The Lance Haynie Blog

Iran not a threat

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:24:19 -0500

Iran is not a threat, or that is what VP Joe Biden is saying. We have now learned that Obama has decided against the missile-defense system in eastern europe. Why do you ask? Because "Iran isn't much of a threat."

Vice President Joe Biden earlier refused to confirm to CNN that the George W. Bush-era plan was being shelved.

But he did explain the logic of doing so, saying Iran — a key concern for the United States — was not a threat.

“I think we are fully capable and secure dealing with any present or future potential Iranian threat,” he told CNN’s Chris Lawrence in Baghdad, where he is on a brief trip.

“The whole purpose of this exercise we are undertaking is to diminish the prospect of the Iranians destabilizing that region in the world. I am less concerned — much less concerned — about the Iranian potential. They have no potential at this moment, they have no capacity to launch a missile at the United States of America,” he said.

Of course this is what Obama had to say about Iran in April of 2008:

Since when are nuclear weapons in the hands of rouge nations not a threat? Tehran want's to eliminate and utterly destroy a key ally, Israel, and yet there is no threat. I guess maybe I can see Obama's point of view. We all know that we should not risk annoying Russia because they will use their influence on Iran to stop them from building the bomb right?

Imposing swift additional sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme would be a “serious mistake,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.

“Today there is a real chance to conclude talks whose results should be an agreement restoring trust in the purely peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme,” Lavrov said in televised remarks.

“Disrupting this chance by demanding swift imposition of sanctions would be a serious mistake,” he added.

Oh, damn never-mind; I guess I was wrong. This must be this smart power Obama is brining to the table. Not to worry, he has a plan right? I sure hope so! Maybe he will write Putin a "strongly worded letter" urging him in this matter, because that will do the trick.

Either way it is all irrelevant because Iran does not have the capabilities to make a bomb yet right? This is all speculation on the assumption that they could possibly make it.

Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press…

The document says Iran has “sufficient information” to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to “overcome problems” on developing a delivery system.

Damn, wrong again. Would you look at that? It is not clear what that exactly means, but it sounds like Iran's is in almost the same situation Japan is. They have figured out how to enrich weapons grade uranium, and have the necessary centrifuge technology to do the job when needed. However, the better question at hand is just how many centrifuges are in their arsenal.

On to that minor detail about a missile delivery system. Obama assured us that our crack in Iran intelligence thinks Tehran will be focused on short and medium range missiles in the near future. Therefore, there is no immediate need for a robust missile shield. There is no reason to distrust this assessment is there? It is not like Iranian intelligence has been wrong in the past right?

In a remarkable feat of doublespeak, Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have tried to portray the move as an embrace of missile defense that will enhance our security. Rather than focusing on long-range threats from Iran, they say, the United States now will concentrate on short-range threats.

That’s an example of short-range thinking. A robust system of missile defense never has demanded such trade-offs. Instead, it calls for a sophisticated architecture that counters threats in different forms. Intelligence estimates have forecast that Iran could develop intercontinental rockets by 2015. This morning, Obama and Gates insisted that these estimates are mistaken. If Iran has in fact slowed down its work in this area — a claim that national-security experts have questioned — it may have been in response to American determination to construct a NATO-approved system in Eastern Europe. Today’s announcement may persuade Tehran to reconsider and look for ways to exploit a new vulnerability. As Donald Rumsfeld once warned, weakness is provocative.

Even still, it is not like we have any ally's close to Iran correct? As for the Russian response to all of this, you will be certainly pleased to know that in return for not interfering with the Kremlin in eastern europe, Russia's foreign ministered decided to release this statement:

“American has always cared only about its own interests, and those of others only serve the US. Now we have another example of this,” he said in a television interview. “I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing towards this part of Europe. We should reconsider our approach to the United States.”

Did the Russians just give us the middle finger? See, smart power from Barack Obama.

Eight percent of New Jersey residents think Obama’s the Antichrist

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:42:47 -0500

Oh great, this again? Let me start of by saying that I do not believe that Barack Obama is the antichrist. I may not be the best Christian; but my gut tells me that the antichrist will have more sinister plans than overhauling healthcare and running up the federal deficit.

We've been uncovering a remarkable level of anger toward Barack Obama in a lot of our recent polling so for New Jersey we decided to go a step further in determining how extreme some people's feelings are about the President and asked respondents if they think he is the Anti-Christ.

8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure.

Pretty eye popping numbers. The extent to which some people already hate Obama is amazing. We'll test that question nationally this weekend.

The extremism in New Jersey isn't limited to the right though. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.

Beyond that 21% of respondents, including 33% of Republicans, express the belief that Obama was not born in the United States.

Combine the birthers and the truthers and you've got 37% of the electorate. And the 3% of voters who really need to get their heads checked are the ones who are both birthers and truthers.

These findings are in no way unique to New Jersey. In fact it's the least 'birther' of five states where we've looked at that question. But it's a reminder that high levels of extremism are in no way limited to the south.

I think I will have to agree with one thing. These nuts on both sides of the isle need to get their heads checked. Wow...

Protesters should be probed for racist thoughts

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:28:12 -0500

The thing's some of our elected officials say. Granted, Maxine Waters (democrat from California) suggestted that the media probe Obama critics, not the government. However, all in all she is sure that people protesting against Obama are racist.

Is it just me or am I sick and tired of hearing race brought into this? When the liberal left was protesting Bush we did not scream racism. Oh yeah, he was white so therefore it is different. The more they keep bringing race into the picture, the more this issue will stay.

The media should investigate the racial views of conservative activists like the ones who descended on Washington last weekend, one liberal congresswoman said Wednesday.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said that it’s not enough for African-Americans to levy allegations of racism against the right-leaning protesters, and that the media must look into their views.

“I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed,” Waters told the liberal Bill Press Radio show in a podcast. “I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers.”

“What I’m looking for is the very people who carry the signs who are referring to the policies in very, very strange ways like ‘Obamacare’ and ‘Barry Obamacare with Kennedy,’” she said. “What I’ve been interested in is hearing from those people that everybody’s referring to — everybody on the Mall, in the rally.”

Now here is my question, just so we have it straight. If I am to call the Presidents health-care reform "ObamaCare" that is proof that I am a racist? However, you calling protesters "teabaggers" is what exactly?

Reality Check: 45% of doctors would consider quitting under Obamacare

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:20:21 -0500

Want a peak at the grim future of our nation under Obamacare? Investor's Business Daily reports on the results of it's poll of the nations doctors:

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

I wonder how well Obama's plan will work with 45% less doctors? Is rationing healthcare really out? You decide, but for me it is clear. If the doctors are not willing, neither am I. If you are going to blindly follow people -- follow the one's who can heal you, not promise change.

House Guidelines on what you can call the President

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:11:59 -0500

When I first saw this I was thinking, great some rules that may make sense. Too bad my excitement was let down so quickly. This is basically a protect the President guidelines for the House.

This is the useful part: I.E. how to properly [not] insult the President.

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

My favorite has to be that they can not call the President a liar. What if he is one? Oh well, I have included the full text for your reading displeasure. I just can not believe with all that is going on in our country these idiot's can not find anything better to do than to ban House members from calling the President a liar.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Rules Committee Approved “Decorum” Guidelines for House

Washington, DC – The House Rules Committee today provided a summary of approved guidelines for all members to follow during floor debate. The Rules are approved by the entire House and are posted on the committee website. They can be found here:

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/house_comm_dec.htm

Decorum in the House and in Committees
Under clause 1(a)(1) of Rule XI, the rules of the House are the rules of its committees as far as applicable. Consequently, Members should comport themselves with the rules of decorum and debate in the House and in Committees specifically with regard to references to the President of the United States as stated in Section 370 of the House Rules and Manual.
As stated in Cannon’s Precedents, on January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report in response to improper references in debate to the President. That report read in part as follows:
“It is... the duty of the House to require its Members in speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the House is correlated.”
As a guide for debate, it is permissible in debate to challenge the President on matters of policy. The difference is one between political criticism and personally offensive criticism. For example, a Member may assert in debate that an incumbent President is not worthy of re-election, but in doing so should not allude to personal misconduct. By extension, a Member may assert in debate that the House should conduct an inquiry, or that a President should not remain in office.
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
However, the Senate rules on decorum and debate do not prohibit personal references to the President. Senate Rule XIX governing decorum and debate is applied only to fellow Senators and “does not extend to the President, the Vice President, or Administration officials and a Senator cannot be called to order under rule XIX for comments or remarks about them...” (Senate Procedure, p. 741). The Senate rules also provide that Jefferson’s Manual is not part of the Senate rules (Ibid, p.754).
By contrast, the rules of the House specifically provide that Jefferson’s Manual does govern the proceedings of the House where applicable (Clause 1 of Rule XXVIII). Section 370 of Jefferson’s Manual states that the rule in Parliament prohibiting Members from “speak{ing} irreverently or seditiously against the King” has been interpreted to prohibit personal references against the President. In addition, Speakers of the House have consistently reiterated, and the House has voted, to support the proposition that it is not in order in debate to engage in personalities toward the President. The Chair enforces this rule of decorum on his own initiative.

More propaganda from the far left: The Glenn Beck Boycott

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:47:01 -0500

I am just amazed at how the left operates for the most part. I mean the far left, not your average Americans. I am talking about the people behind Acorn, Code Pink, MoveOn.Org, and ColorOfChange.com. I have never seen so much propaganda from any other group.

The campaign by ColorOfChange.org to get companies to boycott Glenn Beck's Fox News program has been going on for a little more than a month, and they do have 62 companies whom have pledged support. These companies have refused to advertise on his program. My first question is who are these companies? Followed closely by were they even previous advertisers? I am looking on their website trying to find the list. So far I can see a brief paragraph explaining that because he called the President a racist, therefor he is a racist. By that logic would it not make ColorOfChange.org -- racist?

The group's founder, James Rucker, has put out a release on the boycott:

The advertising boycott of Glenn Beck has cost the controversial host over half of his estimated advertising revenue since it was launched by ColorOfChange.org a month ago. This according to data analyzed from industry sources.

However, the Fox News Channel outright disputes this claim. A spokesperson from FNC said, "The Color of Change figures are widely inaccurate on all fronts -- revenue has not ben negatively affected in any way."

These are two vastly different claims, and I am sure Fox is in the right. First off if you watch Glenn's show the first thing you will notice is that the show still has advertisers. Second, if you look at the ratings his show is generally in the top two for cable news programs. Glenn is continually drawing enormous ratings, and advertisers must pay for that combined with the wide audience he has. Even with that said, anyone with more than a pea for a brain will tell you that month-to-month data comparisons will never show any true trends. The fact that this boycott has only been in progress for a little over a month will yield no useful data for at least the next couple of months.

Yet, this campaign will continue with their propaganda machine and outright lie to obtain support from those who think like them. I am however curious who these "industry sources" are that estimated the loss figures for ColorOfChange.org? They very well did not spoke with Fox's ad sales department.

Furthermore, even if companies that would have advertised on the program do start to join in this game; they are only boycotting this program, not Fox News. With that being said, companies can request not to be included during a particular program. What they will do is spread their advertising time across the rest of the day. So unless they boycott Fox News outright, they are still paying Glenn Beck's salary. Does that not still defeat the purpose? If Fox is not losing any ad revenue, and Glenn is still drawing the ratings he is. Even with this silly boycott it is win-win for Fox.

Obama calls Kanye a jackass

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:22:06 -0500

I originally had decided I did not want to touch on the topic of Kanye West's blatent disregard for any humany decency. However, after hearing Obama's reaction I could not help myself. You can listen to the audio here if you so choose. The audio was apparently recorded just before the President was set to do an interview with CNBC. Before the interview began; Obama -- referring to Kayne's on stage antics said "I thought that was really inappropriate." He then added, "He's a jackass."

I actually am ecstatic to hear something I believe the President truly believes. I only wish he was this blunt and honest with his politics.

Another Big Labor payoff that will cost American jobs

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:13:10 -0500

We have been duped; during Obama's trek for presidency he attacked Senator John McCain for driving foreign cars. Now we find he is a two-faced protectionist. Surprised -- probably not however, it is kind of ironic if you ask me. Let's not forget the "buy American" campaign logo designed to attack the McCain campaign. He argued that McCain was a hypocrite because he opposed a mandate requiring the gov't to buy American vehicles. I have said it before and I will say it again. There is nothing hypocritical about opposing nicely worded blackmail. We already have enough coercion on our books, we do not need anymore.

Now to the point, the labor war is on again. This time with China. Is anyone buying this balderdash that is Obama? This is not about protecting American jobs -- make no mistake about it. We are once again paying off the unions.

WSJ: The White House disclosed late Friday evening that the U.S. will impose stiff tariffs on imported Chinese tires used by millions of Americans. Perhaps President Obama thought he could minimize controversy by releasing the news on a weekend, days ahead of the September 17 deadline and two weeks before he will host Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh. But the protectionist signal he has sent in his first major trade-policy decision is unmistakable.
Mr. Obama has applied a previously unused part of the trade law known as Section 421. This allows U.S. industries or unions to seek protection from “surges” of Chinese imports, with a lower burden of proof than normal antidumping or countervailing duty cases. President Bush nixed the four Section 421 petitions that reached his desk, citing the national economic interest.
Domestic lobbies—including unions like the United Steelworkers that supported him during the campaign and filed this case looking for a political favor in return—hoped Mr. Obama would reverse that precedent, and they haven’t been disappointed. Such congressional protectionist stalwarts as Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Rep. Sander Levin (D., Mich.) endorsed Friday night’s move. “Today, the President courageously stood up and enforced fair trade rules that will save jobs and help our communities,” crowed Mr. Brown, who had enthusiastically supported the tariff proposal. It hardly matters that the 35% tire tariff is less than the 55% the International Trade Commission recommended. Despite that attempt at political and economic baby-splitting, the door is now open to more such claims.

This is will cost more jobs than it will create. It is falsely changing the market, increasing prices and taking away choices for American consumers. I have said it before and I will say it again. The market's will decide what is right for the market. You can not alter the market without severe consequences.

Lance is Back!

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:37:25 -0500

Well, hopefully I am at least. I have been very busy with a new job the past few months when my writing has been few and far between. Now thing's have slowed down and I will be back to my usual updates.

Court: Employer must pay for weight-loss surgery

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:25:42 -0500

INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340-pound employee's weight-loss surgery to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work.

I have heard of some outrageous court ruling's when it comes to work related injuries -- this one top's the cake.

Childers, who was then 25, weighed 340 pounds in March 2007 when he was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door. Doctors said he needed surgery to ease his severe pain, but that the operation would do him no good unless he first had surgery to reduce his weight, which rose to 380 pounds after the accident.

I could possibly understand if the man was not obese before the injury. However, the fact is he was in this condition already. Do they not realize what affect this can and will have on business?

These type of rulings could very well make employers wary of hiring people who are overweight; or any other conditions that would make them a higher risk to injury on the job. Granted, that is illegal (even though it should not be) you can not say that employers will not find a work around.

If you were to ask me I think it is absurd that you can not hire/not hire whom ever you want. Not even going down that road, who would even want to work for someone who does not want to really hire them in the first place?