Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Link Roundup

More links to dig into...

Here in the USof[socialist-in-the-making]A:
Economic news:
Obamessiah news:
Around the world:
Good stuff.

Just A Reminder On Reality

This is something that needs to be permanently burned into the mind of every American:
This is really sad.

Team Obama is already blaming Bush for their record $1.75 trillion budget deficit.

And, just like how Obama and the democrats lied about the the last 8 years of economic growth, they are hoping that the media will play along with them and blame Bush for the dangerous deficit they have already racked up in Obama's first 40 days on the job.

To be clear-- those failed Bush policies dropped the deficit 4 of 8 years, held an average unemployment at 5.2%, saw the strongest productivity growth in 4 decades and witnessed robust GDP growth.
Bush was able to do this despite the recession he inherited, 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As you can see from this chart, after the Bush tax cuts were implemented the budget deficit was reduced 3 of the last 4 years:

CBO chart via RedState

The deficit was reduced in 2005, 2006 and 2007 even with war and implementation of the successful Bush surge of troops in Iraq.
It wasn't until the mortgage crisis struck the economy, a crisis Bush warned the democratic Congress about 17 times in 2008 alone, that the deficit climbed to $459 billion.

USA Today published an interactive chart on the the Obama Administration's significant increase in spending this year.
In President Bush's last year in office, 2008, the deficit reached $459 billion:


In President Obama's first year in office the deficit is expected to reach $1.75 trillion and that is if everything goes according to the rosy scenario they are hoping for:

That is nearly 4 times as much as during President Bush's last year in office.

Obama wants to blame Bush for this.
Don't let him.
Bush didn't leave a trillion dollar debt.
Obama already has.
DO. NOT. LET. THIS. SLIDE. BY.

Furthermore, when questioned about the plummeting stock market, Obama shrugged it off, saying this:
What I'm looking at is not the day-to-day gyrations of the stock market, but the long-term ability for the United States and the entire world economy to regain its footing. And, you know, the stock market is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. You know, it bobs up and down day to day. And if you spend all your time worrying about that, then you're probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong. (video here)
A quick reminder of that 'up and down' bobbing:



I don't see much up in that 'up and down', do you?

Also, if the stock market were a poll, Obama would be back in the Senate. And isn't it great how the Obamessiah is so flippantly disregarding the prime indicator of the evaporation of about half of most Americans' wealth and savings?

And all this has happened because of what he's saying...just wait until his policies actually kick in.


It's his disaster...make him own it, and don't let anyone forget that fact.

There's my two cents.

Analysis Burst

I've got several links to some smart people who have been in politics a long time analyzing Obama's increasingly damaging policies, so I thought I'd just pass them along to you en masse:

Newt Gingrich:

Ronald Reagan understood that if you wanted to encourage jobs and you wanted to encourage economic growth, you had to encourage the people who invented jobs and the people who created economic growth.

 

And he understood that liberalism's effort at big taxes, big regulations, big litigation were just wrong….Now what are we seeing today? First of all, in a way that should really bother people, this administration is turning out to be very systemically dishonest….

 

We're told on the one hand we're at the edge of catastrophe which by the way I think we could be with these policies. We're told on the other hand the economy is going to grow next year. They can't both be right, and I'm afraid that what's right is the bad warnings because the Obama plan is so destructive for those who want to create jobs.


Everywhere I go people who are successful say to me they do not think this administration has any idea the level of damage it's doing to the market, to jobs, to investment, and — now let me give you an example. Would you want to live in a country where Chris Dodd is the guy, the senator from Connecticut, who decides what the salary cap is?...Where John Kerry, the senator from Massachusetts, gets to say he doesn't like golf outings so businesses shouldn't do them, where President Obama, I think without any realization of what he was doing, drove a Goldman Sachs conference out of Las Vegas.

 

Now, if you're the restaurant workers, if you are the hotel workers, if you're the people who are going to make a living with that conference, you've got to wonder what is this administration thinking as they go around doing this?

Charles Krauthammer:

I think what's really scaring the markets is a lack of confidence, obviously, in the financial system, but also, a lack of confidence in the Obama administration.

 

Looking at last year, they said the Bush administration was running around with its hair on fire, bailing out here and there, without logic, without—extremely ad hoc-it saves a Bear Stearns and lets Lehman go down. It proposes a TARP, a rescue on the basis of purchasing toxic assets. It changes its mind. It ends up injecting the money in banks.

 

It's running around without a plan, and yet, the system held together.

 

What was hoped was that there would be a new team, new people, fresh ideas, who have a year, '08, in which to study and learn what went wrong and would have a plan in place. It is what Obama had said he had, they knew what to do and would do it.

 

It looks as if they have no idea what to do, and they won't.


Dick Morris:

Dick Morris tells Newsmax TV that President Barack Obama is essentially throwing the prospect of American prosperity under the bus in order to achieve his own ideological agenda.

Morris, a political commentator, author, and Newsmax contributor, notes that every time Obama speaks, he sends the markets down and the stocks crashing. On Monday, the Dow plunged below 7,000 for the first time since 1997.

"Obama's theme, unfortunately, is the "The War on Prosperity," Morris tells Newsmax, drawing on the contrast between Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" theme of the 1960s.

"He is the enemy of prosperity. He, literally, favors redistribution of income as being more important – and more a function of the president – than the creation of wealth," Morris says.

"It amounts to, literally, a war on the business community."

Morris rips Obama for his massive spending bill, his $3.6 trillion budget, and the $1 trillion tax hike, and says Obama "is eviscerating the impact of his stimulus spending by his tax package. He, in effect, is going to people and saying: 'Spend a lot of money now; invest a lot now, and don't worry about it. In two years, I'm going to cut your head off.'"

Morris says the tax increases Obama proposes now are only a precursor to increases he plans later.

"[Obama] wants to stimulate home construction because that's the core of this economic problem that we are facing," Morris offers as an example. "So, he passes a bill for credits to first-time homebuyers to get a tax credit. Then he says: 'If you make more than $200,000, you won't be able to take the deduction.' And then he says: I'm going to raise the capital gains tax five points.' So, one set of policies completely obviates the other set."

Morris believes there will be a massive backlash to Obama's policies that will allow the Republican Party to retake control of Congress in 2010, as it did in 1994.

"I think he's headed right over that cliff right now," Morris says. "I think it is going to become increasingly obvious that Obama's economic policies are failing. It'll be increasingly apparent with the daily toll of the stock market crash, layoffs, and companies closing. That will be the drip, drip, drip that will erode Obama's popularity."

Investor's Business Daily:

Barack Obama won the presidency by vowing to bring "hope and change" to America. We've seen the change as the economy's deterioration accelerated. Now where's the hope?

In the three months since the election, the broadest measure of the stock market's value, the Wilshire 5000 Index, has plunged more than 30%, slicing over $3 trillion from Americans' wealth. Investors have walked away from investing, while businesses shut down factories and offices and slash jobs.

This is both highly significant and dangerous. Capital, bluntly put, has gone on strike. Those who own wealth are pushing it to the sidelines, as a young and inexperienced president tries to jam through the most sweeping economic changes in over 70 years.

The prospect of these changes becoming law has already radically altered our nation's economy. Entrepreneurs and CEOs who once created new products, new services, jobs and trillions in wealth for America's workers and retirees now find themselves vilified and punished for their success.

ABC News reported this week that many upper-income taxpayers already are planning to cut back on work and investments to stay under $250,000 in income — the point where Obama's punitive taxes kick in. No one wins from this, yet Obama seems oblivious.

This isn't the only warning sign. A new study asserts that some 100,000 highly educated, well-trained Indians now living in the U.S. will return home in the next few years. Ditto China.

Immigrant entrepreneurs are highly sensitive bellwethers of economic and social conditions. They know where the opportunities are — and where they aren't. They're voting with their feet.

As our stock markets melt under a barrage of new taxes on incomes, estates, capital gains, dividends and energy, it's good to recall that more than 100 million people own stocks or mutual funds. And that the stock market is the main wealth- and growth-creating mechanism in our capitalist society.

But when taxes go up, regulations proliferate and the rule of law and private property protections are weakened, the economy will invariably suffer. This is a universal lesson of economic history, one we ignore at our peril. And yes, this is what's happening now.

No, we don't blame all our current ills on President Obama. He came in at a tough time, when many bad decisions had already been made. But he is responsible for what he's done since.

His stimulus package is little more than a down payment on a socialist economy. It raises taxes on the successful, brings back the welfare state, hands out favors and cash to friends of one political party, while imposing government control over the entire free market in ways that just a year ago would have seemed unimaginable.

Under Barack Obama, we now see that hope-n-change = the United Socialist States of America, where all are equally poor.

There's my two cents.

Racism Rears Its Ugly Head In Detroit

Via Gateway Pundit:

The blacks in the audience at a recent Detroit city council meeting were told to "go home."
They were not wanted.

Here's the latest from the cesspool once known as Detroit.
...
Detroit News reported:
Nowhere is Michigan's brain drain on greater display than in the Detroit City Council chambers.

My hopes for Detroit's future faded as I watched the tape of last Tuesday's council meeting, the one that considered the Cobo Center expansion deal.

It was a tragic circus, a festival of ignorance that confirmed the No. 1 obstacle to Detroit's progress is the bargain basement leaders that city voters elect. The [racism] that is now the dominant ideology of the council was on proud display, both at the table and in the audience.

Speakers advocating for the deal were taunted by the crowd and cut short by Council President Monica Conyers, who presided over the hearing like an angry bulldog; blacks were advised by the citizens to, "Go home."

Opponents were allowed to rant and ramble on uninterrupted about "those people" who want to steal Detroit's assets and profit from the city's labors.

A pitiful Teamster official who practically crawled to the table on his knees expressing profuse respect for this disrespectful body was battered by both the crowd and the council.

When he dared suggest that an improved Cobo Center would create more good-paying jobs for union workers, Conyers reminded him, "Those workers look like you; they don't look like me."

Desperate, he invoked President Barack Obama's message of unity and was angrily warned, "Don't you say his name here."

Do you see how horrible this is?  And here I thought we were in the Era of Obama, where racism was supposed to evaporate, but even his good name apparently can't win the day here.  I mean, seriously, how is this behavior excusable by any stretch of the imagination?  Where is Al Sharpton with his bullhorn?  Where is Jesse Jackson and his hordes of angry rioters?  How can they let racial insults of this magnitude stand unmolest...oh, wait, hang on a sec...

Oops, I guess I got a few things switched around.  It was actually the
whites that were berated by the city council and told to 'go home', not the blacks.  The council is apparently dominated by angry bulldog-like blacks, not whites.  I seem to have gotten everything exactly opposite.  Huh.

In that case, never mind, 'cause we all know it's only racism if it's done against blacks.


There's my two cents.

More Quotes To Ponder

Read and consider (via Patriot Post) what some really wise people had to say...

...on the philosophical effects of what Obama and the Democrats are now doing to America:

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
-- Thomas Jefferson --

"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."
-- Ayn Rand --

"[G]overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
-- Thomas Paine --

...on what a better way might be:

"An opportunity society awaits us. We need only believe in ourselves and give men and women of faith, courage, and vision the freedom to build it. Let others run down America and seek to punish success. Let them call you greedy for not wanting government to take more and more of your earnings. Let them defend their tombstone society of wage and price guidelines, mandatory quotas, tax increases, planned shortages*, and shared sacrifices. We want no part of that mess, thank you very much. We will encourage all Americans—men and women, young and old, individuals of every race, creed, and color—to succeed and be healthy, happy, and whole. This is our goal. We see America not falling behind, but moving ahead; our citizens not fearful and divided, but confident and united by shared values of faith, family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom."
-- Ronald Reagan --

Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant.
-- Epictetus --

...on the terrible perspective that the incompetence of Obama's 'diplomacy' could wreak:

"When the terrorists attack again—as Homeland Security has repeatedly warned us they will—how many survivors will be consoled because the Supreme Court and the State Department looked out for the 'rights' of terrorists before the rights of their dead loved ones?"
-- Cal Thomas --

Think about it.

There's my two cents.

Iran And The Bomb

Iran now has enough nuclear material for one atomic bomb.

That's a statement from the U.N., which is hopelessly optimistic about these dictators not having such weapons. So, all that's left is the finishing part of the process which would actually make the material into the bomb itself.

In related news, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted that
diplomacy ain't gonna' cut it:

The Obama administration has already concluded that a diplomatic overture to Iran, one of the central promises of the president’s election campaign, is unlikely to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates in a private meeting Monday that it is “very doubtful” a U.S. approach will persuade Iran to relent, said a senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity under customary diplomatic rules.

Oh, wait, really? 'Cause that's what the Right has been saying for years...! I guess Obama's declaration of negotiations with Iran backed up with the threat of even tougher negotiations with Iran wasn't really that effective after all. Too bad someone's going to get nuked for his naivete.

There's my two cents.

CPAC And Rush

The Conservative Political Action Committee is one of the biggest conservative political groups in the country. They had their big conference over the weekend, and most of the big names were featured at one point or another. The headliner, of course, was Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is the marquee conservative thinker of our time. He has a massive audience via his radio show, and his daily contacts with the American people give him a unique perspective on what normal life is like. He's got his finger on the pulse of the people, as it were. That's why he gives the elites of the Republican party fits - he knows what the base is thinking, and he's not afraid to say it; in the process, he often makes the elites look very, very stupid.

Limbaugh brought the house down with his speech at CPAC. I highly encourage you to watch the whole thing. For those of you who have never listened to him, I suggest you take this opportunity to do so, since he offers an entertaining but still dead-on analysis of what it means to be a conservative, what makes a conservative tick, and what solutions conservatism offers for our current problems.

I know, some of you are thinking, "Are you kidding me? I hate Limbaugh! I'm never going to listen to him!"
You know what? I listen to hours and hours of Barack Obama every week, and I somehow survive. You can handle one speech by Limbaugh; if not, you really should keep your mouth shut about politics from now on - you don't deserve to voice an opinion if you can't even listen to the other side once. And you never know - it might just do you some good.

The only thing I'll say in advance is to just keep in mind that one of his signature goals is to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. So, if you think he's being a bit arrogant, obnoxious, or whatever, it's part of his schtick. Let it roll, and pay attention to the meat of the conversation - you'll learn an immense amount about conservatives in this one speech.


Without further ado, I give you Rush Limbaugh at CPAC:





















Now you know the real deal.

There's my two cents.

Obama's War On Church

This is a problem:

Democrats have declared war on the Catholic Church, with new laws that threaten to bankrupt Catholic schools, hospitals, charities and parishes. Thus far, the worst attacks have come in New York.

“We’ve taken a lot of hits this year,” Dennis Poust, spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, the policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops, tells Newsmax. “Outside the government, the Catholic Church is the largest provider of health, human services and education in [New York]. But some legislators are so driven by malice that they’re willing to see our charities and schools go under.”

The Empire State’s Democrats are attacking on three fronts.

  • A proposal to require all hospitals to perform abortions, or lose their state license would put Catholic hospitals out of business.

  • Major funding cuts for Catholic schools by Gov. David Paterson, who continues to force the parochial schools to run state-mandated programs at their own expense.

  • An effort by Democratic lawmakers to abolish the statute of limitations on sex abuse lawsuits against the Church, allowing people to sue over decades-old cases in which the alleged perpetrators are dead.
  • I had mentioned the non-profit sector deliberately in my previous post about the budget, but here's a bit more from Hugh Hewitt:
    "President Obama's budget is so bad, so irresponsible and so staggeringly expensive that it is difficult to know where to begin. So I will begin by speaking on behalf of the least and the lost who will suffer as support networks of churches and not-for-profits are devastated by the president's decision to attack the charitable deduction.

    This is nothing short of a naked attempt to shrink the private, not-for-profit sector so that government is obliged to grow to fill its place. It is an all out assault on religion of all sorts, as ministries, churches and parachurch organizations will be crippled by this change in the tax code if it proceeds.

    This is one of the most radical, and cunning, attempts to upend a basic feature of the American way of life, and it must be defeated.

    Call your Congressman and Senator and demand that they leave the charitable deduction in intact. And call the White House too.

    President Obama must abandon this effort to defund churches and charities."
    Make the calls. Sadly, I'm not holding my breath. This is another one one of those topics where he speaks one way and acts another.

    There's my two cents.

    Message For Europe

    Victor Davis Hanson reports some news for our friends in Europe:

    One of the ironies of our transformation into a European socialist state is that the progressive is often targeted as much as the so-called right-wing nut. The double-income yuppie household in the Bay area, who paid a fortune for a rather modest home, and who voted for Obama, will soon learn of hope and change. They are now considered "rich" and will pay thousands more in state, federal, and FICA payroll taxes, for victimized others who hitherto had no recourse to previously lean government services and entitlements.

    The Europeans will soon learn that we are really multilateral now. Europe is, well, on its own, and so can properly go to the U.N. when it harbors worries about Russia, an Iranian missile, or a terrorist enclave. Supporters of Israel who voted for Obama can appreciate a rhetorical President who doesn't mangle "nuclear" as Mr. Freeman, Ms. Power, et al. open bridges to Syria and Iran, pay for the Hamas reconstruction, and try to get back to the happy, calm years before 1967 when Israel was inside its 1948 borders and gave no offense. And for those who kept screaming that we were not liked abroad, we may well be now, since our positions will be pretty much like those that are shared by others, and even misunderstood states from Iran and Syria to Russia and North Korea will come to see that we have no intention of giving them any grounds for offense.

    If you're like me, you find this a reprehensible bit of prognostication (not for its actual content, but for its implication). I, for one, don't want to convert America to a meaningless nation that offends no one because that means we stand for nothing. I'm proud that America irritates the socialist liberals in Europe, and I'm proud that thuggish dictators all over the world hate us because we stop them from carrying out their designs unmolested. I'm proud that people all over the world still view America as the best place to live because it offers the most opportunity. I happen to agree.

    There's my two cents.

    Monday, March 2, 2009

    The Real Culture Of Corruption

    Let's recap: Tim Geithner (Treasury Secretary), Tom Daschle (Health and Human Services), Hilda Solis (Labor Secretary), and Nancy Killefer (Chief Performance Officer) all neglected to pay their taxes. Bill Richardson (Commerce Secretary) is under scandalous investigation. Roland Burris is under fire to be removed from the Senate. Charlie Rangel is under an ethics investigation.

    And that doesn't even scratch the surface of the Obamessiah himself with his fraudulent campaign, ACORN pals, and terrorist friends.

    But, the administration is young - there's so much time left to dig up new scandalous people. And hey, looky here, they found
    another one:
    Another Obama administration nominee has tax troubles. This time, it's Ron Kirk, the president's choice to be U.S. trade representative.

    Kirk owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to pay them, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday. The committee said the taxes arise from Kirk's handling of speaking fees he donated to a scholarship fund that he set up at his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.

    Kirk also agreed to make changes in his accounting of charitable deductions, including reducing the claimed value of a donated television from $3,000 to $1,500.

    The former Dallas mayor is the fourth nominee by President Barack Obama to run into tax problems.

    Powerline says this:
    The Democratic Party has a culture of entitlement, greed and corruption. It is remarkable that, even though Obama's vetting team must be excruciatingly sensitive to the issue, it is evidently hard to find prominent, high-income Democrats who pay their taxes in full.
    Ace of Spades:

    Look, I doubt most people could survive this kind of scrutiny of their taxes but Republican nominees did for 8 years (or they never made the cut once the issues were discovered) so what the hell is the problem here?

    No word yet on if Joe Biden has questioned this guys patriotism yet.

    Remind me again who the culture of corruption is...?

    There's my two cents.

    Simplifying The Budget Madness

    I know I posted a huge budget update over the weekend, but I also realize that sometimes all those huge numbers can make a normal mind a bit dizzy.  When I saw this recap by Brian Reidl at NRO, I thought it was excellent since it puts a lot of this stuff into very simple, easy to understand terms.  I don't think this is anything new, but rather a much better way to look at some of the most misleading pieces of Obama's budget:

    1) Remember the President stating his budget "identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade?" It actually increases spending by $1 trillion. But he classifies as "savings" $1.4 trillion in tax increases (apparently savings for the government, not for you) and $1.5 trillion "saved" in Iraq relative to a fantasy baseline that otherwise assumes current spending levels forever. The Iraq gimmick is the equivalent of a family deciding to "save" $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it.

    2) Real federal spending per household — $24,000 before the recession — would reach $33,000 per household by 2019. Between 2008 and 2013, the $5.7 trillion in new debt will come to $48,000 per household.

    3) It is easy to "cut the deficit in half" after you've quadrupled it. Furthermore, three upcoming developments — the end of the recession, troop pullout in Iraq, and phase-out of the supposedly-temporary "stimulus" spending — would, by themselves, cut the 2013 budget deficit in half. President Bush was slammed for averaging $300 billion budget deficits while funding a war. President Obama will be praised for running $500 billion deficits in 2013 at a time of (assumed) peace and prosperity.

    4) The President's budget proposes a new PAYGO law — and then violates it by $3.4 trillion.

    5) The tax increases are staggering. The President would raise taxes by $1 trillion on the top 2.5 million tax filers. That comes to $400,000 per tax filer over ten years. And despite these harsh tax hikes (and a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax hike), the President's rosy budget assumes a much faster economic recovery than CBO or the Blue Chip Consensus.

    Simple is always good.

    There's my two cents.

    Environmentalist Wacko Update

    It's been a while since I've done one of these, so it's time to check in with our environmentalist wacko friends to see what they're doing.  Let the fun commence!

    Something that is certain to bother the wackos is this:

    A bird suspected to be extinct was reportedly photographed for the first time in the Philippines in January... Then sold at a poultry market and eaten.
    A Worcester's buttonquail was known only through illustrations based on decades-old museum specimens until a television crew documented the live bird in the market before it was sold.

    A rare quail from the Philippines was photographed for the first time before being sold as food at a poultry market and eaten. (National Geographic)

    This brings to mind the suggestion that wacko environmentalism only occurs in societies with a lot of spare time on their hands.  Everyone else is more worried about silly things like food and shelter.  But hey, let's not let that kind of thing get in the way of a good cause.

    Here's another sign of Obama's top notch crack policy team: did you know that Obama's energy Secretary doesn't even know that his office is in charge of oil policy?  Also, he doesn't seem to realize he's not actually part of Obama's administration.  No joke:

    At a forum with reporters on Thursday, (Steven Chu) the head of the department that has traditionally taken the lead on global oil-market policy, was asked what message the Obama administration had for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries at its meeting next month.

    "I'm not the administration," the Cabinet secretary replied. "I will be speaking and learning more about this in order to figure out what the U.S. position should be and what the president's position is."

    ...The day before, reporters asked him about OPEC output levels after a speech to a group of utility regulators. He responded that the issue was "not in my domain."

    Sweet.  This guy should be great for the country.

    What's the end result if we stringently follow the whims of environmentalist wackos?  Well, here are two people who have done it:

    By rejecting the benefits of modern society, anti-consumerist Australians Mark and Cathy Delaney (pic) have also achieved a strikingly small environmental footprint.

    The college-educated couple claim they have freed themselves of money and possessions in a "radical detox" from consumer society.

    What they don't say is that their masochistic lifestyle is arguably the result of a progressive value system, likely punctuated by self-loathing. Whereas virtually all of humanity wants to build better lives for their offspring, the Delaneys have done the exact opposite.

    Mr. and Mrs. Delaney, along with two sons, live in a bedroom-sized home with no running water, no television, no refrigerator and no washing machine in a shanty town on the eastern outskirts of Delhi. A putrid canal near the Delaneys' front door carries away sewage.

    Personal choices such as rejecting television and leading a simpler lifestyle are understandable. However, living without running water nor a functioning sanitary sewage system is over the top.

    One has to wonder what exactly they learned while obtaining their college degrees. An education isn't required to move into an illegal squatter settlement with 60,000 neighbors packed into a square kilometer.

    How's that sound to you?  Yeah, I think I'll pass, too.

    Over the past few days, I've posted a couple times on the disastrous cap-and-trade policy that Obama is going to implement as part of his budget.  Here's more on the European collapse of that same policy:

    A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead?

    All this only works as the carbon price lifts. As with 1924 Château Lafite or Damian Hirst's diamond skulls, scarcity and speculation create the value. If permits are cheap, and everyone has lots, the green incentive crashes into reverse. As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don't need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker Corus: industrial assistance in camouflage.

    "I don't know why industrials would miss this opportunity," said one trader last week. "They are using it to compensate for the tightening of credit and the slowdown, to pay for redundancies."

    It's the one law liberals always violate: the law of unintended consequences.  Of course, they generally violate the law of common sense, too, but that's because common sense is willingly subjugated to whims and feelings in the liberal mindset.  Here's Hot Air's conclusion, which really sums it up:

    Part of this comes from the fact that the commodity being traded has no essential value anyway.  It's air, the ultimate vaporware product.  There is no scarcity in carbon dioxide, and so markets for it will always be artificial and contrived.  Glover's criticism about the amount of credits is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  The problem isn't the credits, but the falsity of the entire operation.

    But dammit, those chairs are going to be PERFECT!

    And keep in mind, the entire premise of this cap-and-trade is to regulate and tax carbon dioxide!!!  You know, that gas that you and me and every other living creature on this planet exhales all day long?  And, you know, that gas that every plant on this planet requires in order to survive?  Yeah, that one.  That's what they think is so evil and needs to be controlled.

    Remember, the point of cap-and-trade is not to help the environment, but to increase government control through burdensome taxation.  The Obama administration doesn't have a problem with high prices - Obama himself has admitted that his plan will create 'skyrocketing prices'.  His Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said again just recently that "energy prices are too low".  They don't care about you and me having to pay 'skyrocketing' prices for gas, heat, and energy in general.  They are counting on it, in fact.  Don't misunderstand the motivation here.

    Speaking of perfection, scientists have grossly missed the mark for calculating the amount of sea ice in the Arctic:

    A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

    The error, due to a problem called "sensor drift," began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That's when "puzzled readers"[OMG, it's worse than we thought...ed] alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

    Would someone remind me again why we're so determined to completely sell out our economy on an unproven theory -- actually, it has been proven to fail -- that these people insist is threatening our planet's very existence?

    It appears they've switched tactics, now that the secret of non-global warming is out: redefine!  Of course, this is still standard liberal stuff, but let's look at the current incident.

    The Earth won't have to warm up as much as had been thought to cause serious consequences of global warming, including more extreme weather and increasing threats to plants and animals, says an international team of climate experts.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the risk of increased severe weather would rise with a global average temperature increase of between 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels. The National Climatic Data Center currently reports that global temperatures have risen 0.22 degree since 1990.

    Now, researchers report that "increases in drought, heat waves and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency and flood risks starting at less than (1.8 degrees) of additional warming above 1990 levels."

    Indeed, "it is now more likely than not that human activity has contributed to observed increases in heat waves, intense precipitation events, and the intensity of tropical cyclones," concluded the researchers led by Joel B. Smith of Stratus Consulting Inc., in Boulder, Colo.

    So, what they're saying now is that the real evidence is so incontrovertible that global warming is not, in fact, happening anymore, that they have no choice but to suggest that the threshold for planetary destruction is far lower than previously thought.  Coincidentally, that threshold is now just about the same as the measured level of warming over the past 20 years.  Go figure.  They're simply moving the goalposts.  I wonder how long it'll be before they start talking about global cooling again.  I'd give it about 10-15 years, tops.

    The other interesting thing here is that this proves the idea that catastrophic climate change is a religion.  Science, of course, is where you reach a conclusion based on the observed data.  Religion, for the most part, is one of those funny things where people generally (though not always) take the conclusion and interpret the data in light of the conclusion.  That is exactly what these environmentalist wackos are doing here.  Voila!  Bow down and worship, all you green zealots!

    Some people get offended by my use of the phrase 'environmentalist wacko'.  I can kind of understand that, but I still use the term because I think it's accurate.  If all of the above examples do not illustrate the phrase, this one should do it:

    Remember when Democrats painted themselves as the farmer's best friend?  Here in Minnesota, the Democrats call themselves the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party as a reminder, and even through last year Democrats stumped heavily in the Midwest with their populist agenda.  I wonder whether farmers will still consider Democrats their friends when Barack Obama regulates farm dust — and penalizes them when the wind blows:

    Nothing says summer in Iowa like a cloud of dust behind a combine.

    But what may be a fact of life for farmers is a cause for concern to federal regulators, who are refusing to exempt growers from new environmental regulations.

    It's left some farmers feeling bemused and more than a little frustrated.

    "It's such a non-commonsense idea that you can keep dust within a property line when the wind blows," said Sen. Charles Grassley, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who still farms in northeast Iowa.

    Under rules imposed in 2006, rural areas would be kept to the same standards as urban areas for what the Environmental Protection Agency calls "coarse particulate matter" in the air.

    Why regulate farm dust?  As the American Farm Bureau Federation rightly points out, no one has ever proved that farm dust represents a health threat to any community.  The EPA had held off from enforcing the regulation in rural areas absent such a finding.  Now they want to impose the rule absent studies showing no harm, in effect telling the ag sector to prove a negative.

    Now, farmers will be held accountable when their dust moves outside of their property lines and towards towns and villages.  That will impose extra cost on them depending on which way the wind blows, an excellent metaphor for Congress but a deadly imposition on a farm sector already struggling with an economic turndown and falling land prices.  The compliance costs to keep dust tamped down will be enormous, and will force out the smaller farmers who can least afford the mitigation costs.  It pushes the productive family farm even further into the anachronism category.

    Not only that, but it will encourage more use of fresh water on farms, eating into another natural resource.  The best and cheapest way for farmers to keep dust in check is to overwater their fields and dirt roads.  The threat of EPA fines will almost certainly create a significant and needless use of water, which will create shortages in some areas.  Where water rationing already exists, it will press smaller farmers out of business in that way as well.

    Dust.  DUST!!!  They're going to regulate AIR and DUST!!!

    Thus: wacko.

    There's my two cents.

    Pepsi Shoots...And Misses

    A few weeks ago I blogged about Pepsi's new logo, which is a blatant suck-up-fest to Barack Obama.  They even admitted it.  Since then, I've reluctantly converted to Coke; I'll happily switch back as soon as Pepsi stops worshipping the Obamessiah.  So, the question is: what did Pepsi get out of their worshipfulness?  Take a look:

    In an apparent homage to the new President, PepsiCo has plastered the sides of buses and bus stops in the nation's capital with slogans like "Yes You Can," "Optimismmmm" and "Hope." In each poster, the letter O is inscribed with the redesigned Pepsi logo, a red, white and blue sphere that echoes the rising-sun image used by the Obama campaign.

    ...the marketing campaign, which includes TV and print ads as well, does raise a question: Is Pepsi actually the choice of the Obama Administration?

    [Michael Scherer's] reporting at the White House suggests the answer is a resounding no. Several senior Administration officials are committed cola drinkers, and without fail they spend their days sipping from a can of Diet Coke, a product of Pepsi's chief competitor, Coca-Cola. On Monday, as members of Congress and key lobbyists filed into a briefing room for the final event of a daylong fiscal summit, they were greeted with an ice chest full of complimentary Diet Coke, not Diet Pepsi. (Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus was one of many to grab a can.) Hours earlier, at a breakout session with members of Congress in the Indian Treaty Room, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag handled not one, but two cans of Diet Coke during the nearly two-hour session. Larry Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, rarely walks anywhere in the White House complex without a can of Diet Coke in his hand. He is well known for interrupting conversations to take another swig. 

    But these examples do not even constitute the most damning evidence against Pepsi. Late last year, Obama's nascent Administration worked out of transition offices in a downtown government building, which was serviced by only Pepsi-brand vending machines, according to three people who worked in the building. Two Administration officials have told me that a group of Obama aides, frustrated by having to run the security gauntlet to go to the corner store, stocked a refrigerator with Diet Coke in open rebellion against the available options. The pattern has continued at the White House. In his West Wing office, as in his previous office at Harvard University, Summers has a refrigerator stocked with cans of the decidedly non-Pepsi beverage.

    Though Pepsi is available in the West Wing mess, it is rarely, if ever, seen out in the open. On Thursday, the recycling bin outside White House spokesman Robert Gibbs' office contained six cans of Diet Coke and one can of Sprite Zero, which is also a Coca-Cola product. In another part of the building, I asked a White House official, who had a can of Diet Coke sitting on his desk, if the Obama Administration had a clear bias for Coke over Pepsi. "I think that's true," the official responded, with a smile. "Don't most Americans?"

    The health-conscious President is not known to have a strong preference for either Coke or Pepsi — though he was spotted at one debate sipping from a bottle of Aquafina water, which is made by PepsiCo. Obama is, however, a well-known fan of Honest Tea, a drink made by a company that is 40% owned by Coca-Cola.

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...!!!

    Not that this is of any real significance, of course, but I thought it was funny to see just how far pandering will get you in the Obama White House.

    There's my two cents.

    Monday Market Update

    The bloodletting continues: the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down over 300 points so far today, dropping past 7,000 for the first time since late 1997.

    On a related note:

    The stock market had its worst January since 1896 followed by its worst February since 1933 due largely to the historic spending and tax initiatives proposed by the Obama Administration.

    President Obama is not doing any better.

    Rasmussen Polling Shows Plunge: 30% to 8% on Strong Approval in Less Than 40 Days:

    Special Guests reported that Barack Obama's popularity ratings have plummetted according to the latest Rasmussen Poll.

    The highly accurate poll subtracts the 'strong dissapprovals' from the 'strong approvals' to get their net approval rating.

    The week Barack Obama was sworn in, the 'Obama Approval Index' his approval rate was a whopping 30%. By March 1 to a meager 8%. Considering he had 15% on February 27, this is a veritable freefall.

    Gateway Pundit adds these details in a separate post:

    Democrats, including White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, continued to pound George Bush this weekend for the failed policies of the last 8 years.

    Those failed policies dropped the deficit 4 of 8 years Bush was president, held an average unemployment at 5.2%, saw the strongest productivity growth in 4 decades and witnessed robust GDP growth.
    Bush was able to do this despite 9-11, a recession he inheritied, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Hurricane Katrina.
    He did this by cutting taxes and giving people back their own money to invest
    If only we could be so lucky to have those failed Bush policies today.

    Barack Obama = American Economic Doom.


    There's my two cents.

    A Tale Of Two Presidents

    Wow. This is truly a tale of two Presidents:



    Maybe it's because Democrat Presidents (at least all the recent ones) rarely do anything but talk down the military and cut their budget. Maybe it's because of Obama's pledges to disarm America and have tea and crumpets with the very same thug dictators who are sending out suicide bombers to kill them. Maybe it's because Democrats try to keep military ballots out of every election.

    Regardless, the difference is stark. I think it's a tremendous credit that our armed services are willing to serve under any and all Presidents; it becomes even more so during times like now, with Presidents like Obama.


    There's my two cents.

    More Tax Issues

    I surely hope you've seen by now the repeated Obama Cabinet nominees who have had problems with paying their own taxes. The worst offense, of course, is Timothy Geithner, who failed to pay his own taxes for several years, took reimbursements of the taxes he failed to pay, and then became the Treasury Secretary, who is in charge of the IRS.

    Anyway, a friend sent me several great cartoons about the subject. Here are my favorites:







    While we're on the subject, I now give you this (h/t The Jawa Report):
    White House general counsel Gregory Craig has seized control of Obama's vetting process after a series of nominees with unpaid taxes. But his wife's business may also have avoided taxes. Who vets the vetter?

    Derry Noyes, Craig's wife, runs Noyes Graphics, a design business, out of the couple's home in northwest Washington.

    A spokesman at the Washington D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs told Gawker that no one has ever sought any kind of permit or registration for a business under the name of Noyes Graphics or at the Craigs' home address. By not registering Craig may have avoided local business taxes.

    An unregistered home business may seem like a "gotcha" scandal. And were some new appointee to come along with this kind of problem, the public might shrug it off, even with the past tax scandals of Obama nominees. But Craig was charged with putting an end to those problems.
    What is it with Democrats and failure to pay taxes? Are there any honest ones in Washington anymore? How long will America put up with this clearly established pattern of behavior?

    Hopefully not more than two years.


    There's my two cents.

    Iraq Hypocrisy

    Get a load of this:
    Obama just can't admit he was dead wrong about Iraq and if he had his way their would have been genocide....
    Not that this bothered him.

    Yesterday Obama spoke to the troops at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina on Iraq and never once mentioned victory.
    He did announce that troops would withdraw from Iraq in 2010.
    But, what he forgot to tell you was that despite his best efforts our soldiers will come home victorious.

    This video shows Obama and Biden's hypocrisy on Iraq:



    From the video: Speaking at Camp Lejeune on February 27, Obama talked about the success in Iraq which he and the Democratic Party tried to undermine continually.

    One week ago President Obama also called for 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation, yet argued against the same policy in 2007 in Iraq. Yesterday, Obama almost appeared to take credit for the improving situation in Iraq. However, this video of Barack Obama and Joe Biden shows how absolutely wrong they have been at every turn and how they can't be trusted on foreign policy.

    The Beginning Obama clip is Feb 27, 2009
    Bush-January 10, 2007
    Biden Senate- April 2007
    Obama January 2007
    Last, Biden spring 2007
    Thanks Chris for the reminder.

    Here's another reminder-- Obama's many positions on the surge.
    I would bet it took every ounce of strength and control for Obama to stand up there and talk about Iraq being a success (even if he couldn't quite mention the 'v' word). But, he's nothing if not politically expedient.

    Still, the hypocrisy is breathtaking, isn't it?


    There's my two cents.

    More On Obama's Cap-And-Trade

    As a follow up to this weekend's post on Obama's budget, here's another bit of information on the cap-and-trade energy starvation piece of it. This is Peter Orszag, Obama's White House Budget Director:



    My first impression of this clip is shock that George Stephanopolous would ask such a question, and then follow up again after the obvious sidestep answer! My second reaction is shock that George Stephanopolous would ask such a question, and then follow up again after the obvious sidestep answer! My third reaction is that this is something we've looked at before on this blog...in fact, this same warning -- cap-and-trade will force prices much higher -- was posted back in November, before the election. And remember, this same cap-and-trade system that Obama wants to implement here is in the process of collapsing under its own weight in Europe right now.

    Translation: Obama isn't interested in fixing the economy. He's just interested in breaking as many things as possible to make as many people as possible as desperate as possible, thus allowing him to do whatever he needs to do to 'recover'.

    Panic is his ticket to more power.


    There's my two cents.