To Big to Fail or a Big Failure?

In a galling display of dishonesty, President Obama is feigning outrage this week of executive bonuses at AIG, being paid with taxpayer bailout money. The fact that Sen. Dodd has now admitted slipping in a provision protecting bonuses at the specific request of the administration aside, the idea of a government being outraged at a moral hazard it created is appalling.

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.

Dem's beginning to Turn on Each Other

With the massive failure of the bailout and stimulus bills becoming harder and harder to deny and polls beginning to suggest waining faith in the President and his fiscally irresponsible agenda, Obama went into campaign mode again this week, trying to distract attention from the disaster that is his so-called economic policy. Obama is executing what is known as a misdirection play in football, getting eveyone to look in one direction so they don't see what is really going on in the other direction. He's feigning mock outrage at 165 million in bonuses being handed out at AIG, to distract from the fact that his administration has used AIG to funnel billions to prop up foreign banks including banks in Germany, Scotland, and France. The Federal Reserve has refused to give details about the huge transfers of taxpayer money to foreign corporations.

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.

Why the Left Doesn't Care about Human Rights

Yukio Ngaby, author of the blog Critical Narrative, recently discussed the article "Liberals Turning Blind Eye to Human Rights" at RealClearPolitics.com by Michael Barone. Naby correctly disagreed with Barone that the left abandoned human rights because they are upset that Bush stole the issue from them. Furthermore, he astutely points out that the left's infatuation with human rights has long been disengenuous at best. Ngaby writes:

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.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel to Chief of Staff should have been a clear sign that Obama had no intention of bridging partisan divides. Appointing a political knee-capper like "Rahmbo" while pretending to be concerned with bipartisanship is as ludicrous as an NFL team signing Terrell Owens in order to improve team chemistry.

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.

Educational Assault on the 1st and 2nd Amendments

It's no secret that many educational institutions across America have exhibited a disheartening disdain for political and ideological diversity. It's bad enough to watch educational institutions offer their students a pathetically limited exposure to differing political viewpoints. Mark Finklestein provides a glaring example in an article in the Cornell Daily Sun, No Myth: Conservatives in Academia Suffer Discrimination:

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.

Another Example of Socialist Ignorance

University of Connecticut Men's Basketball Coach, Jim Calhoun, got into a heated exchange with a socialist activist at the press conference following Coach Calhoun's 799th career win. What should have been a celebratory occasion turned noticeably sour when a Connecticut activist (who I won't dignify by mentioning his name) questioned the fact that Calhoun is earning a salary of about $1.5 million. The Socialist (who inexplicably got a press pass) commandeered the occasion to interrogate Calhoun about how much he was paid and whether it was appropriate given the states current budget shortfall.

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.

The Horrifying Catastrophe that is Socialized Medicine (read universal health care)

What we have to look forward to with Obama's plan for socialized medicine, according to the Associated Press:

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.