luni, 24 ianuarie 2011

Bush Impeachment

Democrats have issued a warning to Bush: attack Iran for any reason without their permission and you will be impeached. This announcement comes on the same day that Osama Bin Laden warned Europe to abandon the NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the same time, European intelligence has reason to believe that Tehran was behind the purchase of weapons grade uranium near Hungary recently. This warning of impeachment is meant to give Tehran the wiggle room it needs to coordinate major terrorist attacks on European soil, as well as NATO troops in Afghanistan using weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats in Congress hope to delay any preventative measures taken against Iran by tying the President up in a political battle in Washington over attacking Tehran. They also hope to use such a political battle to their advantage in the upcoming presidential election. Which would create a no lose situation for the Democrats: bash Bush for wanting to stop Tehran's ambitions, while giving Tehran the time it needs to successfully coordinate attacks. The Democrats will then say that the war in Iraq hampered the ability of the President to prevent terror attacks with weapons of mass destruction.

Pervez Musharraf: Captain on a Sinking Ship

Attention Pervez Musharraf: Open Pakistan up to NATO and U.S. forces or face your own death in a pool of blood.

The new front line in the war on terror was drawn today in the blood of Benazir Bhutto on the streets of Rawalpindi Pakistan. If we have learned anything over the past few decades, fighting on the front line against terrorists is a bloody pastime. That is why Pervez Musharraf has only hours to pick up the phone and ask President Bush for help in the form of military power. He has no other choice if he values his life.

As of now Pervez Musharraf stands knee deep in the blood of the front line, alone, with no cover or body armor. He has terrorists eyeballing him through their scopes on one side, and a United States Blackhawk helicopter carrying President Bush on the other. The people of his nation have totally abandoned him due to Bhutto's assassination. He no longer commands the military. And his supporters in the government are feeling shaky about his ability to govern. His only ally is America. And we are only backing him because the possible alternative could be a radical Islamic regime running the country and its nukes. In other words, Musharraf loses his only supporter the day a moderate in the Pakistani military stands up to replace him.

Musharraf's death is guaranteed if he believes he has the time needed to slide like a snake out of this situation by imposing "marshall law" and cracking down on the grief stricken citizens of Pakistan. He cannot clean out all of the Jihad rats permeating his government without risking assassination. He cannot turn to the radicals in the hills without getting his head chopped off. Blaming Al-Qaeda wont get him off the hook either, because that only shows he doesn't have the ability to protect the good guys, while he allows the bad guys to run wild without any hinderances.

Worst yet for Musharraf: if it is discovered that he was complicit in the assassination of Bhutto then a C.I.A. operative may end his life. I can envision our government disposing of this guy if we find he has been funneling billions of American dollars to terrorists, while helping them murder Bhutto. Either way, Musharraf has no choice but to pick up the phone and give the United States the green light. If not, he's a dead man.

Hillary's Solid State Society

Will you join the ranks of the Solid State Society? Of coarse you will. You won't have a choice once Hillary is elected. Sadly, you won't even realize that you're a member once you are forced into the program.

What is the Solid State Society? It is a mandated system that enrolls every American into a government controlled lifestyle. It will measure and rate every individual based on key factors affecting their physical and mental health. Individuals flagged for having high risk factors will be subject to disciplinary action.
Some of the high risk flags will be:
Smokers, women living a child bearing lifestyle, obesity, genetic predisposition for disease, family history of disease, age, and sexual orientation.

I know, you are probably thinking that this is some kind of hoax or conspiracy theory. I wish it was. It's called Hillary Care, the mandated health insurance program she touts on the campaign trail. The program's funding is done by a mandate, essentially forcing everyone into the system. Once in, the system decides how much each individual pays for coverage. Hillary says it will be based on financial ability, but nothing in her plan prohibits the government from forcing people like smokers to pay more because of a higher risk of health issues.

Her plan also fails to mention the governments ability to give individual premium breaks based on positive lifestyle habits. Like giving women on birth control discounts since child birth is one of the most expensive aspects of health care. Families that have children enrolled in government approved sexual education classes would get a break as well. Not to mention girls on birth control would also be eligible. Obese individuals would pay more. Individuals that have health club memberships could be eligible for discounts. Genetic screening would also play a major role in deciding the amount one pays. A genetic predisposition to diabetes would put you in a flagged category for high risk insured.

This all reminds me of the Nazi ideals concerning health care. The Nazis were the first to besmirch smoking for example, and good health was emphasized in the daily lives of the German people. The Solid State Society puts every American into a nationalized lifestyle program the way Nazi Germany invoked good health. Will you be a part of the Society? You may not have a choice if Hillary has her way.

Huckabee: A Nation's Hope?

The struggles of our time: the War on Terror, illegal immigration, economic woes, and battles over social issues have shredded the stamina of many Americans for politics. Many Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are just sick and tired of living in this atmosphere and are looking for a candidate that will give them a break from it all. Mike Huckabee is their "Hope".

Many of Mike's followers are jaded toward politics, and Mike shows them that he's not the typical politician- he's a guy just like them. They are worried about not having the answers to the complicated issues of our time. Mike doesn't inundate voters with relentless detailed sales pitches on the issues, he gives them just enough information to feel safe putting him in the oval office. And if all else fails and Mike doesn't have the answer? Not to worry, Mike tells them, as President he would set aside partisanship and work with both sides of the isle to accomplish the best solutions to those issues.

On the three major issues for Republicans Mike assuages their worries by offering a mixture of hard, medium, and soft solutions.

On illegal immigration: he's hard when he says he would deport every illegal immigrant. Yet he's also soft by saying he'd let them right back in a few days later with legal documentation.
On the war on terror: he's hard when he says he won't retreat in Iraq. Yet he's soft when he says he'd close Gitmo to help with America's image.
On taxes: He's hard and soft when he claims he'd implement the Fair Tax.

He has positioned himself to be the guy that creates the least amount of stress on the voter's mind when they consider who to support. It's the perfect defense against attacks on his Liberal record in Arkansas as governor. When he is attacked on the issues, he cries fowl. He says that his record is always being twisted and misrepresented. And his followers believe him because they are too tired, or lazy, to actually spend the time to analyze his record. It's just easier to believe him. Besides, he wouldn't get attacked if he didn't have substance....right? Like Mike says, "you know you are hitting the mark when you start taking flack."

Mike is hitting the mark: cultivating the support of the tired, lazy, and ignorant. And he's a sharpshooter when it comes to that.

Dictator Obama

When I prepare to write this blog I take pride in researching the issues and where the candidates stand on them. It scared me when I wasn't able to get any substantive information on Barack Obama concerning the issues. So I visited his website, where I thought I would get detailed positions on the issues that matter to him. Instead, I found that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had more depth on the first page of his blog than the entire Barack Obama site. It sent chills down my spine to see that a dictator gave more information, on a blog no less, than Barack Obama has throughout his entire run for the Presidency.

Then I got mad. It pissed me off to see that a dictator that considers me the enemy feels that it is necessary to engage me, while a fellow American running for President could care less. How can this be possible in a free nation? Is this the change that Obama claims to want to bring to America?

The only thing I can glean from Obama is that he considers change more important than taking a stand on anything. What change is he advocating? He is essentially saying that he wants to be more of a referee in Washington, rather than a leader. He wants to also be the world's referee, acting as a neutral party for positive change, rather than acting as a leader. This stance places him above scrutiny. It gives him the ability to say that while the others spend time fighting over the issues he spends his time above that looking for consensus on the issues. He won't allow the issues to sully his boots. Referees don't take part in the fight, they judge it from a distance. Dictators do this very well. Dictators are always above the issues never getting their turbans dirty. At least Ahmadinejad tries to face the opposition, which is more than I can say about Obama.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Hillary's Strategy: An Insult to America

Attention Hillary: American voters may be misinformed and lacking in political astuteness, but they aren't DUMB.

Hillary and her campaign are stuck on stupid. Their strategy to skirt the issues without taking a definitive stand is losing because voters don't think inevitability and name recognition is enough. She's unwittingly fighting a personality battle with a man that can't lose based on personality. And it's insulting to the American people to continue to do this.

Why won't she change? It's simple: she doesn't want to lock herself into positions that will hurt her when she runs against the Republican candidate. She wants to be able to go into the general election with as much wiggle room and freedom as possible on the issues. It's a sign that she doesn't believe that a majority of the American people want a far left leaning candidate. So she would rather take the risk of running on personality instead of substance in the primaries.

Barak Obama is too strong a candidate for Hillary to win this way. Our nation needs to know what our Presidential candidates stand for. Hillary's weak strategy has only revealed one thing: Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton believe in change. That's it. Hillary allows Obama to get away with saying that the change he believes in consists of listening to the American people. But on issue after issue Obama sides with the minority fringe left on the issues. He doesn't intend to listen to the American people if he becomes President, yet Hillary's strategy allows him to get away this notion that he will. She needs to call him out on illegal immigration, taxes, and the economy. He says the American people only care about health care, the war in Iraq, and domestic economy issues. He'll throw in the environment and some other issues every once and a while, but that's the crux of his argument. Hillary refuses to challenge his assumption because she fears taking a stand on the "real issues", like illegal immigration.

Hillary's strategy is going to end with her losing, and the Democrat Party being stuck with a candidate that isn't electable.
Her unwillingness to take on the issues is ultimately reflective of a self absorbed, insatiable desire to win the Presidency. Even at the cost of her own Party. It is the ultimate insult to the electorate, and the American people aren't dumb enough to stand for it.