The latest editorial by Ted Rall is a great read from a Conservative point of view, despite the painful lack of logic in the rant. Rall is the latest liberal to join in the ACLU’s attack on Obama for not living up to their expectation that Obama would overturn all of Bush’s lawless, Constitution-shredding policies. Rall claims that “It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.” Can you say “arrogant”? It’s really just nice to see the left grow disenchanted at the fact that even their Messiah has had to admit to himself (even if he won’t say it out loud) that Bush was right.
It’s also nice to see a liberal throw ridiculous hyperbole at one of his own for a change. At one point Rall actually says that “He [Obama] is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.” Come on. I’m not a big fan of Obama but a monster? Really?
But let’s get to that painful lack of logic that I alluded to earlier. I particularly like the following lament:
We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.
So you expected broken promises. But you’re suprised by the broken promises? In other words you knew Obama was lying, you just thought he was lying about his promises to moderates. He would never, ever lie to you. In other words you were like a naive child and, despite your professed scepticism, really bought into the Hope and Change and all the nonsense about Obama being a “transformative” and “post-racial” politician. Now you’re shocked – shocked, I say – at his, what’s the word you guys have been using since last summer, oh yes, his “pragmatism”. You see, Conservatives have known all along what Democrats mean when they use the word “pragmatic”. Pragmatic means “I’ll say whatever is required to get elected or get you to go along so that I can then impose my will.” I guess sometimes pragmatism backfires on you.
It’s always sad to see children (or people with a child-like mentality) have their delusions shattered against the rocky shores of cold, hard reality, but in this case…maybe not.
The AP has come out with a story that provides details showing that Treasury Secretary Paulson “forced” at least nine banks to accept TARP funds. The most damning pieces of evidence are meeting documents “obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents revealed “talking points” used by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the October 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required ‘in any circumstance,’ whether the banks found them appealing or not.”
Two thoughts immediately spring to mind after reading the article.
First, this kind of strong-arm power grab should make people think twice when they start talking about wanting more regulation in the private sector. I’ve been accused by a friend of acting as if we can have a world where the free market works perfectly and unfettered without consequences. I don’t believe that, but I do believe that the free market is the best system we have and that although some regulation is necessary, in general, the less regulation the better. If the TARP and housing bust situations have nothing else to teach us, they at least show us that government is just as corrupt and greedy, if not more so, than private actors in the free market.
My second thought could best be described as disappointment. It it no secret that I have admired George W Bush. I have always thought that history would be kind to him for exactly the reason the present hasn’t been. He dealt with a situation that was entirely new and foreign to our nation. He had to decide how to prosecute a unconventional war against not another nation, but rather, several groups that arguably don’t even believe that nation-states should exist and are bent on nothing less than the destruction of the Western way of life. But now, even if history does vindicate his positions on the war on terror, I don’t see how it can vindicate the fact that it appears that GWB, a Republican, began the largest expansion of the Federal Government into the private sector that our country has ever seen. I remember at the time of the Auto Bailouts and when TARP was being debated, GWB came out and said something like, I had to set aside my free market principles for the good of the country because we couldn’t let these businesses fail. Well first off I call BS on that. There are no businesses too important to fail. And really if we had just refused to help these companies and let them hash things out in bankruptcy court their road to recovery would be all the more speedy. Secondly, principles aren’t very principled if you can set them aside. And if you have to set them aside for the “good of the country” maybe they aren’t the principles you should be subscribing to in the first place. I don’t know to what extent Bush knew what Paulson was doing. But it seems he allowed himself to be flim-flammed by Paulson and Bernanke into agreeing to all this. For me that will forever taint my otherwise high opinion of him.
It makes me giggle like a little school girl to read that since Bush left office the amount of people that believe that “global warming” is man-made has dropped significantly. In this post over at National Review Online’s Planet Gore, Lawrence Solomon postulates that people were only on the global-warming-is-man-made bandwagon because George Bush was against it. Now that Obama’s in office they don’t care anymore. While the answer can’t be that simple, it makes me happy. And isn’t that all that matters really? My happiness?
It’s a well documented fact that conservatives as a whole donate significantly more of their own money to charity than liberals do. I say “their own money” because liberals typically want the government to take your money and give it to the people that they deem need it more than you. This helps them feel like charitable people while not having to, you know, sacrifice any of there own hard-earned cash on the less fortunate. Well, as Presidents usually do, the Obamas released their tax statements from last year (found in this post) and it shows that Obama gave $172,000 to charity last year. Sounds pretty impressive until you find out that it was only 6.5 % of the $2.7 million they raked in. I mean come on, most churches ask you to give at least 10% (Oh and by the way, none of Obama’s donations went to that crazy church that he used to belong to so I guess that’s good). So what did Bush give last year? $166,000. Less total dollars but 23% of his income. Oh, and Dick Cheney? 75%.
So just remember that all that change and compassion and hope doesn’t come cheap and it ain’t Obama or his lib friends that will be footing the bill.
It will be you…whether you want to or not. Some call it taxes. But maybe it will make you feel better to think of it as “compulsory charity”.
Here’s another article that details Joe Biden’s less than generous charitable giving. One year, when his adjusted gross income was $210,797 he gave a whopping $120 to charity. But I’m sure he doesn’t feel bad about that. He’s going to make sure that you “donate” plenty. After all, according to Joe, it’s patriotic.
Bill Clinton appears to agree with GWB on the stem cell issue. The link will take you to a post that has video of Clinton being interviewed about his thoughts on the embyronic stem cell issue. As hard as it is to believe, it appears that Clinton, former President of the United States and Rhodes Scholar, doesn’t understand that an embryo is in fact a developing child. Throughout the interview he keeps saying that we need to make sure that no embryos that have a chance of being “fertilized” should be used for research. It seems amazing to me that someone that intelligent could be so misinformed about biology that most 9th-graders probably understand (although I realize I may be giving our current educational system too much credit – when I was in high school we all took Biology in 9th grade). Anyway, it makes me wonder about those polls that recently came out with 52% of people being in favor of Obama’s policy change. I wonder how many of that 52% have as poor a grasp on the issue as Clinton…
Sometimes I read things and just have to shake my head at the absurdity of it all. This story from the Washington Times is about the UN trying to pass a resolution making it an international crime to defame a religion (of course Islam is the only religion mentioned in the resolution). This story is about the UN’s special torture rapporteur calling on the US to try Bush et al. for war crimes. All of this would scare me if the UN wasn’t such a worthless, toothless entity that has outlived it’s brief period of usefulness.