The Dow has hit 9000.  That is good.  That means the stock market is recovering.  But will it last???  Are we soon going to hit 10,000, or will we be back down to 8000.  Who knows. 

I have had enough of people my age talking about the virtues of Socialism.  No truly great country has survived under socialism.  It makes people lazy.  And most people who advocate it are lazy too, which is a good thing because it means the chances of America going socialist are lessened.  Still, we are taking steps towards socialism in many ways, one of which is healthcare. 

I’m really not in the mood to rail against government-run health care right now, but I do have some inconvenient questions to ask all you liberals out there:

1. How the hell do you think we can treat an extra 46 million people with the doctors we have now?
2. How the hell are we going to pay for this?
3. Since when was health care a right (on the same lines as speech, religion, protest)? 
4. Since when was the government good at doing anything?
5. Even if the initial plan isn’t "government-run", isn’t that the ultimate goal?
6. Who gave the government the power to force people to have health care?

The election in Iran was a fraud.  That is obvious.  What is not obvious is how America should deal with the situation.  However, in the good ole US of A, the initial response was pathetic, by both the President and the media.  MSNBC was showing some stupid crime documentary.  CNN wasn’t doing much at all (no wall-to-wall coverage as expected).  FNC did about as much coverage as CNN, with the global benefit of sister network Sky News (much better than CNN International IMO).  Overall, this was a big story and didn’t get enought press.

But perhaps that is because Pres. Obama didn’t give it much press himself.  After all, the media pretty much do whatever Obambi tells them to (like bend over…).  The initial response was tepid at best.  On Meet the Press this past Sunday, VP Blowhard, I mean Biden, said the administration would not comment yet.  Then, when it did first comment, it sent out a weak response.  Finally, it sent out a tougher response later.  But still, what are we doing???  Helping the protestors who want a fair election process?  No, as Jonah Goldberg points out in a great article.  Keep in mind these protesters are not trying to overthrow the government.  They just want fairness. 

I am going to start blogging a lot this summer.  I can already tell that this summer is going to be very busy (I have a lot of things to do relating to my future, yippie!); however, I am determined to exercise my first amendment right to free speech.  Too many things anger me right now.  Like how stupid the American electorate is.  And how stupid Congress is.  And how idiotic America’s youth is.  And lots of other things.  Like how big of a dick-wad Keith Olbermann is. 

Is it just me, or is the response to the Somali pirates a bit weak?  They have an American Hostage and are demanding money.  Yet they are in a little boat (out of fuel I might add) and the Navy is right there, capable of taking them out.  But they can’t, because they have the hostage.  The captain is clearly a hero.  I hope he makes it out okay. 

BTW, the french have some pirate problems too.  But it looks like they were able to use force.  Whoda thunk it, the French with a more forceful response than the US.  

Check out these stores from foxnews.com and cnn.com:  

U.S. Navy Blocks Ships Coming to Aid Pirates in Standoff

Hostage, 2 pirates killed in French rescue operation

Remember hearing how the Bush Administration "politicized" the Justice Department?  Well, it seems that Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, is doing just that.  Of all the Obama appointees, Holder is the worst.  Sure, Geithner is a tax cheat, but at least he hasn’t done anything a congressional investigation called "unconscionable."  Here’s part of a great article from the Washington Post:

Intense controversy has flared in recent years over a previously obscure but high-powered office in the Department of Justice — the Office of Legal Counsel. OLC has traditionally provided the final word to executive branch officials on the meaning of the Constitution and federal statutes. Disputes over whether it faithfully carried out its assigned role in national security matters during the Bush administration have erupted on newspaper front pages. Whatever the merits of those disputes, virtually everyone has agreed that it is imperative that OLC provide high-quality legal advice that is not slanted to advance a president’s policy agenda — and that the president and his top advisers respect that advice.

But now it appears that we have an attorney general who is himself running roughshod over OLC.

During Eric Holder’s confirmation process, his tenure as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration sparked serious concerns among senators. In scandals involving Clinton’s pardons of Puerto Rican nationalists and fugitive Marc Rich, Holder had violated departmental protocols, ignored the views of victims and law enforcement professionals, colluded with Rich’s attorneys, undermined prosecutors and circumvented DOJ’s pardon attorney. A congressional investigation in 2002 called his conduct "unconscionable."

At his recent confirmation hearing, a chastened Holder assured senators that he had learned from the past and was committed to upholding the department’s high standards. He specifically promised not to politicize DOJ’s legal positions: "We don’t change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over," he said. Any review "will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law."

Alas, less than two months into his tenure as attorney general, according to accounts in The Post last week, Holder has abused OLC for partisan political purposes. The facts, admittedly, are somewhat sketchy — largely because Holder isn’t complying with President Obama’s promise of transparency. But here’s what they show.

It’s been nearly a month since the election, and I have finally decided to give my opinion on it.  Obviously I am personally disappointed by the outcome.  I really wanted John McCain to win.  And not just because he had an ‘R’ next to his name, but because he is a man of great character.  Unlike many other conservatives, I believe he was the best candidate for the Republicans.  Where they disdain him for his independent, mavericky, spirit, I applaud him for taking on his own political party and being his own man.  Sadly, John McCain was too old, and the Republican brand too damaged, for him to come out on top.  Against a man that could have been his son, he looked tired.  However, for a man in his seventies he sure has a ton of energy.  He campaigned like a man half his age.  However he missed his chance to shake up the race when he voted with Barack Obama for the bailout.  Had he voted differently, the race may have changed.  But probably not, because Bush has really screwed things up for the GOP.  

With the Republican brand damaged, a new group of younger leadership will emerge.  But for now, the Democrats control both houses of Congress and, come January 20th, the White House.  There is no doubt the this situation will shift our policies to the left, but hopefully Barack Obama, suppossedly a pragmatic leader, will see that too hard a shift to the left will be met with strong backlash.  I am truley proud that a black man has risen to the Presidency, I just wish that man was a black man who didn’t worship at the altar of the far-left.  Reverend Jerimiah Wright, Willaim Ayers, and other shady characters that Obama alligned himself with over the years cast a bad light of the character of the President-elect.  It seems that he alligned himself with these people because they would help him get somewhere in politics, not because he agrees wholeheartedly with them.  But we will have to wait and see. 

As someone who aspires to the Presidency myself someday, I respect Barack Obama’s political genius. He motivated more new voters than ever before and received the most votes of any Presidential candidate ever.  That is quite an achievement.  Still, I strongly disagree with his policies.  

Whether he will go far-left or center-left is still unclear, but we can look to his voting record and his cabinet choices for a window to the future.  In the senate, he had the most liberal voting record one year, and very liberal ratings the other years.  If he is a moderate, he has certainly masked it pretty darn well.  In his campaign however, he acted fairly moderate.  Nothing too liberal about the word "change."  That’s really all his campaign was anyway, right? As for his cabinet appointments, I will have more to say on that later.  But he is not surrounding himself with kooks.  A lot are Clintonistas, including Hillary herself, so I guess "change" really is just a word.  But still, no one far-left.  But still definetly left.  

The real deciding factor is if Nancy Pelosi gets all her far-left ideas put into practice, or if Barack Obama realizes she is a crazy bitch and should be ignored.  Let’s hope for the latter.  Just keep in mind that politics is a pendulum, and soon (perhaps in 2010) Republicans will actually gain seats in the House and Senate.  

President-elect Barack Obama faces one of the greatest challenges of any Chief-Executive in our history.  Every day you turn on the TV to CNN or Fox News, and it seems another sector of the economy is in trouble.  Politicians in Washington will look to Barack Obama for leadership.  Right now, as Americans, we should support the President-elect.  He deserves at least a few weeks in office before we pass major judgement on him.  And when that time comes, I will be here on this blog to give my thoughts.  

Every political junkie out there is asking the same question:  Who the hell is Obama going to pick for his Veep.  Well, as I said in an earlier post, I believe he will pick Biden.  However, that prediction was made a long time ago, and I am gradually thinking he may pick Evan Bayh.  However, I believe that may be a mistake, seeing as Bayh is not very exciting.  Sure, Biden might not be able to shut-up, but at least he brings a lot to the table.  Bayh might win Indiana for Obama, but come on!  Indiana???  If Obama really wants to win a red state, he should try for Virginia.  But even then, choosing a VP based on winning one lousy state is not worth it.  Obama needs to pick someone with gravitas who is also a great campaigner.  That man is Joe Biden.  Sure, there are lots of videos out there of Biden saying stupid things, and Rush Limbaugh has endorsed Biden for the Veep position, but hey, who cares?  Biden brings foreign policy experience to the table.  Plus, his son is going to be deployed to Iraq. This may sound shallow, but the McCain camp can’t paint the Obama camp as out of touch with the troops on the ground if one of there own is on the battle field.  Also, Biden has a good quote about leaving Iraq.  From The Page: 

“I don’t want him going,” Biden told an Iowa state fair crowd a year ago, when, as a presidential candidate, he learned that his son’s unit would be deployed at some point in 2008.

“But I don’t want my grandsons or granddaughters going back in 15 years. So how we leave makes a big difference.”