Those with sharper memories might remember how Obamacare passed in the Congress. The Stupak–Pitts Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2010 (AHCAA). It was submitted by Representatives Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA). Its stated purpose was to prohibit the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. It was adopted by the House but not included in the Senate version, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Many pro-choice representatives said they would oppose AHCAA with the Stupak-Pitts language and proposed to adopt PPACA. Stupak and several supporters said they would oppose PPACA without the amendment but withdrew their opposition after President Obama promised an executive order to bar such funding. Following the passage of Obamacare (PPACA), Obama eventually (and discreetly) signed the EO on March 24, 2010.
This issue should have been a non-issue since the Hyde Amendment is (a blatantly ignored) law of the land as it stands and it supposedly bans tax payer funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and/or danger to mom's life. Well, it was established in 2009 that Hyde Amendment did not apply where Obamacare is concerned, thus the reason for the EO that supposedly had the effect Stupak Amendment would have had.
Those of us who are up to the dishonest games that progressives play knew and warned that this EO would never stand. Executive orders may carry the weight of law but they are also easy to undo. Well, we were once again proven right.
Two days ago, the House of Representatives passed the Protect Life Act (HR358), a piece of legislation that bans federal funding of abortions. The bill was proposed exactly because saner minds in Congress knew that it has been this Administration's intention all along to fund abortions with taxpayer money as they do with their financial support (worth over $365 million tax dollars) of Planned Parenthood now. The bill passed with fifteen Democrats joining the majority Republicans. Even before the bill passed, our shameless President made it clear that if the bill reaches his desk, he will veto it because "H.R. 358 goes well beyond the safeguards found in current law and reinforced in the President’s Executive Order by restricting women’s private insurance choices".
Once again, the Administration deceitfulness is on full display for the public to see. Somehow, I doubt very much that many will take sufficient notice.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Dumb Quote of the Week
“People who make money with money are getting taxed at a far lower rate than people who make money by their own labor,” -- Warren Buffet (in an interview with CNN Money)
It goes to show that having made billions does not mean your intellectual capability is any higher than a logical thinker who ponders issues before sticking his foot in his mouth!
Mr. Buffet and other progressives out there: Once again, if anything, capital gains from equity transactions should not be taxed at all as in most of the developped world. Capital gains taxes on equity gains represent double taxation on capital formation. The reason is that they are taxed at corporate level. A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation.
Got it? I very much doubt it!
It goes to show that having made billions does not mean your intellectual capability is any higher than a logical thinker who ponders issues before sticking his foot in his mouth!
Mr. Buffet and other progressives out there: Once again, if anything, capital gains from equity transactions should not be taxed at all as in most of the developped world. Capital gains taxes on equity gains represent double taxation on capital formation. The reason is that they are taxed at corporate level. A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation.
Got it? I very much doubt it!
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The Sham That Is Obama's Jobs Council
The 27-member, Obama appointed Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is nothing short of a charade this administration is putting on to make believe that creating a healthy, job producing economy is their top priority. A little closer examination of this assembly of odd choices for such a council clarifies this statement to be true.
ABC News just published a story recounting what I and millions of other engaged citizens already knew. The Council is stacked with at least 15 Obama supporting executives some of whom are also bundlers of campaign contributions, net job cutters/exporters, and at least three comitted Marxists (to varying extents) that include two heads of labor unions and a Berkeley professor we all know. Moreover, the compensation of at least the corporate members of the council are mostly in the territory (as in eight figures) the Administration finds useful to criticize from time to time as being examples of greed and excess; - of course no one from the Council being mentioned.
Just as outrageously, some of the corporations represented on the Council are recipients of stimulus funds as well as bail outs in one form or another. Corporations like GE have paid no federal income taxes lately, recieved stimulus funds, and in return not only laid of thousands of employees here but carried operations to China and other countries. Several executives on Obama’s economic advisory board have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both.
The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (Jobs Council) was created to provide non-partisan advice to the President on continuing to strengthen the Nation's economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States and on ways to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.
You have to ask yourself some questions:
Why does the majority of the Council consists of major Obama supporters?
What are two Marxists labor union presidents and at least two others who are not pro business individuals doing on a council that is charged with finding ways to create jobs?
Why are there no oil company executives on the Council while the energy sector is represented by Next era Energy and G.E. and their green initiatives?
Why are there no members from small business groups like the NFIB or the Chamber of Commerce?
How about health insurance company representatives?
Well....the questions that you could think of are probably too numerous, but one thing is for sure: the track record of this sham of a council is not good; and why should it be considering that it is stacked with crony capitalists and left wing ideologues whose main, and probably only concern is to benefit their own causes.
ABC News just published a story recounting what I and millions of other engaged citizens already knew. The Council is stacked with at least 15 Obama supporting executives some of whom are also bundlers of campaign contributions, net job cutters/exporters, and at least three comitted Marxists (to varying extents) that include two heads of labor unions and a Berkeley professor we all know. Moreover, the compensation of at least the corporate members of the council are mostly in the territory (as in eight figures) the Administration finds useful to criticize from time to time as being examples of greed and excess; - of course no one from the Council being mentioned.
Just as outrageously, some of the corporations represented on the Council are recipients of stimulus funds as well as bail outs in one form or another. Corporations like GE have paid no federal income taxes lately, recieved stimulus funds, and in return not only laid of thousands of employees here but carried operations to China and other countries. Several executives on Obama’s economic advisory board have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both.
The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (Jobs Council) was created to provide non-partisan advice to the President on continuing to strengthen the Nation's economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States and on ways to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.
You have to ask yourself some questions:
Why does the majority of the Council consists of major Obama supporters?
What are two Marxists labor union presidents and at least two others who are not pro business individuals doing on a council that is charged with finding ways to create jobs?
Why are there no oil company executives on the Council while the energy sector is represented by Next era Energy and G.E. and their green initiatives?
Why are there no members from small business groups like the NFIB or the Chamber of Commerce?
How about health insurance company representatives?
Well....the questions that you could think of are probably too numerous, but one thing is for sure: the track record of this sham of a council is not good; and why should it be considering that it is stacked with crony capitalists and left wing ideologues whose main, and probably only concern is to benefit their own causes.
Monday, October 10, 2011
So Mr. President, Economists Agree, Eh?
The latest whopper to be added to the untruths uttered by the Liar-In-Chief came during this Saturday's Weekly Address to the nation. Obama, talking about his jobs bill in the Senate that his own majority party blocked last Thursday, said "...this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn here in America. This isn’t just my belief. This is what independent economists have said. Not just politicians. Not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and middle-class families all across America. But if we don’t act, the opposite will be true — there will be fewer jobs and weaker growth."
Oh, really Mr. President? It is a good thing I caught a glimpse of what economists think in a Bloomberg article ten days ago with a typically misleading heading for the left leaning rag that it is: Obama Jobs Plan Prevents 2012 Recession In Survey Of Economists. The article itself was of not much value to me as nothing much that left wing Bloomberg says ever impresses me, however the table showing the consensus of economists at the end of the article was very revealing:
Oh, really Mr. President? It is a good thing I caught a glimpse of what economists think in a Bloomberg article ten days ago with a typically misleading heading for the left leaning rag that it is: Obama Jobs Plan Prevents 2012 Recession In Survey Of Economists. The article itself was of not much value to me as nothing much that left wing Bloomberg says ever impresses me, however the table showing the consensus of economists at the end of the article was very revealing:
============================================================
Table of Forecasts
============================================================
GDP GDP Jobs (thous) UR Change
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
============================================================
Median 0.6 0.2 275 13 -0.2 -0.1
Count 34 30 28 28 28 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Eco 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
AIG 0.7 0.1 250 100 -0.5 -0.2
Aletti 0.4 0.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Anderson Eco 0.5 0.5 500 500 -0.5 n/a
BBVA 1.3 0.9 900 900 -0.8 -0.7
BNP Paribas 0.5 -0.3 500 -300 n/a n/a
Clearview Eco 0.8 0.8 750 750 -0.5 -0.5
DB 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Econoclast 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Euler Hermes 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Fact & Opinion 0.5 0.5 500 1,000 -0.1 -0.3
Faifield n/a n/a 300 200 -0.2 -0.3
Fannie Mae 0.7 0.0 500 0 0.0 0.0
Goldberg Inv n/a n/a 150 100 n/a n/a
Goldman Sachs 1.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Guerrilla 1.5 -1.0 200 0 -0.2 n/a
H. Johnson 0.2 0.3 25 45 0.2 0.2
JP Morgan 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
MacroEco 1.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
MacroFin 1.5 1.5 1,000 1,000 -1.0 -1.0
Manulife 1.5 0.5 2,000 700 -1.0 -0.3
Mizuho 0.2 0.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Moodys 2.0 1.0 1,000 0 -1.0 -0.4
NFIB 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Niagara 1.0 0.1 125 0 0.0 0.0
Nord 0.4 0.5 n/a n/a -0.2 -0.4
Parsanec 0.5 0.5 1,100 700 -1.0 -0.5
Pierpont 0.3 0.0 50 0 -0.2 0.0
Raymond James 0.3 0.2 350 25 -0.5 -0.1
SPSU 0.9 0.1 110 0 0.0 0.0
SocGen 1.7 0.8 1 1 -0.4 -0.2
State Street 1.2 -1.0 340 -370 -0.2 0.3
Standard Charter 1.0 0.5 600 300 0.0 0.0
Unicredit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
W Hummer 0.2 0.2 150 200 -0.1 -0.1
J Forest 1.0 1.0 n/a n/a -1.0 -0.5
============================================================
Table of Forecasts
============================================================
GDP GDP Jobs (thous) UR Change
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
============================================================
Median 0.6 0.2 275 13 -0.2 -0.1
Count 34 30 28 28 28 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Eco 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
AIG 0.7 0.1 250 100 -0.5 -0.2
Aletti 0.4 0.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Anderson Eco 0.5 0.5 500 500 -0.5 n/a
BBVA 1.3 0.9 900 900 -0.8 -0.7
BNP Paribas 0.5 -0.3 500 -300 n/a n/a
Clearview Eco 0.8 0.8 750 750 -0.5 -0.5
DB 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Econoclast 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Euler Hermes 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Fact & Opinion 0.5 0.5 500 1,000 -0.1 -0.3
Faifield n/a n/a 300 200 -0.2 -0.3
Fannie Mae 0.7 0.0 500 0 0.0 0.0
Goldberg Inv n/a n/a 150 100 n/a n/a
Goldman Sachs 1.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Guerrilla 1.5 -1.0 200 0 -0.2 n/a
H. Johnson 0.2 0.3 25 45 0.2 0.2
JP Morgan 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
MacroEco 1.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
MacroFin 1.5 1.5 1,000 1,000 -1.0 -1.0
Manulife 1.5 0.5 2,000 700 -1.0 -0.3
Mizuho 0.2 0.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Moodys 2.0 1.0 1,000 0 -1.0 -0.4
NFIB 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
Niagara 1.0 0.1 125 0 0.0 0.0
Nord 0.4 0.5 n/a n/a -0.2 -0.4
Parsanec 0.5 0.5 1,100 700 -1.0 -0.5
Pierpont 0.3 0.0 50 0 -0.2 0.0
Raymond James 0.3 0.2 350 25 -0.5 -0.1
SPSU 0.9 0.1 110 0 0.0 0.0
SocGen 1.7 0.8 1 1 -0.4 -0.2
State Street 1.2 -1.0 340 -370 -0.2 0.3
Standard Charter 1.0 0.5 600 300 0.0 0.0
Unicredit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
W Hummer 0.2 0.2 150 200 -0.1 -0.1
J Forest 1.0 1.0 n/a n/a -1.0 -0.5
============================================================
Let's see.....
The administration estimates that the bill will create about 1.9 million jobs. With the exception of a few economists who have enough integrity not to venture a wild assed guess based on faulty (because you cannot model human behavior, especially when the administration in charge is actively destroying the free market system) econometric models, the range of estimates for what the nearly half a trillion dollar bill would create in the way of jobs is huge: from job losses of 30,000 to job gains of 2.7 million. The median estimate of new jobs estimates is 288,000 over two years at an approximate cost of quarter of a million dollars per job! Even if those jobs were created, stimulus can at best create temporary jobs that are hugely expensive - not the productive type that free markets create.
With wildly varying estimates, I don't know about you but that is no consensus in my book.
While at the subject of jobs, the Labor Department reported that there were 108,000 newly created jobs in September. Exactly 28 years ago, a year after the deep 1982 recession, economy added 1.1 million jobs in September 1983. The difference between then and now isn't the magnitude of the recessions but the policies the U.S. pursued to restore growth. Under Reagan, tax rates were cut, loopholes were closed, regulations were eased, and government was in retreat. Today, we've had a spending and regulatory boom, the threat of higher tax rates, and a hostile, antibusiness political climate. Policies have consequences, Mr. President.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Mr. Obama, You Are No President Reagan; - Not Even In His Worst Day!
Is there anyone left in America who is not getting sick and tired of the President's distortions and otherwise outright lies, and the media's complicity in covering them up? The latest whopper told by our pathologically deceitful President is that Reagan was also a class warrior by today's Republican standards:
The guy is such a serial liar that he cannot even stop himself from telling an obvious whopper that even a child with access to internet could check for accuracy. No Mr. President, federal income taxes aren't lower today than at any point during Reagan's presidency as you shamelessly claim. If you had an ounce of honesty (or competency) you would know and admit that the top individual tax rate in 1988-9 was 28% as opposed to 35% today. Reagan was no class warrior. He agreed to reforming the tax code by reducing individual tax rates and eliminating loopholes that made taxes fairer. Neither Reagan nor anyone who follows his philosophy today advocates such unfairness as to anyone not paying their share of taxes, whether we agree with the amount or not!
Just how different are you? Let me count some of the ways....
Reagan understood and passionately spoke about the difference between the natural compassion inherent in conservatism and the poverty of soul that socialism brings. He knew it was a time for choosing.
He understood what being an American meant. He inspired a deeply demoralized country and touted the exceptionalism of America in his deeply moving speeches. His optimism and his pride in America was infectious.
He foresaw the destructive power of government, be it through socialized healthcare or run away welfare society programs unleashed on America by the so-called war on poverty that robs people of their dignity, therefore the human spirit.
He restored honor and respect that was lost due to the weakness of President Carter's foreign policy. Ronald Reagan’s achievements and legacy and his message of freedom, hope and opportunity throughout the world once again cemented America's image as the shining city on the hill that should be emulated by all countries.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women," he told the nation and the world in his 1981 inaugural speech. With that, he set off to inspire freedom from oppression across the globe and with dogged determination, he helped bring them the most precious gift any oppressed people can hope for - liberty!
He presided over two presidential terms during which the nation prospered and 18 million jobs were created despite a Fed triggered lengthy and deep recession in 1982 to stamp out inflation. All thanks to supply side policies that lowered tax rates, closed loopholes, and reduced unnecessary regulations despite a fiercely hostile congress at times.
He was a truly gifted orator who appealed to people's strength of character and reignited their pride and sense of self-worth. He was a moralizer and the most inspiring President in the 20th century, bar none.
The current, disgustingly dishonest, occupier of the White House could not even remotely begin to dream about such a noble legacy!
Farewell. May you rest in peace, President Reagan. We owe you our deepest gratitude for your foresight, leadership, and inspiration. In case you are looking down at our sorry state of affairs, I know you are smiling being the eternal optimist that you were.
The guy is such a serial liar that he cannot even stop himself from telling an obvious whopper that even a child with access to internet could check for accuracy. No Mr. President, federal income taxes aren't lower today than at any point during Reagan's presidency as you shamelessly claim. If you had an ounce of honesty (or competency) you would know and admit that the top individual tax rate in 1988-9 was 28% as opposed to 35% today. Reagan was no class warrior. He agreed to reforming the tax code by reducing individual tax rates and eliminating loopholes that made taxes fairer. Neither Reagan nor anyone who follows his philosophy today advocates such unfairness as to anyone not paying their share of taxes, whether we agree with the amount or not!
Just how different are you? Let me count some of the ways....
Reagan understood and passionately spoke about the difference between the natural compassion inherent in conservatism and the poverty of soul that socialism brings. He knew it was a time for choosing.
He understood what being an American meant. He inspired a deeply demoralized country and touted the exceptionalism of America in his deeply moving speeches. His optimism and his pride in America was infectious.
He foresaw the destructive power of government, be it through socialized healthcare or run away welfare society programs unleashed on America by the so-called war on poverty that robs people of their dignity, therefore the human spirit.
He restored honor and respect that was lost due to the weakness of President Carter's foreign policy. Ronald Reagan’s achievements and legacy and his message of freedom, hope and opportunity throughout the world once again cemented America's image as the shining city on the hill that should be emulated by all countries.
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women," he told the nation and the world in his 1981 inaugural speech. With that, he set off to inspire freedom from oppression across the globe and with dogged determination, he helped bring them the most precious gift any oppressed people can hope for - liberty!
He presided over two presidential terms during which the nation prospered and 18 million jobs were created despite a Fed triggered lengthy and deep recession in 1982 to stamp out inflation. All thanks to supply side policies that lowered tax rates, closed loopholes, and reduced unnecessary regulations despite a fiercely hostile congress at times.
He was a truly gifted orator who appealed to people's strength of character and reignited their pride and sense of self-worth. He was a moralizer and the most inspiring President in the 20th century, bar none.
The current, disgustingly dishonest, occupier of the White House could not even remotely begin to dream about such a noble legacy!
Farewell. May you rest in peace, President Reagan. We owe you our deepest gratitude for your foresight, leadership, and inspiration. In case you are looking down at our sorry state of affairs, I know you are smiling being the eternal optimist that you were.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
AGW Falling On Hard Times
Man made global warming scam is an interesting study in how a small group of scientists can create the illusion of representing scientific consensus where there obviously is none. The Alinskyite tactics of smearing the other side, while doing exactly what you are smearing them for, works well enough for any leftist cause you might think of. The President and his gang do it all the time in relation to who is destroying the economy. Unions do it. Human rights, animal rights....... you name the group - they all invariably adhere to tactics favored by the collectivist left all over the world ever since the 19th century.
Case after case the warmists are either proven to be wrong or discovered to be conspiring to manufacture data that support their position. It has gotten so bad that, the so-called consensus has been breaking for the past several years. Scientist after scientist are disavowing the fake "consensus" position that man is primarily responsible for global warming, and joining the thousands of climate scientists around the globe in pointing out the scam that AGW is.
The following by Steven Goddard of Real Science sums up the latest developments in the car wreck AGW movement has become:
Case after case the warmists are either proven to be wrong or discovered to be conspiring to manufacture data that support their position. It has gotten so bad that, the so-called consensus has been breaking for the past several years. Scientist after scientist are disavowing the fake "consensus" position that man is primarily responsible for global warming, and joining the thousands of climate scientists around the globe in pointing out the scam that AGW is.
The following by Steven Goddard of Real Science sums up the latest developments in the car wreck AGW movement has become:
HadCrut acknowledges that temperatures have declined this millennium. NASA acknowledges that sea level has declined for the past two years. NSIDC acknowledges that multi-year Arctic sea ice has been increasing since 2008. Cryosphere Today acknowledges that Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for 30 years. Rutgers Global Snow Lab acknowledges that winter snow is increasing. Trenberth can’t find the missing heat. ENSO has gone negative. US hurricane strikes are at historically low levels. ACE is at historically low levels. Severe tornadoes are on the decline.
The global warming religion has nothing legitimate to hold on to, so the high priests are now trying to convince people that bad weather never used to happen. The old white males who run this religion complain that old white males are against them.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Outstanding Video: Obama Presidency By The Numbers
Good thing they did just the economic highlights. Had they undertaken the hypocrisies, lies, scandals, and failures otherwise, the video would have to be a mini series several hours long! Enjoy.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Latest News Headlines You Will Never See on the MSM
There is a damned good reason why your (and my) progressive friends know nothing about the depth of scandals Obama Administration is mired in: Almost none of it is reported on the MSM (with the exception of Solyndra on ABC; which by the way is totally ignored by NBC, MSNBC, CBS, etc.)
Although I have given up informing these useful idiots because of their propensity to call me a conspiracy buff who listens to FNC entirely too much, here it goes:
Although I have given up informing these useful idiots because of their propensity to call me a conspiracy buff who listens to FNC entirely too much, here it goes:
- Wonder why the Holder and the DOJ dropped their open and shut voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party? Here is his boss at a NBPP rally in Selma, AL in 2007. Got it? Try and distance himself as he might (as he has attempted with every controversial person/group such as ACORN, NBPP, Rev. Wright, and too many others to list), these people are like his shadow; there is no escaping them other than escaping the sunlight (metaphor for transparency).
- Regarding another under-reported scandal - Operation Fast and Furious -, the Administration has steadfastly denied knowledge of the operation. According to document dumps, this denial is also another one of the long list of Obama Administration lies. I am still sticking to my conviction that this was nothing other than providing an opening for restricting second amendment rights in the U.S. - you know, creating a crisis to exploit as this Administration has expertise in.
- On Solyndra front, as I blogged earlier, this is just the tip of an iceberg I call Solargate. In related latest news, now a geothermal plant that our taxpayer dollars backed is seemingly going the way of the Dodo. If that is not enough, the Department of Energy, under kooky Dr. Chu, has slipped new loan guaranties totalling over $5billion before the fiscal year ended on Friday. I am going to have to rename this scandal Green Energygate. This seems to be a gift that keeps on giving!
- On the environmental front, the past week witnessed the highly critical EPA's Inspector General report on the agency's approach to preparation of its landmark 2009 “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, instance of peer review related scandals that mar the climate fraudsters.
- Also disclosed today was man made global warming (AGW) NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen's sources of outside income. Dr. Hansen raked in over a million dollars last year from different activities promoting AGW. He admits this income began after he escalated his public – and often political – global warming advocacy, for which outside parties have spectacularly rewarded him. Ethics anyone? By the way, this is the same charlatan who wrote to Obama regarding using global warming to redistribute wealth, has been arrested multiple times protesting with the fringe elements of the movement, and has been caught on more than one occasion falsifying temperature data. Yeah, some scientist!
- On a lighter note, guess who tipped off the AP reporter on Michelle's shopping trip to Target with the common people? You got it, the White House. Come on people, have some sympathy! It is difficult to keep an image of fighting for the people when you are busy at $35,000 a plate campaign fund raisers, wearing $40K bracelets, $11K earrings, and $500 loafers; that is when you are not travelling on lavish vacations at a (so far this year) total tax payer cost of over $10 million! Poor Mooch.
The Buffet Rule and Other Fiscal Fallacies (Updated)
What happens when you team up a crony capitalist with a Marxist radical? You apparently end up with a fallacy and a deception. Isn't it amazing how fast we've gone from "last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession" to "rich must pay their fair share"?!
The latest "code word" to be introduced to our lexicon a couple of weeks ago was one with the sole purpose of shoring up support for the President within his own base. Make no mistake, the so-called Buffet Rule, named after the hypocritical crony billionaire Warren Buffet, is the Administration's latest attempt to incite class warfare. After all, class warfare is all that is left for this radical administration to hang their 2012 hopes on. Their hope is that pitting the society against each other will wipe the memory slate clean come election time. Once again, their political calculus is way off target. Infact, if it wasn't for miscalculating, they wouldn't be calculating at all!
The whole premise that the rich do not pay their fair share (or for that matter the premise that tax increases as a rule increase revenues to the government) is a ruse. It is an outright, boldfaced lie that is often repeated by progressives with the hope that enough sheeple will take it on its face value. It is an easily demonstrable fib at that, which I will do at a later post as the purpose of this one is to point out the hypocrisy and possible crony shenanigans being played out. For now, be it suffice to state that each higher income quartile pays a greater percentage of total taxes than the income they earned.
As we have heard over and over again from the so-called oracle of Omaha, the rich in this country are not paying their fair share. Mr Buffet holds himself up as the example of how ordinary working people pay higher tax rates than he does. The fact that Mr. Buffet makes his billions through capital gains, thus paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary has nothing to do with the bigger issue of tax fairness. It is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges in a pathetic attempt to create a fallacy.
The wholly separate issue of capital gains rates, according to the left being as low as they are, needs to be confronted by proponents of true tax fairness and free markets. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate for excellent reasons. They are:
Mr. Buffet portrays himself as a modest man who lives in the same small house he bought decades ago. Little publicized are the facts that he owns a multi-million dollar vacation home in California and a $10 million private jet.
Mr Buffet and his company, Berkshire Hathaway, owes the IRS over a billion dollars which they have been litigating over for almost a decade.
Mr. Buffet is heavily invested in the life insurance business. As such, he has been lobbying the Administration hard to do away with estate tax exemptions. Without the exemptions, his life insurance companies stand to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars over the long term.
Furthermore, hypocrisy of Buffet screams the loudest as it relates to his wealth. He has given most of it to the Gates Foundation, thus avoiding federal estate taxes (as has Bill Gates). If estate taxes should be retained, why avoid them? Enough said about Warren.
When it comes to taxation, Washington works in mysterious ways. Many of your utility bills, for example, are adorned with taxes which were supposed to be "temporary" but somehow outlived the events they were imposed for. Another great example is the AMT.
The AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was introduced in to the tax code in 1970 as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 by Democrats just because there were 155 individual income tax returns showing incomes of over $200,000 and no tax liability thanks to tax loopholes. You would think that smart governance would have reformed the tax code to make it flatter, fairer, and simpler; but not when lawyers run Washington! Today, AMT affects over 4 million tax filers because AMT exemption, unlike regular income tax items, is not indexed to inflation.
In the name of fairness, the Democrat congress passed the AMT that now touches millions of Americans' lives, and even though the congress expresses its dismay over it, nothing changes.
In other words, when politicians tell you that a particular tax is temporary, or it is earmarked for paying down the debt, do not believe them! Handing Washington money and hoping they will do the responsible thing is akin to asking a drug addict to safe keep your marijuana stash.
This is so wrong on so many levels that it boggles the rational mind. What does cutting the deficit have to do with the rich paying their fair share? It is akin to blaming one's household budget shortfall on their income rather than their spending habits. It is the height of irresponsibility. No Mr. President, those who need to pay their fair share are the 45% of income earners who pay zero federal income taxes. In other words, those whom you and your party's ideology pander to.
--
Update:
Well, moving forward less than a week after the announcement of the Buffet Rule, Warren has apparently "not read the bill". In an interview last Thursday, he openly disagreed with the President's plan to tax ordinary millionaires at a higher rate. It seems that to Warren, rich means those earning over $50 million per year - not $250,000. Well, well..... now look who the useful idiot is! I hope he enjoys his name on the "rule"; actually he is in luck as the bill stands just about as much chance as that of a snowball in hell thanks to the Republicans.
The latest "code word" to be introduced to our lexicon a couple of weeks ago was one with the sole purpose of shoring up support for the President within his own base. Make no mistake, the so-called Buffet Rule, named after the hypocritical crony billionaire Warren Buffet, is the Administration's latest attempt to incite class warfare. After all, class warfare is all that is left for this radical administration to hang their 2012 hopes on. Their hope is that pitting the society against each other will wipe the memory slate clean come election time. Once again, their political calculus is way off target. Infact, if it wasn't for miscalculating, they wouldn't be calculating at all!
The whole premise that the rich do not pay their fair share (or for that matter the premise that tax increases as a rule increase revenues to the government) is a ruse. It is an outright, boldfaced lie that is often repeated by progressives with the hope that enough sheeple will take it on its face value. It is an easily demonstrable fib at that, which I will do at a later post as the purpose of this one is to point out the hypocrisy and possible crony shenanigans being played out. For now, be it suffice to state that each higher income quartile pays a greater percentage of total taxes than the income they earned.
As we have heard over and over again from the so-called oracle of Omaha, the rich in this country are not paying their fair share. Mr Buffet holds himself up as the example of how ordinary working people pay higher tax rates than he does. The fact that Mr. Buffet makes his billions through capital gains, thus paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary has nothing to do with the bigger issue of tax fairness. It is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges in a pathetic attempt to create a fallacy.
The wholly separate issue of capital gains rates, according to the left being as low as they are, needs to be confronted by proponents of true tax fairness and free markets. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate for excellent reasons. They are:
- taxed at corporate level already. Many economists conclude that it is a form of double taxation on capital formation. Economists Victor Canto and Harvey Hirschorn explained:
A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation. That is why many tax analysts argue that the most equitable rate of tax on capital gains is zero as it is in many countries around the world (or at least strictly defined to exclude equities). - risk capital - just as you are limited to $3,000 in writing off your capital losses, it makes sense that taxes should be lower on non-ordinary income;
- the life blood of a capitalist economy that requires free flow of capital
Mr. Buffet portrays himself as a modest man who lives in the same small house he bought decades ago. Little publicized are the facts that he owns a multi-million dollar vacation home in California and a $10 million private jet.
Mr Buffet and his company, Berkshire Hathaway, owes the IRS over a billion dollars which they have been litigating over for almost a decade.
Mr. Buffet is heavily invested in the life insurance business. As such, he has been lobbying the Administration hard to do away with estate tax exemptions. Without the exemptions, his life insurance companies stand to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars over the long term.
Furthermore, hypocrisy of Buffet screams the loudest as it relates to his wealth. He has given most of it to the Gates Foundation, thus avoiding federal estate taxes (as has Bill Gates). If estate taxes should be retained, why avoid them? Enough said about Warren.
When it comes to taxation, Washington works in mysterious ways. Many of your utility bills, for example, are adorned with taxes which were supposed to be "temporary" but somehow outlived the events they were imposed for. Another great example is the AMT.
The AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was introduced in to the tax code in 1970 as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 by Democrats just because there were 155 individual income tax returns showing incomes of over $200,000 and no tax liability thanks to tax loopholes. You would think that smart governance would have reformed the tax code to make it flatter, fairer, and simpler; but not when lawyers run Washington! Today, AMT affects over 4 million tax filers because AMT exemption, unlike regular income tax items, is not indexed to inflation.
In the name of fairness, the Democrat congress passed the AMT that now touches millions of Americans' lives, and even though the congress expresses its dismay over it, nothing changes.
In other words, when politicians tell you that a particular tax is temporary, or it is earmarked for paying down the debt, do not believe them! Handing Washington money and hoping they will do the responsible thing is akin to asking a drug addict to safe keep your marijuana stash.
This is so wrong on so many levels that it boggles the rational mind. What does cutting the deficit have to do with the rich paying their fair share? It is akin to blaming one's household budget shortfall on their income rather than their spending habits. It is the height of irresponsibility. No Mr. President, those who need to pay their fair share are the 45% of income earners who pay zero federal income taxes. In other words, those whom you and your party's ideology pander to.
--
Update:
Well, moving forward less than a week after the announcement of the Buffet Rule, Warren has apparently "not read the bill". In an interview last Thursday, he openly disagreed with the President's plan to tax ordinary millionaires at a higher rate. It seems that to Warren, rich means those earning over $50 million per year - not $250,000. Well, well..... now look who the useful idiot is! I hope he enjoys his name on the "rule"; actually he is in luck as the bill stands just about as much chance as that of a snowball in hell thanks to the Republicans.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
About Time: Germans Refute Arrogance of Team Obama
It was bound to happen! Sooner or later some influential foreign leader would give us the tongue lashing we so richly deserve ever since the Obama Administration ascended to power with all its hypocrisy. It happened earlier this week.
The latest and the most decisive affront so far came earlier this week when the German finance minister told tax cheat Tim Geithner and the Obama Administration to clean up their own mess before giving gratuitous advice advice to the EU on handling their sovereign debt crisis. Ouch!
The Administration had earlier suggested the EU bail-out machinery be boosted from its current lending limit of 440 billion euros to over 2 trillion euros. The German finance minister rightly called the idea "stupid" as the idea would endanger the credit rating of the member states.
I don't blame the Germans. Just imagine being lectured by an incompetent who is incapable of using Turbo Tax and an Administration that has driven its credit rating and economy down when, two years in to the recovery, GDP and job growth should be strongly rebounding! These are the same people who now lecture their counterparts abroad on the need for fiscal prudence. As if they would know it when they saw it, let alone practiced it.
The U.S., under the Obama Administration, has been refuted on several occasions. It all started when the IOC affronted his highness by granting the Olympics to Rio de Janeiro despite the President making a special visit to Copenhagen very early in his presidency to sway the commission's opinion in our favor. Between then and now, several other countries have directly or indirectly insulted the Administration including the Russians,Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, and Venezuelans among others. And why wouldn't they? After all, the Obama Administration has back stabbed allies all over the globe including (but not limited to) Israel, Taiwan, Poland, Czech Republic, Honduras, and Colombia. Heck, we even back stabbed dissident groups in non-friendly countries - remember the Iranian protesters who got massacred while Obama looked the other way in his haste to appease the Islamic world?
This kindergarten foreign policy will not end until these clowns are run out of office and can join the legacy of the Carter Administration for the most disastrous foreign policy in the past half a century. You know how an anticipated event makes the time go slow? This will be a long 13 months until the elections. Lets hope that the reputation of the U.S. can withstand the continuous body blows.
The latest and the most decisive affront so far came earlier this week when the German finance minister told tax cheat Tim Geithner and the Obama Administration to clean up their own mess before giving gratuitous advice advice to the EU on handling their sovereign debt crisis. Ouch!
The Administration had earlier suggested the EU bail-out machinery be boosted from its current lending limit of 440 billion euros to over 2 trillion euros. The German finance minister rightly called the idea "stupid" as the idea would endanger the credit rating of the member states.
I don't blame the Germans. Just imagine being lectured by an incompetent who is incapable of using Turbo Tax and an Administration that has driven its credit rating and economy down when, two years in to the recovery, GDP and job growth should be strongly rebounding! These are the same people who now lecture their counterparts abroad on the need for fiscal prudence. As if they would know it when they saw it, let alone practiced it.
The U.S., under the Obama Administration, has been refuted on several occasions. It all started when the IOC affronted his highness by granting the Olympics to Rio de Janeiro despite the President making a special visit to Copenhagen very early in his presidency to sway the commission's opinion in our favor. Between then and now, several other countries have directly or indirectly insulted the Administration including the Russians,Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, and Venezuelans among others. And why wouldn't they? After all, the Obama Administration has back stabbed allies all over the globe including (but not limited to) Israel, Taiwan, Poland, Czech Republic, Honduras, and Colombia. Heck, we even back stabbed dissident groups in non-friendly countries - remember the Iranian protesters who got massacred while Obama looked the other way in his haste to appease the Islamic world?
This kindergarten foreign policy will not end until these clowns are run out of office and can join the legacy of the Carter Administration for the most disastrous foreign policy in the past half a century. You know how an anticipated event makes the time go slow? This will be a long 13 months until the elections. Lets hope that the reputation of the U.S. can withstand the continuous body blows.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Demonization of Success
Ted Leonsis, the owner of Washington Wizards and the Capitals, has posted an article on his blog. It is an article that calls out Obama for his class warfare tactics. What makes this interesting is that Ted Leonsis is a life-long Democrat who has maxed out his contributions to Obama's re-election campaign.
Mr. Leonsis is a self made billionaire who came from a humble background. He may be a Democrat but he is not a crony capitalist a la Soros, Immelt, or any other of the billionaires or business leaders around the President. As such, he understands what makes America exceptional.
What sets the U.S. apart is its unique founding principles. All that anyone has to do is to read the Declaration of Independence. The proposition that “all men are created equal” was at the time a wholly new basis for legitimate government; likewise, to pronounce certain “rights” “inalienable,” such as those to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” meant that an objective standard of justice was to guide our experiment in self-government. Equality, especially, is the foundation for legitimate government in that it points to government by consent, because there can be no claim to legitimate rule by a man over his fellow men if all are equal in their rights. Personal responsibility, lying at the foundation of individual liberty, allowed Americans to exceed the personal boundries other societies have artificially imposed on their members by lacking similar founding principles. Finally, limited government has allowed us to be free to pursue our God given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, thus unleashing the potential that lies in every human being.
Ours is a country built upon free market principles that values success and individual initiative. The fruits of our unique adherence to individual liberty above all has propelled us to global leadership in innovation and entrepreneurship, making us the indisputable world leader for over a century.
Demonization of success that has become the cornerstone of the Democrat Party accomplishes one thing only: Destruction of the human spirit. As strong as we can be when left alone, human beings are also weak in nature. The conflicting needs to be set free and provided for are the basis of the two major political philosophies of individualism and collectivism.
The U.S. has a simple choice to make: Do we abandon what made us exceptional (therefore great) in favor of a flawed philosophy that sees individuals as weak and feeble minded beings who require assistance in living their lives, or do we recommit ourselves to our founding principles and champion individualism?
We will know the answer in fourteen months.
Mr. Leonsis is a self made billionaire who came from a humble background. He may be a Democrat but he is not a crony capitalist a la Soros, Immelt, or any other of the billionaires or business leaders around the President. As such, he understands what makes America exceptional.
What sets the U.S. apart is its unique founding principles. All that anyone has to do is to read the Declaration of Independence. The proposition that “all men are created equal” was at the time a wholly new basis for legitimate government; likewise, to pronounce certain “rights” “inalienable,” such as those to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” meant that an objective standard of justice was to guide our experiment in self-government. Equality, especially, is the foundation for legitimate government in that it points to government by consent, because there can be no claim to legitimate rule by a man over his fellow men if all are equal in their rights. Personal responsibility, lying at the foundation of individual liberty, allowed Americans to exceed the personal boundries other societies have artificially imposed on their members by lacking similar founding principles. Finally, limited government has allowed us to be free to pursue our God given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, thus unleashing the potential that lies in every human being.
Ours is a country built upon free market principles that values success and individual initiative. The fruits of our unique adherence to individual liberty above all has propelled us to global leadership in innovation and entrepreneurship, making us the indisputable world leader for over a century.
Demonization of success that has become the cornerstone of the Democrat Party accomplishes one thing only: Destruction of the human spirit. As strong as we can be when left alone, human beings are also weak in nature. The conflicting needs to be set free and provided for are the basis of the two major political philosophies of individualism and collectivism.
The U.S. has a simple choice to make: Do we abandon what made us exceptional (therefore great) in favor of a flawed philosophy that sees individuals as weak and feeble minded beings who require assistance in living their lives, or do we recommit ourselves to our founding principles and champion individualism?
We will know the answer in fourteen months.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Opinion of Perry Revisited
Last week I expressed my reservations regarding the candidacy of Rick Perry. Thanks to links provided by Common Snse, I have been researching the details of Perry's actions and policy stances more deeply than before. I am starting to think that maybe I was overreacting to his poor debate performances rather than his positions; you know, style rather than substance...
Although I am still not sold on him as far as being another Reagan, he appears to be the least RINO candidate of those who stand a realistic chance of getting the nomination (yes, although being somewhat premature, I think that Caine, Newt, and Bachman are all out of contention, rightly or wrongly).
Here are the links:
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 1
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 2
What you need to know about Rick Perry
The Truth about Gov. Rick Perry
As always, take these articles (pro or con) with a grain of salt. Anyone's positions can be slanted to demonize as well as embellish them. Once again, thanks Common Snse.
Although I am still not sold on him as far as being another Reagan, he appears to be the least RINO candidate of those who stand a realistic chance of getting the nomination (yes, although being somewhat premature, I think that Caine, Newt, and Bachman are all out of contention, rightly or wrongly).
Here are the links:
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 1
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 2
What you need to know about Rick Perry
The Truth about Gov. Rick Perry
As always, take these articles (pro or con) with a grain of salt. Anyone's positions can be slanted to demonize as well as embellish them. Once again, thanks Common Snse.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
At a Loss For Words.....
Have you ever been so outraged by the boldfaced, outrageous hypocrisy of someone's actions that you are literally at a loss for words? Well, I am (as I've become accustomed to with this Administration and progressives in general!)...
As Accuracy In Media reported on Thursday, the U.S. State Department and George Soros funded Global Integrity have jointly launched the "Open Government" initiative that promotes transparency in government. The initiative was announced by Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, a former Marxist terrorist, and President Obama - another Marxist comrade of the former.
Yes, the same Administration that has stonewalled congressional committees by refusing to answer to a record number of FOIAs, refuses to cooperate with numerous on going investigations including Solyndra, has pressured a four-star general to give false testimony in the scandalous case of LightSquared, has falsified expert reports in the case of BP oil spill for political ends, has conducted business behind closed doors as with Obamacare and almost every other piece of legislation despite assurances to the contrary, has a revolving door at the White House for thuggish Marxist union bosses, .....(on and on the list goes!)
And yes, the same George Soros who funds just about every organization that is currently working to undermine the U.S. as well as the most progressive non-traditional media outlets, has played a key role in collapsing the British pound making him a persona non grata in the U.K., is closing his off shore based secretive $25 billion Quantum fund to outsiders in order not to have to disclose details as required by Dodd-Frank law he supported, was convicted in France of insider trading, is four-squares behind the Administration's unwillingness to let American companies drill for oil but stands to make over $100 million from the multi billion dollar credit Obama Administration is extending to Brazil for off-shore oil drilling, .......(again, on and on the list goes!)
You can read the details of the behind the curtains, incestuous relationships here. (highly recommended!)
Our friends at the Weasel Zippers have coined the right terminology for just such instances: Assploding hypocrisy. "Gangster government" does not even begin to describe this bunch!
As Accuracy In Media reported on Thursday, the U.S. State Department and George Soros funded Global Integrity have jointly launched the "Open Government" initiative that promotes transparency in government. The initiative was announced by Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, a former Marxist terrorist, and President Obama - another Marxist comrade of the former.
Yes, the same Administration that has stonewalled congressional committees by refusing to answer to a record number of FOIAs, refuses to cooperate with numerous on going investigations including Solyndra, has pressured a four-star general to give false testimony in the scandalous case of LightSquared, has falsified expert reports in the case of BP oil spill for political ends, has conducted business behind closed doors as with Obamacare and almost every other piece of legislation despite assurances to the contrary, has a revolving door at the White House for thuggish Marxist union bosses, .....(on and on the list goes!)
And yes, the same George Soros who funds just about every organization that is currently working to undermine the U.S. as well as the most progressive non-traditional media outlets, has played a key role in collapsing the British pound making him a persona non grata in the U.K., is closing his off shore based secretive $25 billion Quantum fund to outsiders in order not to have to disclose details as required by Dodd-Frank law he supported, was convicted in France of insider trading, is four-squares behind the Administration's unwillingness to let American companies drill for oil but stands to make over $100 million from the multi billion dollar credit Obama Administration is extending to Brazil for off-shore oil drilling, .......(again, on and on the list goes!)
You can read the details of the behind the curtains, incestuous relationships here. (highly recommended!)
Our friends at the Weasel Zippers have coined the right terminology for just such instances: Assploding hypocrisy. "Gangster government" does not even begin to describe this bunch!
Friday, September 23, 2011
I Am Troubled About Perry.....
Rick Perry has long been my candidate of choice for 2012. Watching the past two Republican presidential candidates debates, I reached the conclusion that Perry might not be my ultimate choice after all. Now, almost all candidates have their strong and weak points:
I like Bachmann for her passionate belief in a small constitutional government. On the other hand, she is not a strong candidate because of her style (which at times can sound kooky); after all style usually wins over substance in the modern age.
I like Newt for his bold ideas that highlight American exceptionalism. On the other hand, he holds views, especially on man made global warming, that bother me a great deal.
I like Caine, Pawlenty, and even Ron Paul for various reasons but for one reason or another they are all off my list.
Finally, although I like the oratory skills and the presidential demeanor of Romney on the upside, but his defense of Romneycare in Massachusetts screams "I am a RINO" as I opined earlier.
Perry, on the other hand, was always appealing to me with his defiance of Washington and free market ideals he has been espousing. Two issues, however, have bothered me greatly about him. The less significant issue is that of forced HPV vaccinations for Texas teens. It smacks of government interventionism in people's private lives and has no place in a free society. The more significant issue is his immigration stance - especially his support for giving illegal aliens in-state tuition. This, to me, is unacceptable. I realize that the governor is looking at it as the lesser of two evils: he'd rather have educated illegals than uneducated and unproductive ones.
This is a fallacy; or a Hobson's choice, if you will. First, even if the illegals are educated, they are still illegal and shouldn't be working in the U.S. anyways. So, why do the good citizens of Texas have to subsidize higher education for illegals, many of whom do not even pay taxes? Second, his objection to the building of a border fence shows weakness.
Taken in its entirety, Perry is looking more and more like he is Bush V. 2.0 (well not that bad since he adheres to free market principles more than Bush family could even dream of).
Perry's Democrat roots are showing. Yes, Reagan was also a Democrat but that was in early 1960s (until 1962) when Democrat party did have a few conservative adherents to the U.S. Constitution. As he said, he did not leave the Democrat party, the party left him (just like Zell Miller did 40 years later as he explained in his excellent book "A National Party No More"). Perry, on the other hand, was a Democrat through 1992. He chaired Gores presidential campaign in Texas. Enough said.
Perry is no Reagan: he does not have the oratory skills of the Great Communicator, nor does he have the passionate conservatism Reagan so proudly displayed.
Like a puzzle whose pieces slowly come together, Perry's credentials as a constitutionalist are looking weaker by the day, thus I am no longer an enthusiastic Perry supporter. The only other candidate with realistic chance of winning the nomination is Romney - one of the other RINOs in the race.
Is this what it was going to come down to: Choosing the lesser of the two evils?
I like Bachmann for her passionate belief in a small constitutional government. On the other hand, she is not a strong candidate because of her style (which at times can sound kooky); after all style usually wins over substance in the modern age.
I like Newt for his bold ideas that highlight American exceptionalism. On the other hand, he holds views, especially on man made global warming, that bother me a great deal.
I like Caine, Pawlenty, and even Ron Paul for various reasons but for one reason or another they are all off my list.
Finally, although I like the oratory skills and the presidential demeanor of Romney on the upside, but his defense of Romneycare in Massachusetts screams "I am a RINO" as I opined earlier.
Perry, on the other hand, was always appealing to me with his defiance of Washington and free market ideals he has been espousing. Two issues, however, have bothered me greatly about him. The less significant issue is that of forced HPV vaccinations for Texas teens. It smacks of government interventionism in people's private lives and has no place in a free society. The more significant issue is his immigration stance - especially his support for giving illegal aliens in-state tuition. This, to me, is unacceptable. I realize that the governor is looking at it as the lesser of two evils: he'd rather have educated illegals than uneducated and unproductive ones.
This is a fallacy; or a Hobson's choice, if you will. First, even if the illegals are educated, they are still illegal and shouldn't be working in the U.S. anyways. So, why do the good citizens of Texas have to subsidize higher education for illegals, many of whom do not even pay taxes? Second, his objection to the building of a border fence shows weakness.
Taken in its entirety, Perry is looking more and more like he is Bush V. 2.0 (well not that bad since he adheres to free market principles more than Bush family could even dream of).
Perry's Democrat roots are showing. Yes, Reagan was also a Democrat but that was in early 1960s (until 1962) when Democrat party did have a few conservative adherents to the U.S. Constitution. As he said, he did not leave the Democrat party, the party left him (just like Zell Miller did 40 years later as he explained in his excellent book "A National Party No More"). Perry, on the other hand, was a Democrat through 1992. He chaired Gores presidential campaign in Texas. Enough said.
Perry is no Reagan: he does not have the oratory skills of the Great Communicator, nor does he have the passionate conservatism Reagan so proudly displayed.
Like a puzzle whose pieces slowly come together, Perry's credentials as a constitutionalist are looking weaker by the day, thus I am no longer an enthusiastic Perry supporter. The only other candidate with realistic chance of winning the nomination is Romney - one of the other RINOs in the race.
Is this what it was going to come down to: Choosing the lesser of the two evils?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
More Videos of the Week (with Commentary)
Normally I try never to pass up on opportunities to demonstrate progressives' true colors (being Marxism) but these days there are just too many examples of such displays and I am a busy man with a job, family, and other interests. This clip, however, was too good to pass up.
I was one of those who said that Elizabeth Warren, an attorney at Harvard faculty, was a Marxist when Obama appointed her to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010. A little research in to her background makes that amply clear. Of course, the progressives I know would have none of it.
Here is a video of Elizabeth Warren, who is running against Scott Brown in Mass, stating that "there is nobody in this country who got rich on their own".
She cites an example of a factory having to use the federal highway system to move their goods. So, their demented rationale goes: the factory owner is indebted to the rest of the society for building the roads that enabled him to become rich. I don't know about you, but as much as I expect this kind of Marxist drivel coming out of their mouths, I never cease to be amazed. By their logic, everyone owes everyone else their good fortune. If this clip does not define what philosophically lies at the core of communism, I do not know what does:
Next, I have another treat for you. An AIM (Accuracy In Media) project on Solyndra:
I don't know what us bloggers will do when these guys are kicked out of office in 2012.
Remaining progressives, including RINOs, and their shenanigans will never be able to supply us with daily scandals and hilarities that the current crop is.
I was one of those who said that Elizabeth Warren, an attorney at Harvard faculty, was a Marxist when Obama appointed her to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010. A little research in to her background makes that amply clear. Of course, the progressives I know would have none of it.
Here is a video of Elizabeth Warren, who is running against Scott Brown in Mass, stating that "there is nobody in this country who got rich on their own".
She cites an example of a factory having to use the federal highway system to move their goods. So, their demented rationale goes: the factory owner is indebted to the rest of the society for building the roads that enabled him to become rich. I don't know about you, but as much as I expect this kind of Marxist drivel coming out of their mouths, I never cease to be amazed. By their logic, everyone owes everyone else their good fortune. If this clip does not define what philosophically lies at the core of communism, I do not know what does:
Next, I have another treat for you. An AIM (Accuracy In Media) project on Solyndra:
I don't know what us bloggers will do when these guys are kicked out of office in 2012.
Remaining progressives, including RINOs, and their shenanigans will never be able to supply us with daily scandals and hilarities that the current crop is.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Perry Ad: President Zero
Great stuff but Perry better perform better in the next debate if he is to stop Romney from gaining on him!
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Would the MSM Ever Investigate Obama Scandals?
Shame is an alien concept to our exceedingly progressive media. For example, the same media that refused to vet Obama during his 2008 campaign by ignoring his troubling background and associations, as well as the undisclosed mysteries of...........
1. Occidental College records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
2. Columbia University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
4. Harvard University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
5. Medical records — Not released and not sought after by the media
6. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
7. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’ and noy questioned by the media
8. Law practice client list — Not released and not sought after by the media
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate — Not released and not sought after by the media
10. Harvard Law Review articles published — None and ignored as an issue by the media
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None and ignored as an issue by the media
12. Record of Baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
13. Multiple other issues surrounding him (such as his real estate dealings with Tony Rezko) and his wife (such as the covering up of the patient dumping scandal she was involved with in Chicago)
...rediscovered its investigative capabilities last month. Yes, the same media that sent a small army to Alaska during the 2008 campaign as well as when former governor Palin's e mails were released while not bothering to question any one of the many irregularities with Obama, scored another coup in August by unearthing Governor Perry's college transcripts.
This may not be a fresh news item, but it makes the point. Just don't ask them to investigate Obama and his minions' scandalous involvements in:
1. Solargate (Solyndra, Evergreen, and other cronies who took billions and then closed shop or are about to
- to be fair, this is the only scandal that has garnered some attention by ABC News)
2. Pigford, which has cost the tax payers over $2 billion in what amounts to be reparations
3. Operation Fast and Furious that cost two U.S. government agents their lives
4. Carbongate where EPA supressed climate study and internal critique to further the green agenda
5. Racial quota scandal at the DOJ forcing Dayton to lower standards for hiring fire fighters
6. Illegal job offer scandal where Rep. Sestak was offered a job to get out of the primary race
7. DOJ harassment of non-union workplaces like Gibson Guitar, Boeing, etc. and refusal to investigate
union violence in dozens of cases
8. Overseas donors to Obama campaign
9. Walpingate (or IG Walpin firing) scandal to protect cronies
10. BP oil spill memo scandal to justify the drilling moratorium in the Gulf
11. Acorn funding by the DOJ after the congress voted to cut of funding for wide spread election fraud
12. Black Panther prosecution scandal
13. Radical czars and other non Senate confirmed appointees who are avowed Marxists
14. Any one of several occasions when the Administration disregarded the Constitution by ignoring the
Separation of Powers Act (DISCLOSE Act, net neutrality, stealth amnesty, etc.)
15. Or any other of over 270 scandals of varying importance many of which would have caused a
Republican to either resign or be impeached.
They'll become deaf, dumb, and blind again in a New York minute!
1. Occidental College records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
2. Columbia University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
4. Harvard University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
5. Medical records — Not released and not sought after by the media
6. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
7. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’ and noy questioned by the media
8. Law practice client list — Not released and not sought after by the media
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate — Not released and not sought after by the media
10. Harvard Law Review articles published — None and ignored as an issue by the media
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None and ignored as an issue by the media
12. Record of Baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
13. Multiple other issues surrounding him (such as his real estate dealings with Tony Rezko) and his wife (such as the covering up of the patient dumping scandal she was involved with in Chicago)
...rediscovered its investigative capabilities last month. Yes, the same media that sent a small army to Alaska during the 2008 campaign as well as when former governor Palin's e mails were released while not bothering to question any one of the many irregularities with Obama, scored another coup in August by unearthing Governor Perry's college transcripts.
This may not be a fresh news item, but it makes the point. Just don't ask them to investigate Obama and his minions' scandalous involvements in:
1. Solargate (Solyndra, Evergreen, and other cronies who took billions and then closed shop or are about to
- to be fair, this is the only scandal that has garnered some attention by ABC News)
2. Pigford, which has cost the tax payers over $2 billion in what amounts to be reparations
3. Operation Fast and Furious that cost two U.S. government agents their lives
4. Carbongate where EPA supressed climate study and internal critique to further the green agenda
5. Racial quota scandal at the DOJ forcing Dayton to lower standards for hiring fire fighters
6. Illegal job offer scandal where Rep. Sestak was offered a job to get out of the primary race
7. DOJ harassment of non-union workplaces like Gibson Guitar, Boeing, etc. and refusal to investigate
union violence in dozens of cases
8. Overseas donors to Obama campaign
9. Walpingate (or IG Walpin firing) scandal to protect cronies
10. BP oil spill memo scandal to justify the drilling moratorium in the Gulf
11. Acorn funding by the DOJ after the congress voted to cut of funding for wide spread election fraud
12. Black Panther prosecution scandal
13. Radical czars and other non Senate confirmed appointees who are avowed Marxists
14. Any one of several occasions when the Administration disregarded the Constitution by ignoring the
Separation of Powers Act (DISCLOSE Act, net neutrality, stealth amnesty, etc.)
15. Or any other of over 270 scandals of varying importance many of which would have caused a
Republican to either resign or be impeached.
They'll become deaf, dumb, and blind again in a New York minute!
Friday, September 16, 2011
Turkey: Influence of Media, Intellectuals, and Religion on Public Opinion in a Quasi Modern Republic
On this tenth anniversary of the unspeakably evil and tragic event that we ought never forget, a facebook posting regarding 9/11 commemorations in the U.S. by my nephew in Turkey grabbed my attention. Loosely translated, it alluded to the 'murderers crying over their own act not fooling anyone else, not even little children' - an obvious give away of a 9/11 truther. He happens to be a well educated, professional, non-religious, modern thirty some year old - and he is not alone in his convictions!
This same sentiment is one that is scarily prevalent among most Turks - educated and ignorant alike as reflected by results of a poll conducted by Pew Research:
The most puzzling observation is how Turks view other religions and the culprits for 9/11 attacks compared to other Muslims. By the results of this poll, they appear to be more radicalized than Arabs themselves; at least on the surface. Immediately, several questions come to mind: What are the reasons for their propensity to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? Furthermore, despite being relatively more secularized than Muslims in other countries polled, why do they hold significantly more unfavorable opinion of Christianity than even Arabs? Finally, can the U.S.A. count on Turkey as an ally any longer?
First, we must undertake a quick overview of who the Turks are if we are to understand the impetus behind the answers to the questions I posed above.
Turks are a highly mixed race of people whose ancestors were essentially nomadic warriors from the steppes of Central Asia. After migrating to Asia Minor in a rather disorderly fashion just over a millenia ago - between 6th and 11th centuries -, they established the Seljuk Dynasty, followed by the House of Osman (the Ottoman Empire) about two centuries later. During the long and glorious reign of the Ottomans that featured conquests of eastern Europe, southern Caucasus, the Middle East, and north Africa, Turks gradually mixed with local populations. The pragmatic side of Ottoman sultans also furthered the process of integration as many minority groups within the empire were favorably treated and given prominent positions in the government. After dissolution of the empire, the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1922 by Ataturk on principles of western secularist democracies. This was the decisive process that eliminated many of the cultural traces of Islam (which the Turks had converted to by the end of 7th century) by forcing western alphabet and attire on the Turkish people (among other reforms). It is also critical to note that Turks have never been, nor presently are, fundamentalist/radical Muslims though Islam plays an important role in the lives of many.
So, if historic tolerance of Turks is legendary and they have gone through a westernization process that other Muslims including the Arabs have not, why does religious intolerance exceedingly exist as indicated by the Pew poll? My answer to that question is ignorance.
Although Turkey today is a contrast between a modern western style society and a typical Middle Eastern society, and the Turkish economy being the 17th largest economy in the world, Turks remain on the whole rather ignorant. For example, the average Turk does not read despite a high literacy rate (as in book sales are dismal in Turkey among a large segment of the society). Logic as well as empirical evidence shows that people who are ignorant and relatively poor are more easily manipulated by outside sources. This can be exploitation by religious or ideological forces, both of which are prevalent in Turkey.
The less educated segment of the society in Turkey is currently largely influenced by the Islamists who are in power. Erdogan and his AKP party have been steadily transforming Turkey back to its old days before Ataturk. Today, there are far more mosques and religious schools in Turkey than there are libraries and secular schools. With the impetus provided by the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Turks have decidedly become more sympathetic to the Islamic cause. For example, the recent rumblings by the Erdogan government, outright threatening Israel, is atypical for Turkish-Israeli relations. Turkey was the first predominantly Muslim country that recognized the Jewish state and until recently, maintained close diplomatic and military ties with Israel. This is the segment of the society that would also reject leftist ideology as much as they reject Christianity as a symbol of western culture.
Many Turks who are highly educated and cultured also prescribe to such nonsense as 9/11 truthism because they are predisposed to believing such conspiracy theories as a result of years of brainwashing by the media as well as the intellectual class. Many of the so-called intellectuals are hard line Marxist-Leninists who are still fighting the cold war as far as they are concerned. As with ideological blindness of progressives in the U.S., this segment of the society stubbornly remains close minded about 9/11 despite volumes of technical reports, facts on the ground, and common sense that thoroughly dismisses conspiracy theories. This should be expected since many belonging to this group are also progressives who feel at home with the collectivist ideology and dismiss the U.S. as representation of free market capitalism. As much as we may be convinced logic and evidence based classical approach to the argument would carry the day, I have found that there is little, if any, hope of breaking through to these otherwise well meaning people. It is my opinion, as also backed by a recent University of California research finding, that there are genetic differences between those with progressive and classical leanings; but I digress.
While one might find such rampant anti-Americanism ironic in a country that has been a steadfast ally of the United States, that is also exactly the reason why such reactionaries exist in Turkey. These intellectual reactionaries' influence is quite apparent in most news papers as well as literature. Over time, lacking strong philosophical immunity, many educated Turks who read their work fall under their influence.
Ever since the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, Turkey's alliance with the west has galvanized its Marxist communist movement, which on the most part was suppressed by the military. I still remember the "Yankee go home" signs from my youth in the 1960s. This movement was periodically suppressed by the Turkish military, which is the guarantor of the secular republic. In those years, religious extremism did not exist in Turkey. Back then, Turkey was an up and coming country with wide spread relative poverty. Far left ideology incubates best under such conditions. The scapegoat is there - the U.S. - to blame the shortcomings regardless of fundamental reasons for the real problems. The same movement has also been active in Greece - a neighbor with somewhat similar economic and societal conditions.
In conclusion, Turkey is a study in societal contrasts in a quasi modern society. The ultra modern and the devout Islamists coexist uneasily side by side, united in their distrust - and at times distaste - for the West, especially the United States. These Islamists and progressive leftists have formed an unholy alliance to undermine the free society that Ataturk envisioned eight decades ago. As such, Turkey is travelling on the same road that countries experiencing Arab Spring like Egypt and Libya are: a road that leads to disaster and terrible consequences that may well reach well beyond Turkey's borders.
The question whether Turkey can be relied upon by the U.S. will only be answered affirmatively if the next U.S. Administration can exert smart leadership that treats Turkey as more than the model of moderate Islam as the Bush Administration did, or foolishly as an intermediary of sorts to gain favor among the Muslim world as the current Administration is doing. Along with honest and co equal treatment, this smart leadership must also invariably restore the confidence of the Turkish military as the guarantor of the secular republic by clearly signalling our willingness to diplomatically stand behind them should periodic interventions be required as most socially unstable societies require. It is not a pretty picture but it may be the only way to avert the coming disaster rest of the world may be drawn in to.
This same sentiment is one that is scarily prevalent among most Turks - educated and ignorant alike as reflected by results of a poll conducted by Pew Research:
The most puzzling observation is how Turks view other religions and the culprits for 9/11 attacks compared to other Muslims. By the results of this poll, they appear to be more radicalized than Arabs themselves; at least on the surface. Immediately, several questions come to mind: What are the reasons for their propensity to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? Furthermore, despite being relatively more secularized than Muslims in other countries polled, why do they hold significantly more unfavorable opinion of Christianity than even Arabs? Finally, can the U.S.A. count on Turkey as an ally any longer?
First, we must undertake a quick overview of who the Turks are if we are to understand the impetus behind the answers to the questions I posed above.
Turks are a highly mixed race of people whose ancestors were essentially nomadic warriors from the steppes of Central Asia. After migrating to Asia Minor in a rather disorderly fashion just over a millenia ago - between 6th and 11th centuries -, they established the Seljuk Dynasty, followed by the House of Osman (the Ottoman Empire) about two centuries later. During the long and glorious reign of the Ottomans that featured conquests of eastern Europe, southern Caucasus, the Middle East, and north Africa, Turks gradually mixed with local populations. The pragmatic side of Ottoman sultans also furthered the process of integration as many minority groups within the empire were favorably treated and given prominent positions in the government. After dissolution of the empire, the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1922 by Ataturk on principles of western secularist democracies. This was the decisive process that eliminated many of the cultural traces of Islam (which the Turks had converted to by the end of 7th century) by forcing western alphabet and attire on the Turkish people (among other reforms). It is also critical to note that Turks have never been, nor presently are, fundamentalist/radical Muslims though Islam plays an important role in the lives of many.
So, if historic tolerance of Turks is legendary and they have gone through a westernization process that other Muslims including the Arabs have not, why does religious intolerance exceedingly exist as indicated by the Pew poll? My answer to that question is ignorance.
Although Turkey today is a contrast between a modern western style society and a typical Middle Eastern society, and the Turkish economy being the 17th largest economy in the world, Turks remain on the whole rather ignorant. For example, the average Turk does not read despite a high literacy rate (as in book sales are dismal in Turkey among a large segment of the society). Logic as well as empirical evidence shows that people who are ignorant and relatively poor are more easily manipulated by outside sources. This can be exploitation by religious or ideological forces, both of which are prevalent in Turkey.
The less educated segment of the society in Turkey is currently largely influenced by the Islamists who are in power. Erdogan and his AKP party have been steadily transforming Turkey back to its old days before Ataturk. Today, there are far more mosques and religious schools in Turkey than there are libraries and secular schools. With the impetus provided by the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Turks have decidedly become more sympathetic to the Islamic cause. For example, the recent rumblings by the Erdogan government, outright threatening Israel, is atypical for Turkish-Israeli relations. Turkey was the first predominantly Muslim country that recognized the Jewish state and until recently, maintained close diplomatic and military ties with Israel. This is the segment of the society that would also reject leftist ideology as much as they reject Christianity as a symbol of western culture.
Many Turks who are highly educated and cultured also prescribe to such nonsense as 9/11 truthism because they are predisposed to believing such conspiracy theories as a result of years of brainwashing by the media as well as the intellectual class. Many of the so-called intellectuals are hard line Marxist-Leninists who are still fighting the cold war as far as they are concerned. As with ideological blindness of progressives in the U.S., this segment of the society stubbornly remains close minded about 9/11 despite volumes of technical reports, facts on the ground, and common sense that thoroughly dismisses conspiracy theories. This should be expected since many belonging to this group are also progressives who feel at home with the collectivist ideology and dismiss the U.S. as representation of free market capitalism. As much as we may be convinced logic and evidence based classical approach to the argument would carry the day, I have found that there is little, if any, hope of breaking through to these otherwise well meaning people. It is my opinion, as also backed by a recent University of California research finding, that there are genetic differences between those with progressive and classical leanings; but I digress.
While one might find such rampant anti-Americanism ironic in a country that has been a steadfast ally of the United States, that is also exactly the reason why such reactionaries exist in Turkey. These intellectual reactionaries' influence is quite apparent in most news papers as well as literature. Over time, lacking strong philosophical immunity, many educated Turks who read their work fall under their influence.
Ever since the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, Turkey's alliance with the west has galvanized its Marxist communist movement, which on the most part was suppressed by the military. I still remember the "Yankee go home" signs from my youth in the 1960s. This movement was periodically suppressed by the Turkish military, which is the guarantor of the secular republic. In those years, religious extremism did not exist in Turkey. Back then, Turkey was an up and coming country with wide spread relative poverty. Far left ideology incubates best under such conditions. The scapegoat is there - the U.S. - to blame the shortcomings regardless of fundamental reasons for the real problems. The same movement has also been active in Greece - a neighbor with somewhat similar economic and societal conditions.
In conclusion, Turkey is a study in societal contrasts in a quasi modern society. The ultra modern and the devout Islamists coexist uneasily side by side, united in their distrust - and at times distaste - for the West, especially the United States. These Islamists and progressive leftists have formed an unholy alliance to undermine the free society that Ataturk envisioned eight decades ago. As such, Turkey is travelling on the same road that countries experiencing Arab Spring like Egypt and Libya are: a road that leads to disaster and terrible consequences that may well reach well beyond Turkey's borders.
The question whether Turkey can be relied upon by the U.S. will only be answered affirmatively if the next U.S. Administration can exert smart leadership that treats Turkey as more than the model of moderate Islam as the Bush Administration did, or foolishly as an intermediary of sorts to gain favor among the Muslim world as the current Administration is doing. Along with honest and co equal treatment, this smart leadership must also invariably restore the confidence of the Turkish military as the guarantor of the secular republic by clearly signalling our willingness to diplomatically stand behind them should periodic interventions be required as most socially unstable societies require. It is not a pretty picture but it may be the only way to avert the coming disaster rest of the world may be drawn in to.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Beyond Being Out of Touch
The big political news of Tuesday was the major Republican upset for the seat of scandal ridden former Congressman Anthony Weiner in the heavily Democrat NYC district that has never sent a Republican to the Congress in its nearly 100 year history.
What makes this story even more significant is that Bob Turner, the novice Republican, was opposed by a career politician who was backed by heavy duty financial support by the DNC. Despite the odds presented by a congressional district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3:1 margin, this stunning defeat for the Democrat party is a clear rebuke of Obama policies.
So, how do you save face when confronted by such a rebuke? If you are the Obama White House, you claim that your candidate lost the election because he ran away from Obama policies. And then, you have the president say "Americans reject Tea Party ideals".
The spin is so hard that I am getting dizzy. I am glad that the President and his party think that way. In less than 14 months, the electorate will be running away from the progressive bunch whose elitist delusions are blinding them to reality of their policies. This is not the 1930s anymore. Americans will not re-elect those responsible for creating unparalleled poverty and misery since the Great Depression.
What makes this story even more significant is that Bob Turner, the novice Republican, was opposed by a career politician who was backed by heavy duty financial support by the DNC. Despite the odds presented by a congressional district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3:1 margin, this stunning defeat for the Democrat party is a clear rebuke of Obama policies.
So, how do you save face when confronted by such a rebuke? If you are the Obama White House, you claim that your candidate lost the election because he ran away from Obama policies. And then, you have the president say "Americans reject Tea Party ideals".
The spin is so hard that I am getting dizzy. I am glad that the President and his party think that way. In less than 14 months, the electorate will be running away from the progressive bunch whose elitist delusions are blinding them to reality of their policies. This is not the 1930s anymore. Americans will not re-elect those responsible for creating unparalleled poverty and misery since the Great Depression.
Solargate: The Albatross Around Obama's Neck
Among the many media squashed scandals surrounding this Administration, Solyndra is proving to be quite stubborn. Even the MSM - well at least ABC News - is finally getting in on the action.
Unlike Pigford, multiple DOJ scandals (including Operation Fast and Furious, the racial quota scandal, and the infamous voter intimidation case), ACORN funding scandal, a laundry list of improprieties surrounding the passage of Obamacare, or any one of numerous constitutional scandals where the Administration has ignored the Separation of Powers Act (such as the ones involving net neutrality, amnesty, and card check legislation) all of which have been successfully supressed, Solyndra is the symbol of corrupt green energy cronyism that just won't die. Had the company name been Haliburton or Exxon Mobil, and the party in the White House Republican, impeachment hearings would have been long started and the media skewering relentless. But alas, it is the Democrats and their money bundlers, therefore move on, there is nothing to see here.
Now, I would not deny the fact that any past administration has knowingly or unknowingly endorsed crony capitalism in its day. Usually, however, the relationship between the government and the corporate giants have been at an arms length and never to benefit the President or his party financially. That is until now.
Solyndra recently joined the long and sordid list of green energy companies that recieved billions of tax payer dollars from the Obama Administration and have already either declared bankruptcy or moved their operations to China. The FBI has been on the case since pretty much the beginning.
Here are the troubling details concerning Solyndra in summary format:
On September 7, the DOE announced its plan to guarantee 80 percent — or $275 million — of a $344 million private loan taken out by the firm SolarCity. The company installs rooftop solar systems that harvests electricity SolarCity then sells. The Chairman of SolarCity, Elon Musk, is a major financial supporter of the president. On April 15 of this year, Musk donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund. He also gave an additional $5,000 to the Obama campaign. Like Solyndra officials White House visitor logs show Musk has visited the Administration at least four times since 2009.
The second company is Solexel. On September 2, the solar energy company announced a $13 million award from the DOE as part of a program to make solar energy systems more affordable for homeowners. Solexel is financially backed by venture capitalist Steve Westly - the same guy who was instrumental in financing the operations of Solyndra.
Aside from the above three cases, other Obama backed solar companies have been failures including Evergreen among others. Is the madness over? No, not when an ideologically driven, corrupt Administration is in power. The evidence of that allegation can be found in the news that the Obama Administration is now backing another solar company, Mojave Solar, to the tune of $1.2 billion. As the LA Times puts it: "Not all of those investments pan out". The problem is when the investor is financially tied to the President of the country - an ocurrance that usually occurs in banana republics only - we hopefully still call it corruption.
On a related note, General Electric just announced that they are scaling back their wind turbine operations globally citing profitability reasons. Solar and wind energy are nothing but pipe dreams with current technologies as the Europeans have been finding out the hard way. The energy that they provide is unreliable, insufficient, and extremely costly. Despite their unfeasibility, this Administration keeps on pouring money in to front companies that have been failing at an alarming rate.
The common thread among many of these green energy companies being their troubling financial connections to this administration, this is nothing short of a money laundering scheme just like much of the stimulus money that found its way back to the Democrat party via the unions. In my opinion, impeachment would be too good for this bunch - a nice prison cell is far more appropriate!
Unlike Pigford, multiple DOJ scandals (including Operation Fast and Furious, the racial quota scandal, and the infamous voter intimidation case), ACORN funding scandal, a laundry list of improprieties surrounding the passage of Obamacare, or any one of numerous constitutional scandals where the Administration has ignored the Separation of Powers Act (such as the ones involving net neutrality, amnesty, and card check legislation) all of which have been successfully supressed, Solyndra is the symbol of corrupt green energy cronyism that just won't die. Had the company name been Haliburton or Exxon Mobil, and the party in the White House Republican, impeachment hearings would have been long started and the media skewering relentless. But alas, it is the Democrats and their money bundlers, therefore move on, there is nothing to see here.
Now, I would not deny the fact that any past administration has knowingly or unknowingly endorsed crony capitalism in its day. Usually, however, the relationship between the government and the corporate giants have been at an arms length and never to benefit the President or his party financially. That is until now.
Solyndra recently joined the long and sordid list of green energy companies that recieved billions of tax payer dollars from the Obama Administration and have already either declared bankruptcy or moved their operations to China. The FBI has been on the case since pretty much the beginning.
Here are the troubling details concerning Solyndra in summary format:
- Founder George Kaiser and green bundler and financier Steve Westley are big money bundlers (fund raisers) for Obama.
- Solyndra officials visited the White House (not the DOE) over 5 times in 2009.
- White House closely monitored the loan to Solyndra as internal e-mails show.
- The OMB auditors expressed serious concerns about backing Solyndra's faulty business model.
- Obama officials sat at Solyndra Board of Directors meetings for months
- Despite internal objections, Solyndra recieved $535 million in loan guarantees from the DOE
- About a year later, the company laid off its workers and declared bankruptcy, costing the tax payers over half a billion dollars.
- Congressman Cliff Stearns, who is investigating the scandal in the House of Representatives, has been stonewalled continuously by the Administration since the beginning of his investigation.
On September 7, the DOE announced its plan to guarantee 80 percent — or $275 million — of a $344 million private loan taken out by the firm SolarCity. The company installs rooftop solar systems that harvests electricity SolarCity then sells. The Chairman of SolarCity, Elon Musk, is a major financial supporter of the president. On April 15 of this year, Musk donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund. He also gave an additional $5,000 to the Obama campaign. Like Solyndra officials White House visitor logs show Musk has visited the Administration at least four times since 2009.
The second company is Solexel. On September 2, the solar energy company announced a $13 million award from the DOE as part of a program to make solar energy systems more affordable for homeowners. Solexel is financially backed by venture capitalist Steve Westly - the same guy who was instrumental in financing the operations of Solyndra.
Aside from the above three cases, other Obama backed solar companies have been failures including Evergreen among others. Is the madness over? No, not when an ideologically driven, corrupt Administration is in power. The evidence of that allegation can be found in the news that the Obama Administration is now backing another solar company, Mojave Solar, to the tune of $1.2 billion. As the LA Times puts it: "Not all of those investments pan out". The problem is when the investor is financially tied to the President of the country - an ocurrance that usually occurs in banana republics only - we hopefully still call it corruption.
On a related note, General Electric just announced that they are scaling back their wind turbine operations globally citing profitability reasons. Solar and wind energy are nothing but pipe dreams with current technologies as the Europeans have been finding out the hard way. The energy that they provide is unreliable, insufficient, and extremely costly. Despite their unfeasibility, this Administration keeps on pouring money in to front companies that have been failing at an alarming rate.
The common thread among many of these green energy companies being their troubling financial connections to this administration, this is nothing short of a money laundering scheme just like much of the stimulus money that found its way back to the Democrat party via the unions. In my opinion, impeachment would be too good for this bunch - a nice prison cell is far more appropriate!
Friday, September 9, 2011
Why the President Is Not "Just One Man"
I am writing this post in response to what a well meaning, socially conservative friend of mine has now repeated several times. Although he is not a Obama fan by any means, he has said several times that he doesn't see why Obama (or any other president for that matter) should be held responsible for policy failures. After all, he is just one man, representing one of the three branches of the government, right?
The answer is obviously not. Although it is true that a president cannot pass legislation on his own, and is at the mercy of the Congress for laws that he chooses to sign, he can (and often does) affect the nation greatly. It is called an imperial presidency - one in which the executive branch usurps Congress’ role, which is the only branch with authority to make laws, and asserts power not granted to it by the Constitution.
The key here is constitutional fidelity. As it should be, a president who strictly adheres to the U.S. Constitution would be limited in his impact on society in general. One who treats his office as the means to subvert the constitution and achieve his own ends, not so much!
The dirty secret to those who do not follow politics closely is that most policy implementations do not come about as a result of legislation. They come as a result of regulations and presidential executive orders. Yes, regulations carry the weight of laws and by most estimates, cost several trillions of dollars each year to our economy, not to mention social costs. Some of these regulations are essential but most are mere reflections of the political ideology occupying the White House - usually progressive since the collectivist ideology clashes with laissez faire. That is a whole different subject I will write about in a dedicated article later.
Within this framework, there are several ways that a president who just might be intent on "fundamentally transforming" (sarc.) America affects change.
The most obvious is his appointments to high offices within the Executive branch including cabinet secretaries (15); heads of powerful independent agencies (70) such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); boards, commissions, and committees (over 70 at last count); quasi-official agencies (4); and the unaccountable czars (41) that even the old Russian Empire would envy (for their sheer numbers).
Now, consider if the heads of key cabinets and so-called independent agencies are committed ideologues, for example.....oh, say Lisa Jackson, the incompetent, enviro-Marxist head of EPA; Manufacturing czar Ron Bloom - a former DSA member; Carol Browner, until recently the former White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy czar who just happens to be a former a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International; or any one of other radicals (upwards of two dozen) that adorn this Administration....... (A Marxist convention never had it this good!)
Well, you get the point. Appointing ideologues that agree with your radical ideology to posts where they can subvert the constitution by imposing regulation after regulation to achieve ends like driving the cost of energy to unsustainable levels kills jobs in cases of Secretary Chu and Lisa Jackson. Appointees like Craig Becker circumvent the constitution and tilt the scale towards the unions at a great cost to the rest of the society (see Boeing case and the new unionization rules that are de facto passage of the Card Check Act that the congress voted down as the prime examples). Examples are too numerous to list under this regime. The game plan is predictably collectivist and Alinskyite.
Then, there is the judiciary. President gets to appoint federal judges and SCOTUS justices to the judicial branch. Although the adversarial relationship between the branches is supposed to assure that these appointees are all acceptable to congress, that happens rarely because of either one party control of the Senate Judiciary Committee or simple lack of time to scrutinize each appointment before confirming them. This is not only how social change is affected by judges deciding on everything from school curricula that includes LGBT history appreciation to tax payer funding of abortion mills run by Planned Parenthood, but how America is put on a trajectory towards socialism as FDR accomplished in 1933-4 (and Obama may have with his two appointments if Obamacare is not eventually found to be unconstitutional).
Finally, you have the ever-so-popular presidential executive orders. Like regulations, these EOs carry major policy implications. Instead of coming from an agency head, it is essentially presidential regulations that can only be undone by a future president. Again, like with regulations, their constitutionality has been questioned but since they serve presidents well, nothing has changed.
In their great wisdom, the framers of the constitution saw fit to establish the separation of powers doctrine just to avoid the possibility of future imperial presidencies. The checks and balances system is no longer a working one as the past century has witnessed repeated assaults on what sets America apart: our Constitution.
That, in a nut shell, is the power of an imperial presidency in the hands of a president whose ideology tramples the spirit of our founding principles as well as the substance of the U.S. Constitution.
And this concludes this civics refresher we all need from time to time.
The answer is obviously not. Although it is true that a president cannot pass legislation on his own, and is at the mercy of the Congress for laws that he chooses to sign, he can (and often does) affect the nation greatly. It is called an imperial presidency - one in which the executive branch usurps Congress’ role, which is the only branch with authority to make laws, and asserts power not granted to it by the Constitution.
The key here is constitutional fidelity. As it should be, a president who strictly adheres to the U.S. Constitution would be limited in his impact on society in general. One who treats his office as the means to subvert the constitution and achieve his own ends, not so much!
The dirty secret to those who do not follow politics closely is that most policy implementations do not come about as a result of legislation. They come as a result of regulations and presidential executive orders. Yes, regulations carry the weight of laws and by most estimates, cost several trillions of dollars each year to our economy, not to mention social costs. Some of these regulations are essential but most are mere reflections of the political ideology occupying the White House - usually progressive since the collectivist ideology clashes with laissez faire. That is a whole different subject I will write about in a dedicated article later.
Within this framework, there are several ways that a president who just might be intent on "fundamentally transforming" (sarc.) America affects change.
The most obvious is his appointments to high offices within the Executive branch including cabinet secretaries (15); heads of powerful independent agencies (70) such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); boards, commissions, and committees (over 70 at last count); quasi-official agencies (4); and the unaccountable czars (41) that even the old Russian Empire would envy (for their sheer numbers).
Now, consider if the heads of key cabinets and so-called independent agencies are committed ideologues, for example.....oh, say Lisa Jackson, the incompetent, enviro-Marxist head of EPA; Manufacturing czar Ron Bloom - a former DSA member; Carol Browner, until recently the former White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy czar who just happens to be a former a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International; or any one of other radicals (upwards of two dozen) that adorn this Administration....... (A Marxist convention never had it this good!)
Well, you get the point. Appointing ideologues that agree with your radical ideology to posts where they can subvert the constitution by imposing regulation after regulation to achieve ends like driving the cost of energy to unsustainable levels kills jobs in cases of Secretary Chu and Lisa Jackson. Appointees like Craig Becker circumvent the constitution and tilt the scale towards the unions at a great cost to the rest of the society (see Boeing case and the new unionization rules that are de facto passage of the Card Check Act that the congress voted down as the prime examples). Examples are too numerous to list under this regime. The game plan is predictably collectivist and Alinskyite.
Then, there is the judiciary. President gets to appoint federal judges and SCOTUS justices to the judicial branch. Although the adversarial relationship between the branches is supposed to assure that these appointees are all acceptable to congress, that happens rarely because of either one party control of the Senate Judiciary Committee or simple lack of time to scrutinize each appointment before confirming them. This is not only how social change is affected by judges deciding on everything from school curricula that includes LGBT history appreciation to tax payer funding of abortion mills run by Planned Parenthood, but how America is put on a trajectory towards socialism as FDR accomplished in 1933-4 (and Obama may have with his two appointments if Obamacare is not eventually found to be unconstitutional).
Finally, you have the ever-so-popular presidential executive orders. Like regulations, these EOs carry major policy implications. Instead of coming from an agency head, it is essentially presidential regulations that can only be undone by a future president. Again, like with regulations, their constitutionality has been questioned but since they serve presidents well, nothing has changed.
In their great wisdom, the framers of the constitution saw fit to establish the separation of powers doctrine just to avoid the possibility of future imperial presidencies. The checks and balances system is no longer a working one as the past century has witnessed repeated assaults on what sets America apart: our Constitution.
That, in a nut shell, is the power of an imperial presidency in the hands of a president whose ideology tramples the spirit of our founding principles as well as the substance of the U.S. Constitution.
And this concludes this civics refresher we all need from time to time.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Misdiagnosis
First, I must regretfully admit that my diagnosis yesterday of Obama and his entourage as being:
1. Dumb (somewhat)
2. Delusional (more so), and...
3. Radical (mostly)
was not complete. I must add a fourth:
4. Hysterically hypocritical.
Although this newly added diagnosis can sometimes be mistaken as a regular symptom of number 3, this Administration has continually taken it to new heights, and must therefore be added as a seperate diagnosis.
I was listening to the White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on the radio earlier and he succeeded in amusing me greatly. Mr. Pfeiffer, in his usual delusional state, said that it is not the President's obligation to distance himself from Mr. Hoffa's statements on Monday. Uncivility is a purely personal issue and others cannot be held accountable for not speaking up against it. It simply is not the President's responsibility to denounce such language.
But, but, but...... wasn't Mr. Hoffa introducing the President? And, isn't he the President of the U.S. (rather than the labor unions)? And how about the President's lectures to Americans on civility and acting like the grown up in the room, blah, blah, blah....
My, my, have we come a long way since 2002 when incidents like a benign, back handed compliment to Senator Thurmond by Trent Lott caused such an uproar. But, oh wait, that was a Republican, therefore the standards by which the incident was judged had to be different.
Surely not comparable to the shooting of Gabriel Giffords by a right wing lunatic that triggered months of lecturing by the president, right? Or the crazed Holocoust museum or Ft. Hood shooters!
What? They were all crazed left wing lunatics? Why wasn't I informed about this the way Democrats and the media jumped on the conclusion that it had to be right wing lunatics (and even carried the charade on once the true persona behind the shooters were revealed - which got almost no press coverage)?
The same thugs who have used their dispicable Alinskyite techniques against bankers, health insurance companies, oil executives, and Tea Party supporters among others, have also been the biggest whiners about civility in public discourse. Yet, not a day goes by that these slimy progressives do not verbally assault those who oppose their collectivist vision of America.
The people who shamefully used the incidents I described earlier to portray the peaceful Tea Party protests made up of millions of seniors, families, and hard working Americans as being racists and radicals (what mind-numbing hypocrisy since it is only, and just about every, left wing protest - from IMF to anti-war to you name the protest - that ends up in violence and property destruction) suffer from hysterical hypocrisy - another malady that ravages progressives.
1. Dumb (somewhat)
2. Delusional (more so), and...
3. Radical (mostly)
was not complete. I must add a fourth:
4. Hysterically hypocritical.
Although this newly added diagnosis can sometimes be mistaken as a regular symptom of number 3, this Administration has continually taken it to new heights, and must therefore be added as a seperate diagnosis.
I was listening to the White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on the radio earlier and he succeeded in amusing me greatly. Mr. Pfeiffer, in his usual delusional state, said that it is not the President's obligation to distance himself from Mr. Hoffa's statements on Monday. Uncivility is a purely personal issue and others cannot be held accountable for not speaking up against it. It simply is not the President's responsibility to denounce such language.
But, but, but...... wasn't Mr. Hoffa introducing the President? And, isn't he the President of the U.S. (rather than the labor unions)? And how about the President's lectures to Americans on civility and acting like the grown up in the room, blah, blah, blah....
My, my, have we come a long way since 2002 when incidents like a benign, back handed compliment to Senator Thurmond by Trent Lott caused such an uproar. But, oh wait, that was a Republican, therefore the standards by which the incident was judged had to be different.
Surely not comparable to the shooting of Gabriel Giffords by a right wing lunatic that triggered months of lecturing by the president, right? Or the crazed Holocoust museum or Ft. Hood shooters!
What? They were all crazed left wing lunatics? Why wasn't I informed about this the way Democrats and the media jumped on the conclusion that it had to be right wing lunatics (and even carried the charade on once the true persona behind the shooters were revealed - which got almost no press coverage)?
The same thugs who have used their dispicable Alinskyite techniques against bankers, health insurance companies, oil executives, and Tea Party supporters among others, have also been the biggest whiners about civility in public discourse. Yet, not a day goes by that these slimy progressives do not verbally assault those who oppose their collectivist vision of America.
The people who shamefully used the incidents I described earlier to portray the peaceful Tea Party protests made up of millions of seniors, families, and hard working Americans as being racists and radicals (what mind-numbing hypocrisy since it is only, and just about every, left wing protest - from IMF to anti-war to you name the protest - that ends up in violence and property destruction) suffer from hysterical hypocrisy - another malady that ravages progressives.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Dumbest, The Most Delusional, Or The Most Radical President In U.S. History?
You would think that a President whose approval rate is in the gutter, whose policies have accomplished nothing but almost 32 months of misery, and is currently losing to the generic Republican candidate by almost double digits would be playing it smart. After all, being the pragmatist that he was, that is what Bill Clinton did under much more favorable circumstances. After trying to ram through a left wing agenda during his first two years that the voters rebelled against at the polls in 1994, Clinton moderated his stance and joined hands with the congressional Republicans in 1995, and was duly re-elected the following year. Despite his ideological convictions, he declared that the "era of big government" was over. He went on to back the Republican tax cut plan the following year and, at least economically, left a legacy that will treat him much kinder than what he really deserves.
Obama, on the other hand, is an anomaly for a typical politician (who would arguably sell his soul to the devil just to get re-elected). For the past two and a half years, we have been treated to a steady stream of head-scratching moves that only ideologically blinded political consultants would advise the President to make. After all, it does not take great foresight to know the disastrous impending political outcomes when poll after poll (as well as electoral history) shows Americans to be self-identifying conservatives by a healthy 2:1 margin.
Obama's appearance at the AFL/CIO sponsored labor day rally in Detroit over the week-end cemented his disregard for political outcomes once again. Just in case you were incommunicado over the past two days, Obama gave a speech to a gathering of labor unions in Detroit, MI. He was introduced by none other than Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa - the son of the famed gangster union boss who was dispatched most likely by the syndicate. As would be expected, Jimmy did not hold back:
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
As outrageous as Hoffa's remarks were to the crowd, he could be excused as a Marxist labor leader. But what about the President's response? Obama followed Hoffa's incendiary speech by saying how proud he was of the labor union movement. The same Marxist goon friendly sentiment was later repeated by Vice President Biden,the DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Administration officials.
This latest episode was really nothing more than the continuation of a non-stop three year long assault on the Tea Party by enemies of a constitutional government.
There are really only three possible explanations for the president's (and his party's) behavior in the face of pending political annihilation for himself and his party.
1) The President is dumb. He thinks that appealing to a very narrow base consisting of progressives (20% of the population), the LGBT crowd, avowed feminists, certain minority groups who historically are politically unmotivated, and various other fringe groups will net him and his party a victory come November 2012. The math absolutely does not work when one considers that 42% of the electorate are self-identified conservatives and the rest moderate independents. Therefore, we can rule out the possibility of the President and rest of the Democrats being dumb. No one is that dumb! Not even Democrats.
2) The President is delusional. This explanation is closer to the truth. Any casual observer of the President over the past 31+ months (and earlier) with a cursory knowledge of psychology should be able to see the ego driven personality that seems completely divorced from reality. I call it the Caligula complex minus the sexual aspect. Just like the infamous emperor of Rome, watching and listening to the President makes it quite apparent that there is an unmistakable God complex. Egged on by his media sycophants, he is full of himself, arrogant beyond reason, and with Mussolini like (chin up with a smirk on his face) mannerism, he continuously absolves himself of all blame while conveying images of the miracles he will bring about such as stopping the rise of sea levels and other nonsense. It is the dictionary definition of a megalomaniac.
Although there is a good case to be made for the President's tenuous mental health, the Democrat party as a whole could not all be suffering from mental disease despite many of our convictions. So, that brings us to....
3) This is the most radical president we have had the misfortune of electing. The same goes for many of the Democrats who have taken over their party over the past couple of decades. Obama does not care about whether he is re-elected or not. His mission, as he himself said, is the fundamental transformation of our society. Amazingly enough, not one reporter has ever asked the President what he meant by that infamous statement back in October of 2008. To the rest of us who are familiar with the president's background and ideology, there is absolutely no mystery. I had documented Obama's Marxist tendencies here and elsewhere in my blog.
The same Marxist tendencies have been building up in the ranks of the Democrat party for decades now. The party has been admittedly and demonstrably taken over by communists of all types. Complimenting the socialist trajectory that we have been on for almost a century, today's Democrat party and Obama are natural extensions of reasonable expectations considering the cultural Marxist assault on (and taking over of) the educational system, media, and entertainment. There is a lot of work to be done if we hope to pull America back from the brink of disaster.
Obama, on the other hand, is an anomaly for a typical politician (who would arguably sell his soul to the devil just to get re-elected). For the past two and a half years, we have been treated to a steady stream of head-scratching moves that only ideologically blinded political consultants would advise the President to make. After all, it does not take great foresight to know the disastrous impending political outcomes when poll after poll (as well as electoral history) shows Americans to be self-identifying conservatives by a healthy 2:1 margin.
Obama's appearance at the AFL/CIO sponsored labor day rally in Detroit over the week-end cemented his disregard for political outcomes once again. Just in case you were incommunicado over the past two days, Obama gave a speech to a gathering of labor unions in Detroit, MI. He was introduced by none other than Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa - the son of the famed gangster union boss who was dispatched most likely by the syndicate. As would be expected, Jimmy did not hold back:
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
As outrageous as Hoffa's remarks were to the crowd, he could be excused as a Marxist labor leader. But what about the President's response? Obama followed Hoffa's incendiary speech by saying how proud he was of the labor union movement. The same Marxist goon friendly sentiment was later repeated by Vice President Biden,the DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Administration officials.
This latest episode was really nothing more than the continuation of a non-stop three year long assault on the Tea Party by enemies of a constitutional government.
There are really only three possible explanations for the president's (and his party's) behavior in the face of pending political annihilation for himself and his party.
1) The President is dumb. He thinks that appealing to a very narrow base consisting of progressives (20% of the population), the LGBT crowd, avowed feminists, certain minority groups who historically are politically unmotivated, and various other fringe groups will net him and his party a victory come November 2012. The math absolutely does not work when one considers that 42% of the electorate are self-identified conservatives and the rest moderate independents. Therefore, we can rule out the possibility of the President and rest of the Democrats being dumb. No one is that dumb! Not even Democrats.
2) The President is delusional. This explanation is closer to the truth. Any casual observer of the President over the past 31+ months (and earlier) with a cursory knowledge of psychology should be able to see the ego driven personality that seems completely divorced from reality. I call it the Caligula complex minus the sexual aspect. Just like the infamous emperor of Rome, watching and listening to the President makes it quite apparent that there is an unmistakable God complex. Egged on by his media sycophants, he is full of himself, arrogant beyond reason, and with Mussolini like (chin up with a smirk on his face) mannerism, he continuously absolves himself of all blame while conveying images of the miracles he will bring about such as stopping the rise of sea levels and other nonsense. It is the dictionary definition of a megalomaniac.
Although there is a good case to be made for the President's tenuous mental health, the Democrat party as a whole could not all be suffering from mental disease despite many of our convictions. So, that brings us to....
3) This is the most radical president we have had the misfortune of electing. The same goes for many of the Democrats who have taken over their party over the past couple of decades. Obama does not care about whether he is re-elected or not. His mission, as he himself said, is the fundamental transformation of our society. Amazingly enough, not one reporter has ever asked the President what he meant by that infamous statement back in October of 2008. To the rest of us who are familiar with the president's background and ideology, there is absolutely no mystery. I had documented Obama's Marxist tendencies here and elsewhere in my blog.
The same Marxist tendencies have been building up in the ranks of the Democrat party for decades now. The party has been admittedly and demonstrably taken over by communists of all types. Complimenting the socialist trajectory that we have been on for almost a century, today's Democrat party and Obama are natural extensions of reasonable expectations considering the cultural Marxist assault on (and taking over of) the educational system, media, and entertainment. There is a lot of work to be done if we hope to pull America back from the brink of disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)