

Saturday, May 29, 2010

As I Say, There Is No Such Animal As A Moderate Democrat

The good old days of JFK and Reagan Democrats is a distant memory.  Those who fail to understand the complete transformation of the Democrat party from an all-encompassing, broad based political party until the latter part of the twentieth century to one that has been taken over by stealth-socialists (and I only say that because they refuse to be honest enough to calll themselves socialists with the exception of Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont) should listen to moderate Democrats like Senator Zell Miller (author of A National Party No More), Pat Caddell, and Dick Morris for a perspective from within! 

Or better yet, listen to our esteemed Secretary of State, who couldn't help herself take a swipe at "the rich" during a speech on National Security Strategy:

Now, of course we all know that she is blowing off some progressive smoke since her claim has no relationship to reality.  But, more importantly, why the heck is a Secretary Of State, while talking about national security, delving in to areas that a truly professional statesperson should stay out of?

As I said, they just cannot help themselves.

--Benjamin Franklin

Amazing how much wiser some were two centuries ago than today's progressives!!

“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign.”

Ben LaBolt – Obama Spokesman



No comment needed.

The Blamer-In-Chief

George W. Bush was blamed for the federal response to Katrina, even though state sovereignty issues hung in the balance and the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, both governed by Democrats at the time, dropped the ball as first and primary responders.
It wasn't Bush who ordered people into the Superdome instead of out of the city. It wasn't Bush who left school buses to sit empty in a flooded parking lot. Nevertheless, Bush got all the blame from the Democrats with the help of their allies in main stream media.  This time around, the disaster is on Obama's watch and on federal territory - a huge distinction.

Unlike Katrina, where disputes and confusion quickly arose between federal, state and local authorities over who should have done what and when, the handling of this accident in federal waters was a clear federal responsibility. It was the failure of this administration to implement contingency plans in place since 1994 to contain and burn the oil that made the situation far worse (and no, they were not precluded from taking this action as some on the left falsely claim!).

Moreover, Governor Jindal of Louisiana has had to go to the extreme of threatening to break federal laws and building sand berms (to protect the shoreline) himself since his request has been held up by the Army Corps of Engineers for about two weeks now while his state's coast line is being ravaged.

We all know that BP is culpable, and as such primarily responsible, as the company whose actions contributed to this environmental disaster.  However, this does not change the fact that disaster took place in federal waters that BP is leasing from the feds, and as such, there is no excuse for the indifference the Administration has astonishingly shown as even some of the most ardent allies of the president have pointed out over the last few days.
As the St. Petersburg Times editorialized on the first Friday of the BP blowout: "President Obama met U2's Bono in the Oval Office on Friday when he should have been headed to the Gulf Coast"; and while the oil washed up in Louisiana marshes, Obama took time out to raise money for the re-election of Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer in California. 

It took exactly 9 days for the Administration to acknowledge the severity of this crisis.  Even then, the rhetoric has been one of condemnation of the industry as well as the previous administration.  What gall!  What else should one expect from a President who has done nothing since day one but blame everyone else for everything under the sun while systematically dismantling the American Way.
No wonder why they are headed towards an epic downfall that will make 1994 look enviable to Democrats next November.


P.S. A possible theory now that the Administration is suspending any notion of off-shore drilling for a year (or more). Was the non-response of the federal government to the Gulf spill calculated to achieve a desired result? Hmmmm...... It is a sad day when your governments actions over the past year and a half lead you to think such devious thoughts!
"Please don't put your faith in market forces. It's a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the healthcare system you want and need. In the U.S., competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system."

--Dr. Donald Berwick, nominated by Barack Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who idolizes Britain's socialized National Health System (NHS).


In case Dr. Berwick hasn't seen the reports on the NHS since the publication of his article, it's deep in debt and delivering substandard service, with new critical reports published almost daily about its state of disgrace causing untold deaths and unnecessary suffering. Adam Smith's invisible hand gave the U.S. the best medical care in the world. The people know this, which is why the vast majority reject ObamaCare, the American NHS wannabe.
"I think there's a comprehension gap"

--Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) who thinks that Democrats aren't getting the credit they deserve for all the work they've done for America by confiscating wealth and giving it largely to their constituents in the unions, etc.

Or as the Boston Herald puts it, us commoners "just don’t understand his greatness, nor that of his fellow national Democrats, from Barack Obama on down." 
"Is this comprehension gap anything like the media in 2008 describing Bush’s 5.5 percent unemployment rate as a precursor of the next Great Depression? But now with the unemployment rate under Obama at 9.9 percent, we are told by the exact same media that it’s the “new normal,” a lagging indicator of the alleged recovery. Praise Barack.
"One of my biggest differences with the Bush administration, and even with the Clinton administration, was that they overdid that. I have always been critical of this effort to equate a decent home with homeownership. I think we should have been doing more to provide rental housing. My efforts have been to try and get affordable rental housing. I was very much in disagreement with this push into home ownership, and I think the federal government should not be artificially doing that."

--Barney Frank, May 21, 2010


Of course, in June 2005, Frank's story was quite different:
"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about homeownership and its role in the economy. ... Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you're not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. And so those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for homeownership."

Barney must not be aware that what he said five years ago is readily available on the internet.
For leftists, history starts with their current public statement.
"The Democratic Congress and the Obama administration share a strong commitment to fiscal discipline and common sense in our budget, and we must continue to do everything in our power to boost our economic recovery, rein in the deficits we inherited, and remain responsible stewards of the public purse. After President Bush and Republicans in Congress turned record surpluses into record deficits and nearly doubled the national debt, Democrats are returning our nation to a course of fiscal responsibility."

--House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her own party's quadrupling of even the worst Bush deficit

   (a.k.a. Mrs. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it")

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

One of the Few Times They Actually Told the Truth...

      Vice President Joe Biden at the AFL-CIO's Executive Committee, March 2009

Boy, have they!  A bill making its way through the Senate would bail out union pension funds to the tune of $165 billion. The bill's author, Democrat Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, wants the public to pay for the gold-plated union retirement benefits that the funds have mismanaged into oblivion.

This has to be galling to average working saps who watch as their 401(k)s and IRAs plummet, only to be asked to pony up billions of dollars in subsidies for unionized workers — many of whom get to retire while still in their 50s. 

Casey's bill isn't the only gift that the White House and Congress have for the unions. Last year, economist Ben Stein estimated that as much as half of the $862 billion stimulus would go to unions, directly or indirectly. Even that might underestimate organized labor's take.

And just last week, the White House proposed $23 billion in aid to states for education. For education? Well, in point of fact, increased federal involvement in education has had zero positive effect on test scores.  Neither has increased spending per pupil helped with problems stemming from social issues rather than financial woes.  Some of the highest spending school systems, from Chicago to Washington, D.C., still are the worse school systems in the country when it comes to achievement.  Who will the $23 billion benefit?  Try NEA and AFT - two unions that palyed an important role in labor unions raising over $400 million in 2008 elections, virtually all of it for for Democrats.

So beholden to the unions have the Democrats become, it's fair to say they are a de facto Organized Labor Party — a far more accurate name than "Democrats."  Welcome to the workers' paradise.

Brussels - the New Capital of the Free World?

In what way, Mr. Vice President?  Economically (while EU is collapsing under the weight of its own unsustainable socialist policies)?  Militarily (while majority of their soldiers are running copiers in Afghanistan)?  Diplomatically (having resolved no issue ever, from the Middle East to N. Korea)?

This administration reminds me of an army of termites, eating away at the underpinnings of the 'home' they live in.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010


General Douglas MacArthur

Monday, May 24, 2010

Whatever Happened to America First?

There are certain unwritten rules in life.  You do not double cross your own family is an important one of them.  That rule applies not just to individuals but also in a larger sense to society and governments.  Honor, patriotism, and loyalty demands that we are unified against any attacks on our sovereign policies with few exceptions in extreme cases such as post World War II denouncement of the Holocaust by the German people.  Well, the rule applied in a truly universal way, that is until the Obama administration had to be the first to break it. 

We are, by now, used to the near constant apologies of the President and criticism of his predecessors while abroad.  Cutting the U.S. down to size and admonishing our friends while directly or indirectly elevating the status of the world's dictators/bullies is this administration's demented way of changing the 'negative image' of the U.S. abroad.  The examples of minimizing American exceptionalism while blaming the U.S. for the world's ills are too numerous to count.  Mr. Obama dazzled ecstatic world citizens on every single continent with citations of the offenses against international goodwill and humanity committed by the nation he leads.  The more memorable ones include his apologies in France for our past arrogance and dismissiveness/derisiveness towards Europe, failure to tie our progress to that of Latin America at the OAS, moral responsibility of using the atom bomb while in Prague, and placing the responsibility for financial woes of the world squarely on our own shoulders while in London.  And that is just a few of the dozens of unprecedented examples! 

As bad as criticizing the U.S. while abroad may sound, a new line was crossed recently.  First, high ranking administration official criticized the the new Arizona law passed to enforce existing federal laws against illegal immigration while meeting with the Chinese last week.  Yes, the Chinese - who are not ranked far ahead of the North Koreans or the Cubans when it comes to human rights!  As if that wasn't bad enough, earlier past week, President Obama reiterated the same criticism while meeting with President Calderon of Mexico (whose country's immigration laws are a lot more stringent than ours - both on paper and in enforcement) at the White House last Wednesday.  This time around, criticism came indirectly - by way of the President's silence while standing next to a foreign head of state who was openly promoting an ongoing, aggressive, illegal, and often violent invasion of America. To add insult to injury, President Calderon, while addressing the U.S. Congress, admonished the Arizona law as being anti-human rights and unworthy of the United States.  On multiple occasions, he received enthusiastic standing ovation from the Democrats in his audience. 

Although it is good to see that Obama is not the only ungracious, unpresidential head of state who, like a dinner guest who criticizes the food, has a thing or two to learn about presidential decorum while visiting another country, one cannot help but stop and wonder whatever happened to the unwritten rule of not criticizing your own, especially on your own soil? 

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office.

Ludwig von Mises

Thomas Jefferson

John Kenneth Galbraith


Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Obama Slams Electronic Gadgets, Promotes Smoke Signals

This was too good not to reprint. A bit of satire from our friends at the People's Cube (click on the title for the site).

President Barack Obama cautioned college students last week about the harmful effects of the free flow of information - a social ill typically associated with unfettered technological advancements in a capitalist economy. Speaking to thousands of graduates, their family and friends, the president shared his concern over what his latest intelligence report characterized as "students' misuse of awareness-enhancing gadgets and empowering tools" as merely entertainment devices."

Today's college graduates are coming of age at a difficult time when the alternative media is not always presenting the current truth according to our specs and we're just wasting valuable time writing detailed instructions for them," he said."

Even our seasoned media watchdogs are having a hard time sifting through the many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio. Not only does this unnecessarily pressure you to think for yourself and make the so-called 'informed choices,' it also impedes my ability as president to game the system. Let's face it, even some of the craziest internet parodies can quickly become a reality. I've had some experience with that myself," said Obama.

Speaking of electronic organizers and mind-boggling memory chips, president Obama assured his audiences that a string tied to his finger can do all that and more.

Keeping his criticism constructive, the president then proposed to replace the decadent iPhone with a rope and two coconut shells - a nature-friendly device that had been successfully tested on Gilligan's Island but never made it to mainland due to corporate greed and obstructionism of the telephone companies.

President Obama urged students to learn from other cultures who have created many alternatives to long-distance communications - from "talking drums" to crystal skulls to smoke signals."

While not entirely carbon-neutral, smoke signals are nonetheless a time-tested First-American custom that needs no infrastructure, promotes outdoorspersonship, and can be safe when supervised by a caring EPA official," Obama said. "Visible to all, smoke signals strengthen the communal spirit by sparking collective outcry if the sender deviates from the majority norms, thus preventing any chance of a conspiracy or developing anti-social, individualistic traits.""

When I promised breathtaking change, I didn't mean you would be upgrading your iPods and video game consoles every few months," the president continued. "My change only referred to the way we slice the American pie, so that you'd vote for me if you want a bigger share. But getting elected was only the beginning; I still need your help. If you want your slices to be equally big, you must continue to empower the government. And to do that you must quit playing your stupid games, dammit, and empower yourselves by raising your awareness about what's in your neighbor's lunchbox and saying 'I want that.' Because empowerment means awareness of your entitlement to your neighbor's lunch.""

The era of single-player video games has been detrimental to raising class consciousness," the president said. "PlayStations and Xboxes aren't conducive to dividing people into oppressed groups and nurturing their collective grievances. Every hour spent on playing video games is an hour not spent with your local community organizer or in a group meeting developing groupthink strategies. And without strong groupthink, without the ability to categorize people by their grievances, we won't be able to win elections and you will be doomed to work for a living and keep what you earn."

President Obama then suggested an easy politically correct alternative to the anti-democratic gadgets. Reaching underneath his colorful ceremonial robe, he produced a puzzle that looked like the Rubik's Cube only it was equally red on all sides: the People's Cube."

Having all squares of one and the same color guarantees certainty of results and eliminates the stress associated with competition and risk-taking," the president said, rotating the cube and solving it within seconds. "Playing with this puzzle, no group of players can outperform any other group. This completely levels the playing field and guarantees equal outcomes for all. It's what we're also trying to achieve in real life with our mind-blowing economic reforms. A great educational tool, the People's Cube can teach you more about the theory and practice of progressivism than any video game ever could. What's more, it's colorblind-friendly!" (Click here for operating manual)."

To summarize, popular electronic devices have become an obstacle to our steady march towards a better future. Giving them up will be a necessary sacrifice worthy of the dreams of our fathers."

Obama finished reading from his hi-tech teleprompter and held his head up at a photogenic angle, enabling high definition cameras to stream his image to various TV networks feeding the infotainment-hungry nation. Backstage, presidential staff hectically typed his speech into Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace pages, transmitting it through a number of live podcasts, and posting web-ready iPod-snapped photos on the official White House blog.

Friday, May 14, 2010

A Case of Poetic Justice

For the good part of last two years, I and other defenders of the free market capitalism had to endure the left, both in this country and in Europe, telling the rest of us how the financial crisis of 2008 signalled the futility of the free market system. German lawmaker Martin Schulz, chairman of the Socialists in the EU assembly, said “This crisis underlines the excesses and uncertainties of a casino capitalism that has only one logic -- lining your pocket. It also shows the bankruptcy of 'law of the jungle' capitalism that no longer invests in companies and job creation, but instead makes money out of money in a totally uncontrolled way.” The French leader reiterated his earlier attacks on American capitalism as well. "We cannot continue along the same lines because the same problems will trigger the same disasters," said Mr Sarkozy. "This is no longer acceptable. This is no longer possible. This sort of capitalism is a betrayal of the sort of capitalism we believe in." They were joined in similar attacks by politicians from Austria to Spain, while the American left (and the pretenders on the right) made the most of the crisis to their political benefit.

Flash forward two years, and now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Despite their recent condemnations of the free market system, the EU is singing a different tune these days. The one trillion dollar rescue package (which the U.S. tax payer will partially shoulder) to stabilize the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) has been a great source of anxiety. The European markets, and the Euro as its principal currency, have been jittery and in decline for an excellent reason: the very survival of the EU as an intact entity is being questioned in the markets all across the globe - will France and Germany, the two relatively healthier members of the union, be able to prevent a domino effect, or will the one trillion dollar anchor around their neck prove to be the eventual demise of the 27 nation club. The culprit, this time around, is not a temporary financial crisis (which was in good part the doing of the government - most important factor being the "recourse rule" instituted in 2001) as in 2008 being passed as the deficiencies of the free market capitalist system. No, this time around what stares Europe in the face is the undeniable and inescapable permanent effects of European style socialist capitalism. The time to pay the piper has finally come and the economically weakest members of the union have started to crumble under the weight of their sovereign debt.

The Euro debt crisis is educational in multiple levels. Greece, the most immediate concern, was told in no uncertain terms by the IMF and the European Central Bank that they will need to agree on an austerity program as well as a higher 23% VAT. Among the considerations Greece was asked to undertake were the privatization of their public healthcare, energy, and transportation sectors. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices which are among the highest in Europe." Is this not a tacit admission by the same socialists that state involvement in crucial sectors is a cost killer?

As Dan Henninger points out in the Wall Street Journal today, the state of Europe can be summed up in one word: stagnation. Jean-Claude Trichet, the European Central Bank president who just agreed to monetize the debt that Europeans can't or won't pay, noted in a 2006 speech that "over the period from 1996 to 2005, euro area output grew on average 1.3 percentage points less than in the U.S., and the gap appears to be persistent." Angus Maddison, the eminent European historian of world economic development who died days before Europe's debt crisis, wrote in 2001: "The most disturbing aspect of West European performance since 1973 has been the staggering rise in unemployment. In 1994-8 the average level was nearly 11% of the labor force. This is higher than the depressed years of the 1930s." Stagnation isn't death but rather a purgatory which is very difficult to get out of. Economies don't usually die. Greece proves that. They slow down. Europe's low growth rates allow its populations to pretend that real, productive work is being done somewhere by someone. But new jobs are created slowly, if at all. Younger workers lose hope. Those who need more evidence of this purgatory's near inescapableness by employing Keynesian economic policies can ask the Japanese about their ever continuing 20+ year experience with it despite the staggering level of government involvement in their static economy (which got them little other than an unparalleled 200% debt to GDP ratio).

Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics also emphasized the point today in Tech Ticker that the investors worldwide are nervously wondering how badly Europe's sovereign debt crisis is affecting the banking system -- both over there and here at home. "In some ways European banks are worse than ours. They're certainly less transparent. It's a strange time. And I think it talks to the basic lack of competitiveness, the lack of productivity really, in Europe." In the last sentence, of course, he was referring to the underlying problem of persistent economic woes.

Regardless of what end of the spectrum one may be at - whether one believes that the sovereign debt crisis will be at least temporarily overcome, or questions the viability of the EU and/or the Euro like Paul Volcker, - we must accept the inescapable logical conclusions EU is teaching us. Social democracies of the world, without exception, are failures. More specifically, socialism cannot co-exist with free market capitalism as it by nature must drain resources from the producers of any society (a very simple and logical fact that liberals cannot see despite a world of evidence). The one trillion dollars that the productive citizens and job creators of Europe, Asia, and the U.S. will not have to grow economies is neither the first, nor will it likely be the last waste of money. However, in a sick way, it still feels good to see the shoe on the other foot so soon after free market capitalism - the only economic system that has been proven to work successfully - was brutalized by the liberal elites of Europe.

Lest we forget the pearls of wisdom uttered by Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of others' money"

Friday, May 7, 2010

The Carbon Connection (or Why Goldman Sachs and GE are in bed with the Obama Administration)

It is no secret that corporations generally favor the party in power in their political giving. The same is true for industries at a macro level. For example, the defense sector as a whole favored the Democrats by 57% and 51% during the most recent two election cycles (2010 and 2008) despite the common perception that, as a whole, they generally support Republicans by a similar margin. When it comes to corporate political giving, the rule of thumb is simple: in order to influence favorable legislative agenda, give primarily to those candidates who will likely remain in, or come in to, power. The same has been true for all other industries except for Oil and Gas industry which has steadfastly supported Republicans through thick and thin. At the risk of being side tracked, I would like to point out that they have not got their money’s worth since oil exploration remains a daunting task in Washington; and, at least in the U.S., they have paid record taxes and royalties unlike any other sector of the economy.

It is only ideologically driven special interest groups like the unions and trial attorneys that usually favor one party over the other consistently. It all made sense, that is until earlier this week.

A ‘progressive’ friend and I were discussing Goldman Sachs and I did not really know why GS was so much more Democrat leaning in their political giving than any other Wall Street institution (though others all leaned to Democrats in 2008, obviously it was for political convenience since they slightly leaned the other way pre 2006 – but not GS, which has always favored the Democrats). For the readers' benefit:

Year..................Contributions.................% given to Democrats










Source: Open Secrets

It took me a while to put one and one together, but eventually it all clicked when I researched some of my archived articles.

The mechanism for carbon trading in the U.S. is in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The Joyce Foundation (which is tightly linked to The Soros Open Society – a powerful advocacy lobby that envisions global socialism) in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board. This is where it starts getting really interesting: The largest single shareholder of CCX is Goldman Sachs. Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs.

CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could one day (soon) be "a $10 trillion dollar market." Not bad for trading an intangible, kind of like complex financial instruments of various kinds Goldman is so familiar with. GS seems really good in making money out of 'thin air'.

From another angle, one might wonder why then would GS give any money at all to Republicans who would de-rail their gravy train in the way of Cap and Trade? Well they haven’t really. Of the 25% of their contributions to Republicans, some of the biggest recipients were:

Specter (was a Rep. then)
John Sununu
Chris Shays
Mark Kirk

…..All liberal Republicans with luke warm views towards Cap and Trade legislation! GS gave, by my calculations, less than 10% to non cap and trade friendly Republicans, mainly to hedge their bets in a very minor way.

Well, the 'carbon connection' does not end there because, then there is General Electric. GE - a giant corporation that paid $0 in U.S. taxes last year - as we all know, is the parent company of the NBC family, including MSNBC and CNBC; or also known as the unofficial press organ of the Obama White House. Was it a coincidence that, as Pew and other surveyors of the political scene pointed out, NBC group distinguished itself from every other news outlet in one sided favorable coverage of the Obama campaign, and later the administration while the CEO and the parent company tilted heavily, 2:1, to the Democrats in their giving? Is it a coincidence that Jeffrey Immelt sits on the President's economic council, presumably having the ear of the president and having influence over economic policies? Furthermore, is it coincidence that the combined alternative energy market and medical record transcription businesses - both Democrat only ideas - that are estimated at $2-3 trillion, happen to benefit GE directly and disproportionately?

For those not in the know, GE has not tried to hide its massive lobbying efforts on behalf of Cap and Trade legislation. They are not only the single largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, but also stand to be the sole secondary market trader of carbon credits. Under the Obama plan, those cap and trade credits would be issued by the federal government, and ultimately traded like any other stock or bond. GE has created an entire unit that would deal in the secondary market trading of the carbon credits. In other words, first they are going to take in billions from government contracts in wind energy. Second, they are going to have exclusive control over the secondary market for these credits. That effectively makes GE the gate keeper for every dollar produced by the carbon scheme which will cover all carbon emmiting energy sources including the manufacture of almost all consumer goods using these resources.

Thus is the explanation of what I suspected before: Obama (+Democrats in general) is in bed with GS and GE; and there are potentially 10 trillion+ excellent reasons. Follow the money. But then again, as my friend claims, I am delusional and there are absolutely no connections to be made in these incestuous relationships that I highlighted.