I have decided that Friday posts should be light and fluffy since you don't need anything heavy and brooding to send you off into the weekend! So today I'm going to do a look at the LCS (League Championship Series for those of you who aren't familiar with baseball lingo).
Okay, a little politics: what exactly gives Texas Reprehensible Shiela Jackson Lee the right to slam a private citizen on the floor of the House of Reprehensibles for wanting to purchase a (minority) share of a National Football League team? This is part of the problem with our DC overlords; they think that nothing, NOTHING, is beneath their attention or outside of their scope of power. Some are calling for a boycott of the NFL but I think we need to boycott Congress.
And a little more politics. A "Fair" Taxer has defended the proposal in two responses to yesterday's blog and brought up some valid points in favor of it. In my judgment of the "Fair" Tax, I didn't point out what I like about it. I do like an end to payroll taxes that take our money up front. It allows the government to sneak in new taxes since most of us are conditioned to look at the Net amount rather than the Gross. In my system, once a month or quarter you would sit down and write a check to the IRS. It will reinforce just how much you are paying them to do shoddy work and play their corruption games. The reader also points out that the "Fair" tax would be collected by the states and turned over to the Feds so that the DC dunces could not Lord it over state governments and there's a valid point there. But by cutting unfunded mandates and restoring the 10th Amendment, a Federal government put in its proper Constitutional place would not be in a position to 'reward' states for good behavior. Besides, the Constitution does grant the Federal government the authority to levy and collect taxes. Since my vision is as perfect world as the "Fair" Taxers, I envision Social Security and Medicare going away at the Federal level and states, where the lion share of our government should be, covering that.
While I used the "Fair" tax as a springboard for a discussion of tax reform, the reader did reinforce my main point. When told that a consumption tax was regressive, the first thing the "Fair" taxers did to remedy it was to effectively exempt the poor from it (see the hypothetical family of four making $29,000 annually and getting a 'prebate' of $555/month) - making it in essence a 'progressive' tax system - as if the poor are any more special than anyone else. Remember that whole 'equality before the law' thing? That applies to taxes as well. Thanks to the 'Progressive' agenda, we have come to believe that a tax applied equally to all is regressive because it takes a bigger chunk of the poor's meager income. So. A level tax also hits a family making $75,000 harder than those making $150,000 who are hit harder than a family making $500,000. No one likes taxes but like government, they are a necessary evil - the goal is to reign in the evil as much as possible. In addition, poverty is not static. People move in and out of poverty all the time and we should not provide incentive for them to stay there by suspending, rebating, or 'prebating' their tax burden and coddling them with government programs (with agencies always looking to expand their mission) that make American poverty fairly luxurious by world standards.
I don't want to start a fight with someone who is obviously a political ally with different ideas on taxation than mine. For me, a level tax on income is more just than any tax on consumption will ever be simply because it retains the intent of equality of percentage of burden. My "Fair" Tax friend sees things differently and I respect that. Unlike the 'Progressives' who think they are smarter than everyone and deserve to guide this nation in a certain direction, we're both trying to make America more equitable and closer to the vision of the Founding Fathers.
And as a final note that I think my "Fair" Tax friend can agree on; any tax, even a level one, will, in real dollar amounts, be 'progressive' or graduated. The hypothetical family of 4 making $29,000 a year will pay $2,900 (under a 10% Federal tax) to the Treasury while a family of 4 making $75,000 a year will pay $7,500 and a family making $1,000,000 will pay $100,000. That the $2,900 is more painful for that family than the $100,000 is to the millionaires is irrelevant. When all is said and done, those at the upper end of the scale will still represent the lion's share of federal tax receipts. A truly regressive tax would be one that set the dollar amount paid across the board. (Eg. Every American family must pay $10,000 to treasury would hit the family making $29,000 very hard and the millionaires hardly at all.)
That's it for politics, on to baseball!
In the National League (also known as the Senior Circuit because it incorporated before the American League) we have the Los Angeles Dodgers versus the Philadelphia Phillies who are up 1-0.
The Dodgers have a double taint in the Crusader's eyes since they started in New York City (well Brooklyn) and moved to Los Angeles. However, they do have a long tradition of great players including (but not limited to) the likes of Duke Snyder, Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Vin Scully, Tommy Lasorda, Don Sutton, and perhaps one of the greatest pitchers to every pick up a baseball Sandy Koufax. They also have the advantage of having been coached by Mr. Ed (great episode if you ever find it).
The Phillies have the distinction of being the most losing team in sports history. Just a few years ago they crossed the 10,000 loss line. However they are the defending champions from last season. They also have a long list of former greats including Robin Roberts, Mike Schmidt, Richie Ashburn, Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning (moderately conservative Republican), and Steve Carlton (no known political affiliation).
This should be a good series. I want the Phillies to win because the Dodgers are my 5th least favorite team.
Over in the American League we have the Los Angeles of Anaheim of California but maybe of Los Angeles or possibly Orange County Angels versus the hated New York Yankees (the Bronx Bummers).
The Yankees of course have the stench of over a century in the Bronx on them. They are also too close to the leftist lunacy of New England for my taste and they are my #1 least favorite team in baseball. I am aware of their superior past and the unbelievable list of former greats but unless Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, and the Yankee Clipper (Joe DiMaggio) show up to play, I don't want any part of the Yankees. It is the place where players I like die to me.
The whatever their name is this week Angels are tainted by proximity to Los Angeles but since they are in Anaheim and literally across the street from Disneyland (and my wife LOOOOOVES Disney) they end up in that gray area where I will root them on unless they are playing a favorite team. Though a fairly new team, they did have the great Nolan Ryan pitch for them for a while, Rod Carew, and they have one of MLBs most likable current players; the ever charming and gregarious Torii Hunter (and the double 'i' thing is pretty cool too).
I obviously want the Angels to win this one.
Have a great weekend! I'm not going to post on weekends because most of you won't be at work (where I'm sure you're reading this) and I need the rest too. Back with more on Monday.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Fair Tax
Well, after only three posts, the Random Crusader has had a reader request to opine on the subject of the Fair Tax. While passingly familiar with the concept, RC (that's me) decided to actually do some research to determine his actual position on the "Fair Tax" and frankly, I wouldn't have started a blog had I not wanted to inflict my opinion on others. :)
To research, I went to the best place for it,
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main.
Here are the basics for their proposal:
End payroll taxes
Get rid of the IRS
Repeal the 16th Amendment (effectively ending income tax)
Institute a 23% National sales tax on goods and services
If I may wander into Left Field for a moment (metaphorically not politically), I hate the use of the word "Fair" to describe some sort of notion of equity. It is a completely subjective term since what is "fair" to me is not necessarily "fair" to you or anyone else for that matter. Fair should be relegated to its proper place describing that annual festival of mildly thrilling rides, acres of greasy, sugary food, 4H students showing off their cattle and everyone's aunt or grandma showing up with her 'world famous' pie. It can also be used to describe one's physical/mental condition. So I would prefer it if this group were to call it The Just Tax (if taxes can be considered just). Ok, I feel better now.
The chief argument against the Fair Tax is that the consumption tax - which is what a sales tax ultimately is - is regressive as it hits lower income people harder than higher income people. I tend to agree with that assessment. So the Fair Taxers countered by - surprise, surprise - tiering the Fair Tax. Basically, people making under a certain income would get an exemption or refund from the tax (which I'm guessing would require a federal agency to administer and keep records so we'd have IRS light). I like the idea of abolishing the 16th Amendment (anything to undo what Woodrow Wilson did to us) and the IRS but I don't see that happening. You can visit the site if you want to see all of their arguments and refutations of critics. I don't like the idea of a national sales tax any more than I do the current system. Trips to Canada and a couple weeks in England will turn you off to the NST or VAT(value added tax) idea.
The Fair Taxers and Flat Taxers, though not exactly friendly toward one another all the time are allied in a greater war against leftist "Progressives" who just keep taking more and more money from our pockets. The underlying question in that war is or should be: What is the purpose of taxation? The left and Barry - the Kenyan Kalamity - Obama in particular make it clear that they believe the purpose of taxes is to redistribute wealth as if they are some sort of modern Robin Hood (who actually stole from the BAD and gave to the GOOD rather than from the rich to give to the poor). Hey Barry, Harry, Nancy; this isn't 12th century England and the three of you combined aren't worthy of touching a longbow (between them, they seem more like Prince John, Guy of Gisbourne, and the Sheriff)! Of course sensible people will tell you that the purpose of taxation as written in the Constitution (you might remember that bit of tattered parchment) is to bring revenue into the Treasury to pay for legitimate government expenses. Revolutionary isn't it?
What I propose is radical, it will be painful for some, especially the poorest Americans (who are still far richer than the poor of most other nations), and it would take a few miracles to get it all done.
1. Before we do anything else, we must change the way the IRS operates. It is currently the only place in America where the accused is guilty until proven innocent. The rules of the IRS should be changed so that the onus is on them to prove that you are guilty of attempting to defraud the government of funds. If they cannot, you simply owe the amount of back taxes you missed no interest or penalties.
2. This is the tough one but several states are already working on getting the 10th Amendment (States Rights) back into its rightful place. The more we can undo the "Progressive" agenda of centralized planning at the Federal level the easier it will be to restore the balance of power between the Federal, state, and local governments.
3. Push an amendment to the Constitution that limits the Federal budget to 10% of GDP (the government currently consumes 28% of the American GDP and for every dollar it spends, only $0.80 are returned to the economy whereas every cent of private money spent is returned to the economy) except in times of declared war and all revenues above the limit must go only to military spending. Once the war is over, the next year's budget must return to 10% GDP. Why 10%? Well, our God only asks that much from us so our petty potentates in DC shouldn't ask more.
4. Make the tax rate level across all income levels and for all people. No more exceptions. Even the poorest people must pay 'their fair share' (there's that word again). That might seem harsh to those of you making $10,000/year but everyone should be invested in the system. When one group is relieved of the burden of taxes for any reason other than having zero income there will be incentive for many to get into that group. There will be incentive to expand eligibility for that exempted group. There will be incentive for that group to shift the extra burden onto the non-exempted group. This is readily visible today in the 50% of American adults who pay a net zero income tax yet continue to vote for and support politicians who play on class warfare.
5. End unfunded federal mandates and begin dismantling the alphabet soup agencies. Tops on the list should be the Department of Education. In western states with large 'national' forests or government held lands, the government should start whittling away those agencies and turn the land over to the states. NPR and the Corporation for public broadcasting, both left leaning in their outlooks should be disbanded. Their programming will have to succeed or fail in the competitive world just like any other show. With the IRS's teeth knocked out, it will wither on the vine itself.
6. Eliminate all public employee unions.
In the end, I am not in favor of the Fair Tax mainly because the first thing its supporters did was to exempt a group and turn it into a graduated system. Without a Constitutional Amendment limiting government's confiscation of our income, the pols in DC will simply raise the national sales tax at their whim in dead of the night sessions or slipping raises into 1000 page bills (hmm...sounds vaguely familiar) just as they do now. Limiting the federal government to a percentage of GDP through the Amendment process will make it more difficult to sneak money out of our pockets. Of course they will find a way to circumvent even that if we are not vigilant anyway.
To research, I went to the best place for it,
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main.
Here are the basics for their proposal:
End payroll taxes
Get rid of the IRS
Repeal the 16th Amendment (effectively ending income tax)
Institute a 23% National sales tax on goods and services
If I may wander into Left Field for a moment (metaphorically not politically), I hate the use of the word "Fair" to describe some sort of notion of equity. It is a completely subjective term since what is "fair" to me is not necessarily "fair" to you or anyone else for that matter. Fair should be relegated to its proper place describing that annual festival of mildly thrilling rides, acres of greasy, sugary food, 4H students showing off their cattle and everyone's aunt or grandma showing up with her 'world famous' pie. It can also be used to describe one's physical/mental condition. So I would prefer it if this group were to call it The Just Tax (if taxes can be considered just). Ok, I feel better now.
The chief argument against the Fair Tax is that the consumption tax - which is what a sales tax ultimately is - is regressive as it hits lower income people harder than higher income people. I tend to agree with that assessment. So the Fair Taxers countered by - surprise, surprise - tiering the Fair Tax. Basically, people making under a certain income would get an exemption or refund from the tax (which I'm guessing would require a federal agency to administer and keep records so we'd have IRS light). I like the idea of abolishing the 16th Amendment (anything to undo what Woodrow Wilson did to us) and the IRS but I don't see that happening. You can visit the site if you want to see all of their arguments and refutations of critics. I don't like the idea of a national sales tax any more than I do the current system. Trips to Canada and a couple weeks in England will turn you off to the NST or VAT(value added tax) idea.
The Fair Taxers and Flat Taxers, though not exactly friendly toward one another all the time are allied in a greater war against leftist "Progressives" who just keep taking more and more money from our pockets. The underlying question in that war is or should be: What is the purpose of taxation? The left and Barry - the Kenyan Kalamity - Obama in particular make it clear that they believe the purpose of taxes is to redistribute wealth as if they are some sort of modern Robin Hood (who actually stole from the BAD and gave to the GOOD rather than from the rich to give to the poor). Hey Barry, Harry, Nancy; this isn't 12th century England and the three of you combined aren't worthy of touching a longbow (between them, they seem more like Prince John, Guy of Gisbourne, and the Sheriff)! Of course sensible people will tell you that the purpose of taxation as written in the Constitution (you might remember that bit of tattered parchment) is to bring revenue into the Treasury to pay for legitimate government expenses. Revolutionary isn't it?
What I propose is radical, it will be painful for some, especially the poorest Americans (who are still far richer than the poor of most other nations), and it would take a few miracles to get it all done.
1. Before we do anything else, we must change the way the IRS operates. It is currently the only place in America where the accused is guilty until proven innocent. The rules of the IRS should be changed so that the onus is on them to prove that you are guilty of attempting to defraud the government of funds. If they cannot, you simply owe the amount of back taxes you missed no interest or penalties.
2. This is the tough one but several states are already working on getting the 10th Amendment (States Rights) back into its rightful place. The more we can undo the "Progressive" agenda of centralized planning at the Federal level the easier it will be to restore the balance of power between the Federal, state, and local governments.
3. Push an amendment to the Constitution that limits the Federal budget to 10% of GDP (the government currently consumes 28% of the American GDP and for every dollar it spends, only $0.80 are returned to the economy whereas every cent of private money spent is returned to the economy) except in times of declared war and all revenues above the limit must go only to military spending. Once the war is over, the next year's budget must return to 10% GDP. Why 10%? Well, our God only asks that much from us so our petty potentates in DC shouldn't ask more.
4. Make the tax rate level across all income levels and for all people. No more exceptions. Even the poorest people must pay 'their fair share' (there's that word again). That might seem harsh to those of you making $10,000/year but everyone should be invested in the system. When one group is relieved of the burden of taxes for any reason other than having zero income there will be incentive for many to get into that group. There will be incentive to expand eligibility for that exempted group. There will be incentive for that group to shift the extra burden onto the non-exempted group. This is readily visible today in the 50% of American adults who pay a net zero income tax yet continue to vote for and support politicians who play on class warfare.
5. End unfunded federal mandates and begin dismantling the alphabet soup agencies. Tops on the list should be the Department of Education. In western states with large 'national' forests or government held lands, the government should start whittling away those agencies and turn the land over to the states. NPR and the Corporation for public broadcasting, both left leaning in their outlooks should be disbanded. Their programming will have to succeed or fail in the competitive world just like any other show. With the IRS's teeth knocked out, it will wither on the vine itself.
6. Eliminate all public employee unions.
In the end, I am not in favor of the Fair Tax mainly because the first thing its supporters did was to exempt a group and turn it into a graduated system. Without a Constitutional Amendment limiting government's confiscation of our income, the pols in DC will simply raise the national sales tax at their whim in dead of the night sessions or slipping raises into 1000 page bills (hmm...sounds vaguely familiar) just as they do now. Limiting the federal government to a percentage of GDP through the Amendment process will make it more difficult to sneak money out of our pockets. Of course they will find a way to circumvent even that if we are not vigilant anyway.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Battle of Hastings
Today October 14, 2009 is the 943rd anniversary of the Battle of Hastings and in all likelihood most of you have just thought 'so what'. Well, though the battle occurred nearly a thousand years ago it impacts us all today in ways we don't even realize. For instance, if it had not ended the way it did, we would sound more like the Swedish Chef when talking (think about that the next time you're reading Shakespeare).
1066 did not start as a pivotal year in world history. A French loving English king named Edward the Confessor shuffled off his mortal coil. He had no children but at this point that was not an issue since the Anglo Saxons didn't go in for all that 'royal' blood stuff. The Witanagemot - a sort of proto-parliament - elected English kings through acclamation. So they got together and elected a guy named Harold Godwinson, son of the Earl (his title not his first name) Godwin (hence the name Godwinson) of Wessex. He became Harold II and you would think that everything was okay after that but...
Apparently before Edward died, he promised a Frankified Scandinavian, William Duke of Normandy also known as William the Bastard because he was, well...a bastard (in both meanings of the word) the crown. To make matters worse, another Harold, this one from Norway, said that he deserved the throne because he was related to the king before Edward, a Norwegian guy named Canute, or Knut (no relation to the Rockne family). One wonders at what point the English Harold thought the Witanagemot did not like him. Are you with me so far?
As if that weren't bad enough, William claimed that Harold promised not to become king over some sacred bones. So he sent ambassadors to Rome and got some Papal Bull that said Harold would be kicked out of the Catholic club if he didn't give the crown to William. Papal Bulls don't understand or care much for Anglo Saxon common law. The Witanagemot and Harold said "No Way Jose!" to the Papal Poop - which must have sounded funny with a Norwegian accent - and war was inevitable at this point.
Okay, in late September the Norwegian Harold invaded England near York and the English Harold rushed to fight him at a place called Stamford Bridge. The Norwegian Harold lost the battle and the ability to exchange oxygen and the English had a very good day. But before the English could get their groove on, news that William landed near Hastings arrived and Harold force marched his army south. The two armies met (a total of under 20,000 men; pretty small by modern comparison) in a battle that lasted from just after sunrise to near sunset that day. Harold fell to an arrow (in the eye) and most of England would concede to William by Christmas.
Though the Normans won the day and brought hereditary kingship to England, they failed to eradicate the Anglo Saxon common law. In fact, thanks to Hastings, those of us of English descent cling more tightly to that Anglo Saxon heritage. In 1215 the French nobles were so Anglicized that they presented King John with a bill (the Magna Carta) demanding their (English) rights be returned. The framers of the Constitution relied heavily on the Anglo Saxon law written in their DNA to justify the revolution and they put on paper for the first time the rights we (Anglo Saxons) know are granted to us from God. Prior to 1066 every Saxon understood his rights to speak his mind, assemble for redress of grievances, to have a representative voice before the king (remember the Witanagemot), to build, buy, and carry weapons for self defense and hunting, to be judged by an assembly of their peers, and to be secure in their homes, labors, and possessions. In this modern age where our legislators are increasingly power hungry, grabbing for rights that we have held sacred since before written history, and demanding an ever increasing amount of the fruits of our labor; it is important to remember the Battle of Hastings. Hastings proves that though we may lose battles in the war between personal freedom and authoritarianism, the power of those ideals endure.
1066 did not start as a pivotal year in world history. A French loving English king named Edward the Confessor shuffled off his mortal coil. He had no children but at this point that was not an issue since the Anglo Saxons didn't go in for all that 'royal' blood stuff. The Witanagemot - a sort of proto-parliament - elected English kings through acclamation. So they got together and elected a guy named Harold Godwinson, son of the Earl (his title not his first name) Godwin (hence the name Godwinson) of Wessex. He became Harold II and you would think that everything was okay after that but...
Apparently before Edward died, he promised a Frankified Scandinavian, William Duke of Normandy also known as William the Bastard because he was, well...a bastard (in both meanings of the word) the crown. To make matters worse, another Harold, this one from Norway, said that he deserved the throne because he was related to the king before Edward, a Norwegian guy named Canute, or Knut (no relation to the Rockne family). One wonders at what point the English Harold thought the Witanagemot did not like him. Are you with me so far?
As if that weren't bad enough, William claimed that Harold promised not to become king over some sacred bones. So he sent ambassadors to Rome and got some Papal Bull that said Harold would be kicked out of the Catholic club if he didn't give the crown to William. Papal Bulls don't understand or care much for Anglo Saxon common law. The Witanagemot and Harold said "No Way Jose!" to the Papal Poop - which must have sounded funny with a Norwegian accent - and war was inevitable at this point.
Okay, in late September the Norwegian Harold invaded England near York and the English Harold rushed to fight him at a place called Stamford Bridge. The Norwegian Harold lost the battle and the ability to exchange oxygen and the English had a very good day. But before the English could get their groove on, news that William landed near Hastings arrived and Harold force marched his army south. The two armies met (a total of under 20,000 men; pretty small by modern comparison) in a battle that lasted from just after sunrise to near sunset that day. Harold fell to an arrow (in the eye) and most of England would concede to William by Christmas.
Though the Normans won the day and brought hereditary kingship to England, they failed to eradicate the Anglo Saxon common law. In fact, thanks to Hastings, those of us of English descent cling more tightly to that Anglo Saxon heritage. In 1215 the French nobles were so Anglicized that they presented King John with a bill (the Magna Carta) demanding their (English) rights be returned. The framers of the Constitution relied heavily on the Anglo Saxon law written in their DNA to justify the revolution and they put on paper for the first time the rights we (Anglo Saxons) know are granted to us from God. Prior to 1066 every Saxon understood his rights to speak his mind, assemble for redress of grievances, to have a representative voice before the king (remember the Witanagemot), to build, buy, and carry weapons for self defense and hunting, to be judged by an assembly of their peers, and to be secure in their homes, labors, and possessions. In this modern age where our legislators are increasingly power hungry, grabbing for rights that we have held sacred since before written history, and demanding an ever increasing amount of the fruits of our labor; it is important to remember the Battle of Hastings. Hastings proves that though we may lose battles in the war between personal freedom and authoritarianism, the power of those ideals endure.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Random Thoughts for Columbus Day
Today is Columbus Day and I think we should all heft a pint of our favorite something to the feisty Italian explorer. Though he is being denigrated in our government run schools and is commonly vilified by idiots who think the western hemisphere was some sort of Utopia before Europeans arrived, he deserves to be remembered as part of the spirit of exploration. He was a complex man with as many failings and character flaws as the rest of us - it just happens that his character flaws often offend modern sensibilities - and he, like all historical figures, should be considered in the context of his times. It is highly unlikely that any other figure driven to reach China and India by traveling west through unexplored waters would have treated the aboriginal Americans any differently and possibly worse.
Some of you may think that I like George W. Bush but while I believed him to be a good man and well intended in his defense of the nation, overall I did not care for most of his policies. I especially don't like people lying about his actions or those of any other president. Seriously, there is enough to criticize without resorting to lies. I guess that's better than I believe of Barry Obama whom I believe to have an agenda aimed at destroying the middle class and wrecking the tattered remains of American sovereignty.
The Obama Administration is claiming that the economy would be worse without the stimulus and their guidance over the last nine months. However if we think of the economy in terms of a wounded and bleeding patient, having the EMTs slow the bleeding rather than stop it isn't going to fill me with a sense of optimism. My first thought is that I'm just going to die more slowly and probably in a lot more pain.
October hosts the anniversary's of two of the pivotal events in the history of Western Civilization. I will address both of them on the appropriate day so stay tuned.
Some of you may think that I like George W. Bush but while I believed him to be a good man and well intended in his defense of the nation, overall I did not care for most of his policies. I especially don't like people lying about his actions or those of any other president. Seriously, there is enough to criticize without resorting to lies. I guess that's better than I believe of Barry Obama whom I believe to have an agenda aimed at destroying the middle class and wrecking the tattered remains of American sovereignty.
The Obama Administration is claiming that the economy would be worse without the stimulus and their guidance over the last nine months. However if we think of the economy in terms of a wounded and bleeding patient, having the EMTs slow the bleeding rather than stop it isn't going to fill me with a sense of optimism. My first thought is that I'm just going to die more slowly and probably in a lot more pain.
October hosts the anniversary's of two of the pivotal events in the history of Western Civilization. I will address both of them on the appropriate day so stay tuned.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Introduction
Hello, I'm the Random Crusader. I will talk about everything of interest to me so be ready for politics, religion, sports, history, science fact, science fiction, food, and annoying chatter about my vacations; pretty much anything. I will add other features to my blog over the next few weeks or months but I mostly hope that it will be interesting enough to keep you coming back without the frills.
Right now, I want to address two completely unrelated topics in order of importance: the MLB Playoffs and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Thankfully the Boston Red Sox are out and what a sweet tasting loss it was as the evil Emperor Papelbon blew a save and took the loss in the elimination game.
Speaking of evil emperors, how apropos that Barrack - the Kenyan Kalamity - Obama would get the increasingly irrelevant Nobel Peace Prize for his absolute lack of ANY qualifications. I guess that being unqualified to be president works just as well for the Nobel committee. The Peace Prize lost any credibility when it awarded the world's worst terrorist - Yassir Arafat - the prize. It also did not help credibility to award it to the Plains Pinhead - Jimmy Carter. Almost every foreign policy problem we currently have can be laid at Carter's feet. He ignored the CIA and allowed the Ayatollah's to come to power in Iran kicking out the Shah, a true American ally in the Middle East. Iran's revolution is the literal heart and soul of Hezbollah, the Taliban, and Al Queda.
Now whether one likes or dislikes President Obama, I think most of us can all agree that he has not been in office long enough to deserve let alone EARN such a (dubious) "honor" as the Nobel Peace Prize. It should have taken some rather aggressive policy changes for him to earn a notable award in such a short time and those were not forthcoming. So far, he has wavered on his commitment to cutting and running in Iraq and Afghanistan AND he seems to be wavering on his promise to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay (which it may come as a surprise to you that I am against but more on that some other time). By the left's standards, I'd say he has 'wandered off the reservation'. So far, all he has done in regards to foreign policy is impotently brow beat the Israelis (I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu gave him a less than diplomatic reply). Now, perhaps that qualifies you for the peace prize in the eyes of Antisemitic Eurotrash and the Iranian "President" but that's about it. With their recent track record, perhaps in lieu of a qualified candidate, the Nobel committee could give it to someone posthumously. You know peace lovers like Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Emperor Palpatine, Jason Voorhies... Bottom line, the award was given to Obama as a belated spit in the face to former president George W. Bush.
Right now, I want to address two completely unrelated topics in order of importance: the MLB Playoffs and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Thankfully the Boston Red Sox are out and what a sweet tasting loss it was as the evil Emperor Papelbon blew a save and took the loss in the elimination game.
Speaking of evil emperors, how apropos that Barrack - the Kenyan Kalamity - Obama would get the increasingly irrelevant Nobel Peace Prize for his absolute lack of ANY qualifications. I guess that being unqualified to be president works just as well for the Nobel committee. The Peace Prize lost any credibility when it awarded the world's worst terrorist - Yassir Arafat - the prize. It also did not help credibility to award it to the Plains Pinhead - Jimmy Carter. Almost every foreign policy problem we currently have can be laid at Carter's feet. He ignored the CIA and allowed the Ayatollah's to come to power in Iran kicking out the Shah, a true American ally in the Middle East. Iran's revolution is the literal heart and soul of Hezbollah, the Taliban, and Al Queda.
Now whether one likes or dislikes President Obama, I think most of us can all agree that he has not been in office long enough to deserve let alone EARN such a (dubious) "honor" as the Nobel Peace Prize. It should have taken some rather aggressive policy changes for him to earn a notable award in such a short time and those were not forthcoming. So far, he has wavered on his commitment to cutting and running in Iraq and Afghanistan AND he seems to be wavering on his promise to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay (which it may come as a surprise to you that I am against but more on that some other time). By the left's standards, I'd say he has 'wandered off the reservation'. So far, all he has done in regards to foreign policy is impotently brow beat the Israelis (I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu gave him a less than diplomatic reply). Now, perhaps that qualifies you for the peace prize in the eyes of Antisemitic Eurotrash and the Iranian "President" but that's about it. With their recent track record, perhaps in lieu of a qualified candidate, the Nobel committee could give it to someone posthumously. You know peace lovers like Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Emperor Palpatine, Jason Voorhies... Bottom line, the award was given to Obama as a belated spit in the face to former president George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)