed reader to read the “Energy and Climate Change bill,” a document in excess of nine-hundred pages. There is one caveat, he didn't finish it, and there was no real intent to do so (only reading an amendment). Jocularity ensued and all at our expense, are you still laughing? The bill went on to pass, as every other Democrat enforced legislation. Another act of a leviathan.
Still unconvinced? Immediacy of action has initiated governmental intervention, and our government has our best interests at heart, right? Inefficacy in government is well documented and to deny this principle infers a "disingenuousness". I believe, through introspection, an individual can come to the conclusion that they know what's best for themselves, and through self-actuation, will themselves into a reality that aligns with their own principles. Such an individual repudiates the idea of imposing coercive action to cultivate their ideals, because they know negating the liberty of another makes you no better than the government. A Republic would do well to have a constituency such as this as its base composition.
Do you know what happened back on September 9, 1850, 158 years ago?
California became a state.The State had no electricity. The State had no money.Almost everyone spoke Spanish.There were gunfights in the streets.
So basically, it was just like it is today, except the women had real breasts,and the men didn't hold hands.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tries to approve a budgetthat solves the state's $24.3 billion shortfall by Tuesday.
"It's clear that if the Legislature does not send a full budget solution to my desk by June 30, California will face an extreme cash-flow problem that will threaten our ability to pay for vital services," the governor said.Is California going to go bankrupt? The State has a projected $24.3 billion budget deficit for the coming year. Is it like GM "Too Big To Fail" as Democrats like to say. California’s fiscal controller, John Chiang, has called the state’s spending plan “massively unbalanced,” adding that the Golden State is suffering from a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression.
Despite the deepening budget crisis, the California Legislature failed to pass a proposed $11 billion in cuts. Maybe they want the American Tax Payer to bail them out also.
Coming from a man it is simple. Men are pigs, all men, no exceptions. Especially the Politicians. We can't keep our Dic!!!! in our pants. Not that that is an excuse, but this guy isn't doing anything to his girlfriend that the average politician hasn't done to the average taxpayer. It is however an interesting story. First the Governor of South Carolina goes "missing." Then there is a period of days where he is staff "thinks" he is hiking in the Appalachian Mountains. Then he shows up yesterday and admits that he has been "clearing his head" in Argentina ...... with his Argentinean lover. Then we here that his wife had kicked him out of the Governors mansion weeks ago.
So much for the man that stood a chance to defeat Obama in 2012. This pretty much ends his chances for a run to the White House. Besides ... don't we have a wonderful history of this sort of stuff? John F. Kennedy comes to mind. Then there's Bill Clinton. The Democrats, you will remember, were telling us that this Clinton thing didn't matter ... it was his private life after all.
Then we had John Edwards who's wife was dying of Cancer go off and screw around. Yet because Sanford is a Republican, the media have decided to take off on this story and make it part of the top items to cover in their news cycles. Why didn't they do that with Clinton, Edwards, Kennedy, or others...Because they were Democrats.
The one thing that bothers me the most about this whole ordeal is not the fact that he cheated on his wife, because that happens all to often unfortunately. It is the fact that he disappeared "Hiking in the Appalachians" on Fathers Day. (Hence the picture up top). He has four kids, and I'm sure they would have loved to have been with Daddy on Fathers Day. That to me makes hm a Scumbag. Have trouble with your spouse, okay. But don't let it get in the way of your kids.
All in all this is just another step backward for the Republicans. How the hell are going to face down the Democrats in 2010-2012 with this kind of crap going on. Republican claim to be high on morals, yet this happens when they are at their low points. Do want to use your Second Amendment rights to shoot yourself in the head to get it over with, because hell, you've shot your feet enough times. Times like this I'm glad that I'm a Conservative Independent. Both parties are crap.
Our Country has certainly underwent an amazing "change". President Obama has accelerated the decline of Capitalism and the degradation of our culture by confusing the notions of equality that the Founding Fathers often spoke of. Americans, as well as all people, are equal in the sense that we all share the same rights. We all are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are NOT all equal in intelligence, work ethic, and we certainly should not be equal when it comes to the rewards of our hard work.
In what has become a sad and ridiculous culture of socialist values, one school has surely embraced the spirit of mediocrity. Central York High School in Pennsylvania has decided to stop selecting the highest acheiving student of the graduating class to be the valedictorian. The school has actually not had a valedictorian for a few years now, instead they had an awards ceremony to honor the top two students with the highest grades. Not even this ceremony will take place now. The school has decided that having a valedictorian makes the students "too competitive". The school actually thinks that it is a bad thing that their students are competitive regarding obtaining high grades. Instead, now even the laziest, marijuana smoking, class skipping, under-acheiving student will not have to have his feelings hurt by witnessing the accolades for a student who worked harder than every other student in their school. Those students who worked hard for four years are now being told by the school that their efforts don't matter and that they are no better than the students with the lowest grades.
I'm going to assume that the student who should have been the valedictorian is intelligent enough to understand the injustice done to him or her. I'm also sure that their ambitions which led to their high grades were greater than just becoming the valedictorian. I'm mainly concerned with the rest of the students. These students are being taught the liberal philosophy that they don't have to work hard and that people who do work hard and are smarter than they are, should not receive any benefits that they don't receive. It is the core of socialism. No matter what you do, you can not acheive any more than your neighbors do. I have no doubt that the students will go on to have jobs where they demand recognition and rewards for the most menial of tasks. The notion of competition and striving to be better is completely lost to them.
After all, they grew up playing sports where you got a trophy no matter if you won or lost, idolized worthless and meaningless celebrities who are famous not for their talents but for having sex on film, and of course, being told that no matter how little you work in school, you will be rewarded the same as those who really deserve it.
I don't understand why this country has so turned it's back on capitalism. Capitalism is what made our country the wealthiest and most innovative land the world has ever seen. As of late, the idea of capitalism has such a negative context to it. It is truly depressing being alive to witness the decline of American values. I wonder sometimes what the Romans thought as their civilization began their fall. Did they worry as their culture was taken from them by false and misleading men? Did they realize that their Empire would not last if they allowed their government to change all that was right and all that their nation was built upon? Do we?
The iPhone phenomenon could really teach the government a thing or two about new policies. See, someone already came up with all those new fancy ideas for financial industry regulation. The trick is that you have to actually press the button to make them run, i.e., enforce the laws to make them work. Nah - let's program a new one in less time than the other 41 took to create. READ: Imagine spending hours to write a new iPhone "fart" app that only has one sound when all the other "fart" apps have at least 3 and are more realistic. Sorry for the visual... Just to be clear, in this analogy it would be the government that indeed lacks the flatulence versatility.
Guess this is a recurring theme (reinventing the wheel) for Mista 44. Along with the one where the Constitution is some old document that is merely full of suggestions regarding what government can and can't do.
In case you missed it, the latest on the expansive government to-do list involves the following overhaul for the U.S. financial system:
1. New powers to the Federal Reserve (that uber-powerful non-governmental body of money that's doing Congress's job for some reason) to oversee the ENTIRE financial system. All the guys who own you will have to answer to the prez's Treasury puppet if they screw up...because he'll yell at them more behind closed doors...?
2. A new consumer protection agency (not to be confused with the other agencies that already exist for this purpose) created to make sure nobody selling you a product treats you like a competent and responsible individual. Good thing AA's program doesn't fall under their jurisdiction - 12 steps is just waaay too many to remember!
The recurring theme is to create more regulation [stifling business is extra credit] to make up for all the regulation that exists to defeat what the existing regulation was also trying to accomplish in the name of prior regulation failure. Basically, we tried using the red pen when we took the test, so now we're gonna try the blue one....same answers, just a different colored pen...using bigger words, printed on much more expensive paper, and giving more control and discretion to the teacher doing the grading...you know...so her "pet" can benefit most.
Let's think about #1 here - murder is illegal (sans unborn baby murder that is). Still, people murder [want to make more money than everyone else]. Application of 44's logic here would conclude that we need to gather all the other murderers who got off on technicalities [the banks that run the Fed] and form them into a council on the best way to carry out punishment for murder [the new powers] while concluding that torturing and THEN killing is the best method to better deter the crime [the new consumer protection agency that destroys competition]. If that doesn't work, blame Bush. A little extreme by comparison...but the drift should be had.
Actually as it turns out, rehabilitation in Burmuda is more in line for behavioral correction...
Maybe it was the wrong version of American history being taught over the years, but doesn't the story about the 4th of July have something to do with a big powerful centralized government overreaching and becoming quite tyrannical in its enforcement measures? No wait - that was different. How about the one where this really charismatic guy nationalized a bunch of stuff in his country (talk about mad economic skillz!) and told people it was in their best interest - after all, it was the Jews' fault - and then later tried to take over the world after crushing all dissenters in his own country? No no no...not the same scenario.
Aha! How about the one where the guy is brought forth as the messianic savior, spends the greatest nation of the world into bankruptcy, buries the Congress in paper while calling for unexpected night time voting to deter the democratic process and shutting the minority out completely, and cries "emergency" to push his agenda through at breakneck pace which includes gaining control over every financial and economic industry in the nation by simply pretending to solve a problem which already had a solution that wasn't being enforced?
There is truly a remarkable event taking place in Iran. We have all seen the protests and the brutality of the current regime, mixed with the rampant censorship of the media. Thank goodness we have the internet to shine light on the radical leaders of Iran.
The United States now finds itself in a situation where we just are not sure exactly how to react to this growing movement. On one hand, President Obama is making the point that any involvement and/or commentary on the situation will only prove to be fodder for Ahmadinejad and the extremists who run the country. Any interaction by us will bring back memories of our backing of the Shah who repressed and abused the people of Iran. If we keep our nose out of this, perhaps change will naturally be brought to the country.
On the other hand, many people including Hillary Clinton, VP Biden, and the House Republicans believe that we should take a more hard-line approach to the situation. The United States of America does, and always has, encouraged free elections and transparency (even when our own leaders aren't the most transparent) throughout the world. Perhaps America should show their support for the protests. It could be possible that the younger generation of Iranians (two-third of the population is under 33) could see the support of America and embrace our solidarity with them.
It is a very fine line for us to walk. Both arguments make logical sense and neither would actually be "wrong".
I sure don't have the answer but I am curious to hear your thoughts on the subject. I am especially curious to see the consensus amongst Republicans regarding this. What do you think the United States should do? Remember, this is YOUR Country and you might be surprised to see the difference between what you and your neighbors think should be done as opposed to what your Representatives in Congress are actually doing.
This is the consequence of pushing a $787 billion, 400-page bill through Congress and into law in less than three weeks. Under the economic recovery plan, laid-off workers and welfare recipients (blood suckers) have seen a $25 weekly bump in their unemployment/welfare checks as part of a broad expansion of benefits for the under-achievers. A record 32.5 million people now participate in the food stamp program, and 6.8 million on are on unemployment.
This is where it gets funny. The unforeseen result of giving out this extra money (which is costing our children $165,000 each), is that is goes above the cap for food stamp eligibility, so the extra money has pushed a lot people over the limit, and thus ineligible for hundreds of dollars a month in food stamps.
The perfect example is this guy; Mark Milota, 47, of Marietta, Ga., who was laid off in November from his job at a medical billing company. The Georgia Department of Human Resources explained in a letter to him last month that, because of the stimulus, he was ineligible for food stamps. He now makes an extra $100 each month, to bring his total to $1,538 a month in welfare -- $21 too much for a family of two to qualify.
Milota said he was told that, without the stimulus money, he would have received about $300 a month in food stamps. "I truly believe when it came out, they felt it was to help people, and they never wanted to hurt people," said Milota, who says he leans Republican but voted for Obama.
Lets see. He's been out of work since November. I used to live near Marietta. I was also on a salary a Little higher than what he gets from welfare (except I earn my money).
1). How is this guy having trouble.
2). Why has he not found another job yet? Any job. Burger King, Waffle House, etc.
Seven months. I was looking for a second job, it took me about two months of searching a little time here and their, but I found one. Oh boy and it is near Marietta also, only 10 miles away. Okay, lets give him the benefit of the doubt; No car. Well Marietta has a bus system. Not the best, but they have one. Atlanta ranks among the lowest as far as good transportation, but we have it. Anyone wonders why? It's Government run, and the City refuses to allow it to become privatized. God forbid a company comes in and makes it better.
Stacy Dean, director of food assistance policy at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, (a liberal think tank group) said "People were aware of this but, as you recall, the stimulus was moving along and then it was passed in about a day, there was not a lot of policy discussion on this."
There's this myth about FDR's "New Deal" - you know the one where it got us out of the Great Depression?Anyone who's willing to delve into the depths of political incorrectness knows that's a load of you-know-what.The truth?WWII. Despite all the constitutionality and fiscal problems he got us into (and that we're still paying for), FDR did manage to save us from ourselves when he told us "We Can Do It".He went from milk dumping in the streets to remanufacturing the American Spirit - we've all seen that poster of Rosie the Riveter with her guns a blazin'...It's a great exemplary of the attitude of the day that we need to summon now.Let's embrace the industrial spirit from the "good war" and transform it into a spirit to propel us forward into a new generation of prosperity.Oh yeah - and maybe fix that little energy problem we keep crying over while we're at it.
If you have not heard or read about U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander's May 27, 2009 speech at the Tennessee Valley Corridor Summit on a nuclear power proposal, you are instructed to go read the transcript ASAP.He outlines some of the usual objections to nuclear power and offers basic rebuttals (you can Google more details).He explains why the various alternative energy proposals being thrown out there are not cost or space effective (read: wind and solar).He even quotes T. Boone Pickens - you know, the oil man that's been pushing a huge alternative-energy agenda lately - when asked if he wanted wind turbines anywhere on his 68,000 acre ranch: "Hell no.They're ugly."
The most important point however, is what his proposal could do for the United States as a whole:
1.Produce 70% of our own energy (vs. using 25% of the world's energy as we currently do) - can we say energy independence?
2.Save the planet - if you're into all the "global warming" hoopla, here's your answer:Nuclear power is clean!
3.Create millions of jobs!Let's get back into manufacturing people!We'll build a nuclear construction industry - it'll outlast any "shovel ready" highway project.Millions of jobs that will last 20 years+...what more can you ask for?
4.Economic recovery!Jobs (AMERICAN jobs I say!), cheap energy, no more oil wars...c'mon now!
You can't say that Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" or throwing billions into global warming research are better ideas.What do we need them for if we have nuclear efficiency?We have the solution, we have the means, and we have the spirit to get it done - let's do it!
After all...Barry wants to oh-so-badly be like France, right?
American Tusk is a site devoted to those amongst us who put Country before Party. We are true Republicans. American Tusk is dedicated to a smarter, stronger and better GOP. Together we can make our Country better and move forward optimistically into the future!
RSS Feed
