Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Linkage

The Obama budget plan: taxes and rationing
Missouri attempts the impossible: downsizing government!  Sounds too good to be true...
Take the painkiller and go home
The Obama education agenda takes shape (hint: it involves redistribution of wealth and a whole lot less parental involvement)
Democrats at the edge of a cliff
Billy Graham's son is too Christian for Barack Obama's army
Liberals and the violence card
Iran's diplomatic rope-a-dope strategy
Sick-n-wrong:
Dems turn another funeral -- this one for a coal miner -- into an Obama rally (right before introducing legislation to destroy the coal industry)
Republicans, citing past Democratic promises, question Democrats' credibility on Wall Street reform (it's about damned time!)
Is a primary challenge to Obama unthinkable? (hint: it's a very long shot...but no, it's not)
Sweet:
2nd SEAL found not guilty!
Now it's really, really official, and even left-leaning economists agree:
Obama's stimulus did zilch
Bank bill stalled by GOP...for now (but it's clear that at least one Senator has been bought outright)

The Real Party Of Wall Street

While the Senate is wrangling over a bill that would have severe ramifications for Wall Street, the question should be examined: which party is really the one who protects Wall Street? The facts:



Hmmm...

There's my two cents.

Dem Lies On DemCare Now Admitted Openly

Throughout the final weeks of the DemCare battle, what were the incessant mantras we heard from the Democrats? Something like this:

1. health care costs are out of control, and DemCare is needed to reign them in, especially for the lower and middle class
2. government won't control your health care
3. all Americans should be given health care coverage
4. no federal funding will be used for abortions

Right?

Well, now that DemCare has passed, we see that Nancy Pelosi's words rang true: we are now allowed to find out what's in it. Unfortunately for all of us, it appears that every single thing the Dems were saying about it were lies. We knew that already, of course, but now even the Dems are admitting it. Observe the tsunami of truth from a new report from the actuaries at Health and Human Services...



In case you're not into the video, here's the nutshell:
The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries shows that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.
Hm...!

Ignore the fact that this report proves conservatives correct that the lower and middle classes will be smacked with major new taxes to pay for it. Ignore the fact that Dems swore taxpayer money wouldn't fund abortions...but it will (one state, Tennessee, has already opted out of the abortion piece, setting up yet another Constitutional showdown between the federal government and states; more will likely follow). Ignore the fact that at least 24 million Americans will remain uninsured under even DemCare, and those who are newly covered are covered at an unsatisfactory level. Ignore also the fact that the Senate has already -- ALREADY!!! -- begun the task of taking control of the insurance industry to 'prevent' skyrocketing prices. This is precisely what conservatives have been predicting would be the end result:
The plan is this:
1. force insurance companies to spike their premiums ...
2. step in and say that since insurance companies are charging such exorbitant premiums that the government really must get involved
3. implement the public option/single payer/government exchanges

Whatever they call it, it will be a government-controlled method of providing highly regulated insurance that will inevitably drive private insurance out of business. Once insurance companies start dropping off the face of the map, no one will have any choice but the government option.

And there's your government control of health care.
Finally, you must ignore the fact that the Obama administration itself is admitting that death panels will exist (and, in fact, will have a more important role in the economy than even the CBO):



But all of that is unimportant. What we must focus on now is implementing these lies DemCare policies.

Oh, and guess what the best part of this is?
The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.
So they knew all this well in advance of the vote. They knew their talking points were bald-faced, brazen, outright lies.

As if that wasn't bad enough, they're going to use these tactics to ram other legislation that Americans don't want down our throats, too.

They are destroying this country from the inside out.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
Kathleen Sebelius admits they have no idea how much DemCare high risk pools will cost
It's official: higher health care costs


Monday, April 26, 2010

The Devastating Ash-Cloud-To-End-All-Ash-Clouds That Wasn't

Hmmm...

Britain's airspace was closed under false pretences, with satellite images revealing there was no doomsday volcanic ash cloud over the entire country.

Skies fell quiet for six days, leaving as many as 500,000 Britons stranded overseas and costing airlines hundreds of millions of pounds.

Estimates put the number of Britons still stuck abroad at 35,000.

However, new evidence shows there was no all-encompassing cloud and, where dust was present, it was often so thin that it posed no risk.

The satellite images demonstrate that the skies were largely clear, which will not surprise the millions who enjoyed the fine, hot weather during the flight ban.

Jim McKenna, the Civil Aviation Authority's head of airworthiness, strategy and policy, admitted: 'It's obvious that at the start of this crisis there was a lack of definitive data.

Okay, two things come immediately to mind.  First, they made this far-reaching decision that affected tens of thousands of travelers all over the world based on a 'lack of definitive data'?!  What is wrong with these people?  Have they no common sense, and can they not see the economic, logistical, and sheer-hassle ramifications of doing this kind of thing on a whim?  Apparently not.  Are they so eager to validate their environmental sensitivities that they are willing to leap like this before they even know if they're leaping off a curb or a cliff?  Apparently so.

Second, aren't these the same sort of tests administered by the same sort of people that environmentalists are using to predict all manner of planetary catastrophes if humans don't spend enormous sums of money on their pet cause?  Why yes, yes they are, in fact, the same!  So...let's stop and think for a moment.  Work with me here - I know this is a real tough stretch, but someone's got to do it.  If these people and these tests so grossly mis-read a current phenomenon that was happening right before our eyes and which we could readily test at every moment of every day, how much credibility do they have when talking about projections of something so vastly complex as the entire planetary climate decades or centuries into an unknown future?

The answer: ABSOLUTELY NONE.

I'm officially at the point where anyone pushing anything 'green' or 'environmentally friendly' or anything of the sort is, in my opinion, automatically discredited as either a certifiable idiot or a mind-numbed political hack until they prove they have a quarter of a functional brain.  If something happens to be environmentally friendly and it saves me money, cool.  If a 'green' widget actually works better than a standard widget, I'll take one.  If I'm supposed to do anything, read anything, listen to anything, think anything, believe anything, buy anything, not buy anything, pay more taxes for anything, or be inconvenienced in any way, shape, or form simply because it's 'green' or 'environmentally friendly', you can just go take your environmentally friendly green-ness and shove it down the nearest garbage disposal, thank you very much.

I'm done.

There's my two cents.

Israel Update

Something (or someone) is going to explode soon:

Lebanon is now a serious danger to Israel. What's Teh Wun supposed to do, though? He's too busy threatening Canada with military action. Considering Labatt Blue, I don't blame him.

Syria has supplied Lebanon's Hizballah terrorist militia with an unspecified number of SCUD ballistic missiles, US officials confirmed on Tuesday.

The new arsenal of SCUDs gives Hizballah the ability to hit any target in Israel should hostilities resume. The SCUDs also carry a far heavier payload than the thousands of smaller missiles Hizballah rained down on northern Israel during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.

Senior US officials familiar with the incident told The Wall Street Journal that the SCUD missiles given to Hizballah were built using either North Korean or Russian technology.

The source of the technology doesn't mean they were the last point of sale. There seems to be someone with much more vested interest in keeping Israel's attention occupied right now. Here's the big question: how long until Obama tries talking with Hezbollah? Seriously. He shunned Georgian President Saakashvili in favor of rubbing elbows with Medvedev over the START treaty. He's completely thrown Israel under the bus. He's bowing to everyone under the sun(or red flag), but sends England a set of DVDs they can't even watch. How long before he calls a beer summit between North and South Korea? He can force Canada to supply the beer.

I suspect we'll be reading more about this in the next couple years, probably along the lines of 'oh yeah, those missiles that just blew up in [insert Israeli city name] were the same ones that Lebanon gave to terrorists...huh, how about that? we never would have guessed that might happen...'

In the meantime, Gateway Pundit continues to
document Obama's shift away from our long-time ally:

Do you remember when Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout?

He was right.

(Top left clockwise) Barack and Michelle Obama and radical Leftist anti-Israel Professor Edward Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Bill Baar's West Side), Former PLO operative and close friend of the Obama's Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama and his racist minister Jeremiah Wright, and close terrorist friend William Ayers.

In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration said today that support of Israel will be "balanced against other US interests."

It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama's news conference on Tuesday, but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how aggressively it might push for a peace agreement.

When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a "vital national security interest of the United States," he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House's urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters for an eventual Palestinian state.

Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure" — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Mr. Obama's words reverberated through diplomatic circles in large part because they echoed those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the military commander overseeing America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent Congressional testimony, the general said that the lack of progress in the Middle East created a hostile environment for the United States. He has denied reports that he was suggesting that soldiers were being put in harm's way by American support for Israel.

Previously on Obama & Israel:


The good news is that -- as with so many things right now -- the Obama administration isn't at all in sync with the American people.  In fact, his actions on Israel are scoring broad disapproval:
 
35 percent of the public gives the president a thumbs up on how he's dealing with the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, with 44 percent saying they disapprove...

Just days ago,
thousands of Americans rallied in New York in support of our ally.  Let's hope the American people win the day rather than the American president.  Recall God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3:

...go to the land that I will show you. I will bless you and make your descendants into a great nation. You will become famous and be a blessing to others. I will bless anyone who blesses you, but I will put a curse on anyone who puts a curse on you. Everyone on earth will be blessed because of you.

Whether you put stock in the Biblical perspective or simply believe it's the right thing to do to support one of your ALLIES, it's clear that the American people are on Israel's side.  Unfortunately, America's political leadership is not -- on this and many other issues -- and that's a profoundly disturbing scenario.

There's my two cents.

The New N-Word

Boom:



Brilliant! Oh yes, we will remember...

There's my two cents.

Immigration Follow-Up

By the way, as a follow up to that last post, I just came across some numbers on what Americans outside of Arizona think of the new law:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.


There is some significant concern about abuses of this authorization, but that's to be expected, and also warranted.  Still, should we let the perfect get in the way of the good?  I think not, especially when it comes to safety and the sovereignty of American law.  Also, a sharp-eyed Hot Air reader offers this interesting observation:

The big concern here, of course, is that police will stop people on the street and demand to see evidence of their citizenship, without any probable cause to question them in the first place. That threat may or may not be overblown ... [but] it would hardly be the first such precedent. Obama himself just signed a bill last month that would force Americans to carry papers — health insurance papers — whenever the IRS demands them, whether there be any probable cause of a crime or not. Indeed, the only probable cause would be claiming to be American in the first place.

So which of these represents the biggest threat to the "fairness we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities"?

Which indeed...?

There's my two cents.

Obama Takes Aim At Arizona

Not only is he bashing the new Arizona illegal immigration law, but he's described it as 'misguided' and has already called for scrapping it:

President Barack Obama called anew for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, saying a failure to do so will lead to “misguided” efforts such as legislation passed in Arizona.

“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said at a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the U.S. military. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

The actions by the Arizona legislature threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” Obama said. It also may hamper trust between residents and law enforcement authorities, he said.

He said he has instructed U.S. authorities to monitor the state’s actions and to “examine the civil rights and other implications” of the legislation.

Oh, and the other thing that's typical Obama about this? 70% of Arizona likely voters disagree with him.

Aside from the issues regarding the illegal immigration, this should also provoke a very interesting and informative legal battle between the federal and state levels. Can the federal government overrule a state's laws? Can a state enact a law that exempts it from legally marginal federal dictates?

This debate is critical a whole slew of current issues, as I'm sure you have already figured out.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
The great Arizona shoot-out

Friday, April 23, 2010

Fun And Frivolity: Group Fun

Two videos to close out this week, both depicting group fun. First up is a cool video that almost looks like a commercial or something about a mountain biking trail that looks pretty amazing. Check it out:


Sweet! I'm not even a biker, and this looks fun to me!

Second up is a video of an excellent prank executed magnificently by an entire class of high schoolers:


My high school actually canceled our last day of school, so I never found out what we would have done. *sigh* Oh well.

Have a great weekend!

Madoff Vs. The Federal Government

Patriot Post has this in their humor section, but I don't really see anything funny about it:

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on, he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail.

Some of you know this but not enough of you. Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 60 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.

Do you need a side-by-side comparison? Well here's a nifty little chart.

BERNIE MADOFF SOCIAL SECURITY
Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts. Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying.
When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors. When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.
When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash. When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.
Bernie Madoff is in jail. Politicians remain in Washington.

See? Not funny, though it does provide a definite sense of perspective. Also, remember that Madoff's transgressions were something like $50 billion. The federal government is plying its corruption game in the tens of trillions of dollars!

Just more fuel for the VOTE-THEM-ALL-HOME fire.

There's my two cents.

Claire-Bear The Dishonest

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is one of the most disingenuous people in the federal government, and that's really saying something. Have you noticed this woman? Maybe she's got a twin, because she appears to be two different people depending on whether she's in Washington or in her home state. In Missouri, she dresses like Grandma, wears pearls, and has that down-home slangy ring to her voice, talkin' 'bout how Mizzurah is just darned tired of all the hypocrisy in gub'ment!

Then she goes to Washington, changes her clothes into something resembling fashionable, and speaks of how Missourians are just going to have to gut it out in the era of lean...while voting to take over the American health care system and spending more money than Presidents 1-43 combined.

It's disgusting and infuriating.

The latest examples of her breathtaking hypocrisy is on the issue most important to the American people: jobs. Local talk radio host Chris Stigall has the dish:


When it comes time to suckle at the almighty Obama's Kool-Aid Trough, this woman elbows everyone else out of the way.

There's my two cents.

Obama Scolds Americans Who Would Uphold American Law (For The Sake Of Safety)

To me, this has to be awfully close to the top of the list of the most irresponsible actions and words yet on the part of Barack Obama:

Border states have become frustrated beyond all patience with the federal government's inability — and reluctance — to enforce immigration laws.  In Arizona, voters passed a law authorizing local and state police to investigate potential immigration violations, a measure that had overwhelming and bipartisan support in the state.   Instead of acknowledging the failure of several administrations to deal with immigration violations, including his own, Barack Obama lashed out at the state's voters instead — and threatened to pursue civil-rights legal actions against them:

President Barack Obama criticized Arizona's tough immigration bill as irresponsible Friday and said his administration is examining whether it would violate civil rights.

Obama said the federal government must act responsibly to reform national immigration law — or "open the door to irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.

...

Obama instructed the Justice Department to examine the bill to see if it would violate civil rights.

What?!  He's more concerned about the civil rights of non-citizens than about the existing laws of America and the safety of American citizens??  Hot Air points out the blistering irony of the remarks:

Obama made his remarks in front of dozens of people who had just been naturalized after serving in the US armed forces.  Presumably, these new citizens wound up in the Rose Garden because they followed the law in coming to the US.  Instead of supporting compliance with the law, Obama attacked those who would secure the rights of others to immigrate legally by cracking down on those who don't.

Furthermore, the duh factor is pretty high here:

Arizonans didn't pass this law because Congress hasn't enacted comprehensive immigration reform, as Obama insisted at the White House today. They passed this law because the federal government has abdicated its responsibilities to enforce existing immigration law. We don't need a comprehensive immigration reform bill to resolve that — we just need the Department of Homeland Security and Barack Obama to do their jobs.

And that doesn't include fretting over non-existent civil rights of non-citizens.  Last time I checked, the Constitution was silent on that point.

Cassy Fiano piles on, addressing some of the wailing complaints already floating out of the liberal Left:

Arizona is on the brink of passing a tough new immigration law that some are calling racial profiling. The bill would give police the right to arrest anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant if they are unable to produce a driver's license or identity papers.

Naturally, this has the liberals and Latino lobbyists in an uproar. Cries of RAAAAACISM!!! are already begininng. Total ignorance of the ongoing, overwhelming crime due to illegal immigrant is, as usual, being ignored.

Over at the Huffington Post Miguel Guadalupe (who identifies himself as a Latino progressive American) calls this a "Gestapo law".

"Show me your papers, are your papers in order?" This phrase was made famous, or rather infamous, by the Gestapo, and will soon be heard throughout the state of Arizona, should their Governor sign into law SB1070, a vague and broad law giving law enforcement the unprecedented power to stop and check the documentation of any individual where "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.."

There are no guidelines as to what "reasonable suspicion" is, but knowing the reality on the ground, it is obvious to all that "reasonable suspicion" means those looking like, sounding like, or acting like general stereotypes of undocumented immigrants coming from Latin America. In short — this is a bill that allows police to suspect all Latinos of being undocumented, and gives them the right to question their status at any time, for any reason.

He bleats on with some more Nazi rhetoric and right-wing bashing, but never once admits to the obvious. Illegal immigration is a crime. And even legal immigrants — non-US citizens — are here only at our pleasure. It's a harsh truth, but no immigrant has a right to be here. Coming here through legal channels means you won't be arrested, but if you come here illegally then you can and should be arrested if you are discovered. Liberals may not like it that Latinos will have to prove they are not here illegally, but I think that what really makes them so angry is the thought of our immigration laws actually being, you know, enforced.

As for the Nazi rhetoric, let's bring Mr. Guadalupe back to reality. In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo was looking for Jews so that they could be shipped to concentration camps and murdered. There's kind of a big difference between the murders of innocent people and the arrest of a criminal, but apparently, Mr. Guadalupe can't comprehend the difference.

She blows apart a number of other embittered accusations and straw men in quite spectacular and humorous fashion, so I'd encourage you to check out the whole thing.  The bottom line is that these are criminals who are sucking the resources out of the state of Arizona (and the country in general), while simultaneously ramping up the violent crime, even to the point of murdering an American rancher for standing up to them.  Mexican drug cartels and other thugs -- and don't forget terrorists, too -- have taken advantage of the porous borders and chronic non-enforcement to make the U.S.-Mexican border a war zone, and the residents of Arizona are sick and tired of our government failing to protect them.  But, the liberal Left is getting its panties in a bunch over the fear of ***GASP*** racial profiling that apparently might offend the Hispanic drug lord/murderer demographic.  Here's Fiano's conclusion:

The violence and crime that have washed over our country due to our open borders and lax immigration policies cannot be dismissed anymore. And if racial profiling is what's needed to stem the bleeding, so to speak, then that is what needs to be done. Liberals like to pretend that they can hold hands with dictators, terrorists, and illegal immigrants alike and sing Kumbaya to make everything all better. Saying over and over again that they're just trying to do jobs that Americans won't do won't stop the crime. The truth is, the amount of crime that has flooded into Arizona has given lawmakers no choice but to take harsher measures to protect Americans. Liberals and lobbyists want to stand in the way of that, making people like the Arizona ranchers further susceptible to become victims of these criminals. They try to stop the effort to stop the flow of crime by making accusations of racism and by marginalizing the amount of criminal activity that has been happening in Arizona.

Arizona lawmakers are responding to what has become a legitimate crisis in Arizona, yet liberals are siding with criminals, drug dealers, murders, and the like. You tell me who is more un-American.

Hm.  Barack Obama is on the same side of this argument as 'criminals, drug dealers, murderers, and the like', to the detriment of honest, law-abiding citizens simply trying to protect their families and property.  Now that's a liberal's liberal!  Hope-n-change, baby!

There's my two cents.

Mish-Mash Roundup

Once again, I've collected a big bunch of stuff that really deserves more than a simple link, but not quite an entire post.  This is all great stuff.  Enjoy!

Iranian missiles could reach U.S. in just 5 years
While the Obama administration is simultaneously dismantling our nuclear arsenal (which has provided an effective deterrent against attacks for over half a century) and killing our proven and operational missile defense systems, Iran continues to improve both their nuclear program and their missile delivery systems.  They're likely to have nukes in the next year, and the missiles to deliver them onto our soil in just 5 years.  Obama's policies are so grossly incompetent and inadequate that I can't come to any other conclusion than that he'll be single-handedly responsible for thousands of American deaths in the next few years.  I really, really hope I'm wrong on this!  In the meantime, the Obama administration is scurrying around trying to explain why it has no coherent Iran strategy.

Census boondoggle(s)
Wow, where to begin?  In recent weeks, we've seen admissions of corruption from census workers, useless wastes of money, multiple forms being sent to some households (and they're not households with white middle-class folks, either), and -- amazingly, incredibly -- demands for illegals to work on the census.  This is just about the most blindingly obvious example of how incompetent, corrupt, and wasteful our federal government has become.  Too bad it's going to determine so many critically important things for the next decade.

The Goldman Sachs mess
Wow, this one is just huge, but it just doesn't really inspire me, so I don't want to do a whole post on it.  The nutshell is that the Obama administration is trying to cement its takeover of the financial industry (see the bailout reference above), and is using Goldman Sachs to try to do it.  This is one of the biggest and most politically-connected (with millions in donations to Dems) firms on Wall Street, and a bunch of Treasury officials are former GSers.  To try to strong-arm this 'reform' bill into law, the Obama administration is doing what it's always done: generate a crisis to mislead the American public into playing along.  It's amazing that at the very time when the Senate takes up the 'reform' bill, GS comes out and admits what appears to be some improper dealings, thus allowing Obama and Congress to point the finger and caterwaul about how necessary this 'reform' is to 'reign in Wall Street'.  The SEC sued GS, but the suit is so flimsy that it makes wet noodles look like titanium.  For the price of a small bit of bad press and a tiny fine, GS becomes a very favored firm, and will reap substantial rewards in the future.  Oh, and no Democrat is returning any of the money GS employees have donated.  Hope!  Change!  The GOP is calling for more investigation, but since the Dems control Congress, it's likely to go precisely nowhere.  [links here, here, here, here, here, here, here]

Navy SEAL not guilty!
I blogged about this a while back - a group of Navy SEALs successfully captured a terrorist leader who had tortured, burned, and murdered some American security contractors and left their bodies hanging on a bridge in Iraq.  In an alternate universe sort of way, these SEALs were accused of abuse because they gave the terrorist a bloody nose and a couple bruises during the capture.  A military jury has now cleared one of those SEALs of any wrongdoing.  I trust the others will be found not guilty, as well.  Still, it astounds me that our own elite soldiers would be put on trial in a foreign country for giving a captured terrorist a bloody nose (during the capture), while at the same time our government hands out undeserved protections and a domestic trial for those very same murdering terrorists.  There is something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks that's justice.

Netanyahu tells Obama to go away
As a part of Obama's crusade to alienate our long-time ally Israel, he has repeatedly demanded that the Israeli government stop construction in Jerusalem.  Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu just announced that this construction would continue without interruption.  Good for him!  Hot Air summarizes it this way:

Netanyahu just taught Obama a lesson, which is that a nation that has been surrounded by terrorists and other enemies for decades isn't going to be intimidated by an Ivory Tower academic, even if he sits in the Oval Office.  After Obama's shameful treatment of Netanyahu on his visit to Washington DC, he could hardly have expected any better response.  Instead of cowing Netanyahu into submission, Obama has alienated him — and as a side effect, made Netanyahu more popular at home because of it.

I fear the rift opening between the U.S. and Israel will only get wider, and it's going to be largely because of Obama's anti-Israeli policies and actions.  God help us...

Lies, deception, and fingers crossed that you're as gullible as they think you are
This week the CEO of GM paid a visit to KC.  At a speech to the big GM plant here in town, one of his claims was that GM had 'paid back' all of the bailout money that it had taken because of improved car sales.  The national headlines dutifully followed the storyline, pushing the narrative that GM was now in the clear and humming right along.  This is, however, completely false.  In reality, GM has 'paid back' about $8 billion of bailout money by tapping into a different pool of bailout money: TARP.  GM hasn't actually paid back anything, it's merely shuffled money from one U.S. Treasury-controlled bailout account to another U.S. Treasury-controlled bailout account.  They still owe tens of billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers.  And yes, you are correct if you are remembering that TARP was supposed to be for banks.

How are you liking the Hope-n-change, now that we're seeing it becoming reality on so many fronts?

There's my two cents.

Obama's Fatal Nuclear Stupidity

Legal Insurrection reports on one of the stupidest trade-offs in American political history:


In the recent arms control treaty signed with the Russians we agreed to count each of these new conventional weapons towards the nuclear weapons limits in the treaty, meaning that for each of these new non-nuclear weapons, we would have to eliminate a nuclear weapon. As reported by The Times:

In coming years, President Obama will decide whether to deploy a new class of weapons capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour and with such accuracy and force that they would greatly diminish America’s reliance on its nuclear arsenal.

Yet even now, concerns about the technology are so strong that the Obama administration has acceded to a demand by Russia that the United States decommission one nuclear missile for every one of these conventional weapons fielded by the Pentagon. That provision, the White House said, is buried deep inside the New Start treaty that Mr. Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev signed in
Prague
two weeks ago.

The technology involved is a Hypersonic Cruise Missile, and it is a game changer. According to the article in The Times, the Russians and Chinese have a concern that these weapons could have a destabilizing effect because it would not be known if they carried a nuclear or conventional weapon, so if it is deployed, steps would need to be taken to make clear that they were non-nuclear. That is all well and good. Verification with the Russians and Chinese to prevent a destabilizing effect is one thing. Counting conventional weapons the same as nuclear weapons, however, is nonsensical.

I love the sound of these new weapons systems - that's exactly the sort of thing I expect from the American military! That kind of technological advantage is what allows us to kick some serious a$$ and rip our opponents to shreds on the battlefield. Still, LI is exactly right - this is the equivalent of preparing for the Daytona 500 by trading Jimmy Johnson's stock car for a 1992 Ford Tempo. Sure, it's a car that'll move you around the track, but anyone who thinks it'll bring home the checkered flag is an utter fool.

Only the liberal Leftists in the federal government would actually bet our national security on such a Ford Tempo.

Barack Obama's unimaginable lack of responsibility on national security with fatally stupid policies like this is going to get American citizens killed; it's only a matter of time.


Of course, there's always this, from Michael Ramirez:

You know, there are days when I wonder how far from the truth this sort of 'satire' really is...

There's my two cents.

Finishing Off The Financial Industry Takeover: Dems Decide They Don't Much Care For That Pesky Debate Thing

From what we've seen over the past year and a half, this only comes as a shock in the same way that it's shocking to see a sky diver whose parachute didn't open actually hit the ground:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that he will not wait for Democrats and Republicans to reach a bipartisan compromise on a Wall Street reform bill, scheduling the first key test vote for Monday.

“I’m not going to waste any more time of the American people while they come up with some agreement,” Reid said. “The games of stalling are over.”

The move puts pressure on Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris DoddRichard Shelby, the ranking Republican, to reach some resolution on their bipartisan talks. Both senators have said they were progressing towards a deal, but Republicans have suggested that they would need more time than Democrats are willing to give. (D-Conn.) and Alabama Sen.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rebuked Reid’s decision to push ahead.

“Here we go again,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “The majority leader is once again moving to a bill even while bipartisan discussions on the content of the bill are still under way. … I don’t think bipartisanship is a waste of time. I don’t think a bill with the legitimacy of a bipartisan agreement is a waste of time.”

What is the substance of this bill? Well, here's the nutshell.

The Senate is now debating a financial industry 'reform' bill, which is yet another power grab by the Obama Administration and Congress. The core of the bill is, as I understand it, to grant the White House the authority to shut down any financial entity that appears to be taking on too much risk and is 'too big to fail'...but they don't define how much risk, or how big, of course. Also, the bill would establish a permanent state of unlimited bailouts for any financial institution the White House favors. And, don't forget that Obama's 'pay czar' has control over the top salaries at every financial firm now, so what this boils down to is a de facto control over every major financial institution in the country. With that power, they will systematically dismantle the free market system entirely. Think I'm exaggerating? Read this from Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner and decide for yourself:
“If a major institution manages itself to the edge of their abyss, we’re able to put them out of their misery … dismember them safely without taxpayers being exposed to a penny of risk of loss.”
First of all, taxpayers wouldn't be anywhere near a position to lose money if the federal government hadn't embarked on the bailout parade! Second, as you read that statement, keep in mind that they're not defining what is too big to fail, where the edge of the abyss is, how much risk is 'too much', or anything in between.

They're writing themselves a blank check to arbitrarily shut down any business they don't like.

Political lightning rod Sarah Palin put it this way:

It should surprise no one that financial lobbyists are flocking to DC this week. Of course, the big players who can afford lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold. ...

... the financial reform bill gives regulators the power to pick winners and losers, institutionalizing their ability to decide “which firms to rescue or close, and which creditors to reward and how.” Does anyone doubt that firms with the most lobbyists and the biggest campaign donations will be the ones who get seats in the lifeboat? The president is trying to convince us that he’s taking on the Wall Street “fat cats,” but firms like Goldman Sachs are happy with federal regulation because, as one of their lobbyists recently stated, “We partner with regulators.”


I think that must be the second scariest sentence in the English language, right behind "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

Let's apply some common sense here. Isn't the inherent nature of investment simply the management of risk? Riskier investments have higher returns because there's a greater chance of losing that investment. We simply choose our level of comfort in regard to the degree of risk we are willing to assume with our money, and get a commensurate return on that risk. Investment is risk. That's kind of the central theme of economics, isn't it? To attempt to eliminate all risk in the financial industry is to wipe out the entire purpose of the industry itself! These people are engineering the end of the American free market economy, plain and simple.

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

Much more on the Wall Street perpetual bailout situation
here, including the bottom line: Washington has committed to spend a mind-blowing $20 trillion in support of Wall Street...since 2008! And it ain't going to stop as long as these Dems control Congress.

Oh, and one more thing - this bill will authorize the federal government to monitor everyone's investments, checking accounts, and credit card statements in order to identify risk. Every single one. You want government intervention? It's hard to imagine getting any more intervention than this, outside of the DemCare takeover.

And, with the news that the Senate Dems are pushing ahead with a vote before a thorough debate on the bill, we see once again just how much they desire to forge compromises with Republicans: not at all. We also see their naked ambition, displayed in its full hideous non-splendor.

I think what this boils down to is the fact that they know their window of opportunity for taking permanent control of this country is closing fast. They know they're going to be slaughtered in the November election, so they're trying to wrest as much control over the American people as possible while they still have the majority, assuming that the Republicans who take over in a few months will lack the courage or willpower to roll back anything they're doing now.

We'll see.

I just hope we can survive long enough to even have the chance of recovering. Regardless, today might be a good day to pick up the phone and call your Senators to give them a piece of your mind about this bill.

There's my two cents.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Performing A Reality Check On The 'Horror' Of Capitalism

David Nathaniel put together an outstanding post absolutely slaying a bunch of myths that the liberal Left is using to smear the entire concept of capitalism.  This is outstandingly outstanding stuff, so check it out:

President Obama's core economic tenet is fairness; the unfairness of our economic system needs remedy in his view. Equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity is the root principle. A forced redistribution of wealth will act as an equalizer for the past sins of capitalism. 

The administration, the congressional majority, and an agreeable media are systematically dismantling free-market mechanisms and installing a centrally regulated command economy, all for the sake of fairness. Evidence over the last fifteen months is overwhelming:  government takeovers of major industries and individual companies; massive ramp-up of government regulations on industry; tax changes to force re-distribution of wealth; and lectures on behavior by our Grand Arbiter of Fairness, the president. The consequences for all 330 million Americans are enormous.

But where is the clear, unemotional evidence of either how bad it's been under capitalism or how many more people will benefit under the new system? What is the alternative system? Where is it working today? All we have seen are a string of anecdotes and a parade of victims. Wall street bonuses are bad; out-of-work people are victim; millionaires don't deserve their wealth; change will make it better.

Facts are rarely useful in debates with ideologues and religious zealots. Yet we cannot allow partisans to make unchallenged, generalized claims about the free-market system with such consequential implications. Using comparative data over the long term, we can find objective conclusions on the comparison of free-market capitalism to more regulated economies. The last twenty-five years, virtually a generational view on economies, gives us a broad perspective of market performance during a relatively stable period.

Let's compare countries side-by-side, answer claims of economic unfairness with facts, and decide which economy we would like for our children. Data source: OECD

Claim #1: 

Our economy has been weak for the last decade. Our problems have only been covered up by deficit spending and cheap credit.

Facts: 

The U.S. has outperformed all other economies over a twenty-year period, outproducing goods and services, worker for worker. In terms of annual growth rates, our free-market system has more extreme highs and lows, but it has climbed out of recessions faster and provided more sustained growth periods.

Rising tides lift all boats. Economic growth of goods and services means more jobs, higher wages, and more opportunities for all citizens.






Counter-claim #1: 

Yes, but the U.S. uses more than its fair share of resources. Our rampant consumerism is unsustainable.

Facts: 

This is not a zero-sum game. If the U.S. produces less, Canada and Indonesia do not automatically get more. More importantly, our economic growth benefits workers across the world. Our economic engine creates opportunities for progress for individuals in poor countries and developed countries alike.

Claim #2: 

We continue to ship jobs overseas to China. The economy is not producing new jobs. There are no new opportunities for young people coming out of school. The government needs to create jobs opportunities because private industry isn't getting it done.

Facts: 

For a generation, we have had the lowest unemployment rates of any developed country other than Japan. (Note: Every 1% of U.S. unemployment equals approximately 1.5 million workers.) Free-market capitalism is more dynamic than any other system. Industries and job opportunities change more frequently, forcing people to change, but the jobs are there.

France and Germany have been experiencing our current "high unemployment" levels since 2003. Germany has approximately 2.5 million permanently unemployed workers on the federal "dole," not counted in the numbers. That is out of a total population of 82 million people.






Claim #3: 

Our unemployment may be lower than other countries', but the quality of jobs created is decreasing, wages are lower, and factory jobs are being replaced with fast food jobs. We are failing to help workers train and adapt to new jobs, thereby falling behind other countries. Corporations retain larger profits while the workers lose salaries and benefits.

Facts: 

We have maintained the highest hourly wage rates, and they continue to increase, not decrease. Over most of the last decade, the U.S. has maintained the highest median incomes in the developed world. Again, job types are constantly changing, but overall, the wages are increasing.

(Note: "Median" means 50% above / 50% below the number.)

Our workers are also very productive compared to other developed countries', averaging 2.2% labor productivity growth per year over the last twenty years and out-growing other developed Western countries eight out of the last ten years.








Claim #4: 

The tax structure must change. The government must raise taxes to provide the programs for job creation and support those that are out of work and in need of benefits.

Facts: 

Taxes simply take money out of the market, consuming economic value. Governments taking money away from the wage-earner hurts everyone in the economic food chain and reduces the worker's lifestyle. Could there be a clearer connection between higher growth, growing wages, lower unemployment, and better productivity and punishing tax rates than the results of the last twenty years?







Winston Churchill wrote, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Virtually every individual and family experiences economic hardships over a lifetime -- job losses, companies going out of business, bad luck, loss of a primary wage-earner, bad financial decisions, starting over. But that's not symptomatic of the economic system. That's called life.

There is no perfect system. People get left behind. Many will earn more than you will. We have been spoiled by a generation of economic success. Prosperity allows us the intellectual leisure to imagine a perfect world where no one is stressed and everyone succeeds. Our government is currently run by self-proclaimed intellectuals who foolishly believe that they can actively manage the incredible complexities of our economic system. While they experiment, all citizens pay the price of lost opportunity and individual pain.

Yet it is indisputable that sustained economic growth and prosperity benefit all citizens. Free-market capitalism has proven to help the most people achieve personal fulfillment, creates the most opportunities, hires the most people, and provides the economic engine for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a fact.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Why change #1 to emulate everyone else?  It makes no sense, and that's why we need to aggressively push back whenever we see or hear people bashing the eeeeevils of capitalism.  Socialism has a demonstrable track record and history of failure, both in a moral sense and an economic sense.  The Left is trying to smear and slander the best economic philosophy and system in the world in order to destroy it.  Don't let it happen!  The facts and the truth belong to us, and we must not let the perception slip away.

There's my two cents.

Democrats Make Their Most Thuggish, Naked Power Grab Yet

I don't think we're in America anymore, Toto:

Senate Democrats Gather In The Rules Committee To Eliminate The Filibuster, Which They Previously Called One "Of The Most Treasured And Cherished Traditions Of The United States Senate."

Yep, now that the Dems don't have 60 votes, and now that their window for destroying a free and prosperous America through an unprecedented expansion of government is rapidly closing, they have decided to get rid of the primary tool used by a minority to hold up a reckless and destructive majority.  Of course, as is typical with these people, that's precisely the opposite of their previous position:

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): "What [The American People] Do Not Expect Is For One Party, Be It Republican Or Democrat, To Change The Rules In The Middle Of The Game So They Can Make All The Decisions While The Other Party Is Told To Sit Down And Keep Quiet." "What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this Chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse." (Sen. Obama, Congressional Record, S.3512, 4/13/05)

THEN-SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): "I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don't Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing." (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.5737, 5/23/05)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "The Need To Muster 60 Votes In Order To Terminate Senate Debate Naturally Frustrates The Majority And Oftentimes The Minority. I Am Sure It Will Frustrate Me When I Assume The Office Of Majority Leader In A Few Weeks. But I Recognize This Requirement Is A Tool That Serves The Long-Term Interest Of The Senate And The American People And Our Country." (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

•    REID: "Mr. President, The Filibuster Is Not A 'Procedural Gimmick.' The Filibuster Is An Important Check On Executive Power And Part Of Every Senator's Right To Free Speech In The United States Senate." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Reid Floor Statement On Nuclear Option," Press Release, 5/17/05)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) On Any Threat To The Filibuster: "The Basic Makeup Of Our Senate Is At Stake. The Checks And Balances That Americans Prize Are At Stake. The Idea Of Bipartisanship, Where You Have To Come Together And Can't Just Ram Everything Through Because You Have A Narrow Majority, Is At Stake. The Very Things We Treasure And Love About This Grand Republic Are At Stake." (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.4801, 5/10/05)

•    SCHUMER: "We Are On The Precipice Of A Crisis, A Constitutional Crisis. The Checks And Balances Which Have Been At The Core Of This Republic Are About To Be Evaporated By The Nuclear Option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don't get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it's almost a temper tantrum by those on the hard right. They want their way every single time, and they will change the rules, break the rules, misread the Constitution so they will get their way." (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.5208, 5/16/05)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): "I Believe That Efforts To Change Or Reinterpret The Rules In Order To Facilitate Expeditious Action By A Simple Majority, While Popular, Are Grossly Misguided." ("Sen. Byrd Calls Proposed Democratic Changes To Filibuster Rules 'Misguided,'" The Hill, 2/24/10)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): "'I Totally Oppose The Idea Of Changing Filibuster Rules,' Dodd Said During An Appearance On MSNBC. 'That's Foolish, In My View.'" ("Dodd: Changing Filibuster Rules Would Be 'Foolish,'" The Hill, 2/17/10)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): "Blinded By Political Passion, Some Are Willing To Unravel Our Government's Fundamental Principle Of Checks And Balances To Break The Rules And Discard Senate Precedent. The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments, and then legislation." (Sen. Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.5398, 5/18/05)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): "Those Who Would Attack And Destroy The Institution Of The Filibuster Are Attacking The Very Force Within The Senate That Creates Compromise And Bipartisanship." (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 4/15/05, p.S3763)

•    DURBIN: The Filibuster Is "[One] Of The Most Treasured And Cherished Traditions Of The United States Senate." "Many of us in the Senate feel that this agreement tonight means that some of the most treasured and cherished traditions of the United States Senate will be preserved, will not be attacked and will not be destroyed." (Sen. Durbin, "Statement of Sen. Dick Durbin Regarding the Agreement on Judicial Nominations in the Senate," Press Release, 5/23/05)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): "Filibusters … Give Small States Such As Nebraska An Important Tool To Protect Itself From The Will Of The Larger States." "Filibusters also give small States such as Nebraska an important tool to protect itself from the will of the larger States." (Sen. Nelson, Congressional Record, S.5917, 5/25/05)

SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): "I Was Very Concerned That When You Looked At The Nuclear Option, If That Trigger Was Pulled, You Had A Nuclear Winter That Would Follow." "But in a broader sense, I did this agreement for them because I was very concerned that when you looked at the nuclear option, if that trigger was pulled, you had a nuclear winter that would follow." (Sen. Pryor, Congressional Record, S.6000, 5/26/05)

How can they do this?  Maybe like this:

Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. However, it's actually quite possible for 50 Senators—if backed by the Vice President—to have elements of existing procedural deemed unconstitutional.

The US court system neither will nor should rule on things like the constitutionality of a de facto supermajority rule. But this is precisely why you have a President of the Senate (i.e., a Vice President) and I think it would be perfectly plausible for Joe Biden to say that by specifying supermajority voting for certain purposes (treaties, veto overrides, constitutional amendments) the constitution is clearly assuming majority rule for other purposes. Then it would take a majority of Senators to back up Biden's ruling. And low and behold, a return to majority rule

Ace sums it up very succinctly: "Ah. So they're just going to have the Vice President start declaring things unconstitutional?"

Yep, looks that way.

Welcome to the Obama era, baby.  How's that hope-n-change working out for you?

There's my two cents.