About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

"Extra-Extra... anti-President declares war on Wall Street!"

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:28:22 PM

My-my-my...another day; and another two-hundred point drop in the Dow-Jones Industrial average.
 
And ever since Nov. 5, the day after the election of Americas 44th president (who's become our first anti-president), the Dow has dropped in a fashion reminiscent of the 1930-1932 period, when Americas business community was first confounded by a bumbling chief executive-- Herbert Hoover--who like Obama, inspired zero confidence on Wall Street with many confusing, nebulous political decisions; amounting to what was, in effect, a defacto anti- business policy.

And who can blame Wall Street, which despises all the confusion, uncertainty, and equivocation coming from Washington like we have now.

And confusion it is!
 
After all, wasn't it Obama who campaigned to the right of Hillary as some sort of hybrid moderate-liberal, jumping from one political position to another as the situation merited?

Can you say "mixed signals"?
 
Then during his honeymoon, Obama managed to convince the lapdog liberal media pundits that he would be a (hardy-har) "centrist". Meanwhile, back on Wall Street, traders were wondering...is this guy gonna raise taxes; will he jack up capital gains... tax dividends more heavily...socialize medicine... excess profit taxes? What?
 
And then after his inauguration, Obama turned the Ship of State left so fast that it may capsize-- sunk by national debt rising higher than "Old Faithful" in Yellowstone Park.
 
So can you blame the so-called "greedy" Wall Streeters for selling down the Dow? It's "Mayday-Mayday; I'm bailing out before the ultimate crash"!
 
Meanwhile back at 1600 Pennsylvania, Obama is doing his level best to literally destroy Wall Street at its very foundation -- the people who make up the firms that hold the seats on the trading floor; lampooning the group as though they were the dregs of society.
 
Obama despises success. He constantly rants about excessive bonuses...Wall Street greed...corporate jets...junkets to Las Vegas...abuse and fraud.
 
Instead of the war on al-Queda, Obama has chosen to make war on Wall Street.
 
So who can blame anyone for wanting to exit the stock market while they still have something left to sell? After all, if you were a large investor, or mutual find manger, they're surely saying to themselves, "Why would I buy stocks now?"
 
And while we're on the subject, if you were an entrepreneur by nature, you’d be saying, "Why would I want to start any business (bid-ness) now? No way"!

It seems as though the messiah thinks he could walk across the Potomac. And Obama is so intoxicated with his newfound chief executive authority, he feels that Wall Street should OBEY him rather than the ominous trends within the economy.

So now our anti-president is quite content to watch the Dow trend ever lower, dismissing it all (in the parlance of cool hand Luke) as a "failure to communicate"... (i.e., not my fault).

And of course, since our anti-president has mentioned the word "crisis" for what must be the 10,000th time, is it any wonder the market is in a slow panic?

Obama has a crisis for every occasion...the worst this, and the most severe that. "Not since the Great Depression"..."the most severe recession"..."we might not recover"..."trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see."

It's been Barack Obama's "make my doomsday" economy.

And then wham-- we get the passage of the passage of the $787 billion anti-stimulus bill, which so far, has done nothing more than to engender greater pessimism in the market.

Yes indeed, the hits from our anti-president just keep on coming.

And next in line for a battering are the entrepreneurs-- the surefire traditional source of America's pipeline to new jobs and economic growth. Without entrepreneurs, the messiah will never be able to lead us out from the desert of our current predicament.

It's only the entrepreneurs who have the gall to risk everything in a down economy, and possess the ability to level it off. Only the entrepreneurs-- the unsung heroes of Wall Street-- who initially founded all the small businesses that eventually grew to become the corporate giants whose stocks came to trade on the Dow Jones.

So don't forget; Apple computer started in Steven Jobs' garage; Microsoft was born in Bill Gates' basement.
 
Entrepreneurs have ambition- something that's being snuffed out in droves by the gloom and doom pronunciations from Washington. And right now, it's the entrepreneurs who see nothing but higher taxes on the horizon.

Yes; Obama seems to be working against them all, stripping them of their ambition, and their ability to find us a path back to prosperity in our rapidly changing, technology-driven economy.

Obama stubbornly opposes tax cuts -- dismissing them as unfair to the have-nots. Persuading our anti-president to eliminate payroll taxes (which discourage young companies), would be like the modern day equivalent of the discovery that earth revolves around the sun--it would indeed be quite a revelation to the messiah that tax cuts actually create jobs.

Many small companies don't hire full-time employees because of the payroll tax burden-- which inhibits economic expansion-- and the creation of new jobs.

But could Obama ever dream of making the tax system more forgiving for them, or provide them with the impetus to take risks again? Sorry-- this would be too radical of a step for Chairman Obama, and not within the realm of his ten-year plan.

But as the saying goes, when it comes to actually stimulating real job growth, you can't teach an anti-president any new tricks. Mr. Obama is someone who's never held a job in the private sector; nor ever managed anything-- not even so much as a paper route.

Yet Obama brazenly speaks of jobs- jobs- jobs. But he's decided to tax-tax-tax the very people who could provide them, the small bid-ness community.

And now, the anti-president acts as if he's doing the country a favor, pronouncing, "If you make less than $250 G's, you won't have to worry about a tax hike!"

Translation: "But you better worry about your job, 'cause I'm gonna stick it to the people who employ ya'll".

So true to form as our chief executive Socialist, instead of tax cuts for those who create jobs, our anti-president will tax them more onerously, further dragging down the economy, Wall Street, and the hopes and prosperity of all the people who crossed over to vote for him in the first place.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will the American Left uphold the Law of Civilization and Decay?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:58:12 PM

It was cast as an unprecedented new compromise-- the heralded revival of California's offshore mega-barrel Tranquillion oil field-- a plan that would have been the state's first approval to drill for oil in its waters since 1969.

But as fast as the proposal came to be, it disappeared within a tidal wave of leftist, environmental rejections.

California's State Lands Commission, headed by the radical environmentalist, John Garamendi,  killed the deal, citing that, "Approval would have been a message heard very, very clearly around the world by those who call for "drill, baby, drill."

So score another big one for the left; and another brick in the wall toward cutting off America’s vital domestic flow of crude oil.

It was a deal that would have allowed a Houston based Texas oil company, Plains Exploration and Production, to sink new wells off the Santa Barbara coast in return for an agreement to shut down all four of its existing offshore platforms within 13 years.

Santa Barbara County approved the plan without controversy last summer. But with horizontal "slant-drilling" technology, Plains Exploration had an ingenious plan-- sink wells deep into the sea floor, and then burrow sideways from under the federally regulated waters, to where Tranquillion sits underneath the ocean floor under state waters.

Thus it would have eliminated all environmental concerns of a possible ocean spill, like the disastrous 1969 well-head blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara

But the uncompromising California State Lands Commission wasn’t swayed: by a controversial 2-1 vote, they upheld the contentions of Santa Barbara's most vociferous anti-oil groups, who said, "allowing any new drilling in state waters would suggest the state welcomes offshore drilling, and send a "come-hither" message to other oil companies".

So just what are these idiopathic environmentalists talking about? A "come hither" message to the oil companies? Were they implying some kind of sexual innuendo; or are we talking about energy policy? But whenever it comes to U.S. energy policy, the leftists have never made sense

Of course, this was we'd expect.  It’s always been the left's anti patriotic duty--blocking what’s vital for America's economy, and disregarding the country’s most critical need--domestic energy.

it was your usual "just show ‘em whose boss thing"... exercising one's authority for the sake of power; the control factor (i.e. the abuse of political power); the lust of all leftists.

Never mind that California is bazillions in debt; never mind that the hundreds of millions of barrels of Tranquillion's oil would relieve our  domestic energy shortage. And never mind the 40 billion we continue to send OPEC every month- a crippling, unsustainable drain on our capital.

None of it matters except for California's leftist, mindless insistence of keeping control-- controlling the inevitable slide downward of our country into third world status-- and upholding the law of civilization and decay.

Can this law be repealed? Not if our leftist new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, has his way.

Predictably, Mr. Salazar's first major decision — to cancel oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of public land in Utah — could not have sent a clearer signal that his department is under new management; a rather haughty introduction indeed.

Salazar's appointment as Interior Secretary was a strong indication that the Obama administration intends to take a "more measured approach" to energy exploration on the public lands, and that, "drill-now, drill-anywhere" policies are "a thing of the past".

Mama-Mia! Drilling is to be a thing of the PAST?

What could be more counterproductive to America's economic survival than stating that domestic drilling is passe? OPEC is celebrating as we speak! Fully 95% of America's transportation needs are met by the refined products of petroleum--something that the off shores of the U.S. holds in abundance

So what is America’s future transportation system supposed to run on? Renewables? Wind and solar power?

Sure! Just picture the all new, all electric, 40-ton semi tractor-trailers on the roads; and the heralded hydrogen- powered freight trains; and the wind powered F-22 stealth fighter planes; and don’t forget the massive torque output of the new solar-powered line of Caterpillar bulldozers. Is the Obama administration ready to  deliver these vehicles to replace our conventional powered machines? Not yet?

Yet they contend drilling for oil is a thing of the past. And will these disastrous, economic absurdities of the left ever cease? But haven't these treasonous liberals already damaged America enough? Look at the calamitous wealth destruction they have wrought upon our country:

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has blocked all previous Republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. We have 4 trillion dollars worth of oil sitting in the ground around us. lt's liquid gold--4 TRILLION DOLLARS! Sitting wasted.

And for what? The environment.? For the insistence on developing renewable resources? This is wealth that could go for investment. It's the money a deficit-plagued America needs at a most critical time.

We could rebuild this country's infrastructure. We could invest in alternative energy vehicles; new money for corporate expansion; building high-speed rail corridors; or for R&D toward high tech medical and pharmaceutical advancements; or for developing new inventions and hundreds of new entrepreneurial ideas.

The list is endless.

But without capital, nothing can move forward. And the leftists have chosen to stifle all this, and have declared our own domestic energy resources to be illegal--putting us on the slippery slope downhill toward the fulfillment of the prophecy of the "law of civilization and decay."

So what exactly is this law of civilization and decay?

This is a hypothesis- first proposed by the famous historian Brooks Adams in1894; a law that was the reason for the decline and fall of the Roman and Spanish empires. It held that the seat of world power, throughout history, has consistently followed a westward movement from the ancient crossroads in the East

To illustrate, let’s expound upon this hypothesis: The tendency of history is that power is not static, and the foibles of human nature are the reasons for the inevitable fulfillment of the law.

From ancient Persia; to Alexander the Great in Macedonia; to Athens in ancient Greece; to Rome; to Constantinople, to Spain, then France, and to London; and finally, to America; in accord with a law relating to the density of populations, and the development of new and centralizing techniques of trade and industry, the "law" commands that the seat of power eventually, and invariably, transforms from one country to another in an inevitable westward direction.

In summary, the law upholds that throughout the constant progression of history, the status of each dominant country always declines, and that…"All civilizations fall because of the actions of certain people who made these civilizations vanish."

And this law portends huge trouble for the U.S. And could it be that the radical left is the straw that breaks our nation's back, and moves the seat of power westward? Could our downfall be imperceptibly underway, and migrating westward across the Pacific as we speak?

Right now, China is taking advantage of the worldwide economic downturn to go on a major shopping spree, investing in energy and other natural resources that could give it an economic advantage over the United States that it has never had before.

This should set off alarm bells; but so far it's slipped entirely below our radar. China’s newest investments position the country as a threat to becoming the world's new dominate nation-- a new seat of power-- eclipsing our United States.

And the main reason is painfully obvious: we remain energy static-- while the Chinese proceed ahead at a voracious pace. Unlike the American left, the Chinese are not fools; they see that oil has been (and will continue to be in the foreseeable future) vital to projecting economic power, and key to dominating the world’s economic landscape.
 
Chinese money continues to talk around the globe--so are you listening Nancy Pelosi?

In a recent move, the China Development Bank will lend the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras $10 billion in exchange for a long-term commitment to send oil to China. And with their recent deals they've signed with Russia and Venezuela, this brings Beijing’s total oil investments to $41 billion.

The result? This will prepare China to expand even more rapidly during the next boom when supplies of commodities (like oil ) are likely to tighten again as global growth picks up. And China will have a foothold it lacked during the recent previous  boom, when it grew phenomenally, even with its limited access to domestic resources.

China is flush with cash, thanks to trillions of dollars from decades of selling goods to the West; and they are using it to proceed in the exact opposite direction of the U.S.  The Chinese continue to accumulate huge petroleum energy deposits-- possibly eclipsing America as world's dominant economic power as soon as 2030 

China is a capital rich nation; the U.S. is a capital starved, beggar nation-- woefully lacking in cash-- thanks to the treasonous energy policy of the left, which results in the exportation of our capital to OPEC at a perilous pace of 700 billion a year.

And recently, Venezuela borrowed $6 billion from China and agreed to increase their oil exports to China, bringing China’s total investment in the country to $12 billion. In Brazil, China signed a $10 billion “loan-for-oil” deal that guarantees the country up to 160,000 barrels a day at market prices.

This is sounding more ominous by the minute! But is the Obama administration even paying attention?

In total, China has built up nearly $2 TRILLION in foreign currency reserves, giving the country access to capital for dealing with cashed-starved nations around the world, such as America – the world’s number one debtor nation. And analysts are projecting grave worries about what lengths China will go to compete with the United States (and India), for oil and other natural resources.

The Chinese now could, by virtue of their cash rich position, easily outspend the U.S. for critical oil reserves, and lock out America from being able to compete for limited supplies of the world's strategic military minerals, such as lithium, titanium, nickel, and chromium.

China has struck deals in countries that have access to large supplies of oil and other mineral resources-- right smack where American and European countries are not well positioned-- in Africa and the Middle East.

First, the Chinese took over our manufacturing capacity; and now, we are being outmaneuvered, outsmarted, and outspent for the world's oil and mineral resources. And the Chinese continue to lend us the money we must send to OPEC every month.

So the handwriting is on the wall; and the leftists continue to be the authors. We are losing the race to the Chinese-- and to our great peril-- we are fulfilling the law of civilization and decay.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Before its too late...Americans better come to their census

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, February 23, 2009 3:47:42 PM
 

Question: who ever heard of calling a seated president anti-American...or a sneak? Well, when it comes to Barack Obama (our first anti-president), like the old saying goes..."if the shoe fits-- wear it."

America has always been known as the land of the free, home of the brave, where the buffalo once roamed, etc. But the one thing that is the essence of our country, and our people-- the one thing that truly defines America-- we are a nation that always plays fair...up till now.

Nothing upsets an American more than unfairness.

 

Whether its someone running a red light, or trying to cut in line, that aggressor will usually not go unchallenged. Or how about a bad sporting decision by some bumbling official? Pity the poor guy if his unfair call should decide the contest.

 

Americans have zero tolerance for anyone who plays unfair. And besides fairness, most Americans report mostly conservative view points on most issues. That too hasn't changed.

 

But hold on; what might change, apparently, is how many democratic voters the subversive, Chicago-weaned, Obama administration can produce out of thin air to swing the next election-- and as many elections as possible after that.

 

How is Obama going to accomplish this? By being his predictably sneaky self. He has just moved the constitutionally-required census from the Commerce Department to the White House – specifically putting it under the thumb of his political strategist, Rahm Emanuel.

 

How important is the census? Only that it has continued to accurately reflect the growth of this nation, and uphold the founding principle of fair representation.

 

But to most apathetic Americans, this doesn't seem like a big deal at all: "Da census? A census taker? Whatso inportant about dat ? Duh, how could a boring, droll thing such as a census be somethin' I should worry about?"

 

And that's exactly what Obama and Emanuel are counting on-- subversing the electoral process by the back door-- fudging our census. They intend to create enough democratic districts to overwhelm congressional Republicans until they'll have no say in our fast-disappearing democracy.


And Obama and Emanuel are relying heavily on the apathy of the same dumbed-down portion of the electorate that put him and his cast of odious liberals into power in the first place.

 

So where's Paul Revere now when we need him? Who'll warn America about this? After all, what could sound so benign but be so vitally important to a fairly-represented populace as the census?

 

We are all about to lose our voice in government that the Founding fathers were trying so earnestly to set up originally in our Constitution-- a Constitution that Obama and Emanuel are seeking to overthrow in their lustful grab for absolute one-party power.

 

So is it any wonder he's to be called our first anti-president?

 

Its acutely urgent that a new Constitutional Convention should be adjudicated, in order to pass an amendment requiring the census be conducted by an independent agency -- which is allowed to count only living people-- who are actually located and named, with no "estimates" and no sampling.

 

Obama and Emanuel (and others involved in this coup) are counting on the media to sweep this under the rug, so that Americans won't get all agitated about something as dull as "da census".

 

Our most basic freedom as Americans – the right to vote and have a real chance at changing things – will be taken away. Check with your friends in Mexico; or write to someone in Cuba; or call someone in the old Communist bloc in Europe about how much they enjoyed generations of one-party rule.

 

And as for our beloved messiah anti-president, who promised the most open administration in history, this is what he has decided to try for in his first month in office.

Yes, Barack Obama, the anti-president, has decided once and for all to eliminate the competition in what is supposed to be the fairest game of all --our elections. And democracy requires eternal vigilance, especially when it comes to elections. Nothing is more basic to our democracy than a fair outcome for all elections.

 

So first, you take the census out the hands of the Commerce Secretary. Note: see Senator Judd Gregg for details on why, at first, he was all for holding the cabinet post, then suddenly went belly-up on the idea, realizing that the Frank Nitti of the Whitehouse (Rahm Emanuel) would be calling all his shots. 

Next; a little backround on modern USA voting trends. Big city vote totals ALWAYS go democratic.

 

Example: in the general election of 2004, the biggest city that voted Bush was Anchorage, Alaska. All the next larger cities on up voted democrat. And with the expansion of the urban minority populations, this will only get 'worse' for the republicans in the future-- something that our anti-president is acutely well aware of.

 

So now with Obama-Emanuel in control of the census, they can contend that no one should be "undercounted" (the dis-enfranchisement argument). Therefore, "so in order that we don't under-count in the big cities where its hardest to get accuracy, we are imposing new standards of population sampling and "statistically intelligent" estimates, so as to avoid such undercounting (disenfranchisement)."

So connect the dots--this means all urban population totals will now be adjusted UPWARD in all the cities! This guarantees that with expanded urban population counts, the Constitution requires that more congressional districts be created -- and these newly created districts will always be represented in Washington by democrats.

 

And equally ominous, this will permanently create more electoral votes in the blue states, that will invariably decide all future close presidential elections in favor of the democrats.

 

The result? A backdoor way to bypass the Constitution: The rigging of the census will assure that the democrats will keep the House, the Senate, and the Whitehouse. These underhanded liberals could hold sway in Washington for the next 50 years--possibly longer.

 

Welcome to permanent one-party rule --a conservative country held hostage buy a bunch of treasonous radical leftists, who seek to eternally remain in power- and do their nefarious undermining of our Constitution, and the personal freedoms that it guarantees.

 

Clever...very clever.

 

One can only wonder all the good Mr. Obama could have accomplished if only he would use his brilliance for America instead of against it. 

 

And if the democrats gets away with this egregious power grab, we are guaranteed to lose our right to a life free from a government run totally amok-- a monster on the loose-- controlling nearly every aspect of our lives.

 

Doesn't it seem like Obama is always busy figuring out ways to corrupt our electoral process? First, it was ACORN "registering" fraudulent voters in battleground states; and now its fudging the census so the democrats always win.

 

Is this playing fair? And where does it all stop--when does this all end? Is the political map of the United States of America about to turn completely blue?

 

Thomas Jefferson was a leader among the Founders for establishing an accurate census. He realized it was vitally important in creating a representative government that truly put power in the hands of the people. Jefferson's sentiment was groundbreaking at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, and has been an important part of maintaining our democracy ever since. 

 

And ironically in Washington D.C. just last summer, bi-partisan legislation introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), along with Reps. Chris Cannon (R-UT), and Steve Cohen (D-TN), was written to designate the new state-of-the-art Census Bureau headquarters in Suitland, Maryland as the “Thomas Jefferson Census Bureau Headquarters Building.”

 

This passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives last summer. But with the ascendancy of Barack Obama as our first anti-president, this noble step by congress has lost all its relevance.

 

And if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd might be of mind to say:

“The career scientists, demographers, mathematicians, and professionals of the Census Bureau, as well as the hundreds of thousands of everyday Americans who will be employed in 2010 as temporary census takers, walk in the footsteps of many patriotic Americans before them, and are vital to guaranteeing that Americans everywhere can be confident that their beloved free republic should not be threatened by any attempt to subvert this profoundly important process...our census"

 

Amen.


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Climate Change We All Can't Believe In

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, February 20, 2009 4:03:18 PM
 

Here's a "burning" question Americans should be asking themselves: "How has climate change affected me?"  Am I choking? Boiling? Freezing? Sneezing? Sweating? Gasping? Coughing? Aching? Allergic? Paranoid? Fearful? Anything at all?

So why even consider it? Who amongst ourselves is actually aware of anything strange about the climate?

 

Does your air smell funny...or seem any different? Have you noticed anyone in public wheezing for their lives? Does anything-- anything at all-- seem altered about the weather? Is our children's growth being stunted; or our pets dying prematurely...or are our houses being flooded by rising sea levels?

 

Today climate change is being blamed for everything from drought in California to late delivery of the mail. But seriously, if we weren't constantly exposed to the ominous drumbeat of global warming, we wouldn't give climate change so much as a sniff-- or a wink.

Dangerous powerful storms, drought, melting glaciers, dying polar bears, calamitous tornadoes, apocalyptic hurricanes, tsunamies in the Far East, and anything hinting of catastrophe--all have been ascribed to the fallacy of climate change.

 

About the only things that have been left out are volcanic eruptions, and plagues of locusts.

 

Meanwhile back in Washington, the Obama administration is taking a new tack concerning the so called danger from climate change. It's now being melded into America's "newly revamped" policy of our national security.

 

Yes folks you heard correctly; climate change poses a threat to our national security. Oh my golly!

 

And how's this for their reasoning: A strategic studies report from the Institute for Public Research states..."the rise in sea levels is hugely important for the Navy, as it effects the use of beaches, piers and "facilities".

 

Yes indeed, Americans can sleep well, knowing that the Navy is in the process of dealing with the dreaded threat that climate change poses to our beaches and piers.

 

The Obama administration feels it's necessary to make a 180 from the previous administration, and has decided that it's imperitive to develop "21st-century" procedures to deal with the challenges of climate change--worlwide shortages and unprecedented migrations of adversely affected nations -- leading  to violent clashes and world war horror.

 

Quite a stretch. 

So forget al-Quida; forget nuclear proliferation-- future wars will be caused by migration of besieged refugee nations, fleeing from the torments of climate change.


Such absurdity!

 
But for Barack Obama, obfuscating reality comes naturally . His climate change assumption reeks of fallacy-- that Americans must learn to think differently about national security--and that we have no other choices.

 

Obviously, the handwriting's on the wall. It can be read a mile away. Obama is going to use climate change to alter everything toward his marxist way of thinking. This includes downsizing the military; wresting control of the economy; attacking the private sector with environmental regulations, and going after every entity that uses energy--which encompasses everyone.

It's Barack Obama's personal vendetta -the war on the status quo! And it could end up as the most costly war of all time. Higher energy bills; higher food prices; 6 dollar/gallon gasoline; the destruction of heavy industry-- etcetera ad nauseum.

But ironically, the real threat to our national security may be the very thing Obama is proposing to alleviate climate change --the refusal to drill offshore --and the rising tide of importing more and more OPEC oil.

From virtual nowhere comes Obama, and his condemnation of all fossil fuels, inviting disastrous future energy shortages, including the precise kind of energy truly vital to our national security...oil. So now America's ticket has been punched: we're on our way to the wondrous world of alternative green energy --and damning demon petroleum.

On paper, Mr. Obama's ideas sound great. Obama will clean the planet; he'll curb the rise in the oceans. He'll create 5 million new green collar jobs that can't be outsourced; and no more so-called "dirty oil". 

 

Thunderation! Holy Moses! Let the Red Sea part-- Obama is about to lead the U.S.out of its 40 year plague from OPEC! But unfortunately, it's all fictional. But fiction has great political box office appeal these days to many Americans, who naively believe we could abandon oil, and move to alternative sources without missing a beat.


Yes Mr Obama; he makes it all sound so very easy.

But retooling America's energy infrastructure is far more complex. It isn't one challenge, it's thousands—a total overhaul of the American lifestyle involving deep changes in every home, vehicle, and business in the country--let alone the military implications.

 

And Commander in chief Obama is poised for take off. He wants to launch a 150 billion energy plan, and free our nation of foreign oil in ten years. But what kind of calendar is Mr. Obama going by? In ten years, because of his ban on drilling, the U.S. could be importing 90% of its oil.

Obama is anti-oil, anti-nuclear, AND anti coal! So lets dub him as the anti-president.

So where would all these anti-energy policies of our beloved anti-president put us in five or ten years? It could leave us without a viable energy supply for this entire 21st century!  95% of our nation's transportation needs are currently met by fossil fuels. And despite the environmental protests to the contrary, oil and gasoline will be around for the next 50-100 years.

 
Or does the anti-president have some miraculous new energy source in mind? We need gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel to run our nation's cars, trucks, trains, heavy equipment, and fighter planes. 

 

Mr Obama's proposing a blue sky energy fairytale that could jeorpardize our nation-- a national security crisis during an emergency-- leaving our strategic petroleum reserve at near zero capacity, and a vulnerability to critical unforeseen events, such as a flash outbreak of war in the Middle East. 

 

This is the real danger to our national security-- not this patently absurd, so called threat of climate change.

We are a nation that runs on oil; and a country that runs on oil can't afford to run out.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hardy har OPEC...low demand may give U.S. drivers the last laugh!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:45:05 PM

Oh terrible-terrible-terrible. Calamity! What misfortune. Ethanol, Congress' answer to our energy woes, is struggling mightily. It seems as though corn derived ethanol, supposedly the flexible fuel of the future, is proving to be decidedly inflexible when it comes to alternative energy.
 
Maybe they should have tried Mazola oil.

And because of this foolish shortsightedness of Congress, American consumers (and the rest of the world) have been suffering under the burden from high worldwide corn prices--which has added to the cost of almost everything –including the cost of living,

And woe is Iowa, the state that will be the biggest loser in the collapse of the ethanol energy boondoggle. It seems as though the corn belt is about to get belted-- right smack in its economic nose.

Barely a year after Congress enacted an energy law meant to foster a huge national ethanol enterprise, the goals lawmakers set for that industry are in serious jeopardy. Plants that make ethanol from corn had been sprouting across the Midwest. But now, with motorists driving less in the economic downturn, these plants are shutting down virtually everyday.

And is it any surprise? Every time Congress sticks its liberal nose into the laws of the free market, it backfires every time.

Corn ethanol in a word--is a bust. And so are all the other related energy-producing  "industries" such as wood chips, switchgrasss, and crop waste. Despite the flowery predictions of Barack Obama’s inaugural speech, the U. S. is not about to become the Saudi Arabia of "soil produced" energy.

And for all the greedy investors who rushed in to build ethanol refining plants, it’s back to square one.

Only months ago, refiners in some regions were buying up as much corn ethanol as they could to blend with expensive gasoline, effectively keeping pump prices down slightly. But those were the glory days of $144/barrel oil prices; and to the chagrin of the clean fuel lobby, those days might never return.

Since last summer, oil and gasoline prices have plunged, while the price of corn, from which virtually all commercial ethanol in this country is made, has remained relatively high. And so have food prices, which initially rocketed upward after congress' fateful mandate in 2007.

The alternative energy worshippers are about to discover that ethanol will only be the first to topple from the false gods of clean fuel. From the nation's 150 ethanol entities and their 180 plants, 10 or more companies have shut down a total of 24 plants over the last three months.

Most of the nation’s largest ethanol producers have suspended production. And all of them are teetering on the brink.

But the dumbo-crats in Congress never seem to learn about the law of unintended consequences (a cousin of Murphy's law). It cannot be repealed. But predictably, this is not how it was supposed to be when Congress required that refiners blend ethanol into the country’s transportation fuel supply.

Congress, in a hapless attempt to create a demand where there was none, had mandated a doubling of corn ethanol use, to 15 billion gallons a year by 2015. But it’s turned out to be only a futile try at reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil, and to lower the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Energy experts project that national gasoline consumption in 2009 and 2010 will be 6 percent or more below the 2007 level. And future ethanol production targets could represent no more than 10 percent of gasoline production.

And because congressional regulations had set a 10 percent blend limit for ethanol in most gasoline, there seems  to be no other place for ethanol production to go.

But ethanol’s downfall may be threatened on another front-- in Detroit. Automobile manufacturers say most of their cars are not designed to run on high ethanol concentrations.

Ethanol (alcohol) is a solvent-- this includes fuel lines, and all other rubber-based connectors that go under the hood. So car manufacturers despise it. And while it may burn cleaner than gasoline, the bang for the fuel buck just isn’t there. There’s no oomph compared to the power you get with gasoline.

It’s all about combustibility--this means poor mileage, poor ability to start in cold weather, engine knocks on hills, pre-ignition, and your basic displeasure from a public used to a driving tradition of 100-plus years on good ole gasoline.

But this abject failure probably will only encourage the dumbocrats to try harder the next time-- damn the economy-- full environmentalism ahead! “It’s possible we may have to look at the targets again,” said Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Translation: although we liberal do-gooders were dead-wrong, and have roiled worldwide food prices, we shall not be deterred.
 
And they’ll never learn.These coconut heads refuse to be confused by the hard economic facts of science-- refining plant-derived energy requires the expansion of fossil fuel energy to achieve the end result. It’s the scientific equivalent of chasing your tail…a zero-sum gain.

Producing these “advanced” fuels entails breaking down a tough material, cellulose, that is abundant in corn cobs, wood chips and other biological waste; then converting it to liquid fuel requires the expansion of more energy than the end product may be worth in today’s volatile markets.

While scientists have proven it can be done, the cost is still high, and solving the technological hurdles for these plant-based fuels has proven to be an exercise in futility.

But despite all evidence to the contrary, the media will continue to hang by the side of the enviro-crats in Congress, maintaining that …“Cellulosic ethanol is something that’s less than five years away.” But  five years later we’ll get to the point where it’s still five years away.

And then what?

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Big Brother behind the wheel stimulate our new "leech" economy?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:17:24 PM
 

Ah yes, America-- the land of the free; but for how much longer?

 

Probably not much.

 

The latest trend is not our friend; it's called the "Vehicle Miles Traveled" program, yet another dreaded government innovation to reach deeper into our pockets, and take away our beloved freedom of cruising down the road, unencumbered by the odometer.

 

Of course, given the results the last election, we should have known this was coming-- automotive wealth re-distribution.

 

The AP is reporting on a tentative plan-- overhaul Massachusett's transportation system by using GPS chips to CHARGE motorists a quarter-cent for every mile behind the wheel. This has drivers a wee bit angered, along with some republican legislators: "It's outrageous, it's kind of Orwellian, Big Brotherish," said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, who drafted legislation last week to prohibit the practice

 

So who is it that keeps on dreaming up these Orwellian measures? Is it some think tank comprised of little cretin-ish, nefarious bureaucrats, hidden away in some esoteric sanctum in Washington? It seems like the ways to separate wealth from Americans who own cars knows no bounds!

 

First it was red light cameras; then it was speed cameras. Then it was cameras in school zones; and we have cameras proliferating construction zones. And now, it's GPS to track one's every mile driven--all for one purpose-- fines and taxation!

 

More money for the government. More money they can spend wastefully, buying up votes to keep them in power! It's the same thing in a new wrapper--your typical way of sucking money from the from haves, and bestowing the have nots.

 

Yes, penalize drivers for driving too much; penalize drivers for going too far. Penalize drivers for exceeding the low-ball speed limits by 2 mph. And no way of appeal. You're automatically guilty-- pay the fine, or lose your registration to drive your car.

 

Yes; the land of the free…free to be regulated in every aspect of our lives. The dam of liberty is now broken wide open--highway robbery style.

 

And yesterday in Colorado, Barack Obama is now talking about smart electric meters; more Big Brother in the very place we all live-- in our homes!

 

Obama proclaimed..."We will build on the work that’s being done in places like Boulder, Colorado" ...“This investment will place Smart Meters in homes to make our energy bills lower, make outages less likely and make it easier to use clean energy.”

 

May God help the taxpayer! We're now going to be watched while we drive, and measured by how much energy we use at home, all under the guise of saving the environment, conserving energy, and being more responsible citizens.

 

Even our toilets are under assault. Recently, the National Energy Policy Act (H.R. 776) went into effect and mandated what kind of commode you can have in your bathroom. By U.S. federal decree, new toilets must flush with no more than 1.6 gallons of water, less than half the amount they used in the '80s.

 

What’s next, how much food were permitted to store in our refrigerators? Or energy regulators on our stoves? It's for sure that the little cretins in Washington are working on something for the kitchen; they seem to have the rest of the house well-covered.

 

But all else aside, nothing portends more ominously than the proliferation of red light cameras.

 

Photo-enforcement is being sold to us as a safety issue. But in fact, private studies have shown that many drivers now slam on their brakes with the yellow, and rear-end collisions at intersections keep multiplying.

 

And speaking of yellow, does the cowardice of these municipalities have no end? People are not aware that when these cameras are first installed, they fudge the length of the yellow light. The profit motive reigns supreme. The companies split the fines with the municipalities. They also instruct the cities to SHORTEN the yellow to the briefest time allowed by state law, so as to "maximize" their impact. 

This is beyond a dirty trick; it actually puts drivers in danger, playing red-light Russian roulette at busy intersections.

 

So damn the safety of the citizens-- show us the money! If these callous cities were truly interested in safety, they would INCREASE yellow light time, which, statistics show, greatly reduces accidents at intersections.

 

But abbreviated yellow lights are just the beginning:

 

Fellow citizens be aware-- those right turns on red constitute the majority of redlight citations. If you dare to turn before your car comes to a full and complete stop, you will see a $200 red light ticket in your mailbox-- more bogus ways to hose the average driver.

 

And how's this for a dirty trick-- the locations of the cameras are not required to be made known to the public. Yes; the little cretins think of every last detail.

 

And the wondrous beloved state of Ohio has recently weighed in on the march to roadway communism. The Ohio Department of Public Safety this week briefed lawmakers on its proposal to install cameras in construction zones that would photograph speeders' license plates. Tickets would be mailed to the registered owners' homes.

 

Of course the department insisted yesterday that safety - not money - is the catalyst.

 

Predictably, these cameras have been catching on in other states. Illinois was a pioneer, deploying speed cameras for the first time in 2006. Since then, other states including Washington and Wisconsin have used the devices in construction zones. Lawmakers in Maryland and Arizona approved construction zone cameras last year.

 

Yes the legislators smell blood. For the hapless driving public, it's pay, pay, pay.

 

In Illinois, more than 4,000 drivers were nabbed by the cameras in the first nine months. State police there credit the cameras with helping to reduce the number of construction-zone fatalities from twenty five in 2005, to twenty one in 2007...a net saving of 4 lives.

 

First-time offenders in Illinois are fined $375. But what about at night when there is no construction? Is eveyone still going to slow down to 45 mph? Hah!

 

It's easy money.

 

So do the math: 4000 x 375= 1,500,000 dollars out of Illinois driver's pockets-- and 4 extra lives saved. This is 1.5 million funneled out of the state's economy that could have been spent in the private sector. 

 

If you think about it, the grievous damage these measures will do now becomes apparent. These easy-money, outrageously inflated fines will suck money from the public and have an invisible shrinking effect on America's economic growth. And for what? Safety? Saving lives?

 

No; it's for bigger government!

 

Keep expanding the regulations. Keep the ever-larger amounts of money flowing into local and state coffers. More laws...more bureaucrats hired to administer them. More government salaries to be paid; more government pensions to be permanently allocated into state budgets --all on the backs of the taxpayers.

 

Let's define it as, "the new leach economy". Suck the people dry in the name of more government bureaucracy. The government blooodsuckers know no limits. No amount of money is enough! It's all part of a desperate plot to wring ever more money out of  a society that is teetering on bankruptcy.

 

And remember to sincerely pray for those 4 lives in Illinois that were saved.

 

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Smirk vs.The Smile-- the political polarization of a nation

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:12:23 PM

Surveys anyone? Here's a tasty political tidbit:
 
In Pennsylvania, a recent  Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion looked at a sample of the hundreds of thousands of former Republicans in the state who've defected and voted Democrat the last two election cycles.

An astounding 67 percent of the ex-Republican respondents cited former President Bush as a "very important" catalyst for their decision to leave the party. Fifty-four percent cited the Iraq war.
 
The most worrisome factor for the GOP is that these were once long-term loyal voters. And most were suburban, like those around Bucks county in Philadelphia. They're the better educated, wealthier individuals who now will be voting "blue."
 
This is extraordinary--who would have ever thought that the bread-n-butter of the party, the wealthy well-educated suburbanites, would have ever given up their republican badges for any reason. But the last 8 years were indeed extraodinary-- the near-complete political polarization of America; a situation not seen in our country since the pre-Civil war era of the 1830's.
 
Recall the events leading up to that war. It was because of the economic polarization of the Union, precipitated by the actions of a Republican congress.

In 1828, The "slave" state of South Carolina was in turmoil over what it called the "Tariff of Abominations ." The Constitution did not permit the federal government to tax exports. But taxes on imports would be onerous for an agriculture-based economy like the South, which had to import many of its machines, and nearly all its luxuries.

As planters and slaveholders, the South expected President Andrew Jackson to side with them against the "Tariff of Abominations of 1828" that Congress had approved . Vice  President John Calhoun, a South Carolinian himself, argued that when a state’s rights were violated by the federal government, the state had a right to nullify the offending federal law and prevent its enforcement.

Calhoun's tacit implication was that a state had a right to leave the Union. Thus secession, the logical end result of nullification, began to seriously be argued throughout the country's political dens in1829 and early 1830.

On April 13, 1830, attention was focused on the Jefferson Day banquet in Washington D.C. Out of courtesy, President Andrew Jackson was asked to deliver a toast. Jackson looked directly at John C. Calhoun and vowed... "Our federal Union. It must be preserved!"

So what's the point? Simple- God help America! Our country  is sorely in need of another Andrew Jackson. We are a country in dire need of unity.

In all its 235 year history, has America ever seen two extraordinarily divisive presidents in a row as we're experiencing now?

Barack Obama won in 2008  by putting together an unprecedented grass roots organization that swelled his democratic advantage in Pennsylvania by an unprecedented swing of 1.2 million voters. But how many of them voted out of pure unbridled hatred of George Bush? How many of their votes for Obama were cast to just to "get even" with Bush?

The Muhlenberg findings suggest that this was exactly the case.

And what's worse for the Republicans, the survey recorded that only 22 percent of the former Republicans said they were likely to change their registration again in the next five years. This suggests that Bush Dubya has driven an enormous divisive wedge from which the party may never recover.

Again, It can be said with some certainty, that the election of 2008 was less about the success of Barack Obama, and more about the virulent political backlash against the reviled George Bush.
 
Maybe it was the way Dubya sliced and diced the English language into nonsensical "Bushisms", where he couldn't even conjugate his verbs properly. Or maybe it was his exaggerated sense of self-righteousness.
 
And of course, we had the Iraq war.

But the mega-disastrous end result is what we have now -a radical leftist-controlled Democratic Congress-- and the specter of a complete social transformation under the neo-Stalinist, Barack Obama.
 
Yes, it was good ole George W. bush-- agent provocateur of the political polarization of this once-united country.  And instead of a smile, Bush was the total opposite of political de riguere; he had that smirk...that hated smirk.

Whenever questioned about the legitimacy of the Iraq war, Mr. Bush would reply with "THE SMIRK". Whenever questioned about the wisdom of spiking the national debt with his socialist senior prescription drug plan, Bush replied with "the smirk".

Yes; just as the old axiom goes; it's not what you say as president, but HOW you say it.
 
And Bush never seemed to be able to say anything with the political decorum of a president; and the public hated him for it.  Hence, his recent political ranking as one of the 10 worst presidents ever.
 
Now contrast "the smirk" vs. "the GRIN." It's how Barack Obama gets away with saying anything; it's his perfect smile.

And as a wise old timer once said..." you can tell a person to go to hell right to his face, but as long as you do it with a big smile, the other person might just go along with it".

This theory was evident last fall during Obama's primary campaign:
 
scene: St Louis;  Obama  addressing the crowd at one of his rock-star campaign rallies...

OBAMA: "Hello St Louis! (flashes his big Cheshire cat-grin)...Today, John McCain said he wants to give more tax cuts to Exxon and big oil"...(BOO!) ..."This is just more of the same failed policies of George Bush!  (BOOO!). But Its time we stop favoring Wall Street, and think about Main Street!" (YAY!)

Translation: I will be the most anti-capitalist, anti-business president in history.

Obama continued..."It's time we give the rest of America a break! (YAY!!)... I'm going to give tax cut to the other 95 percent of America! (HOO-RAY!!)...America doesn't need another George Bush in the White house (YAY!)... That's how we will move America forward (YAY!)... And that’s why I'm running for president of the United States!"

Translation; get ready for socialism and wealth re-distribution.

Obama smiles whenever he presents something that goes against what America has always stood for--the freedoms put forth in our Bill of Rights-- freedom from the tyranny of a big government.

Obama has that grin...that devastating smile.
 
Recall when Obama was campaigning in the environmentally conscious state of Oregon; where the President called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming:

OBAMA: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want, and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,"

Obama had said all this with his trademark big smile. So how else could he have gotten away with such an egregious statement? Basically Obama was telling America..."elect me and you'll suffer a decline in your standard of living".

Well, America elected him, and we are suffering a decline into a soviet-style socialism that may forever change the character of our nation. But despite those outrageous campaign statements, the media never once called him on anything. But again, Obama got away with it because he'd said it with a smile.

Yes; from his early days in politics, Obama had "the smile", similar to the beloved John F Kennedy. Even back as a community organizer in south Chicago, Obama had that winning smile that could charm and disarm almost any opponent.
 
Could it be that the "smile factor" was why Obama's obvious political charm appealed to the radical leftists, such as William Ayers, and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn? Was it why they chose to set the stage for his political debut in their own living room?

Could it be that they saw in Obama a man richly gifted in the skills of articulation, public oration, manipulation, and equanimity? Skills that would pretext someone who could change people's minds against their own best interests?  A man so disarming in appearance and candor, that no one would ever suspect the devious nature within-- a man who could turn America against itself!

And a man who could transform the country seemingly overnight in a non-violent socialist revolution.
 
Obama comes across as almost being too intelligent, a know-it-all in the truest sense of the word . But how could he possibly NOT know the almost certain devastation his radical leftist stance will do to our country?

Obama claimed he would reach across the aisle; but since he took the oath of office, all evidence of his actions have been to the contrary:

EXAMPLE: President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill …"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

This was extremely divisive, and set the tone for the first term of his presidency-- that Obama would play dictator with a big grin.

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting. Obama was obviously noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers

Obama was gloating to the point where he might as well have stuck out his tongue, saying "nyah-nah--you lose". But our sacred media have set Obama on a pedestal made of excuses. No matter what Obama does, someone will have an excuse ready for him.

So now America will be faced with the possibility of another bitter polarization for possibly another 8 years, which leads us back to another history lesson from Colonial times:

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a certain lady, a Mrs. Powell, anxiously awaited the results. And as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic --if you can keep it," responded Franklin.

So what kind of republic do we have today? One where the social fabric has literally been torn asunder-- the disaster of successive presidents who, in their own unique way, have both managed to split America in two.

With Bush it was the shouting --people divided over the Iraq war-- squaring off against each other face to face.

And with Obama, we have the lowered voices --a sure sign that our nation's social fabric and patriotic unity is under attack.

Americans now whisper... afraid to speak their true opinion in normal public discourse; suffering from the fear that the people are already on the inevitable path to losing their constitutional right to free speech.

So are we headed for a new type of Cuba, where government repression takes away our freedoms, one by one?

Apparently Ben Franklin was right: we have a Republic, if we can keep it. And we may be on the verge of losing it.

And all the while, Mr. Obama will be doing it with a big smile.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ask Harry Reid...Could the stimulus monstrosity actually create some prosperity?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, February 16, 2009 8:34:22 PM

At last-- who'da thunk it.

Just when you thought the fine print of stimulus bill couldn't get any worse, there's been an amazing positive revelation. And it wasn't some "porky amendment" from Charles (doomer-gloomer) Schumer.

Try not to collapse from shock; it was something DEMOCRATIC that would truly stimulate the economy, and create permanent high paying jobs for any and all Americans who qualify as such.

So what's all the big deal? It was Harry Reid to the rescue, whose sneaky, last-second insertion provided for building a Disneyland-Las-Vegas high speed maglev railroad. It was little more than a barely disguised earmark championed by the Senate majority leader; but most importantly, it was done with the last minute approval of President Obama.

During all of the final negotiations of the 800 billion-dollar bill, it was the largest single item to be added -- $8 billion for building high speed rail (HSR). This cheered rail advocates everywhere, who'd been perplexed about why the original package had included relatively little for rail and mass transit.

President Obama has often stated his support for investing more in those forms of transportation as a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, so the item was added at his request because, as Rahm Emanuel stated succinctly..."it met the presidents 'criteria' for stimulus spending".
 
And for anyone with enough stamina to plow through all the bill's 1000-plus pages, is there anything that DOESN'T qualify as stimulus "criteria"?
 
But for once, here's a president that understands the huge economic efficiencies of high speed rail networks. Plus, the mostly flat topography of our country makes the idea all the more feasible. The really good news about all this is that Mr. Obama took a personal interest in this provision. This is indeed crucial, as building out HSR networks in such a big country will require a lot of follow-through from the Whitehouse.
 
QUESTION: Why, each day, do millions of Americans waste innumerable hours (and incredible amounts of fossil fuel) stuck in interstate traffic?

QUESTION #2: Why, each day, do Americans torture themselves in crowded airplanes, constantly wasting time (and fuel) waiting for take off and landing slots?

ANSWER: Political stupidity; especially when considering how much productivity and energy is being expended uselessly.
 
But now, can you picture the nation's travelers after completion of a nationwide HSR network?
 
Road rage on interstates, and time wasted by airline protocol would be supplanted by relaxing, socializing, text messaging, laptop work, watching a movie, enjoying the dining car, reading, or sightseeing out the windows at 200-plus mph.
 
It sure beats looking at cloud tops from a airplane window seat, or getting flipped off by some crazed, type"A" aggressor-driver in gridlocked interstate traffic.

So what in the world have we been waiting for?

Even the Chinese, our trustworthy Asian competitors, have successfully introduced a high speed rail corridor from Beijing to the new Tianjin airport. The two cities, with a total population of 30 million, are now connected with 200 mph overhead electric-powered bullet trains. The trip takes just thirty minutes, and has reduced the overcrowding at the old airport in Beijing.

China is taking the idea nationwide and is planning the construction of another 13,000 km of high-speed track. While here in The United States, we have all these metro areas, but no true high-speed rail corridors.

But take heart all ye weary travelers; there are a lot of plausible city pairs and corridor projects that could be fired as "magic bullets" to stop the current recession dead in its tracks.

bullet #1:San Francisco, to LA, to San Diego, along the west coast.
bullet #2: Chicago, to Detroit, to Cleveland, to Pittsburgh (to Philadelphia) in the midwest
bullet #3: Dallas to Houston, in the southwest.
bullet #4: Richmond, Va. to Washington D.C., to New York, to Boston, on the East coast.

High speed rail would fulfill the actual purpose of a stimulus-- an entire new industry that could eventually employ tens of millions of people throughout the entire 21st century.

So let's give senator Reid some credit. A high speed rail link between L.A. and Vegas is a splendid idea. The distance is relatively short, and much of it is basically in desolate desert with few right-of-way issues. It’s almost perfect for this kind of project.

And is there any more guaranteed money-maker than a train between Los Angeles and Las Vegas? It would probably make money even if it were a normal-speed train.

There are currently flights on Southwest Air from any of the 4 L.A. basin airports to Las Vegas. One way is usually around $60 or less. But many people refuse to fly (if they can help it), and would gladly pay $50 each way for high speed rail.

This HSR link between Anaheim-Vegas should’ve happened a long time ago. There was a plan in the mid 70s which got to the bidding phase. Then a scandal erupted from the Las Vegas side. The bids turned out to be rigged (mob involvement alleged), so the project was scrapped. And at that time, our wonderful benefactor Harry Reid was a "just" a local politician about to make a name for himself on the Nevada Gaming Control Board.

Next priority: What about developing a real HSR in the Northeast Corridor, where the demand is already quite high, and the Acela is underwhelming. Currently the trip from Boston to Washington D.C. takes 8 hours. But what If  you could make it from Boston to New York in under 2 hours? Boom!

Yes; it would be maglev to the rescue. Productivity spikes. Everyone gets a boost from all the time saved. Plus it would eliminate the necessity of having to expand I-95, the dreaded highway that takes road rage to an art form (i.e... "when are they going to widen this **#*^--**#* Interstate 95"?)

There are unlimited options, including Texas, Florida, and all the Midwest states . The plan could radiate outward from a hub-spoke network centered from Chicago.

In Europe, people love riding high speed maglev trains, and consider them vastly superior to airplanes. Even the Australian government is planning a massive new system of railways for their coastal cities. In Spain, 10,000 km of high-speed rail are already under construction
 
But in our United States, we've lagged behind for no other reason than a lack of vision. But why? What has been keeping our nation's political visionaries so blinded by the idea of a HSR network, similar to our interstate highway system? Even as far back in the 60's, high speed interstate rail would have been right for America.
 
But as the old, ho-hum saying goes..."better late than never".

Experts predict a design of this new interstate railway system would total approx 10,000 miles in length, and be in the direct service of metro areas representing 60% of the population of the United States. And it could also incorporate spurs to the population centers of Canada.

And what happens when you get off? Here's where the private sector boom comes in. There would be a whole new realm of "destination jobs" that would be created at the junction stops and cities, such as hotel-motel, car rental, restaurant, retail, and even tourist jobs.

Our great rail history could repeat itself 140 years later. A transcontinental high speed rail network would remove millions of cars, and hundreds of planes from our nation's transportation equation. The job-creation factor could lift us from recession; and it isn't some pie-in-the-sky deal like hydrogen cars, windmill farms, or growing switchgrass to replace fossil fuel.

Can any one argue the fact that we need a "circuit-breaker" between the airlines and the endangered gasoline automobile? Imagine if Delta/NWA, and Continental all went bankrupt? Who could buy these companies and maintain their huge passenger shares?

Let's not forget; crowded air corridors are just one of the angles by which we can move forward with rail, because of the fragility of our air system. But for some reason, the bias against long distance HSR seems to have been predicated on the idea that the public would prefer air travel over those distances. While this may be true in the present, there is nothing to guarantee that situation won't change.

Consider two things: Air travel may keep getting less and less convenient via increased security; and future fuel prices may make it too expensive. Imagine what would happen when the middle class gets priced out of flying? Or what might happen if businesses-- watching their bottom lines-- start sending their people on trains instead of pricey airlines.

Furthermore, a high-speed network would create strong competition between Midwestern cities located close to one another, and could help revive dying towns like the ones in rustbelt Ohio.

In his 1962 speech given at Rice University in Houston, President John F. Kennedy re-affirmed America's commitment to landing a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's. The President spoke in philosophical terms about the need to solve the mysteries of space, and also defended the enormous expense of the space program.

But if President Kennedy were around today, would he not approve of a similar expenditure-- constructing hi-speed rail corridors spanning the nation? It could be another Apollo project, with terrific economies of scale----time and fuel saved, high paying jobs created, auto and air traffic reduced, and the sheer fun and excitement of rail travel.
 
There'd be a binge of  permanent, high-paying, skilled employment. We'd have steel and manufacturing jobs; railroad and construction jobs; engineering and technology employment. Plus we'd have the one thing that's been lacking since the 1960's-- we'd be united in purpose. We'd have a national goal-- BUILD the rail network-- just like the NASA moon shot of the 60's.

So now that this highly-aspirational idea has been put forth, can we please get a little co-operation from Congress?  Can we, for once, just table all the politics and bickering, and get this underway, with no delay-prone environmental lawsuits, or eminent domain bickering?
 
So is President Obama, and America, finally on the right track?

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Going nowhere? A nation without motivation.

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, February 13, 2009 4:30:01 PM

Here's a pertinent observation one might find interesting: Comparing government employees with workers in the private sector.
 
When the St. Anthony Bridge (I-35 West) collapsed in Minneapolis, killing 13 people, it had severed a major artery into Minneapolis. At the time, it was feared it would take three years to rebuild it at an astronomical cost.  When Governor Tim Pawlenty announced that he wanted it rebuilt within 17 months, everyone scoffed at such an improbability.
 
Pawlenty guessed incorrectly. It took less than 14 months to rebuild the bridge. And it came in under budget. Why? The job was turned over to the private sector.The team of FIGG Engineering, Flatiron Constructors, and Manson Construction, won the bid for the project and delivered a new bridge in what turned out to be an unprecedented time frame.

But how? It was pure motivation.
 
Construction began well before the final design was completed. Teams of contractors worked 12-hour shifts in brutal subzero temperatures. By shaving off more than 12 weeks from the 17 month deadline, FIGG, Flatiron and Mason earned themselves hefty bonuses, which no doubt played a part in the bridge's early completion.
 
Now let's shift our story to Boston- home to the infamous "Big Dig."
 
When excavation began in 1991, it was heralded as a jewel of engineering and vision. Then after many years of cost overruns, delays, and myriad construction-related problems, the most expensive highway project in U.S. history was finally completed, save for an array of nettlesome side projects.
 
One big source of its delay-- faulty bolts throughout. Tests showed more than 1,100 bolt assemblies that used epoxy, and more than 300 other areas in the connector tunnel complex were unreliable. All had to be retrofitted-- flaws typical in every government project.

Throughout its lengthy construction, the Big Dig stood up to nationwide ridicule for its delays, faulty design, cost overruns, and overall general incompetence.

Of course when it comes to anything involving the government, competence is a foreign word.
 
The $14.6 billion Big Dig took 14 years to construct-- the most expensive highway project in U.S. history. And the Dig's overall cost exceeded double the Panama Canal's price in today's dollars.
 
And can you guess why? Of course; 60 percent of the project's tab was federal-- meaning the "drone factor" was involved--and nearly every American taxpayer has felt the impact of the Big-Dig's price tag.
 
So what is this mysterious government drone factor? Simple; it all boils down to one thing--motivation-- the essence of all human behavior.

One fact of our human nature is that if were not challenged to take things to a higher level, a person may get a little lazy, and slack off into drone-ish mediocrity. And government programs often inspire most workers into achieving new heights of mediocrity.

Why do successful football coaches make the big bucks? They are the ones capable of pushing their players to a higher level. Coaches are motivators.

And motivators are worth it. They boost productivity. It's basic to our human nature. If people are not challenged to take their lives to a higher level, they tend to remain in a sea of mediocrity-- only the motivated are the ones who standout. Motivation is the one essential of all human achievement.

If there's a behavioral-political lesson to be gleaned from all this, it can be summed up in a nutshell- the basic reason why government programs never work-- there is nothing to truly motivate anyone to do anything properly.

Example: let’s use the dreaded state auto bureau registrar as your typical government drone agency. Let's say your job is to mail out license plates, and let's say it’s Friday at 2 p.m. and you're not interested in working any longer. What would happen if you just dawdled around, and then left at 3:15, citing the excuse, "I'm not feeling too chipper". What would be the consequences?

Example #2: let's say you work at a privately-owned UPS franchise store, and your job is to wrap and ship customer packages promptly. What if you decided to walk out at 3:15 on a Friday, citing the same "I don't feel good" excuse? Would you...

a) be questioned by the mgr.
b) be told by the mgr. "to tough it out" till closing
c) be told by mgr. he's calling owner to say, "you went home early"
d) be fired

Answer=All the above

Here's the salient point: without consequences there can be no rule; no order of any kind. And without order there can be no discipline. And without discipline, there can be no accomplishment.

So analyze just about any government position. You just show up. You can be mediocre; you can slack off... watch the clock... do a crossword...surf the net. Who cares? There's really no urgency to get anything done promptly because there are no consequences, other than maybe some type of minor murmur from your supervisor.

But the supervisor isn't the owner; the supervisor isn't the one PAYING you. It's the government, which is a faceless, paper-shuffling bureaucracy running on the taxpayer's time and money.

Thus, nothing tangible ever gets accomplished on time, because there are no consequences. Once again --who cares! It's the government stupid! What did you expect-- something done on time? Something done right the first time? Something finished ahead of schedule? Work harder for the government? Hah! For what?

This is why big government has never been (and will never be) the answer to our nation's problems. Can anything positive ever be accomplished if mediocrity is the norm, incompetence is tolerated, and excellence is non-existent?

There have only been two greatly successful government programs in our modern history:

First-- the 1942 national transformation from peacetime to wartime economy. This was because Americans had the most powerful motivator of all--survival-- the country was united under president Roosevelt. Factories ran 24/7. Inspired people worked 12-hour shifts. We out-produced our enemies and won the war.

In the 1960's, we achieved what seemed impossible at that time ...we landed on the moon, and safely returned our men. Once again our nation was united under President Kennedy who had set one goal--win the space race over the Soviet Union.

Recall the great legacy of Ronald Reagan, an inspirational, patriotic motivator. He was instrumental in guiding 1980's America to a wildly successful peacetime decade of prosperity.

But now, we ignore American history at our own peril. We've seen roller coaster times ever since. There have been no great motivators. The White house has been sorely lacking for its next great inspirational leader.

Presently America has arrived at a fork in the road; we can retain our free market heritage-- or we can progress down the pathway to Barack Obama's socialist neo-democracy-- a change we all have been deceived in.

It all harkens back to the Marx-Engels concept -- The State vs. The Individual. The individual exists for the State. Everyone in effect, becomes "government employees"...drones subservient to the State.

And socialism is the same old Marxist theory. Tax the rich; give to the poor. Class distinction. Class envy. That's Obama's neo-communist America. Remove all incentive; crush the entrepreneurs; set income limits with the ceiling of taxation. The more you earn, the more severely you will be penalized.

Examine all the socialist countries in Europe. Except for Ireland (a low tax-high growth economy), the other nations could be best described as mediocre performers. If wealth is equalized by redistribution, and the government takes charge of everything else, who amongst the masses has the desire to perform at a higher level ?

Barack Obama...are you listening?

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great Satan or Great Savior? Barack Obama might be the answer for America in Iran

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:43:58 PM


The date: Sept 12, 2001: George Bush, standing atop the rubble of the World Trade Center; his approval rating -- 90%.
 
Can anyone ever surmise what got into Mr. Bush after that?

The scene: State of the Union speech; January 29, 2002. George W Bush announces his axis of evil--  comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, calling them "rogue countries" that are facing "serious consequences".  Ouch.

And so began the Bush-push in the Middle East, which to this day remains a mystery:

Why did we ever make an about-face in Afghanistan; especially after our great early success in routing the Taliban  after 9-11?

Only George Dubya knows for sure--or even why, he gave "The Evil Speech"

And can any one blame Iran for getting defensive? If a country declared you as evil, and on the side of terror, you just might tend to get a little paranoid, and maybe speed up your development of multi-staged missile boosters-- and more ominously-- nuclear weapons.
 
Of course this is exactly what happened.

Iran, out of the clear blue sky, suddenly rises to the top of George Bush's "hit list"--a diplomatic sucker punch that turned the course of history-- and could eventually (although not probably) touch off a nuclear Mideast war

And the rest is history.

March '03-- America invades Iraq. May '03...mission accomplished. Then with June '03, comes the blunder of blunders-- the U.S. firing of the Iraqi army, and touching off a wave of massive, nationwide unemployment--and the tragic Sunni-al-Queda 5-year insurgency.

Even if Bush had deliberately tried, the post-invasion scenario in Iraq could not have gone worse. After unilaterally invading Iraq and bungling the occupation, Bush severely undermined America's global standing and our credibility with our closest allies.

Here is the essence of the Bush-push: rather than negotiating with the Iranian mullahs-- who themselves had fought a 8-year war with Saddam in the 80's-- Bush announced, "You're either for us or against us!"

Was Dubya injecting some type of political steroid...or what? Was it Cheney who advised him to say that? It was about as anti-diplomatic as it gets.

And it was provocative.

Immediately Iran began, through 3rd world channels, to buy up contraband American technology on the black market, and used it for it's own weapons development. And tragically, the Iranians began the importation of the horrid I-E-D explosive, remote-controlled detonator devices into Iraq, which maimed and killed the bulk of all U.S. military casualties.

Plus, Bush's bluster only served to push Iran to step on the accelerator, and gas up its nuclear program. Iran immediately increased its purchase of centrifuges, and the manufacturing of u-238 (heavy uranium) for its nuclear fuel production.

And can we blame them? If the U.S. were threatened out of the blue by someone who suddenly pronounced hostilities, would we not immediately go on a wartime alert? Thus, in the overall geopolitical picture, Iran derived enormous benefits from the Bush foul-up.

Designating its leaders as "evil"  unleashed a huge sympathy reaction toward Iran from the other Moslem countries, and a wave of anti-Americanism ensued throughout the Islamic world.
 
Great job Mr Bush! Had it not been for "the EVIL speech", things could have gone so much better for America back then.

Despite all the animosity from the 1979 revolution, Iran had been slowly drifting back towards a detente with America.

In the late 1990's, the Taliban (a Sunni moslem sect) started a vicious religious cleansing persecution against Iranian Shiites in eastern Afghanistan. So after 9-11, Iran and the U.S. had a common enemy-- and Iran was openly talking with America about its own war on terror vs. the Taliban
 
Then came Mr. Bush's fateful axis of evil speech, which no doubt will go down as one Americas biggest foreign policy blunders in history--with harsh domestic consequences:
 
1) the speech declared war on Iraq- the first time that America was to attack, unprovoked, a sovereign country
2) the speech  obfuscated what had been America's chief post 9-11 objective--going after bin Laden in Afghanistan
3) the speech caused the American people to immediately polarize--you were either for the president or against him--a polarization that exists to this very day
4) the speech seemingly destroyed what was a budding alliance with Iran, as far as both countries having common reasons to oppose the Taliban.

After the U.S. ousted most of the Taliban in late 2001, Tehran had actually been playing a constructive role with America in the Afghan war to find bin Laden. Then came the "THE EVIL SPEECH"--and the Iranian collaboration quickly disintegrated-- opening up the can of worms we face today with the Iranians.

Previous to the evil speech, Iran had been working with American operatives in nation building--helping the Bush administration establish a new Afghani government vs. their Talib enemies. And Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s oldest son, was believed to have been captured in Iran while escaping Afghanistan after American troops invaded the country in 2001.

In addition to Saad bin Laden, the Iranians had also been holding Saif al-Adel, an al-Qaida operations chief, under house arrest.

Al Qaeda’s relationship with Iran always had always been rocky. In 2001, its second-ranking official, Ayman al-Zawahri,  accused Iran of collaborating with the United States in Afghanistan.

Iran had viewed the two al-Qaeda operatives in their custody as bargaining chips. The Bush administration at various times was trying to persuade the Iranian government to turn over them over, but of  course, the overtures were rebuffed after "THE EVIL SPEECH", which is all the more puzzling...why would Mr. Bush ruin a good thing?

Bush was being helped by Iran in Afghanistan. Iran was ready to turnover two major al-Queda operatives in early 2002. And then Bush delivers his evil speech...duh.

 And again, it begs the question-- why?

In a recent New York visit to the U.N., Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself seemed regretful about what might have been accomplished.

Ahmadinejad re-iterated:

"Back then, Iran had its own problems with the former Taliban government, which was especially abusive toward the Shiite minority in Afghanistan"..."And Iran cooperated with the United States in speeding the Taliban's overthrow"..."But that cooperation basically stopped in January 2002, when President Bush named Iran as one of three nations in an “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea".

Mr. Ahmadinejad said Iran would be much more guarded about similar help in the future:

“We helped in Afghanistan; but the result of that assistance was Mr. Bush directly threatening us with a military attack,” the Iranian president said. “For six years he engaged in similar talk against us. Next time around, we need to take more measured steps, more firm steps.”

Now it's the next time around--and enter Barack Obama, saying... “If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

Finally, some long lost diplomacy, coming from the mouth of an American president!

The surprised Iranians are now describing Obama as demonstrating "refreshing humility" after the Bush administration’s arrogance. And Mr. Obama has responded in kind...“Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes".

Interestingly, this poses a moment of truth for Ahkmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs.

For the last eight years, it was possible for Iran to paint the United States as the aggressor. But now with Mr. Obama, it will be much more difficult than previously, when Iran’s leaders always scored a hit by reviling America as "the Great Satan", which provided a distraction from their deteriorating economy.

In the past Iranian leaders always recognized it was not to their benefit to open up to the United States. But now, the signals coming out of Tehran indicate Obama has the Iranians confused, and has them wondering-- are these peace overtures really real?

Right after Obama’s election, President Ahmadinejad sent the president-elect a congratulatory letter — the first such letter sent since Iran’s revolution 30 years ago

Obama has stated his intention is to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran's leaders, and to seek Iran's cooperation on issues including Iraq, terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions. And Obama may just prove he's the real-deal statesmen America has sorely lacked for the lost detente with Iran over the last 3 decades.
Recent 30-year history has shown that Iranian "policies" concocted by the different Washington administrations never matched reality-- keeping any possible solution "inaccessible". That's why they were spectacular failures.

If president Jimmy Carter had only offered an apology to Iran for the fact that every U.S. president since Truman had supported the Shah of Iran's tyranny; if Carter had only promised not to subvert the Iranian revolution; and if he had committed to give back to the country its $60 billion stolen by the Shah, the infamous Iranian hostage crisis would have been solved swiftly.

And apologies may be in order. The airbus Iranian Air flight 655-- destroyed by two anti-projectile ER2 missiles shot from the USS Vincennes under the orders of Captain Will Rogers-- killed almost 300 civilians in 1988; an incident that the U.S.has always tried to justify as a defensive move.
 
The good news is that from Obama's point of view, the "inaccessible," can become more than accessible, with just a simple "we're sorry".


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mr. Squirrel goes to Washington

Posted by thekeenobserver on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:50:49 PM
 

Tim Geithner; our new Secretary of the Treasury:

 

Doesn't he come off as a rather squirrelly, smarmy, creepy kinda guy--sort of like some junior high asst.principal that would suspend you for leaving a smelly sweat sock in your gym locker?

 

No matter what his credentials, the guy comes off as nitpicky, creepy, and not someone whom you could trust-- especially being in charge of the nation's treasury. 

 

And apparently Wall Street thinks so.

 

Geithner's latest new bank "rescue plan" (TARP) landed with a thud on Wall Street.

 

Worried that Geithner's revamped bailout was far short on details, investors headed for the exits, and the Dow Jones tumbled more than 380 points-- a one-day disaster that approached near panic selling before the closing bell.

 

It was an obvious sign of how Wall Street regards the government's ability to restore the health of the banking industry--zilcho. The Dow fell to 7,888.88, perilously below the 8000 support level-- the biggest one-day drop since Dec.1.

.

Traders and investors complained about what they saw as a lack of specifics from Mr. Squirrel (Geithner) on how the government will direct more than $1 trillion in public and private support to the financial system.

 

In brief-- Wall Street doesn't believe a word .

 

The administration called it the "Financial Stability Plan" (hardy har); and although the former TARP plan may have been christened a new name, seasoned Wall Street traders know better-- a heckuva lot better. It only will cause instability in the financial markets. 

 

scene: New York Stock Exchange floor.

 

1st trader:  'What’s with this Geithner anyway?

2nd trader: "I know ...he's not saying a damn thing-- just the usual Obama propaganda"

3rd trader: "And how it will solve the problem of getting the soured mortgage-backed assets off all the banks' books"?

1st trader: "And that stimulus plan? It won't do jack. I'm selling!"

2nd trader: "Everyone on the floor is selling."

3rd trader:  "Why did we ever vote for this Obama? He's anti-profit al the way! Nothing but a  government hack. We might go down below 7000 by summer!"

 

Obviously, Mr. Squirrel is not going to be regarded as the next Alexander Hamilton. 

 

Geithner's speech couldn't fool the people who really know about America's business-- the Wall Street insiders, who were quick to realize that his doubletalk all but shines a spotlight on the fact that the government hasn't a clue of what to do.

 

But the "X factor" that's really spooking the continuing market plunge-- the specter of economic vodoo policies during a possible 2-term Obama presidency.

 

The smart money on Wall Street always gets in or out way ahead of the crowd. Smart money knows what has been kept from the masses by the media-- Obama's economic stimulus is nothing more than a wealth transfer from Wall Street to Main Street.

 

And  these same insiders fear that very soon, Obama will stick a few econo-voodoo tax-hike pins into the limp doll of our economy, saying..."we must keep fiscal responsibility."

 

So, according to the "smart money" (i.e. the big asset class), why hold ANY stocks if Obama is going to keep confusing the market? Wall Street despises uncertainty. Smart money people have other options: hard assets such as gold,  precious metals, commodities, and triple-tax-free muny bonds.

 

So now, smart money figures..."the market‘s dropping because of Geithners's  political double speak; so it's better to sell now-- ahead of any possible Obama tax consequences. 

 

The bottom line? Why hold  stocks if Obama is going to take a larger chunk of the dividends, and heavily tax future gains?" 

 

With the expectation of Obama as a two-term president, the market may not rise to much higher levels for a long while to come-- maybe another 4-8 years. And it might continue to drop for another 4-8 years. And if it keeps on dropping lower...could it be another period, similar to 1932-1940, with people on corners saying, "brother can you spare a buck (or even a dime)?"

 

Wall Street is about creating wealth-- they are the capitalists. They are the people who seek to put their money where it can multiply, and create more wealth for them. They seek to invest where they see growth possibilities-- companies or industries where there is a bright future.

 

And with comrade Obama pulling Mr.Squirrel's strings-his fiscal policy puppet-- there will no wealth created, it'll just continue to be redistributed.

 

But the average American has no idea of how Wall Street actually works. Good thing, for if they did, they'd probably just as soon keep their money in glad zip-loc bags in the freezer, than entrust it to the whims of the market.

 

Wall street is 100% inside information; hence everything in the market happens for a reason. And whenever insiders get a reason to make a move, they pull the trigger en masse. Hence the market moves- either up or down-- in big intra-day numbers.

 

Example: the insiders are acutely aware that Obama's stimulus won’t do anything for profits (the whisper factor). The stimulus is 95% political, and perhaps only 5% economic. This means it's a no go for any growth in the private sector, which of course is the realm of Wall Street--profit growth.

 

So here’s the outlook:

 

We'll continue to see unprecedented market volatility (reminiscent of the 1929-1932 period), which frightens inexperienced investors into panic selling. And like 1929-1932, the market will slowly and inevitably trend lower.

 

When you're on a roller coaster, the only people who get hurt are the ones that jump off, which is just what all the frightened inexperienced investors will continue to do--taking the market down with them 

 

And Wall Street insiders, acutely aware of the outlook, are also selling. And they'll continue to sell into every so called "sucker rally".

 

So the bottom line might continue to be "fear aplenty"-- a reprise of 1929-1932...sell now, while you still have something left.

 

 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "DUH" generation...will it destroy the Republican party?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:57:07 PM

School days...school days.

Ah yes; most everyone remembers them fondly.
 
But inside our hallowed halls of education, what's taking place could be more aptly be described as a school daze-- a leftist-slanted, decidedly liberal way of not instructing our children in the "three R's", but rather feeding them a constant stream of "San Francisco" style mainstream liberal teachings.
 
Today's students aren't being educated-- they're being indoctrinated!
 
The children of today can't read, write, add, subtract, multiply, divide, or spell, or even speak English correctly. They, like, uh, like, can't communicate too well-- unless it's by text messages.
 
But these youthful, ecological tyrants can talk all day about how plastic bags are destroying ocean life, or argue vehemently about why the United States should never have gone into Iraq. They learn all about social injustice, and the necessity of trying to be "fair" to everyone at all times.

Many elementary school children are profoundly troubled by the thought that global warming will eventualy burn up their earth. And in almost every school (and college), students are led to believe that CO2 is a poison gas, and its release into the atmosphere must be placed under some type of government authority.
 
Today's children aren't being taught science; but they can tell you why we should use the new light bulbs. And they can talk extemporaneously for hours about coastal cities being swamped because we refuse to give up oil-- the commodity which is basic to our economic strength.

Today's students don't have a clue about why it's critical to construct new power plants and refineries (to enable the U.S. economy to expand along with its population). But instead they're taught to hate the big oil corporations. Thus, they retain a basic anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, anti-American liberal inbreeding.

So what is going on in the classrooms of today? Apparently not education.
 
In 2007, only 36 percent of American eighth graders were rated ''proficient'' in reading on the National Assessment of Education Progress. The math results were similar. This means hundreds of thousands of students, having reached the threshold of high school, have yet to master the ability to read critically or do basic computations, let alone grasp the essentials of science, history and civics.

Today's high school graduates can't make change, or compute percentages; many couldn't qualify for a part time retail job even if it were available
 
But this isn't even the worst problem. Yes, it's bad enough that we'll have 75 million functional illiterates interacting throughout our society for the foreseeable future.

Let's call them the "duh" generation.

And functional illiteracy is only the beginning; the worst problem is political demographics-- the effect this dumbed-down generation will have on future elections.

Just in the last election, Barack Obama won by a 52.7% vs. 46% margin over John McCain; but Obama didn't exceed 50% in any voting groups, except for the under 25 (69%) and the black vote (94%).

Could this portend future doom for the Republican party? Definitely!

Political conservatism is slowly going the way of the incandescent light bulb. The National Education Association (teacher's union) is seeing to that. Anecdotal stories of liberal-slanted teacher-classroom incidents abound:

Last summer, in the Clark County School District in Las Vegas, a ten year old boy had written a letter to president Bush, and got a reply. But when the excited 4th grader brought his letter from the President to school, his teacher told him to put the letter away, citing, "no politics in class". Then the same classroom teacher instructed all her students to write a letter to President-elect Obama several months later.

In the classrooms of today, republicans merit zero tolerance:

In Carmel, California, a 16 year old high school girl, the only Republican on her debate team, was told to... "sit down and shut up until you have something intelligent to say''.

American Enterprise Institute's magazine published a survey of voter registrations. More than nine out of 10 teachers belonged to the Democratic party.

Disturbing stories have surfaced over the past months, further highlighting just how far many segments of American education have now elevated Barack Obama.

A concerned parent reveals that his 1st grader son complained of having to pledge allegiance every day at school to a huge projected image of Mr. Obama.The 6-year old told his father that the teacher put up a large image of the new president next to the flag. What is worse is that he said all of the kids in class each faced Obama, instead of the flag that hangs in the corner.

What the heck is going on...is this supposed to be what we call citizenship in the community?

Or what about citizenship in the nation? The liberally-slanted history that today's students are being taught is so polarizing, it's almost as if we're splitting into 2 nations --the old vs young, depending on WHEN one went to school

Modern American history textbooks speak little of the American  Revolution, or Civil War; or the 2 world wars; or all the United States stands for-- freedom won through hardfought victory over tyranny through all its years.

Today, revisionist history texts focus on the U.S. as an imperialistic, racist country, with groups being pushed in & out of slavery; groups have been denied rights, and America's bullying of nations.

The story of the Klan is given more weight as an influence in the country than all the great inventors, all the great Presidents, and all the great statesmen of our American past.

On campuses, conservative opinion doesn't qualify as respectable inquiry. You won't often find conservative principles discussed, or patriotism argued on the American campuses of today

Imagine the America of the future:

A country where all the doctors, engineers, and architects are foreign, due to today's  inability of teaching science or math properly.

An America sliding to its inevitable third world migration, where enviro-radicalism abounds:  Recycling bins everywhere. People riding bicycles, and driving little insect-like "green energy" cars to work. People living in small houses, with green "living" roofs, sleeping in 55 degree bedrooms-- to both conserve energy and the save environment.

And imagine the politics-- our Constitution, hanging by a thread...traditional marriage, individuals right to property, freedom of speech-- all under assault, becoming subservient in the name of moral equivalency.

And a constitutional amendment forbidding animosity towards homosexuals-- that preventing two people from marrying one another is discrimination. Such an amendment would be a likely offshoot of the inevitable march toward a one-party form of liberalism, that would guarantee a communal life, with no liberty, and the pursuit of social injustice.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack Delano Obama...will FDR's history be reprised?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Monday, February 09, 2009 9:51:10 PM

Question: Does history repeat? Let's analyze.

According to Barack Obama's assessment of the economy, we have nothing BUT fear itself ; it's catastrophe straight ahead...calamity raining down, and debacle on the way.

Save for his dreaded econo-stimulus package. 

But 77 years ago, we heard essentially the same thing from Franklin Delano Roosevelt; only he put a positive slant on the same situation, saying..."we have nothing TO fear"...

And like Obama now, Roosevelt was then offering the same solutions: Government expansion during an economic crisis-- and the fallacy of spending America's way out of fiscal distress.

But despite their rhetoric, both the great minds-- Obama and Roosevelt-- were thinking alike; each upholding the same uncannily shrewd, two-fold political objectives:

1) Anointing yourself as a great savior to the people
2) Getting re-elected by assembling voting groups of government dependents

By 1941 FDR had already failed-- unemployment was nearly 20%, and the nation was still mired in the great Depression. Historians maintain that tax increases, and FDR's spend-aholic ways unnecessarily extended the Depression 10 more years.

But Roosevelt succeeded wildly at getting re-elected, serving until he died in 1945

Roosevelt's New Deal "pump priming" blazed a liberal trail of creating a government -dependent society, initiating a system of welfare that exists to this very day; and robbing  wealth from generations of Americans ever since.

These social engineering ideas have been failures for decades. FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter-- all took down cycles and used them to expand government, rather than let the markets run their course.

And Barack Obama, who never once held a real job in the private sector, is getting in line-- setting a spending course for his "Raw Deal" that will make Franklin Roosevelt seem like someone from the Suzi Orman school of penny-pinching.

Obama's idea of dealing with unemployment is like treating lung cancer by smoking an extra pack a day. Our current economic crisis was debt-induced; and Obama wants the country to run trillion dollar deficits and spend our way out...saying, "it might not even be enough!"

We'll soon be learning the hard way.

Whenever you print money like it's for some monopoly board, you are indeed, playing a dangerous game of surefire future inflation.

Whenever we decide to borrow a trillion, the Fed must go to the worldwide credit markets-- creating competition for money---which drives up interest rates. The result? Increasing inflation with high interest rates, plus high unemployment... does that ring a bell?

It's called stagflation.

Yes, let's celebrate! It's the return of the Jimmie Carter era of the late 70's-- stagflation, and where crises abound: Sky high interest rates, high unemployment, rising energy  prices; and of course-- keeping our thermostats restricted.

So what's next-- the Obama energy conservation sweater (ala' Carter)? Stay tuned. The two presidents could come to blows over licensing rights to such an exclusive brand of apparel.

But seriously, Mr Obama (like Carter) seems to have a selective memory when it comes to what is the best economic medicine of all --tax cuts!

HELP WANTED: American History tutor: Must be familiar with 20th century domestic economic policy. Please- no liberal apologists. Apply 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Wash. D.C.

Ever since the first economic unemployment crisis of the 20th century, U.S. presidents have used tax cuts and spending reductions to restart America's mighty growth engines.

But why is Obama, (like al liberals) so stubbornly opposed to tax cuts?

The first great unemployment 'recession' was from 1919-1921 after World War I. It was caused by the end of wartime production, along with an influx of returning troops, who had little to do after returning home other than checkers and horseshoes.

Hundreds of thousands of our doughboys had returned home victorious , but to their dismay, it only served to swell U.S. unemployment to a post-war spike of 12%.

But the very serious (and conservative) Warren Harding immediately took up an austerity program, and cut taxes and government spending to the bone in 1921. And by 1925, unemployment had shrunk to 3%. Prosperity descended on America in spades, inaugurating the boom-time "Roaring Twenties" era.

The prosperity continued under Calvin Coolidge, who also was a fanatical tax and spending cutter. Coolidge also held religiously to a balanced government budget (yes- a BALANCED budget).

So the roaring twenties didn't just happen-- it unfolded in stages due to the one, sure-fire way that never fails-- fiscal conservatism, lassaiz faire economics--letting private sector profit motives provide the stimulus.

In 196O, president Kennedy, after inheriting a recession resulting from the 110-day 1959 steel strike, cut taxes across the board.  The sizzling 60 's decade of prosperity took off as a result.

In 1981 President Reagan, after stepping into the stagflation quagmire of Carter's disastrous presidency,  drained the swamp with his across the board U.S. tax cuts,  touching off a 20 year economic boom, ending only when the internet bubble burst in 2001.

But Obama has other ideas.

Obama is a student of the New Deal blueprint. His primary goal is to get re-elected, but not by bringing back prosperity, but by using political economics (vote-buying) to tie dependent voting groups to him, just as Roosevelt had done himself in the 1930s.

In 1933, Mr Roosevelt had offered payments to farmers in return for taking some of their land out of production, and got all the farm states to vote for him in 1936 .

Although precious metal prices had declined by 1932, Roosevelt raised the wages of silver mine workers to a rather generous 30 dollars a month, and all 7 western mining states voted for hin in 1936.

In 1935) Labor legislation passed by the U.S. Congress, sponsored by Senator Robert Wagner, protected workers' rights to form unions and to bargain collectively. In 1936 and 1940, all the urban unions voted for Roosevelt. And Obama seeks to echo the idea of a Roosevelt coalition.

So, for his coalition, Mr Obama need only to cobble the major unions, unemployed, the college students, immigrants, and go by any means he can to tie as many voting groups to him ala' Roosevelt --ergo,  Obama's "raw deal coalition."

Obama could form a similar coalition to vote him a 3rd, or even a 4th term, by influencing a change in the constitution. And with all the creeping incrementalism with the government taking over our lives, it just may happen.

Obama's 4-term plan is already off to a flying start. His stimulus will bolster up to 4 million voters who've recently lost jobs.  Plus Obama can extend his political influence over the lives of all other dependents, who in one way or another, receive a check from the government. This group could easily approach 45% of the population by 2012.

Thus, Mr. Obama need not even count on a recovery. If he can cobble enough votes together in the same fashion as Roosevelt, he'll easily win re-election with a 51% majority (or better).

So how would the message in America's fortune cookie read if Obama wins in 2012? How would the history books read at the half century mark in 2050? Maybe something along these lines...

..."In his secomnd term, Barack Obama undertook the expansion of the government with forest fire rapidity.

Obama's para-military "well funded" youth militia was established nationwide, and then the Freedom Docrtrine was passed, which eliminated talk radio opposition-- and the democrats swept both houses in the 2014 midterm election"...

So who would stand in Obama's way of further consolidating his power, and hatching a Constitutional scheme for a third term?

Our history books could go on to read:

..."After Barack Obama was elected to a second term, he was able to garner sufficient Congressional support to amend the Constitution, and granted all immigrants amnesty, arguing, "the privilege of enfranchisement supersedes any and all other individual rights"...

..."and by that time, the Obama youth corps had grown into a well paid, para-military, left wing of enthusiastic supporters. The unions had expanded rapidly. And fully 60% of the population had become dependent on government entitlements"...

..."by the end of his second term, Obama had convinced his growing majority that a leader "'so vital to America's march toward social utopia, should not be faced with time constraints"... and the Constitution was near-unanimously amended by Congress to say that...'any sitting president, who was serving the common will of the people, could continue in such service until the people no longer willed it-- or serve as president for life..." 

Could this ever come to pass? Easily.

The more power Obama can wrest from the private sector, the larger he'll be able to expand the federal bureaucracy; basically doing exactly what FDR did to win re-election for 4 terms-- by creating a culture of government dependency.

But right now, if our newly-elected savior isn't careful, his declaration of  possible catastrophe could backfire into a self-fulfilling prophesy, and result in a truly unnecessary second depression if he doesn't change his doom 'n gloom tune.

 
And if that happens, all bets, even for a second term, would be off.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Environmental Obammunism, part I...Chu to the rescue!

Posted by thekeenobserver on Friday, February 06, 2009 4:47:17 PM

Here we go again.

President Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has been discussing the threat of global warming in new, stark, very frightening terms. Mr. Chu (a Nobel prize-winning physicist) said that all agriculture in California could be undermined by global warming by the end of this century.

Yes--all agriculture-- gone!  In effect, it was Chu predicting a calamitous scenario-- the desertification of southern California during the next 80-100 years.

Of course, what did you expect from an enviro-Nazi scaremonger like Chu? Straight talk? Sound scientific conclusions? Hah! But what was the reason behind Chu's somber warning?

California is in its third year of drought, and currently the Sierra Nevada mountain snow pack holds only 61% of the water it stores in a normal year-- the result, (as Mr. Chu contends), of global warming.

So is Chu implying that it'll never rain hard (or snow again) in California in this coming century...or what?

Mr Chu sounded very ominous in his recent "LA Times" interview..."I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," Chu said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California," adding, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going."
 
So according to Mr Chu, nothing will grow...and everyone residing in cities will soon see tumbleweeds blowing across California's urban terrain, as the southern part of the state turns into a dustbowl reminiscent of 1930's Oklahoma.

But meanwhile, a few degrees of latitude north of California,  the entire United States is witnessing its worst winter in 30 years.

So what's going on? Of course... its regional global warming!  What else could possibly explain these contradictory weather mutations of the climate?

Chu's premise-- California is burning up, while the rest of America is in a frozen funk-- bears no resemblance to scientic reality.  It's Chu's idiopathic contention that abrupt regional cooling, and gradual global warming, can unfold simultaneously.
 
So what's next, the discovery that earth is actually FLAT?

Scientifically, Chu is speaking like someone who couldn't pass a seventh grade science midterm. Mr Chu is not challenged because the entire nation has been perilously dumbed down to about the second grade level about how the earth actually functions.
 
Of course we'd expect someone (Chu) with Nobel prize credentials to realize that just one good gulley-washer over southern California could remedy the entire so-called catastrophe. And Eastertime has traditionally been the rainy season for the Los Angeles basin.
 
You could also expect  that a learned scientist like Chu, to have an idea of how ocean curents affect weather.

ACTUAL scientific data has identified the one viable mechanism to induce large, global, abrupt climate changes: ocean currents circulating around the earth. These currents, collectively known as the Ocean Conveyor, distribute vast quantities of heat around our planet, and play a fundamental role in governing Earth’s climate.
 
But it seems as though Mr. Chu has selective amnesia (i.e. political motives) when it comes to what actually could bring about changes in climate. He's mysteriosly (deliberately) neglected the oceans’ essential role in his scientific "calculations" (i.e. scaremongering).
 
Meanwhile, back at the Whitehouse, Obama is pushing a stimulus package that blaringly omits the one infrastructure project begging for California's attention---the construction of water desalinization plants along the westcoast.
 
But such projects are extensive in scope. They require engineering. They require planning; they are not shovel ready. Thus they would not serve Obama's main purpose of his first term...getting re-elected for his second.

So water desalinization is at the bottom of the list-- no time for that.

Obama must act NOW....he must move now, because now is his best chance to consolidate his power. Taking  control of energy policy is a vital cog to his strategy of keeping the people concentrated on how bad things are (economy-environment) while Barack, the savior, is busy planning our rescue.

That's the present reality...striking while the political iron is hot.
 
scene: telephone call from Obama (in D.C.) to Chu (in San Francisco)

Chu: Hello Mr. President! How did I do? Do you think I was convincing enough?

Obama: Hello Steve! You did a fantastic job. I think you've got them sufficiently scared enough out there (California) that if it doesnt rain heavily in the next few weeks, Waxman wiil be able to ram his climate change package right on through, with very little republican opposition.

Chu: thanks Mr President. And I'll do my best to keep the ball rolling. In my next big announcement on climate change, I'm going to discuss how my reaserch has revealed that fossil fuels will be leapfrogged by 2020, and Americans should start now to prepare for this "inevitable transition."

Obama: Hey! I like that Steve! The inevitable transition! It'll give us the opportunity to stop all drilling; put a carbon tax in place on the utility companies; and frustrate the nuclear lobby.

Chu: And don't forget Mr President; I can use my Nobel prize in physics to convince all these dumbed down people that gasoline should cost more, in order to induce everyone to drive less to save the envirionment. 

Obama: Your my man Steve...  that's why picked you as my energy czar! See ya in San Francisco soon.

Chu: good bye Mr President.

(end of scene)
 
Obama, like the radical Chu, is only interested in advancing the leftist agenda, and both are looking for ways to assert the cap and trade taxation masquerade, so as to wrest control of power companies from the private sector.

Obama, the control freak, and Chu as his right hand, enviro-nazi puppet, are trying to foment fear, and convince a dumbed down nation that carbon dioxide is a poison gas, and global warming somehow is the blame for every weather aberration around the world.
 
Obama seeks not to solve the nation's basic structural problems, but to only fulfill his political destiny. If Chu and Obama really wanted to solve the California crisis , they obviously could propose the seawater desalinization projects, which would provide a prolonged boom to that region.

But with Obama it's a no-go; no mention of such an obviously beneficial project that would solve California's freshwater problem once and for all.
 
Desalination plants process seawater directly from the ocean through offshore intakes, and supply fresh water through pipelines to the cities along the coast. How many thousands of jobs would this create? And would this not be the silver bullet for both California's climate and economic woes?

Desalinization plants would be projects on a massive scale-- extending a freshwater network of pipelines from the west coast to all points radiating outward: Las Vegas; the Imperial Valley; the agricultural basket, and irrigation networks spanning any area to where freshwater was needed.
 
But it would take years-- time Obama doesn't have right now.
 
So Obama knows better. He's betting big that the dumbed down American electorate will willingly accept monstrosity ideas-- climate change destroying California, and that fossil fuels emit poisonous CO2 into the atmosphere.

Obama is moving all his pieces in place, and Americans are about to sufer grievously for their misjudgement. He is betting that that America is ready to embrace centralized, top-down government, and that people are willing to pay higher taxes and utility bills to afford it.

Obama, in time, pushing his "clean environment" agenda, could eventually scour America to death.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack's Afghan strategy...will he be dubbed the NEXT Jimmie Carter?

Posted by thekeenobserver on Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:25:42 PM

Back then it was called, "The War of the Worlds." On Sunday, October 30, 1938, millions of casual listeners were shocked when radio news alerts announced the arrival of Martians landing in New Jersey.
 
People listened in sheer terror, panicked by what they were hearing-- Martian invaders, ferocious and seemingly unstoppable-- in a surprise attack on Earth. Many ran out of their homes screaming, while others packed up their cars and fled to the countryside.
 
Listeners believed what they heard on the radio was real; but it was only a false alarm...an astounding publicity stunt, thought up by the pre-celebrity young radio performer, Orson Wells.

Before the era of T.V., people sat in front of their radios and listened to music, news reports, plays, and various other programs.
 
Now flash forward to present day life in Afghanistan-- the terror-filled parallels to "the War of the Worlds" are remarkably similar, especially when you consider that the impoverished Afghani people cannot afford satellite-dish TV, and must rely on radio for their entertainment and news reports.
 
Every night around 8 o’clock, the village residents, in the territory encompassing eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan, crowd around their radios. But this time it's not Martian invaders they fear- but the Taliban.

Using portable radio transmitters, local Taliban leaders outline newly proscribed “un-Islamic” activities, like selling DVDs, watching cable television, collaboration with "infidels", criticizing the Taliban, shaving beards, or allowing girls to attend school. And the villagers all know too well that failure to listen (and learn) might lead to a lashing —or a beheading.

And more frighteningly, also revealed are names of people that the Taliban have recently killed for violations— and those they plan to kill. Local police have become so afraid that many officers have put advertisements in newspapers renouncing their jobs so the Taliban will not kill them.
 
Nor have Afghani troops been able to destroy the mobile radio transmitters mounted on motorcycles (or pickup trucks) that the leaders of the Taliban have expertly used to terrify residents. And this newly implemented radio-psycho war is proliferating.

Taliban militants, who dominate regions along the Afghan frontier, roam the valleys with sniper rifles, Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, mortar tubes, night-vision goggles, and flak vests.

The Taliban have already destroyed so many girls’ schools, that government officials expect most private schools to stay closed rather than risk retaliation. The local population is totally fed up, but the Taliban reprisals are such that no one will dare to oppose them.

When psychological warfare is used this effectively, it portends futility for our American forces fighting in Afghanistan. All the chips seem to be stacked against them:
 
Chip #1- how can you stop a shadowy, insurgent force that has the local populace in its grip of abject terror and abeyance?
 
Chip #2-how can you stop drive-by motorcycle assassinations, acid attacks against girls on their way to school, and mobile suicide bombers on two wheels?
 
Chip #3-how can U.S. forces fight on hostile ground with the population cowed in terror, and not willing to cooperate for fear of the dreaded radio-announced nighttime reprisals?
 
Chip #4-how do you win? The U.S. can't possibly ever hope to secure a country the size of Texas, with thousands of local warlords in control of each individual village and mountain valley

Chip #5- the fleeting past successes of the original US-Afghani efforts have now taken on the futility of herding cats-- there is little chance of any political settlement.
 
Afghanistan...is it the next Vietnam? The next military qaugmire?

Here is where Barack Obama's lack of military experience and naivete' will make him look like the next Jimmie Carter, who bungled foreign policy so badly in the Middle East (and Afghanistan), that he's widely regarded as the worst president of the 20th century. Obama may be next in line.

Our new President, playing tough general, wants to send 30,000 more troops while lacking any sort of coherent plan, whether it be strategic or tactical. But there is no easy solution-- no way in or out of the Afghan problem of what to actually do. Do you go after Bin Laden? Outkill the Taliban? Destroy al Quida training centers ? What is the goal? How do you even know if you're winning?

It's eerily similar to the Vietnam era of protest songs... (play music), "1-2-3-4, what the heck are we fightin' for?"
 
A main source of the dilemma is that theTaliban view themselves as the good guys, who (like any good home team) have the goal of repelling the American infidels, and enforcing the religious extremes of the Talmud upon the local population. The Americans are up against suicide bombers, fanatical religious jihad opposition, and of course, the usual 72 virgins in Moslem heaven as a reward for any one who martyrs themselves in battle.

And how about the sheer vulnerability of an attack from an unsuspected female suicide bomber? What could be more destabilizing or discouraging?
 
Recall the scene from "Godfather 2" when Micheal Corleone witnessed a Castro street rebel who blew himself up in the presence of a Cuban army captain. It was an epiphany to him that the rebels could win, driven by such idealistic fanaticism.
 
And the U.S. and NATO forces are up against the same type of fanaticism: an insurgency where each Talib soldier is literally willing to fight to the death...a spooky, eerie type of opposition not experienced in Iraq. One would have to go back to the kamikaze era of World War II to find a parallel.
 
So how do we expect U.S. soldiers to reverse all this? Once again, what is the definition of a win in Afghanistan?
 
Even if Bin Laden was captured (or killed), the vacuum created would leave the door open for the number 2 head honcho of al Queda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. But this could be like going from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. Mr.Ayman al-Zawahiri was our good friend who conceived the original strategy of radical Islamic terror war-- killing all who were deemed infidels-- beginning with the assassination of Anwar Sadat.

Yes it was the Egyptian desprerado, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was behind the brazen Sadat murder in 1981. And since then, its been al-Zawahiri all around the world , hatching one terror plot after another, against any and all infidels who defy his personal interpretation of the Koran.
 
Thus, we actually might be better off with Bin Ladin as the number1 guy, rather than have the hyper dangerous Ayman al-Zawahiri wrest control of al Queda, and possibly conjure up an even more deadly attack against America than 9-11.
 
And how do we fight an enemy (Taliban) that has such a dominate home field advantage? Look at the strategy being used against us:
 
The Taliban ambush from above, and withdraw immediately into their mountain caves. TheTaliban employ I-E-D bombs hidden along the narrow mountain passes, that make our soldiers sitting ducks from both sniper fire above, and the dreaded I-E-D’s lying along the mountain trails, which explode by remote control.
 
And most local villagers want no part of Americans. They do not like U.S. forces bombing their villages, and killing their civilians --or preventing them from reaching local agreements with the Taliban to prevent the dreaded nighttime radio retribution.

And with the Taliban frequently hiding amongst the villagers, the U.S. has no way to avoid killing innocents, which triggers ever more civilian hostility. It's no win everywhere you go in Afghanistan.
 
The only possible strategy would be constant predator/drone airstrikes by day, and a night vision war on the ground...or a CIA infiltration of agents who would seek to stop al Queda from training there.

Picture yourself as an average, everyday Afghan caught between all this .You live a hardscrabble life, cultivating poppy seeds on less than 2 dollars a day. Then you must worry about the Americans coming through by day, and the Taliban terror over the radio by night. Then you must worry about sudden predator attacks from the air, and taking "collateral" casualties --which could be you or your family.

Now picture your self as an America soldier.

You risk constant sniping from fighters who know the territory, and always hold the high ground . You risk attack while trying to ascend a narrow, rocky v-shaped mountain pathway. You always feel like a sitting duck trying to fight an enemy who never shows his face.

And unlike Iraq, there is no hold-till-relieved strategy...nothing to capture or secure. No city to seize and hold; just mountains. Just some desolate villages.

The only way to travel is by helicopter. Heavy weapons are useless. It's strictly search, and trying to destroy an enemy that opens fire, and quickly retreats across the border, hiding amongst a network of thousands of caves, immune from the predator strikes from above.

The only possible win in Afghanistan is by using intelligence to direct special-op ground forces, working in conjunction with air power; and fighting the only way that can be fought-- identifying and destroying small, widely-dispersed targets.

This would require far fewer U.S. forces than the number already deployed, and reduce the necessity for keeping the troop's vital supply lines in the Khyber pass open; a common target for disruptive Taliban sabotage attacks.

Presently, the incoming Obama administration plans to explore a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan-- including possible talks with Iran-- and looks favorably on dialogue between the Afghan government and "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban, according to Obama's national security advisers.
 
But what kind of so-called "new strategy" could possibly succeed, given the cost of the conflict ($7 billion/month), and the actual realities on the ground in such an inhospitable theater of war?

Taliban aggression and U.S. casualties this year are the highest since the war began in 2001.

And considering all the motorcycle attacks, psychological warfare radio broadcasts, the Taliban's home terrain advantage, the hostility and fear of the local populace, the religious fanaticism, the suicide bombers, the size of the huge country, and all the corruption and graft of a Mafioso style narco-state…Barak  Obama must ask himself--is it worth it?

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…1516171819202122232425Next »