How 'Bout Obama Controls Your PC, Too?

This is, unfortunately, no joke (emphasis mine):

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Yeah, that sounds like a typical piece of Obama legislation!

Still, do you see what this is? It's nothing less than an attempt to legally give the White House the power to switch on and off private sector computers! Talk about a lust for control! The biggest problem with this is that there are virtually no limits or definitions that clarify anything:

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

This strikes me as being very reminiscent of the 'too big to fail' mantra for the banking industry that led to eventual government takeovers, but the phrasing for technology is now along the lines of 'critical to cyber-security'. And what about that periodic mapping and information sharing of private networks? Trust me, none of that happens in an unobtrusive way, and if the government is allowed to do that it could have serious business impacts on those companies.

Imagine, if you will, a company that is not playing nicely with the Obama administration (say, if they actually donated more money to Reps than Dems). Obama could tell them it was time for a periodic mapping session, send in a bunch of bureaucrats to tie up that company for a few days or weeks or months, severely hampering their ability to function. And that would just be the warning! And what defines a 'cyber threat'? The bill doesn't say. We know that China has recently hacked its way into our electrical grid...would that count?

The bottom line here is that this is way too much authority for the White House -- ANY White House, not just Obama's -- and should not be allowed. This is a clear infringement upon the individual and property rights of private American citizens and companies, and a vast overreach by government.

Just say no.

There's my two cents.

Sweet, Sweet Music

No other explanation needed:

A Double Dip Recession?

Wouldn't this be just great:

There are also now two reasons why there is a rising risk of a double-dip W-shaped recession. For a start, there are risks associated with exit strategies from the massive monetary and fiscal easing: policymakers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they take large fiscal deficits seriously and raise taxes, cut spending and mop up excess liquidity soon, they would undermine recovery and tip the economy back into stag-deflation (recession and deflation).

But if they maintain large budget deficits, bond market vigilantes will punish policymakers. Then, inflationary expectations will increase, long-term government bond yields would rise and borrowing rates will go up sharply, leading to stagflation.

Another reason to fear a double-dip recession is that oil, energy and food prices are now rising faster than economic fundamentals warrant, and could be driven higher by excessive liquidity chasing assets and by speculative demand. Last year, oil at $145 a barrel was a tipping point for the global economy, as it created negative terms of trade and a disposable income shock for oil importing economies. The global economy could not withstand another contractionary shock if similar speculation drives oil rapidly towards $100 a barrel.

In summary, the recovery is likely to be anaemic and below trend in advanced economies and there is a big risk of a double-dip recession.

Ace of Spades adds some helpful commentary on oil:

It's bizarre that Obama and the Democratic Party have apparently decided to just hope for the best with regard to oil. To just pray that we don't have yet another big run-up in the cost of oil that tips us back into recession (or deeper into recession if we're not out yet).

That's not a workable economic strategy, and it's an awful political one. Whenever oil prices spike, the public gets frothy about oil exploration. True, when the jam-up eases, they forget all about it. (Alas.)

Obama and the Democrats have ignored entirely the last oil crunch, the one that plunged this country, and the world, into a deep recession. They have not expanded supply in the least.

What the hell do they think is going to happen when this all happens again, which it always does? The public will remember that many Republicans (including of course Sarah Palin) were pushing hard for expanded domestic energy production and were entirely ignored. The public isn't thinking about this much now, but when it happens again, it will be practically all they think about, and Obama's solar power and unicorn farts plan for green energy is not going to mollify them.

Remember 'drill here, drill now, pay less'?  It was HUGE last summer, and the Democrats were lucky that the economic meltdown occurred and brought gas prices down.  The GOP was actually right on top of the issue, in lock step with the American public for a change.  The next time it comes up again, we may finally see some action in a positive direction.

Nevertheless, the double dip recession is a distinctly unpleasant possibility, one brought much closer to reality by Obama's actions and policies.  Thank you, Mr. President.

There's my two cents.

Barack Obama's Accomplishments

I've probably touched on each one of these at some point before, but when a friend of mine e-mailed this list, I thought it was a pretty jarring reminder to see all of it at one time:

Obama's First Six Months' Accomplishments
 
1. Offended the Queen of England.
2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.
3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega.
4. Kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek.
5. Endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia.
6. Sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras.
7. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions while they're building their nuclear weapons.
8. Gave away billions to AIG also without pre-conditions.
9. Expanded the bailouts.
10. Insulted everyone who has ever loved a Special Olympian.
11. Doubled our national debt.
12. Announced the termination of our new missile defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM.
13. Released information on U.S. intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own CIA director and the prior four CIA directors.
14. Accepted without comment that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other nominees withdrew after they couldn't take the heat.
15. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who identified military veterans and abortion opponents as "dangers to the nation."
16. Ordered that the word "terrorism" no longer be used and instead refers to such acts as "man made disasters."
17. Circled the globe to publicly apologize for America's world leadership.
18. Told the Mexican president that the violence in their country was because of us.
19. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from the Department of Commerce.
20. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion to Cuba of a 9-year-old whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom in the United States .
21. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration may stand trial for "torturing" three 9/11 terrorists by pouring water up their noses.
22. Low altitude photo shoot of Air Force One over New York City that frightened thousands of New Yorkers.
23. Sent his National Defense Advisor to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims.
24. Praised Jimmy Carter's trip to Gaza where he sided with terrorist Hamas against Israel.
25. Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions and freezing out retired investors who owned their bonds. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process.
26. Passed a huge energy tax in the House that will make American industry even less competitive while costing homeowners thousands per year.
27. Announced nationalized health care "reform" that will strip seniors of their Medicare, cut pay of physicians, increase taxes yet another $1 trillion, and put everyone on rationed care with government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn't.
28. Fired the CEO of General Motors.
29. Appointed 20+ Czars who answer to no one but him, including a Czar to manage private citizens' pay.
 
Bloomberg: Daschle says, "Health care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them," while former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm says seniors have "a duty to die."
 
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that the President, Senators and Congressmen have their own special gold plated health care plan which is guaranteed the remainder of their lives and they are not subject to this new law if they pass it..
 
Please use the power of the Internet to get this message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election coming up in one year and four months where we can reverse the dangerous direction of the Obama administration and its allies. In the interim, we can make their lives miserable. Lets do it!
 
If you disagree, don't do anything.

He's been busy over the past few months, hasn't he?  It's no wonder he needs a vacation from his vacation.

There's my two cents.

See? The American People Are Very, Very Smart

I find this incredibly amusing and a good sign of intelligence in the public (h/t Free Republic):

If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again.

This isn't just right-wing moaning at the Left, either:

With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, it's not surprising to find that the number of Democrats who would vote to keep the entire Congress has grown from 25% last fall to 43% today. In fact, a modest plurality of Democrats would now vote to keep the legislators. Last fall, a plurality of Democrats were ready to throw them all out.

While Democrats have become more supportive of the legislators, voters not affiliated with either major party have moved in the opposite direction. Today, 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That's up from 62% last year.

Republicans, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly support replacing everyone in the Congress. Their views have not changed. But Republican voters are disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.

I think it's a terrific idea myself.  I'd keep anyone with a conservative rating of about 90% or higher, but other than that handful of people...see-ya!

There's my two cents.

Economic Madness And Kool-Aid

Read this whole post from Ace of Spades...there's a ton of red meat in it:

Obama's $9.05 Trillion Deficit Actually Depends on Stunning Growth to Stay at that "Low" Level

Peak growth in the last expansion? 3.6%.

Obama's glide path to fiscal responsibility -- where we merely run nearly a trillion dollars in deficits every single year -- relies upon the assumption we'll rocket to 3.8% growth by 2011 and then in excess of 4% growth for three years running, 2012-2014.

And based on those rosy projections, we'll merely run a $905 billion deficit every year. If it's lower than that -- which, of course, it will be -- then the deficits will be... who knows. It's not real money anymore anyway. It's just ZimbabweBucks.

What is the likelihood of such a rare rocket-like recovery? Not terribly good.

Claims of imminent recovery are based primarily on France and Germany barely ending contraction (i.e., they squeaked like 0.1 -0.2% growth, if you can call it that).

They are likely to contract again -- the dreaded double-dip. (And two dips might not be the end of it.)

The European Central Bank said private sector loans fell by €38bn (£33bn) from a month earlier. Lending to non-financial corporations has shrunk by €116bn (to €4,759bn) since February, although it is still up 1.6pc from a year ago due to lag effects.

"The credit squeeze continues," said Carsten Brzeski from ING. "Today's monetary numbers illustrate how fragile the ongoing recovery still is."

M3 money supply growth has slowed to a record low of 3pc. Monetarists watch the M3 figures closely as a early warning gauge for the economy a year or so later.

The ominous figures help explain why several ECB governors have stepped forward in recent days to cool euphoria....

"The rebound in Germany and France is not sustainable. The state has stepped in to compensate for the private sector. As long as economic growth relies on the state, you cannot talk about durable recovery," he said.

How long until we experience a vigorous recovery? A long time.

An end to technical recession in France, Germany, and Japan because Q2 ( and undoubtedly Q3 to come) ekes out a rise from a collapsed base does not mean anything – except that zero interest rates worldwide, and a massive fiscal stimulus that is pushing public debts towards 100pc across the OECD states (and cannot easily be repeated once the first sugar rush subsides), has mercifully prevented the Great Contraction from turning into an immediate catastrophe.

As the Bank of England's Governor Mervyn King puts it: "It's the level, stupid". The level of economic activity is years away from full recovery.

The Bundesbank's Axel Weber says it will take until 2013 for Germany to get back to where it was. He also warns, by the way, that there will be a second wave of the credit crisis as Germany's home-grown troubles come to the fore. Round one was imported havoc from the US: round two will be rising defaults at home and a credit squeeze as ratings downgrades force banks to set aside fresh capital.

And that second wave of wipe-outs will happen here, as well.

Maybe a thousand banks will go under next year.

Thanks to consolidation and one bruised bank buying other bruised banks, the banks which were previously too big to fail are now even bigger.

And the FDIC is taking a hit -- 20% so far. And that's just with 81 bank closings this year. Sure, we can keep writing the FDIC fresh new checks... but that's all we seem to be able to do. At some point our checks become devalued.

Current real unemployed rate? The head of the Atlanta Federal Reserve floated the number 16%. US News & World Report guesses it's higher than that.

So if you care not just about people who meet the official definition of "unemployed" but also about people who are dropping out of the labor force, 2009 seems to be trailing 1982 in terms of the health of the labor market. Williams says that when he takes into consideration people who haven't looked for work in more than a year because they can't find jobs, the real unemployment rate today goes all the way up to 20.6 percent by his calculations. "It won't take much to get it to the worst since the Great Depression," he says.

Now, given all that, and with the polar opposite of pro-growth policies in place, and with future growth already hobbled by crushing future obligations which will only get larger -- how can Obama's hack Orzag "project" growth rates better than Clinton's historically-rare super-expansion?

Kool-Aid.  Lots and lots of yummy Kool-Aid.

There's my two cents.

Prepare For Tax Increases!

Even the Washington Post has figured this one out (via RedState):

Forget President Barack Obama's pledge of no increase in taxes for most of us. Taxes will be going skyward.

Reports the Washington Post:

During last year's campaign, President Obama vowed to enact a bold agenda without raising taxes for the middle class, a pledge budget experts viewed with skepticism. Since then, a severe recession, massive deficits and a national debt that is swelling toward a 50-year high have only made his promise harder to keep.

The Obama administration has insisted that the pledge will stand. But the president's top economic advisers have refused to rule out broad-based tax increases to close the yawning gap between federal revenue and government spending and are warning of tough choices ahead.

...

Obama ... has vowed to pay for any new initiatives and to draft an overhaul of the health-care system that eventually would save the government money, driving deficits down. But effective health reforms would take decades to produce savings. In the meantime, White House budget director Peter R. Orszag acknowledged, "there are additional steps that will be necessary."

Not that this is any big shock or anything. We talked about this many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times before the election (as far back as July 2007). Here's the best summary I've seen so far of what Obama has already done:

Can't wait to see what he does next!

Bottom line: when the Democrats run things, the American people always have to make do with less of their own money, and this time will be no exception. Well, except for the sheer historic giganticness of the tax increase this time, that is.

There's my two cents.

ObamaKennedycare Update

Man, this is just sewer-like. No, scratch that...sewers are much too clean for what the Democrats are doing now to attack ObamaKennedycare opposition.

• Leftists distribute KKK-themed attack flyers at rally
  
• Union thugs still being bused in to rallies
  
• Democrat Rep. and Communist hearts Castro, plays race card
• ObamaKennedycare supporter smashes opponent in face with elbow
  

Some other interesting notes:

• Congressional Research Service confirms illegal aliens would be covered.
  
• The Left is now saying pass it now as a 'tribute' to Kennedy (but...what has changed in the bill? nothing...)
  
• Senator Enzi offers the GOP Weekly address
  
• Thousands of British pregnant women locked out of maternity care due to universal health care rationing
  

Finally, I leave you with a couple of videos. The first is completely disgusting. Trying to use Kennedy's death to gin up support is one thing, but this is going too far:

It's foul that they make these kids shill for ObamaKennedycare at Kennedy's funeral!

And finally, here's a great example of the typical supporter:

Not America anymore?! I can charge you with whatever I want?!

This is the kind of person who blindly follows the Obamessiah despite what the law or the Constitution says, despite logic, and despite rationality. They simply believe, and will do or say literally anything in order to give that belief substance.

Is anyone else seeing a problem here?

There's my two cents.

Fun & Frivolity: What's Cooler Than An Extreme Katana?

Why, two of them, of course!

Incredible.

Have a great weekend!

Awww...Vacationing Is Such Hard Work!

If only someone had told him that being the President was so...demanding!

Let's face it: In terms of downtime, President Obama's vacation has been a bit of a gyp.

First, he had to interrupt his R&R to renominate Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Then he got the bad news about his friend Ted Kennedy.

And then there are the latest dispatches from the summer of no love for the nation's lawmakers and what they might mean for the president's No. 1 legislative priority, an overhaul of the nation's health care system.

Um...hello?! Where's the racial insensitivity police here?? I'm certain that Gypsies everywhere will be demanding an apology on front page news tomorrow!

Anyway, I completely agree with Ace of Spades when he says this:

Huh. The president has duties even when on vacation. Who would have thought.

I don't know how Obama is going to handle pressure. He might handle it well, being fundamentally detached, unserious, and dream-dazed, and so immune to the normal stressors.

On the other hand, I kind of worry that this poseur has never had a position of responsibility in his life -- his highest-stress position was editing the Law Review 20 years ago -- and it's possible he's going to freak and crack as he experiences difficulties and trouble for the first time in his life.

We got glimmers of this when, after just a couple weeks in office, the Obamas just had to escape for a little while. The guy just isn't used to this kind of pressure, and he doesn't know how to cope.

To me, this is an indicator that someone is pulling Obama's strings. His only responsibility is to sell the American people on his radical Leftist ideology; someone else is making all the decisions and holding the real power. For him to be so concerned about vacationing while his #1 legislative priority tanks, his poll numbers drop past 50%, his own party is now talking about massive mid-term losses, and tremendous grass roots opposition to all of his major initiatives...well, that's a guy who doesn't have much responsibility, you know?

Just sayin'.

There's my two cents.

State-Run Media Acts Like State-Run Media

Through and through:

FOX News reported:

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.

"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan."

"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."

Here's the ad:

Pretty powerful stuff; it's no wonder they didn't want to show it.

Bottom line: the mainstream media cannot be trusted anymore. Don't ever forget that.

There's my two cents.

Obama Hearts Islam

Just read this whole thing from Hot Air. It's disgusting:

Last spring, Barack Obama decided against holding a public event or even giving a public statement at the White House on the National Day of Prayer. Robert Gibbs explained that Obama preferred to pray privately and stick to written proclamations, rather than hold a public event with Christian and Jewish leaders to mark the occasion as George Bush did for the previous eight years:

“I think the president understands, in his own life and in his family’s life, the role that prayer plays,” Gibbs said. “And I would denote that the administrations prior to the past one did proclamations. That’s the way the president will publicly observe the national prayer day. But, as I said, privately, he’ll pray as he does every day.”

Of course, if the President prefers to make his religious observations in private, that’s his business. As long as he’s consistent, it shouldn’t cause anyone any problem, right? Right?

Er …

President Obama continued his charm offensive on the Islamic world today, posting on the White House blog a video wishing Muslims a happy Ramadan, the month of fasting, prayer and charity observed by Muslims worldwide.

But to be fair …

This isn’t the first time Obama has sent special holiday messages — in April, for example, there was a two-fer video post on the White House blog recognizing Passover and Easter.

And yet …

But this message was part of a larger push, a point made clear in the introduction to the Ramadan video by Rashad Hussein, a deputy associate counsel in the White House who was the first Muslim in Obama’s administration.

“This month is also a time of renewal and this marks the first Ramadan since the President outlined his vision for a new beginning between America and the Muslim world,” Hussein wrote. “The President’s message is part of an on-going dialogue with Muslim communities that began on inauguration day and has continued with his statement on Nowruz, during trips to Ankara and Cairo, and with interviews with media outlets such as Al Arabiya and Dawn TV.”

I’ll leave this one to your judgment.

On a related note...

For 42 years, the God and Country Rally in Idaho has started its rally with a military fly over.

The God and Country Rally is a non-denominational rally that supports American soldiers.

For 42 years the Pentagon has carried out the military fly over.

Not any more.

In Barack Obama’s America, the military is no longer allowed to do such things if the group requesting the fly over is Christian oriented.

That’s not an exaggeration.

Let’s roll the tape:

Just more evidence that Barack Obama is not just pro-Muslim, but actually anti-Christian.

Gird your loins, people of faith. Gird your loins.

There's my two cents.

Perspective On Obamacare

Thomas Sowell brings us yet another outstanding dose of perspective:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."

If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands-- and out of the hands of your doctor-- and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.

Let's go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem."

If we are, then there will be a never ending series of "solutions," each causing new problems calling for still more "solutions." That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers' money and-- more important-- ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.

Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.

Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated" and "I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes."

But today's crusading zealots are not about to tolerate evils or infirmities. If insurance companies are not behaving the way some people think they should, then their answer is to set up a government bureaucracy to either control insurance companies or replace them.

If doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies charge more than some people feel like paying, then the answer is price control. The actual track record of politicians, government bureaucracies, or price control is of no interest to those who think this way.

Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.

If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.

Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.

But politicians in the business of distributing largesse-- especially with somebody else's money-- cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health"-- which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on the federal treasury.

There are still some voices of sanity today, echoing what Edmund Burke said long ago. "The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," according to Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye.

I like his analogy with car insurance, specifically the fact that it does not cover oil changes or filling up with gas.  The whole purpose of insurance is not to provide anything and everything you could possibly want in any conceivable scenario, but rather to protect you from economic devastation in the event of a major health problem.  Unfortunately, our politicians have spoon-fed so many people into dependency over the years that too many now consider the sniffles a legitimate justification for implementing universal health care.

If they put this into effect, it will wreak economic devastation on the entire nation while delegating life-and-death decisions to government bureaucrats.  Instead of getting government health care to protect us from everything, we'll end up needing protection from government health care.

There's my two cents.

Cleaning The Swamp

The Democrats swept into power in 2006 on the promise of 'cleaning the swamp', ostensibly by getting rid of all that nasty corruption in the Republican party.  Let's see how well it's going:

DSCC Chair arrested for bank fraud

Hassan Nemazee was more recently a heavy donor and bundler for both the Clinton and Obama Presidential campaigns, bringing in over half a million for the new President; he was also a major bundler for the Presidential Inaugural.

NY Businessman Charged With $74 Million Bank Fraud Against Citigroup

A New York man was charged with allegedly defrauding Citigroup Inc. (C) out of $74 million in loans.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan and the Federal Bureau of Investigations say Hassan Nemazee, with residences in Manhattan and Katonah, N.Y., fraudulently applied for the loans for Nemazee Capital Corp., of which he is chairman and chief executive.

Federal prosecutors contend Nemazee obtained the money by giving the banking giant "numerous documents that purported to establish the existence of accounts in Nemazee's name at various financial institutions containing many hundreds of millions of dollars," the Justice Department said in a statement. "In fact, those were fraudulent and forged documents."

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee underestimates his assets by half

Rangel's amended disclosure statement for 2007 reports new assets worth between $647,000 and $1.38 million. That raises the value of his holdings to between $1.03 million and $2.95 million.

Assets missing from Rangel's original 2007 disclosure, filed in May 2008, include a Congressional Federal Credit Union IRA worth between $250,001 and $500,000; four mutual fund accounts worth between $365,004 and $750,000, and PepsiCo and Yum! Brands stock valued between $16,002 and $65,000.

...A Rangel source said there are "good explanations" for why Rangel didn't report those holdings and "he'll answer those questions in due time" - after the House ethics committee completes its nearly year-long probe of the powerful Democratic Ways and Means Committee chairman.

"The congressman is confident there was no effort to hide anything," the source added.

This guy is one of the key architects of Obamacare, which will control roughly 17% of the entire American economy.  What if he underestimates the cost of Obamacare by half...?


'Justice' Department kills probe of Dem. Bill Richardson

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former high-ranking members of his administration won't be criminally charged in a yearlong federal investigation into pay-to-play allegations involving one of the Democratic governor's large political donors, someone familiar with the case said.

The decision not to pursue indictments was made by top Justice Department officials, according to a person familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because federal officials had not disclosed results of the probe.

"It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press.

Maybe he's a member of the Black Panthers.  The 'Justice' Department let them get away, too.


Chairman of Senate Banking Committee continues hiding documents from sweetheart mortgages

So I call the Senate Ethics Committee "a joke" on the Corner for not pursuing the "Friends of Angelo" mortgage scandal, and a half an hour later they announce they're dissmissing the charges against Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad.

Oh and by the way, it's been 378 days since Chris Dodd promised to release all his mortgage paperwork to the public for examination. He still hasn't made good on that promise. Regardless of whether the Ethics Committee has cleared him, if Dodd really had nothing to hide he'd release the mortgage documents already.

It's a group thing in New Mexico...

The former Secretary of State and several top Democrats were indicted today in New Mexico.
The ABQ News reported, via Free Republic:

Former Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron, Democratic Party consultant Armando Gutierrez and lobbyists Elizabeth and Joseph Carl Kupfer were indicted Wednesday on 50 counts each of conspiracy, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering over $100,000 and other charges for alleged acts occurring from 2004 through 2006.

The four, who are named in separate indictments filed Wednesday afternoon in Bernalillo County District court, also are charged with making or permitting false public vouchers, making or taking kickbacks and tampering with evidence. The evidence-tampering charge stems from a "memorandum" back-dated to Sept. 2, 2004, "fabricated" with the intent of avoiding prosecution, the indictments say.

Inspector General agrees: Nancy Pelosi lied about CIA interrogations

The IG report belies House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that she wasn't told about all this. "In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. . . . Representatives . . . continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of EITs and detentions in February and March 2003. The [CIA] General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program . . . ." Ditto in September 2003.

Whew!  It's a good thing that Democrats are back in charge, isn't it?  We might be in trouble if they hadn't cleaned things up.

There's my two cents.

Cash For What??

You can tell how Cash for Clunkers was successful at its real intended goal -- stimulating liberal constituencies -- by looking at how many potential knock-offs they're now considering:

Cash for Kitchen Appliances

A $300 million cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home appliances provides a glimmer of hope for beleaguered makers of washing machines and dishwashers, but it's probably not enough to lift companies such as Whirlpool (WHR) and Electrolux out of the worst down cycle in the sector's history.

Beginning late this fall, the program authorizes rebates of $50 to $200 for purchases of high-efficiency household appliances.

Cash for Coiffures

A NowHampshire.com investigation reveals almost $37,000 of that money went to a Bedford beauty school that does not grant degrees.

The Office of Economic Stimulus granted Coiffures by Michael, Inc. $35,088 in a "direct payment for specified use," and another $1,571 in "student financial assistance."

Cash for Convicts

Federal economic stimulus cash was handed out to cons behind bars in Bay State prisons after a bureaucratic snafu resulted in $250 checks being sent to some inmates - and now red-faced feds want it back.

Okay, so that last one was actually a mistake.  But hey, isn't that instructive, too, isn't it?

But the auto industry isn't exactly left hanging out to dry, either...

Cash for Clunker Care

The Obama administration's bailout of General Motors and Chrysler has already reached a staggering $110 billion. But even that is not enough money to undue the damage big labor has done to the industry. Tucked inside H.R. 3200 is yet another $10 billion in bailout cash.

And, on a related note, tens of thousands of student veterans' education assistance checks are delayed.

Good thing the Obama administration has their priorities straight, isn't it?

There's my two cents.

Going Down? Why Yes, Yes Indeed

While Obama is taking a vacation from his vacation, his poll numbers continue their death spiral:

In today’s Gallup daily tracking poll (three-day rolling average) — Gallup! — President Barack H. Obama now sits on a job-approval of a bare 50%, having plummeted from 69% approval on January 22-24 (released on January 25th), a few days after he was inaugurated. He has dropped 19 points in 214 days of tracking-poll releases, or one point every eleven days or so. If this goes on, Obama should drop below 50% in the first week of September.

Worse, Obama’s disapproval has risen forty points in that same period, from 13% to 43%. (Again, this is Gallup, not Rasmussen; sampling adults, not likely voters, or even registered voters.) That’s a rise of one point of disapproval every 5.35 days.

And remember, this is Gallup, which is generally a bit more left-leaning. Also remember that this is a poll of adults, not likely voters. Pretty much every poll of likely voters leans more rightward than the equivalent poll of just adults.

Remember how the Left tried to foist the lame-duck label on George W. Bush when he was about 18 months before the end of his second term? If I recall correctly, one of the main justifications they used to assert that status was his low poll numbers. Boy, wouldn't it be ironic if Obama reached that same level of lame-duck status in the first half of his first term?

I can't wait.

There's my two cents.

And You Thought 9.4% Unemployment Was Bad!

That's way lower than what it really is, according to the Atlanta Federal Reserve head honcho (emphasis mine):

"If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

Ace of Spades explains:

When employment is high, the unemployment rate overstates unemployment, as previously unemployed non- or semi-workers are lured into the labor pool. When employment is low -- as it is now -- the unemployment rate understates unemployment. Not only are no situational-type workers joining the workforce -- they stay well clear of it -- but many workers either give up looking after a while or are "employed," but only part-time.

On a related note, the CBO is now predicting another 2.3 million lost jobs in 2010.

How's that recovery coming along again, Mr. President?

Oh, that's right. Thanks for clarifying.

There's my two cents.

ObamaKennedycare

As expected, the Left is using the name of Ted Kennedy to force nationalized health care down America's unwilling throat:

Democrats are hoping that the memory of Sen. Ted Kennedy will revive the Democratic Party's flagging push for health care reform.

"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News.

Democrats are hoping that Kennedy's influence in death may be even stronger than it was when he was alive as they push for President Obama's top domestic priority. Democratic officials hope that invoking Kennedy's passion for the issue will counter slippage in support for heatlh care reform.

Just one problem with that: outside of elite circles, most Americans don't much care about Ted Kennedy and his passions. Case in point:

Fox News maintained its top ranking among the cable news channels Wednesday as its competitors turned most of their coverage over to the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy. The event didn't prove to be a major draw for viewers, however. Fox, which covered the story in a more limited fashion, drew an average of 1.37 million viewers throughout the entire day and 2.67 million viewers during prime time, according to Nielsen Media Research.

CNN, which usually dominates during major breaking news events, averaged 711,000 viewers overall and 1.19 million viewers in prime time. MSNBC pulled in 506,000 viewers throughout the day and 984,000 in prime time.

In the key 25- to 54-year-old advertising demographic, Fox had double the audience of its competitors in prime time.

Legal Insurrection hits the salient point:

So, if people are not particularly interested in watching the Kennedy-death television coverage, what does that say about the likelihood liberal Democrats can exploit Kennedy's death to rally the nation around a Kennedy-care bill?

Common sense would say no, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Still, what else is going on around the country? How about some more town hall updates? Those are always informative...

Colorado Dem Rep. Markey isn't helping the cause any:

Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.

Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.

"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."

Yeah, that would be why ObamaKennedycare is shedding senior support like a Husky in summertime.

Speaking of which, Karl Rove suggests that if Medicare gets whacked as part of Obamakennedycare (which it will), there will be severe electoral consequences:

There are roughly 23,400 seniors on average in a congressional district who have Medicare Advantage, but who face losing it if Mr. Obama has his way. That's enough votes to tip most competitive House and Senate races.

Meanwhile, the ever-tolerant left is now issuing death threats against Republicans who oppose ObamaKennedycare. I suppose that's forgivable, given that all opponents of ObamaKennedycare are Nazis, right?

Claire-bear McCaskill of Missouri keeps having epiphanies in front of crowds. First she figured out that her constituents don't trust her, and now she's hit upon what will likely be a very important factoid in a few months:

Hey, congratulations, Senator! You've won the prize for reading the Constitution. Now, if you could persuade some of your co-workers to do the same, we'd be in business.

Once again, though, I have to give her props for holding meetings with her constituents, and for gamely trying to answer real, unprompted questions from those constituents. She's head and shoulders above most of her Democrat friends in that, at least. And, if you listen to the whole audio file, you'll actually find a few good answers...but whether or not she follows through is another story. For example, she promises that if a bill were to pass a public option, she would take it. We'll see.

Rep. Ron Kind, however, won't even say the words:

Howard Dean spills the beans on another dirty little secret of ObamaKennedycare. Excessive litigation is pretty much universally recognized as one of the primary drivers of rising health care costs, so tort reform would be extremely beneficial, would it not? Here's why it's not included in ObamaKennedycare:

"The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers...that is the plain and simple truth."

Guess they're more important to the Democrats than the American people, huh?

Once again, this all boils down to just how politically suicidal the Democrats are feeling when they come back from the August recess. Will they force this disaster onto the country in the face of zero Republican support and very little public support, knowing they will likely be voted home in short order? Those are the stakes, as indicated by a recent Rasmussen poll:

If Democrats agree on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress, 24% of voters nationwide say the Democrats should pass that bill.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% believe the Democrats should change the bill to win support from “a reasonable number of Republicans.” Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure what congressional Democrats should do.

Republican voters overwhelmingly think the bill should be changed, and so do 62% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

However, Democrats are more conflicted. Forty-one percent (41%) of those in the president’s party believe their legislators should pass the bill without any GOP votes, while 34% disagree and think the legislation should be changed to attract Republican support.

And what about the reconciliation option they're considering, which would only require 51 votes rather than the normal 60? Politically lethal consequences await there:

All age demographics oppose it, most by majorities, and by more than 3-1 among 30-39 and 40-49 voters. Majorities of men and women oppose it. All income demographics oppose it, in all but the lowest income earners by a wide majority. Only the “political class” gives it strong support, which should tell Democrats that they’re really barking up a wrong tree.

What this all boils down to is who these Democrats fear more: Barack Obama and the leadership, or the American people? It's a clear distinction, and there is essentially no middle ground. We'll find out very soon how they fall.

You might want to pick up the phone and offer your thoughts on the matter while you still can.

There's my two cents.

Limbaugh: Statism Vs. Freedom

Glenn Beck interviews the #1 conservative voice in the country on a wide range of Obama topics. This is pure excellence, so watch the whole thing:

This whole thing can be boiled down to that one theme: the STATE versus the individual.

Right now, the Statists are in power, and they're exerting their power over the increasing objections of the American people. The tension is going to increase until something explodes; one side will win, and the other will lose. We're rapidly approaching a point at which the grand experiment which is America will be over...unless the American people boldly stand up and loudly reject the Statists, and throw them out of power.

I pray that will happen soon.

There's my two cents.

Rush Limbaugh On Ted Kennedy

Rush Limbaugh puts his finger on the real lesson that we should learn from Ted Kennedy's final months on this earth in a 100% red meat dissertation on the value of life and the disaster that is Obamacare:

Drop.io

The real irony here is that the very same health care system that will bear Ted Kennedy's name is precisely the one that will prevent other Americans from receiving the same level of care that Kennedy got.

There's my two cents.

It's All About Who?

If a hallmark of good leadership is surrounding oneself with qualified, competent people, then what does this Hot Air report say about Barack Obama:

The New York Times has noticed that after seven months in office, Pres. Obama has filled only 43 percent of the 543 policymaking jobs requiring Senate confirmation in four top executive ranks:

He is trying to fix the financial markets but does not have an assistant treasury secretary for financial markets. He is spending more money on transportation than anyone since Dwight D. Eisenhower but does not have his own inspector general watching how the dollars are used. He is fighting two wars but does not have an Army secretary.

He sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Africa to talk about international development but does not have anyone running the Agency for International Development. He has invited major powers to a summit on nuclear nonproliferation but does not have an assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. He has vowed to improve government efficiency but does not have the chief performance officer he promised.

But wait, there's more:

No Obama appointee is running the Transportation Security Agency, the Customs and Border Protection agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Obama still does not have an intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, nor a top civilian in charge of military readiness at the Pentagon.

Moreover, according to another recent NYT report:

President Obama has made health care his top priority. He says the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is "the biggest threat" to the nation's fiscal future. But to the puzzlement of Congress and health care experts around the country, Mr. Obama has not named anyone to lead the agency that runs the two giant programs.

The suggestion in these reports is that the vetting process "had become so intrusive that many candidates declined to be considered." Which is rather incredible considering that Obama Treasury Secretary Timmy Geithner is a tax cheat, and still got confirmed. As did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, despite all sorts of conflict of interest concerns.

However, concerns that Obama's appointees might be so problematic that even the complacent Senate might object would explain the dozens of "czars" Obama has installed — some with ethical clouds, all undermining the Senate's constitutional role advice and consent.

Yes, that does help explain the 'czars' - they're unvetted friends of his who answer only to him instead of qualified people who are able to pass through the Constitutionally appointed Senate confirmation process.  And boy, that really speaks volumes about just how unvettable they are, given who the Senate has already approved this year!  Still, I think there's even more to it.

I think this speaks to Obama's sheer ego and arrogance, not to mention his inexperience.  A good leader knows his limitations, and intentionally surrounds himself with people who complement his weaknesses with their strengths.  There's no shame in that; it simply isn't possible for any one person to be a genius at economics, foreign relations, domestic policy, election management, environmental policy, national security, and all the other myriad responsibilities of the presidency.  To ignore these important positions for so long is to not only neglect the management of the nation, but also to tacitly suggest that Obama doesn't need them at all.  This bears out his narcissism in spades.  He believes that he's the whole show, the prime time, and the only one who really counts.  He doesn't need these other people to do anything for him because he believes he can do it all.  Personally, I find that to be an exceedingly dangerous attitude for the most powerful man in the world.

Then again, given the extremist, statist, anti-American, radical philosophy of most of the people he has put in place, maybe we should be glad he hasn't filled out the roster yet.  It's more time we have as a nation of simply treading water, and less time sinking like a rock.

There's my two cents.

Government 'Success' Means Americans Get Whacked

You know how the Cash for Clunkers was heralded by the White House, the media, and liberals everywhere as a smashing success, and a major boost to the ailing American auto industry?  Well, here's the reality of what they call success:

The Obama administration spent three billion dollars subsidizing the destruction of 700,000 vehicles in order to boost car sales.  Which auto makers actually benefited from these American tax subsidies?  Reuters reports that foreign car manufacturers gained market share, while the two bailed-out American automakers lost significant portions of theirs in the big summer sale.  Only Ford managed to hold its own:

Transportation Department figures on the "clunkers" incentive, which offered consumers up to $4,500 when they traded in their older vehicles for more fuel efficient new models, showed on Wednesday that total sales amounted to just under 700,000 with $2.87 billion in rebates. …

According to the figures, Toyota's "clunkers" market share was 19.4 percent, compared with its year-to-date U.S. share through July of 17 percent. Honda captured 13 percent of the "clunkers" market compared with 11 percent for the first seven months of the year.

Nissan accounted for nearly 9 percent of "clunkers" sales compared with a January-July share of 7 percent. Hyundai was the biggest winner with a 7 percent share compared with 3 percent for the year through July.

Ford's "clunkers" sales topped 14 percent, compared with a 15 percent share for the year through July. GM reported 17 percent of "clunkers" business compared with 21 percent from January to July. Chrysler's "clunkers" share was 6.6 percent, compared with 11 percent otherwise.

Ford had the only two American-made vehicles in the top 10 models sold in Cash for Clunkers.  Toyota and Honda both had three, while Nissan and Hyundai both had one each.  Two of Toyota's entries were in the top three, the Corolla and the Camry.

So, instead of boosting the American auto industry, this program actually boosted foreign car-makers the most.  I love the fact that Ford held its own against the foreign companies, illustrating yet again the incompetence -- and thus, danger -- of government owned companies.  Here's a good guess at what happened to GM and Chrysler:

In part, they didn't have cars to sell.  Both GM and Chrysler had curtailed their production during their bankruptcies but had worked to have inventory ready for the new sales year.  By launching C4C in the middle of the summer, when most dealers are already cutting prices to move inventory off the lot, the administration practically guaranteed that C4C would leave them on the sidelines.  Chrysler had the worst inventory problems, but GM also had serious inventory issues.  Ford, which didn't take the bailout, had continued production and had inventory ready to sell.

Shouldn't the owner of GM and Chrysler had known this?  Didn't anyone on the Auto Task Force — say, Ron Bloom, the auto czar with no automaking experience — bother to check whether their companies were ready to compete in this program, and whether July was a smart time to launch this even apart from that?  This is what happens when government enters the private sector; it makes decisions based on politics rather than sound business sense, and it picks leaders based on cronyism and political payoffs rather than expertise and competence.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the fact that Americans don't want to buy from a government owned car company, especially one that engaged in a hostile takeover funded by taxpayer dollars!

Case in point: we just bought a vehicle ourselves.  When we began looking seriously, one of our top two options was a Chrysler.  The more I thought about it, I just couldn't stomach the idea, so we went with the Toyota instead.  I would be shocked if I was alone in my thinking.

But there's even more downside for Americans here...

Commenter Daft Punk lists the top ten models destroyed in C4C:

1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Ford Explorer 2WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
7. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
9. Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

All of these are American models.  Now, what happens to the companies that make parts for these cars?  Under normal circumstances, people would replace parts as they fail while keeping the cars on the road.  Suddenly, the after-market parts industry has 700,000 fewer cars for maintenance.  And since Americans mainly traded American cars for foreign vehicles, that parts market will not bounce back for years.

So, to sum up:
1. Obama took over private companies using taxpayer dollars
2. Obama gave huge percentages of those government companies to the unions
3. Obama tried to funnel billions more taxpayer dollars to those government companies
4. America said, 'Hell no'!
5. This program, designed to boost American companies actually hurt those American companies, including the entire supply chain

The icing on the cake?  We can now expect to see a spike in the price of new cars.

This is liberalism at its finest, where 'success' means Americans getting whacked.

There's my two cents.