I stayed away for a while, but some recent headlines prompted my return. As this is my first blog, I'm still trying to find a balance between posting snippets and in-depth posts (obviously). I'm starting with snippets!
GM Bankruptcy - As I predicted, all that money that we poured down the rat hole that is GM is now gone forever. All it did was postpone the inevitable, and at a huge taxpayer cost, present and future.
Failure of "Stimulus" - Amazingly, sprinkling a trillion dollars willy-nilly over our nation like you're Pacman Jones in a Vegas Gentleman's Club isn't the answer to jump-starting our economy. Don't believe me, just listen to Obamaphile Warren Buffet (who, by the way is a genius when endorsing Obama, but gets zero coverage on a story like this), and our esteemed Loose-Cannon-in-Chief, Joe Biden.
Sotomayor Nomination - As a pro-life Catholic, of course I am against her nomination. But as a pragmatist, I realize this nomination came not from Obama as much as from the American people last November. To the victors go the spoils. I only hope that it energizes the apathetic pseudo-conservative voters that voted for non-specific dreams of "hope", "change", and "optimism" rather than their core beliefs of less government and support of human life. We shall see... But the media's double-standard never ceases to astound. When Bush 43 nominated Miguel Estrada to the circuit court, Dem's filibustered (nearly unprecedented in lower court judicial nominations)and killed his nomination, saying that his life experience as a minority immigrant was irrelevant to his qualifications - he was "too conservative for the second highest court in the land". Really?!? The imminently racially sensitive People for the American Way called him "a latino Clarence Thomas." Nice. Meanwhile Sotomayor's states that an Hispanic woman can be more judicious than a white male of the same qualifications, and anyone who might suggest this to be a racist statement is immediately branded a Rush Limbaugh drone.
Do as I say not as I do (Part 1)- Why are liberals afraid to say what their true intentions are? During the campaign, Obama has said that a single payer (read: "100% government run") healthcare system would be his ideal (read: "utopian") outcome. But he knows that country will never buy into such an absurdly liberal concept. So now he wants to make a quasi-governmental entity to compete with private insurers. Hmmm... As it is currently being sold, most agree that most customers will move toward the government-run option, driving out private competitors one-by-one until we have - you guessed it - 100% government run healthcare. So why not just say so to begin with? And why is "liberal" a label that is avoided at all costs, while "conservatives" wear their label as a badge of honor? Say what you will about Dubya - at least when he said something you pretty much knew he meant it.
Do as I say not as I do (Part II) - "What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM." Really? Meanwhile, GM is being called to testify to congress defending their decision to eliminate dealerships. Meanwhile, Obama has promised Detroit mayor Dave Bing that he supports GM's headquarters remaining in Detroit. Meanwhile, the administration is bragging about how it is influencing GM's operations. Hmmm... sounds like running GM to me.
If you think that our liberal leaders don't want to or aren't planning to run the entire healthcare system you are naive bordering on myopic.
No comments:
Post a Comment