Saturday, July 10, 2010

What's new, pussycat? #11

AFL-CIO at its worst
I'll start the article with a peculiar quote from a AFL-CIO Chief Economist Ron Blackwell. This fella proclaimed that Obama's stimulus package (about a trillion dollars worth of welfare program for the well-connected) is only 4% of the deficit. In other words, this "economist" believes that US deficit has been about 25 trillion in the last 2 years. On the other side, he may be taking same math classes as president Obama, who recently proclaimed that Obamacare would cut people's health insurance premiums by a whopping 3000%.

Amazingly, the "Chief Economist" also believes people who disagree with him are hysterical - but then it's his comments which are hysterical - hysterically funny that is. Surely everyone understands that AFL-CIO won't hire a good economist (even basic literacy test would be too taxing) - because what it needs is a goon, a thug and a demagogue. Knowledge of mathematics could be construed as hindrance.

Is this worse than Gaza blockade?
Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration are organizing a blockade of G-8 aid to the backwards countries. "On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended." And yet, Obama's State Department is vetoing the effort because the plan does not contain specific funding for abortion. According to Hillary Clinton, “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” In other words, Obama-Clinton are willing to see children die from starvation if the is no funding for abortions. How worse is Obama-Clinton position on aid to poor countries than Israel's blockade of Gaza? After all, Israelis don't demand Moslems to abort their babies - they simply want Hamas to stop bombing the state of Israel. And yet, the so-called humanitarian activists 100% support Obama's blockade of poor countries - while critisizing Israel for much milder (and deserving) measures against Hamas. Is this hypocrisy or basic anti-semitism?

The war in Afghanistan
I read articles like this and I distinctly remember how liberals proclaimed that America has no choice but to win in Afghanistan. As future president Obama said in 2007:
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
The most amazing part was that Obama's website proclaims that America needs to win the war in Afghanistan. But now Obama is in charge of defeating Islamo-fascism in Afghanistan, and his enthusiasm for defeating the terrorists who attacked our country on 911 has clearly diminished. Today, he is starting to treat the war in Afghanistan as a distraction from his attempt to wreck the US economy. All in all, he is starting to resemble the mix of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter - but without their apparent love for America. The next presidential elections will be quite interesting to watch.

On the positive side, we have plenty of excellent articles from Mark Steyn, a singularly gifted Canadian writer that now resides in America. For example, Mark Steyn explaining why liberal journalists need to pretend that they have no bias:
...the garb of “objectivity” is vital to the institutional left’s sense of itself. Because, if you accept the idea that your world view is merely that—a view—it implicitly acknowledges there are other views, against which yours should be tested. Far easier to pronounce your side of the table the objective truth, and any opposing line mere “bombast” and “propaganda.”

In the European front, the news are not exactly new. The united European currency, Euro, is not feeling too well - it becomes obvious that the idea to have a common currency for dozens of welfare-socialist states was a bad idea. Of course, anyone who studied economics would know that government monopoly is always a bad thing - and a singular currency for the whole continent of diverse countries was destined to fail. And now, some journalists even suggest that it's not a good idea for tourists to purchase Euros. Essentially, European financial system is now treated with as much respect as a financial system of a Third World Country.

And speaking of Third World countries - I am curious if the readers of my blog are familiar with the etymology of this term. This term was coined by a French intellectual Alfred Sauvy. According to wikipedia, it referred to "countries particularly in the Middle East, South Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Oceania, that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War." Sauvy wrote, "Like the third estate, the Third World is nothing, and wants to be something." The First Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, proudly announced in 1995:

I have no doubt that an equally able disposition could be made on the part of the other bloc. I belong to neither [the First or Second World] and I propose to belong to neither whatever happens in the world. If we have to stand alone, we will stand by ourselves, whatever happens... We do not agree with the communist teachings, we do not agree with the anti-communist teachings, because they are both based on wrong principles.
In other words, back in the 50ies, the term "Third World" was used proudly by numerous progressive Western-educated left-wing groups. Alas, the ideas of those groups proved to be wrong, and today the term "Third World" is used to describe corrupt, poor, violent countries. Isn't it amazing? Another abject failure of liberal ideology.

Dog-bites-man news - Liberals may raise taxes on the middle class after all. Who could have doubted that?

Anyone reading this article about the sexual perversion of Western communists cannot miss the parallels with society described in Huxley's book "Brave New World". The similarities are amazing.

And finally - a few interesting quotes from PLO, one of the top palestinian terror groups, which is now running Judea and Samaria (commonly known as the West Bank of the river Jordan): "'Obama [is] harder on Israel than Arab states'. "This attitude is emboldening Hamas." In other words, Islamic terrorists believe that Obama is too appeasing of Islamic terrorism. Can it get any more pathetic?

Last but not least - the Libyan terrorist who was released by Scotland in August 2009 (it was proclaimed that the consensus of doctors decided he had less than 3 months left to live) may live for another 10 years! And I've been told that British government run medical care is top notch - when a Third World country like Libya can heal a man, who was pronounced dead by the top professionals at NHS.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good roundup.
The parallels to Brave New world are astounding.