The Petulant Child

Wile E. Coyote, Suuuuper Genius Barack Obama unloaded on his own troops because they dared to defy his royal commands. Oh Petulant One had a hissy fit.

He made his ultra-super secret Trade Deal passed without anyone in the public knowing anything about it.

“You have to pass it to find out what’s in it” kinda thing. Funny, that sounds familiar somehow… 🙂

Democrats, including several who favor Obama’s trade agenda, banded together to prevent the Senate from considering legislation that grants the president so-called Trade Promotion Authority, which would bar Congress from amending or filibustering trade agreements negotiated by the administration. Fifty-two senators voted to start debate on the bill, short of the 60 needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Forty-five senators voted against the plan.

I am King, am I not?

Article by: Brent Budowsky formerly served as policy aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex) and Legislative Director to Rep. Bill Alexander D-Ark.), then Chief Deputy Majority Whip.

President Obama’s performance in pushing for approval of fast track legislation of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, in which he’s allied with Republicans and has spent the last week castigating and insulting liberal Democrats, has been one of the most bizarre and ill-advised performances of his presidency.

I spent many years working for senior Democratic Senators such as Lloyd Bentsen and House Democratic leaders beginning with the legendary Speaker Tip O’Neill, and have never seen any president of either party insult so many members of his own party’s base and members of the House and Senate as Mr. Obama has in his weeks of tirades against liberals on trade.

His Agenda is his Agenda and even his allies are targets of his childish wrath if you get in the way of this would-be Emperor’s wants. He wants what he wants when he wants it and because he wants it. That should be good enough for anyone, in his less than  humble opinion.

In Mr. Obama’s speech at Nike last week, his comments to Matt Bai of Yahoo over the weekend, and White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s comments to reporters on Monday, Mr. Obama and his White House staff have repeated a string of personal insults directed against prominent liberal Democrats in Congress, liberal Democrats across the nation, organized labor, and leading public interest and environmental groups who share doubts about the TPP trade deal.
By the time the House and Senate finish their work on trade the headline will probably be either “Obama loses on trade” or “Obama and Republicans win on trade.” Either outcome is undesirable for Obama.

But the spin master supreme will concoct something sick & twisted, stay tuned.   

Mr. Obama’s tirades on trade have included accusations that these liberal Democrats are ignorant about trade policy, insincere when offering their opinions, motivated by politics and not the national interest, and backward looking towards the past. Obama’s repeated attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in which he charged that Warren’s concern about the trade bill is motivated not by a reasoned view of what is right for America but by her personal political motivations, is one of the most dishonest and repellant examples of character assassination and contempt by any American president, against any leading member of his own party, in my lifetime.

Of course Ms. Warren, the most nationally respected liberal leader in American politics, is motivated by what she believes is right for the nation. Doubts about the trade bill are not limited to Ms. Warren. They are shared by the leader of Senate Democrats, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the leader of House Democrats, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and a majority of Democrats in the Senate and House as well as a significant number of leading liberal economists.

For the President to suggest that he knows more about trade then all of them do, and that they are all ignorant about the trade bill and trade policy, is staggeringly false and contemptuous of many who have been working on trade policy far longer than he has and know far more about trade, in truth, than he does.

For Obama to question liberals’ knowledge of trade, when he has chosen to keep the terms of the trade talks secret from the American people and most leading trade experts, and classified them as though the terms of trade talks should be equated with nuclear weapons secrecy, is absurd. As Elizabeth Warren and many others charge that the game is fixed, does anybody seriously believe that the highest paid lobbyists for the most wealthy global conglomerates that will reap the greatest profits from the trade pact are not aware of the key details of the trade talks that are being kept secret from most of the nation?

Let’s be clear. The issue is not protectionism versus free trade. Globalization is here to stay; it cannot be wished away. The issues are what should be the fair terms of trade; whether these terms should be decided in secrecy, where the winners get special access to the terms of the deal where the losers and the nation as a whole are kept in the dark; and whether Obama can lead an informed national discussion based on shared knowledge and mutual respect that his tirades about trade have failed to offer.

Obama should be nervous. By the time the House and Senate finish their work on trade the headline will probably be either “Obama loses on trade” or “Obama and Republicans win on trade.” Either outcome is undesirable for Obama.
President Barack Obama speaks to Nike Employees and other Oregonians at Nike Headquarters May 8, 2015 in Beaverton, Oregon. (Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

President Barack Obama speaks to Nike Employees and other Oregonians at Nike Headquarters May 8, 2015 in Beaverton, Oregon. (Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

Obama’s inexplicable mistake is that rather than try to persuade liberal Democrats to support the trade bill, and rather than push Republicans to accept amendments that would tie a major jobs bill to the trade bill to mitigate the economic damage that liberals correctly worry about, Obama joins Republicans in castigating liberal Democrats.

To make matters worse, Obama’s insults against liberal Democrats on trade materially harm the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who needs to solidify trust from the liberals who distrust the trade bill. Does Clinton want to side with Obama and against the overwhelming majority of Democratic liberals on trade, on an issue where Obama’s attacks against liberals have inflamed many of them? Or does she want to side with the liberals, which could lead to defeat of the trade bill and alienate many of her business supporters?

Obama to this day does not fully understand why Republicans walloped him in the 2010 midterm elections, taking control of the House, and walloped him again in the 2014 midterms, taking control of the Senate, leaving his presidency a prisoner of a Congress that is fully controlled by Republicans.

What happened in 2010 and 2014 is that Obama inflamed conservative and Republican voters to vote in large numbers, while he depressed many liberal and Democratic voters who stayed home on Election Day. Obama’s current contempt for liberals on trade reinforces a trend that leads to the worst election results for Democrats.

For Obama to fire insults against liberals at Nike last Friday only adds insult to insult to injury. Nike is one of the companies most associated with exporting American jobs abroad to low-wage nations that often have abusive practices against workers. Is the president who says liberals don’t know what they are talking about on trade intellectually unaware of this, or callously insensitive to this, or so contemptuous of liberals he simply does not care?
    
Obama should be listening to liberals and working with liberals, not insulting liberals who want more high paying jobs under better conditions for American workers and workers around the world.

At this late date there is still a solution that can help Obama escape from the box he has created for himself, and help America avoid the worst aspects of globalization that could further hurt America.

The president should declassify and make public the terms of the trade talks to convince the nation there is no hidden danger lurking in the secret trade deal, to allow the leading economists and policy advisors of the nation to fully debate and clearly propose the best jobs plans to mitigate any damage.

In particular, President Obama should lead the charge to include in a trade bill the long-discussed and never enacted plan (which many business leaders and Republicans support) to create massive numbers of high wage jobs to rebuild America’s roads, ports, bridges, and schools.

No nation can avoid the economic facts that cause and will continue globalization. And no nation can avoid the economic fact that unfair terms of trade become a job destruction machine migrating jobs from higher wage nations to lower wage nations, creating downward pressure for wages in all nations, while computers and robots replace men and women doing the work of the world.

On trade Obama should be listening to liberals and working with liberals, not insulting liberals who want more high paying jobs under better conditions for American workers and workers around the world.

But he wants the credit, for his Acme-inspired plan, for after all, he is Barack Obama, Suuuper Genius!

“Most people don’t realize that we actually fixed a lot of what was wrong with NAFTA in the course of this,” said Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), one of the few Democrats to stick with Obama on the vote. “We need to be negotiating in the present, in the present tense, and not the past.” (HP)

Mind you, that was a trade deal promoted and passed by DEMOCRATS 22 years ago that was supposed to make everything come up rainbows and unicorns, so pardon me if I scoff…

Just say “NO” to Watermelons

 Picture of watermelons for sale at the wholesale fruit market in Lima

Watermelon Environmentalists Cause Global Warming

UN Communists Hide In Global Warming Trojan Horse

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political

system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

Brett Stevens was both humorous and thought-provoking when he announced a while

back that “Liberalism Caused Global Warming.” I have political evidence that suggests

that he may have even had an empirical point. You see there are two types of

environmental activists. Honest ones believe that the government should assume greater

powers in order to prevent environmental pollution from doing terrible things to people

and places they care about. Dishonest environmental activists (AKA Watermelons*) just

believe the government should get more power over the lives and wallets of the citizenry.

The environment provides an excellent vehicle to usurp power and control the property

of other citizens.

United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres is clearly a dishonest environmental

activist. She informs us that Communist China, the world’s leading source of CO2

pollution for several consecutive years since 2007, has the right type of governmental

system to fight Global Warming. This can only bring me back to questioning why

Christiana Figueres calls herself an environmentalist. If she wants to reduce the extent to

which human pollution could potentially warm the terrestrial climate, she should not

encourage the world emulate a nation that emits 25% of the world’s industrial CO2

pollution on an annual basis. Not only that, they get about 25% as much GDP per ton of

CO2 as the United States and about 13% as much GDP per ton of CO2 as Germany or

Japan.

To demonstrate just how wrong Christiana Figueres and her cohorts at the UN truly are,

we look at two pieces of data. The United States Government tracks CO2 pollution by

nation, by year at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. They are properly

diligent in making this data available to the public. The table below** displays the

world’s top 10 CO2 polluters by nation for 2010.

Rank Nation Metric Tons CO2
1 China 2259856
2 USA 1481608
3 India 547811
4 Russia 474714
5 Japan 319257
6 Germany 203268
7 Iran 155880
8 Korea 154777
9 Canada 136116
10 UK 134580

We then compare these pollution stats to how much economic output each of these

polluter nations produces. The World Bank tracks national GDPs by country by year.

The 2010 GDPs in Base Year USD $M for each top 10 CO2 polluter nation follows below.

Rank Nation GDP USD $M
1 USA 14,582,400
2 China 5,878,629
3 Japan 5,497,813
4 Germany 3,309,669
6 UK 2,246,079
9 India 1,729,010
10 Canada 1,574,052
11 Russia 1,479,819
14 Korea, Rep. 1,014,483
29 Iran 331,015

So to finish walking the dog on this analysis, we can take the GDP and divide it by the

polluter nation’s CO2 emissions***. This allows us to evaluate what trade-off we make

every time one of the top 10 CO2 polluters emits another ton. Lower dollar figures

indicate a greater environmental cost per dollar of GDP produced. It can also allow us to

run back-of-the-envelope experiments such as determining how much CO2 China or

Japan would have to emit to produce the US 2010 GDP. My own tabulation of this

experiment follows below.

Rank Nation $M GDP/Tons CO2 Tons CO2 to Produce US GDP
1 Japan 17.221 846,797.313
2 UK 16.690 873,744.598
3 Germany 16.282 895,598.709
4 Canada 11.564 1,261,011.681
5 USA 9.842 1,481,608.000
6 Korea 6.554 2,224,798.370
7 India 3.156 4,620,215.668
8 Russia 3.117 4,677,916.308
9 China 2.601 5,605,749.935
10 Iran 2.124 6,867,074.036

If Christiana Figueres were to arrive in New York and announce that the United States

had a lot to learn from other countries in reducing CO2 pollution per unit of wealth

produced, I would find her obnoxious but impossible to refute. She veers into the

self-serving Leftist stupid when she claims we should be learning it from the Communist

Chinese. The top 10 CO2 polluter nations produced about $37.5 Trillion in national

wealth. At the USA’s rate of CO2 pollution, these nations would have emitted 3.8 Million

Tons. At Japan’s rate, they would collectively emitted 2.2 Million Tons; at China’s

rate….14.5 million.

Pace Christiana Figueres; the United States needs to learn and do better on this issue.

Contra the dishonest, UN Watermelon Environmentalist, we sure don’t need to be

learning from a Communist dictatorship. If we accepted her prescription, and the UN

was truly correct about CO2 impacts on terrestrial climate, then Watermelon

Environmentalists would cause Global Warming.

*- Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside..
** – (HT:HTML.am) for the table source code.
***- We’ll call this our Dead Millibear Index (HT:Al Gore)

corruption

Common Core

Cass Sunsteen “Regulatory Czar” for Obama is the author of this, Be Afraid:

Suppose that an authoritarian government decides to embark on a program of curricular reform, with the explicit goal of indoctrinating the nation’s high school students. Suppose that it wants to change the curriculum to teach students that their government is good and trustworthy, that their system is democratic and committed to the rule of law, and that free markets are a big problem.

You don’t have to, it’s called “Common Core” and it was authored by the very Progressive Liberals Mr Sunsteen is a party to.

Will such a government succeed? Or will high school students simply roll their eyes?

Questions of this kind have long been debated, but without the benefit of reliable evidence. New research, from Davide Cantoni of the University of Munich and several co-authors, shows that recent curricular reforms in China, explicitly designed to transform students’ political views, have mostly worked. The findings offer remarkable evidence about the potential influence of the high school curriculum on what students end up thinking — and they give us some important insights into contemporary China as well.

AND PROGRESSIVE ORWELLIAN LIBERAL DEMOCRATS…

Here’s the background. Starting in 2001, China decided to engage in a nationwide reform of its curriculum, including significant changes in the textbooks used by students in grades 10, 11 and 12. In that year, China’s Ministry of Education stated that education should “form in students a correct worldview, a correct view on life, and a correct value system.”

The reforms, implemented a few years later, had six major goals:

1. Students should learn about, and value, Chinese “democracy” and political participation.

2. Students should learn about the importance of the rule of law for legitimizing the Chinese government.

3. Students should study the “Three Represents” ideology set out by Jiang Zemin, who served as China’s president from 1993 to 2003. The idea of the “Three Represents” is to extend political influence to people who were traditionally excluded from power under communism, but who are important to the nation’s socioeconomic success (such as managers and employees working for private business).

4. Students should understand the limits of free markets, and should form a positive view about China’s distinctive approach to the economy.

5. Students should be conscious of environmental issues.

6. Students should develop an appreciation for the diversity of ethnic heritages in China, and the Han majority should not have discriminatory views about minorities.

Sound Familiar?? 🙂

Because different provinces adopted the new curriculum at different times, Cantoni and his co-authors were able to isolate its effects on students’ views. They surveyed almost 2,000 Chinese university students, many of whom studied under the new curriculum, but many of whom did not.

The crucial finding from the study is that the new curriculum greatly affected students’ thinking. They became more likely to count the Chinese political system as democratic. They displayed a higher level of trust in public officials. They were more skeptical of free markets, and more likely to reject the view that a market economy is preferable to any other economic system. They were more likely to want to extend political influence to groups outside of the Chinese Communist Party.

On two questions, however, the curricular reforms failed. Students didn’t become more favorably disposed toward environmental protection. They were not more likely to give the environment priority over economic growth, and they were not more willing to give up some of their income to protect the environment. Nor was there a significant change in the attitudes of Han Chinese students (the majority) toward minorities.

Give them time. It’s taken Liberals in this country several generations…

These findings raise a host of questions. Why were the last two reforms unsuccessful? It is reasonable to speculate that in recent years, Chinese students have been concerned above all about economic growth and therefore were less willing to want to focus their attention on environmental protection. With respect to minorities, the students’ beliefs appear to be deeply engrained, and essentially impervious to curricular influences.

Notwithstanding the two failures, it is striking, and somewhat ominous, that government planners were able to succeed in altering students’ views on fundamental questions about their nation. As Cantoni and his co-authors summarize their various findings, “the state can effectively indoctrinate students.” To be sure, families and friends matter, as do economic incentives, but if an authoritarian government is determined to move students in major ways, it may well be able to do so.

 

Is this conclusion limited to authoritarian nations? In a democratic country with a flourishing civil society, a high degree of pluralism, and ample room for disagreement and dissent — like the U.S. — it may well be harder to use the curriculum to change the political views of young people. But even in such societies, high schools probably have a significant ability to move students toward what they consider “a correct worldview, a correct view on life, and a correct value system.” That’s an opportunity, to be sure, but it is also a warning.

Wise parents should think twice about enrolling their children in government schools. And if they do, they should keep close tabs on what they’re being taught.

Reading, writing and arithmetic are not as important anymore in many classrooms.

Learning the evils of private ownership and “white privilege” are the main lessons they want children to learn.

P.s From The Politically Correct BBC:

They edited the word “girl” out as viewers might take offensive from a program re-broadcast.

Critics, however, attacked the move. Tory MP Philip Davies, who sits on the Commons culture, media and sport committee, said: ‘They are finding offence where none is taken or intended.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘Mark didn’t mean to cause offense. But the word “girl” was taken out just in case it did.’

‘We are going to end up in a situation where nobody is going to dare say anything lest some politically correct zealot deems it offensive.’

Already there, you “racist”, “homophobe”  “extremist” “teabagger” of “white privilege”. 🙂

And the state teaches you from The Ministry of Truth’s  approved “common” State Handbook.

Ah, 1984, it seems like only yesterday…

 

Forward to The Failed Past

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

IBD:We’re told Friday’s jobs report is evidence of slow and steady progress. But it actually documents the new normal of Obama’s economy — anemic job growth, chronic long-term unemployment and falling wages.

Given how long the economy has been underperforming, even the smallest bit of good news is welcome. But the latest jobs report offers little of even that.

The 155,000 new jobs created in December weren’t enough to make a dent in unemployment. And at this pace, it will take more than two years just to reach the previous jobs peak set back in January 2008.

And while the unemployment rate of 7.8% appears to be the same as when Obama took office, it obscures the fact that millions have given up looking for jobs and so aren’t being counted as unemployed.

If you account for the unprecedented drop in labor participation under Obama, the real unemployment rate is 10.7%.

Meanwhile, the pool of long-term unemployed was a staggering 4.8 million in December, which is 2 million more than when Obama took office. The average length of unemployment was 38 months — almost 20 months longer than four years ago and 15 months longer than when the recession ended in June 2009.

And, despite Obama’s endless talk about growing the economy from the bottom up, the nation’s workers aren’t seeing slow, steady progress when it comes to household income.

In fact, real average weekly earnings have dropped about 1% over the past two years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And median household income is down 7% since January 2009, according to Sentier Research.

In the face of this ongoing calamity, we get various and changing excuses about “head winds,” or the lingering effects of the Bush recession, or the uncertainty caused by the fiscal cliff. Or we’re told we just need to lower our expectations for growth.

And what does Obama do?

He forced a tax hike through Congress that his own favorite economists say will slow growth and cost jobs. He’s continued to push forward on ObamaCare, despite the fact that it’s scaring employers away from adding new jobs out of fear of getting hit with exorbitant new costs. He’s taken the leash off the EPA to wreak havoc on industries with massively expensive, and entirely unnecessary new regulations. He’s offered no real plans to get the nation’s debt under control.

And he claims he can make up for all this economic drag with a new round of federal spending on roads.

We want the economy to grow and America to prosper as much as anyone. But it’s hard to see much of that in the near future given the economic poison Obama keeps prescribing.

Kind of like A caretaker who feeds you arsenic every day and expects you to be an Olympic athlete by Noon and then goes on TV to take credit for the medal you haven’t won yet.

While the U.S. punishes millionaires, Russia and China reward them. In the upside-down era of Barack Obama, the capitalists act like communists and the communists act like capitalists.

Our multimillionaire president frowns on “millionaires and billionaires” and soaks them with higher taxes. But Russia loves them and even offers refugees of high-tax countries asylum.

Last week, the Kremlin, once headquarters of the Evil Empire, granted millionaire French actor Gerard Depardieu Russian citizenship so he can avail himself of Russia’s 13% flat tax and avoid his home country’s proposed new 75% supertax on millionaires.

Depardieu has been looking for a new home after telling France’s newly elected socialist prime minister that he would surrender his passport and French social security card in protest of the tax.

Moscow hopes its lower tax rate will attract a “massive migration of rich Europeans to Russia.” Russia already ranks seventh in millionaires worth more than $30 million. And Deloitte expects the number of Russian millionaires to triple to 1.2 million by 2020. (America, by comparison, has 5.2 million millionaires.)

Take note, Mr. President: Russia’s flat-tax miracle has helped bring its budget back into balance. Its revenues from income taxes have more than doubled since the single, low tax rate was instated.

Communist China, which now runs a socialist market economy, also welcomes millionaires. And it’s been creating record numbers of them since reducing its tax burden. There are now 1.1 million millionaires in China — a national record — and 63,500 multimillionaires and billionaires.

Since abolishing its agriculture tax and slashing its tax on small businesses by 50%, China has enjoyed the world’s biggest gains in the number of rich (though granted, coming off a low base). The vast majority of millionaires in China are business owners, who are taking advantage of the government’s recent market reforms and pro-business tax incentives.

As part of its post-crisis economic stimulus package, Beijing is reforming its VAT tax, which would cut corporate taxes as well. And just two months ago, it launched a new round of tax-cutting measures that will help more than 900,000 companies throughout China.

Meanwhile, back in formerly supercapitalistic America, our leaders have agreed to jack up taxes on small businesses. Obama’s new fiscal-cliff tax hike on individual filers earning $400,000 or more in income will hit more than 750,000 small-business owners. They account for more than 56% of all income from such firms and employ tens of millions of workers, both of which will be hurt by the higher rate.

Yet Obama says “there is still more to do” to make sure “the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share.” He vows to make “our tax code more progressive than it’s been in decades.”

Funny how the Russians and Chinese figured out that class-warfare ideology doesn’t work and is in fact, a recipe for failure. Funny how communists know that lower taxes grow the economy and keep you competitive.

As our president mau-maus the rich to “pay their fair share” to help fund his massive social programs, America, like Europe, risks losing a fair share of its wealth and power to communist superpowers that have rethought and reformed their command-and-control economies.

Obama thinks he’s taking the nation “Forward!” But he’s really taking it back to the failed past.

But ideological adamantium will prevent him from seeing any of this.
This is what the under informed, mal-informed, and the don’t-wanna-be informed voted for.
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Playing and Being Played

What I find fascinating is the way each side is playing and being played.

The Republicans have bashed Democrats for “appeasing” Dictators and terrorists (which they do) but they themselves are appeasers to the Democrats and the Ministry of Truth.

The Democrats have complete contempt for Republicans, but have no idea that the radical Arabs  and Dictators they trying to be nice to have complete contempt for them.

You can bet Putin, Ahmadinejad, Morsi, Assad, The Muslim Brotherhood, all have contempt for what they see as Obama’s weakness. The same weakness that the Democrats since in the Republicans.

Fascinating…

So what the Republicans really need to do is grows some balls. Pass their own legislation and not give a F*ck what the Democrats do and let the Democrats just blow in the wind.

But I don’t think they have the balls for it. The Republican are too busy trying to be liked and playing by The Marquest of Queensbury rules of Gentile and Gentlemenly behavior with a bunch of amoral Hyper-partisoned Ideological Leftists.

The Rules as the term means as used is to refer to a sense of sportsmanship and fair play.

The Democrats have NONE of that. And the Republicans have yet to figure this out.

And Neither do Dictators and Terrorists. But the Democrats haven’t figured that out yet either. Summits, UN Speeches, and White House Dinner are laughable at best but It make the Democrats feel important.

The psychological blind spots are fascinating…

And speaking being played…A Obama Energy Update….

You won’t hear much about it elsewhere today. But from some downtown Chicago law offices will come the distinct sound of one more nail being driven into the coffin of Barack Obama’s green energy giveaway loans.

A123 Systems will be auctioned off. It’s a Michigan lithium ion battery maker which declared bankruptcy back in October, the same day it cashed another $1 million check from the crack Obama investment team.

A123 is one of those notorious bad bets like Solyndra that the Obama administration poured billions of taxpayer dollars into, allegedly with the hope it would launch a vibrant clean energy industrial sector. As Gov. Romney pointed out during the presidential debates that same month, many of the recipients of those federal loan guarantees just happened to belong to campaign finance bundlers for the same Barack Obama.

A123, an 11-year-old firm founded to manufacture batteries for electric cars and utilities, had received $133 million of its promised $250.1 million loan grants before the bankruptcy, mainly to build a new facility in Michigan.

Just more wasted taxpayer money, right? Another reason for Obama’s coveted tax hikes come next year.

But wait! There’s more! A leading suitor for A123’s remaining assets is Wanxiang Group Corp., a $13 billion firm that’s China’s largest automotive components maker.

So, let’s get this straight: Obama bashes Romney for being a successful (and, whispering, wealthy) venture capitalist so successfully picking so many corporate winners. But Obama gives away money to an American company to develop American battery technology and manufacturing on American soil for American workers. A123 flops financially, as have almost three dozen other hand-picked Obama greenies receiving financial food-stamps from that wheeling-dealing Chicago crowd.

And a private Chinese company comes along to buy up the pieces.

Here’s Obama’s yada-yada in a phone call with company officers two years ago for the plant opening:

“This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America, an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars. And it’s going to allow us to start exporting those cars, making them comfortable, convenient and affordable.”

Well, so far that’s working out great.

Oh, did we mention? A123 like other failed green energy firms under Obama, has secret contracts with the Pentagon. Russians previously bought Ener1 and Think out of bankruptcy, two other business recipients of Obama welfare. 

In their first debate Romney noted Obama was often whining about $2 billion in subsidies to large oil companies but Obama had doled out 45 times as much, $90 billion, to green energy companies, much of it wasted. Romney added, “You don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers.”

Good thing we reelected Obama to a second term so he can finish his demolition work.

Sens. Chuck Grassley and John Thune along with a coalition of former military officers have expressed serious concerns about the possible acquisition by Chinese interests.

“Aside from the national security risk, American taxpayers should not pay for development of a technology that is freely transferred to a non-allied nation,” they said in a letter last month. Wanxiang has promised to divest the military contracts if it wins.

One other suitor for A123 is Johnson Controls Inc. of Milwaukee. So far, Johnson is one of the survivors of Obama’s federal largesse, having received $299 million in help from the Democrat’s feckless Energy Department.

A Wanxiang America spokesman said the company has about 3,000 U.S. employees and had no plans to export jobs back home to China.

Obama, who has 54 decorated trees inside the White House this year, has only one public appearance today. He will venture outdoors to officially light one more, the national Christmas holiday tree. With electricity, not batteries. (IBD)

So the Players are playing and being played while they are playing. And who gets screwed in the end…

You guessed it…

YOU DO! 🙂

Congrats.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The New Red Menace

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

A new study suggests that President Obama’s campaign systematically pursued foreign contributions to fuel his run for the presidency, a violation of law. Is America’s democracy now for sale to the highest bidder?

The Government Accountability Institute, which is headed by Stanford University Professor Peter Schweizer, used sophisticated Internet investigative tools — including something called “spidering” software — to determine how the web is being used to raise political funds.

What it found should be of concern, since it suggests that many in Congress and, more importantly, the Obama campaign have systematically exploited loopholes in the law to raise millions of dollars overseas — a big chunk of it in the People’s Republic of China.

How is this done? Through the mundane use of what’s called in the credit-card world the Card Verification Value, or CVV. It’s the three-digit number on the back of a card that helps positively identify that the person using the card has it in his or her possession. It’s a key anti-fraud weapon, used by nearly all legitimate e-commerce businesses and charities.

Obama’s campaign doesn’t use it. Mitt Romney’s does. So why the particular concern over Obama?

As the report notes, letting a flood of money into the political system with no verification of its source is an invitation to fraud — especially from overseas.

The end justifies the means. Win at any cost. Lying and Cheating are good as long as you don’t get caught, then it’s someone’s fault anyhow. So go for it!
So how much of that “record” $181 million Obama touts from September was legitimate? And do they care?
No, they don’t.
They have to have as much money as possible to spread as much poison as possible.
The Nuke Romney until he glows stategy of Vote for me Romney’s a Nuclear Slag Pile of Shit will only work with lots of money for lots of scurrilous and defamatory lying attack ads.
So they need as much money as they can get their hands on, Legal or not. Who cares.
It’s about winning, it’s not about legality, or morality. Hell no!
Under federal election law, contributions from foreign sources are prohibited. But the law also doesn’t require a campaign to disclose the source of contributions less than $200, and it doesn’t even have to keep records for those giving less than $50.

In September, for instance, Obama’s campaign announced it had raised $181 million. But if you’re looking for transparency, you won’t find it: Just 2% of that amount — $3.6 million — has to be reported to the FEC.

In 2008, Robert Roche, a U.S. businessman based in Shanghai with extensive commercial ties to the Chinese government, bought the website Obama.com.

Roche, a big-time bundler for Obama, was given a place of honor at the head table with Obama and first lady Michelle Obama at a 2011 state dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao. Nothing illegal about that.

It’s not clear Roche still even owns Obama.com. But this year, suspiciously, the site began sending visitors to the Obama campaign’s donation page on the Web. Some 68% of Obama.com’s visitors are foreign.

Similarly, the Obama re-election campaign itself seems to be encouraging illegal foreign contributions.

Its social media website, my.barackobama.com, gets about 20% of its visitors from foreign locations. Anyone who uses the website, says the GAI, “immediately begins receiving solicitations for donations.”

However, “At no point … is a visitor asked whether he or she can legally donate to a U.S. election,” it notes.

The revelation is troubling, since China’s government has a history of trying to manipulate U.S. politicians, especially — but not exclusively — Democrats.

In 1996, Chinese agent Johnny Chung gave almost $100,000 to American politicians, much of it from powerful members of China’s military. Chung reportedly gave $300,000 to President Clinton’s campaign.

The Justice Department in 1997 launched two investigations of reported attempts of high-level Chinese officials to “buy influence” with U.S. politicians, especially the Democratic National Committee.
(and we know THIS Justice Department is not overly political and can do it’s job without ideological or partisan concerns) 🙂

With the Internet, China seems to have found a road to political clout bigger than an eight-lane highway.

Under the current president, the U.S. has largely ceded control of the Western Pacific to China and let that nation’s massive military buildup go unchallenged. Meanwhile, until recently, Obama soft-pedaled even the mildest criticisms of China’s economic policies.

But then, why bite the hand that feeds you?

But I’m sure it’s BAIN’s fault. 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Work to Do

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Emperor Obama speaks,“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience.

President Obama today made an unprecedented “recess” appointment even though the Senate is not in recess – “a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer,” according to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

It turns out that the action not only contradicts long-standing practice, but also the view of the administration itself. In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are only permissible when Congress is in recess for more than three days. Here’s the exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

But you’re assuming that a power mad Liberal even remembers or care what he did yesterday let alone 2 years ago. You’d probably be wrong.

After all, they want what they want when they want it. Nothing else.

So it’s good to be the King.

And the media will spin it that Republicans were “obstructionists” so that he could appoint his cronies and his anti-business liberals.

Obama, in a prepared statement, said the nation deserves “to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day – whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans.”

However, one question a judge could need to answer is whether Cordray will actually be able to assume those powers since he has been recess-appointed. The text of the Dodd-Frank law states that those powers will not take effect until the CFPB director “is confirmed by the Senate.”

Is the Earth counter rotating because of the spin?

“It looks like the goal here is more the headlines and the confrontation and the politicization of this new agency rather than a substantive outcome,” he said.

And if they are so eager to have this “consumer advocate” in place that they’ll risk a court fight means they really had something wicked coming our way and they really, really, want it.

Be Afraid. Be very Afraid.

***********

Here’s something to drive the Occup-poopers and the “evil” rich Liberals:

Americans make up half of the world’s richest 1%

It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The United States holds a disproportionate amount of the world’s rich people.

It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That’s for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)

So where do these lucky rich people live? As of 2005 — the most recent data available — about half of them, or 29 million lived in the United States, according to calculations by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic in his book The Haves and the Have-Nots.

Another four million live in Germany. The rest are mainly scattered throughout Europe, Latin America and a few Asian countries. Statistically speaking, none live in Africa, China or India despite those being some of the most populous areas of the world.

The numbers put into perspective the idea of a rapidly growing global middle class.

Sure, China and India are seeing their economies grow quickly, and along with that growth, large portions of their populations are also becoming richer. But remember, the emerging world is starting from a very low base to begin with, so its middle class is just that — still emerging, says Milanovic.

“It doesn’t seem right to define as middle class, people who would be on food stamps in the United States,” Milanovic said.

The true global middle class, falls far short of owning a home, having a car in a driveway, saving for retirement and sending their kids to college. In fact, people at the world’s true middle — as defined by median income — live on just $1,225 a year. (And, yes, Milanovic’s numbers are adjusted to account for different costs of living across the globe.)

In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world.(CNN)

So the Liberals have a lot more work ahead of them to make everything “fair” and “equal”. 🙂

So that’s why he has to have at least 4 more years! 🙂

The most “transparent” administration in history. Yes,VERY transparent. But what he’s transparent about is not a good thing.

**************

Given that Next Thursday will mark 1,000 days since the Senate passed a budget I present this by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

Since Barack Obama became president on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal government has not had a budget. It did not have one for the first two years of his presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and it did not have one for 2011, when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans controlled the House.

The Senate — continuously under Democratic control during the entire Obama presidency — has not voted out and sent on to the House any annual budget since George W. Bush was president. The House sent a budget to the Senate a year ago, but the Senate rejected it and sent nothing back in return.

In the nearly three years that Obama has been in office, the government has been collecting revenue, borrowing cash and spending ravenously on the basis of what the government calls continuing resolutions — known in Washington by the initials “CR.”

When Congress enacts a CR, it basically authorizes the government to operate for a finite and brief period of time. The period of time does not coincide with the government’s fiscal year. The federal government’s fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th. Here we are at the beginning of a new calendar year, and your government does not have a budget for its fiscal year that began more than three months ago.

Instead, the feds have operated under 15 continuing resolutions throughout the Obama presidency. Some of these CRs have been for as long as nine months, and one was as short as 24 hours. There was a time when the end of a continuing resolution would have brought intense media scrutiny. Will the government stay open? Will it shut down? Who will get blamed? Will Congress let the president spend money the government doesn’t have? None of this produces drama any longer, because the bizarre has now become the routine.

This new year will bring certain new tax rates, specifically for the payroll tax. The payroll tax is what you pay and what your employer pays to fund Social Security. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme: It pays out more than it takes in, and the government lies about its solvency. It once had a cushion, called the Social Security Trust Fund, but Congress took that money and spent it.

Can you think of any crimes here? Running a Ponzi scheme is a crime — just ask Bernie Madoff. And spending money you have lawfully agreed to hold in trust for someone else can get you in a lot of hot water, and likely criminal charges. Just ask Jon Corzine.

So here we are, at the beginning of a new year, and employers and employees don’t know what their payroll taxes will be in March. You cannot run a business, and you should not run your household, without knowing months in advance what your regular expenses will cost you. But when you have a government in which both wings of the Big Government Party — that’s the Republican wing as well as the Democratic wing — think they can bribe the people with their own money and the only difference between the two is how much of a bribe, when both wings think they can write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event, no matter what the Constitution says, no matter what federal law says and no matter what the laws of economics say, is it any wonder the government is dysfunctional?

All of this demonstrates that the government lives in its own world. It writes laws for the rest of us and breaks them itself. It requires openness of corporations that trade publicly, but it won’t be transparent itself. It doesn’t read the laws it writes, and it doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights. What can you do? If you live in New Hampshire, you can vote for a game changer next week. There is only one on the ballot.

So hunker down, there is work to do. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden