Here is the video evidence of the fact that the president is nothing but a tool of the organized labor unions
Friday, February 25, 2011
LOL (And Sigh...)
Here are a couple of news items that will surely make you proud to be Americans under the post racial (or post whatever) presidency of Obama.
First, as reported by the U.K. Daily Mail, Team Obama botches the Libyan evacuation of its citizens while evacuations conducted by the Greeks and Turks go smoothly.
Keystone cops, anyone??
Second, the Canadian P.M. says he will "defend Israel whatever the cost". I thought that was traditionally, and primarily, the job of the U.S. for the past 60 plus years!
So far, it has been easier than any of us could have imagined two short years ago to destroy the image of U.S. superiority in everything from the economy to policing the world.
What made it this easy was over 7 decades of continual undermining of our major institutions - schools, media, bureaucracies, the judiciary, the culture, etc. - in subtle but effective ways. By the time they finally got the dedicated ideologue elected to pull the silent coup together, America was in many ways a termite infested, rotten structure waiting for a simple nudge to collapse.
Well, at least that is what they thought. The last word will be uttered by the American public.
Time to wake up or perish America.
First, as reported by the U.K. Daily Mail, Team Obama botches the Libyan evacuation of its citizens while evacuations conducted by the Greeks and Turks go smoothly.
Keystone cops, anyone??
Second, the Canadian P.M. says he will "defend Israel whatever the cost". I thought that was traditionally, and primarily, the job of the U.S. for the past 60 plus years!
So far, it has been easier than any of us could have imagined two short years ago to destroy the image of U.S. superiority in everything from the economy to policing the world.
What made it this easy was over 7 decades of continual undermining of our major institutions - schools, media, bureaucracies, the judiciary, the culture, etc. - in subtle but effective ways. By the time they finally got the dedicated ideologue elected to pull the silent coup together, America was in many ways a termite infested, rotten structure waiting for a simple nudge to collapse.
Well, at least that is what they thought. The last word will be uttered by the American public.
Time to wake up or perish America.
Just Catching Up...
It has been a week of downers for yours truly.
First, at the home front, every member of the family got the flu (which, normally, none of us is susceptible to). As bad a this was, I guess I should count it to be a mixed blessing since the combined stupor brought on by the drugs and the illness helped make the events of the past week - both here in the U.S. and overseas - only a hazy memory to me. Too bad this is not a stupor we can collectively expect to wake up from as if it were a bad dream.
Internationally, the middle east keeps on burning as the price of oil creeps up over $100. As the U.S. is no longer a leader but an agitator, we are at the mercy of the E.U. for any type of leadership to help calm and direct events that are spiralling out of control. God help us all
Domestically, we only had the charlatan-in-chief stomp over the carcass of our constitutional republic further by this time targeting the legislative branch in declaring the defense of marriage act "unconstitutional". For those not keeping count, that is now two federal court decisions and a piece of legislation (passed by the congress and signed by a President) the Administration has decided to ignore. If there ever was a case for presidential impeachment, Obama is the poster child for it. The question is, are there any Republicans out there who have the nerve to bring about hearings that might lead to the impeachment of the first black president? (Sorry Mr. Clinton, we are not talking about you)
Of course, we cannot escape the domestic round-up without mentioning the communist labor union shenanigans in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and elsewhere. Actions of the unions (the violence and the colorful language) and the Democrat lawmakers fleeing their states in order to avoid critical votes (hey, elections only have consequence if you are a progressive liberal, right?) being par for course, what remains a jaw dropping fact (not really but just play along) is the agitator-in-chief openly siding with the communist labor unions against states' rights. Oh yeah, I must not forget the revelation this past week that this is the same President who has not spoken once to over half of his cabinet secretaries since he became the president, but as Trumka and Stern gleefully testify to, has managed to meet weekly with the heads of labor unions.
All this is like a bad dream; reality turned upside down in a surreal, Twilight Zone type of existence. Or maybe a test god has sent America's way to see if we are really worthy of being free souls. Or something...
Hey, on the bright side, at least Illinois is getting a much needed boost to its tourism with all the neighboring states Democrats fleeing there.
Heck, just pass me my drugs, I think I was happier when I skirted reality for a while when the flu meds had control over my mind and body!
First, at the home front, every member of the family got the flu (which, normally, none of us is susceptible to). As bad a this was, I guess I should count it to be a mixed blessing since the combined stupor brought on by the drugs and the illness helped make the events of the past week - both here in the U.S. and overseas - only a hazy memory to me. Too bad this is not a stupor we can collectively expect to wake up from as if it were a bad dream.
Internationally, the middle east keeps on burning as the price of oil creeps up over $100. As the U.S. is no longer a leader but an agitator, we are at the mercy of the E.U. for any type of leadership to help calm and direct events that are spiralling out of control. God help us all
Domestically, we only had the charlatan-in-chief stomp over the carcass of our constitutional republic further by this time targeting the legislative branch in declaring the defense of marriage act "unconstitutional". For those not keeping count, that is now two federal court decisions and a piece of legislation (passed by the congress and signed by a President) the Administration has decided to ignore. If there ever was a case for presidential impeachment, Obama is the poster child for it. The question is, are there any Republicans out there who have the nerve to bring about hearings that might lead to the impeachment of the first black president? (Sorry Mr. Clinton, we are not talking about you)
Of course, we cannot escape the domestic round-up without mentioning the communist labor union shenanigans in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and elsewhere. Actions of the unions (the violence and the colorful language) and the Democrat lawmakers fleeing their states in order to avoid critical votes (hey, elections only have consequence if you are a progressive liberal, right?) being par for course, what remains a jaw dropping fact (not really but just play along) is the agitator-in-chief openly siding with the communist labor unions against states' rights. Oh yeah, I must not forget the revelation this past week that this is the same President who has not spoken once to over half of his cabinet secretaries since he became the president, but as Trumka and Stern gleefully testify to, has managed to meet weekly with the heads of labor unions.
All this is like a bad dream; reality turned upside down in a surreal, Twilight Zone type of existence. Or maybe a test god has sent America's way to see if we are really worthy of being free souls. Or something...
Hey, on the bright side, at least Illinois is getting a much needed boost to its tourism with all the neighboring states Democrats fleeing there.
Heck, just pass me my drugs, I think I was happier when I skirted reality for a while when the flu meds had control over my mind and body!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Guess Who Said......
"When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
Give up? Try Albert Shanker, former president of American Federation of Teachers (1985)
Doesn't it tell all you need to know about teacher's unions? No wonder the state of American public education is so pitiful!
Give up? Try Albert Shanker, former president of American Federation of Teachers (1985)
Doesn't it tell all you need to know about teacher's unions? No wonder the state of American public education is so pitiful!
Unions: The Real Outrage In Wisconsin
Streets of Madison, Wisconsin look more like the streets of Athens or Paris these days. At the heart of the matter is a Republican governor and state legislature trying to do the right and responsible thing for the citizens of the Dairy State.
The ire of thousands of NEA, AFT, AFSCME, and other union members are directed at a proposed legislation that would limit collective bargaining to salaries only - not benefits. As it has been widely reported, many states are facing financial doomsday mainly due to the sorry state of their pension funds and overly generous benefit plans unions have extracted from them over the years.
Governor Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit, and he wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That’s an outrage by itself.
Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are bankrupting America -- which by some estimates is suffering from $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.
The Democrat members of the Wisconsin legislature have fled the state in order to avoid being rounded up and forced back to the capitol for a vote. They have the backing of thousands of union members, the Obama Administration which has called this an assault on collective bargaining, and bus loads of OFA (Organizing For America) activists. In other words, the goons are out in full force.
On the opposite side of them is the citizenry of Wisconsin, which according to polling yesterday, support the Republican governor by a 64% to 20% margin. Today, for the first time, thousands are gathering in Madison in a show of unity for the Governor and the Republican legislators. This is remarkable since Madison is one of the birth places of progressive liberalism in America.
One of the real victims of this charade in Madison are the school children since 40% of the teachers had called in sick past two days in order to protest. What is even more outrageous is that they brought with them hundreds of school children as peons in their illegal action. Sadly, as interviews with the protesting children shows, almost none of them have any idea why they are there.
It is really the parents of school children who should be protesting the unions: the graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent. The graduation rate for African-Americans in Milwaukee public schools is 34 percent. Shouldn’t somebody be protesting that?
As Gov. Scott Walker said, it would be “wise” for President Obama to keep his attentions on Washington, not Wisconsin. “We’re focused on balancing our budget,” he said in a television interview. “It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to be focused on balancing their budget, which they’re a long ways from doing.”
-----------
I was going to write a paragraph about 'civility' but decided this is not the appropriate post for it. Please check the crowd of goons in Madison and their signs; and then compare it to any Tea Party protest in the past. Progressives and their civility lectures make me want to throw up!
The ire of thousands of NEA, AFT, AFSCME, and other union members are directed at a proposed legislation that would limit collective bargaining to salaries only - not benefits. As it has been widely reported, many states are facing financial doomsday mainly due to the sorry state of their pension funds and overly generous benefit plans unions have extracted from them over the years.
Governor Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit, and he wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That’s an outrage by itself.
Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are bankrupting America -- which by some estimates is suffering from $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the CPI. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.
The Democrat members of the Wisconsin legislature have fled the state in order to avoid being rounded up and forced back to the capitol for a vote. They have the backing of thousands of union members, the Obama Administration which has called this an assault on collective bargaining, and bus loads of OFA (Organizing For America) activists. In other words, the goons are out in full force.
On the opposite side of them is the citizenry of Wisconsin, which according to polling yesterday, support the Republican governor by a 64% to 20% margin. Today, for the first time, thousands are gathering in Madison in a show of unity for the Governor and the Republican legislators. This is remarkable since Madison is one of the birth places of progressive liberalism in America.
One of the real victims of this charade in Madison are the school children since 40% of the teachers had called in sick past two days in order to protest. What is even more outrageous is that they brought with them hundreds of school children as peons in their illegal action. Sadly, as interviews with the protesting children shows, almost none of them have any idea why they are there.
It is really the parents of school children who should be protesting the unions: the graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent. The graduation rate for African-Americans in Milwaukee public schools is 34 percent. Shouldn’t somebody be protesting that?
As Gov. Scott Walker said, it would be “wise” for President Obama to keep his attentions on Washington, not Wisconsin. “We’re focused on balancing our budget,” he said in a television interview. “It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to be focused on balancing their budget, which they’re a long ways from doing.”
-----------
I was going to write a paragraph about 'civility' but decided this is not the appropriate post for it. Please check the crowd of goons in Madison and their signs; and then compare it to any Tea Party protest in the past. Progressives and their civility lectures make me want to throw up!
Who Is The Bigger Threat to U.S.: Radical Islamists or Radical Progressives?
It is bad enough that former president Carter set the cause of global liberty back decades during his presidency, since then he has continually been making a fool of himself while encouraging despots all around the world.
The "old fool", as I like to refer to this disgrace of a man we had the misfortune of calling President for 4 long years, said on Tuesday: "I think the Muslim Brotherhood is not anything to be afraid of in the upcoming (Egyptian) political situation and the evolution I see as most likely. They will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and true democracy."
Yeah, I guess kind of like Iran when he turned his back on the Shah in 1979!
It is quite apparent that Mr. Carter has not paid any attention to the recent Pew Research Center polling of the Egyptian people. Any nation where substantial portions of the society see Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda positively while supporting suicide bombings, 85% of the people see Islam as a positive force in politics, 54% support gender seperation at work place, 77% support whippings and cutting of hands for theft, 82% support stoning for the crime of adultery, and 84% support the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion is not exactly ripe for Jeffersonian democracy.
Talk about delusional statements that are utterly divorced from reality! Mr. Carter apparently has no idea of, or admit to, the history as well as present philosophy of the Brotherhood. They are just as committed to Islamization of as much of the world as possible today as they were over 30 years ago when they murdered President Sadat or when they played a key role in creation of Al Qaeda. Since then, the Brotherhood has become more sophisticated and been trying to legitimize itself in the political arena - somewhat akin to the ruling AKP in Turkey. Their logo and their motto, however, say something completely contrary to what Carter and the current progressive U.S. leadership are claiming:
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!”
There are many sources, from Wikipedia to numerous blogs, where anyone who cares to educate themselves about this wolf in sheep's clothing called the Muslim Brotherhood can go.
So just how did this delusional former president of ours exactly torpedo U.S. interests over the years? Here is a brief but nevertheless devastating history of the Carter years.
When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for Watergate, it opened the door for the election of Jimmy Carter, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in American electoral history. At least until 2008.
Carter's foreign policy, or lack thereof, created a disaster that continues to plague the United States more than a quarter of a century later.
He took his cue from congressional leftists like Frank Church in the Senate and Ron Dellums and Carl Albert in the House, men who helped totally abandon any and all agreements with South Vietnam, allowing North Vietnam to take complete control of the country. Those leftists also stepped up to effectively hamstring the CIA.
By the time Carter was inaugurated, he was already looking ahead to building his own legacy based on the premise of establishing a progressive foreign-policy agenda aimed at creating a weakened United States.
Although he almost gave away most of the national military secrets to the Soviet Union with his foolhardy detente policy, his real gaffe was the disasters in the Middle East and Central America (to a lesser extent).
Most notably, just as Congress had done several years earlier, Carter abandoned his ally in Iran, the Shah, and welcomed the return of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The rest, as they say, is history as the so called democracy movement in Iran became the most brutal theocracy in the world in short order, which would later also become the leading exporter of Islamic terror while being only a heartbeat away from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This major failure in foreign policy, which in my opinion ranks along with Chamberlain's handling of the third Reich in the 1930s, also led to a complete collapse of any U.S. influence in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel.
Other notable failures of the Carter Administration were the Panama Canal debacle (gave it away in 1978), Nicaragua (stopped backing Somoza, allowing Ortega and his fellow Marxists to take over and export their ideology throughout the region), eventual collapses in Grenada and El Salvador, and abandoning Taiwan by unilaterally revoking the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan in exchange for rekindling relations with communist China among others.
Since leaving office in disgrace, Carter has been traveling the globe and giving moral support to many tyrants unfriendly to the U.S.
The total inadequacy of Carter's foreign policy has pretty much led to Carter being considered the worst president to have served in U.S. history.
At least until now.
The cases between what happened in Iran and what Obama is encouraging in Egypt are more the same than different, although what Obama is doing is worse.
Like Carter, Obama is anti-Semitic, although, considering the diatribes he listened to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, deliver during the 20 years he spent in Wright's church, and the fact that both his father and stepfather, and those like Saul Alinsky he allowed to influence him, Obama is probably considerably more anti-Semitic than is Carter.
Further, since his inauguration, Obama has demonstrated a total lack of foreign-policy knowledge, beginning with the earliest days of his tenure when he returned Churchill's bust from the Oval Office to the British, still one of our greatest allies, while presenting the Queen with some rather worthless CDs.
Then, maybe most notably, in 2009 he turned his back on the Iranian protesters who seemed to be at the verge of open rebellion against the theocracy. Undoubtedly one of the greatest missed opportunities in modern U.S. history.
Further, he has, on several trips to the Middle East, not only apologized for the United States but encouraged Islamic ascendancy, one of the problems currently facing Europe.
For all the hue and cry about establishing some sort of democratic government in the Middle East, it is worth remembering that, with the exception of Israel, there is no history of anything other than despotic control of the states in that area. There was no Locke, no Benjamin Franklin, no Thomas Jefferson, no Sam Adams in Middle East history to provide a basis upon which to build a democratic society. One could argue that there was Ataturk - a reasonable facsimile of our
What Obama is pushing for is elections in Egypt, elections which will probably result in the installation of Mohamed El Baradei and the Muslim Brotherhood as the new controlling interest in Egypt and neighboring countries. There will probably be no additional elections; Islam will likely continue to strengthen its control; and Obama will continue to attempt to push forward his radical progressive agenda.
The primary duty of any U.S. President is to look out for the U.S. interests overseas for national security sake - even if those interests lie with a friendly dictator. With progressive friends like Carter, Obama, et.al., who needs enemies!
The "old fool", as I like to refer to this disgrace of a man we had the misfortune of calling President for 4 long years, said on Tuesday: "I think the Muslim Brotherhood is not anything to be afraid of in the upcoming (Egyptian) political situation and the evolution I see as most likely. They will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and true democracy."
Yeah, I guess kind of like Iran when he turned his back on the Shah in 1979!
It is quite apparent that Mr. Carter has not paid any attention to the recent Pew Research Center polling of the Egyptian people. Any nation where substantial portions of the society see Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda positively while supporting suicide bombings, 85% of the people see Islam as a positive force in politics, 54% support gender seperation at work place, 77% support whippings and cutting of hands for theft, 82% support stoning for the crime of adultery, and 84% support the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion is not exactly ripe for Jeffersonian democracy.
Talk about delusional statements that are utterly divorced from reality! Mr. Carter apparently has no idea of, or admit to, the history as well as present philosophy of the Brotherhood. They are just as committed to Islamization of as much of the world as possible today as they were over 30 years ago when they murdered President Sadat or when they played a key role in creation of Al Qaeda. Since then, the Brotherhood has become more sophisticated and been trying to legitimize itself in the political arena - somewhat akin to the ruling AKP in Turkey. Their logo and their motto, however, say something completely contrary to what Carter and the current progressive U.S. leadership are claiming:
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!”
There are many sources, from Wikipedia to numerous blogs, where anyone who cares to educate themselves about this wolf in sheep's clothing called the Muslim Brotherhood can go.
So just how did this delusional former president of ours exactly torpedo U.S. interests over the years? Here is a brief but nevertheless devastating history of the Carter years.
When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for Watergate, it opened the door for the election of Jimmy Carter, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in American electoral history. At least until 2008.
Carter's foreign policy, or lack thereof, created a disaster that continues to plague the United States more than a quarter of a century later.
He took his cue from congressional leftists like Frank Church in the Senate and Ron Dellums and Carl Albert in the House, men who helped totally abandon any and all agreements with South Vietnam, allowing North Vietnam to take complete control of the country. Those leftists also stepped up to effectively hamstring the CIA.
By the time Carter was inaugurated, he was already looking ahead to building his own legacy based on the premise of establishing a progressive foreign-policy agenda aimed at creating a weakened United States.
Although he almost gave away most of the national military secrets to the Soviet Union with his foolhardy detente policy, his real gaffe was the disasters in the Middle East and Central America (to a lesser extent).
Most notably, just as Congress had done several years earlier, Carter abandoned his ally in Iran, the Shah, and welcomed the return of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The rest, as they say, is history as the so called democracy movement in Iran became the most brutal theocracy in the world in short order, which would later also become the leading exporter of Islamic terror while being only a heartbeat away from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This major failure in foreign policy, which in my opinion ranks along with Chamberlain's handling of the third Reich in the 1930s, also led to a complete collapse of any U.S. influence in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel.
Other notable failures of the Carter Administration were the Panama Canal debacle (gave it away in 1978), Nicaragua (stopped backing Somoza, allowing Ortega and his fellow Marxists to take over and export their ideology throughout the region), eventual collapses in Grenada and El Salvador, and abandoning Taiwan by unilaterally revoking the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan in exchange for rekindling relations with communist China among others.
Since leaving office in disgrace, Carter has been traveling the globe and giving moral support to many tyrants unfriendly to the U.S.
The total inadequacy of Carter's foreign policy has pretty much led to Carter being considered the worst president to have served in U.S. history.
At least until now.
The cases between what happened in Iran and what Obama is encouraging in Egypt are more the same than different, although what Obama is doing is worse.
Like Carter, Obama is anti-Semitic, although, considering the diatribes he listened to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, deliver during the 20 years he spent in Wright's church, and the fact that both his father and stepfather, and those like Saul Alinsky he allowed to influence him, Obama is probably considerably more anti-Semitic than is Carter.
Further, since his inauguration, Obama has demonstrated a total lack of foreign-policy knowledge, beginning with the earliest days of his tenure when he returned Churchill's bust from the Oval Office to the British, still one of our greatest allies, while presenting the Queen with some rather worthless CDs.
Then, maybe most notably, in 2009 he turned his back on the Iranian protesters who seemed to be at the verge of open rebellion against the theocracy. Undoubtedly one of the greatest missed opportunities in modern U.S. history.
Further, he has, on several trips to the Middle East, not only apologized for the United States but encouraged Islamic ascendancy, one of the problems currently facing Europe.
For all the hue and cry about establishing some sort of democratic government in the Middle East, it is worth remembering that, with the exception of Israel, there is no history of anything other than despotic control of the states in that area. There was no Locke, no Benjamin Franklin, no Thomas Jefferson, no Sam Adams in Middle East history to provide a basis upon which to build a democratic society. One could argue that there was Ataturk - a reasonable facsimile of our
What Obama is pushing for is elections in Egypt, elections which will probably result in the installation of Mohamed El Baradei and the Muslim Brotherhood as the new controlling interest in Egypt and neighboring countries. There will probably be no additional elections; Islam will likely continue to strengthen its control; and Obama will continue to attempt to push forward his radical progressive agenda.
The primary duty of any U.S. President is to look out for the U.S. interests overseas for national security sake - even if those interests lie with a friendly dictator. With progressive friends like Carter, Obama, et.al., who needs enemies!
Friday, February 18, 2011
Where Is The Media On G.M. Bonuses?
It happens almost on a daily basis. The media under-reports or simply ignores any story that will cast the Obama Administration or any Democrat - or for that matter any progressive cause like the labor unions - in a bad light. You know, like the multi-billion dollar Pigford scandal; the job killing deep water drilling moratorium that is based on falsified documents; the complete disregard for constitutional safeguards displayed in ignoring federal judge decisions against Obamacare, Net Neutrality, etc.; run-away, politicized DOJ that is mired in multiple serious scandals; ... on and on goes the list of what the main stream media will not cover because their cause - progressive liberalism - requires complete ignorance on the public's part and dishonesty on theirs.
It is happening again while the deafening silence from the media drown us.
General Motors in 2008 received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. TARP being the first of the giant government violations of the private sector – about which then President and capitalism assailant George W. Bush ridiculously said “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”
These multi-trillion dollar government money anvils – TARP, the 2009 alleged “stimulus,” Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, ad nauseum – have been repeatedly dropped on our collective economic heads.
Wonder why the national “recovery” has been so slow as to resemble non-existent? In large part because the private sector has been dragged into inertia by these serial Keynesian anchors.
Government Motors’ bailout was huge – $49.9 billion. They then got obnoxious and completely dishonest about it.
In April of last year, they paid for and copiously ran (again, with our money) a television advertisement in which then Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre asserted “We have repaid our government loan in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule.”
Well, no, they did not. They in fact paid only a tiny fraction thereof – and did so with other government money. It was a TARP money shuffle.
So fraudulent was Government Motors’ media-buy proclamation that there has been a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complaint filed against them.
As of November 16th – more than half a year after the “paid in full with interest” ad – Government Motors had only paid back $361 million.
Which takes us to now, and those overly generous bonuses.
GM plans to pay bonuses to most managers equal to 15 percent to 20 percent of their annual salary and as high as 50 percent to less than 1 percent of its 26,000 U.S. salaried employees, said one of the people, who asked not to be named revealing internal plans….
How’d you all do bonus-wise this past year? I mean – those of you fortunate enough to have a gig. Those 9+% of you who are unemployed – and the 17+% who either don’t have or don’t have enough of a gig – surely didn’t enjoy such largess.
Meanwhile, Government Motors is rolling in your dough, and sloshing it around as if it didn’t cost them anything. Well, they have a point there!
It is happening again while the deafening silence from the media drown us.
General Motors in 2008 received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. TARP being the first of the giant government violations of the private sector – about which then President and capitalism assailant George W. Bush ridiculously said “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”
These multi-trillion dollar government money anvils – TARP, the 2009 alleged “stimulus,” Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, ad nauseum – have been repeatedly dropped on our collective economic heads.
Wonder why the national “recovery” has been so slow as to resemble non-existent? In large part because the private sector has been dragged into inertia by these serial Keynesian anchors.
Government Motors’ bailout was huge – $49.9 billion. They then got obnoxious and completely dishonest about it.
In April of last year, they paid for and copiously ran (again, with our money) a television advertisement in which then Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre asserted “We have repaid our government loan in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule.”
Well, no, they did not. They in fact paid only a tiny fraction thereof – and did so with other government money. It was a TARP money shuffle.
So fraudulent was Government Motors’ media-buy proclamation that there has been a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complaint filed against them.
As of November 16th – more than half a year after the “paid in full with interest” ad – Government Motors had only paid back $361 million.
Which takes us to now, and those overly generous bonuses.
GM plans to pay bonuses to most managers equal to 15 percent to 20 percent of their annual salary and as high as 50 percent to less than 1 percent of its 26,000 U.S. salaried employees, said one of the people, who asked not to be named revealing internal plans….
How’d you all do bonus-wise this past year? I mean – those of you fortunate enough to have a gig. Those 9+% of you who are unemployed – and the 17+% who either don’t have or don’t have enough of a gig – surely didn’t enjoy such largess.
Meanwhile, Government Motors is rolling in your dough, and sloshing it around as if it didn’t cost them anything. Well, they have a point there!
Socialism's Trajectory
Following is an excellent article from the Patriot Post:
---
By Terence Jeffrey · Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Anyone who doubts the trend toward socialism is pushing America toward ruin should examine the historical tables President Obama published Monday along with his $3.7 trillion budget.
In fiscal 2011, according to these tables, the Department of Health and Human Services will spend $909.7 billion. In fiscal 1965, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion.
What about inflation? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator, $118.228 billion in 1965 dollars equals $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars. In real terms, the $909.7 billion HHS is spending this year is about $87.1 billion more than the entire federal government spent in 1965.
1965 was a key year in the advancement of socialism in the United States.
From 1776 until 1965, Americans generally did not rely on the federal government for health care unless they served in the military or worked in some other capacity for the federal government.
But in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care.
Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court correctly understood the Constitution to deny the federal government any power to create and operate social-welfare programs. The Constitution held no such enumerated power, and the 10th Amendment left powers not enumerated to the states and the people.
From George Washington's administration to Franklin Roosevelt's, Americans took care of themselves and their own communities without resorting to federal handouts.
FDR sought to change what he believed was an unrealistic reliance on families in American life.
He used the crisis of the Great Depression to pass the Social Security Act of 1935, compelling Americans to pay a payroll tax in return for the promise of a federal old-age pension. This was blatantly unconstitutional. That same year, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, the Supreme Court had justly slapped down a law mandating what amounted to a Social Security program for the railroad industry alone.
FDR attempted to defend the railroad pension law as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, justifiable under the Commerce Clause -- the same argument the Obama administration has used to defend the individual mandate in Obamacare.
The Court scoffed, suggesting that if the federal government could mandate a federal pension for railroad workers, the next thing it would do would be to mandate health care.
"The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is, in any just sense, a regulation of interstate transportation," the Court said answering FDR's argument. "If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attention and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry."
When Social Security went to the Court in 1937, FDR used a different strategy. He argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to levy taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," meant the federal government could do virtually anything it deemed in the "general welfare" of Americans even if it was otherwise outside the scope of the Constitution's other enumerated powers.
FDR's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause effectively rendered the rest of the Constitution meaningless.
To persuade the same court that ruled against him in the railroad case to rule for him in the Social Security case, FDR proposed the Judicial Reorganization Act. This would allow him to pack the court by appointing an additional justice for each sitting justice who had reached age 70 and six months and not retired.
Faced with a potential Democratic takeover of the court, and thus a federal government controlled entirely by FDR's allies, Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts flip-flopped from their position in the railroad case. They quietly voted in favor of Social Security and took the steam off FDR's court-packing plan.
That year, federal spending was 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, according to President Obama's historical tables.
When LBJ enacted Medicare and Medicaid -- and began fulfilling the court's prophecy in the 1935 railroad-pension case -- federal spending was 17.2 percent of GDP.
When George W. Bush expanded Medicare with a prescription drug benefit in 2003, federal spending was 19.7 percent of GDP.
This year, federal spending will be 25.3 percent of GDP.
In 2014, when Obamacare is scheduled to be fully implemented, HHS will become the first $1-trillion-per year federal agency. That year, Medicare and Medicaid will cost $557 billion and $352.1 billion respectively, or a combined $909.1 billion -- about what all of HHS costs this year.
In other words, when Obamacare is just getting started, Medicare and Medicaid will cost more than the $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars than the entire federal government cost in 1965 when LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.
---
By Terence Jeffrey · Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Anyone who doubts the trend toward socialism is pushing America toward ruin should examine the historical tables President Obama published Monday along with his $3.7 trillion budget.
In fiscal 2011, according to these tables, the Department of Health and Human Services will spend $909.7 billion. In fiscal 1965, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion.
What about inflation? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator, $118.228 billion in 1965 dollars equals $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars. In real terms, the $909.7 billion HHS is spending this year is about $87.1 billion more than the entire federal government spent in 1965.
1965 was a key year in the advancement of socialism in the United States.
From 1776 until 1965, Americans generally did not rely on the federal government for health care unless they served in the military or worked in some other capacity for the federal government.
But in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care.
Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court correctly understood the Constitution to deny the federal government any power to create and operate social-welfare programs. The Constitution held no such enumerated power, and the 10th Amendment left powers not enumerated to the states and the people.
From George Washington's administration to Franklin Roosevelt's, Americans took care of themselves and their own communities without resorting to federal handouts.
FDR sought to change what he believed was an unrealistic reliance on families in American life.
He used the crisis of the Great Depression to pass the Social Security Act of 1935, compelling Americans to pay a payroll tax in return for the promise of a federal old-age pension. This was blatantly unconstitutional. That same year, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, the Supreme Court had justly slapped down a law mandating what amounted to a Social Security program for the railroad industry alone.
FDR attempted to defend the railroad pension law as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, justifiable under the Commerce Clause -- the same argument the Obama administration has used to defend the individual mandate in Obamacare.
The Court scoffed, suggesting that if the federal government could mandate a federal pension for railroad workers, the next thing it would do would be to mandate health care.
"The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is, in any just sense, a regulation of interstate transportation," the Court said answering FDR's argument. "If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attention and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry."
When Social Security went to the Court in 1937, FDR used a different strategy. He argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to levy taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," meant the federal government could do virtually anything it deemed in the "general welfare" of Americans even if it was otherwise outside the scope of the Constitution's other enumerated powers.
FDR's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause effectively rendered the rest of the Constitution meaningless.
To persuade the same court that ruled against him in the railroad case to rule for him in the Social Security case, FDR proposed the Judicial Reorganization Act. This would allow him to pack the court by appointing an additional justice for each sitting justice who had reached age 70 and six months and not retired.
Faced with a potential Democratic takeover of the court, and thus a federal government controlled entirely by FDR's allies, Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts flip-flopped from their position in the railroad case. They quietly voted in favor of Social Security and took the steam off FDR's court-packing plan.
That year, federal spending was 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, according to President Obama's historical tables.
When LBJ enacted Medicare and Medicaid -- and began fulfilling the court's prophecy in the 1935 railroad-pension case -- federal spending was 17.2 percent of GDP.
When George W. Bush expanded Medicare with a prescription drug benefit in 2003, federal spending was 19.7 percent of GDP.
This year, federal spending will be 25.3 percent of GDP.
In 2014, when Obamacare is scheduled to be fully implemented, HHS will become the first $1-trillion-per year federal agency. That year, Medicare and Medicaid will cost $557 billion and $352.1 billion respectively, or a combined $909.1 billion -- about what all of HHS costs this year.
In other words, when Obamacare is just getting started, Medicare and Medicaid will cost more than the $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars than the entire federal government cost in 1965 when LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
NLRB Up To No Good
Union participation in the U.S. is thankfully low: around 13% of the labor force. But don't fret if you are a lefty. National Labor Relations Board, with its controversial Obama appointee at its helm, has been following the same blueprint as the Administration: transfer as much power as possible to its biggest supporters - the often communist labor unions.
NLRB is the mediation agency charged with interpreting and maintaining the fairness of unionizing efforts nationwide, and will soon decide whether or not labor unions will be allowed to break off different sections of workforces into small groups to organize five or 10 workers at a time instead of the whole workplace at once – or organize using “micro unions.”
The “micro unions” would essentially allow labor organizers to section off company employees by specific job descriptions. For example, if a union were trying to organize a restaurant staff, leaders would target servers, busboys, dishwashers, cooks and hostesses separately. This way, it would be much easier for unions to take control of workforces, piece by piece.
Current NLRB member Craig Becker, who was recess-appointed by President Barack Obama because he couldn’t get through a Senate confirmation and is currently re-nominated by Obama to the same spot, has advocated for this kind of micro union approach. Becker dissented from an NLRB decision last summer that determined it was too narrow for a union to try to organize just the poker dealers at a specific casino but not include dealers of other casino games. Becker wrote that, “the only question … is whether the proposed unit is an appropriate unit, not whether it is the most appropriate unit.”
To sum it up, NLRB is clearly no longer a mediation body but an outright advocate for the side of the unions.
America will not be safe as long as the radicals are in charge.
NLRB is the mediation agency charged with interpreting and maintaining the fairness of unionizing efforts nationwide, and will soon decide whether or not labor unions will be allowed to break off different sections of workforces into small groups to organize five or 10 workers at a time instead of the whole workplace at once – or organize using “micro unions.”
The “micro unions” would essentially allow labor organizers to section off company employees by specific job descriptions. For example, if a union were trying to organize a restaurant staff, leaders would target servers, busboys, dishwashers, cooks and hostesses separately. This way, it would be much easier for unions to take control of workforces, piece by piece.
Current NLRB member Craig Becker, who was recess-appointed by President Barack Obama because he couldn’t get through a Senate confirmation and is currently re-nominated by Obama to the same spot, has advocated for this kind of micro union approach. Becker dissented from an NLRB decision last summer that determined it was too narrow for a union to try to organize just the poker dealers at a specific casino but not include dealers of other casino games. Becker wrote that, “the only question … is whether the proposed unit is an appropriate unit, not whether it is the most appropriate unit.”
To sum it up, NLRB is clearly no longer a mediation body but an outright advocate for the side of the unions.
America will not be safe as long as the radicals are in charge.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
A Tipping Point Is Nearing
By Jeff T. Allen
American Thinker
We are facing a tipping point. There will soon be a crisis affecting US citizens beyond any experienced since the Great Depression. And it may happen within the year. This past week three awful developments put a dagger into the hope for a growth-led recovery, which held promise of possibly averting a debt and currency implosion crushing the American economy.
The first was a little-noticed, but tragic, series of events in the newly elected House of Representatives. The speaker, Mr. Boehner, had given the task of fashioning the majority's spending cut agenda to Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), a rising conservative star representing the vocal wing of fiscal conservatives in the House. Promising to cut $100 billion of government spending, Mr. Boehner spoke before the elections of the urgency to produce immediately when Republicans took control.
Out of a $3.8 trillion government spending agenda, the wonkish Mr. Ryan, considered by many to be the best hope for fiscal conservatives, revealed proposed cuts of a whopping $74 billion. After some tense meetings, (referred to as a "revolt" by some media) newly elected conservative congressmen convinced the leadership to commit to unspecified cuts of an additional $26 billion. The actual "cuts" from any such legislation will, of course, be less once the appropriate political log rolling and deal-making are done- let's call it $50 billion (while the deficit grows by $26 billion during the week it takes to discuss it). So go the hopes for serious spending restraint from our newly elected wave of rabid, anti-big government Republicans. They may deliver cuts 1.3% of total spending that is itself approximately 90% greater than collected taxes. Let's mark this spending reduction effort as an epic fail, at a time when epic success is almost required for survival.
The second awful development to occur last week was the employment report from the Labor Department, describing employment conditions in the U.S. economy in January, 2011. The report was packed with statistics, all pointing to anemic growth with a modest pickup in manufacturing employment. The little-noticed (not by the bond market) aspect of the report was the "benchmark" revisions, an attempt to get the total picture more accurate each year than simply adding up all the monthly change numbers. This year's benchmark revisions showed two alarming things: a decline from previously reported employment in December 2010 of nearly 500,000 jobs, and a reduction in the workforce of a similar amount.
Coupled with insistence from the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the Fed intended to continue "quantitative easing" (a euphemism for monetizing the bonded debt of the federal government), the employment data caused bond holders to assume there will be no end to the red ink. Ten-year U.S. bonds lost a full percent of their value, declining a total of 18% since Bernanke announced the acceleration of Fed policy in August 2010. The yield on these bonds has increased from an ultra-low 2.4% in August to 3.65% today, as the Fed repeatedly describes inflation in the U.S. as too low.
In context, a 3.7% yield does not appear high by historical standards. In our current predicament, however, it is heading toward Armageddon. If interest rates on our debt rise by 1% it means our interest payments rise by more than $100 billion dollars annually (not including the interest payments owed to the Social Security Trust Fund--see below). As global liquidity and deficit spending have accelerated, food and commodity prices have skyrocketed, sending many prices up 25-50% worldwide since August. In some countries (Tunisia and Egypt among them) rice prices and cooking oil have doubled. Copper is up 40% in that time. If global inflation expectations take hold with tenacity, as they have many times in past periods of "easy money" by our Fed and Congress, interest rates may easily rise to 5-6%, an event which will blow an additional $300-500 billion hole in a budget already beyond sanity. Can our creditors give the U.S. a nod on $2 trillion of new debt each year without any plan to fix it? Remember, there is plenty of past experience with U.S. debt yielding 7-8%, a potential expenditure on our current debt of nearly 100% of tax receipts to pay interest alone should yields go there.
The third development of the last week which received much less press than the Egyptian crisis is the "new normal" in Social Security. The CBO released a report disclosing that the net cash flow for the Social Security trust fund -- excluding interest received from the book entry bonds it holds in U.S. debt -- will be negative $56 billion in 2011, and for every year hence even more so. This is the train wreck that was supposed to happen in 2020. It is upon us now. Any limp action by conservatives to bring this program into solvency can be expected only to slow the raging river of red ink this behemoth program (along with its twin Godzilla, Medicare) spills on U.S. citizens. With no political will to fix them, these "entitlements" will obligate Americans to borrow more and more money from China--to honor promises we simply refuse to admit we can't keep.
So why do these developments argue for a crisis of Great Depression proportions? Because they speak unequivocally of our pathway to insolvency, and the potential of currency failure via hyperinflation, despite the hopes of conservatives and market participants to see a halt of such direction. Housing prices, the foundation of so much of private citizen debt loads, are destined for stagnation -- not inflation -- as the supply of homes is far greater than the demand -- 11% of the nation's homes stand empty today. When the world begins to recognize that there is no fix for America's borrowings, a fast and brutal exodus from our currency and bonds can send us a shock in mere weeks or months.
Unlike the Great Depression, however, we will enter such a shock in a weakened state, with few producers among us and record mountains of debt. More cataclysmic is the specter of inadequate food, as less than 4% of us farm, and those that do may cease to be as productive or may not accept devalued currency as payment, should the tipping point be crossed. Corn and wheat prices in the U.S. have nearly doubled in less than 12 months, using our rapidly evaporating currency as the medium of exchange.
The time for action has passed, which may only become apparent as the "aid" of easy money becomes seen as the harm that it is. May we all be spared the worst, but I offer no such prayers for those responsible. The harm that comes will be swifter, and more severe, than most of them thought possible.
American Thinker
We are facing a tipping point. There will soon be a crisis affecting US citizens beyond any experienced since the Great Depression. And it may happen within the year. This past week three awful developments put a dagger into the hope for a growth-led recovery, which held promise of possibly averting a debt and currency implosion crushing the American economy.
The first was a little-noticed, but tragic, series of events in the newly elected House of Representatives. The speaker, Mr. Boehner, had given the task of fashioning the majority's spending cut agenda to Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), a rising conservative star representing the vocal wing of fiscal conservatives in the House. Promising to cut $100 billion of government spending, Mr. Boehner spoke before the elections of the urgency to produce immediately when Republicans took control.
Out of a $3.8 trillion government spending agenda, the wonkish Mr. Ryan, considered by many to be the best hope for fiscal conservatives, revealed proposed cuts of a whopping $74 billion. After some tense meetings, (referred to as a "revolt" by some media) newly elected conservative congressmen convinced the leadership to commit to unspecified cuts of an additional $26 billion. The actual "cuts" from any such legislation will, of course, be less once the appropriate political log rolling and deal-making are done- let's call it $50 billion (while the deficit grows by $26 billion during the week it takes to discuss it). So go the hopes for serious spending restraint from our newly elected wave of rabid, anti-big government Republicans. They may deliver cuts 1.3% of total spending that is itself approximately 90% greater than collected taxes. Let's mark this spending reduction effort as an epic fail, at a time when epic success is almost required for survival.
The second awful development to occur last week was the employment report from the Labor Department, describing employment conditions in the U.S. economy in January, 2011. The report was packed with statistics, all pointing to anemic growth with a modest pickup in manufacturing employment. The little-noticed (not by the bond market) aspect of the report was the "benchmark" revisions, an attempt to get the total picture more accurate each year than simply adding up all the monthly change numbers. This year's benchmark revisions showed two alarming things: a decline from previously reported employment in December 2010 of nearly 500,000 jobs, and a reduction in the workforce of a similar amount.
Coupled with insistence from the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the Fed intended to continue "quantitative easing" (a euphemism for monetizing the bonded debt of the federal government), the employment data caused bond holders to assume there will be no end to the red ink. Ten-year U.S. bonds lost a full percent of their value, declining a total of 18% since Bernanke announced the acceleration of Fed policy in August 2010. The yield on these bonds has increased from an ultra-low 2.4% in August to 3.65% today, as the Fed repeatedly describes inflation in the U.S. as too low.
In context, a 3.7% yield does not appear high by historical standards. In our current predicament, however, it is heading toward Armageddon. If interest rates on our debt rise by 1% it means our interest payments rise by more than $100 billion dollars annually (not including the interest payments owed to the Social Security Trust Fund--see below). As global liquidity and deficit spending have accelerated, food and commodity prices have skyrocketed, sending many prices up 25-50% worldwide since August. In some countries (Tunisia and Egypt among them) rice prices and cooking oil have doubled. Copper is up 40% in that time. If global inflation expectations take hold with tenacity, as they have many times in past periods of "easy money" by our Fed and Congress, interest rates may easily rise to 5-6%, an event which will blow an additional $300-500 billion hole in a budget already beyond sanity. Can our creditors give the U.S. a nod on $2 trillion of new debt each year without any plan to fix it? Remember, there is plenty of past experience with U.S. debt yielding 7-8%, a potential expenditure on our current debt of nearly 100% of tax receipts to pay interest alone should yields go there.
The third development of the last week which received much less press than the Egyptian crisis is the "new normal" in Social Security. The CBO released a report disclosing that the net cash flow for the Social Security trust fund -- excluding interest received from the book entry bonds it holds in U.S. debt -- will be negative $56 billion in 2011, and for every year hence even more so. This is the train wreck that was supposed to happen in 2020. It is upon us now. Any limp action by conservatives to bring this program into solvency can be expected only to slow the raging river of red ink this behemoth program (along with its twin Godzilla, Medicare) spills on U.S. citizens. With no political will to fix them, these "entitlements" will obligate Americans to borrow more and more money from China--to honor promises we simply refuse to admit we can't keep.
So why do these developments argue for a crisis of Great Depression proportions? Because they speak unequivocally of our pathway to insolvency, and the potential of currency failure via hyperinflation, despite the hopes of conservatives and market participants to see a halt of such direction. Housing prices, the foundation of so much of private citizen debt loads, are destined for stagnation -- not inflation -- as the supply of homes is far greater than the demand -- 11% of the nation's homes stand empty today. When the world begins to recognize that there is no fix for America's borrowings, a fast and brutal exodus from our currency and bonds can send us a shock in mere weeks or months.
Unlike the Great Depression, however, we will enter such a shock in a weakened state, with few producers among us and record mountains of debt. More cataclysmic is the specter of inadequate food, as less than 4% of us farm, and those that do may cease to be as productive or may not accept devalued currency as payment, should the tipping point be crossed. Corn and wheat prices in the U.S. have nearly doubled in less than 12 months, using our rapidly evaporating currency as the medium of exchange.
The time for action has passed, which may only become apparent as the "aid" of easy money becomes seen as the harm that it is. May we all be spared the worst, but I offer no such prayers for those responsible. The harm that comes will be swifter, and more severe, than most of them thought possible.
Random Thoughts About Progressive Hypocrisy
When George Bush didn't shut down Gitmo, they called him a fascist. When Obama, after vowing countless times to close it, leaves it open, liberals think it's cute.
----
The same folks who were certain that the Patriot Act was treasonous under Bush see how essential it is under Obama.
---
When Bush mispronounced "nuclear" or Palin supposedly claimed she could see Russia on a clear day from her front porch, liberals carried on as if he had nuked London and she had broken wind on "The View," but when Obama refers to 57 states, trashes America's history and kowtows to Muslims, the Left could just eat him up with a spoon.
---
When Bush suggested that it might be a good idea if people chose to take control of their own Social Security investments, liberals accused him of trying to destroy America's senior citizens. However, when the President got Reid and Pelosi to use bribery and intimidation to coerce their colleagues into passing ObamaCare, which would leave the health care of seniors up to bureaucrats, the liberals broke out the balloons and party hats.
---
When Bush waged war in Iraq, the Left compared him to Hitler. However, when Obama wages war in Afghanistan, the Left gives him a pass, the L.A. Times doesn't keep a running count of how many American soldiers die fighting Obama's war and Gerry Trudeau doesn't devote "Doonesbury," allegedly a comic strip, to listing the names of the dead.
---
Now, I acknowledge that this is all supposition on my part. I have no actual proof that liberals are the end result of a laboratory experiment that's gone terribly wrong. But on the chance I'm right, I pray that someone somewhere is working day and night to come up with the antidote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The same folks who were certain that the Patriot Act was treasonous under Bush see how essential it is under Obama.
---
When Bush mispronounced "nuclear" or Palin supposedly claimed she could see Russia on a clear day from her front porch, liberals carried on as if he had nuked London and she had broken wind on "The View," but when Obama refers to 57 states, trashes America's history and kowtows to Muslims, the Left could just eat him up with a spoon.
---
When Bush suggested that it might be a good idea if people chose to take control of their own Social Security investments, liberals accused him of trying to destroy America's senior citizens. However, when the President got Reid and Pelosi to use bribery and intimidation to coerce their colleagues into passing ObamaCare, which would leave the health care of seniors up to bureaucrats, the liberals broke out the balloons and party hats.
---
When Bush waged war in Iraq, the Left compared him to Hitler. However, when Obama wages war in Afghanistan, the Left gives him a pass, the L.A. Times doesn't keep a running count of how many American soldiers die fighting Obama's war and Gerry Trudeau doesn't devote "Doonesbury," allegedly a comic strip, to listing the names of the dead.
---
Now, I acknowledge that this is all supposition on my part. I have no actual proof that liberals are the end result of a laboratory experiment that's gone terribly wrong. But on the chance I'm right, I pray that someone somewhere is working day and night to come up with the antidote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 11, 2011
CBO Director: Obamacare Will Cost 800,000 Jobs
Congressional Budget Office has the primary responsibility of scoring proposed legislative bills. Scoring, or costing, bills for the CBO is not a matter of common sense or anything like it. As a non-partisan entity, CBO must score the bill based on the assumptions handed to them - no matter how unrealistic - hence the explanation of cost overruns in nearly all government run programs.
Poor Doug Elmendorf. He is stuck between Democrats who are giving him fabricated Obamacare numbers to base his estimates on and his duty to give the Congress accurate information.
Yesterday, testifying before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf confirmed, once again, what any logical, thinking person has always known: Obamacare will cost upwards of 800,000 jobs if and when it is fully implemented despite the Democrats' allegations to the opposite.
In a related story, on the same day, President Obama's own healthcare officials refused to answer congressional inquiries about the impact of the healthcare law. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Director Dr. Donald Berwick and Chief Actuary Rick Foster testified before the Ways and Means Committee today to provide answers to pressing questions about the trillion dollar health care law. Dr. Berwick, having been in office eight months, had never testified before the Ways and Means Committee even though the committee oversees health care policy for the entire country. Chief Actuary Foster didn’t testify before the committee in the last Congress even though health care was being “debated.”
Please, view the videos on this link to see the evasiveness and deception we have become accustomed to from this Administration. The new site by the Heartland Institute on Don Berwick also documents his radical socialism.
Did you hear either of these news stories on the ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN last night? Nope. Why bother the American public with such trivial, useless information, right?
Poor Doug Elmendorf. He is stuck between Democrats who are giving him fabricated Obamacare numbers to base his estimates on and his duty to give the Congress accurate information.
Yesterday, testifying before the House Budget Committee, Elmendorf confirmed, once again, what any logical, thinking person has always known: Obamacare will cost upwards of 800,000 jobs if and when it is fully implemented despite the Democrats' allegations to the opposite.
In a related story, on the same day, President Obama's own healthcare officials refused to answer congressional inquiries about the impact of the healthcare law. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Director Dr. Donald Berwick and Chief Actuary Rick Foster testified before the Ways and Means Committee today to provide answers to pressing questions about the trillion dollar health care law. Dr. Berwick, having been in office eight months, had never testified before the Ways and Means Committee even though the committee oversees health care policy for the entire country. Chief Actuary Foster didn’t testify before the committee in the last Congress even though health care was being “debated.”
Please, view the videos on this link to see the evasiveness and deception we have become accustomed to from this Administration. The new site by the Heartland Institute on Don Berwick also documents his radical socialism.
Did you hear either of these news stories on the ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN last night? Nope. Why bother the American public with such trivial, useless information, right?
Some Random Thoughts
America did not become great by out-planning other nations, but by carefully avoiding central control. If we embrace government direction of the economy, we willingly surrender our greatest asset and confront our competitors on their own terms.
-----
Obama surrendered one of his strongest Mid-East allies within days of the Egyptian uprising. But that's the point. Why worry about foreign threats to America's way of life when the centerpiece of his presidency is the domestic dismantling of America's way of life? Push President Mubarak to abruptly step aside? Sure. Invite the Muslim Brotherhood to help form a new government? Why not? We've got high-speed rail to build!
-----
Reagan was often criticized as for his veneration of the Founders and previous American generations (not unlike today's tea party). When his detractors accused him of over-active nostalgia, Reagan responded, "I do not want to go back to the past; I want to go back to the past way of facing the future." If Americans can halt decline -- if halting decline is even possible -- it will be because we remember our roots and face the future as we faced the past.
-----
Just how bad is the unemployment picture? The latest employment reports have not been encouraging. At the rate of 36,000 new jobs a month-the number gained in January-we will never get back to full employment. Even if we keep adding jobs at the December rate of 121,000 new jobs, we wouldn't achieve full employment in this millennium.
The White House keeps hoping for monthly job gains of 250,000. But even gains of that magnitude-more than double the average gain last year- would not get America back to full employment until 2018.
-----
-----
Obama surrendered one of his strongest Mid-East allies within days of the Egyptian uprising. But that's the point. Why worry about foreign threats to America's way of life when the centerpiece of his presidency is the domestic dismantling of America's way of life? Push President Mubarak to abruptly step aside? Sure. Invite the Muslim Brotherhood to help form a new government? Why not? We've got high-speed rail to build!
-----
Reagan was often criticized as for his veneration of the Founders and previous American generations (not unlike today's tea party). When his detractors accused him of over-active nostalgia, Reagan responded, "I do not want to go back to the past; I want to go back to the past way of facing the future." If Americans can halt decline -- if halting decline is even possible -- it will be because we remember our roots and face the future as we faced the past.
-----
Just how bad is the unemployment picture? The latest employment reports have not been encouraging. At the rate of 36,000 new jobs a month-the number gained in January-we will never get back to full employment. Even if we keep adding jobs at the December rate of 121,000 new jobs, we wouldn't achieve full employment in this millennium.
The White House keeps hoping for monthly job gains of 250,000. But even gains of that magnitude-more than double the average gain last year- would not get America back to full employment until 2018.
-----
Obama's character was summed up in the O'Reilly interview. O'Reilly asks- "What is the most difficult part of being president?" Obama answers, " Living in a bubble," Living in a bubble, not being able to buy a pack of smokes? How about running wars, knowing parents are hearing of their sons death in the war. How about letters from people losing their homes? Good grief, this man is the epidemy of a self absorbed low life.
-----
Mr. Obama clearly is not stupid, so I advance the notion that he is malicious. I challenge anyone to adequately explain what emulates from the White House as a coherent strategy to right the ship of state; it is a far more logical conclusion that he and his entourage are hell-bent upon destroying the Constitutional Republic that we (nominally) have now and replace it with their own version of a socialist utopia, a utopia for those who are in charge, mind you, not for those who will slave to support it, each according to his ability.
-----
-----
Sadly True Quotes
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." -- Josef Stalin
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist 1944
Obama and his progressive Democrat predecessors have done a great job so far in fulfilling these prophecies.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist 1944
Obama and his progressive Democrat predecessors have done a great job so far in fulfilling these prophecies.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Marxist Quote Of The Week
"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line," -- President Obama to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
This just one day after he denied to O'Reilly that he is a redistributionist! It is amply obvious that this guy has absolutely no understanding of, or faith, in free markets.
At the very least, you would expect the President of the United States to be honest, like Howard Dean.
This just one day after he denied to O'Reilly that he is a redistributionist! It is amply obvious that this guy has absolutely no understanding of, or faith, in free markets.
At the very least, you would expect the President of the United States to be honest, like Howard Dean.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Comparing Obama To Reagan? LOL!
Perhaps in a foolish attempt to build Obama up, his media cronies along with the progressive elites have lately been describing Obama as being Reaganesque. The ammunition for that was provided by the President's late obsession with the greatest 20th century president we have had.
The comparison of Obama to Reagan is a farce. What Obama seems to respect, in particular, is Reagan's optimism, his ability to communicate with people and his popularity — which all seemed linked.
But our president would be wise to delve a bit deeper into his subject. He would find Reagan was successful not because of his personality — his well-known optimism, his ability to communicate — but because he had powerful conservative beliefs that resonated with Americans' own deeply held ideas of right and wrong.
That those beliefs turned out to be true is now a matter of historical fact, not of opinion. Obama shouldn't just copy Reagan the "great communicator" — he should copy his policies as well, which reflected his conservative philosophy. On that, the record is clear.
Today, Obama presides over a struggling economy marked by 9% unemployment — the 21st straight months its been at 9% or higher, the longest stretch since World War II. Though the economy now is technically expanding again for the first time since 2007, there's virtually no job growth. Since the economy left recession in June 2009, just 94,000 private-sector jobs have been created.
As bad as things are today, they were worse when Reagan entered office. The economy was in the worst downturn since the Depression and on its way to a second recession. Unemployment was poised to peak at 10.8%. In 1980, inflation averaged 13.5% year over year. The prime rate of interest stood at 20.5% as 1981 arrived. The economy was a shambles.
It was common at the time to think that the U.S. was in eclipse — that it would soon be overtaken by the USSR, or Japan, or even Europe. That may sound funny now, but it wasn't then.
Reagan emanated optimism. He did so because he believed — indeed, he knew — that his principles were the right ones. He believed in individual rights and responsibility, small but effective government, a strong defense and the rule of law.
Comparing how Reagan brought the economy roaring back with Obama's lack of success is instructive.
Faced with a recession that lasted 16 months, President Reagan did what nearly everyone — including most economists of the day — told him not to do: He slashed taxes.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 cut taxes across the board by 25%. It lowered the top marginal tax rate from 78% to 28%. It slashed capital gains tax rates from 28% to 20%.
As the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll noted, this was not a gimmick — it was a long-term plan, one Reagan knew would work. "The permanent recovery in employment, production and investment we seek won't come in a sharp, short spurt," Reagan said.
That wasn't all. Reagan also slashed spending. Inflation-adjusted, nondefense domestic outlays fell 9.7% in his first term. No other president can make that claim.
"Ronald Reagan sought — and won — more spending cuts than any modern president," wrote Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Reagan's biggest challenge early on were the unions. Today, unionization is just 13% of the work force. In Reagan's day, it was above 25%. Flexing their muscle, the air-traffic controllers threatened to shut the economy with an illegal strike. Reagan broke the union — and convinced the rest of America and the world that he was serious about changing things.
Reagan also substantially deregulated the economy — particularly energy. The result: lower costs, declining oil prices and a booming business sector.
Did it work? During Reagan's first term, unemployment fell from a peak of 10.8% to below 5% by the time he left office. During the 1980s, the Reagan boom economy created 19 million jobs.
As for the economy, real GDP rose 37% as inflation, once the scourge of the economy, steadily fell over the 1980s.
But didn't tax cuts starve the government of revenues? A total myth. Income tax revenues rose 54% from 1980 to 1989, 28% after inflation. Total tax revenues grew 99.4%.
How does this compare with Obama? Not only has he not cut spending, but through an $862 billion "stimulus" and $1 trillion in new health care spending, the budget has grown massively.
We face today the largest increase in spending since the New Deal. The federal deficit is expected to average — average — $1 trillion or more for the next decade, as spending explodes by an estimated 60%. Our public debt, now at $14 trillion, has already reached a ruinous 100% of GDP.
Deregulation? Today, the regulatory cost of government is estimated at $1.75 trillion a year and growing fast. We've never had more meddling in the daily affairs of business and people's lives than today — whether through ObamaCare or the finance overhaul or the EPA's power to regulate everything or the dozens of "czars" who control pieces of the economy.
Reagan, faced with economic stagnation and high inflation, stared down the unions. Obama has made them central to his coalition, throwing them subsidies, giving them the right to bully workers, and enriching them through the bailouts of GM and Chrysler.
President Obama has sought to raise taxes on "the rich" — a populist move that will in fact result in lower government revenues, less business formation and fewer jobs created. Reagan cut them.
While Obama extended tax cuts already in place for those in the bottom 95% of incomes, he hit Americans at all levels with a spate of new hidden taxes on everything from health care to energy. This is why our economy crawls, while the one Reagan built sprinted.
Government has never been bigger since World War II, consuming 26% of GDP. During the Reagan years, it averaged 19%.
In foreign policy, Reagan steadfastly backed anti-communist leaders where ever they were. Today, we turn our backs at friends in Israel, Honduras, Colombia, Poland, Czech Republic, and elsewhere while we embrace dictators in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, etc. The Obama Administartion has no coherent foreign policy that is consistent with our national interests.
Domestic policy that is related to national security? From making energy independence impossible by warring with oil companies to hundreds of pages of anti-business regulations, this administration seems more at war with the U.S. than any other insidious force in the world.
If you had to overlap one inept president's first term over the closest possible match, Obama's would virtually be identical with Jimmy Carter's. Carter was the only president who made me feel embarrassed to be an American. Obama has the same exact lack of executive abilities that Carter had but is twice as arrogant. Mr Obama, in that aspect, is far more Carteresque than anything else.
The comparison of Obama to Reagan is a farce. What Obama seems to respect, in particular, is Reagan's optimism, his ability to communicate with people and his popularity — which all seemed linked.
But our president would be wise to delve a bit deeper into his subject. He would find Reagan was successful not because of his personality — his well-known optimism, his ability to communicate — but because he had powerful conservative beliefs that resonated with Americans' own deeply held ideas of right and wrong.
That those beliefs turned out to be true is now a matter of historical fact, not of opinion. Obama shouldn't just copy Reagan the "great communicator" — he should copy his policies as well, which reflected his conservative philosophy. On that, the record is clear.
Today, Obama presides over a struggling economy marked by 9% unemployment — the 21st straight months its been at 9% or higher, the longest stretch since World War II. Though the economy now is technically expanding again for the first time since 2007, there's virtually no job growth. Since the economy left recession in June 2009, just 94,000 private-sector jobs have been created.
As bad as things are today, they were worse when Reagan entered office. The economy was in the worst downturn since the Depression and on its way to a second recession. Unemployment was poised to peak at 10.8%. In 1980, inflation averaged 13.5% year over year. The prime rate of interest stood at 20.5% as 1981 arrived. The economy was a shambles.
It was common at the time to think that the U.S. was in eclipse — that it would soon be overtaken by the USSR, or Japan, or even Europe. That may sound funny now, but it wasn't then.
Reagan emanated optimism. He did so because he believed — indeed, he knew — that his principles were the right ones. He believed in individual rights and responsibility, small but effective government, a strong defense and the rule of law.
Comparing how Reagan brought the economy roaring back with Obama's lack of success is instructive.
Faced with a recession that lasted 16 months, President Reagan did what nearly everyone — including most economists of the day — told him not to do: He slashed taxes.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 cut taxes across the board by 25%. It lowered the top marginal tax rate from 78% to 28%. It slashed capital gains tax rates from 28% to 20%.
As the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll noted, this was not a gimmick — it was a long-term plan, one Reagan knew would work. "The permanent recovery in employment, production and investment we seek won't come in a sharp, short spurt," Reagan said.
That wasn't all. Reagan also slashed spending. Inflation-adjusted, nondefense domestic outlays fell 9.7% in his first term. No other president can make that claim.
"Ronald Reagan sought — and won — more spending cuts than any modern president," wrote Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Reagan's biggest challenge early on were the unions. Today, unionization is just 13% of the work force. In Reagan's day, it was above 25%. Flexing their muscle, the air-traffic controllers threatened to shut the economy with an illegal strike. Reagan broke the union — and convinced the rest of America and the world that he was serious about changing things.
Reagan also substantially deregulated the economy — particularly energy. The result: lower costs, declining oil prices and a booming business sector.
Did it work? During Reagan's first term, unemployment fell from a peak of 10.8% to below 5% by the time he left office. During the 1980s, the Reagan boom economy created 19 million jobs.
As for the economy, real GDP rose 37% as inflation, once the scourge of the economy, steadily fell over the 1980s.
But didn't tax cuts starve the government of revenues? A total myth. Income tax revenues rose 54% from 1980 to 1989, 28% after inflation. Total tax revenues grew 99.4%.
How does this compare with Obama? Not only has he not cut spending, but through an $862 billion "stimulus" and $1 trillion in new health care spending, the budget has grown massively.
We face today the largest increase in spending since the New Deal. The federal deficit is expected to average — average — $1 trillion or more for the next decade, as spending explodes by an estimated 60%. Our public debt, now at $14 trillion, has already reached a ruinous 100% of GDP.
Deregulation? Today, the regulatory cost of government is estimated at $1.75 trillion a year and growing fast. We've never had more meddling in the daily affairs of business and people's lives than today — whether through ObamaCare or the finance overhaul or the EPA's power to regulate everything or the dozens of "czars" who control pieces of the economy.
Reagan, faced with economic stagnation and high inflation, stared down the unions. Obama has made them central to his coalition, throwing them subsidies, giving them the right to bully workers, and enriching them through the bailouts of GM and Chrysler.
President Obama has sought to raise taxes on "the rich" — a populist move that will in fact result in lower government revenues, less business formation and fewer jobs created. Reagan cut them.
While Obama extended tax cuts already in place for those in the bottom 95% of incomes, he hit Americans at all levels with a spate of new hidden taxes on everything from health care to energy. This is why our economy crawls, while the one Reagan built sprinted.
Government has never been bigger since World War II, consuming 26% of GDP. During the Reagan years, it averaged 19%.
In foreign policy, Reagan steadfastly backed anti-communist leaders where ever they were. Today, we turn our backs at friends in Israel, Honduras, Colombia, Poland, Czech Republic, and elsewhere while we embrace dictators in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran, etc. The Obama Administartion has no coherent foreign policy that is consistent with our national interests.
Domestic policy that is related to national security? From making energy independence impossible by warring with oil companies to hundreds of pages of anti-business regulations, this administration seems more at war with the U.S. than any other insidious force in the world.
If you had to overlap one inept president's first term over the closest possible match, Obama's would virtually be identical with Jimmy Carter's. Carter was the only president who made me feel embarrassed to be an American. Obama has the same exact lack of executive abilities that Carter had but is twice as arrogant. Mr Obama, in that aspect, is far more Carteresque than anything else.
Liar-In-Chief
President Obama told Bill O'Reilly several outright lies during an interview yesterday.
This obviously does not surprise any of us who do not solely rely on the MSM to get our news.
The only truth Obama uttered was that he "is the same guy" as he always was. Of course, this truth was uttered in the spirit of decieving the American public, but nevertheless, it was an undeniable truth. We know better that he did not shift to the center, nor was he ever a centrist (whatever that means). Obama is the same old socialist with Marxist dreams - the dreams of his father as we have gleened from his book with the same title.
Obama said that he was now focused on "how do we out-innovate, out-educate, out-build, out-compete the rest of the world". It sounds kind of disingenuous coming from a guy who does not believe in American exceptionalism!
The President also "absolutely" denied the charge that he was a dedicated progressive who is committed to income redistribution. He said: "I didn't raise taxes once, I lowered taxes over the last two years." Once again, we cannot help but be stunned by such outright lies. It is true that the federal income taxes have not gone back up (no thanks to any of the progressives in the Congress or the President), but there have been a myriad of new taxes, many of them resulting from Obamacare. Texas Congressman John Carter's web site is a good source for taxes that await us.
The President also said that he believed Obamacare would eventually be found constitutional and that it would save people money. You know, kind of like pretending that cutting half a trillion from Medicare when the system is faced with an incoming avelanche of seniors will actually save the program (without rationing services or cutting doctor payments).
Obama also added that wanting everyone to have health insurance is not being a socialist. Oh yes it is, Mr. President, if the cost is bourne by the taxpayers and not individuals.
Finally, he added "The longer I'm in this job, the more I enjoy it, the more optimistic I am about the American people, the more optimistic I am about this country" I wish we could say the same, Mr. President.
This obviously does not surprise any of us who do not solely rely on the MSM to get our news.
The only truth Obama uttered was that he "is the same guy" as he always was. Of course, this truth was uttered in the spirit of decieving the American public, but nevertheless, it was an undeniable truth. We know better that he did not shift to the center, nor was he ever a centrist (whatever that means). Obama is the same old socialist with Marxist dreams - the dreams of his father as we have gleened from his book with the same title.
Obama said that he was now focused on "how do we out-innovate, out-educate, out-build, out-compete the rest of the world". It sounds kind of disingenuous coming from a guy who does not believe in American exceptionalism!
The President also "absolutely" denied the charge that he was a dedicated progressive who is committed to income redistribution. He said: "I didn't raise taxes once, I lowered taxes over the last two years." Once again, we cannot help but be stunned by such outright lies. It is true that the federal income taxes have not gone back up (no thanks to any of the progressives in the Congress or the President), but there have been a myriad of new taxes, many of them resulting from Obamacare. Texas Congressman John Carter's web site is a good source for taxes that await us.
The President also said that he believed Obamacare would eventually be found constitutional and that it would save people money. You know, kind of like pretending that cutting half a trillion from Medicare when the system is faced with an incoming avelanche of seniors will actually save the program (without rationing services or cutting doctor payments).
Obama also added that wanting everyone to have health insurance is not being a socialist. Oh yes it is, Mr. President, if the cost is bourne by the taxpayers and not individuals.
Finally, he added "The longer I'm in this job, the more I enjoy it, the more optimistic I am about the American people, the more optimistic I am about this country" I wish we could say the same, Mr. President.
Just A Thought
Early in his term, Mr Obama was described as "Lincolnesque". Now he is described as "Reaganesque". Thank goodness we never had a Republican President named Burl. (Though it would be hard to surpress a smile and wink in light of the great showmanship and transparency of an elected fan dancer).
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Jeffrey Immelt: Crony Capitalist Extraordinaire
General Electric has come a long way from the days that Ronald Reagan was its spokesman and the company was renowned by its innovativeness and excellence in manufacturing. Back then, the company motto was "Progress is our most important product".
Fast forward a half century. Apparently, the present G.E. motto is more appropriate of the current regime's realities. CEO Immelt, the newly appointed pied-piper for the future for American industry, has said to the shareholders:
“The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also, an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”
For the last three years, Mr. Immelt has been in the vanguard for this new relationship between business and government, as a member of the Administration’s “Economic Recovery Advisory Panel”. You may remember my earlier primer on Mr. Immelt.
During the wild Congressional spending spree of the last couple of years, GE miraculously became the largest beneficiary of the government’s Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) bank bailout. Although GE did not initially qualify for TARP, the company’s $18 million annual investment in battalions of Washington DC lobbyists convinced Administration regulators to push that “reset” button and extend TARP guarantees and subsidies to GE. Public records demonstrate GE Capital, the company’s massive financing arm, pocketed $120 Billion in loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation at interest rates of less than 1% and snatched 25% of the entire $340 billion in subsidies from “Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program” (TLGP) rescue fund.
Unlike other highly regulated financial institutions that secured Federal back-stops, including Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase; GE was not required to curtail use of risky derivatives or pass the Fed’s liquidity “stress test” to qualify for taxpayer funding. GE was also exempted from new regulations restricting executive compensation at firms like AIG and Goldman Sachs. Mr. Immelt took advantage of GE’s special treatment to pick up $30.9 million in total compensation over the last three years, while GE shareholders suffered a catastrophic 46% loss as the company’s shares crumbled from $35 to $19.
Mr. Immelt took advantage the new “reset economy” to globally expand GE’s Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) unit to over 40,000 people in India. Its NBC television network funded a series called “Outsourced” to humorously showcase what happens to off-shored American jobs.
Here at home, Mr. Immelt rearranged GE’s affairs to virtually eliminate the stiff corporate taxes most other U.S. corporations will pay for government to be the “regulator; “industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner” for the benefit of GE. In 2009, G.E. paid an effective tax rate of less than 7% (compared to effective rates of low 30%s for all U.S. Oil companies that the Administration loves to villify)
Mr. Immelt financially expressed his appreciation for the Administration’s “interaction between government and business” by directing GE to invest heavily in its MSNBC 24 hour television news unit. Lead commentator, Keith Olbermann, who once donned a mask of Bill O’Reilly at the Television Critics’ Association in Hollywood and made a Nazi salute, received a hefty raise from $4 million to $7.5 million a year. His side-kick Chris Matthews, former Chief of Staff for legendary Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil, also stepped up to a $5 million annual contract.
This is the same Chris Matthews who stated on air that his job at MSNBC is to do everything he can to “help” President Obama succeed. Mr. Matthews added:
“Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something.’ I mean, in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”
The American people should be highly suspect of the intentions of Mr. Immelt as the national point person for jobs and competitiveness. The Obama Administration has bank-rolled GE’s continued transformation from a consistently profitable American manufacturer to a predominantly off-shored and spectacularly leveraged financial casino powered by taxpayer dollars. The Administration and Jeffrey Immelt have greatly benefitted from their Crony Capitalism relationship; the American people not so much.
America, you deserve the government you vote for. Time is fast running out on any hope of preserving the greatness of America. Wake up before it is too late.
Fast forward a half century. Apparently, the present G.E. motto is more appropriate of the current regime's realities. CEO Immelt, the newly appointed pied-piper for the future for American industry, has said to the shareholders:
“The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also, an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”
For the last three years, Mr. Immelt has been in the vanguard for this new relationship between business and government, as a member of the Administration’s “Economic Recovery Advisory Panel”. You may remember my earlier primer on Mr. Immelt.
During the wild Congressional spending spree of the last couple of years, GE miraculously became the largest beneficiary of the government’s Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) bank bailout. Although GE did not initially qualify for TARP, the company’s $18 million annual investment in battalions of Washington DC lobbyists convinced Administration regulators to push that “reset” button and extend TARP guarantees and subsidies to GE. Public records demonstrate GE Capital, the company’s massive financing arm, pocketed $120 Billion in loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation at interest rates of less than 1% and snatched 25% of the entire $340 billion in subsidies from “Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program” (TLGP) rescue fund.
Unlike other highly regulated financial institutions that secured Federal back-stops, including Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase; GE was not required to curtail use of risky derivatives or pass the Fed’s liquidity “stress test” to qualify for taxpayer funding. GE was also exempted from new regulations restricting executive compensation at firms like AIG and Goldman Sachs. Mr. Immelt took advantage of GE’s special treatment to pick up $30.9 million in total compensation over the last three years, while GE shareholders suffered a catastrophic 46% loss as the company’s shares crumbled from $35 to $19.
Mr. Immelt took advantage the new “reset economy” to globally expand GE’s Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) unit to over 40,000 people in India. Its NBC television network funded a series called “Outsourced” to humorously showcase what happens to off-shored American jobs.
Here at home, Mr. Immelt rearranged GE’s affairs to virtually eliminate the stiff corporate taxes most other U.S. corporations will pay for government to be the “regulator; “industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner” for the benefit of GE. In 2009, G.E. paid an effective tax rate of less than 7% (compared to effective rates of low 30%s for all U.S. Oil companies that the Administration loves to villify)
Mr. Immelt financially expressed his appreciation for the Administration’s “interaction between government and business” by directing GE to invest heavily in its MSNBC 24 hour television news unit. Lead commentator, Keith Olbermann, who once donned a mask of Bill O’Reilly at the Television Critics’ Association in Hollywood and made a Nazi salute, received a hefty raise from $4 million to $7.5 million a year. His side-kick Chris Matthews, former Chief of Staff for legendary Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil, also stepped up to a $5 million annual contract.
This is the same Chris Matthews who stated on air that his job at MSNBC is to do everything he can to “help” President Obama succeed. Mr. Matthews added:
“Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something.’ I mean, in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”
The American people should be highly suspect of the intentions of Mr. Immelt as the national point person for jobs and competitiveness. The Obama Administration has bank-rolled GE’s continued transformation from a consistently profitable American manufacturer to a predominantly off-shored and spectacularly leveraged financial casino powered by taxpayer dollars. The Administration and Jeffrey Immelt have greatly benefitted from their Crony Capitalism relationship; the American people not so much.
America, you deserve the government you vote for. Time is fast running out on any hope of preserving the greatness of America. Wake up before it is too late.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Evidence Of The Chilling Effect
As you may know, I am a periodic contributor to the American Thinker. American Thinker is a popular and highly acclaimed conservative/libertarian blog that publishes articles that are generally critical of progressive philosophy and governmental policies.
In the past, I had no problems getting my articles accepted by Thomas, who is the editor. This time around, however, my article on Constitutional Crisis was rejected because, in Thomas' words, I should not "throw bombast about sedition". When I agreed to take out incendiary words like sedition out, I was told that likening tyranny in Egypt to that of Obama Administration was a "stretch".
My first reaction was one of disappointment with Thomas and other editors of American Thinker, but I quickly realized that they too were starting to be more careful with how edgy the articles they select for publications are. The reason is simple. The Obama Administration is all about intimidation (Chicago style bare knuckle politics) - directly or indirectly. We have seen countless instances of this disgusting intimidation (which usually takes the form of being investigated by the IRS or being lied about in the media like in the case of Tucson shootings) over the past two years. Consider:
-Intimidation of the GM and Chrysler bond holders
-Intimidation of bank, pharmaceutical, oil, and insurance executives (using their union goons)
-Intimidation of states like Arizona just because they dare to uphold the rule of law when it does not
benefit progressive goals
-Intimidation of Tea Party activists (again using their union thugs) including Sarah Palin
-Intimidation of just about anyone else who is not promoting a progressive agenda through IRS and
other enforcement agencies that this bunch has turned in to their own squads of goons
.......on and on the list goes.....
I do not advocate violent overthrow of our government because we are Americans and I have full confidence in our citizens to peacefully dispose of the Obama Administration in less than two years. That said, I will keep on reading and contributing to the American Thinker, but I will not change my tone on this blog because, unlike American Thinker, I refuse to be intimidated by a bunch of criminals. Sometimes, one's principles and convictions are more important than what is expedient. Afterall, had our founding fathers let their convictions go by the wayside in the face of British intimidation, United States of America would be but a figment of imagination for those yearning for liberty.
In the past, I had no problems getting my articles accepted by Thomas, who is the editor. This time around, however, my article on Constitutional Crisis was rejected because, in Thomas' words, I should not "throw bombast about sedition". When I agreed to take out incendiary words like sedition out, I was told that likening tyranny in Egypt to that of Obama Administration was a "stretch".
My first reaction was one of disappointment with Thomas and other editors of American Thinker, but I quickly realized that they too were starting to be more careful with how edgy the articles they select for publications are. The reason is simple. The Obama Administration is all about intimidation (Chicago style bare knuckle politics) - directly or indirectly. We have seen countless instances of this disgusting intimidation (which usually takes the form of being investigated by the IRS or being lied about in the media like in the case of Tucson shootings) over the past two years. Consider:
-Intimidation of the GM and Chrysler bond holders
-Intimidation of bank, pharmaceutical, oil, and insurance executives (using their union goons)
-Intimidation of states like Arizona just because they dare to uphold the rule of law when it does not
benefit progressive goals
-Intimidation of Tea Party activists (again using their union thugs) including Sarah Palin
-Intimidation of just about anyone else who is not promoting a progressive agenda through IRS and
other enforcement agencies that this bunch has turned in to their own squads of goons
.......on and on the list goes.....
I do not advocate violent overthrow of our government because we are Americans and I have full confidence in our citizens to peacefully dispose of the Obama Administration in less than two years. That said, I will keep on reading and contributing to the American Thinker, but I will not change my tone on this blog because, unlike American Thinker, I refuse to be intimidated by a bunch of criminals. Sometimes, one's principles and convictions are more important than what is expedient. Afterall, had our founding fathers let their convictions go by the wayside in the face of British intimidation, United States of America would be but a figment of imagination for those yearning for liberty.
Happy Birthday President Reagan
"No man can well doubt the propriety of placing a president of the United States under the most solemn obligations to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution." --Joseph Story
And he did perform his solemn obligations -- so magnificently!
How different are today's Democrats from the days he used to be. We miss him sorely. May he rest in peace.
Friday, February 4, 2011
In Case You Forgot.........
My previous post on Constitutional Crisis lamented on the obvious disregard progressive leadership has for the Constitution of the United States.
This is a brief reminder to those of us with (very) short memories that ignoring Judge Vinson's ruling was not the first such trashing of our Constitution. Just less than two months ago, the Administration blatantly ignored previous court rulings and congressional refusal to impose Net Neutrality when the FCC commission voted 3-2 along party lines to impose it anyways through regulation. You can read all about this and related scandals including the Soros take over here.
Our constitutional model is in actuality very simple. We have three branches of federal government: the Executive Branch (President and his cabinet), the Legislature (the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate), and the Judiciary (the courts). The U.S. Constitution is set up as to provide a system of checks and balances for these branches of the federal government to effectively police each other. This system worked very well for the first 150 years of the union. However, starting in the early 1930s, when FDR stacked the high court with justices who shared his progressive vision, the green light was on for subversion of the constitutional system that would otherwise have never allowed progressivism to take hold in the U.S.
If you consider the progressive take-over of our public (as well as private at college level) education, media, and judicial (partially) system, which took almost 8 decades of deviancy and patient committment, you will undoubtedly realize that we have a lot of hard work ahead of us.
This is a brief reminder to those of us with (very) short memories that ignoring Judge Vinson's ruling was not the first such trashing of our Constitution. Just less than two months ago, the Administration blatantly ignored previous court rulings and congressional refusal to impose Net Neutrality when the FCC commission voted 3-2 along party lines to impose it anyways through regulation. You can read all about this and related scandals including the Soros take over here.
Our constitutional model is in actuality very simple. We have three branches of federal government: the Executive Branch (President and his cabinet), the Legislature (the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate), and the Judiciary (the courts). The U.S. Constitution is set up as to provide a system of checks and balances for these branches of the federal government to effectively police each other. This system worked very well for the first 150 years of the union. However, starting in the early 1930s, when FDR stacked the high court with justices who shared his progressive vision, the green light was on for subversion of the constitutional system that would otherwise have never allowed progressivism to take hold in the U.S.
If you consider the progressive take-over of our public (as well as private at college level) education, media, and judicial (partially) system, which took almost 8 decades of deviancy and patient committment, you will undoubtedly realize that we have a lot of hard work ahead of us.
Constitutional Crisis: When Will The American People Rise Up?
The people of Egypt have been making news for the past week with their rebellion against their regime that our not-ready-for-prime time President and Secretary of State have been fueling with their comments (which should tell you that our national interests are being undermined as we watch).
As I watched the events unfold in Egypt, I could not help but wonder what will it take for the Americans to rebel against our own government after the events of the past three days.
First, on Monday Judge Vinson ruled that the healthcare overhaul bill that became law of the land last year was, effectively in its entirety, unconstitutional. His 78 page opinion painstakingly detailed his reasons, with referrals to the founding documents including the Federalist papers (how dare he!). Although there have been four court rulings - two on each side - by far, this was the most complete and devastating blow to Obamacare. The judge's ruling went further, on page 75, to state that "the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" as the 26 states bringing the suit forward had requested.
At that point, as any ordinary law abiding American would imagine, the Administration should have dutifully halted its efforts to enforce this law which had just been invalidated just as the checks and balances built in to our system meant it to be. But no, this gangster government would have none of it. Various Administration officials, the D.O.J., as well as Secretary Sebelius (HHS) made statements that crystallized their intentions to cause a constitutional crisis of sorts by defying the judge's orders. The White House declared that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis".
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! One might wonder just what is "conventional constitutional analysis?". In this case, it is progressive speak for judicial activism - ruling based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law - which the Administration has accused Judge Vinson of. Yet, Judge Vinson is the only person here who has had the intellectual honesty to lay out his legal analysis based on what the Founding Fathers intended. Oh, the irony of progressives accusing an originalist with judicial activism!
Like it has been with any other previous case of subversion of the U.S. Constitution, progressives have avoided the available evidence of what the constitution's original intent is. The U.S. Constitution is like the quick guide to a complex piece of equipment. Without reading the full owner's manual, which in this case are the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers, one cannot possibly make true sense of it as the progressive elements of the society know well - thus their animosity towards our founding documents as a whole. Purposefully not reading the entirety of the Founding Documents has been the dirty secret of 80 years of progressive success in turning the single most brilliant constitution put together in to a living document with devastating impact on the traditional American way of life.
In the legal realm, Judge Vinson's ruling constitutes striking down of Obamacare until his decision is upheld or overturned on appeal. To compound the situation, the U.S. Senate voted yesterday 51-47, along party lines, to defeat the Republican bill (S-192) that would repeal the Democrat's healthcare overhaul. The vote came two days after Judge Vinson's order to cease and desist. So, now we effectively have the Senate Democrats joining, at least in spirit, the Administration in defying Judge Vinson's injunction.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said earlier in the week he hoped the vote would help Republicans get it out of their systems, called on Republicans to "set aside the battles of the past." In other words, according to the Democrats, the policy debate is largely over - I guess like the science on global warming being largely settled.
Comments like Senator Reid's or Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who called the Republican repeal effort "one more hollow, symbolic, pander-to-the-masses amendment", indicate the disdain progressive politicians have towards the citizenry as well as the U.S. Constitution. The Administration and senate Democrats' actions are a slap in the face of separation of powers provided by the U.S. Constitution and constitute outright sedition.
Democrats have baselessly accused the Tea Party and anyone else who do not agree with their progressive vision for America for too long now. While they have backed anti-American leaders in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and elsewhere, they turned their backs on friends in Honduras, Colombia, and Iranian protesters last year. While they whole heartedly back protesters led by the Muslim Brotherhood and a coalition of revolutionary leftists in Egypt and demand immediate response from their government, they have shunned and launched ad hominem attacks on Tea Party types - their own countrymen! And now, they are thumbing their nose at the U.S. Constitution by refusing to implement a federal judge's ruling. I ask you, who really is committing sedition?
Finally, I would like to add: Mr. President, you are quick to foolishly fan the flames of the civil unrest in Egypt, the outcome of which is almost surely to be a much worse alternative for the civilised world as it was in Iran of 1979. You expect immediate transition of power from the current regime to something no one can even imagine yet. You say that the Egyptian regime must yield to the will of its citizenry. I am asking, when will you yield to the will of your citizenry and conduct yourself within the bounds of our constitutional republic as set forth in our founding documents? When will you respect the separation of powers? Based on the answer, as your administration's actions indicate, maybe the better question is when will the American people finally rise up?
As I watched the events unfold in Egypt, I could not help but wonder what will it take for the Americans to rebel against our own government after the events of the past three days.
First, on Monday Judge Vinson ruled that the healthcare overhaul bill that became law of the land last year was, effectively in its entirety, unconstitutional. His 78 page opinion painstakingly detailed his reasons, with referrals to the founding documents including the Federalist papers (how dare he!). Although there have been four court rulings - two on each side - by far, this was the most complete and devastating blow to Obamacare. The judge's ruling went further, on page 75, to state that "the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction" as the 26 states bringing the suit forward had requested.
At that point, as any ordinary law abiding American would imagine, the Administration should have dutifully halted its efforts to enforce this law which had just been invalidated just as the checks and balances built in to our system meant it to be. But no, this gangster government would have none of it. Various Administration officials, the D.O.J., as well as Secretary Sebelius (HHS) made statements that crystallized their intentions to cause a constitutional crisis of sorts by defying the judge's orders. The White House declared that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis".
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! One might wonder just what is "conventional constitutional analysis?". In this case, it is progressive speak for judicial activism - ruling based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law - which the Administration has accused Judge Vinson of. Yet, Judge Vinson is the only person here who has had the intellectual honesty to lay out his legal analysis based on what the Founding Fathers intended. Oh, the irony of progressives accusing an originalist with judicial activism!
Like it has been with any other previous case of subversion of the U.S. Constitution, progressives have avoided the available evidence of what the constitution's original intent is. The U.S. Constitution is like the quick guide to a complex piece of equipment. Without reading the full owner's manual, which in this case are the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers, one cannot possibly make true sense of it as the progressive elements of the society know well - thus their animosity towards our founding documents as a whole. Purposefully not reading the entirety of the Founding Documents has been the dirty secret of 80 years of progressive success in turning the single most brilliant constitution put together in to a living document with devastating impact on the traditional American way of life.
In the legal realm, Judge Vinson's ruling constitutes striking down of Obamacare until his decision is upheld or overturned on appeal. To compound the situation, the U.S. Senate voted yesterday 51-47, along party lines, to defeat the Republican bill (S-192) that would repeal the Democrat's healthcare overhaul. The vote came two days after Judge Vinson's order to cease and desist. So, now we effectively have the Senate Democrats joining, at least in spirit, the Administration in defying Judge Vinson's injunction.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said earlier in the week he hoped the vote would help Republicans get it out of their systems, called on Republicans to "set aside the battles of the past." In other words, according to the Democrats, the policy debate is largely over - I guess like the science on global warming being largely settled.
Comments like Senator Reid's or Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who called the Republican repeal effort "one more hollow, symbolic, pander-to-the-masses amendment", indicate the disdain progressive politicians have towards the citizenry as well as the U.S. Constitution. The Administration and senate Democrats' actions are a slap in the face of separation of powers provided by the U.S. Constitution and constitute outright sedition.
Democrats have baselessly accused the Tea Party and anyone else who do not agree with their progressive vision for America for too long now. While they have backed anti-American leaders in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and elsewhere, they turned their backs on friends in Honduras, Colombia, and Iranian protesters last year. While they whole heartedly back protesters led by the Muslim Brotherhood and a coalition of revolutionary leftists in Egypt and demand immediate response from their government, they have shunned and launched ad hominem attacks on Tea Party types - their own countrymen! And now, they are thumbing their nose at the U.S. Constitution by refusing to implement a federal judge's ruling. I ask you, who really is committing sedition?
Finally, I would like to add: Mr. President, you are quick to foolishly fan the flames of the civil unrest in Egypt, the outcome of which is almost surely to be a much worse alternative for the civilised world as it was in Iran of 1979. You expect immediate transition of power from the current regime to something no one can even imagine yet. You say that the Egyptian regime must yield to the will of its citizenry. I am asking, when will you yield to the will of your citizenry and conduct yourself within the bounds of our constitutional republic as set forth in our founding documents? When will you respect the separation of powers? Based on the answer, as your administration's actions indicate, maybe the better question is when will the American people finally rise up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)