Archive for November, 2011


Preview 2012: False accusations and defamation

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
November 29, 2011

Herman Cain will not be the last to face defamation and false allegations.

Straight-talking Georgia businessman Herman Cain rapidly rose to the top of the GOP race last month and was silently feared by Democratic pundits across America. President Obama achieved a massive chunk of the black vote during the 2008 election, and a black conservative opponent like Cain could very easily steal a significant portion of this crucial demographic.

Well, what do you know? After his meteoric ascent in the polls, a rapid succession of sexual harassment allegations suddenly appeared. Cain has since lost almost all of his momentum and has returned to the bottom tier. However, even a cursory analysis of these allegations against Cain shows the true motive of these women. One accuser lived in the same building as President Obama’s primary aide David Axelrod, while another was described by a friend as a “complete gold-digger.” And now, a Georgia woman is claiming that she has had an 13-year-long affair with Mr. Cain. These claims have little factual impetus, but have still been pushed forward in such volume that they have destroyed Cain’s candidacy.

As Newt Gingrich, an experienced political player with his fair share of scandals, continues to rise in the polls, he is beginning to take some heat as well. Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake asked his Twitter followers to find “outlandish/incorrect predictions and quotes from Newt Gingrich’s past.” On Morning Joe on MSNBC, the hosts called the contender “disgusting” after he suggested that Occupy Wall Street protesters should “go get a job after [they] take a bath.” For the record, when anyone – regardless of his/her ideological viewpoints - refuses to shower for months on end, that individual generally smells pretty bad.

After seeing Cain’s fall and the intense vitriol against Mr. Gingrich, I am of the opinion that the difficulties that have befallen these candidates thus far is only the beginning. President Obama’s record is too abysmal to promote, and as a result, his campaign will have to resort to defamation and false accusations to tear down the GOP candidates. If the Republican nominee for the general election is capable of fending off these baseless assaults, the GOP will be well-positioned to take back the White House next year.

A little too eager? A snapshot of WaPo blogger Aaron Blake's call for dirt on Newt Gingrich.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

It’s time to stop helping Pakistan

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
November 27, 2011

Angry Pakistanis burn an effigy of President Barack Obama.

After a NATO airstrike on the Pakistan-Afghan border killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, Pakistan has erupted in anger, closing NATO supply routes to Afghanistan and cutting off all communication with the NATO-headed International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). In addition to this, Pakistan has ordered US forces to leave Shamsi Airbase – a crucial base of operations for drone attacks on terrorist insurgents – within two weeks. Pakistan is also reconsidering its alliance with the US and NATO, according to some reports. However, losing Pakistan’s support might be the best thing for the United States right now.

Firstly, our alliance with Pakistan has always been extremely tenuous. Many Pakistanis, even those within the government, are sympathetic to al-Qaeda and therefore will willingly sell out the United States to help the terrorist organization. Even our government, as colossal and incapable as it is, understands this threat; when SEAL Team Six hunted down and killed Osama bin-Laden, Pakistan was not informed beforehand due to the extent of their government’s corruption and inability. Secondly, despite the unreliability of our Pakistani allies, our government has poured billions of dollars into their corrupt government in hopes that America can essentially buy Pakistan’s friendship. Clearly, the billions of lost tax dollars did nothing, but a loss of Pakistani support would cause the immediate cutoff of US funds, which could then go toward servicing our national debt. And thirdly, Pakistan has proved to be more of an annoyance than an ally by constantly complaining about our contention with the evil terrorists that inhabit their land. We must understand that Pakistan doesn’t want to get rid of al-Qaeda and that we cannot compel them to do so without taking drastic, counterproductive measures (ie, starting another war).

Typically, I vehemently disagree with GOP presidential contender Ron Paul on foreign policy, as he is an ardent isolationist. However, when it comes to Pakistan, I am starting to agree. We must pull every single military and diplomatic asset out of Pakistan and we must stop all US tax dollars from reaching Pakistan. After this, the leaders of our government should start fixing our terrible PR in Pakistan, because without the support of the people in the region, our counter-terror efforts will be useless and futile.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Obama plays golf

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
November 26, 2011

President Nero?

According to popular legend, the infamous Roman emperor Nero played the fiddle (in that time, the lyre) while a massive fire consumed several districts of Rome in 64 CE. And yesterday, in the midst of our current economic recession, President Obama embarked upon the 88th golf outing of his presidency.

Don’t take this as a petty partisan swipe. President Obama surely deserves some time off, especially considering his position as the leader of the free world. However, he should place the welfare of our nation above his own personal desires and wants.

Imagine if President Bush had gone golfing on September 11th, 2001. Outrage would erupt on both sides of the aisle, and Mr. Bush would have been accused of insensitivity and incompetency for refusing to govern in the midst of a national crisis. Might I suggest that President Obama is doing just that?

I play golf occasionally, as I enjoy the sport. However, I certainly do not play anywhere near as much golf as Mr. Obama. This year alone, our president has gone on 30 golf outings. This amounts to an approximate 120 hours of golf (assuming each round is 4 hours; playing 18 holes typically takes 4-5 hours), or 5 whole days. And over the course of his presidency, President Obama has consumed a whopping 352 hours, or almost 15 days, playing golf.

Again, I don’t begrudge Mr. Obama an occasional vacation. A round of golf every week, however, is far too much leisure time, especially considering the current economic condition of our nation.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comment

Occupy Black Friday: another monument of ignorance

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
November 23, 2011

A successful Black Friday will be a boon to the economy and will consequentially improve consumer confidence.

In their latest move of idiocy, some “Occupy” protesters have set their sights upon large retailers participating in the national Black Friday sales event. These retailers, according to the “Stop Black Friday” website, are “in the pockets of Wall Street” and thus deserve to be occupied and/or boycotted by the American public. All corporations that are publicly traded are fair game for occupation, and among the businesses to be occupied are AT&T, Home Depot, Walmart, and the Dollar Tree. The goal of this entire operation is to “hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts[:] their profits.”

Oh, the noble intentions of these Occupy protesters! For the good of society, they are going to move the violent, Nazi-backed street marches of Occupy Wall Street to Walmarts and Dollar Trees across the country!

Seriously though, this protest does absolutely nothing for everyday Americans, who are often touted as the 99% by the Occupy movement. Take Walmart for example. Walmart is the largest private employer in the country, employing over two million Americans (that’s right, almost 1% of the entire American population). If Occupy Black Friday causes a significant loss in profits, the company could stop hiring workers and even reduce wages or fire employees. None of these options would bode well for any of Walmart’s customers either, as decreased profits could lead to price increases. As with Walmart, all other companies that feel the bite of Occupy Black Friday will only transfer their losses, if significant, onto consumers and employees that belong to the “99%.” Thus, by targeting the largest companies in their occupation, Occupy Black Friday is gunning for everyday Americans who work at or purchase goods from these corporations.

Fortunately, however, I think that the Occupy Black Friday movement will be unable to gain enough strength to accomplish its goal. Unlike Wall Street, which is viewed as distant and inherently evil, Walmart and other large corporations provide many visible benefits to communities and individuals and therefore are viewed in a favorable light by most people. Personally, I love my neighborhood Walmart, and I am sure that most of the people in my community are of the exact same feeling.

Please check out the Facebook page for the Project or follow us via email by clicking the “Follow” button in the lower right-hand corner of your screen. Also, please share this blog with your friends!

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

A response to the UC Davis police action

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
November 22, 2011

If a police officer cannot use force to enforce the law, what can they do?

Last Friday (Nov 18), UC Davis police officers were caught on tape administering pepper spray onto a group of protesting students. The video went viral and sparked outrage from people across America. On the View, Joy Behar compared the (nonlethal) actions of the UC Davis police to the killing of four students during Vietnam War protests at Kent State University. Even the chancellor of UC Davis called the video “chilling” and has promised an investigation. But if the police cannot even utilize a non-lethal crowd dispersal chemical to remove an illegal encampment, what can the police do to enforce the law?

Police asked student protesters several times to take down their encampments and leave the quad. Many of these protesters, to their credit, removed their tents and left the quad. These protesters could have continued their protests elsewhere; the police were only stopping the unlawful assembly and encampment on the quad.

The protesters that stayed on the quad knowingly and willingly violated the law in doing so. They could have easily moved and taken their belongings with them, but of course, they did not take that opportunity. In fact, they solidified their defiance of police by joining hands and locking arms to prevent the police from manually prying them away from each other and removing them from the quad. The police could have beaten the students into compliance with clubs, which would be a very painful and potentially lethal route to take. They could have used water cannons, riot bullets (which can be lethal), or even live ammunition, which would surely be lethal. But in the interests of both the law and the students, the police opted to use pepper spray, which when used correctly, is safe and effectively disperses uncooperative lawbreakers.

For everyone out there who will say that I am a proponent of police brutality, I have a question for you. What would you have the police do to disperse these protesters? Manually haul hundreds of protesters off the quad one at a time?

America is, indeed, a nation constructed on the basic foundation of freedom of speech and expression. However, the United States is also a nation of laws. These protesters could very easily have formed a lawful protest that would have not violated any rules or regulations. However, like a driver speeding past a police officer on a highway, the UC Davis protesters knowingly and willingly violated the law, and in doing so, they accepted the inevitable consequences of their actions and were dispersed with pepper spray.

Your thoughts?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Too much government? EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Filed under: Posts — 2 Comments
November 20, 2011

After a three-year investigation, European Union officials have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to prove that water can, in fact, hydrate you. And because of their idiotic analysis, bottled water producers are now banned from claiming that water can prevent dehydration; if they do make such a claim, they face two years of jail time.

The geniuses at the EU say water doesn't stop dehydration. What does, then?

Clearly, the claim that water cannot hydrate a person is absolutely false. Water is absolutely necessary to maintaining human life, as it hydrates the cells in the body and keeps them healthy. However, the sprawling European Union felt it necessary to counter thousands of years of scientific evidence and human history with their ignorant claim. Fortunately, among the fools of the European Union, there are a few sparks of intelligence.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true,” Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament, remarked. “This is stupidity writ large.” Another MEP, Paul Nuttall, had this to say:

“I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.”

Even the National Health Service, the UK’s mammoth taxpayer-funded health care system, states clearly in its health guidelines that water prevents dehydration and that people should drink at least 1.2 liters per day (roughly 5 US cups, 40 US ounces).

One professor from the Nutrition Society, however, had a different viewpoint on the issue: “This claim [that water can prevent dehydration] is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”

If Aquafina or Arrowhead advertised that their water was the only kind that could forestall dehydration, that would indeed be false. However, that is not the claim. The advertising claim that is being banned by the EU is that all water, be it bottled or otherwise, can prevent dehydration. And here’s my question for the geniuses over at the EU: if water doesn’t hydrate, what does? Gatorade? Apple juice? Can any of these products, then, make the claim that they can hydrate a person? After all, neither Gatorade nor apple juice is water. Not entirely, anyway.

I think that this statement from the EU is just another example of how too much government can lead to inefficiency and stupidity. Advertising should be regulated to prevent widespread falsehoods (example: water can make you fly), but when ruling authorities begin to micromanage the claims of bottled water manufacturers that water, a necessity to human life, hydrates the human body, things have clearly gone too far.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Shocker poll: Gingrich leads in Iowa

Filed under: Posts — 4 Comments
November 17, 2011

Presidential contender Newt Gingrich

Presidential contender Newt Gingrich has consistently performed well in every debate thus far in the primaries, and his efforts are surely paying off. According to a new Rasmussen poll, Mr. Gingrich (32%) leads establishment favorite Mitt Romney (29%) by a double-digit margin! Georgia businessman Herman Cain, in the meantime, has slumped to third place and is now at 13%.

As I have said in previous posts, Mr. Gingrich is very unique. He is an extraordinarily gifted speaker, and his historical background grants a great deal of substance to every word that comes out of his mouth. Like Herman Cain, he is straightforward and articulate, and he could prove to be an absolutely deadly candidate in the general election.

However, Mr. Gingrich suffers from several notable personal issues. He accepted north of $1.5 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac prior to the 2008 financial crisis. He is also noted for his marriage infidelity, as he is now on to his third wife and has cheated on both his first and second wives. Although these problems may not have anything to do with our current economic crisis, President Obama will be very willing to milk them to his advantage in the upcoming general election if Newt is in fact nominated.

In my opinion, personal problems should not be a defining factor in a presidential election unless they impact a candidate’s ability to govern effectively. And by that measure, Mr. Gingrich seems to be a viable candidate. However, the deadly, intensely personal brawls that characterize the political arena could destroy a Gingrich candidacy, and that is my principal concern.

I have a feeling that Mr. Gingrich will have a good showing in Iowa. However, Mitt Romney has a much greater middle-of-the-road appeal than Mr. Gingrich, who is an ardent conservative. Additionally, if not for his personal baggage, Newt would find a much greater appeal among conservatives and would probably decisively win the primary election, going on to defeat President Obama in 2012.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Why Romney is shaping up to be the GOP’s best man

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
November 15, 2011

The GOP field: (left to right) Jon Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among voters with the Republican primary field. Every candidate seems to have their own problems: Cain is struggling with sexual harassment allegations and is weak on foreign policy; Perry is inarticulate and has been hammered about the law he signed as governor that allowed children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates; Gingrich is articulate and intelligent but suffers from tremendous personal flaws; and Ron Paul is viewed as a fringe candidate by most GOP voters. Bachmann was a one-hit wonder with her win in the Iowa straw poll, and both Huntsman and Santorum have been constrained to the single-digits.

Then there’s Mitt Romney. An articulate, knowledgeable gentleman, the former Massachusetts governor has proven to be an effective debater and an extraordinary leader during his tenure in politics. He has a great deal of private sector experience, working at Bain Capital to fund and streamline companies like Staples and Domino’s Pizza. In 2002, Romney saved the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City by turning a $379 million shortfall into a $100 million profit by the end of the international competition. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney turned a projected $3 billion budget shortfall into a significant surplus.

Romney has some difficulties as well, but as the primary election continues to play out, it is becoming clear that he is more than capable of conquering his shortcomings. Romney came up with a Massachusetts healthcare plan, dubbed “Romneycare” by critics, that includes an individual mandate, which is a crucial and much protested piece of President Obama’s landmark federal healthcare legislation. In the general election, however, Romney cannot be attacked on his push for statewide healthcare in Massachusetts because President Obama did exactly the same thing federally! Additionally, in every debate, Romney has forcefully proclaimed that he will sign an executive order on his first day in office to “grant a waiver to all fifty states” to exempt them from the plan as he moves to repeal the foolhardy law. Mr. Romney also has been attacked as a flip-flopper on abortion; however, he has acknowledged his change in position and has described it as “human” that he has changed his mind about the issue.

GOP voters shouldn’t keep looking for the perfect candidate, the jewel of the bunch. No one that the Republican Party nominates will be perfect on all fronts. However, when it comes to flaws, Mitt Romney has the least of all of the other Republican candidates. And in my opinion, Romney is shaping up to be the most capable man to take back the White House and turn this country around.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Foreign policy debate: Gingrich, Romney impress; Cain falls short

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
November 13, 2011

Jon Huntsman (far left) speaking at the foreign policy debate on Saturday.

At the CBS News/National Journal debate last night, the Republican candidates got the opportunity to discuss the substantial subject of foreign policy. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney definitely profited from their excellent performances in the debate, while Herman Cain proved that he has a lot to learn about foreign policy.

Mr. Gingrich did especially well at last night’s debate because he has an extremely firm grasp of history. His ability to put past events in context, combined with his excellent delivery of his ideas, makes him an extremely effective speaker and debater. Last night, he proved yet again that he has more than enough knowledge and debating skill to completely trounce Obama in the general election. Gingrich also showed that he is ready and willing to defend the United States from threats at home and abroad. When asked about the Iranian nuclear threat, Gingrich said that he was ready and willing to use military action to protect our nation. When asked about enhanced interrogation techniques, he said that al-Qaeda terrorists (including American citizens) forfeit their right to the law when they attempt to attack this country.

Romney also had a strong debate performance. His answers were articulate and well-versed, and his positions regarding Iran and the assassination of terrorists were comforting to me, as I am deeply concerned about national security. Like Gingrich, he supports military action as a last resort regarding Iran, and he approves of the assassination of al-Qaeda members even if they are American citizens. Mitt Romney’s defiant position on China is also comforting, as I get the feeling that the other GOP candidates (Mr. Huntsman, for example) would not be willing to take on China’s shameless currency manipulation. Romney actually seemed to strive for a victory at this debate, and it was nice to see that take place.

Cain did not perform very well at the debate. He has very little foreign policy depth, and this is obvious when he answers almost every question by saying that he would leave that situation to the generals to decide. He seemed unsure of himself and extraordinarily tentative at the debate, which took away from his good answers. I think that Cain will suffer because of this debate, as both Gingrich and Romney looked infinitely more competent than him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum did extremely well at the debate, but unfortunately for him, it will do little to improve his struggling candidacy. He hit a home run on nearly every question and showed a new facet of his political persona. However, it may be too little too late for Mr. Santorum, as his early focus on social conservatism severely set back his campaign in an environment where economic issues and foreign policy are at the forefront of every American mind.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

President Obama, the crony-in-chief

Filed under: Posts — 2 Comments
November 12, 2011

“Having considered the development and results of the global program on smallpox eradication initiated by WHO in 1958 and intensified since 1967 [...] Declares solemnly that the world and its peoples have won freedom from smallpox, which was a most devastating disease sweeping in epidemic form through many countries since earliest time, leaving death, blindness and disfigurement in its wake and which only a decade ago was rampant in Africa, Asia and South America.”

32 years ago, these lines represented a crucial moment in the history of mankind. The deadly smallpox virus, which had ravaged human populations since as early as 3,000 years ago, had finally been exterminated from world populations through intensive vaccination programs and quarantines of infected populations. Today, only America and Russia have reserves of the virus for experimentation purposes, and just in case, the US government has enough vaccines for the entire US population. Despite this, President Obama has awarded a $443 million contract to a top donor to his election campaign for an experimental smallpox drug that may not even work.

Ronald O. Perelman

Ronald O. Perelman, a top donor to President Obama and the Democrat Party, is the controlling shareholder of  Siga Technologies Inc., the company pushing this new drug. And on his behalf, officials have made many uncharacteristic concessions that could only be politically motivated. First, during negotiations, Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services disliked the exorbitant pricing of the experimental drug. Almost immediately, senior officials replaced the chief government negotiator of the deal. And when Siga faced potential competition for the contract, these senior officials prevented other firms from participating in the negotiation process. And in May, Siga finally got their $443 million contract, but for only 1.7 million doses of the drug. This amounts to a whopping $255 per dose, while the current vaccine being used by the feds costs only $3 per dose. Also, 1.7 million doses of the drug would do little to stop a nationwide outbreak, as the United States has a population of over 300 million people. Moreover, Siga’s drug can’t be tested in humans due to ethical problems, and animal testing can’t prove its effectiveness in humans. Untested and overpriced, Siga’s drug, ST-246, still received a government contract that gave the company a 180% profit. Siga’s drug also has a problem with shelf-life: it only lasts 38 months, while the current drug lasts for decades.

The initial federal contract for the drug required a small business to win the contract, meaning a company with fewer than 500 employees. When Siga did not meet that prerequisite and another company did, the Obama administration kicked the other companies out of the competition and made Siga the sole competitor for the contract.

This is just another example of crony capitalism by the Obama administration. Hopefully, this heinous deal is investigated, and President Obama is repudiated for his inappropriate spending of taxpayer dollars.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers