End Justifies The Means

“This is exactly what conservatives have been saying for four years. What we’re hearing now is the true voice of liberal arrogance. [T]hey believe they know the right way—they have to lead the masses to the Promised Land, and they can only do it by deception. And that’s what he said openly…[they] lied about everything.”–Charles Krauthammer

Indeed they did. But in this instance, of course, the ends justified the means. It didn’t matter that the bill was so flawed it needed to be amended dozens of times. It didn’t matter that zero Congressional Democrats read the bill in its entirety before voting for it. It didn’t matter that a majority of Americans opposed the bill from the beginning. And of course, as Guy explained this morning, it didn’t matter that the law would never, ever work as promised:

Obamacare kicked millions of people off of their preferred insurance plans (with millions more to come), is signing up far fewer newly-insured consumers than projected, is hurting many more people than it’s helping, and is still expected by the government to leave roughly 30 million Americans without insurance.

And yet, as Krauthammer noted, critics of the law foresaw all of these problems years ago. All of them. They weren’t “fooled” or “tricked” by the law’s designers. So is it not, as Krauthammer said, somewhat of a scandal that it’s only now becoming clear that the law’s architects lied, misled, and parsed language to get their bill passed?

I’ll leave you with Ed Morrissey’s smart analysis: Namely, when Gruber dismisses “stupid Americans” for buying into—and ultimately supporting—the president’s healthcare reform law, he’s not talking about conservatives:

Let’s not forget that when Gruber calls voters stupid, it can’t be applied to those who opposed ObamaCare on the very same grounds as he states in these videos. Critics had made these arguments all along about the deceptive structure of the bill, and the lies being told to cover it up. Gruber’s talking about the Obama coalition in these remarks. (Townhall)

In less than a year Jonathan Gruber has gone from being cited [by Obama administration supporters] as an outstanding expert on health reform modeling to being downplayed as ‘a private citizen’ who misspoke,” notes Breitbart.com’s John Sexton.

Democrat attorney general in Court in regards to ObamaCare: “YouTube videos of Professor Jonathan Gruber, a private citizen at non-governmental meetings in January 2012, years after the ACA was enacted.”

This is what any Liberal does when caught with the Truth hanging out, they hang the truth sayer faster than the French killed peopled with a guillotine!

I/They “misspoke” is Progressive Liberal speak for the truth was said, now forget it. The Ministry of Truth and The Thought Police have ruled that this person is now a thought criminal and anyone who listens to them is a thought criminal and must be punished for their heresy against The Ministry and Big Brother.

Gruber went on MSNBC yesterday afternoon and tried to downplay his confession: “The comments in the video were made at an academic conference,” he said. “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments.” But he did not disavow the substance of the comments—that is, he did not deny that the comments were truthful and reflected his own view.

Oh, and it’s the Republicans fault for obsessing about these little truth slips…

Gruber appeared on WGBH-TV, the PBS station in Boston, where he had this to say about the Halbig and King cases: “I think this comes to the master strategy of the Republican Party, which is to confuse people enough about the law so that they don’t understand the subsidies they’re getting are because of the law.” Well, he’s the expert on trying to confuse stupid voters.

Metaphor Alert
“A full week after the alleged ‘shellacking’ of President Obama and the Democrats, the country remains a ‘stucknation’ locked in a partisan standoff. . . . For several years now, the two parties have so amped up the partisan rhetoric that what used to be middle ground is nothing but scorched earth. It’s a machine fueled by animus, but raises hundreds of millions of dollars for the warring factions and keeps the nation from a necessary reconciliation that’s a prerequisite for moving forward. . . . Listening to this cacophony that passes for political discourse, an alien from outer space would come to the conclusion that Americans really can’t stand each other and just don’t want to defeat their opponents but annihilate them.”—Robert Hennelly, Salon.com, Nov. 12 (WSJ)

And that would be the means to an end and I’m sure the Democrats & The Ministry could justify it as The Republicans fault… Next up…Illegal Immigration & Global Warming… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

Win Stein’s Money

Charles Krauthammer: If there’s an iron rule in economics, it is Stein’s Law (named after Herb, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers):

“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

Detroit, for example, can no longer go on borrowing, spending, raising taxes and dangerously cutting such essential services as street lighting and police protection. So it stops. It goes bust.

Cause of death? Corruption, both legal and illegal, plus a classic case of reactionary liberalism in which the governing Democrats — there’s been no Republican mayor in half a century — simply refused to adapt to the straitened economic circumstances that followed the post-World War II auto boom.

Corruption of the criminal sort was legendary. The former mayor currently serving time engaged in a breathtaking range of fraud, extortion and racketeering. And he didn’t act alone. The legal corruption was the cozy symbiosis of Democratic politicians and powerful unions, especially the public-sector unions that gave money to elect the politicians who negotiated their contracts — with wildly unsustainable health and pension benefits.

When our great industrial competitors were digging out from the rubble of World War II, Detroit’s automakers ruled the world. Their imagined sense of inherent superiority bred complacency. Management grew increasingly bureaucratic and inflexible. Unions felt entitled to the extraordinary wages, benefits and work rules they’d bargained for in the fat years. In time, they all found themselves being overtaken by more efficient, more adaptable, more hungry foreign producers.

The market ultimately forced the car makers into reform, restructuring, the occasional bankruptcy and eventual recovery. The city, however, lacking market constraints, just kept overspending — $100 million annually since 2008. The city now has about $19 billion in obligations it has no chance of meeting. So much city revenue had to be diverted to creditors and pensioners that there was practically nothing left to run the city. Forty percent of the streetlights don’t work, two-thirds of the parks are closed and emergency police response time averages nearly an hour — if it ever comes at all.

Bankruptcy, which will radically cut payments to bondholders and retirees, is the only chance to start over.

Yet, if a Detroit bankruptcy succeeds, other cities will be tempted to follow. Dozens of other large urban areas have similarly massive pension and debt obligations, with commensurately denuded services and exorbitant taxes — leading to a vicious cycle of depopulation that makes everything worse. Detroit has lost more than 60% of its population since 1950.

The moral hazard increases if the federal government steps in. The administration is therefore firmly opposed to a “bailout,” recognizing both the political toxicity of the word and the fiscal consequences of a precedent that invites others to line up with tin cups. Washington cannot afford a nationwide federal bailout of insolvent cities.

However, under pressure of the public-sector unions, whose retirees will necessarily be victimized, the administration will likely offer “assistance” — which implies whatever kind of non-cash payments, indirect funds from other ongoing federal programs and enterprise-zone tax subsidies that it can get away with.

Under the table deals in secret. You scratch my back I’ll vote for you. Gee, Unions have done that before…<<eye roll>>

But Detroit is an object lesson not just for other cities. Not even the almighty federal government is immune to Stein’s Law. Reactionary liberalism simply cannot countenance serious reform of the iconic social welfare programs of the 20th century. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are pledged to their inviolability.

President Obama will occasionally admit that, for example, Medicare cannot go on as is, but then reverts to crude demagoguery when the GOP proposes a structural reform, such as premium support for Medicare or something as obvious as raising the retirement age to match increasing longevity.

On the contrary. Obama added one enormous new entitlement (ObamaCare) and, in his last State of the Union address, proposed yet another (universal preschool).

DC: President Barack Obama is doubling down on his proposal to give all kids a publicly-funded preschool education, but experts are skeptical the policy will work.

“If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century,” he said. “That’s why I’ll keep pushing to make high-quality preschool available to every four year-old in America — not just because we know it works for our kids, but because it provides a vital support system for working parents.”

But many policy experts who have studied the impact of early childhood education on kids maintain that there is no evidence to show such schooling is worthwhile.

“There are reasons to doubt that we yet know how to design and deliver a government funded pre-K program that produces sufficiently large benefits to justify prioritizing pre-K over other investments in education,” wrote Grover Whitehurst, Director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute.

Most large-scale studies of universal preschool find scant evidence of lasting academic gains for kids enrolled in pre-K. By the fifth grade, students who benefited from preschool were shown to be no smarter or more social than other students.

“Universal, government preschool, financed by the federal government, is mired in bad policy,” wrote Lindsey Burke, an education fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The type of preschool-for-all President Obama envisions is far more likely to mimic the failing Head Start program, which has cost taxpayers more than $150 billion since it began in 1965, and has left low-income children no better off in the process.”

But it sounds good, it’s pithy, and if you’re against it they can bash you as hating children and promoting ignorance. With added benefit of funneling even more wastes of money to the Teacher’s Unions! What more could a Liberal “bully” want. 🙂

Back to Charles: None of this is inevitable. In Wisconsin, the GOP showed it recognized the perils of unlimited government growth and will take on the unchecked power of public unions. Democratic Detroit, however, has for 50 years conducted a contrary experiment in myopia and the most imprudent passivity.

It doesn’t take a genius to see what happens when the entitlement state outgrows the economy upon which it rests. The time of Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, the rest of insolvent social-democratic Europe — and now Detroit — is the time for conservatives to raise the banner of Stein’s Law and yell “Stop.” You can kick the can down the road, but at some point it falls over a cliff.

But can they take the Liberal Media onslaught if they do?

That’s the question.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

135027 600 Jump Start cartoons

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Hooked

Eric Holder, for instance, is very interested. So interested that he appears to have used Justice Department resources to facilitate protests on behalf of Trayvon Martin, when an American who is guaranteed “innocent until proven guilt” had yet to even see his charging documents.

A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents.

The Community Relations Service (CRS), a unit of DOJ, reported expenses related to its deployment in Sanford to help manage protests between March and April 2012, according to documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.

That got the Police Chief fired. 🙂

Ultimately, public pressure forced the prosecution to bring the case, even though the evidence and witness testimony was specious at best. Did George Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin, killing him? Probably. But the rest is a murky puddle of affirmative defenses and unreliable testimony coupled with agenda-driven witnesses and non-profits. Prosecutors would probably, in the absence of public pressure, have offered Zimmerman some sort of deal to keep the case out of court, but because people kept showing up to rallies like this one all the way up to April of this year, you can bet no one felt that a plea bargain agreement was an option, which means the DOJ interfered, at least in a small way, with prosecutorial discretion.

That said, at least you know that, if you can hit all the right buttons, you too can get the Department of Justice to pick your side in a fight and beyond that, help you bus in protesters from out of state to march around and look angry. Maybe. (Naked DC)

Victor Davis Hanson: When do insensitive words destroy reputations?

It all depends.

Celebrity chef Paula Deen was dropped by her TV network, her publisher and many of her corporate partners after she testified in a legal deposition that she used the N-word some 30 years ago. The deposition was filed in a lawsuit against Deen and her brother over allegations of sexual and racial harassment.

Actor Alec Baldwin just recently let loose with a slur of homophobic crudities. Unlike Deen, Baldwin spewed his epithets in the present. He tweeted them publicly, along with threats of physical violence. So far he has avoided Paula Dean’s ignominious fate.

Does race determine whether a perceived slur is an actual slur?

It depends.

Some blacks use the N-word in ways supposedly different from those of ill-intentioned white racists. Testimony revealed that the late Trayvon Martin had used the N-word in reference to George Zimmerman and had also referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker” who was following him.

Some members of the media have suggested that we should ignore such inflammatory words and instead focus on whether Zimmerman, who has been described as a “white Hispanic,” used coded racist language during his 911 call.

Actor Jamie Foxx offers nonstop racialist speech of the sort that a white counterpart would not dare. At the recent NAACP Image Awards (of all places), Foxx gushed: “Black people are the most talented people in the world.” Earlier, on Saturday Night Live, Foxx had joked of his recent role in a Quentin Tarantino movie: “I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?”

Foxx has not suffered the fate of Paula Deen. He certainly has not incurred the odium accorded comedian Michael Richards, who crudely used the N-word in 2006 toward two African-American hecklers of his stand-up routine.

Yet whites at times seem exempt from any fallout over the slurring of blacks. Democratic Minnesota state representative Ryan Winkler recently tweeted of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s vote to update the Voting Rights Act: “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.” Winkler’s implication was that four of the jurists were veritable racists, while Thomas was a sellout. After a meek apology, nothing much happened to Winkler.

Winkler’s “Uncle Thomas” racial slur was mild in comparison to the smear of Justice Thomas by MSNBC talking head and African-American professor Michael Eric Dyson, who made incendiary on-air comments invoking Hitler and the holocaust.

Does profanity against women destroy celebrity careers?

Not really.

TV talk-show host Bill Maher used two vulgar female slang terms to reference Sarah Palin, without any major consequences.

Those Palin slurs were mild in comparison to late-night television icon David Letterman’s crude riff that Palin’s then-14-year old daughter was impregnated by baseball star Alex Rodriguez.

In contrast, when talk-show host Rush Limbaugh demeaned activist Sandra Fluke as a “slut,” outrage followed. Sponsors were pressured to drop Limbaugh. Some did. Unlike the targeted Palin, Fluke became a national icon of popular feminist resistance.

So how do we sort out all these slurs and the contradictory consequences that follow them?

Apparently, racist, sexist or homophobic words themselves do not necessarily earn any rebuke. Nor is the race or gender of the speaker always a clue to the degree of outrage that follows.

Instead, the perceived ideology of the perpetrator is what matters most. Maher and Letterman, being good liberals, could hardly be crude sexists. But when the conservative Limbaugh uses similar terms, it must be a window into his dark heart.

It’s apparently OK for whites or blacks to slur conservative Clarence Thomas in racist terms. Saying anything similar of the late liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall would have been blasphemous.

In short, we are dealing not with actual word crimes, but with supposed thought crimes.

The liberal media and popular culture have become our self-appointed thought police. Politics determines whether hate speech is a reflection of real hate or just an inadvertent slip, a risqué joke or an anguished reaction to years of oppression.

Poor Paula Deen. She may protest accusations of racism by noting that she supported Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. But the media instead fixates on her deep Southern accent and demeanor, which supposedly prove her speech was racist in a way that left-wing and cool Jamie Foxx purportedly could never be.

We cannot forgive conservative Mel Gibson for his despicable, drunken anti-Semitic rants. But it appears we can pardon liberal Alec Baldwin for his vicious homophobic outbursts. The former smears are judged by the thought police to be typical, but the latter slurs are surely aberrant.

The crime is not hate speech, but hate thought — a state of mind that apparently only self-appointed liberal referees can sort out.

And they are hooked on the power to destroy anyone anywhere whenever THEY want.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Pyrrhic Victory For The People

Economy: President Obama and his acolytes are gushing over his fiscal cliff victory. But the glow isn’t likely to last long, once everyone figures out that the tax hikes Obama wrangled from Republicans only made matters worse.

But this wasn’t a battle about economics to begin with, as you will see…

Let’s look at what Obama has managed to achieve with his $620 billion tax hike on the wealthy and the boost in the payroll tax rate.

• They’ll hurt the economy. Economists are admitting the fiscal deal will slow the already sluggish economic growth.

Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi says the higher taxes on the wealthy and the increase in payroll taxes will shave close to 1 point off GDP growth this year and result in 600,000 fewer new jobs.

Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors chief economist Ian Shepherdson figures the deal will cut GDP by 1.5 points. And Gallup’s chief economist Dennis Jacobe says the deal has created a “higher probability of recession — just the opposite of what fixing the fiscal cliff was intended to do.”

• They’ll do nothing to fix the debt crisis. Even with the Obama tax hikes, deficits are likely to reach nearly $1 trillion this year and top $6 trillion over the next decade. Worse, by slowing economic growth, the tax increase makes tackling the nation’s debt crisis all the harder. Getting deficits under control means tackling the massive growth in entitlement spending. But Obama still hasn’t put forward a credible plan to do so. If he fails again, he’ll pay a price with the public. And if he does put forward a plan, he’ll find himself at war with his own party.

• They won’t raise as much as advertized. History is clear: Tax hikes rarely produce as much revenues as expected, particularly when they’re targeted at the rich, who can more easily avoid the new taxes.

President George H.W. Bush’s tax hikes in 1990 generated $135 billion less than expected. And revenues as a share of GDP came in lower than predicted after Clinton’s tax hikes went into effect.

But this was not about economics per se, it was about Ideology. And he won that battle, the only one he was actually fighting.

Want more proof: The Evil scourge from hell “The Bush Tax Cuts” that the Democrats have been railing and wailing about incessantly for years now were made permanent, mostly.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) (BOY IS THAT AN ORWELLIAN TITLE TO BEAT THEM ALL! 🙂 ), which President Obama signed into law last night, makes permanent 82 percent of President Bush’s tax cuts.

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and Congressional Budget Office estimate that making permanent all of the Bush tax cuts would have cost $3.4 trillion over 2013-2022.

“The Bush tax cuts” has been practically a curse word for Liberals these last few years. Nothing was more evil than them, THEY are almost exclusively responsible for the crash in 2008 according to them (that and the Iraq War).

They are so evil, they just made them permanent for most people and not only gave up “getting rid” of them they made a selling point for how great they are and how they are “protecting the middle class”.

That tells you it was just an Alinsky tactic to win the Political battle. It wasn’t about economics at all.

Well, played, sir. Well Played. And the Ministry of Truth was in on it, or they were too busy being cheerleaders to care.

• They’ll hurt the cause of tax reform. By adding still more brackets to the tax code, Obama has made it harder to get needed tax changes enacted. His own deficit commission urged him to push for legislation that lowered tax rates and broadened the tax base to make the code simpler and spur economic growth.

Again, this wasn’t about the economy, it was about his ideology.

“Jar Jar” Boehner”: “You’ve managed to kill everyone else but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target“-Admiral James Kirk of the USS Enterprise.

This chess, not poker. Obama is not bluffing and can’t be bluffed. This is ideology, not economics.

Charles Krauthammer: the ultimatum was designed to exploit and exacerbate internal Republican divisions. It worked perfectly. Boehner’s attempted finesse (Plan B), which would have raised rates but only for those making more than $1 million, collapsed amid an open rebellion from a good quarter of the Republican caucus.

At which point, power passed from the House to the Senate, where a deal was brokered. By the time the Senate bill reached the House, there was no time or room for maneuver. Checkmate. Obama neutralized the one body that had stymied him during the last two years.

2) Ideological Breakthrough.

Obama’s ultimate ambition is to break the nation’s 30-year thrall of low taxes — so powerful that those who defied the Reaganite norm paid heavily for it. Walter Mondale’s acceptance speech at the 1984 convention promising to raise taxes ended his campaign before it began. President George H.W. Bush’s no-new-taxes reversal cost him a second term.

On this, too, Obama is succeeding.

He not only got his tax increase passed. He did it with public opinion behind him.

Why are higher taxes so important to him?

First, as a means: A high-tax economy is liberalism’s only hope for sustaining and enlarging the entitlement state. It provides the funds for enlightened adventures in everything from algae to ObamaCare.

Second, as an end in itself. Fundamentally, Obama is a leveler. The community organizer seeks, above all, to reverse the growing inequality that he attributes to ruthless-Reaganism. Now, however, clothed in the immense powers of the presidency, he can actually engage in unadorned redistributionism. As in Tuesday night’s $620 billion wealth transfer.

Upon losing the House in 2010, the leveler took cover for the next two years. He wasn’t going to advance his real agenda through the Republican House anyway, and he needed to win re-election.

Now he’s won. The old Obama is back. He must not be underestimated. He’s deftly leveraged his class-war-themed election victory (a) to secure a source of funding (albeit still small) for the bloated welfare state, (b) to carry out an admirably candid bit of income redistribution and (c) to fracture the one remaining institutional obstacle to his ideological agenda.

Not bad for two months’ work.

The Republicans are still playing the wrong game.

Thomas Purcell: Right after the financial deal package was sent to Congress this week, the President held a press conference on the bill.
 
I say press conference on the bill, but I mean it only in the loosest sense of word, it was more like a campaign speech. Except, of course, he isn’t running for office. Because he isn’t running for office I can only really apply one answer for it: a propaganda speech. 
 
Since he didn’t take any questions or mention any detail of the packaged bill I have to assume he was just trying to tell the American people how great he was.
 
He even used people as cardboard cut-out props to sell his agenda to applauding sheep. Dictators, tyrants and false gods use the same technique. To make their case to the people they stand in crowd of people who support him and show that world the he is loved, he is right and therefore, he ideas must the right ones.
Obama used the same technique during the Obamacare debates. A mob of fronted people stood around them, and even wore white labs coats. It looked like Trident commercial, ‘3 out 4 doctors approve of this bill’. Only problem was the real doctors who are out in field every day don’t support the bill at all. In fact, several doctors in the white lab coats behind Obama that day have offices that are private pay only, and don’t accept Medicare.
And the mass retirement that’s coming will be very painful for the people, but not for the politicians and certainly not for our Dear Leader.
 
One has to assume that the people props used for the fiscal cliff bill are as phony as the supposed deal signed up on the Hill. Certainly in a few days word is going to get out who they are and it’s certain they will be as phony as the President. More than likely they will be party leaders, political hacks and willful stooges.
The President has yet to answer for this blatantly propagandist technique worthy of a second rate used car salesman. None of the White House press corps asked an obvious question; who are these people and how did they get here so quickly. After all, those people had to be ready on moment’s notice, so they had to be interviewed and pre-screened by the Secret Service and had a background check on them. Those sorts of things can’t be done in a few hours; it takes a few days at least. Therefore it meant the President planned that ‘spontaneous’ press conference ahead of time.
 
So much for honesty and transparency in the Presidency.
 
It seems that no one wants to, or no one has the courage to, ask these questions. More importantly, no one bothers to ask the President why he feels the need to do so. Is it merely propaganda for the willing masses to gobble up with a spoon, a self-aggrandizement to soothe his ever flagging ego? Or is it more sinister, a prelude to his trying to manipulate the voters again into giving him power in the 2014 elections, or worse, somehow finagling a third – or more – term.
The Ministry of Truth isn’t there to ASK him questions, they are there to make him look like a God. Nothing more, nothing less.

It begs more questions than it answers, and the answers to questions don’t bode well for the American people regardless of what they might be.

It’s a Pyrrhic victory for the people, but since, for Obama, this wasn’t an economic fight but a Political Victory expect him to go to the well again and expect yet another Crisis that must not go to waste. And expect the Republicans to cave again.

Meanwhile, your tired, your poor, your huddled masses will be stuck with high taxes and even higher inflation and debt.

Now that’s a victory worth celebrating! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Cooling Out

“Anytime a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans who were serving our country get killed, we have to figure out what happened and fix it,” he said, speaking with Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski in New Hampshire. “But I do take offense with some suggestion that in any way, we haven’t tried to make sure that the American people knew as the information was coming in what we believed.” (RCP)

Obama: “If four Americans get killed, it’s not OPTIMAL”

That’s why he said “act of terror” the day after (The talking point) and then blamed a film for weeks then switched to the State Department did it, then the CIA did it, and finally stop blaming me for lying about it, damn you! 🙂

That’s cleared that up. 🙂

Obama “Playing President” During Sandy, But Not For Benghazi

“Well, he says he’s not concerned about the impact on the elections,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about Obama and Hurricane Sandy on Monday’s broadcast of “Special Report” on FOX News. “I’m sure he’s very sincere on that. It is a little odd that he shows up in the briefing room, where he hasn’t shown up in the briefing room for about, what, a month and a half? On Libya, or for everything else for that matter. Then you get the photo-ops of him in the Situation Room deploying, I guess, the utility crews who will restore power all over America. Whereas you would think he might want to use the Situation Room and had convene high level people during the nine hours our people were under attack in Benghazi.”

“It’s hard to look at this, playing the president, playing the Commander in Chief in what’s a natural disaster that really doesn’t a lot of leadership from the White House,” Krauthammer said. “It’s up to the Governors mostly. The White House and the Governors release money, that’s about all that they do. And he’s really good at releasing money and pretending it’s not about politics. He wants to use this to show himself in command and I think he might actually be the beneficiary of the fact that all national attention is drawn away for three days. Romney clearly had the momentum, it slowed down but it was still heading in his direction. It’s not clear what happens when the country sort of wakes up out of this in three days and restarts attention on the campaign, whether the momentum will be gone or not. I mean, that’s an open question.”

“I think Charles is a little too hard on Obama. Frankly, it’s huge progress that he didn’t blame this hurricane on a video,” Jonah Goldberg, fellow “Special Report” panelist, joked.

“Or on George Bush,” Krauthammer shot back. (RCP)

YET. 🙂

The brilliant Thomas Sowell nails it: Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” as he has been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.

So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out — but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own White House aides later called it “telling the truth slowly.”

By the time the whole truth came out, it was called “old news,” and the clever phrase now was that we should “move on.”

It was a successful “cooling out” of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.

We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year.

The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.

About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.

Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?

The White House knew the facts — but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.

Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.

All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the background. The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty — “cooling out” the voters — the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.

As the Obama administration’s video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on “the fog of war” that initially obscures many events. But there was no such “fog of war” in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.

They didn’t know all the details — and we may never know all the details — but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.

From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism.

The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in Libya exposed that fraud — and required another fraud to try to “cool out” the voters until after election day.

AMEN!

NEXT TUESDAY- NOVEMBER IS HERE!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Victims of a Bullied Justice

The IRS Can NOW Enter Through The Rear

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

What do you know it’s a TAX!

2009: “That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” said Stephanopoulos.

“No,” said the president. “That’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. 

Stephanopoulos cited Merriam Webster’s Dictionary definition. “Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” said the president. “Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition….I absolutely reject that notion” that it’s a tax increase. (ABC News)

Yeah, But Chief Justice Roberts just ruled that it was a TAX. That’s why Obamacare is “Constitutional”, because it’s TAX in the view of the “majority” opinion.

Like he did when Obamacare was being debated, Obama will try to hide from Americans the fact that Obamacare is a tax increase when he is on the stump. But in 2012, he won’t be able to take credit for Obamacare without admitting that it is a tax increase because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in upholding his law, called him out on it. (Breitbart)

But at least 1700+ companies, mostly unions are exempt because of the waivers passed out like candy to his apparatchiks. Oh happy Days.

Why Roberts did it

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, June 28, 1:11 PM

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

So he gave into pressure to be “liked” and to not appear to be a “right wing judicial activist”. Image Politics at it’s finest and darkest.

So like the Republicans in the Debt Ceiling vote they caved into the pressure from the intolerant and partisan media and we all get to be victims of the Bully Pulpit.

Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a “corporate dominated arm of the Republican party.” The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily–not by corporate interests, but by Obama’s imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media. 

If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite–not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals–still smarting over Bush v. Gore–and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that “bipartisanship” is the legacy of the Chief Justice’s apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest. (Breitbart)

Also worth reading: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it

He was for it After he was against it. The tortured logic of a bully’s victim.

He’s got Stockholm Syndrome.

And we all get hit with the shrapnel. I wonder if Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome will be covered by ObamaCare?

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy)- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected  by the least capable of producing,and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or  succeed,are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of
a diminishing number of producers.

One last thing:  As soon as the law was ruled Constitutional, some members of the DNC showed their class.  A tweet was sent out that read, “It’s Constitutional, bitches!”  That’s class for ya. It’s must be that new “civility” they were talking about.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Problem Solving- Obama Style

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

In 2007, then-senator Barack Obama insisted that the coming presidential primary- and general-election campaigns “shouldn’t be about making each other look bad, they should be about figuring out how we can all do some good for this precious country of ours. That’s our mission.”

“And in this mission,” he continued, “our rivals won’t be one another, and I would assert it won’t even be the other party. It’s going to be cynicism that we’re fighting against.”

My how things have changed. 🙂

I guess I missed the moment when Obama hung his “Mission Accomplished” banner. Because from where I’m sitting, it looks more like the president not only lost his battle against cynicism, he defected to the other side.

And don’t forget about the New Tone and “Civility”. The Democrats surely have.

Except inequality isn’t the cause of these problems, stagnating wages and unemployment are. But Obama wants to talk about inequality because it puts him on the convenient side of populist anger.
Sounding as if he were still running against George W. Bush, Obama laid the blame for our problems on the “most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history.” Of course, he leaves out that those tax cuts also went to the middle class.

“Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent,” Obama barked. “That is the height of unfairness.” Except, when the Washington Post asked the White House for evidence to support the claim, an official confessed they “had no actual data to back up the president’s assertion.”

That’s okay. Who cares about the facts when you’re fighting to make America safe for cynicism again? (Jonah Goldberg)

So with that problem solved…we move onto the economy… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Charles Krauthammer: The president has nothing to run on but crude populism.

In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn’t alleviated the nation’s economic pain, he’d be a “one-term proposition.”

When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case.It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich.

Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. The “breathtaking greed of a few” is crushing the middle class. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity.

Aka, spend even more! 🙂

Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing. As for federally directed spending on innovation — like Solyndra? Ethanol? The preposterously subsidized, flammable Chevy Volt? (which only met 60% of its very underwhelming sales targets to begin with)

Our current economic distress is attributable to myriad causes: globalization, expensive high-tech medicine, a huge debt burden, a burst housing bubble largely driven by precisely the egalitarian impulse that Obama is promoting (government aggressively pushing “affordable housing” that turned out to be disastrously unaffordable), an aging population straining the social safety net. Yes, growing inequality is a problem throughout the Western world. But Obama’s pretense that it is the root cause of this sick economy is ridiculous.

As is his solution, that old perennial: selective abolition of the Bush tax cuts. As if all that ails us, all that keeps the economy from humming and the middle class from advancing, is a 4.6-point hike in marginal tax rates for the rich.

Yes, Democrats really do think this is the devil. Then they propose a tax cut that will cost billions and will make the already bankrupt Social Security debt EVEN WORSE (this would be the payroll tax- the one that funds Social Security to begin with – so if it is getting even less money pour down that rat hole the debt rats are going to get even bigger!)

Oh, and the Democrats were going to pay for this by…<<drumroll>> increasing taxes on rich people!! Ta Da!

So wreck play class warfare (“you can’t possibly be against it”) cause even more  Social Security debt (so it will have to be bailed out) and raise taxes on the rich all at the same time. What a smorgasbord of liberal hate and fear! They love it!

This, in a country $15 trillion in debt with out-of-control entitlements systematically starving every other national need. This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year’s deficit from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society.

And no liberal can do that. They are the two of the 3 Holy Grails of Liberalism (ObamaCare being the third- being able to control who lives and who dies).

It’s just not “fair”. 🙂

And if you just give it more time it’ll work (The New Deal is around 80 years old BTW) 🙂

As for those structural problems, Obama has spent three years on signature policies that either ignore or aggravate them:

A massive stimulus, a gigantic payoff to Democratic interest groups (such as teachers and public-sector unions) that will add nearly $1 trillion to the national debt.

A sweeping federally run reorganization of health care that (a) cost Congress a year, (b) created an entirely new entitlement in a nation hemorrhaging from unsustainable entitlements, (c) introduced new levels of uncertainty into an already stagnant economy.

High-handed regulation, best exemplified by Obama’s failed cap-and-trade legislation, promptly followed by an EPA trying to impose the same conventional-energy-killing agenda by administrative means.

Moreover, one issue that already enjoys a bipartisan consensus — the need for fundamental reform of a corrosive, corrupted tax code that misdirects capital and promotes unfairness — Obama did nothing, ignoring the recommendations of several bipartisan commissions, including his own.

In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions “are now forced to take their children to food banks.” You have to admire the audacity. That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection!

Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. It’s the rich. And, like Horatius at the bridge, Obama stands with the American masses against the soulless plutocrats.

And the Republicans are strictly FOR the same plutocrats so if you hate them, you hate Republicans!

Thus, “Vote for me! the other guy’s an asshole!” 🙂

This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chávez. But with high unemployment, economic stagnation, and unprecedented deficits, what else can Obama say?

He can’t run on stewardship. He can’t run on policy. His signature initiatives — the stimulus, Obamacare, and the failed cap-and-trade — will go unmentioned in his campaign ads. Indeed, they will be the stuff of Republican ads.

What’s left? Class resentment. Got a better idea?

And Racism. I can’t wait for that one again… 😦

Problem solved.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden