This Could Get Interesting

The Times (UK paper) is reporting that Israel is preparing a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Perhaps a trip to Iran is in my future?

Link

Obama Claims He'll Cut Wasteful Programs

Reuters: "Obama says he'll cut dozens of wasteful programs"

We'll see. But even if he does, can it even come close to countering the massive spending increases that he has done and plans to do?

Good Move by Obama Administration

According to the AP the US will be boycotting the United Nations' racism conference, because its document singles out Israel for accusation of racism and calls for restraints on free speech. It's good to see that Obama is willing to stand up to the UN to support these principals, especially since a lot of Democrats and liberals oppose him on this.

Apparently Water and Carbon Dioxide Are Now Threats to Human Health and Welfare

Looks like the libs will have a new way to regulate businesses soon. The EPA just declared greenhouse gases to be a threat to humans. This will doubtless lead to Congress pushing legislation that will have no effect but to hurt businesses. Whatever your opinion on global warming and its causes, a cap-and-trade policy or other sanction on businesses in America won't do much. A switch to mostly nuclear power (the one thing liberals don't want to copy from Europe) would probably accomplish just as much, and would actually help the nations economy.

Really?!? They Think this Is a Good Idea?

AP: "Fannie Mae chief named to head U.S. bank rescue"

Seriously, this guy has been involved in so many failed companies it's scary.

GM Finally Preparing for Bankruptcy

When a company is being so poorly run that it is loosing tens of billions of dollars, bankruptcy is really pretty much the only option. Hopefully if they do declare bankruptcy (not certain yet) they can use this to get the UAW to quit raping them and have realistic employee compensation that actually allows them to make a profit. Of course, the government will probably just wind up bailing them out again, despite the fact that the goverment has no constitutional right to use tax revenue... er, make that money they borrowed from China... to prop up a failed business model (or any other business).

Link

Obama Looking to Improve Relations with Cuba

Honestly a change probably does need to happen with regards to Cuba. Communism really is no longer enough of a threat to justify a full embargo and no diplomatic ties. I'm not saying we should have full diplomatic ties with them; that probably shouldn't happen as long as they are still committing human rights abuses, lack freedom of the press, ect. (basically as long as they are Communist).

Link

U.S. Hostage Rescued from Pirates

Link

Sounds like some awesome work from the Navy. The captain also deserves a whole lot of recognition; it takes a lot of courage to put your own life at risk to protect others.

U.N. to Condemn North Korea

Apparently the Security Council has agreed to condemn N. Korea's recent rocket launch. Considering how ineffective actual resolutions have been, I can't see this presidential statement can be expected to do anything at all, unless my suspicions that Kim Jong-Il is looking for a confrontation. With China and Russia's support (though incomplete) of North Korea, this could be pushing the world in very bad direction.

New Deficit Record Reached for the Month of March

Link

How can anyone think this is a good idea? If a person ran up debt like this they'd be in jail. Eventually people and other countries are going to stop letting the government borrow this money. Obama claims he will cut the deficit in half in 2013, but his estimated deficit for that year is higher than last year's, so I don't see how that can be considered any sort of progress.

Kim Jong Il Preparing for Successor, Let's Hope He Doesn't Want to Go Out with a Bang

Link

North Korea has been getting more provocative lately, the rocket launch the most recent example. This has had me concerned that Kim might be trying to get a war to rival his father's and put him in the history books. With this new news that he has appointed a relative to a high position in what appears to be preparations for his succession, if I'm right about his intentions things will start heating up soon. Let's hope I'm wrong (I'm not exactly anything close to an expert here, so that hope is probably well founded).

The Obama Agenda Part I: Guns

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

Lets look at this one part at a time:

- The Tiahrt Amendment
The Tiahrt Amendment prevents the BATFE from releasing information from its firearm trace database for any reason other than a criminal investigaiton. How does that restrict law enforcement the tools to solve crimes and fight illegal arms trade? Those are criminal investigations. The only thing I can see coming from this being repealed is that the database will be used for things not related to criminal investigations such as identifying gun owners.

-Closing the gun show loophole
Two questions: First, What is wrong with the sale of a firearm between two private individuals? Second, how would this be constitutional? No where in the constitution can there be found anything allowing this (and under the 9th and 10th amendments that means they can't do it); the closest it comes is regulating interstate commerce, but in know way is one person selling a gun to another "interstate commerce."

-Making guns in this country childproof
Uhh... What does this mean? Locks? Wouldn't that kind of make it hard to defend yourself? I mean, if someone is threatening you or your families life they probably aren't going to give you the time to unlock your gun. If the parent is smart and teaches their child proper gun safety (such as never even think of touching this without me present), then it's perfectly safe to have guns in the house.

-Making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent
YEAH! BAN THOSE SCARY GUNS!
In addition to some specific models, here's the definition of an "assault weapon" from the original ban:
"`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;"

None of these add to the danger of a weapon (except a grenade launcher, but since grenades are destructive devices and nearly impossible to get legally, it's pointless). A folding or telescopic stock simply make the weapon easier to transport (a rifle with a folded stock is still to big to be effectively concealed) or capable of being adjusted for needs, respectively. A pistol grip simply makes the weapon easier to handle. The bayonet mount lets you put a bayonet on the rifle... now how many bayonets are used in crimes? A flash suppressor reduces the flash seen by the shooter to increase visibility, it doesn't reduce the flash visible to anyone else.

Since none of these features really add any "danger" (and of course, depriving people of their right to bare arms is unconstitutional whether those weapons are "dangerous" or not), why are they banned? Simple, they are features of scary looking weapons. The combination of this "scariness" and the fact that much of the public believes this ban applies to automatic weapons makes it less likely to be opposed and thus gives an easier inroad into eventually banning all or most firearms.

So What Happens When Pirates Decide to Go Capture an American Ship?

The Americans win.

20 Americans Taken by Somoli Pirates

Things just keep piling up, we'll have to wait and see how Obama handles this one.

Shouting Match Or Something Real?

North Korea has threatened to respond to any UN "steps" with its own "strong steps." The obvious question now is, what are these steps? Since any "steps" the UN might take will most likely be essentially meaningless (as usual), I have to wonder if North Korea plans to respond in kind. My worry here is that Kim Jong-il is looking for a war to rival that of his father and ensure his place in his nations history, and is using this whole thing to find an excuse.

Link

Legislature Sanctions Imorality

Vermont is now the fourth state to legalize gay marriage, and the first to do so through the legislature.

Link

Why the "Pay for Performance Act" Is a Bad Idea

Pay for Performance Act

While it may sound good to restrict pay to banks that are taking government funds (assuming you look past the fact that the government acted outside its constitutional authority with TARP to begin with), and it feeds the populist rage, but it will do nothing to help the economy and will likely harm those banks. By limiting the compensation employees at the banks can receive, the government essentially guarantees that bankers and administrators with the talent to improve the banks will go elsewhere, to banks they can actually get paid well at.

You're Fired! By the Government

Apparently taking out the CEO of GM wasn't enough for Geithner; it looks like he's got the bank executive in his sights now. Honestly, some of the banks may need new management, but that is not for the government to decide. The powers of the federal government is limited to what it is given by the constitution; firing employees of private businesses is not one of them.

Now, where's the outrage the Democrats had when Bush fired government employees that served at his pleasure (which means he was allowed to fire them, if you didn't get that)?

Link

Obama Can't Even Get the UN to Condemn the N. Korea Rocket Launch?

It's the United Nations... it's not like their resolutions actually mean anything. The fact that Obama can't get them to oppose a missile launch by North Korea is not a good sign in my opinion. Hopefully I'm jumping the gun here, and he'll figure out a solution to this that actually accomplishes something.

Link

Obama Starts the Yelling at North Korea, but what's Next?

Fox News: "Obama Condemns N. Korea Missile Launch, Vows to Pursue Missile Defense in Europe"

He has called for U.N. sanctions (not that those have done much in the past) so far, let's see how far this actually goes. I honestly don't have an opinion on how exactly this should be handled (other than that something more than rhetoric), so it will be very interesting to see how Obama continues to handle this.

Naivete or Rhetoric?

Obama has now called for the eradication of nuclear weapons (link). You can see my opinion on the likelihood of that here. I now have to wonder if he really means this, or if this is just rhetoric he is using to push nations to a decrease in nuclear capabilities. If so, this may actually be a good strategy; have one goal, but give people an amazing, impossible goal to reach , so when they fall short they'll meet your actual goal.

I'm sure most of us can agree that an international decrease in the presence of nuclear weapons would be a good thing, as long as the US and our allies keep enough to be effective both as a deterrent to use and to use should worst come to worst. A reduction would have only positive benefits, less chance of them falling into terrorists' hands, less reason for other nations to feel threatened into procurement, and improved world opinion.

One very good sign I saw in the AP article was that Obama promised that we would keep nukes as long as other nations had them, and another was this quote by him, "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven." That is actually, in my opinion, a reasonable approach.

Bailout Gets More Expensive

Link

North Korea Launches Missile

So they finally launched it; it'll be interesting to see how the rest of the world reacts. Will they actually do something to try to punish NK, or will they simply do nothing and thus essentially validate the launch?

Link

Obama's New Afghanistan Stragegy Recieves Some Support from NATO

NATO nations have given verbal support and are sending 5,000 non-combat troops in support of Obama's surge strategy. Hopefully he is able to gain more support, specifically in terms of combat troops.

N. Korea Puts Off Missile Launch

Link

Apparently the missile is ready for launch, but its launch has been delayed; unfortunately this appears to be because of strong winds, not diplomatic success.

Excellent Point about Shootings and Gun Rights

This article from Fox News makes an excellent point about multi-victim public shootings: they almost exclusively happen in gun-free zones. If you think about it, this makes sense. If someone wants to kill large numbers of people, where will they go? They'll go somewhere where they have the advantage, where no one else will have guns.

This fact points to the cliche, but true, statement that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. People who are going to commit crimes with a gun probably won't care that they are committing another crime by having the gun, so outlawing guns will only take them from those who do not want to commit crimes; the very same people who could stop the criminal if they were allowed to carry firearms.

When my home state of Florida enacted "shall-issue" laws for concealed carry permits, its violent crime rates decreased faster than the rest of the nation. Think about it, would you be more or less likely to attack someone if you knew they had the means to easily kill you?

Liberals Lying about Guns?

Couldn't be possible! But wait, it seems the "fact" they've been throwing around about US guns fueling Mexican crime is BS. Of course, common sense could have told you that; the criminals in Mexico are using automatic weapons, and few automatic weapons in the US that can be owned by civilians are under tight control. Anything to take away gun rights, I suppose.

Fox News: "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S."

World Without Nukes?

Apparently Obama called for an end to nuclear weapons today in Europe (Reuters article). Of course nuclear weapons are dangerous, but getting rid of them is a complete pipe dream. There is no way anything short of a one world government will eradicate them. Possibly some nations could be convinced to give them up, but that would just put those nations at a major strategic disadvantage to those who did no give them up.

North Korea Launch Nears

AFP: "S.Korea expects N.Korea rocket launch on Saturday"

Court Makes Gay Marriage Legal in Iowa

Apparently the Iowa Supreme Court thinks that not changing a millennia old definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Evidently they felt the need to overturn the will of the people and impose their own personal morality on the people of Iowa. You can claim that it's about equal rights, that unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals aren't given the right to marry who they want, but heterosexuals (or any other sexual group) don't have that right either. Everyone's rights with regards to marriage are to marry a consenting human being of legal age of the opposite sex; both homosexuals and heterosexuals have these rights. Allowing them marry thus becomes a question of morality, and the Iowa Supreme Court apparently felt their morality was more important than that of the people.

AP: "Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional"

Apparently Taking 500 People to Europe Is More Important than Supplying Troops

Washington Times: "Military strained by Obama trip"

No comment necessary.

$3.6 trillion budget...

The House's budget plan is $3.6 Trillion (and that's after they cut some of what Obama wanted), and includes tax increases. Do people really think that massive government spending and taxing those who provide jobs is going to help the economy? I understand that a lot of it is them supposedly wanting to "help" the less fortunate, but private groups, who will lose out on donations with these higher taxes, do a much better job than the government. It's also interesting that those who clamor the loudest for the government to help people out do the least to personally help them (seriously, look up the Obama's and Biden's charitable donations); perhaps when they get the government to help the poor with other people's money, it assuages their guilt for not actually doing anything themselves.

AP: House approves $3.6 trillion budget blueprint

Possible Showdown with North Korea Getting Closer

According to this article from the AP they have reportedly started fueling the missile, and threats from both sides are picking up. Both President Obama and Japan have threatened action if that rocket is launched, with Japan saying it will take it to the UN. In return North Korea has threatened attack if their missile is shot down.

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this.

Reduce the Deficit and Provide Individuals and Businesses With Automatic Capital?

Nah, spend wildly and remove money from the economy, that should work.

Reuters: "Republican budget plan would cut taxes, spending"

The Government Can't Manage Itself Effectively, What Makes It Think It Can Manage Banks?

Reuters: "Ousting bailed-out U.S. bank CEOs an option: Geithner"

Seriously, if the US government were a company, it would have been bankrupt years ago. What the hell makes Geithner think he knows what is best for private corporations (let alone has the constitutional authority to act on it)? Is it just me, or does this seem a bit authoritarian? At the very least, it is now almost impossible to claim this administration is not socialist.

"World leaders are set to declare an end to unfettered capitalism at a G20 summit"

That's the beginning of the first sentance in this article, and quite honestly it scares me. Nations' are banding together to try to solve a financial disaster by increasing regulation. You may think that this sounds good, but ask yourself this: what are the simplist components that the causes of this recession can be reduced to? The answer is regulation and risk.

The regulation I refer to is the requirement that lenders had to give a large number (>50%) of their loans to low-income individuals (you know, "sub-prime mortgages," sound familiar?); though the socialists may not want to admit it, their use of the government to try to help the poor played a large part in this crisis (and screwed over a lot of those poor in the end). The part that risk played is obvious, and this is what the governments will try to regulate away. The problem here is that risk is inherit in capitalism.

Successful businesses in a capitalist system (and the other systems haven't exactly worked all that well) have to take risk. Eliminate the possibility of this and you stunt growth. Sure those risks eventually lead to recession, but that's something that comes with capitalism. Socialism may weaken the effects of recessions, but that's just it puts the economy so close to the bottom there's no where to fall. Don't believe me? Take a look at all the (major) nations with more socialist governments than ours (you know, the ones screaming for us to accept their plans); who is worse off before a recession? Them. Who is worse off during a recession? Them. Who is worse off after a recession? Them. Which side do you want to be on?

Why DADT Needs to Be Kept

Allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be highly detrimental to the armed forces. If the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is changed there are two possible results. The first is that some men (women) will be forced to room and shower with men (women) who are attracted to men (women). The second is that homosexuals will have separate living quarters/latrine facilities. There are problems with both results:

Result 1: Homosexuals are fully integrated
In this case there will be a dramatic increase in sexual tension, sexual harassment, and sexual assault (and accusations of such). The military already has a problem with this between heterosexual men and women, and they are separated to some extent (living quarters/latrines). If you assume that homosexuality is natural (if you don't then my arguments are only stronger), then it must also be assumed that the strengths of their desires is the same of that of heterosexuals (to say otherwise would imply the homosexuals are somehow better). Now ask yourself what would happen if men and women were not separated in the military, if they had to share rooms and showers? The same thing will logically happen if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly. The only reason men and women are separated is sexual attraction, why would it not be the same for homosexuals? Which brings us to result 2.

Result 2: Homosexuals are separated from other members of their sex
The reason this is a bad idea is quite simple. How much money would this cost (new rooms, possibly barracks, new latrines, ect.)? ALOT Would the small increase in new soldiers outweigh these costs? Probably not. There just aren't enough homosexuals who would join the military if DADT is changed to make up for the costs. Keep in mind that DADT does not bar homosexuals form serving, just from being openly homosexual while serving.

North Korea Pushing It

North Korea seems quite intent on pissing off the rest of the world, especially America. We've had news of their up-coming test firing of what is believed to be a long-range missile for a while and now they apparently plan on indicting, quite likely for BS trumped up charges, the two US journalists they detained under suspicious circumstances. Perhaps Kim Jong-il is hoping for a war to rival his father's?

AFP Article on Journalists

Reuters Article on Missile

Apparently I Spoke to Soon

I posted earlier that I thought Obama might be moving in the right direction with car companies, but after hearing they chose to force GM's CEO out, it no longer looks promising. Apparently the Obama administration thinks the government should be deciding who heads private corporations. At first it was looking like his policies towards car companies wouldn't be as insa... socia... far-reaching as they were with the banks, but now with this latest intrusion of big government I can't help but think the taxpayers will wind up owning their very own car company.

WSJ Article

President Obama Is Taking a Step in the Right Direction wtih Carmakers

According to this article from the AP, the Obama administration may actually be heading in the right direction with GM and Chrysler. He has said that the companies need to make progress themselves before receiving more government aid, which, really, should be common sense. Throwing money at a failed system will just waste money and prolong its inevitable failure. I'd rather not see them (or any other company) get more of the taxpayers' money ever, but at least he's making them make some progress on their own.

The highlight of the news in this article for me was this:

"GM and Chrysler are pushing the UAW to accept shares of stock in exchange for half of the payments into a union-run trust fund for retiree health care. They also want labor costs from the union to be competitive with Japanese
automakers with U.S. operations."

Amazing idea! Be competitive! Because whatever else you may blame their problems on, the fact that the UAW has forced them to compensate their employees well beyond that of rival (Japanese) companies operating in the US. I'm all for people getting fair pay and benefits, but it has to actually be fair. You get payed for your work; if you are getting paid so much that your work no longer helps achieve profit for the company, your pay is no longer fair. It may make you feel better to get paid more, but if it's so much that your company goes bankrupt, well...

Good News on DADT

According to this article from the AP, Secretary of Defense Gates has said that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will stay in place for a while. Unfortunately a change to this policy is apparently still in the works.

AP: "Sources: More US troops for Afghan war"

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama plans to dispatch additional U.S.
troops plus hundreds of civilian advisers in hopes of turning around a faltering
war in Afghanistan and will recommend increasing aid to neighboring Pakistan so
long as leaders there confront militancy, people familiar with the forthcoming
plan said Thursday...

link

This is probably a good idea. At the very least it shows that Obama can learn from history (Bush surge). It'll be interesting to see what liberals think about this after what they said about the surge in Iraq.

New Blog

I set up this blog so me and some of my conservative friends could discuss politics and current events. Hopefully you will enjoy reading it.