Monday, June 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A gathering including George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett, makes me quite uncomfortable to say the least.
This meeting should also put to rest the idea that it is conservatives who are the wealthy elitists.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Hmmm where have I seen this before? I'm not thinking of "Benedict" Arlen Specter, although he was playing a game of self-preservation. We must look no further than the Wall Street and Detroit for vivid examples of entire industries selling their souls for self preservation. And the big loser in each debacle so far has been the American Taxpayer. We sunk trillions into the banking system to prop up failing institutions. We have been rewarded by mounting losses from AIG and Fannie and Freddy, yet have no idea where half the money went.
To make matters worse, Wall St. wasn't enough, so we bailed Detroit out too, despite the fact that conservatives were yelling from the rooftops that the American car companies needed to go bankrupt. But, because Obama said that the car manufacturers could not survive bankruptcy and he promised to ride in on his shiny green taxpayer purchased horse and save them, we threw billions down another black hole. Conservatives warned that we were throwing good money after bad, but nobody listened. And now to add insult to injury, after the inevitable bankruptcy (that Obama said they couldn't survive and swore he would never let happen) hascome to pass, it looks like Obama is negotiating to put Taxpayers on the hook to subsidize the bankruptcy agreements, whose only winners will be the unions, executives, and politicians who are responsible for the mess in the first place.
Like the Banking executives now wishing they they hadn't naively given Washington control over their industry, and the car executives who are no doubt beginning to come to a similar realization, the health care industry will one day find out the same thing. However, I'm not so sure that the damage of socialization can be undone too easily. Once freedom is given away, it cannot easily be taken back. Look at Social Security. Everyone knows it is a failed system, and everyone knows it going to wreak havoc on our nation when it finally goes belly up. but even as that day is barreling towards us at an ever quickening pace, nothing is being done to stop it. America is content with the false security of its indulgently self-imposed blindfold.
The U.S. spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country. Experts estimate that at least one-third of that spending goes for services that provide little or no benefit to patients. So theoretically, there's enough money in the system to cover everybody, including an estimated 50 million uninsured.
But one person's wasteful spending is someone else's bread and butter.
The office visits, tests, procedures and medications that the experts question represent a lot of money for doctors, hospitals, drug companies and other service providers. Dialing them back won't be easy. Providers will resist. Patients might complain their care is getting rationed.
The clear point of this passage is to begin laying the necessary groundwork for socialism, portraying freedom as greed. The ability to choose what health care you want is now described as "wasteful spending." The message is clear, with socialized medicine you will not have the freedom to make your own choices about health care, Washington bureaucrats will be deciding for you, whether you like it or not. You will not be allowed to get the health care you want, so that the government can take your money and spend it on someone else. This is pure socialism, and it will have the same costs as any socialist program. Production and quality will decrease, costs will rise, and the system will eventually fail. The current cost analysis being publicized is a scam, because it does not include the costs from fundamentally altering the incentives that are involved.
The only hope is for conservatives to stand united and try to build a coalition with so called "blue dog" Democrats, if they really exist (emphasis added).
Economists and other experts say the $634 billion that Obama's budget sets aside for health care will pay perhaps half the cost.
Obama is hoping the Senate comes up with a bipartisan compromise that would give him political cover for disagreeable decisions to raise more money, such as taxing some health insurance benefits. In the 2008 campaign, Obama went after his Republican presidential rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, for proposing a large-scale version of that idea.
As usual, the politically savvy Dems, will try to push through their agenda, but still maintain political coverage for the negative repercussions by pulling "Republicans" into it. This approach demonstrates why I said that it is great for the country that "Benedict" Arlen Specter became a Dem, because the less so called Republicans available to be manipulated by the Dems on these types of ploys the better. If we ever hope to repel these plans, or reverse them, we need to make it clear to the electorate who is responsible for the plans that will cause the inevitable problems that will eventually arise from systematically dismantling the best healthcare system in the world. Lets pray our Congressmen have the fortitude to stand strong on this issue, and actually represent America's best interests for once.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
. . . . Wow this is stunning. Another incredulous reporter (clearly concerned about protecting Democrats) just asked the Governor (my paraphrasing): "But Governor aren't you concerned that proposing a plan that is essentially the same as Senate Republicans is acknowledging that Republicans were correct on this issue, and have the moral high ground on fiscal discipline?"
Governor Patterson's paraphrased response: "Well, sometimes you have to admit when your opponents were right. The Republicans were correct on this issue and sometimes it is necessary stop being more concerned with the partisan bickering and posturing and be more concerned with doing what is right for the people of the state."
I'm not sure if the honesty or the new found fiscal discipline is more surprising. I think I might have an idea what is behind this proposal though. A recent poll found that only 1 out of 5 state voters approve of Gov. Patterson's job performance, and nearly 70% preferred Attorney General Cuomo in the upcoming election. It might be that Patterson is pulling a toned down version of "Benedict" Arlen Specter and foreseeing that his only hope of survival is to gain conservative support.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Those of us who are paying attention Have been suggesting for a while now that the stress tests are a way for the Obama administration to stealthily nationalize the banks with limited attention.
As I understand it, the scheme essentially works like this:
- Treasury Department pressures banks, forcing them into accepting bailout money in exchange for preferred shares of stock (non-voting shares).
- Treasury Department creates regulations requiring arbitrary debt/equity ratios.
- Treasury Department performs stress test on banks to evaluate their debt/equity ratio.
- Banks that don't meet arbitrary ratio will be forced to raise private funding (which will be next to impossible in this market), or accept a government "gift" of increased equity by converting preferred shares (non-voting) into common shares (voting)
- Voila! Treasury Department owns large voting blocks in most banks.
- Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd, Tax Cheat Tim Geithner and Obama are running our banks.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
First, off the idea that the Republican Party has taken too steep a turn to the right is ridiculous. The public dissatisfaction with Republicans is because they abandoned the conservatism that got them elected in the first place. The Republican party did shift to the right, but it was back when Ronald Reagan won the parties nomination to run for President and then it drifted back to the left and then self-corrected again when Newt Gingrich led the Republican Revolution in 1994. In other words, the Republican party has been the most successful and found its greatest public support, when they were the most conservative.
Since 1994 the party has gone so far to the left that it allowed a massive increase in the Department of education by letting Ted "the Liberal Lion" Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Act, and President Bush spirit Ralph Nader and Joe Biden, claiming "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Compare that to Ronald Reagan who wanted to completely eliminate the Department of Education and thought Government was the problem rather than the solution to economic problems. Such a comparison makes it clear that the Republican Party has only drifted in one direction and that is far to the left.
Second, the idea that Specter is somehow choosing principle over party is ridiculous. He is choosing his personal career over principle. Just a week or two ago he said that he would never switch parties because allowing the Dems to get a supermajority would devestate our country. Yeah that principle only lasted until polls showed he was going to lose in the Republican primary.
Lastly, the idea that the Democrat party is committed to principle is laughable. If Dems are so principled than why were they going to run a Dem candidate against Specter in the general election before he switched parties? If he is such a great asset to the Senate why have they been trying to defeat him in elections for years. Either he caved on his principles, they are caving on their principles, or it has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with party. One must look no further than the disparate treatment Dems have shown to Specter and Sen. Olympia Snowe this week. Both Snowe and Specter are about as liberal as it gets in the Republican party. Yet Dems have spent the weak dishonestly smearing Snowe, while simultaneous praising Specter. The only difference between the two is that Specter just switched parties.
The bottom line is that I am thrilled he switched parties. Why? because I don't care about the Republican party at all. I care about conservatism. Specter was no conservative then and he won't be now, so his party affiliation will not change a thing. The only difference will be that the media will have a tougher time portraying his votes and opinions as representative of conservatives. The Republicans in Congress that are sad to see Specter go need to wake up before they find themselves gone as well. The reason Republicans are struggling is because partisan hacks like them have been more concerned with keeping Republicans in office than keeping principled Conservatives in office.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Two things are certain in my mind.
- This helps the GOP far more in the long run than it hurts it in the short term.
- Personally, I am excited, because I promised Sen. Specter that if he voted for the stimulus bill I would make my first ever political contribution for his opponent in the upcoming primary. Now I can spend my money on the general election instead!
Compare this situation to the way Sen. Lieberman handled his primary. Rather than switch parties for political convenience, he ran as an independent after losing in the primary. Seems far more principled to me.
Update: In celebration, I just made my first contribution to Pat Toomey's election campaign. It is important for conservatives to support Toomey because it is unclear that the Republican leadership will give him the support needed to defeat Specter. Please contribute to his campaign here.
Monday, April 20, 2009
What is certain is the public derision and condemnation that the brave beauty contestant will face. Perhaps she will at least be supported by the Miss California USA organization? Alas, not a chance.
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.Apparently, the Miss California USA organization believes that only supporters of gay marriage have a right to their beliefs, and that it is fair to insert political and moral questions into a competition and then castigate the contests for their personal political, moral, and religious beliefs. What disturbs me most is that supporters of gay marriage are so hostile to opposing viewpoints, and so aggressive about trying to demonize and ostracize their opponents. Miss California USA should be aware that Carrie Prejean's traditional beliefs, rather than being out of the main stream, represent the view shared by a majority of Californian's who have twice now voted in favor of traditional marriage. Not to mention, at least 42 states plus the District of Columbia define marriage as between a man and a woman according to Wikipedia, either by statute or constitutional amendment. Oh yeah . . . even Obama says he opposes gay marriage, I guess he can kiss his hopes of winning Miss USA goodbye.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Really there isn't too much that needs to be said about this. Obama announced today that he is asking the Cabinet to cut $100 million from the budget. $100 million? Are you kidding me. This is a slap in the face of the American people. This is an intentional mockery of the Tea Parties. This is Obama telling the participants of the Tea Parties that he believes they are so stupid, gullible, and naive that he can get away with cutting $100 million, off of trillions of dollars in deficits he is running up, and preposterously claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Although, can you really blame him for trying? He knows the media will toe the line for him, and it worked in the election didn't it? Let's hope America isn't as stupid as Obama thinks we are, I pray we have learned from our mistake.
Diagram courtesy of The Heritage Foundation
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Its funny how little the media is saying about yet another embarrassment by the Obama Administration. Unable to understand the power and influence that he possesses as the leader of the free world, Obama has followed through on his campaign promises to buddy up to our nation's enemies. He has made overtures to Iran, Cuba, and now Venezuela. Obama's giant grin, and warm embrace upon meeting Hugo Chavez said it all. The leftist bond shared between the two leaders goes far beyond diplomatic niceties. The exchange was better than Chavez ever dreamed of. In fact, he was so thrilled by the encounter he appeared almost giddy. Obama even posed for a photo-op with Chavez, as the Venezuelan dictator gave him an anti-American book about American exploitation of South America.
The repercussions from the foreign policy disaster will be phenomenal. The anti-American book has already skyrocketed up the Amazon best seller rankings. But more importantly, as William A. Jacobson points out in his blog Legal Insurrection, Obama Threw Venezuelans Under the Bus. Obama lent a burgeoning dictator a great foreign relations victory to help prop up his credibility around the world. This coming after one of our strongest South American allies, Columbia, captured definitive evidence of Chavez's considerable support of the bloody, Marxist, narco, terrorist organization FARC.
Obama's foolishness could have serious repercussions throughout South America, as it undermines those still trying to oppose what is becoming a Chavez funded continental Marxist revolution. The spread of authoritarian socialism poses a serious threat to capitalist democracies in countries like Columbia that have tried to remain loyal to the U.S. With Democrats refusal to pass the free trade agreement with Columbia, it is uncertain how much longer the country can withstand the regional forces pressuring it from all sides.
Obama should have seized the conference as an opportunity to undermine Chavez, while he is facing trouble at home because of the steep drop in oil prices. A true leader would have used the conference as an opportunity to express commitment to the free trade with Columbia and other allies in the region, but alas we should all know by now not to expect so much. Given Obama's recently demonstrated disrespect towards Israel, France, and Great Britain, it is clear that he has little interest in our closest Allies. Just look at his insulting treatment of Gordon Brown and the English, his refusal to visit Normandy with Sarkosy, his snub of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and his heavy-handed and one-sided demands of Israel in the "peace process." (I put quotations because, I see little peace and a lot of process, much of which has done more harm than good.)
If anything is clear about Obama's time in office so far it is this: his past associations with terrorists such as Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn, leftist radicals such as Father Pfleger and Saul Alinsky, racists like Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and the corrupt and criminal Rod Blagojevich and Antoin "Tony" Rezko, were not flukes or youthful indiscretions. What is the connection between all these character from his past and Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad , and the King of Saudi Arabia? They are all either corrupt, leftist, powerful, or hate America. Is this the group of people we want our President snubbing our allies to hang out with? Not only is a man known by the company he keeps but by the company he chooses not to keep.
Friday, April 17, 2009
I have no problem with moderate or liberal political views in theory. However, it seems much of the Republican establishment has erroneously come to the conclusion that the best way to beat Democrats is to run as Democrats lite. Many are not principled moderates they merely believe it is a advantageous political posture. A former McCain strategist, Steve Schmidt, recently had the delusional self-confidence to offer his advice on how the GOP should right its course. his suggestion? Abandon religion.
Essentially Schmidt is advocating continuing the McCain strategy of disillusioning and disrespecting the core of the party base. I can only imagine he is advocating the strategy because it worked so well for McCain. Oh no wait, McCain lost and did so in a disconcerting fashion, losing states he had no business losing. McCain has even admitted that he would have done much worse without Palin on the ticket. No doubt Palin's conservative Christian cred helped shore up much of McCain's eroding support from the Christian community.
For starters, I am coniunously baffled by McCain advisors and strategists who somehow think that their disasterous campaign gives them the credibility to offer suggests on fixing a party that they are largely responsible for destroying. Secondly, I am dumbfounded that they don't even have the minimal wisdom needed to see the error of their ways and admit that that ostracizing the conservative base of their party was a bad decision. What arrogance and foolishness.
To address the substance of Schmidt's argument, it has numerous flaws. For starters, the argument is completeley devoid of principle. He argues that the GOP should abandon religion and social conservatism not because he believes it it the right thing to do but because he thinks it is politically advantageous. That alone is enough for me to tkae his advice very cynically. However, his political arguments are weak enough to leave no surpise why the campaign he assisted faired as poorly as it did. For starters he argues that young people are much more socially liberal than older generations so we need to become socially liberal to appeal to them. Perhaps when your decision making is devoid of morals, that somehow seems smart, but to the average conservative that sounds like classic Washington blindness.
Politicians should be more than mere representatives of there electorates. If that is all we required then why have a republican form of Government? Representation is not merely more efficient, it is more effective than mob rule. This is because the ordeal Politician in a Republic is not merely a conduit for his electorate but a leader. Leadership involves convincing people to follow you because what you are doing is right. Leaders do not follow the crowd because it will make them popular. That is why Bill Clinton was a poor leader, he couldnt decide where to go on vacation without taking a public opinion poll. He had few true principles merely ambition.
If social conservatism is wrong, then by all means the GOP should abandon it. However, if it is right, then the GOP should educate the American public about why it matters. Why is it better to raise a child in a home with a Mom and a Dad? Why is it dangerous and immoral to undermine the value of life through euthanasia and abortion? The GOP should be answering these questions eloquently and unequivocally rather than shying away from them. Governor Huckabee is great example of the right way to stand up for what is right. And I have personally watched him win over a room full of radical angry liberals while doing so.
The idea that the people should abdicate there morals because of political expediency is hard enough to swallow. But when Schmidt basis his logic on faulty assessments of the country it is even worse. The push for gay rights, abortion rights, and other social issues in this country has been anything but a public movement. It has been driven by radical activists and judges and has created widespread anger and frustration and the general electorate, something that Republicans would be smart to capitalize on if anything. States across the country have popularly voted defense of marriage acts including democratic states such as California which has had to do so twice now.
Schmidt and his ilk are a perfect example of the disconnect between Washington and the American people that has so infuriated the average Americans and given rise to activism such as the Tea Parties. He carelessly assumes that Republicans are more interested in the health of the party than in principle. What a delusional belief. The last several elections have proven if nothing else, that Republicans have little party loyalty and are mostly concerned with issues. Until the Republican party rids itself of cancerous influences such as Schmidt it will not rebuild itself. Also, make no mistake about it, even though Schmidt is advocating economic conservatism at the expense of social conservatism, the reverse point of view has been just if not more detrimental. The economic moderates who are staunch social conservatives, such as President Bush, have done just as much if not more damage to the GOP. In order to rebuild the GOP must not compromise its values, it needs to embrace them, because America is still a conservative country, it just hasn't had anyone conservative to vote for in a long time.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The answer is that liberals have always seen the judiciary as a political branch. It started from nearly the beginning with John Adams creating ten new federal courts after losing to Jefferson in the Presidential Election. In order to insulate his political agenda, Adams then quickly tried to fill the new positions before leaving office, stocking the judiciary with Federalist political allies. The new appointments infamously became known as the "Midnight Judges." Granted, John Adams was hardly liberal compared to the socialists that currently constitute the left wing of American politics, but Adam believed in a bigger federal government than his opponent Jefferson, and is therefore the "liberal" of that era.
Another egregious example is Franklin Roosevelt's court packing plan. The first real shift towards liberalization of of the judiciary in this country came upon the threats of Roosevelt to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices in order to get through his New Deal economic agenda.
Lastly, up until Reagan, the Supreme Court nominees were generally quickly approved, and were rarely contested at all. The first real nasty public political opposition to a nomination was Robert Bork, an incredibly prominent and accomplished Federal Judge. According to Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Bork was the best qualified nominee in his own professional lifetime--a span of years that included the appointments of such judicial luminaries as Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter. The confirmation hearings included despicable personal attacks, blatant distortions and even out right lies in order to smear the nominee at all costs.
The trend only has intensified since then with outrageous treatment of Clarence Thomas, and many if not most of Bushes conservative appointments. So when Obama's nominees face obstructionist tactics in the senate, the Democrats better not complain, because they are the ones who have continuously denigrated the process to its current deplorable condition. And now, Majority Leader Harry Reid can't say anything about it, because now he has admitted the Supreme Court is all about politics for the Dems.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
In a banana republic like refusal to accept economic reality, White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said that:
The new projections won't stop Obama from achieving his goals or keeping his promise to cut the country's red ink in half within four years. [Because] the administration is a bit more optimistic about the nation's economic growth over the long term than congressional analysts.
Yeah that doesn't sound like anything like what the press secretary of a banana republic would say does it? Gibbs is about as grounded in reality as Baghdad Bob.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Supposedly if you see the dancer spinning counterclockwise, then you are left brained (logical). If you see her spinning clockwise then you are right brained (creative). If you see her spinning both directions I can only assume it means that you are either nuts are quickly heading in that direction.
Note: As a law student, I fittingly saw it spinning counterclockwise at first and then examined it from every possible angle, abusing my brain until I was able to see it spin clockwise as well. After much effort, I can say it really is possible to see it both ways, but find it disconcerting for some reason. I have to look away for it to change directions though, my mind can't handle the change looking directly at it. I'm a little skeptical that the image isn't really just changing directions though.
Friday, March 20, 2009
In a fitting turn of events, the reigning Special Olympics bowling champion, 35 year old Kolan McConiughey, challenged Obama to a bowling match. The challenge came in response to the President's disparaging remarks about the Special Olympics made on the Leno show. Seemingly unfazed by the President's celebrity, McConiughey told the Associated Press, "[h]e bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily."
Somebody said that we're not in President Obama's Final Four, and as much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets.Although I completely agree with Coach K that its annoying to see the President more worried about going on Leno and ESPN than leading the nation, I'm a little hesitant to encourage him too turn his attention back to the economy, considering the damage he has already done in that arena.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
It is still shocking; however, that the President doesn't feel the need to at least try to respect the hallowed office that he holds. From using his inaugural address for rank political attacks on his predecessor, to disrespecting a visiting head of state, to making an appearances on a late night comedy show, Obama clearly has no respect for the historical prestige of his position, or is simply incapable of filling the role. Wake Up Mr. President! The American People are sick of seeing their leader denigrate the office of the President. Nixon, Carter, and Clinton were enough embarrassment for us in one century. (Carter for his post presidential antics).
So there is no mistake, it's not just the Tonight Show appearance that I'm upset about, (I like Jay Leno) its the way that the President has abandoned the dignity of the office, by waging an unrelenting political campaign from the oval office, rather than embracing his role as the leader of America.
Note: Also, can anyone imagine the self-righteous outrage that would have erupted from the media, if Bush had disparaged the Special Olympics on national television?
One thing is for sure, its not a coincidence that Wall St. has contributed heavily to Democrats over the last several years, including the usual culprits of Dodd, Frank, Clinton, Schumer, and Obama. In fact Wall St. has abandoned the republican party to lavish large amounts of campaign money on the Dems in the last election. The Senators Schumer and Clinton have undoubtedly played a large role in this changing of the tide. It is interesting that when Wall St. is behaving most corruptly and irresponsibly is also when it is most closely entwined with the Dems. All I know is that this investigation should move beyond Schumer, and hedge funds, to address the corrupt relationships between Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Dodd, Frank, and the banks, investments firms, and insurance companies that have benefited from bailouts and other legislation, while donating obscene amounts of money to political campaigns in exchange for legislative favors.
In a related note, the media has largely ignored the fact that histories second greatest swindler, Bernie Madoff is a huge Dem donor. (I say second biggest because Madoff's ponzi scheme pales in comparison to the government run ponzi scheme called Social Security.) A list of Madoff contributions by Jerome R. Corsi at World Net Daily:
- Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: $2,000 in 2002, $6,000 in 2004 and another $2,000 in 1998;
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.: $1,000 in 2000
- House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo, presidential campaign: $2,000 in 2003;
- Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.: $1,000 in 2001; $1,000 in 1998;
- Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.: $10,200 in 2007; $1,000 in 2004;
- Gov. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.: $1,000 in 1999.
Madoff appears to have gotten around rules limiting campaign contributions. For instance, he contributed not only to Schumer's campaign but also to a group called "The Friends of Schumer."
Madoff also contributed to Lautenberg's campaign and to the senator's NJ Victory Committee.
Madoff appears to have contributed more than $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee while Schumer was chairman, including a $25,000 contribution in 2005.
OpenSecrets.org at the Center for Responsive Politics reports that Madoff and other individuals at his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, gave $372,100 in campaign contributions beginning in 1991, with 89 percent going to Democrats.
When a government uses taxpayer money to bailout out a failing corporation, why is it a surprise that the corporation continue fiscal irresponsibility, especially when the money is given hastily, without debate or any strings attached? When bad management is subsidized by taxpayers, why should we expect anything but more bad management?
If AIG had been allowed to fail, there would not have been lavish corporate retreats, and there would not have been undeserved executive compensation. When a company fails it is able to rewrite its otherwise legally binding contracts under protection of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The overpaid and underperforming executives could have been forced to rewrite their contracts or get in line like all the other creditors, instead the Government bailed them out and took away any leverage for forcing the executives to restructure their deals.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
As the Democrat Congressional leaders responsible for destroying our economy, (Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc . . .) are coming under increasing pressure for their handling of the bailouts, at least one congressman is appearing to turn on the President. Today, Sen. Dodd, (chair of the banking committee that failed to regulate AIG) admitted that his team added a bonus provision to the stimulus package at the request of the Obama administration, to specifically ensure that AIG bonuses would not be impeded. This new revelation flies in the face of the ridiculous posturing and mock outrage by the President, who has been pretending for the last few days that he had no idea that AIG executives could still receive bonuses under the bailout plan. It is now clear, however, that not only was his administration aware of it, they were the ones who demanded it.
The big joke in all of this is that this problem was obvious from the beginning. Both Congress and the administration were well aware of this inevitablility. Critics of the bailout have been warning about this for months, including before the bill was passed. When Democrats are allowed to write legislation in secret and Obama and the Democrati leadership refused to give anyone time to read the bill, it is no surprise that atrocities like this will turn up.
The interesting thing will be to see how self-destructive the Democrats will become throwing blame at each other in an attempt to pass the hot potato before they get burned. It all seems like a effort in futility to me seeing as Obama, Dodd, Frank, Reid, and Pelosi have the fingerprints all over this, and will have a very difficult timing hiding it.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
I believe that the left's interest in human rights has eroded because of a shift toward socialism. . . .
When one talks of the current "rape camps" in the Congo, you get the usual and bored clucking of the tongues... "tsk... tsk... so horrible," but little in actual interest or protest. Yet, when Muboto was in charge and the Congo part of now defunct Zaire, then they cared. They care little for Castro and Che's "long ago" vicious repression and "reeducation" but still call for the blood of the deceased Pinochet (himself a terrible tyrant). They continue to rehash the legacy of American slavery (toppled almost a century-and-a-half ago), but seem to care very little for the African and Southeast Asian slave trade that is happening at this very moment.
. . . .[T]he socialist left's interest in human rights is not benevolent, but has been made a part of their philosophy, part of their politics.
The Left's disregard for human rights is not surprising. Stephen R.C. Hicks, professor of philosophy at Rockford College, explains how socialists became postmodernists in his book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault:
Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology. . . . The failure of socialism, both empirically and theoretically, brought about a crisis of faith among socialists, and postmodernism is their response. Its epistemology justifies the leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism, and the same epistemology justifies using language not as a vehicle for seeking truth but as a rhetorical weapon in the continuing battle against capitalism.
With the advance of postmodernism and the resulting moral relativism, the left has become obsessed with power. Questions of right and wrong have been supplanted by questions of power. Without morality all that mattters is who is in control. Those with power are automatically responsible for all that is wrong in the world, and are consequently the only ones The Left feel comfortable condemning. The powerless are mere victims, not responsible for their actions or own atrocities. Therefore, The Left won't condemn Palestinian terrorists because they are the powerless, but will condemn the Israelis because they are more powerful. They don't mind Saddam Hussein's bloody Iraq or Iran and North Korea's brutal oppression of their own people, but rant and rave about American mistreatment of terrorist prisoners.
The only people in power who escape criticism are those dedicated to the same socialist agenda, because ideology trumps postmodernist philosophy for the Socialist. Consequently, Castro, Communist China, Hugo Chavez and now Obama will escape human rights criticism no matter how powerful they are. The Left's concern with human rights violations has never been about morality, but about condemning their enemies.
There is little question why Obama chose "Rahmbo" as his closest political aide. They both adhere to the "Chicago Way," a media euphemism used to sugarcoat the notoriously corrupt Chicago political culture (think Al Capone, both Mayor Daleys, former Governor Blagojevich, Sen. Roland Burris etc...). Not wasting any time demonstrating his ethical shortcomings , Emanuel brazenly admitted what has become the administration's primary political strategy, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
Emanuel had the cajones to say this after democrats have spent the last eight years calling Bush a fascist for "manufacturing crisis" in order to "restrict civil liberties" (translation: Bush responded to 9/11 by investigating terrorists and putting them in jail). In fact, Hillary Clinton went so far as to write an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled: No Crisis is Immune from exploitation under Bush. Talk about projection . . .
The Democratic Congress followed the lead of the Obama administration by promptly passing a obscenely expensive and unaffordable trillion dollar plus spending orgy he called a "stimulus bill," which was nothing more than a massive expansion of government, and payoff to Democrat special interest groups. In fact, Obama used his first prime time speech to threaten the Amercian people with economic doom, warning that if Congress rejected the bill it would “turn a crisis into a catastrophe.”
Finding great success in such fascist political tactics, the Obama team is back at it. This week, Obama made the audacious claim that rising health care costs are the greatest threat to the economy. [Wait I thought we had to pass the bank bailouts because they failure of the banks was the greatest threat to the economy? And then didn't we have to bailout out the car industry because that was the biggest threat to the economy?] The President backed this claim by fraudulently asserting that “the cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds." This unrealistic claim was based on a study that has been debunked for several years. However, a little thing like truth and accuracy will not get in the way of Obama's march towards socialism.
Obama is now working on step one of the plan: make American think that the economic crisis is some how tied to health care. He has also began on Step two, which is making America believe that he is listening to and considering ideas from across the political spectrum. Step three will be convincing people believe that the only solution is government intervention. Lastly, Obama will distort the true nature of his plan, which will inevitably involve socializing the industry. However, he will call it something else such as "universal health care" or "single payer health care."
Although I don't doubt that rising health care costs is a huge issue that needs addressing, I have trouble seeing it as a significant part of the current crisis. Even if it were an issue, the last thing that would help the industry would be turning it over to the people who run the DMV, or the VA hospitals. The only way conservatives are going to defeat this catastrophic agenda is by loudly and clearly exposing the administration for this deceptive and fascist political strategy. Furthermore, we need to articulate an affirmative conservative agenda that will provide people with hopethey can latch on to, other than more big government. America will surely embrace common sense over the folly being pushed by the clowns in Washington, as long as they have the option.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The imbalance is worst in the very departments where political diversity matters most. Cornell's government department has only one registered Republican. At Ithaca College, faced with the evidence that there was not a single Republican in the politics department she chaired, Prof. Asma Barlas boasted "we have a range of progressive views in our department (emphasis added)." -Whats even more disturbing is the willingness of educational institutions (especially public ones) to affirmatively discourage expression of disfavored conservative ideas through censorship, disciplinary action, intimidation and discrimination. For many examples please browse the website for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
The most recent example is detailed by Maxim Lott on FOXNews.com. Three students at Central Connecticut State University gave a presentation in communications class advocating for concealed handgun carrying on College campuses. The Professor, Paula Anderson, responded by calling the police and reporting the students as safety risks. The campus police in turn hauled one of the students, John Wahlberg, down to the police station for questioning! So much for the first amendment at Central Connecticut State University. Minorities joke about the crime of "Driving While Black," well apparently there is a new crime developing at liberal educational institutions, "Speaking While Conservative." Although, when a United States Senator seriously and unashemedly compares conservate ideas to pornography, maybe this liberal movement should not be such a surprise. Just a few months ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer said that conservative opinions need to be censored by the FCC on tv and radio, because they just like pornography should be. What a scary world this becoming, for those who value the freedom of speech.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Calhoun responded to the inquisition joking at first that he would "Not [give] a dime back," When The Socialist would persisted Calhoun became upset angrily explaining that his basketball program brought in over 12 million in revenue to the university. Since the exchange the media has characteristically focused on criticizing Calhoun's angry response, rather than the ignorance displayed by the young socialist product of Connecticut's educational institutions.
Lets do the math on this equation to see if Calhoun or the young socialist has the better point:
Calhoun's Salary: 1.5 million a yr
Calhoun's contribution to the state of Connecticut: over 12 million directly (who knows how much more in indirect earnings)
So 12 million -1.5 million makes Calhouns net contribution 10.5 million.
If you ask me, this probably makes Coach Calhoun Connecticut's most productive employee. I highly doubt anyone else brings in anything close, especially in this economy. Now compare him to all the politicians on the state payroll, who do nothing but sqaunder billions of the state dollars. Hmmm . . . as Dick Vitale said, Coach Calhoun is underpaid if anything.
The most recent development came when the Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell had the nerve to call Calhoun's response "embarrasing." No Governor, your state spending is embarrassing, your budget deficit is embarrassing, and your job performance is embarrassing. (Rell is a Republican whose fiscal conservatism led to a budget surplus early in her tenure, which has since been squandered by abandoning her fiscal principles.) I have reached the end of my rope. I will no longer sit back and watch the earners and producers of our society be demonized for their success. I will not refrain from calling out the politicians and public figures who capitulate to socialist rhetoric and distort reality for the sake of personal ambition.
Calhoun's basketball program turned a huge profit last year, how many other people had similar success with their organizations? I think Calhoun deserves a huge bonus as the lone bright spot in Connecticut, rather than shameless self-promoting criticisms and confrontations.
Monday, March 2, 2009
A 69-year-old Japanese man injured in a traffic accident died after paramedics spent more than an hour negotiating with 14 hospitals before finding one to admit him . . .
. . . . because the hospitals said they could not accept him, citing a lack of specialists, equipment, beds and staff.
It was the latest in a string of recent cases in Japan in which patients were denied treatment, underscoring the country's health care woes that include a shortage of doctors.
. . . .
More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected at least three times by Japanese hospitals before getting treatment in 2007, according to the latest government survey. In the worst case, a woman in her 70s with a breathing problem was rejected 49 times in Tokyo.
So, if you believe "free"*, health insurance is more important than available and quality health care, press on towards a socialist paradise. No matter how Obama tries to frame his plan for socialized health care, he can't skirt the basic laws of economics. Socialism has failed every time and way it has been tried.
*Nothing in life is free. Especially when other people have to work to provide it for you.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Don't get me wrong I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid yet, but at first glance it looks like Gaddafi has realized the failures of socialism before his less enlightened liberals in the western "democracies." Reuters reports that:
Gaddafi said corruption has become widespread in the government and just reshuffling cabinet would not cure the state of graft and mismanagement.
"You would fail to stop corruption as long as the state owns the oil wealth, makes contracts with companies to carry out projects, manages health care, education and other services and economic projects," he added.
My only question is if Gaddafi intends to turn government control over to the private sector or just create more localized decision making bodies. Either way, it is more Jeffersonian than the modern crop of Dems in the power halls of Washington these days.
Many Republicans are currently afraid to speak out, fearing that they will be called racist. They are not so much adverse to winning as overly adverse to losing-- which makes little difference in the outcome.
Ngaby makes a point containing several cogent truths. Many on the right are afraid of the social ostracism and derision likely to follow any public expression of their political beliefs. Not to mention potential employment repercussions (especially for those in the academic community). This fear has led to to a damaging condition amongst many conservatives, marked by an almost desperate search for approval and a nearly pathological yearning for acceptance from their liberal peers. The fear of demonization is only exacerbated on issues relating to race, and now that our President is a liberal* African-American, any loyal conservative opposition can potentially be framed in terms of racial conflict.
When Ngaby says that Republicans are "not so much adverse to winning as overly adverse to losing . . . ." he is absolutely right. There is no question that the fear of losing is often a debilitating mindset in and of itself. An apt analogy can be made to the risk of injury in athletics. From personal experience both playing and coaching youth athletics, it is fairly clear that the participants most likely to suffer from injuries are those who are scared of getting hurt. This is especially true in contact sports (and make no mistake about it, politics is a contact sport). When someone is scared of injury they move more tentatively and stiffly, shying away from contact, and often putting themselves in more vulnerable positions than if they were to face contact head on. When a person faces contact head on, he is braced for absorbing the blow and is better able to adjust in a more flexible and agile manner. The liberal media's frequent vitriolic assaults on conservatives have left many of them afraid of political and social injury and therefore wary of contact, leaving the Republican party vulnerable, inflexible, and off-balance.
However, I'm not so sure that a subconscious fear of winning is not also at play. I'm not doubting that most in the party wish to win their own political seat or appointment, but I'm not convinced they are completely devoted to helping conservatism win on a broad scale, or to wining through principled conservatism. Winning as a conservative is its own form of losing, as it brings an even greater risk of abuse by the left than losing. The media malpractice undertaken in attacking popular conservative politicians has truly become frightening. One must look no further than the vicious and dishonest assault on the most popular governor in the U.S., Alaska's Sarah Palin, upon being nominated to run for Vice-President. [Other notable examples include Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Clarence Thomas, and President Bush. The more successful at achieving political victories, the more viscious the attacks.]
Like many athletes who suffer injuries, the most difficult rehabilitation involves overcoming the fear of re-injury. This mental hurdle is often shared by kids playing contact sports for the first time. The athlete must push the fear out of his mind or risk creating a self fulfilling prophesy of defeat or injury. During my time as a youth football coach it was necessary to convince the young players that contact could be enjoyable, and even losing physical collisions could be rewarding and beneficial to the team. It always made me proud to see a puny 7th grade runt, who had yet to hit his middle school growth spurt, take on an older and more physically developed player without a moment of hesitation. I only hope that the GOP can overcome their fear of contact and be willing to play the game with the reckless abandon and enuthisiasm necessary to win.
*I say liberal because it seems only criticism of liberal African-Americans is deemed racist. If you doubt this then please consider the treatment of prominent conservative blacks such as Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice at the hands of the liberal political and media establishment.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
I realize the title might be an exaggeration, but I don't think that the GOP will be able to recover until it learns to quit volunteering its own defeat. What am I referring to?
How about Senator Orrin Hatch co-sponsoring a bill to subvert the constitution and give the Dems another guaranteed vote in the House.
The complete disregard for the Constitution is bad enough, but Sen. Hatch's pure stupidity on this issue is infuriating. In exchange for giving Washington D.C. a voting Representative in the House, Utah will be given an extra Representative. But get this, the Utah vote will be contingent on the results of the 2010 census. So in other words, Hatch is trading the Constitution, and a perennial Democratic seat in Congress for a 4th Utah Representative that chances are they will get in less than two years anyway! Furthermore, the seat could actually be taken away from Utah based on Obama and Rahmbo's impending shenanigans with the 2010 census! So in reality all that Hatch is getting is an extra guaranteed seat for a little over 1 year!This absolutely blows my mind. With the Senate this close and Orrin Hatch selling out (along with fellow GOP turncoats Sen. Spector, Snowe, Maine and others) this bill will pass. The only hope left is for the Supreme Court to add some sanity to the situation and strike this down as unconstitutional.
I'm starting to think the GOP are the Detroit Lions of American politics . . . they are simply averse to winning.