Puppy kickin it on the beach. I’m tired just watching him!
Over the years the pace of NFL games has been slower & slower. Stoppages for everything short of bathroom breaks & mid-game nappy time. Now the league geniuses, in an effort to cleanse the game of any possible human error, have mandated that every scoring play be reviewed. I understood the rule to be a simple booth review unless there is a question. At such time the booth official would buzz the head ref. He would then go under the dreaded hood to look at the play for what feels like forever. After watching the games this past week it seems every play was booth reviewed. Ridiculous! As a fan, I think this stinks. It disrupts the flow of the game & will potentially take away the momentum from a team. It will also free up coaches to throw the infamous “Red Flag” on much less consequential plays. No more will coaches have to worry about challenging a called score. Automatic review under 2 minutes, I get. But every scoring play? Come on! Just play the game.
Andrew Klavan Strikes Again.
It is a cardinal mistake in any competition, be it sports or politics – and politics is a competition of ideas – to underestimate your opponent. All too often, underestimating your opponent leads to disaster. I believe that America, especially America’s political class, is vastly underestimating President Obama; and if we continue to do so, it will be a disaster for America. Specifically, I am worried about the growing political story line that the Obama administration is “failing” because they are just inexperienced and the president is simply “in over his head.”
It is true that Mr. Obama never held an executive position in his life prior to being elected to the presidency. It is true that Mr. Obama had only three years (2005-2008) in the U.S. Senate prior to going to the White House, and it is true that Mr. Obama had just seven years of experience (1997-2004) in the Illinois state Senate – where he cast more than 130 “present” votes rather than go on the record on contentious issues. However, we should be under no illusion that the president’s lack of leadership experience means he is “in over his head” or that he does not know what he is doing.
Mr. Obama knows precisely what he is doing: He is changing America into his vision of a European-style socialist utopia where the government controls every aspect of our lives. Consider the facts, since taking office, Mr. Obama has taken control of the student loan industry, the health care industry, the banking and financial sectors, and he orchestrated the bankruptcy and reorganization of two-thirds of the American automotive industry, leaving his political allies in the labor movement in effective control of the companies and allowing the administration to dictate the industry’s direction.
Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could not strong-arm enough Democrats to pass legislation to allow the president to take control of our energy sector, the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is aggressively rewriting and reinterpreting environmental regulations to accomplish the same end result: government control of energy.
The pattern is unmistakable: Every solution proposed by the Obama administration to every problem is more government control. That is the textbook definition of socialism: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Putting aside the fact that socialism is absolutely incompatible with the philosophy that made America a world superpower – limited government, light regulations, low taxes and maximum labor-market flexibility – the problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, is “that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” If you don’t believe this statement is true, how do you explain the sovereign debt crisis threatening to destroy the European Union?
While America’s debt crisis cannot be laid entirely at the feet of Mr. Obama, the fact is that in pursuit of his socialist agenda, he has accelerated the crisis with his reckless spending. The federal budget deficit in 2008, the last year before Mr. Obama took office, was $458.6 billion. The projected deficit for 2011 is $1.5 trillion – 323 percent higher than the nation’s deficit in the last year before President Obama took office. The president’s budget request for fiscal 2012 would lead us to the highest-ever budget deficit, roughly $1.6 trillion.
It is not yet too late to save America from financial ruin nor is it too late to save the American way of life. But to confront these threats, we must confront reality and that means we must stop viewing the president’s policies as the innocent missteps of a man who is “in over his head.” The president is not in over his head; he knows precisely what he is doing: rushing America down the path toward socialism.
Thank you Mr. Burton.
I was reading an article in AlJazeera as to why the U.S. economy is in turmoil. I know what you’re thinking, but Hilary told us they were a true unbiased news agency. I thought, hey, if you can’t believe her, who can you believe. They write, “The US massively wastes money and resources in three critical areas, especially when compared with our international competitors: military spending, health care, and energy/transportation. First off, our? But I digress. I agree we do waste a lot of money but I wasn’t aware our military was competing with anyone (enemies not withstanding). Rather than tackle all three points, I’ve decided to concentrate on the first, military spending.
AlJazeera continues with, “The US spends as much money on its defense budget as the next twenty nations combined, and three times more than all conceivable enemies combined. Is that level of spending really necessary to secure the homeland and global stability?” I bet that’s probably true, that we spend more than all those other countries combined. But why? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is what they describe as payola. “It’s a major source of pork for the use of politicians in their re-election campaigns.” I concur. There have been projects the military didn’t even want but were rammed through due to political pressure. The second reason is more important to understand. Most of those other countries don’t have to spend near the amount for the fact they have barely a military. They have us to protect them. In some cases, through treaties, they are barred from major military build up. That, in my opinion, must change. We are chumps for allowing these other countries to skate while we protect them. If they want our help, they can pay protection money (a little Mafia lingo). It’s interesting to note that plenty of these other countries are broke anyway. Knowing they don’t have to pay to defend themselves, they can’t shovel money into social programs. That’s gone well.
I had to laugh at this next one.
Al-Qaeda AlJazeera states, “Is Afghanistan the enemy, a poor, ravaged country of little strategic value with an economy smaller than that of tiny Rhode Island? Is it Iran, a poor country badly in need of economic development that, despite all its oil, has an economy smaller than that of New Jersey?” Ok, I’ll give you Afghanistan. Is just a training ground & base of terrorist operations. Oh, and opium exports. Nothing to see here. Iran, on the other hand. Please. We should disarm because Iran is just a poor, harmless, backwater country. One that, given the chance, will destroy Israel & is close to a nuclear weapon to attack us with. They are the number one promoter & financier of worldwide terrorism, but due to its size, it can’t be a problem.
Hilary, the genius.
“Even after the Super Bowl victory of the New Orleans Saints,
I have noticed a large number of people implying with bad jokes
that Cajuns aren’t smart.
I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment.
Anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a
hurricane zone and fill it with Democrats is a damn genius”.
The following is the first of a 3 part series called “Talking Crap”. Some will like it, some will hate it. For those who hate it, Boo Hoo!
WARNING! Really graphic language. He pulls no punches, but sure gets his point across.
The Congressional Super Committee. They got magic. They got poetry in their fingertips! (Thanks C.S.) I started writing this article with the intent to expose how ridiculous this Super Committee circus will be. Then I began thinking that this may be a setup to carve up the defense budget under the cover of dreaded gridlock. See, if the committee can’t agree on cuts (that’s a laugh, there will be no cuts), then automatic cuts will kick in according to the debt limit deal. These cuts will be quite real. Most of them directed at defense. You know defense, one of the few actual constitutional expenditures there are.
So I start thinking about connections. Ah yes, Leon Panetta. The newly confirmed Secretary of Defense. Formally the no-experience C.I.A. chief. But he was in the military in the 1960’s. Doesn’t that count for something? No. So was John Kerry. Why was he chosen to head defense? I heard that he was chosen specifically to gut the department. Cut us down to size. Absurd! Sounds like something a communist sympathizer would do. Looking into his background, I’m thinking if that’s not dead on, it’s real close. It all goes back to his ongoing friendship/relationship with Hugh DeLacy. Hugh was pen-pals with Leon. Hugh was also a known communist. He was a supporter of both the Chi-Coms & the Sandinistas. They both revealed, in their correspondences to one another, their shared belief of cutting the budgets of defense & foreign affairs as it relates to the spread of communism. By the way, at the time he (Panetta) was conversing with Delacy, Panetta was a member of Congress. One of the letters from Panetta was a non-public summary on U.S. military affairs. How odd. Evidently, none of this was of any concern prior to his confirmation to Sec-Def. That would be a red flag for me, but I’m not a public servant. What do I know.
I may be way wrong on this one, but I wouldn’t bet my lunch on it.
(Attribution: Loudon & Kincaid)