Today the House of Representatives passed their version of the stimulus bill. The vote was 244-188 and not one Republican voted for it.  Despite talk of reaching across the aisle, the Democrats in Congress and President Obama are pushing through a massive, special interest ridden, and debt deepening farce in the guise of economic stimulation.  Here are just some of the areas of wasteful spending that is contained in this bill.

$1 billion for Amtrak
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$400 million for global warming research
$2 billion for child-care subsidies
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$650 million for more digital TV conversion coupons
$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$81 billion for Medicaid
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$83 billion for the earned income credit (for people who don’t pay income tax)
$66 billion for education

This bill is not about economic stimulation.  This bill is simply riddled with socialist pet-projects that the liberal Democrats in D.C. finally have the votes to push through.  Well, I guess President Obama is delivering early in his administration on his promise of change–he’s actually spending more than President Bush.

Sources

WAll Street Journal
Fox News

Here’s an awesome map that depicts each U.S. state as the country whose GDP it most closely resembles:

In short, the U.S. has the economic power of all of these nations combined! Not to minimize the stress that has been placed on those who have lost jobs or 401ks, but overall we’re still doing pretty well as a nation.  Our economy - measured in purchasing power parity - is still almost double that of China’s!  While not all things are rosy, things are not all bad either.  Even the poor in the US have cell phones and satellite television.

Here in Washington DC, specifically all over Union Station (near my home), countless signs with images of Bigfoot, Martians and mermaids declare “There is no such thing as clean coal.”  Several yards away are signs of windmills and solar panels and an Obamian catch phrase: “Clean energy can repower our economy.”  It’s a cute advertising gimmick, but it’s missing a key reality.   While it is true that “clean coal” is somewhat of a mirage - it should really be defined as “not as dirty” coal - at present, so are sustainable wind and solar energy programs powerful and cheap enough to power the nation.  So in the interest of environmentalism, the ad campaign simply displaces one “myth” with another one that appeals to its sensibilities and supports its call for increased funding for “renewable” energy programs.

I am not saying that we shouldn’t pursue revolutionary technologies that would eliminate our need for oil and coal based fuel.  But, half of the nation’s electricity is powered by coal.  Until some genius develops sustainable wind and solar energies, what else are we supposed to use?  The best option is nuclear energy, the cleanest, cheapest and most sustainable energy yet known to mankind.  But environmentalists and peaceniks also hate that option due to unfounded fears - particularly in the 21st century - of reactor meltdown and soil toxicity and because the term “nuclear” simply causes them to break out in cold sweats.  Even France, one of the most Liberal nations on earth (arguably second to Sweden) heavily relies on nuclear power, yet nuclear plants in the United States are being closed down due to age with no intention to replace them.

Perhaps “absolute clean” coal does not exist.  But neither does large scale and sustainable wind or solar energy.  In the short-term why don’t we use the resources that actually work and minimize pollution while we work on another solution.  Methods that produce no pollution, but are not yet feasible do not benefit anyone (except those individuals who can afford them).  After all, poverty-stricken nations like Botswana don’t have carbon footprints, but they can’t feed their people either.

The fact is that Liberals are simply using their blind, cultist faith in global warming to ignore the realities of feasible energy solutions - coal, nuclear, oil or otherwise - for today.

Global warming is no different than the alarmist movement in the 1970s caused by the publication of a book in 1968 called The Population Bomb.  The theory was that as worldwide population increased the world would run out of the agricultural resources necessary to feed everyone resulting in widespread famine and the extinction of entire peoples.  Scientists the world over rang the alarm; those selfish enough to have children were condemned; worldwide socialism was called for to regulate the food supply and address the emergency.  Then, nothing happened.  The population boomed, but so did the food supply due to technological improvements, innovation and new discoveries unforseen by the omniscient scientists.  The issue simply became obsolete.

The same is happening today:  scientists, Al Gore and Prius owners the world over are predicting that the world’s icecaps will soon melt and California will become part of the Pacific Ocean’s Continental Shelf.  They show pictures of cute polar bears (who can swim mind you) stranded on lonely chunks of ice floating out to sea and blame economic success and industrial progress for its plight.  They sound the alarm, demand that every nation (except China and India) sign the feckless Kyoto Treaty (to which half of the signatories don’t even abide), pillory those, namely the United States, who refuse to sign and guilt Middle America into buying compact cars while they use their private jets to fly cross-country to attend the next global warming conference cancelled due to snow, all the while decrying the poverty in sub-Saharan Africa (which as previously noted has zero carbon footprint).

Don’t buy into the hype.  Like the economic plight, Liberals are simply using global warming to consolidate power and socialize the country.  Fortunately, according to Powerline a pluarality of Americans now believe global warming is not caused by human activity, but rather planetary weather cycles.  And according to one scientist, we’re actually entering an age of global cooling.  Oh no! Begin hording fur coats and hand warmers!  Rally for electronic heaters!  Protest ice rinks!  Shut down Dairy Queen!

I recently had a rather enlightening conversation that confirmed the foundational truth of (capital L) Liberalism:  It views the world as a fictional realm that works itself out on paper.  As such, the world can be changed by simply altering a sentence here and there, whether or not those sentences represent actual people.

For example, most Liberals, at best, take a postmodern approach to religion: whatever works for you.  Thus, in the public square, they have no problem with communities displaying crosses and nativities so long as they are forced to also display menorahs, crescents, wiccan symbols or atheist screed, et. al.  To them, it’s an issue of equality.  If the community is going to represent one belief, it must represent all beliefs.  That’s only fair, right?

I suppose it would be fair in a vacuum where people’s beliefs did not influence their life choices and thereby did not influence the community in which they live; however, in reality it is the exact opposite of fairness.  The United States is not perfectly divided between Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and Wiccans where “equal representation” actually reflects the reality of the community (the same is true racially: the US is not perfectly divided between the races so a commericial with one black, one white, one Latino and one Asian is not equally representing the US, but rather over-representing minorities and under-representing whites).  So mandating fairness from above actually results in unequal representation.  In the US, a lawn featuring a cross, a menorah, a crescent and a declaration that their is no God is not representative of the realities of the US.  It actually distorts the fact that the US is predominantly Christian.  It is a farce that attempts to create a false reality “more perfect” (under the Liberal definition) than our present reality.  In reality, it’s ridiculous (as would be a nativity display in Saudi Arabia) because it presumes that the American public is equally split between the religions.

Furthermore, such an obsession with “fairness” suggests that every belief system is perfectly equal in creating/maintaining the society that we in the United States value.  This is patently false:  as any passing glance at world news can attest, Christian nations, defined broadly (The West), are more peaceful than Muslim nations (Africa, the Middle East, SE Asia); Christian nations are economically better off than Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist nations (India, Nepal, SE Asia); and Christian nations are far more accepting of “free expression” (art, etc.) than Muslim and Atheist nations (Cuba, China).  This isn’t coincidence! In fact, nations not rooted in some version of Christian principles (love they neighbor, grace, forgiveness and a personal responsibility to the rule of law) have had to align themselves closer to such ideals in order to move past the barbarism of old (eg. China & India).

This is not to say that Christian nations are perfect or that they even model themselves after Christ (Western Europe is becoming largely Atheist as it declines), but they certainly have been more successful by any worldly definition (or any definition of social justice).  Under the simplest metric: not only do they feed their people, but in fact, their people feed the world (both literally and figuratively).

Thus, conservatives view it as a good thing that the US is a Christian nation rooted in Christian principles.  To alter this is to destroy the national fabric and usher in the nation’s decline.  However, to Liberals all of this is blasphemy.  To Liberals, the United States is nothing more than one big canvas upon which the world is invited to draw (for better or worse).  As all cultures and religions are equal (in the absolute) then it does not matter if the US is Christian, Muslim or Wiccan, so long as it “fairly” represents all ideas and people groups.  Thus, “freedom of religion” does not mean that people can worship as they please (as this would result in more public nativities and less crescents), but rather that in no way should people in any way be pressured, even indirectly, to adopt any religion.  “Separation of church and state” does not mean, simply, that church and state are separate entities with separate authority structures, but rather that the church should not (and constitutionally - even though the statement never appears in the Constitution - cannot) influence society in any meaningful way.

This example, applied to all areas, explains the Liberal mindset:  fairness means every possibility is represented, rather than representation proportionate to reality; elimating racism means preferring minority groups over whites, rather than merit-based advancement regardless of skin color; economic equality means robbing from those who start their own businesses and work hard, sacrificing time with their families to do so, to give to those who have little, if any, desire to work and have no ideas to bring to that process; love means allowing everyone to do whatever they want, rather than advising people to make good decisions that benefit their future.  Up is down, forward is backward and falsehood is passed off as truth.

I am constantly amazed at the shameless level of denial the mainstream media resides in.  I know, I shouldn’t be surprised.  Call it the idealist in me, but from time to time I forget that what should happen (objectively reporting facts and/or events) is not what actually happens (obviously interjecting your bias regarding those facts and events, or not reporting them in the first place), especially now that most major media outlets have become little more than the PR wing of the Democratic Party.  And since none of them have any idea who I’m talking about, I’m talking to you, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, AP, NPR, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun Tribune, Newsweek, Time… you know, the usuals.  Take for example, this lovely article from The AP, entitled “Obama Breaks From Bush, Avoids Divisive Stands.” Witness the objective, fact-filled unbiased reporting, like these selections, (followed by my comments):

He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way. The flurry of activity was intended to show that Obama was making good on his promise to bring change.

How can anything he does in the first few days of office be low profile?  He’s only done two or three things to begin with!  How can any of those issues/orders be low profile?  And how is he making good on his promise for change?  He hasn’t been in office for even a week!  So anything he does counts as “making good on his promise to bring change?”  This just in: Obama had a burrito in the White House yesterday, something that hasn’t been done for 10 years… change has come!

Obama long has emphasized solutions over partisanship, and he doesn’t seem eager to address issues — at least for now — that create great ideological divides.

Again, it’s difficult to decide if this is an example of blatant bias or just old fashioned laziness.  An objective reporter might point out that while Obama most defintely placed a high emphasis on “bipartisanship,” he certainly has not employed it in the post-campaign reality thus far.  Exhibit A would be this article from the NY Post, which reported that Obama told Republican leaders “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” and later told Rep. Eric Cantor “I won.  I will trump you on that.”  What he means by these comments is A. Don’t stand for your principles, and B. Actually, on second though, I don’t care what you stand for.  I won, so it doesn’t matter.”  Sounds like reaching across the aisle to me.

Obama was sworn in Tuesday with huge support — 68 percent in a Gallup poll released Saturday — and incredible optimism from the public; Bush left Washington with record-low job approval ratings.

…A picture of poise, Obama didn’t get rattled when Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath of office, an exercise repeated a day later to ensure constitutionality. He breezed through his speech — which repudiated Bush’s tenure though never personally attacked him — without a misstep. Even with the weight of the country’s troubles now on his shoulders, he was relaxed as he twirled his wife, Michelle, at celebratory balls.

…He even halted a few times to ask for clarification from his White House counsel. That sort of deferral to someone else in a public setting and admission of a less-than-perfect command of the facts was never Bush’s style.

Again, where is the objective reporting?  Why do we need to know that he had 68% approval ratings when he came into office?  For what?  Good job holding press conferences and posing for pictures in the last month?  The only point can be to remind us of how popular and wonderful Obama is, and how evil and horrible Bush is.  Obama was a picture of poise during the swearing in?  What innaguration was this reporter watching?  Even that detail gets twisted to make Obama look good, and Roberts bad.  Obama was the first one to mess up.  We all saw it.  And he didn’t make it any better as it went along.  In the entire acticle about his first week, mot even a mention of Obama’s little hissy fit he threw in the press room.  Apparently not even that will get this reporter’s attention.

The fact is that the media is supposed to be the group watching over the Government, calling out problems and informing the public of what is going on.  Apparently that charge has fallen on willfully deaf ears.

President Obama, four days into his job, facing a bad economy, terrorism, conflict in the Middle East, and domestic political strife in Washington wasted no time to take dramatic action.  Action that the American people had been demanding from day one and were, perhaps, upset that it had taken his administration three additional days to get around to.  Of course I am talking about his signing an executive order to allow tax payer money to be used to promote and fund abortions in other countries.  Yes, the U.S. Government is going to be running an estimated $1 trillion budget deficit, but I guess a little money can be spared as long as it is for something worthwhile.  Thank you President Obama for working so diligently on behalf of the American people and our pressing issues.

Please note:  this post may contain up to 98% sarcasm with a +/- 2 percent margin of error.

So all eyes of the media and liberal groups (isn’t that the same?) were on the inauguration of President Barack Obama.  The specific focus of the left’s ire was Rick Warren because of his support for California’s Proposition 8 which amended the state Constitution to recognize marriage as between a man and woman only.

However, another figure drew my attention.  Rev. Joseph Lowery gave the benediction for President Barack Obama’s inauguration.  During his speech (4:30 into it), Rev. Lowery appeals to God, stating he hopes that black would not be asked to get back and that white would embrace what is right.

I thought Barack Obama had talked about the election not being about black vs. white.  And now he embraces someone who openly chastises whites as not doing what is right.  However, he has a major problem with his thesis–the exit polling.  Whites did not look at the color of the skin of the candidates.  However, that seems to have played a role in the voting patterns of others (Exit polling data from CNN).

In the 2008 Presidential election, white voters represented 74% of the electorate and cast their ballots in favor of Senator John McCain only 55%-43% over Senator Barack Obama.  However, African-Americans, who representaed 13% of the electorate, voted in favor of Senator Obama 95%-4% over Senator McCain.  Looking at the facts, there appear to be some people who do care about race when voting.

Biggest Boondoggle in American History, from Powerlineblog.com.  Includes an email sent out from House Minority Leader John Boehner regarding House Democrat’s new Stimulus package bill.  For me, it falls under the category of “are you kidding me?”

The Bush Economy, from the Wall Street Journal.  A good, balanced (though newspaper length, naturally) look at what went right and wrong during the Bush administration.

History Will Show That George W. Bush Was Right, from the Telegraph.  Written by British historian Andrew Roberts.  Mostly goes from the foreign policy angle.

The Minnesota Recount Was Unconstitutional, from the Wall Street Journal, by constitutional law scholar/professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.  A must read for anyone trying to figure out the mess that is the Coleman-Franken situation.  For further commentary on the article please see this.

Professor Denies Global Warming Theory, from the Daily Princetonian.  Princeton Physics prof says “oh no you didn’t!” to Global Warming.

2008 Was The Year Man-Made Global Warming Was Disproved, from the Telegraph.

As an added bonus, I came up with a new drinking game for all of you college kids.  Watch this Youtube video and witness bastion of journalistic integrity Keith Olbermann sum up Bush’s 8 years in office.  Take a drink every time he exaggerates, lies, deceives, re-writes history, leaves essential facts out, bloviates, rants, etc.  Even the most hardy frat-boy will have alcohol poisoning after 2 minutes.  It would be hilarious if there weren’t so many normal people who actually think he’s reporting facts.  Just in case you aren’t able to stomach the entire thing, one of my personal favorite parts is where he informs us that Bush created the oil bubble right before he personally brought the housing crisis upon us.  The only crimes I could think of that Olbermann missed was that 9/11 was as inside job and that Hurricane Katrina was caused by Bush’s weather machine in a valiant effort to destroy rap music.

Apparently Obama is sending all of us who pay attention (and have a clue) a direct message, that says “hey all of you who didn’t vote for me: it’s going to be a long four years.”  Additionally, congressional Democrats are banking on the 90 second attention span of the electorate to tide them over the next few months, a bet which will undoubtedly go in their favor.  Just look at this article from the Politico, regarding Obama’s plea to Senate Democrats to free up the remaining $350 Billion in TARP funds, so that he’ll be able to get right to work healing the world next week.  I’ll pull out a few choice quotes/ideas.

Firstly, class A scumbag Chris Dodd informs us that “This is not a popular vote.  This is a tough issue.”  Unfortunately, we all know that popularity or difficulty are never deterrents for our elected officials.  It sure didn’t deter them from drafting the legislation in the first place, despite opposition from nearly everyone with common sense.

Secondly, the article points out that “lawmakers from both sides have criticized the Treasury Department for its administration and shifting rational for the fund, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program.”  This is especially curious given that the legislation was approved and written by the same lawmakers.  Maybe they should have thought about these things before they wrote it and then had it signed into law.  Can’t do much complaining about a problem they created in the first place.  Naturally this will all be blamed on Bush, as most everything has been and will continue to be for years to come.  Adding to the lunacy is Harry Reid, saying “The TARP legislation…we must approve that, for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the ability to do something about housing…  We can all look back and talk about how the first $350 billion was not spent, but it’s very clear that there’s going to be a lot of money spent to help the housing industry.”  Translation: we have no idea what happened to the first $350 Billion.  We know it didn’t work, despite our ranting and raving about the urgency of the problem.  But don’t worry- this time it will.”

And last but not least, Obama himself “told the senators that he shared their concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability for the first $350 billion portion of the funds, which largely went to banks and auto companies… But he also stressed the urgency of his request, saying that the funds are a necessary tool to boost the struggling economy.”  Which is basically the same thing Reid said, but with the style and flair we will all quickly grow accustomed to.  It all makes perfect sense.  So far, the dire, time sensitive problem has not been fixed by throwing huge amounts of money at it.  But maybe if we throw even more money against the wall, then maybe, just maybe, something will stick.  You can just hear them thinking: “It hasn’t worked yet, but why should that stop us from trying again?  It’s not like the electorate is going to remember or care anyway.  American Idol started back up again, so they’ll be busy until May.”

I sure hope they’re wrong.

I don’t really have anything awe inspiring to write about the conflict in Israel, other than it’s more of the same:

1.) Hamas and Co. fire rockets at Israel’s civilian centers.

2.) Israel puts up with it for months and then finally answers back.

3.) The world condemns Israel.

I do not believe this will ever change and thus, it does not surprise me or shock me when it occurs.  However, the conflict does touch on something that interests me and that was an issue during the Presidential campaign: negotiating with rogue regimes and their leaders.

During the Presidential campaign, Obama stated repeatedly that he didn’t see the big deal in sitting down and talking with our enemies.  His supporters often contend that this is one of the reasons the world no longer respects us, because of our “you’re either with us or against us” mentality.  This type of thinking is standard on the Left: if only our enemies really knew us, they’d like us more; if we could just sit down and talk with them, everything would be okay.  (This is in the same league of delusion as “you fear what you don’t understand.”  As Reagan said of Communism, we fear it because we understand it all too well.)

Don’t get me wrong, diplomacy is very important - vital in fact - but it is not the panacea for world peace that liberals often make it out to be.  Diplomacy is simply a means to an end.  It is not the end itself.  Meeting together and discussing peace or even signing a deal dedicated to peace means nothing unless both signatories have the intention of holding themselves (and each other) to that agreement.  Often, diplomacy is simply used as a stall tactic to buy time to gain the upper hand or as a way of blackmailing the world.  History is rife with examples of such tomfoolery.  Three off the top of my head:

1.)  The USSR repeatedly signed arms control treaties with the US only to violate them from day one of the treaty.  In the mind of the Soviets, arms control treaties were a good way to halt US arms production and therefore provide time to increase its own arms superiority.

2.)  North Korea on several occasions has agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for tangible benefits.  Each time the US has agreed and some bright leader (often Jimmy Carter) comes home declaring “peace in our time,” only to be surprised a year later when the North Koreans renege on their commitment.

3.) During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese (and their communist sponsers in China and the Soviet Union) pushed for negotiations and conferences in order to end the violence.  When it was agreed to meet with them, the North Vietnamese simply used the time to lick their wounds and reconstitute the war effort, continuing the war once the negotiations were over.

In any of these instances, the question is always the same: why would the hostile party agree to a deal that is in exact opposition to its desired (and often stated) ends?  Why would Hamas actually commit to the Western definition of peace when the stated purpose of its organization is to eliminate the state of Israel?  Why would North Korea commit to give up its nuclear weapons program when it is the only thing that demands respect from the outside world and can be used every few years as a negotiating tool to receive things from the West that it otherwise could not hope to receive?  Why would Iran, a state whose leaders have stated their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, not want the most destructive weapon on earth?

It is also important to consider what is meant by “peace.”  Peace is not simply the absence of armed conflict.  Whereas to communism peace was defined as living in a world without capitalist oppression of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the Palestinians peace is defined as living in a world without Israel.  By these definitions, the West could not actually be “at peace” with the Soviet Union nor could Israel ever be “at peace” with the Palestinians.  Any deal suggesting otherwise is fools gold.  Unless there is a concrete reason to hope that the ends of a particular country will change, there is simply no point in discussing the matter with them and negotiating a peace settlement.  In fact, its actually dangerous to do so because it gives the appearance of peace where no peace actually exists.  Rather, the enemy is using your delusion to improve his ability to kill you or otherwise achieve his ends.  It is false peace, more dangerous than no peace at all.

The main issue to understand is that the world is not like the United States and most of its citizens do not think like Americans.  Americans value law and order, negotiating in good faith and the importance of a man’s word.  However, most societies around the globe do not value any of these ideals.  When Americans sign something, it means they agree to adhere to it; if they do not, the other party can take them to court and force them to adhere to it.  However, in most societies corruption is the norm and bribes are simply viewed as a necessary step in accomplishing something.  Contracts are as flexible as the relationship between the two parties and generally speaking, there is no legal system to enforce the letter of the law.  So to the non-Western world, why not sign a treaty with the United States or Israel if it means a few months or years of being able to pursue one’s goals without the economic and military pressure to cease?  History shows us that in such cases the burden of proof is on the accuser to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that said nation is violating the treaty.  Even with today’s technology, this is not easy to do.

Those who subscribe to the peace delusion were defined by Lenin as “useful idiots,” blind to the real intentions of the Soviet Union, but useful in allowing the USSR to achieve its ends.  Sadly, the West is still populated with “useful idiots,” the majority of whom reside squarely on the Left of the political spectrum (see: Carter Jr., James Earl; Kennedy, Edward M.; Biden Jr., Josesph R.  The list is endless.)