Making Society Better

Allen West: I found a definition of Yin and Yang to be, “In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (also, yin-yang or yin yang) describes how opposite or contrary forces are actually complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.” It appears that our 2016 presidential election cycle is early on being defined by that philosophy. The question is, can this media-driven divide be good for the future of our Constitutional Republic?

In 2008 it was all about the “anti-Bush” sentiment in America – heavily fueled by a complicit media. The rallying slogan was “Hope and Change.” Some of us will never forget the statement, “we are the change that we have been waiting for.” Huh?

Pronoun Trouble… 🙂

None of this was challenged, but embraced as a historical moment that truly was the Yang to the existing Yin. Amazingly, there were little to no questions about policy; just the simplistic retort that “I will not be like the current president.” Furthermore, any challenge to the issue of a lack of policy proposals and experience in 2008 was met with the Alinsky tactic of personal demonization by way of being castigated as racist. And so in 2008 America replaced the Yin with the Yang and we had a new Yin – progressive socialism.

In 2012, the new slogan became “Forward,” and that was even as we recognized that so many quantitative assessments evidenced we were not going forward. We were certainly not progressing, and that situation continues to today. There were deceptions of jobs report numbers and we know that the economy was suffering under one of the most anemic recoveries in American history. But what was most telling was that we actually believed that we were safer; that Islamic terrorism was quelled. That was because Osama bin Laden had been double-tapped by U.S. Navy SEALS. However, the reality was far from being such. And so another deception took place when on 9-11-12 four Americans were abandoned to die in Benghazi – a place which had been destabilized by a horrific intervention by the current administration. Yet the new Yin, aided by a dedicated media campaign told us it was just a video.

So in 2012 we kept the current Yin.

Today, the situation is completely reversed. There is a new Yang that has risen due to the failures of the current Yin. The new slogan is “Make America Great Again.” This Yang has tapped into the evident weakness of the current Yin and has garnered a solid support base. Funny, this new Yang is not being embraced by the liberal progressive media, but its incessant assaults have enhanced the popularity of this new Yang in many aspects. And why is this happening? Simple: because the media clearly established and continues to establish itself as the protector of the progressive socialist ideal in 2008 and 2012. They have lost their credibility.

However, I would caution America to carefully assess whether this new Yang presents any viable policy solutions – similar to 2008.

My concern is that we Americans are once again being driven by media news cycles and not focusing on the prevailing issues or the future of America. Instead of basing our decisions about the future leadership of America on individual personalities, we must seek out a vision. Sadly, the social culture in America forces us to pay more attention to personas rather that principles. Now, I will be the first to admit that consideration of policy solutions may seem boring, but a base understanding is essential.

 

We have become more drawn to the person than the ideal. And what is lacking is a representation of the embodiment of that American ideal. Some would say that it does not exist, and God knows there are many who are trying to eradicate it – “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.”

What is necessary at this time in the current election cycle is for the American electorate to listen, and not be emotional. How do we restore the free enterprise opportunity society in order to get Americans back to work and productive in their own lanes? How do we develop a strategy to defeat militant Islamic terrorism? What needs to be done to reasonably stem the flow of illegal immigrants into America, secure our sovereign borders, yet also streamline our legal immigration system? How do we repair a healthcare system where individual premiums are rising, the individual mandate tax is increasing, and the level of care is decreasing? How do we advance the idea of parents being in charge of educating their children and being responsible for determining their outcomes – not the government?

The current Yin has done an exceptional job at focusing America on emotional “feeling” oriented issues. The reality is that the American public feels less safe. They know their beloved America, the land of individual economic empowerment, is becoming a breeding ground of collective economic enslavement, wealth transfer to grow the dependency society, a playground for social egalitarianism, and abject weakness.

And so we have the rise of the new Yang, a new slogan, but a lack of defined policy vision. The interconnection of the Yin and Yang of politics in America is that demagoguery has no favorite side. It can appear anywhere and finds a way to feed off the other.

As we close out 2015, enjoy a blessed Hanukkah, have a Merry Christmas, and celebrate a joyous and Happy New Year. May your favorite college football team win its bowl game – unless they are playing mine. But was we enter into a pivotal presidential election season, seek out an American leader, not an American celebrity.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The Shell Game

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget will forecast a $901 billion deficit for next year, falling far short of his goal to halve the deficit in four years.

The budget, an outline of which was released by the White House Friday night, will show a higher deficit this year than in 2011, up from $1.3 trillion to $1.33 trillion.

So that’s 3 strikes and hopefully he’s out! What a Turkey!

Wonder if this one will go down 96-0 like last years.

Mind you the US Senate that hasn’t passed a Budget in 1, 018 days has already telegraphed that it has no intention of passing a budget this year anyhow.

So this is largely an exercise in campaign BS. Which is all we’ve gotten since January 20th, 2009 anyhow.

The full blown still-born cow of a budget comes out Monday. I’m sure it will bloated, class envious, have lots of flashy fake or useless “cuts”, and totally political. What else would you expect.

“We will talk more before the end of the month on what corporate tax reform would look like,” the official said on Friday, confirming that it would include a call for “lower rates.”

Facing a potentially tough presidential re-election challenge this November, Obama will propose cutting the rate following the release of his 2013 budget plan on Monday, February 13, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

While he spent a big part of his January speech to Congress criticizing businesses for moving jobs overseas, Obama said that “companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.”

So what do you wanna bet it’s going to be very selective and very “democratic”. 🙂

You do it my way or else. Or he’ll propose all new taxes to make up for it, disguised as something else or some other Orwellian turn of phrase.

Typically with this White House “tax reform” means bend over you’re about to get a massive enema!

Gene Sperling, director of Obama’s National Economic Council, has told reporters that the president will be laying out “principles” for corporate tax reform close to the budget release.

Obama’s corporate plan will also include a new minimum tax on foreign profits earned in low tax countries – an unpopular idea in the corporate community. (yahoo)

“principles” eh…This should be good… 😦

Ann Coulter:Having given up on pillorying Mitt Romney for plundering his way to vast wealth — because, unfortunately, it isn’t true — the Non-Fox Media seem to have settled on denouncing him as a rich jerk.

Liberals are disgusted by people who made their own money, as Romney did at Bain Capital. But they admire ill-gotten gains, which is how John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and innumerable other spokesmen for the downtrodden amassed their fortunes.

Democrats are very proud of the rich, patrician FDR — who inherited all of his money and then launched a series of federal entitlements designed to bankrupt America 60 years later.

JFK also inherited his wealth, from a father who made his money as a bootlegger and stock manipulator. (In their defense, both went on to create jobs for bartenders and prostitutes.)

Kerry is in a special category of the gigolo. He acquired his fortune by marrying someone, who married someone, who inherited the money — leading Kerry’s children to refer to Teresa Heinz Kerry as their “step-money.” In what can only be described as luck, Kerry’s first wife was also an heiress.

I’ve been diligently searching for the shrieks of horror from the media over John Kerry’s tax returns when he ran for president eight years ago, but I can’t find anything. (Although I did find a reference to Kerry’s having served in Vietnam. Anybody else hear about that?)

Even when Kerry refused to release his wife’s tax returns in order to avoid the humiliation of revealing his allowance, the press was demurely silent.

John Edwards made well over $50 million by shaking down hardworking doctors with junk science lawsuits — as the New York Times has since admitted. The highlight of his sideshows was when he channeled unborn children in front of illiterate jurors.

(In the Democrats’ moral universe, the unborn have no right to life, but they’re perfectly acceptable as witnesses for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit.)

Democrats were overjoyed with Wall Street financier-turned Democratic politician Jon Corzine. It was just three years ago, in 2009, when President Obama was hailing Corzine as one of the “best partners I have in the White House.” Today, prosecutors are trying to find out what Corzine did with hundreds of millions of his customers’ money.

The media do everything they can to avoid looking into these mountebanks when they are active politicians. Then, when they’re out of office, the NFM summarily announce that they always knew the Democrats were sleazeballs, and why are we still talking about them?
It’s never a good time to talk about Democrat plutocrats until it’s way too late to talk about them. With Corzine, we’ll have a window of three seconds to talk about his financial shenanigans. He’s innocent until proved gui — Convicted! — What? You’re still burbling about that guy?

Liberals will be carrying on about Richard Nixon until we’re all long dead. Why has the time passed for them to really examine the man who was their vice presidential candidate only eight years ago and was desperately seeking the presidential slot four years ago?

Until we hear ferocious denunciations of FDR, JFK, Kerry, Edwards and Corzine, liberals have no business criticizing Bain Capital.

Maybe some people are irrationally offended by the rich, but Democrats aren’t. It’s the party of George Soros, Goldman Sachs and Nancy Pelosi!

The six wealthiest senators are all Democrats, half of whom married or inherited their money. Some other multimillionaire Democrats are:

• Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the second-richest senator after Kerry, who inherited his money.

• Dianne Feinstein of California, the sixth-richest senator, who married her money.

• Maria Cantwell of Washington, a bogus dot-com multimillionaire who cashed out before the stock crashed.

• Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the ninth-richest senator, who failed to pay taxes on her private plane until she was caught last year, and who married her money.

Meanwhile, with few exceptions, Republicans either made money on their own or they don’t have it. It’s no accident Democrats oppose a tax on wealth, of which they have boatloads, but strongly support taxes on income, which they typically do not have.

Democrats don’t hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of “greed” for wanting to pay the government a little less.

As I have said many times before, I believe the greediest people in this country are Liberals. Period.

See: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/greed/

So get out your Salt Mine, because here comes another Budget from Dear Leader! Can you take it?

Political Cartoon by Mike Lester
Political Cartoon by Eric Allie
Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

 

15 Questions

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We’ve heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt’s angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing? (John Hawkins)

It’s fun to think what could have been if we had Journalists instead of Left Wing Propagandists masquerading as “journalists”.

So have a supply of industrial barf bags if yo decide to watch Obama’s “soaring” Campaign Bull shit speech tonight then the fawning and slobbering by the Liberal Media before and after.

I will be watching “Chopped” on the Food network.

 

Ego Runneth Over

Obama has figured out why Americans perceive him as aloof: It’s the media’s fault

And the Republican’s want to help him with his image.

Pete Souza / White House

As he faces a reelection challenge with national job approval ratings still well below 50%, President Obama is seeking to portray himself as a man of the American people, stalled by those bipartisan know-nothings in Congress but determined to look out for the little guy in any way possible.

“We Can’t Wait” is his latest slogan, one which Republicans have mockingly picked up referring to the Nov. 6 election date.

After a brief bump from telling the Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, Obama’s approval is now no better than any other modern president and below all but one.

George W. Bush, who caused all the mess that Obama says he needs four more years to fix, was higher (49%) at this point in term one. And even doomed Democrat Jimmy Carter had majority approval (58%) at this late stage in his only term.

Obama will attempt to work on this public perception challenge Tuesday evening during his nationally-televised State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress with a lengthy wish-list of populist programs. Soon after, comes his proposed federal budget.

Of course, very little of these ideas and items will ever come to pass, which the president knows.

As he seeks to become only the second Democrat president since World War II to win reelection, Obama is in reality building a premature platform to campaign on these next seven months leading to his party’s national convention in Charlotte.

A major challenge in Obama’s billion-dollar bid for a renewed lease on the White House and four more years to drive his progressive spending agenda is his image as an aloof Harvard elitist out of touch with ordinary citizens, much like 18th century French royalty.

One who golfs during wartime, stages frequent lavish celeb parties while citizens suffer high unemployment and foreclosure rates and vacations luxuriously on distant islands at the drop of a 747-boarding ramp. During last month’s holidays, Obama’s White House got by with only 37 Christmas trees.

With one highly-publicized exception last summer, Obama’s golfing partners and basketball buddies are almost always close friends or staff, an opportunity other chief executives have used for outreach bonding and socializing to ease everyday political cooperation and deals.

It took Obama 18 months, for instance, to invite the Senate opposition leader for an Oval Office coffee, a simple social gesture that most presidents accomplish their first week in office. Intentionally or not, even one of Obama’s favorite public postures (see White House photo above) gives off a sense of aloofness or arrogance. Watch for this gaze also as he reads the teleprompter Tuesday evening.

But now in one of a growing number of election year interviews, Obama reveals that he has figured out the real reason the American public sees him as cold, aloof and distant.

It’s the media’s fault.

Obama threw the entire Washington press corps under the bus. He was talking with a sympathetic Fareed Zakaria of Time in the Oval Office the other day.

In answer to a question, Obama said he’d forged close working relationships with world leaders such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s David Cameron and India’s Singh. Speaking of himself in the third person, Obama predicted they would each say:

“We have a lot of trust and confidence in the President. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that’s part of the reason we’ve been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done.”

Zakaria then interjected: “You just can’t do it with John Boehner.”

And Obama replied:

“You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships. My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties.

“And as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof.”

Obama claimed he and his wife “don’t do the social scene” because they are busy with their two daughters.

On Thursday, for example, Obama began the day with office work, then flew two hours south for a 13-minute speech at Disney World. Then he flew two hours back north to New York City for speeches at four Manhattan political fundraisers, including a show at the Apollo and a party at Spike Lee’s place.

After another hour flight on Air Force One and 10 minutes in a Marine helicopter, the president returned to the White House shortly before 1 a.m. Friday.

But he’s not an aloof, aristocratic dictator-wanna be. 🙂

And the liberal media that is slobbering all over…It’s their fault.

They need to do a better job of slobbering?

Not possible.

Nope. It just has to be every being in the universe’s fault except his. Period.

Except no substitutions.

And everyone will be thrown under the bus to save his Majesty’s Ego.

And the proper response is “Thank you, Master. You are too kind”.

And another interesting tidbit, when His Emperorship is giving his canned Ra-Ra Campaign Speech full of lofty rhetoric he absolutely does not mean and lowdown dirty politics that does mean it will be Tuesday January 24, 2012.

1000 Days since the US Senate (and thus the US Government) has passed a budget (which is the Republicans fault for passing a budget the Democrats didn’t like 3 years ago!).

He will likely propose another budget that will get voted down 96-0 like the last one because it’s all symbolism.

The Republicans are to blame for every thing. And they are too busy beating the crap out of each other to notice.

If your Frappucino machine spills your coffee all over the counter that’s the fault of the Manufacturer which is some faceless corporate intentity that supports the Republican Party so it’s their fault!

The Tea party are a bunch crazed whackos!

And then everyone else is to be blame because he’s black.

No wonder survivalists are on the rise with going on.

His people say the Democrat has some new ideas on how to increase tourism to Florida and probably the entire 57 states. Naturally, this requires another Obama speech.

And what better place for a campaigning president to go lecture needlessly on improving tourism than the iconic institution that figured it all out decades ago, Walt Disney Resorts? 

But here’s the problem with Obama going to Disney’s Main Street: They have to halt all tourism there for him to be seen encouraging more tourism, close the whole place down to tourists for much of the day while he’s there and before. Even Disney employees are being barred.

So, Main Street won’t look anything like the photo above. And the thousands of existing tourists who expected to spend a valuable vacation day strolling the old-fashioned shops for fudge and Mickey ears, riding the steam-powered cars and horse-drawn streetcars and getting a photo with the real Snow White today are just plum out of luck, like Grumpy.

This isn’t the first time Obama’s message has messed with the mechanics. A while back he flew about two hours to Columbus, Ohio for a 10-minute speech celebrating stimulus jobs at a construction site where workers had to take a day off without pay because the president decided to come mark their employment in front of cameras.

Does Obama, after all his lagging economic recovery, really want today’s political optics to be this oblivious president himself shutting down businesses all along any Main Street so that the Real Good Talker can read from a teleprompter at yet another hand-picked crowd for the cameras? Seriously?

Later, after the president’s entourage and motorcade depart the wonderful world of Disney following their private photo op visit, they’ll likely re-open the magical street to the tourists he was talking about getting more of. After how much lost business?

But Obama leaving Main Street is bad news for Broadway.

After shutting down Disney’s Main Street, President Obama is heading to New York City this afternoon to paralyze Manhattan traffic again. That’s because the Obama 2012 campaign has him scheduled for not one, not two, not three, but four campaign fundraisers in one evening.

Hopefully, the well-heeled 1% can listen as fast as he talks.

A common question I ask the “soak the rich” crowd (which usually gets an angry response): “Have you gotten your $38,500 “middle class warrior” autograph yet?”

He is a man of the people. He hates rich people. He hates Corporate America.

But they love him anyways and give him millions of dollars to continue bashing their heads in.

Why?

As I said yesterday, Zombies don’t understand logic or reason. They sure as hell don’t care.

Create an entirely new narrative. Push an entirely new issue. Change the subject from your record and your ideology, from massive debt and overreaching government, to fairness and inequality. Make the election a referendum on which party really cares about you, which party will stand up to the greedy rich who have pillaged the 99 percent and robbed the middle class of hope.

This charge, too, is straightforward: The Republicans serve as the protectors and enablers of the plutocrats, the exploiters who have profited while America suffers. They put party over nation, fat-cat donors over people, political power over everything.

It’s all rather uncomplicated, capturing nicely the Manichaean core of the Occupy movement — blame the rich, then soak them. But the real beauty of this strategy is its adaptability. While its first target was the do-nothing protect-the-rich Congress, it is perfectly tailored to fit the liabilities of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney — plutocrat, capitalist, 1 percenter.

Obama rolled out this class-war counter-narrative in his December 6 “Teddy Roosevelt” speech and hasn’t governed a day since. Every action, every proposal, every “we can’t wait” circumvention of the Constitution — such as recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess — is designed to fit this re-election narrative.

Hence: Where does Obama ostentatiously introduce the recess-appointed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? At a rally in swing-state Ohio, a stage prop for Obama to declare himself tribune of the little guy, scourge of the big banks and their soulless Republican guardians.

Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage re-election by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.

How quickly has the zeitgeist changed? Wednesday, the Republican House reconvened to reject Obama’s planned $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase. (Lacking Senate concurrence, the debt ceiling will be raised nonetheless.) No one noticed. It made page A16 of the New York Times. All eyes are on South Carolina and Romney’s taxes.

This is no mainstream-media conspiracy. This is the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain.

The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries. (Charles Krauthammer)

As always, Charles, I agree.

What’s Worse than a Zombie Hoard coming to get you?

Your “protectors” giving you to them willingly because they are too busy beating the crap out of each other to “protect” you or even care if you live or die.

Thy Ego Runneth Over.

Moral Hazard

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.

THE $7 Trillion Dollar Secret

The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing.

The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.

Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse.

A fresh narrative of the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 emerges from 29,000 pages of Fed documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and central bank records of more than 21,000 transactions. While Fed officials say that almost all of the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.
‘Change Their Votes’

“When you see the dollars the banks got, it’s hard to make the case these were successful institutions,” says Sherrod Brown, a Democratic Senator from Ohio who in 2010 introduced an unsuccessful bill to limit bank size. “This is an issue that can unite the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. There are lawmakers in both parties who would change their votes now.”

The size of the bailout came to light after Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, won a court case against the Fed and a group of the biggest U.S. banks called Clearing House Association LLC to force lending details into the open.

The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma — investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort — and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis. Clearing House Association fought Bloomberg’s lawsuit up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the banks’ appeal in March 2011.

$7.77 Trillion

The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

“TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.”

Bankers didn’t disclose the extent of their borrowing. On Nov. 26, 2008, then-Bank of America (BAC) Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis wrote to shareholders that he headed “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” He didn’t say that his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm owed the central bank $86 billion that day.
‘Motivate Others’

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon told shareholders in a March 26, 2010, letter that his bank used the Fed’s Term Auction Facility “at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system.” He didn’t say that the New York-based bank’s total TAF borrowings were almost twice its cash holdings or that its peak borrowing of $48 billion on Feb. 26, 2009, came more than a year after the program’s creation.

Howard Opinsky, a spokesman for JPMorgan (JPM), declined to comment about Dimon’s statement or the company’s Fed borrowings. Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for Bank of America, also declined to comment.

The Fed has been lending money to banks through its so- called discount window since just after its founding in 1913. Starting in August 2007, when confidence in banks began to wane, it created a variety of ways to bolster the financial system with cash or easily traded securities. By the end of 2008, the central bank had established or expanded 11 lending facilities catering to banks, securities firms and corporations that couldn’t get short-term loans from their usual sources.
‘Core Function’

“Supporting financial-market stability in times of extreme market stress is a core function of central banks,” says William B. English, director of the Fed’s Division of Monetary Affairs. “Our lending programs served to prevent a collapse of the financial system and to keep credit flowing to American families and businesses.”

The Fed has said that all loans were backed by appropriate collateral. That the central bank didn’t lose money should “lead to praise of the Fed, that they took this extraordinary step and they got it right,” says Phillip Swagel, a former assistant Treasury secretary under Henry M. Paulson and now a professor of international economic policy at the University of Maryland.

The Fed initially released lending data in aggregate form only. Information on which banks borrowed, when, how much and at what interest rate was kept from public view.

The secrecy extended even to members of President George W. Bush’s administration who managed TARP. Top aides to Paulson weren’t privy to Fed lending details during the creation of the program that provided crisis funding to more than 700 banks, say two former senior Treasury officials who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak.
Big Six

The Treasury Department relied on the recommendations of the Fed to decide which banks were healthy enough to get TARP money and how much, the former officials say. The six biggest U.S. banks, which received $160 billion of TARP funds, borrowed as much as $460 billion from the Fed, measured by peak daily debt calculated by Bloomberg using data obtained from the central bank. Paulson didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The six — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup Inc. (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley — accounted for 63 percent of the average daily debt to the Fed by all publicly traded U.S. banks, money managers and investment- services firms, the data show. By comparison, they had about half of the industry’s assets before the bailout, which lasted from August 2007 through April 2010. The daily debt figure excludes cash that banks passed along to money-market funds.
Bank Supervision

While the emergency response prevented financial collapse, the Fed shouldn’t have allowed conditions to get to that point, says Joshua Rosner, a banking analyst with Graham Fisher & Co. in New York who predicted problems from lax mortgage underwriting as far back as 2001. The Fed, the primary supervisor for large financial companies, should have been more vigilant as the housing bubble formed, and the scale of its lending shows the “supervision of the banks prior to the crisis was far worse than we had imagined,” Rosner says.

Bernanke in an April 2009 speech said that the Fed provided emergency loans only to “sound institutions,” even though its internal assessments described at least one of the biggest borrowers, Citigroup, as “marginal.”

On Jan. 14, 2009, six days before the company’s central bank loans peaked, the New York Fed gave CEO Vikram Pandit a report declaring Citigroup’s financial strength to be “superficial,” bolstered largely by its $45 billion of Treasury funds. The document was released in early 2011 by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a panel empowered by Congress to probe the causes of the crisis.
‘Need Transparency’

Andrea Priest, a spokeswoman for the New York Fed, declined to comment, as did Jon Diat, a spokesman for Citigroup.

“I believe that the Fed should have independence in conducting highly technical monetary policy, but when they are putting taxpayer resources at risk, we need transparency and accountability,” says Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.

Judd Gregg, a former New Hampshire senator who was a lead Republican negotiator on TARP, and Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who chaired the House Financial Services Committee, both say they were kept in the dark.

“We didn’t know the specifics,” says Gregg, who’s now an adviser to Goldman Sachs.

“We were aware emergency efforts were going on,” Frank says. “We didn’t know the specifics.”
Disclose Lending

Frank co-sponsored the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, billed as a fix for financial-industry excesses. Congress debated that legislation in 2010 without a full understanding of how deeply the banks had depended on the Fed for survival.

It would have been “totally appropriate” to disclose the lending data by mid-2009, says David Jones, a former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York who has written four books about the central bank.

“The Fed is the second-most-important appointed body in the U.S., next to the Supreme Court, and we’re dealing with a democracy,” Jones says. “Our representatives in Congress deserve to have this kind of information so they can oversee the Fed.”

The Dodd-Frank law required the Fed to release details of some emergency-lending programs in December 2010. It also mandated disclosure of discount-window borrowers after a two- year lag.
Protecting TARP

TARP and the Fed lending programs went “hand in hand,” says Sherrill Shaffer, a banking professor at the University of Wyoming in Laramie and a former chief economist at the New York Fed. While the TARP money helped insulate the central bank from losses, the Fed’s willingness to supply seemingly unlimited financing to the banks assured they wouldn’t collapse, protecting the Treasury’s TARP investments, he says.

“Even though the Treasury was in the headlines, the Fed was really behind the scenes engineering it,” Shaffer says.

Congress, at the urging of Bernanke and Paulson, created TARP in October 2008 after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. made it difficult for financial institutions to get loans. Bank of America and New York-based Citigroup each received $45 billion from TARP. At the time, both were tapping the Fed. Citigroup hit its peak borrowing of $99.5 billion in January 2009, while Bank of America topped out in February 2009 at $91.4 billion.
No Clue

Lawmakers knew none of this.

They had no clue that one bank, New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS), took $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008, enough to pay off one-tenth of the country’s delinquent mortgages. The firm’s peak borrowing occurred the same day Congress rejected the proposed TARP bill, triggering the biggest point drop ever in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (INDU) The bill later passed, and Morgan Stanley got $10 billion of TARP funds, though Paulson said only “healthy institutions” were eligible.

Mark Lake, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley, declined to comment, as did spokesmen for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

Had lawmakers known, it “could have changed the whole approach to reform legislation,” says Ted Kaufman, a former Democratic Senator from Delaware who, with Brown, introduced the bill to limit bank size.
Moral Hazard

Kaufman says some banks are so big that their failure could trigger a chain reaction in the financial system. The cost of borrowing for so-called too-big-to-fail banks is lower than that of smaller firms because lenders believe the government won’t let them go under. The perceived safety net creates what economists call moral hazard — the belief that bankers will take greater risks because they’ll enjoy any profits while shifting losses to taxpayers.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company.

If Congress had been aware of the extent of the Fed rescue, Kaufman says, he would have been able to line up more support for breaking up the biggest banks.

Byron L. Dorgan, a former Democratic senator from North Dakota, says the knowledge might have helped pass legislation to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which for most of the last century separated customer deposits from the riskier practices of investment banking.

“Had people known about the hundreds of billions in loans to the biggest financial institutions, they would have demanded Congress take much more courageous actions to stop the practices that caused this near financial collapse,” says Dorgan, who retired in January.
Getting Bigger

Instead, the Fed and its secret financing helped America’s biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.

Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data.

For so few banks to hold so many assets is “un-American,” says Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “All of these gargantuan institutions are too big to regulate. I’m in favor of breaking them up and slimming them down.”

Employees at the six biggest banks made twice the average for all U.S. workers in 2010, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics hourly compensation cost data. The banks spent $146.3 billion on compensation in 2010, or an average of $126,342 per worker, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s up almost 20 percent from five years earlier compared with less than 15 percent for the average worker. Average pay at the banks in 2010 was about the same as in 2007, before the bailouts.
‘Wanted to Pretend’

“The pay levels came back so fast at some of these firms that it appeared they really wanted to pretend they hadn’t been bailed out,” says Anil Kashyap, a former Fed economist who’s now a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “They shouldn’t be surprised that a lot of people find some of the stuff that happened totally outrageous.”

Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch & Co. at the urging of then-Treasury Secretary Paulson after buying the biggest U.S. home lender, Countrywide Financial Corp. When the Merrill Lynch purchase was announced on Sept. 15, 2008, Bank of America had $14.4 billion in emergency Fed loans and Merrill Lynch had $8.1 billion. By the end of the month, Bank of America’s loans had reached $25 billion and Merrill Lynch’s had exceeded $60 billion, helping both firms keep the deal on track.
Prevent Collapse

Wells Fargo bought Wachovia Corp., the fourth-largest U.S. bank by deposits before the 2008 acquisition. Because depositors were pulling their money from Wachovia, the Fed channeled $50 billion in secret loans to the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank through two emergency-financing programs to prevent collapse before Wells Fargo could complete the purchase.

“These programs proved to be very successful at providing financial markets the additional liquidity and confidence they needed at a time of unprecedented uncertainty,” says Ancel Martinez, a spokesman for Wells Fargo.

JPMorgan absorbed the country’s largest savings and loan, Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc., and investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. The New York Fed, then headed by Timothy F. Geithner, who’s now Treasury secretary, helped JPMorgan complete the Bear Stearns deal by providing $29 billion of financing, which was disclosed at the time. The Fed also supplied Bear Stearns with $30 billion of secret loans to keep the company from failing before the acquisition closed, central bank data show. The loans were made through a program set up to provide emergency funding to brokerage firms.
‘Regulatory Discretion’

“Some might claim that the Fed was picking winners and losers, but what the Fed was doing was exercising its professional regulatory discretion,” says John Dearie, a former speechwriter at the New York Fed who’s now executive vice president for policy at the Financial Services Forum, a Washington-based group consisting of the CEOs of 20 of the world’s biggest financial firms. “The Fed clearly felt it had what it needed within the requirements of the law to continue to lend to Bear and Wachovia.”

The bill introduced by Brown and Kaufman in April 2010 would have mandated shrinking the six largest firms.

“When a few banks have advantages, the little guys get squeezed,” Brown says. “That, to me, is not what capitalism should be.”

Kaufman says he’s passionate about curbing too-big-to-fail banks because he fears another crisis.

‘Can We Survive?’

“The amount of pain that people, through no fault of their own, had to endure — and the prospect of putting them through it again — is appalling,” Kaufman says. “The public has no more appetite for bailouts. What would happen tomorrow if one of these big banks got in trouble? Can we survive that?”

Lobbying expenditures by the six banks that would have been affected by the legislation rose to $29.4 million in 2010 compared with $22.1 million in 2006, the last full year before credit markets seized up — a gain of 33 percent, according to OpenSecrets.org, a research group that tracks money in U.S. politics. Lobbying by the American Bankers Association, a trade organization, increased at about the same rate, OpenSecrets.org reported.

Lobbyists argued the virtues of bigger banks. They’re more stable, better able to serve large companies and more competitive internationally, and breaking them up would cost jobs and cause “long-term damage to the U.S. economy,” according to a Nov. 13, 2009, letter to members of Congress from the FSF.

The group’s website cites Nobel Prize-winning economist Oliver E. Williamson, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, for demonstrating the greater efficiency of large companies.
‘Serious Burden’

In an interview, Williamson says that the organization took his research out of context and that efficiency is only one factor in deciding whether to preserve too-big-to-fail banks.

“The banks that were too big got even bigger, and the problems that we had to begin with are magnified in the process,” Williamson says. “The big banks have incentives to take risks they wouldn’t take if they didn’t have government support. It’s a serious burden on the rest of the economy.”

The Moral Hazard.

Dearie says his group didn’t mean to imply that Williamson endorsed big banks.

Top officials in President Barack Obama’s administration sided with the FSF in arguing against legislative curbs on the size of banks.
Geithner, Kaufman

On May 4, 2010, Geithner visited Kaufman in his Capitol Hill office. As president of the New York Fed in 2007 and 2008, Geithner helped design and run the central bank’s lending programs. The New York Fed supervised four of the six biggest U.S. banks and, during the credit crunch, put together a daily confidential report on Wall Street’s financial condition. Geithner was copied on these reports, based on a sampling of e- mails released by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

At the meeting with Kaufman, Geithner argued that the issue of limiting bank size was too complex for Congress and that people who know the markets should handle these decisions, Kaufman says. According to Kaufman, Geithner said he preferred that bank supervisors from around the world, meeting in Basel, Switzerland, make rules increasing the amount of money banks need to hold in reserve. Passing laws in the U.S. would undercut his efforts in Basel, Geithner said, according to Kaufman.

Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Geithner, declined to comment.
‘Punishing Success’

Lobbyists for the big banks made the winning case that forcing them to break up was “punishing success,” Brown says. Now that they can see how much the banks were borrowing from the Fed, senators might think differently, he says.

The Fed supported curbing too-big-to-fail banks, including giving regulators the power to close large financial firms and implementing tougher supervision for big banks, says Fed General Counsel Scott G. Alvarez. The Fed didn’t take a position on whether large banks should be dismantled before they get into trouble.

Dodd-Frank does provide a mechanism for regulators to break up the biggest banks. It established the Financial Stability Oversight Council that could order teetering banks to shut down in an orderly way. The council is headed by Geithner.

“Dodd-Frank does not solve the problem of too big to fail,” says Shelby, the Alabama Republican. “Moral hazard and taxpayer exposure still very much exist.”
Below Market

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, says banks “were either in bad shape or taking advantage of the Fed giving them a good deal. The former contradicts their public statements. The latter — getting loans at below-market rates during a financial crisis — is quite a gift.”

The Fed says it typically makes emergency loans more expensive than those available in the marketplace to discourage banks from abusing the privilege. During the crisis, Fed loans were among the cheapest around, with funding available for as low as 0.01 percent in December 2008, according to data from the central bank and money-market rates tracked by Bloomberg.

The Fed funds also benefited firms by allowing them to avoid selling assets to pay investors and depositors who pulled their money. So the assets stayed on the banks’ books, earning interest.

Banks report the difference between what they earn on loans and investments and their borrowing expenses. The figure, known as net interest margin, provides a clue to how much profit the firms turned on their Fed loans, the costs of which were included in those expenses. To calculate how much banks stood to make, Bloomberg multiplied their tax-adjusted net interest margins by their average Fed debt during reporting periods in which they took emergency loans.
Added Income

The 190 firms for which data were available would have produced income of $13 billion, assuming all of the bailout funds were invested at the margins reported, the data show.

The six biggest U.S. banks’ share of the estimated subsidy was $4.8 billion, or 23 percent of their combined net income during the time they were borrowing from the Fed. Citigroup would have taken in the most, with $1.8 billion.

“The net interest margin is an effective way of getting at the benefits that these large banks received from the Fed,” says Gerald A. Hanweck, a former Fed economist who’s now a finance professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

While the method isn’t perfect, it’s impossible to state the banks’ exact profits or savings from their Fed loans because the numbers aren’t disclosed and there isn’t enough publicly available data to figure it out.

Opinsky, the JPMorgan spokesman, says he doesn’t think the calculation is fair because “in all likelihood, such funds were likely invested in very short-term investments,” which typically bring lower returns.
Standing Access

Even without tapping the Fed, the banks get a subsidy by having standing access to the central bank’s money, says Viral Acharya, a New York University economics professor who has worked as an academic adviser to the New York Fed.

“Banks don’t give lines of credit to corporations for free,” he says. “Why should all these government guarantees and liquidity facilities be for free?”

In the September 2008 meeting at which Paulson and Bernanke briefed lawmakers on the need for TARP, Bernanke said that if nothing was done, “unemployment would rise — to 8 or 9 percent from the prevailing 6.1 percent,” Paulson wrote in “On the Brink” (Business Plus, 2010).
Occupy Wall Street

The U.S. jobless rate hasn’t dipped below 8.8 percent since March 2009, 3.6 million homes have been foreclosed since August 2007, according to data provider RealtyTrac Inc., and police have clashed with Occupy Wall Street protesters, who say government policies favor the wealthiest citizens, in New York, Boston, Seattle and Oakland, California.

The Tea Party, which supports a more limited role for government, has its roots in anger over the Wall Street bailouts, says Neil M. Barofsky, former TARP special inspector general and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor.

“The lack of transparency is not just frustrating; it really blocked accountability,” Barofsky says. “When people don’t know the details, they fill in the blanks. They believe in conspiracies.”

In the end, Geithner had his way. The Brown-Kaufman proposal to limit the size of banks was defeated, 60 to 31. Bank supervisors meeting in Switzerland did mandate minimum reserves that institutions will have to hold, with higher levels for the world’s largest banks, including the six biggest in the U.S. Those rules can be changed by individual countries.

They take full effect in 2019.

Meanwhile, Kaufman says, “we’re absolutely, totally, 100 percent not prepared for another financial crisis.”(Bloomberg)

Feel better now? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Ruling Elite Exposed

One of the biggest scandals in American politics is waiting to explode: the full story of the inside game in Washington shows how the permanent political class enriches itself at the expense of the rest of us. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, yet it is routine among members of Congress. Normal individuals cannot get in on IPOs at the asking price, but politicians do so routinely. The Obama administration has been able to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to its supporters, ensuring yet more campaign donations. An entire class of investors now makes all of its profits based on influence and access in Washington. Peter Schweizer has doggedly researched through mountains of financial records, tracking complicated deals and stock trades back to the timing of briefings, votes on bills, and every other point of leverage for politicians in Washington. The result is a manifesto for revolution: the Permanent Political Class must go.
For the Palin Deranged, let it be known he has worked for her and shares her ideas so you may want to consult your Thought Police Manual before continuing…Thank you.
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
The Point is not that it’s the Democrats or The Republicans doing it, it’s both!
The fact is NEITHER of them should be doing it is the point!
Martha Stewart went to Jail for “insider trading”.
Congress does it as matter of course. It’s a normal part of the day. Nothing special.
Perfectly Legal. They wrote the laws that say so! 🙂
They get opportunities that would send us normal people to jail, they can do it with abandon.
It turns out that it is not illegal for member of Congress to make stock trades using inside information they learn while working on legislation.
So they can use, say, the passing of Health Care Laws to buy and selling stocks that would be effected by it to enrich themselves.
Or an earmark for a major road to be built conveniently near property you just bought.
They could get out of the Stock Market before it crashed in 2008.
You could buy IPOs not available to normal people (Nancy Pelosi).
Conflict of Interest is not illegal for Congress. Everyone else, yes, Congress, No.
Political Intelligence groups data mine and gather the non-public info in Congress and sell it to Wall Street so they can all make money.
Yes, that evil Wall Street that is so “evil” and so is the subject of so much hypocritical demonizing.
Thus you may surmise that a political opposition to Big Brother Obama was psychologically necessary in order to provide an internal enemy posing a threat to the rule of the Party; the constantly reiterated ritual of the Two Minutes Hate help ensure that popular support for and devotion towards Big Brother is continuous.
So it’s Orwell’s  Hate Week is an event in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, designed to increase the hatred for the current enemy of the Party, as much as possible but now they have 24/7/365 newscasts and cable channels along with newspapers to keep it going ad infinitum!
But again, it’s Both Republicans and Democrats.
The Democrats tell the masses to hate Wall Street, but they are using Wall Street to get rich.
Rich people are evil.
Then they use info that would be a normal person a prison sentence to get rich.
They are the Political and Economic Elite.
They are in fact, the very thing they are saying is evil and that the class warfare is supposed to be about but they have re-directed it.
Class Warfare is a fraud. It’s a Diversion. It’s an Orwellian Hate ploy.
Fascinating. Disgusting. And perfectly Legal, for them.
One set of rules for the Ruling Elite. One set of rules for the peasants.
Is that Democracy?
No.
This is both Republicans and Democrats!
By the way: Mr. Warren “tax me more” ‘Darling of the Left’ Buffet is one of the major influences. Aw shucks…
One of the most damaging things reported by Schweizer is how Warren Buffett profited with millions from the government bailout programs he helped design. Wynton Hall, writing in Big Government says: In the wake of the $700 billion TARP bailout, Warren Buffett apparently shaped a plan to clean up toxic assets that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner later adopted–resulting in massive profits for Buffett.
Buffett proposed something he called a “public-private partnership fund.” For every $10 billion the private sector invested, Buffett said the government should put up $40 billion.
As the political debates surrounding the proposed $700 billion TARP bailout bill heated up, Buffett maintained an appearance of naivete, an “aw shucks” shtick that deferred to the judgment of politicians.  “I’m not brave enough to try to influence the Congress,” Buffett told the New York Times.
During the meeting, Buffett strongly urged Democratic members to pass the $700 billion TARP bill to avert what he warned would otherwise be “the biggest financial meltdown in American history.”
That soundbite sound familiar? 🙂
After Paulson’s exit, incoming Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tweaked the plan and rolled it out in March 2009. But according to quarterly reports from Buffett’s holdings company, Berkshire Hathaway, between the time the billionaire crafted his plan and Geithner adopted it, Buffett quietly purchased 12.4 million shares of Wells Fargo stock and 1.5 million shares of U.S. Bancorp. Once the government unveiled its “Public-Private Investment Program,” bank stocks jumped, resulting in large profits for Buffett.
In September of 2008, Buffett invested $5 billion in the over-leveraged investment house of Goldman Sachs, having obtained impressive terms: Berkshire Hathaway would receive preferred stock with a 10% dividend yield, and the option to buy another $5 billion at $115 a share.
Buffett had a strong financial interest in the bailout’s passage, says Schweizer. “If the bailout went through, it would be a windfall for Goldman. If it failed, it would be disastrous for Berkshire Hathaway.”

Yet Buffett had little reason to worry; his insider political connections afforded him two guarantees. First, many members of Congress were themselves investing heavily in Berkshire Hathaway throughout the bailout talks–a move that may simply have been a good investment in an unsteady time, or else a shrewd exploitation of unique information. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), for example, snatched up $130,000 worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock.  Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also bought shares in Berkshire Hathaway, as did Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who purchased half a million dollars’ worth just days after the Wall Street bailout bill was signed.  Second, Buffett knew he had an ally in the surging Barack Obama. Buffett had backed Obama in 2008. And as Obama has himself conceded, “Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to.”

When the TARP bailout passed, Berkshire Hathaway firms received a staggering $95 billion in bailout cash from U.S. taxpayers. In total, TARP-assisted companies made up almost a third (30%) of Buffett’s entire publicly disclosed stock portfolio. The payoff:  by July 2009, Buffett’s Goldman bet and his congressional jawboning had yielded profits as high as $3.7 billion.

Incredibly, in a breathtaking public relations move, Buffett publicly complained that the government bailouts had put his company at a disadvantage,  because funders “who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government’s umbrella–have money costs that are minimal.”  Rolfe Winkler of Reuters best captured Buffet’s audacity: “It takes chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage.”

Still, despite Buffett’s apparent, and brazen, display of crony capitalism and political manipulation to produce billions in profits, Schweizer says that the most egregious part is that his behavior appears to have been entirely legal. Buffett merely leveraged his unique and powerful political connections to turn taxpayer money into massive private profits.

Now, with the 2012 presidential election right around the corner, Buffett plans to back President Obama again. In August 2011, the two men vacationed together in the plush surroundings of Martha’s Vineyard. Shortly thereafter, Buffett hosted an Obama fundraiser in New York City where contributors spent $35,800 for VIP tickets and the chance to discuss the economy with the Berkshire Hathaway CEO.

If Buffett’s political track record is any indication, his time spent alongside President Obama was an investment intended to yield a high rate of return–at taxpayers’ expense. (Big Government.com)

Aw shucks, Tax me More Warren is part of the disease, what a shock. And of Course, Obama has his ‘full support’ $$$$

In January, Obama specifically said, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

We were told to change our rhetoric, to have a new “tone” of civility free of violent references.

Fast forward to now, and Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden, is telling unions they “fired the first shot” at a campaign events.

“Folks, you fired the first shot. It’s not about Barack Obama. It’s not about Joe Biden. It’s about whether middle-class people are going to be put back in the saddle again – because you are the people who make this country move,” Vice President Joe Biden said at a campaign event in Ohio today.

Thanks for leading by example, Biden.

But then again, The Unions are the Brownshirts, the army of this Adminstration and as has been chronicled in this blog many times, the incestuous $$ partners of Democrats.

So the Circle of Sleeze continues. But don’t worry, it’s <fill in the blank>’s Fault! 🙂

Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Occupy Hollywood

More Hope & Change: 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

More hilarity for “99% er” Millionaire Michael Moore. Who seems to want some media attention more than anything else. Any publicity is good publicity.

Too bad he’s gone so Hollywood. Roger & Me is deeply cynical and hilarious. But we come from the same town and the movie was about the same time I was growing up there, so I understood the humor and the sarcasm. Then.

In Denver: Moore, ever the populist $50 millionposeur, did not disappoint. “Everybody is a leader!” he insisted. “Wage slaves! That’s right. You know, historians — I believe that’s what they’re going to call us. They’re going to call us all wage slaves!” (would that apply to the little people who work for a guy who has $50 Million Dollars like he does?)

When Michael Moore told Piers Morgan that he was not among the hated 1 percent, he wasn’t lying. That’s because with a net worth upwards of $50 million he’s among the top 0.1 percent.

This story appears in the Nov. 11 issue of The Hollywood Reporter.

One of the many things that bug me about the industry in which I work is the large population of phonies who claim to be liberal, caring, green and unaffected by their wealth and fame but in reality are just as self-centered and addicted to their huge, over-air-conditioned living spaces and private planes as those at whom they point their fingers. And none is more phony and finger-pointing than Michael Moore.

But it looks good. And in Hollywood, Perception IS reality. And in Democrat Politics Perception is the ONLY reality they want.

Moore seems to be everywhere of late, talking about the “occupy” movement and fashioning himself its spokesmodel. I saw him on CNBC blowing hard and receiving kid-gloves treatment from Carl Quintanilla. On Piers Morgan Tonight, Moore said, “How could I be in the 1 percent?” When Morgan made the statement that Moore is “worth millions,” Moore responded with “No, that’s not true.” He went on to justify that comment by saying, “Even though I do well, I don’t associate myself with those who do well.” Although Morgan started off a bit confrontational, he, like most other interviewers, backed down fast. In my opinion, a lot of important issues are being brought up by the “occupiers,” but overall, this protest would be better served if those speaking on its behalf were of cleaner hands and less hypocritical than Moore, who has suckled mightily at the teat of “those who do well.”

In 2005, the Weinstein Co. set up financing of about $500 million to fund production and distribution. The investment vehicle was created and syndicated by a little firm called Goldman Sachs. One of the films that was produced by TWC using funds from that investment was Moore’s documentary “Sicko”. Given the success of his previous film, Fahrenheit 9/11, which he made with Harvey and Bob Weinstein, Moore was able to command a terrific deal for himself.

For which he is suing The Weinsteins for  alleged “financial deception” and “bogus accounting methods” in their production deal.

Apparently, the “wage slave” feels he’s owed more $$$ millions. 🙂

By 2010, TWC had burned through the capital raised in the Goldman Sachs deal. Investors were forced to restructure their arrangement, meaning some suffered a devaluation of their investment. Goldman also lost some money it put in TWC, but it could handle the loss in part because it was a recipient of the government’s TARP bailout. Some unlucky investors might never get back the money they put into funding TWC.

Not unlike other bad investments set up by Goldman Sachs and others during this period, some people did make out quite well, while others, often lower on the food chain, suffered. One of those who did quite well using the TWC funds was Moore.

While I don’t know for sure what Moore received on his movie, given his previous success, it likely was several million dollars. Sicko, produced by TWC but released in 2007 by Lionsgate, did not perform as well as Fahrenheit, earning $36 million at the box office. But Celebritynetworth.com pegs Moore’s net worth at more than $50 million, and Moore is suing TWC for $2.7 million more in profits from Fahrenheit. (Reports at the time of the lawsuit said Moore already had received $19.8 million from TWC for that film alone.)

If Moore really wants to be seen as someone outside the circle of those he is protesting, it would be great if he would disclose how much he has made off his TWC-backed movies and why he was willing to associate himself with financing set up by Goldman Sachs. Further, journalists should start showing more backbone in testing the veracity of statements made by those who use the media to disseminate a holier-than-though message.

Never happen. They are too dishonest and in-the-tank for that to happen. There are virtually no actual journalists left, the vast majority are just Propagandists.

There are many reasons our country is in financial trouble, and some do relate to misdeeds by Wall Street executives. Calling attention to such misdeeds and issues of income inequality is a good thing. But the true fault of what put us in this situation resides with the government that gave leeway to those who contributed to political campaigns and provided jobs to those who ran between the various administrations and the private sector. Having a hypocrite blowing hard about groups of people in whose number he himself should be counted diminishes the impact and validity of the message.

Ah, who cares, he’s a Liberal, so we’ll give him a pass…

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Now this made me laugh:

“I have made it to the big time. I’m on MSDNC…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vitn50hI0OA

 

Sharing is Caring

“We intend to make it one of the central elements of the campaign next year,” Obama senior adviser David Plouffe said in an interview. “One of the main elements of the contrast will be that the president passed Wall Street reform and our opponent and the other party want to repeal it.”

“I’m pretty confident 12 months from now, as people make the decision about who to go vote for, the gut check is going to be about, ‘Who would make decisions more about helping my life than Wall Street?’ ” Plouffe added.

A better and peaceful world is possible — a world where people and nature come before profits. That’s socialism. That’s our vision. We are the Communist Party USA.

Meanwhile, he bails them out, takes their money and wants everyone to be mad at them so the Socialist can win.

I know I’m excited.

But it does point out that my assessment of the strategy was 100% correct. “Vote For Me the Other guys’ and asshole!”

The fact that I’m a Socialist and want to destroy this country and your freedoms is not to be discussed. Neither is my dismal record of abject failure.

I’m just better than a Pro-Wall Street Asshole! 🙂

Class Warfare at it’s finest.

It ain’t the “middle class” or the “poor” that are paying $38,500 donations.

Republican lawmakers have introduced their own “Buffett Rule” that would allow billionaire investors like Warren Buffett who say they’re not paying enough taxes to voluntarily give more money to the federal government.

Under the legislation, authored by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota and Rep. John Scalise of Louisiana, taxpayers can donate at least a $1 to the Treasury fund for deficit reduction when they file their federal income tax returns starting next year.

“If individuals like Warren Buffett or President Obama are inclined to donate their own personal money toward paying down the federal government’s debt, they ought to have that right to do so voluntarily,” Thune said. “This bill would make it easier for those wealthy individuals who feel they are currently under-taxed to pay more to the U.S. Treasury above and beyond their current obligations, without raising taxes on America’s job creators.”

I can’t wait to see how many Patriotic Millionaires decide to partake. Whenever one of them talked about how they should be forced to pay more, conservatives replied that they were more than welcome to-but why foist increases on those with less disposable income? Now it turns out that the same folks (ahem, Warren Buffett, George Kaiser) have been dodging taxes and evading them for quite some time. With this new proposal, it looks like they will either have to pay up or shut up. (townhall.com)

What is really MISSING – is the “MOVEMENT” from these popular protests – its time to pull WN heads out of their collective ass’s, and JOIN IN the attack on Judeo-Capitalism. What do you suggest? That WN Working Class White people DEFEND the Judeo-Capitalists? IF the “movement” wasn’t so PATHETIC it would be OUT THERE – LEADING these protests! The fact that its these “lefties” as you call them, who are picking up the ball and running with it – only shows how much more in tune THEY are with the fed up masses of White Workers, than the fossilized, reactionary “right-wing”. WHO holds the WEALTH and POWER in this country – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO is therefore the #1 ENEMY who makes all this filth happen – the JUDEO-CAPITALISTS. WHO therefore do WN need to FIGHT? My heart is right there with these people, perhaps someday the “movement” will SHOW the same COURAGE and DEDICATION that these people OUT THERE FIGHTING are SHOWING!

Sincerely, ROCKY SUHAYDA Hail Victory! 88! — The American Nazi Party

But I think these folks have it nailed: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/15/barney-and-occupy-dc-sharing-is-caring/#ooid=50ZWN3MjpY31TL2JsfX5wVyStzpsC35-

WINGLESS, BLOODSUCKING AND PARASITIC: MEET THE FLEA PARTY! by Ann Coulter

So far, the only major accomplishment of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters is that they have finally put an end to their previous initiative, “Occupy Our Mothers’ Basements.”

Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group — a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails and other average Democrats — they can’t even explain what they’re protesting.

The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or — worse — instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: “No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent …”

Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that “Occupy Wall Street” should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.

As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers “angry mobs” and “rabid right-wing extremists.” ABC said they were a “mob.” CNN accused them of “rabble rousing.” Harry Reid called them “evil mongers.” Nancy Pelosi said they were “un-American.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.

But apparently liberals couldn’t even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.

At least they’re embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.

Contrary to all the blather you always hear about how lawless street protests and civil disobedience are part of the American tradition — “what our troops are fighting for!” — they are not. We are an orderly people with democratic channels at our disposal to change our government.

The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays’ Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.

For nearly 200 years, Americans understood that they lived in a country capable of producing bad politicians and bad policies, but that was subject to change through peaceful, democratic means. There was no need to riot or storm buildings because we didn’t have a king. We had a representative government.

Even when injustice existed, there were constitutional mechanisms to right wrongs.

For nearly a century after the Civil War, congressional Republicans kept introducing bills that implemented the civil rights amendments — only to be blocked by segregationist Democrats. But then, attorney Thurgood Marshall came along and began winning cases before the Supreme Court, redeeming black Americans’ constitutional rights through the judiciary.

As long as a Republican sat in the White House, those victories were enforced. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Ark., to walk black children to school in defiance of the segregationist, Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus — Bill Clinton’s friend.

This is what our Constitution was designed for: to use the force of the federal government to uphold the law when the states couldn’t (Shays’ Rebellion) or wouldn’t (segregationist Democrats).

If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy — as some say he did — there never would have been a need for Rosa Parks, the Freedom Rides and the rest of the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement.

But as soon as the Democrats got control of the White House, enforcement of the Supreme Court’s civil rights rulings came to a crashing halt. Elected Democrats in the states were free to violate legitimate constitutional rulings without interference from Democratic presidents.

The ingenious system given to us by our founding fathers faltered on the morally corrupt obstructionism of elected Democrats. They simply refused to abide by the rules — with glee at the state level, and at the federal level, with cowardice.

Here, finally, was an appropriate case for nonviolent protest. There hasn’t been another justification for civil disobedience in this country until the Supreme Court invented a “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade — another act of lawlessness by liberals.

(All this and more is detailed in the smash best-seller, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mobs Are Endangering America”!)

Now liberals compare their every riot, every traffic blockage, every Starbucks-window-smashing street protest to the civil rights movement –- which was only necessary because of them. These “Occupy Wall Street” ignoramuses seem to imagine they are blacks living in 1963 Alabama under Democratic governor George Wallace.

To the contrary, the Wall Street protesters have no specific objections and no serious policy proposals in a country that is governed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “by the people.” They protest because they enjoy creating mayhem, not because the law is being ignored or their rights violated without penalty by government officials.

They are not in the tradition of the tea partiers, much less our founding fathers. They are not in the tradition of the civil rights movement or Operation Rescue. They are in the tradition of Shays’ Rebellion, the Weathermen and Charles Manson.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs). -Karl Marx

Fear & Loathing in The White House. Not of them, but those other assholes who dare disagree with their profoundly superior Socialism!

That’s “fair”. 🙂

 

 

What Democracy Doesn’t Look Like

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

At an Occupy Atlanta event Friday night, the cult-like group of demonstrators refused to allow U.S. Congressman and Civil Rights Icon John Lewis to speak to the crowd.

While Rep. Lewis told CBS Atlanta he was not angry over the group’s decision and still supports them, some who came to attend the Occupy Atlanta event are now disassociating themselves from the splintered movement.

“I am angry because this is not what democracy is all about,” said Michelle Williams to CBS Atlanta. Williams had came to support the movement but left in disgust after seeing the treatment of Rep. Lewis.

“This is Marxist more Stalin like. Your movement, you’re just riff-raff. You’re an organized mob.”

This is what Liberal “democracy” looks like. 🙂

An Iranian military leader says the protests spreading from New York’s Wall Street to other U.S. cities are the beginning of an “American Spring,” likening them to the uprisings that toppled Arab autocrats in the Middle East.

And the approval from the Iranian Military means a lot…

I wouldn’t think it would be worthwhile to draw attention to the Occupy Wall Street “movement,” or its list of demands that wouldn’t pass muster in an average kindergarten class.

But if America’s president and vice president choose to talk about it, and give it credibility, then it’s news.

According to VP Joe Biden, demands such as free college, pay independent of work, a $20 minimum wage (why not $100 or $1000?), and a nation with open borders have legitimacy and “a lot in common with the tea party movement.”

President Obama sees these demonstrations against corporate America as reasonable protest toward “the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to crack down on abusive practices that got us into this situation to begin with.”

This should provide perspective to what our most fundamental problem is today.

We have an endangered species in America whose loss threatens our future. That species is called the American adult.

Can someone please explain to our vice president the difference between a screaming infant not getting what he wants, when he wants it and an adult who understands personal responsibility, humility, work and service to others?

A functioning free society requires citizens who are adults capable of overseeing and administering a government which enforce laws that protect life and property.

Once government simply becomes a playpen for those who believe they run the universe and make its basic laws, and that the rest of us must submit to their hallucinations about what is just, we wind up where we are today.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that, according to the latest census data, 48.5 percent of American families now are on the receiving end of some sort of government program, the highest percentage in our history.

To provide some perspective, this figure was 10 percent in the 1920’s and a little over 30 percent in 1980.

During the 1960’s, a watershed decade when the infantile culture of narcissism began to subsume free adult culture in America, more government programs were born than in any other period. By 1980, four of these programs of the 1960’s – food stamps, Pell grants, Medicare, and Medicaid – accounted for 164 billion dollars in annual spending. Today these four programs swallow almost an additional trillion dollars.

No, Mr. Biden. Occupy Wall Street has nothing in common with the Tea Party Movement.

The Tea Party Movement is protest against abuse of political power and the increasing marginalization and disrespect for truths, such a protection of life, liberty, and property, that define American freedom.

Occupy Wall Street is about lust for political power, about defining what others should have, and redistributing and spending what belongs to some else. (Star Parker)

Herman Cain:“Part of it is jealousy,” said Mr Cain on CBS television. “I stand by that, and here’s why I don’t have a lot of patience with that: my parents, they never played the victim card.

“My parents never said, ‘We hope that the rich people lose something so we can get something’. No, my dad’s idea was, ‘I want to work hard enough so I can buy a Cadillac – not take somebody else’s’. “

AMEN!

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

You May be a Criminal before you’re a Criminal

The Department of Homeland Security is building a “prototype screening facility” that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to “detect cues indicative of mal-intent.”

DHS calls its “pre-crime” system Future Attribute Screening Technology <http://epic.org/privacy/fastproject/>, or FAST.

FAST is designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_%28linguistics%29> changes (alterations in the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns. Occupation and age are also considered. A government source told CNET that blink rate and pupil variation are measured too.

A field test of FAST has been conducted in at least one undisclosed location in the northeast.

Although DHS has publicly suggested that FAST could be used at airport checkpoints–the Transportation Security Administration is part of the department, after all–the government appears to have grander ambitions. One internal DHS document (PDF <http://epic.org/privacy/fastinstallation.pdf>) also obtained by EPIC through the Freedom of Information Act says a mobile version of FAST “could be used at security checkpoints such as border crossings or at large public events such as sporting events or conventions.”

Or a Criminal even when you’re not in the Country.

The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they’re carried out. H.R. 313, the “Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011,” is sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA,

The law could also potentially affect academics and medical professionals. For example, a U.S. doctor who works with overseas doctors or government officials on needle exchange programs could be subject to criminal prosecution. A U.S. resident who advises someone in another country on how to grow marijuana or how to run a medical marijuana dispensary would also be in violation of the new law, even if medical marijuana is legal in the country where the recipient of the advice resides.

The Thought Police are watching.

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

Fundraising by Shame

The Obama campaign is testing a new approach to fundraising, blasting out emails that ever-so-gently shame supporters into donating.

An email sent to a New York recipient read as follows: “Here’s something you don’t have in common with 15,049 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in New York, NY.”

Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.

When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the distance between the president’s rhetoric and actions makes him look hypocritical.

“It’s almost as if President Obama won’t cross across a Wall Street picket line except to get inside with [his] hand out, so he can raise money,” Fleischer told TheDC, referring to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who the president has been encouraging over the past week. “That sort of support causes him to look hypocritical.”

Fleischer continued by saying that President Obama and Democrats, such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who has received approximately $8.7 million from Wall Street since 1989, should stop taking campaign donations from Wall Street banks if they are so offended by their actions.

“They can’t say we hate Wall Street, but we love their money,” Fleischer said.

An examination of the numbers shows that Obama took in $421,242 in campaign contributions in 2008 from Bank of America’s executives, PACs and employees, which exceeded its prior record contribution of $329,761 to President George W. Bush in 2004.

“The securities and investment industry is Obama’s second largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign,” Massie Ritsch wrote in a Sept. 18, 2008 entry on the Center for Responsive Politics’s OpenSecrets blog.

By the end of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers. (DC)

Don’t do as I do, Just give me the money!!

****************
The Food Police
Last month, Big Apple Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke at a United Nations meeting on non-communicable diseases. And a large focus of his speech was — you guessed it — encouraging governments around the world to enact strict, NYC-style regulations on food. “Government’s highest duty,” Bloomberg said, is to make healthy foods the “default” option.

On October 1, Denmark instituted a tax on foods containing saturated fat — the first of its kind. This is on top of a tax the Nordic country slapped last year on “junk” food, like ice cream and chocolate. The left-wing coalition that runs Denmark has even talked about doubling the tax.

And in the long term, there are a number of foods containing saturated fat that are associated with better health. One is dark chocolate (linked to heart health); a second is eggs (a good source of nutrients, according to Harvard); a third is Atlantic salmon (omega-3s are linked to heart and cognitive health). Taxing these foods could drive down these health benefits.

More to the point, nutrient taxes fail to consider overall good nutrition. According to the American Dietetic Association, there are no “good” or “bad” foods. Just good or bad lifestyles.

Further, it’s ludicrous for the government to set dietary policy with the tax code when our understanding of diet and nutrition is always changing.

Not too long ago butter was “bad” and margarine was “good” because trans fat was better than saturated fat. Then margarine became marginalized because it contains trans fat. People fretted about cholesterol in eggs; now eggs are considered a great health food. And remember the government’s low-fat campaign to improve our diets? Obesity rates ballooned after that. It seems that some people see the “lower fat” as permission to eat more. (DC)

But the main thing, for liberals, is government is in control of you. That’s all that really matters. Common sense and reasonable moderation are completely foreign to them because you can’t be trusted!

Nevertheless, the food police take an overly simplistic shoot-first, ask-scientific-questions-later approach. And lest you think these bone-headed policies will stay in the Old World, Bloomberg and his figurative comrades-in-arms are working to spread them across the globe. The challenges of getting people to eat healthy, Bloomberg told the UN, are “too vast and complex for individual governments to overcome alone.”

Imagine you’re sitting in your office wondering what you’ll grab for lunch. If you’re in a city, there are literally dozens of places you could go. How do the food police expect, in a free market, to make the “default” choice the healthy one?

Will they shut down pretzel carts? Will every restaurant have to offer one salad cheaper than everything else on the menu? Or perhaps there will be a “calorie tax” on all food, so the more you eat, the more you pay Uncle Sam. That’s along with a tax based on the food’s saturated fat, sugar, and sodium content.

Of course, some people can eat more than others based on their body size, so diners will have to be weighed to make sure their tax is proportional. (Take a number, and step up to the scale.)

Starting to get the picture?

The last thing we need is even more bureaucracy such as the UN and the World Health Organization assuming they have the moral authority to manage what we eat. When these international organizations get involved in “non-communicable” diseases, what it really means is that unelected, unaccountable activists in Switzerland will be attacking choices across the world.

The fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete while on the planet is surgically removed from you body weight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory there it is vitally important to get a receipt.  (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy).
So be very careful, you may be a pre-criminal for thinking about going about to Wendy’s for a burger or talking about pot in Denmark (where you’ll be taxed for that fat anyhow!).
And that’s what freedom looks like. 🙂

Mob Rule

PHOTO: Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America by Ann Coulter

New York Times bestselling author and conservative political commentator Ann Coulter’s new book, “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America”, tackles politics once again, this time taking on the liberal left and what she describes as their “mob behavior.”

See my take:  https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/liberal-are-bees/

In “Demonic,” Coulter traces the words and movements of groups from the Ku Klux Klan and the SDS to anti-war protesters and Democrats today to argue her point that liberals have “consistently used mob tactics to implement their idea of the ‘general will.'”

“Just as fire seeks oxygen, Democrats seek power, which is why they will always be found championing the mob whether the mob consists of Democrats lynching blacks or Democrats slandering the critics of Obama Care as racists,” Coulter writes.

Chapter 1

The Liberal Mob

2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him.

3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain.

4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him.

5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him.

7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!”

8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!”

9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.”– Mark 5:2–9

The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution; it is the revolutionaries who seized control of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; it is the Maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China; it is the Ku Klux Klan terrorizing Republicans and blacks in the South; it is the 1992 Los Angeles riot that left fifty dead and did $1 billion of damage after the first Rodney King verdict; it is the bloody riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention; it is the masked hoodlums smashing up Seattle when bankers came to town; it is the 500,000 illegal aliens marching under a foreign flag in Los Angeles; it is throngs of Islamic fanatics attending the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s funeral, tearing his body out of its coffin; it is left-wing protesters destroying property and attacking delegates at the 2004 and 2008 Republican National Conventions.

Everything else changes, but mobs are always the same. A mob is an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group. Intoxicated by messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.

The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs — they are the mob. Indeed, the very idea of a “community organizer” is to stir up a mob for some political purpose. “As so frequently happens when a crowd goes wild,” historian Eric Durschmied says, “there is always one who shouts louder and thereby appoints himself as their leader.” Those are the people we call “elected Democrats.”

The Democrats’ playbook doesn’t involve heads on pikes — as yet — but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas — these are the earmarks of a mob leader. Over and over again, one finds the Democrats manipulating the mob to gain power. It is official Democratic policy to appeal to the least informed, most weak-minded and perpetually alarmed members of the public.

Their base consists of soccer moms, actresses, felons, MSNBC viewers (both of them), non-English speakers, welfare recipients, heads-up-their-butts billionaires, and government workers — who can never be laid off. The entire party gave up on attracting the votes of white men decades ago. It’s easier to round up votes by frightening women about “assault weapons” and promising excellent free health care to non-English speakers. Yes, a free health care system that is so superior that they exempt themselves and their friends from having to be in it. Liberals frighten people about their health care in order to stampede through ObamaCare. They claim the Earth is overheating in order to seize taxpayer money for solar panels and compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

They call out union thugs to force politicians to accede to insane benefits packages. They stage campaigns of calumny to get their way on gay marriage. Faddish ideas that would never have occurred to anyone fifty years ago — or even twenty years ago — are suddenly foisted on the rest of us by the liberal mobs.

Although the left in America is widely recognized as hysterical, unreasonable, and clueless, the “root cause” of these traits has generally been neglected. More than a century ago, Gustave Le Bon perfectly captured the liberal psychological profile in his 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind.” Le Bon — a French physician, scientist, and social psychologist — was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. His groundbreaking book “The Crowd” paints a disturbing picture of the behavior of mobs. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini used his book to learn how to incite a mob. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.

Even the left-wing Guardian has admitted that Le Bon’s study of crowd behavior was “possibly the most influential work of psychology ever written.” Presumably recognizing themselves in his psychological profile, liberals have recently tried to undermine Le Bon. They have complained that he merely “articulated the propertied classes’ fear of the mob.” Who likes mobs? Renters? Window manufacturers? Rope salesmen? Liberals also objected that Le Bon did not hold the police accountable for a mob’s behavior — which is like demanding that we take into account the length of the rape victim’s skirt.

It is revealing that liberals so fear Le Bon that they try to sully him as “controversial” and “reactionary.” (Those particular complaints, incidentally, were lodged by liberal activist George Monbiot, who has called for “citizen’s arrests” of former government offiials from George W. Bush’s UN ambassador John Bolton to former British prime minister Tony Blair. No wonder he doesn’t like psychological studies of mob behavior.)

It was all the usual claptrap, but the piercing truth of Le Bon’s study speaks for itself. Liberals wouldn’t go after him if, even a century later, his theories didn’t still ring true. All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism — simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty, inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas, being transfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders, and a blind hatred of their opponents.

Many of liberals’ peculiarities are understandable only when one realizes that they are a mob. For example, a crowd’s ability to grasp only the simplest ideas is reflected in the interminable slogans.

Liberals have boatloads of them: Bush Lied, Kids Died! Our Bodies, Our Selves! No Blood for Oil! No Justice, No Peace! Save the Whales; Love Your Mother (Earth); Ban the Bomb; Make Love, Not War; Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote Republican; Diversity Is Our Strength! Save the Planet! Pro-Choice, Pro-Child! Support Our Troops, Bring them Home! Co-Exist! Hey, Hey, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? Dissent Is Patriotic! War Is Not the Answer! Go Green! Healthcare Is a Right, Not a Privilege! Imagine Peace; Celebrate Diversity! Beat the Bushes for Peace! No Nukes! Give Peace a Chance; Think Globally/Act Locally; No Tax Cuts for the Rich; Save the Planet! Venceremos! One, Two, Three, Four, We Don’t Want Your F–King War! Bush = Hitler; Hell No, We Won’t Go! Off the Pig! Eat the Rich! Die Yuppie Scum! Peace Now! We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For! Solidarity Forever! Bring America Home! You Can’t Hug a Child with Nuclear Arms; Meat Is Murder! Books Not Bombs! Fight the Power! Yes We Can!

And those are just the ones on my neighbor’s car.

What is the Tea Party’s slogan? There is none. Republicans almost never have slogans, certainly none that even they can remember — except when our presidential candidates are forced to come up with some utterly forgettable catchphrase for their campaigns.

There are only three memorable Republican slogans in the past half century — unless you count what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy on the Senate floor in 2004, in which case there have been four. There was, “27 Million Americans Can’t Be Wrong,” after Goldwater lost in a historic landslide in 1964. There were the YAF buttons made in tribute to William F. Buckley’s mayoral campaign platform in 1965: “Don’t Let Them Immanentize the Eschaton!”

And when there were few other reasons to vote for the reelection of the first President Bush in 1992, there was,”Annoy the Media, Vote Bush!” Republicans display crosses and fish, college and sports decals, and a few parodies of liberal slogans (“Imagine an Unborn Child”), but no bossy demands on our bumper sticker.

Conservatives don’t cotton to slogans. When they finally produce one, it’s never the sort of rallying cry capable of sending people to the ramparts, such as “Yes We Can!” or “Bush Lied, Kids Died!” “27 Million Americans Can’t Be Wrong” is a wry observation, not an urgent call to battle. “Annoy the Media, Vote Bush!” — barely qualifies as a suggestion.

Conservatives write books and articles, make arguments, and seek debates, but are perplexed by slogans. (Of course, another reason Republicans may avoid bumper stickers is to prevent their cars from being vandalized, which brings us right back to another mob characteristic of liberals.)

By contrast, liberals thrive on jargon as a substitute for thought. According to Le Bon, the more dramatic and devoid of logic a chant is, the better it works to rile up a mob: “Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning are methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings.”

Liberals love slogans because the “laws of logic have no action on crowds.” Mobs, Le Bon says, “are not to be influenced by reasoning, and can only comprehend rough-and-ready associations of ideas.”5 He could be describing the New York Times and other journals of elite opinion when he describes periodicals that “manufacture opinions for their readers and supply them with ready- made phrases which dispense them of the trouble of reasoning.”

You will see all the techniques for inspiring mobs in liberal behavior.

There are three main elements to putting an idea in a crowd: affirmation, repetition, and contagion. The effects takes time, Le Bon says, but “once produced are very lasting.” It’s the same reason annoying TV commercials are so effective. “Head On! Apply directly to the forehead. Head On! Apply directly to the forehead. Head On! Apply directly to the forehead.”

Affirmation is the creation of a slogan, free of all reasoning and all proof.” Indeed, the “conciser an affirmation is, the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration,” he says, “the more weight it carries.” This is “one of the surest means of making an idea enter the mind of crowds.”

Affirmation only works if it is “constantly repeated, and so far as possible in the same terms.” The power of repetition “is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in the long run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in which the motives or our actions are forged. At the end of a certain time we have forgotten who is the author of the repeated assertion, and we finish by believing it.”

Short slogans endlessly repeated create a “current of opinion” allowing “the powerful mechanism of contagion” to operate. Ideas spread through the crowd as easily as microbes, Le Bon says, which explains the mass panics common to rock concerts, financial markets, street protests, and Dennis Kucinich rallies. “A panic that has seized only a few sheep,” he observes, “will soon extend to the whole flock.”

Liberals have it down to an art: The cacophonous method of yelling until conservatives shut up just because they just want to go home, the purblind assertions — No WMDs in Iraq! Civilian Deaths! Violence at Tea Parties! Head On! Apply directly to the forehead! — and overnight the entire mass of liberals is robotically repeating the same slogans.

It isn’t only in their incessant street demonstrations that liberals talk in slogans. This is how liberals discuss serious policy matters with the public. It’s as if they’re speaking to a vast O.J. Simpson jury, mesmerized by a pair of gloves and a closing argument that rhymes (“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”).

Conservatives talk the same on TV as off TV — unless they are inarticulate politicians using sound bites to avoid saying anything stupid. But regular conservatives talk on TV as if they’re having a normal conversation with their friends or neighbors.

Liberals don’t know how to do this because they don’t have normal friends and neighbors — only fellow demonstrators. Their self-image is as little Lenins, rousing the masses at the Finland Station, which is why they always sound as if they’ve gotten control of the PA system and are broadcasting from Big Brother, Inc. — or if they’re Al Gore, addressing a kindergarten class.

Here, for example, is Stephanie Bloomingdale, of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, being interviewed on MSNBC about the union’s beef with Governor Scott Walker: “Well, America, we need all of you to help us with our fight. Because this is a fight to reclaim the values of the middle class. This is the movement of our time. And we need people all across America, working people, to stand up and say, this is the time we need to restore economic justice. And we know that the only — that the union movement is the only thing that stands between unbridled corporate greed and a true economic democracy. And we — what I would like to say is, America, stand with us, stand with us who are fighting for justice and economic justice in our society.”

The next night, Katrina Vanden Huevel was engaging in the same sort of “Internationale” hectoring: “People are waking up. And they’re in the streets. There are going to be fifty rallies around this country. Maybe a million people in the streets of this country. And what are they saying? Enough! You’re giving our people’s money away. Invest in our country, invest in jobs, invest in education. Keep cops on the street, keep teachers in the classrooms. Enough with these perks for corporations. There’s a movement called U.S. uncut, which is inspired by an article in The Nation.

“If we can recoup from the very richest who brought us this financial crisis and from corporate tax dodgers, we can balance budgets in a fair way. Justice, fairness, concepts that may be coming back to America in this moment.”

The advantage of slogans like these — “working families,” “economic justice,” “unbridled corporate greed,” and “invest in our country, invest in jobs, invest in education” — is that liberals never have to talk about the actual issues being discussed. You’d never know in the fog of jargon that the Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, was only asking government employees to start paying 6 percent of their pension contributions (up from zero percent) and 12 percent of their health care insurance (up from six percent).

Similarly, the pro-abortion movement depends on never ever using the word “abortion” — only cant, such as “choice,” “family planning,” and “reproductive freedom.”

The Left’s robotic speaking style helps explain why liberals have never been able to make a dent in talk radio, despite many tries. Apparently, even the people who get bused in to their rallies can’t be paid to listen to liberals hectoring them on talk radio. Being endlessly lectured by deadly earnest liberals is boring. Ask any Cuban.

Based on their public commentary, it appears that not one liberal has the vaguest idea how the economy imploded. The only thing liberals know is — as President Obama explained — “Republicans drove the car into the ditch, made it as diffiult as possible for us to pull it back, now they want the keys back. No! You can’t drive. We don’t want to have to go back into the ditch. We just got the car out.”11 (It was always a “ditch” and not a “lake” because a lake would have been offensive to Teddy Kennedy.)

A liberal would stare at you slack-jawed if you explained that the federal government, via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, forced politically correct lending policies on the banks — policies that were attacked by Republicans but ferociously defended by Democrats — and that the banks’ suicidal loans were then bundled into mortgage- backed securities and dispersed throughout the entire financial system, which poisoned the economy, bringing down powerful institutions, such as Lehman Brothers, and destroying innumerable families’ financial portfolios.

In light of the Democrats’ direct role in creating the policies at the heart of the nation’s financial collapse, it’s not surprising that they prefer metaphors to facts. What’s strange is that the image of a car in a ditch is sufficient for the bulk of Democratic voters and commentators to adjudge themselves experts on the economic crisis and refuse to listen to explanations that aren’t images of Bush driving a car into a ditch. Image is all that matters to the mob. Obama can take in the biggest campaign haul from Wall Street in world history, as he did in 2008, but the mob will never believe he is in the pocket of Wall Street bankers.

The top- three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top thirty donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Credit Suisse Group.12 In 2008 alone, Goldman Sachs employees gave more to Obama — nearly $1 million — than any other employer, with the sole exception of the entire University of California, which has 230,000 employees — ten times more than Goldman.13

And still Republicans are called the Party of Wall Street. Bush let Lehman Brothers go under — what else do Republicans have to do? Liberals latched on to the image of Bush, Cheney, and even Tom DeLay as “oilmen” to blame them for everything from Enron’s collapse to blackouts and high oil prices.

In 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi blamed “oilmen” in public office for high oil prices — and hearing Pelosi try to craft a syllogism is like watching Michael Moore attempt ballet. She said, “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.” That’s all liberals needed to know. Two “oilmen” in the White House — cause and effect. Strangely though, a barrel of oil costs the same on the world market for all those other countries that were not being run by “oilmen.”

A few years earlier, she had blamed Bush and Representative Tom DeLay for the blackout throughout the Northeast United States and parts of Canada — presumably because they are both from Texas — saying they had “put the interests of the energy companies before the interests of the American people.”14 In fact, the blackout was due to a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing whatsoever to do with oil.

The New York Times’s Paul Krugman has written more than a dozen columns making hazy connections between Bush and the corrupt and collapsed Enron — “Some cynics attribute the continuing absence of Enron indictments to the Bush family’s loyalty code”  — despite Bush’s having absolutely nothing to do with the company, other than being from Texas.

By contrast, Krugman was on Enron’s advisory board while he was writing encomiums to Enron in Fortune magazine.16 Once a year, when I don’t feel like writing a column, I think I’ll reprint Krugman’s column singing Enron’s praises — although, again, in fairness, he was being paid by Enron at the time.

Democrats wouldn’t make such absurd statements if absurdity didn’t seem perfectly logical to their base. This is how Democrats communicate with their constituents: They use mob tactics to rile up the irrational masses. Crowds can’t grasp logic, only images. “These image- like ideas,” Le Bon says, “are not connected by any logical bond of analogy or succession, and may take each other’s place like the slides of a magic lantern which the operator withdraws from the groove in with they were placed one above the other.”

Republicans love Wall Street — oh look, Wall Street just made historic campaign contributions to Obama; he must be really cool. Republicans hate the poor because they’re trying to block government policies promoting easy mortgages. . . . Oops, I wonder why the economy just tanked. It’s because Bush drove it into a ditch! Enron collapsed and Paul Krugman says it’s Bush’s fault. Krugman was paid by Enron and Bush wasn’t? Bush lied, kids died! Oil prices went up under Bush — it’s his fault — he’s an oilman! Oh but then oil prices went down under Bush. . . . Hey, look over there! A shiny object!

Despite their perennial enthusiasm for revolution and “change” in almost any form, Le Bon says, crowds are wildly conservative when it comes to scientific progress. Want to scare a liberal? Mention nuclear power plants, genetically modified fruits, new pharmaceuticals, food irradiation, or guns with plastic frames. We could probably get a crowd of liberal protesters to scatter just by coming at them with a modern vacuum cleaner.

It certainly works on dogs and cats. The Left’s abject terror of technological development is yet another mob attribute. Le Bon says that the mob’s “unconscious horror” of “all novelty capable of changing the essential conditions of their existence is very deeply rooted.”

While mobs go about changing the names of institutions and demanding radical changes to society, he says, when it comes to scientific progress, crowds have a “fetish- like respect” for tradition.18

Thus, according to Le Bon, if “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam- power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.” It is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.”

Our liberals are even worse than Le Bon imagined. Democrats don’t merely want to block scientific progress, they want to roll it back. Al Gore’s global warming fantasy book Earth in the Balance called for the worldwide elimination of the internal combustion engine within twenty-five years. (Which, if nothing else, would have ruined Obama’s “car in the ditch” catch-phrase.)

In 2007, Democrats in Congress banned the incandescent lightbulb, currently scheduled for elimination in 2014. Indeed, banning Thomas Edison’s invention was among the very fi rst acts of the new House majority elected in 2006, in a bill cosponsored by 195 Democrats and only 3 Republicans (two of whom are no longer in office). When Democrats came up with the idea of banning the lightbulb, what image appeared in their heads? A litcandle? Only four Democrats voted against the bill in both the House and then Senate, with the vast majority of Republicans voting against it in both chambers.

Consider that the two industries that provoke the most fear and loathing in liberals are two of the most innovative: the oil and pharmaceutical industries. When a majority of the country objected to national health care because, among other reasons, it would mean the end of innovation in medicine once the government took over, liberals stared in blank incomprehension. (It was almost as if they’d been drugged.) They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, not to worry about who will discover new ones.

The only traditions liberals are eager to smash are moral and sexual ones, such as marriage and protecting the unborn. Crowds are too impulsive to be moral, according to Le Bon, which explains why liberals are mad for innovation when it comes to thousands-year-old institutions like marriage. Only when it comes to scientifi c innovation, are they hidebound traditionalists.

Indeed, the only way to get liberals interested in novel scientific research is to propose slaughtering human embryos. When adult stem cell researchers had already produced treatments for eighty different diseases, 21 while embryonic stem cell researchers were stuck in the dark ages, the failed researchers won liberal hearts by pointing out that their method destroyed human fetuses, while adult stem research did not.

As long as Democrats can win by demagoguing the mob, they are perfectly happy to turn America into a banana republic. With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security putting us on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to deal with entitlements. Instead, they will gin up the mobs to throw out any politician who cuts these increasingly theoretical “benefits.” The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total control.

Rich liberals want chaos for everyone except themselves, confident that they can afford a “green” lifestyle and their children will still attend Sidwell Friends. The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of no energy, gay marriage, girl soldiers, and marauding criminals because liberals can’t enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in complete pandemonium. They promote anarchy, believing the middle class should live in squalor, while liberals will be protected by their wealth against the mob.

The seminal event of the New Testament — Jesus’ crucifixion — is a dramatic illustration of the power of the mob.

When the mob was howling for Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death, even Pilate’s wife couldn’t convince him to spare Jesus. After having a dream about Jesus, Pilate’s wife sent her husband a note saying Jesus was innocent — a “just man.” Pilate knew Jesus was innocent and that the mob hated Jesus out of “envy.” But not his wife, not even his own common sense, was enough for him to resist the mob.

Three times Pilate told the “multitude” that Jesus was innocent and should be spared. He pleaded with the mob, proposing to “chastise him, and release him.” But the mob was immovable, demanding Jesus’ crucifixion. Pilate was required to release one of the prisoners, so he gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious murderer and insurrectionist — in other words, someone who incites mobs. Again, the mob “spoke with one voice,” demanding “with loud shouts” that Jesus be crucified.

Capitulating to the mob, Pilate ordered Jesus’ death.

Even one of the mob’s victims, a thief being crucifi ed alongside Jesus, joined the mob’s taunting, saying to Jesus, “If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.” The other thief rebuked him, noting that they were guilty, whereas Jesus was not. He said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” And Jesus said “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”Pilate gave in to the mob out of fear. The thief joined the mob to side with the majority. The mob itself was driven by envy.

Although it all worked out in the end — Jesus died, darkness fell over the Earth, the ground trembled, and the temple veil was ripped in two, and three days later, Jesus rose from the dead, giving all peoplethe promise of everlasting life — here was the stark choice, to be repeated like Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence: Jesus or Barabbas?

Liberals say Barabbas: Go with the crowd. C’mon, everybody’s doing it — it’s cool. Now let’s go mock Jesus. (As is so often the case, the mob said, “Kill the Jew.”)

Conservatives — sublimely uninterested in the opinion of the mob — say Jesus.

AMEN!

Do As I Say, Not As I Say!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

What do you think the reaction would be if a white Republican referred to “my people” while defending the KKK in a voter intimidation case?

(Politico) — Attorney General Eric Holder finally got fed up Tuesday with claims that the Justice Department went easy in a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party because they are African American.

Holder’s frustration over the criticism became evident during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) accused the Justice Department of failing to cooperate with a Civil Rights Commission investigation into the handling of the 2008 incident in which Black Panthers in intimidating outfits and wielding a club stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia.

The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the incident the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate. . . . to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black.

But you’re a “racist” if you call him on it. 🙂

Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.

“To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, and to say that the Black Panther incident wrong thought it might be somehow is greater in magnitude or is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history and the facts.,” Holder said with evident exasperation.

So because of that, he and The Black Panthers can do any old damn thing they want. They are all victims of evil crackers after all so you should just lighten up.

So what you need a Liberal to come in a diminish it, and say it’s all be old tosh that means nothing…Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, said the Black Panthers “should not have been there.” But he said the GOP was making too much out of a fleeting incident involving a couple of people.”

When Liberals get caught with their hands in the cookie jar they are either a victim or it’s no big deal.

Remember this gem from 2008: Sen Harry Reid– Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized on Saturday for saying the race of Barack Obama – whom he described as a “light skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” – would help rather than hurt his eventual presidential bid.

Every Liberal in sight jumped and down and proclaimed his was not a racist and any conclusion other than that was the real problem.

Holder said Reid’s remarks were unfortunate because of the controversy they caused. “I don’t think that there is a prejudiced bone in his body,” Holder told AP.

In 2007, Biden called Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

But remember, when 1 person amongst 100,000 at a Tea Party rally shows up with a questionable sign it’s magnified to represent the entire rally!!

So  just remember, Do as They say, not as They do. 🙂

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

More “Civility” and “adult conversation” from the Left’s Mr “tingle up my leg” MSDNC’s Chris Matthews:

What comes to your mind when you hear the following name: Newt Gingrich?

A number of things might come to your mind, depending on your ideology. For MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, it’s “car bomber.”

“He looks like a car bomber,” Matthews said on Wednesday’s edition of his show “Hardball.” “He looks like a car bomber, Clarence. He looks like a car bomber. He has that crazy Mestophalian grin of his. He looks like he loves torturing. Look at the guy. I mean, this is not the face of a president.”

Then in a moment of psychological transference (something Liberals are very skilled at): “You know this car bomber reference is very clear to me,” Matthews said. “I have this notion of a guy. It’s not a car bomber, but this guy, it’s kind of like he loves the attack. It’s kind of like he gets a thrill, Clarence, from going for the opponents midsection and hitting him so hard and getting delight in the attack itself.” (DC)

Gee, that sounds like you Chris… 🙂

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

And from the whacky Left- Michael Moore

Yesterday, Michael Moore said that the money of wealthy Americans “isn’t theres, it’s ours,” and is a “national resource.”

“They’re sitting on the money, they’re using it for their own — they’re putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this — we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it,” Michael Moore told Laura Flanders of GRITtv.

“I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. They need to — we need to see these jobs as something we some, that we collectively own as Americans and you can’t just steal our jobs and take them someplace else,” Moore concluded. (RP)

Thanks, Comrade Michael. The Liberal Progressive Collective is pleased. Everyone else is scared. Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!

This is why the wealthy filmmaker has taken the unprecedented step of posting his bank account numbers online so all Americans can have access to the vital national resource that is “our” money. I’m impressed by th… what? He didn’t do that? I would have expected otherwise because he’s usually not hypocritical that way….(Doug Powers)

He is a multi-millionaire himself. But I guess he’s not a “greedy rich” person just just greedy AND rich. 🙂

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

Ann Coulter:

For Democrats, the purpose of government is to generously provide jobs for people who otherwise couldn’t be hired — because their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement are considered undesirable in the private sector. And no, I’m not just talking about Barack Obama.

Democrats use taxpayer money to fund a government jobs program, impoverishing the middle class and harming the people allegedly helped by the programs — but creating a vast class of voters who owe their jobs to the Democrats.

This is a system designed to ratchet up costs. Look at the history of every entity where public employees have unionized, and you will find that not only are government workers paid more, but there are also a lot more of them doing a lot less useful work.

There could be two students per class, and the Democrats would still be campaigning for “smaller class size,” so that the government would be required to hire more public school teachers to staff classes with one student. For Democrats, the purpose of public education in this country is not to teach children; it’s to create jobs for “educators.”

Forget the nonsense about working men with dirt under their fingernails, slugging it out at dangerous jobs with a heartless management riding them to get more production at lower wages –- those guys are what liberal journalist Harold Meyerson calls “dead weight.”

We’re talking about government employees, most of whom — when they show up to work at all — sit in comfortable, air-conditioned offices, kick off at 3 p.m., are entitled to endless sick days, personal days and holidays, whose performance can never be evaluated and who retire at age 50. (Again, I’m not focusing just on Barack Obama here.)

Government employees are even worse than welfare layabouts. In a triple-whammy for the taxpayer, they are: (1) hideously expensive, (2) impossible to fire, and (3) doing things you don’t want done at any price.

Hey, guess what? I’m from the government, and I can burn down your garage for $300!

NO! I’M NOT INTERESTED!

OK, fine, I’ll do it for you for $20.

BUT I DON’T WANT MY GARAGE BURNED DOWN AT ANY PRICE!

OK, the guys with the matches and gasoline will be by sometime between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. one day next week….. (and it will cost you triple just ask the GAO)….

When California voters approved Proposition 13 back in 1978, cutting astronomical property taxes 57 percent, the public sector unions went ballistic.

Union bigwig Ron Coleman said, “We’re not going to just lie back and take it.”

John Seferian, vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said the union should have told politicians: “Hey, we’ll bring the roof down on you.” (Which you have to be a member of the roofers’ union to do.)

Jerry Wurf, president of AFSCME, warned that the union was “prepared for confrontation.”

This would be the same AFSCME that was found in Wisconsin in 1959 who’s current Union head makes nearly a HALF MILLION DOLLARS a year. But he’s not a greedy, evil, rich person either mind you.  And I’m sure in the spirit of Michael Moore he is willing to give not only his money to the “little people” in a grand gesture of collectivism, but he’s willing to stop raping the taxpayers for it.

His solution to the ballooning cost of government employees was … guess? That’s right, it was the same as it always is: Tax the rich.

“Let the big shots pay!” Wurf said. Embodying the hopes and dreams of our Founding Fathers, Wurf said organizing government employees was part of his goal to “remake the economic and political system” in line with the vision of socialist Norman Thomas and the Young People’s Socialist League.

Members of public sector unions see their pensions and benefits the way the Mafia views its “partnership” with a restaurant, as described in the movie “Goodfellas”: “Business bad? F–k you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? F–k you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? F–k you, pay me.”

Spoiler alert: When the restaurant owner is unable to pay his mob tribute, they burn the place to the ground.

But government employees aren’t exactly like the mob. At least the Mafia guys have a strong work ethic.

Honor amongst thieves?

All Good Warriors are all Class Warriors!

They are greedy, narcissistic, and entitled but only the “rich” are Evil! And all we need to do to wipe out a $14 Trillion debt is just tax the rich! (but not the Liberal rich like Michael Moore) and they have a poll 🙂 to back it up:

Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday. (Jan 3,2011- Just before the Republicans were sworn in and took over the House 🙂 )(Huffington Post).

Campus Progressive says the way to solve the deficit is: 1) Tax Wall Street- taxing 0.5 percent of each stock trade- because as we know EVERYONE who trades on Wall Street MUST be filthy rich! (your 401k not included :))

2) Millionaire’s Tax 3) Estate Tax 4) Property Taxes

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes…. You can solve too much binge spending by making those dirty rotten “rich” people who are mocking you pay through the nose and then rip their brains out through that nose and beat their bank accounts to death with it!!

Just not Liberal “rich” people like Michael Moore. :0

A Liberal said it so it must be true!!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Investments

ObamaCare Waiver Update:

HHS gave a waiver to Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees on Oct. 1, 2010; to Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees on Oct. 10, 2010; and to the SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees on Nov. 15, 2010.

So far, the Obama administration has issued waivers to 222 entities, including businesses, unions and charitable organizations. Of that total, 45 were labor organizations.

A total of 1,507,418 enrollees are now included in the waivers. More than one-third — 512,315 – of the enrollees affected were insured by union health plans.

SEIU Local 1199’s health plan put a $50,000 cap on medical expenses for its New Jersey nursing home workers, according to 1199 SEIU spokeswoman Leah Gonzalez. That’s $700,000 under the 2011 limit stipulated by HHS regulations.

I’ll say it again, if it’s so great why do they need waivers??

It’s the SEI FU!

The SEIU’s Committee on Political Education made $27,829,845.91 in independent expenditures on Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. (CNS)

And I’m sure this had nothing to do with it! It was just a return on their “Investment”.

And “investment” is the new Liberal buzzword. It will probably be in every sentence of the State of The Union speech tonight.

Obama/ Democrat “Investment” = SPENDING!

More Investment. More Spending.

So what if we are $14 Trillion in debt and are so broke our credit card company is threatening to cancel our card.

Liberals just can’t stop spending.

So they have to come up with a new Orwellian buzzword for it.

It’s an old trick, calling spending investments, one pioneered by Bill Clinton. As Obama said last month: “[C]utting the deficit by cutting investments in education [and] innovation [is] like trying to reduce the weight of an overloaded aircraft by removing its engine….It’s not a good idea.”

Keynesian economics argues that government spending comes with a beneficial “multiplier,” whereby a dollar spent on infrastructure causes many more dollars to be activated in the economy right away. When you plow a billion into a construction project, not only do the contractors’ employees and suppliers get paid that billion, they in turn spend it in local shops and such. More individuals than just construction workers see their livelihoods goosed.

The unemployment in construction these days is one of the highest of any profession out there, and is also rampant with Illegal Aliens who are cheaper than Union thugs.

The Unemployment rate last month in Construction was 20.7%.

Way to go on that “investment”.

THE REAL UNEMPLOYMENT “INVESTMENT”

The total non institutional civilian labor force (Americans 16 years and older who are not in a institution -criminal, mental, or other types of facilities- or an active military duty) is reported as 238.889 million. Of these, we see:

  • Employed: 139.206 million people (58.3% of labor force)
  • Unemployed: 14.485 million people (6.1% of labor force)

Obviously, that can’t be the total picture, we’re only at 64.4%. This is why:

  • Part time employed for economic reasons: 8.931 million people. This concerns people who want a full-time job but can’t get one.
  • Part time employed for non-economic reasons: 18.184 million people. Non-economic reasons include school or training, retirement or Social Security limits on earnings, but also childcare problems and family or personal obligations.

But the by far largest category “missing” from both the Employed and Unemployed statistics is the “Not In Labor Force”: 85.2 Million people.

The BLS definition states: “Not in the labor force (NILF). A person who did not work last week, was not temporarily absent from a job, did not actively look for work in the previous 4 weeks, or looked but was unavailable for work during the reference week; in other words, a person who was neither employed nor unemployed.” (Clearly, this does include lot of unemployed people).

To summarize: 108.616 million people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or “Not in the labor force”. This represents 45.5% of working age Americans.

If you count the “Part time employed for non-economic reasons”, you get 126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or “Not in the labor force”. That represents 53% of working age Americans.

So only 47% of working age Americans have full time jobs. While the official unemployment rate is 9.4%. Something’s missing somewhere. (Business Insider)

So what we need is more “investment”. 🙂

Oh, here’s another Investment.

FOOD STAMPS OUTSOURCED TO INDIA

JP Morgan Chase who received Bailout money has outsourced their call center calls on Food Stamps (that they get taxpayer money for) to INDIA!

Jobs anyone?? “Investment” anyone?

JP Morgan is the largest processor of food stamp benefits in the United States. JP Morgan has contracted to provide food stamp debit cards in 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. JP Morgan is paid for each case that it handles, so that means that the more Americans that go on food stamps, the more profits JP Morgan makes. Yes, you read that correctly. When the number of Americans on food stamps goes up, JP Morgan makes more money.

So if unemployment goes down will this ruin JP Morgan’s food stamp business?

Well, apparently not. In the interview Paton says that 40% of food stamp recipients are currently working, and he seems convinced that there could be further “growth” in that segment.

It turns out that JP Morgan also provides child support debit cards in 15 U.S. states and they also provide unemployment insurance benefit debit cards in seven states.

Apparently states have found that they can save millions of dollars by “outsourcing” the provision of these benefits to big financial firms like JP Morgan.

So what happens if you have a problem with your food stamp debit card?

Well, you call up a JP Morgan service center. When you do this, there is a very good chance that you are going to be helped by a JP Morgan call center employee in India.

That’s right – it turns out that JP Morgan is saving money by “outsourcing” food stamp customer service calls to India.

Just try to imagine the irony – a formerly middle class American that has lost a job to outsourcing calls up to get help with food stamp benefits only to be answered by a call center employee in India.

So when you’re outsourced and on Food stamps you can be reminded where your job went every time you call. 🙂

The biggest Wall Street financial institutions had no trouble begging for bailouts from the U.S. government during the financial crisis, but when the American people have needed a little grace and mercy from them they have been less than helpful.

I guess we need more “Investment” 🙂

Political Cartoon

Judgment Day: Damnation or Salvation

No, it’s not July 29, 2019 and Skynet is not going to destroy the world.

But it still might. Only Skynet is the Democrat Party.

Today, you either vote for the salvation of this nation (against the Democrats) or it’s Damnation at the hands of Progressive Ideologues who will do even more damage than they have if they retain power.

For Liberals are so full of their own superiority that lying, cheating and being completely amoral and unethical in their pursuit of their Progressive Utopia is all for your own good because you’re obviously not intelligent enough or enlightened enough to understand just how magnificent they are. How beneficent they are. How vastly superior in every way that they are.

So they have to win at any cost, by any means necessary.

It’s for your own good.

Now faced with that, that is what must be repudiated today.

Not that the liberals will understand that. Oh no, narcissism on this level will not understand the slap down they should get today.

That’s your fault, for not being as enlightened and as wise and wonderful as they are. You neandertal!

You racist. You bigot. You Teabagger!

You “enemy” (In an interview Monday with radio host Michael Baisden, Obama said he should have used the word “opponents” instead of enemies.– well that’s some progress…:) ) Obama said. “What I’m saying is you’re an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different.”

He changed in the middle of the paragraph again! He does that.

“I think I see a path, as clear and as direct as a ray of light, which leads to the attainment of that object,” George Washington wrote. “Nothing but harmony, honesty, industry and frugality are necessary to make us a great and happy people.”

Have we ever in American history seen a group of politicians for whom frugality is of less value than the Democrats now running Congress and the White House?

The region where an illegal immigrant murdered an Arizona rancher six months ago remains plagued by Mexican drug-cartel violence yet the Obama Administration has chosen to spend $52 million on restoring habitat damaged by the border fence rather than secure the area. (Judical Watch)

Want more? Vote Democrat!

With unemployment still at a severe high, a majority of states have drained their jobless benefit funds, forcing them to borrow billions from the federal government to help out-of-work Americans.

A total of 33 states and the Virgin Islands have depleted their funds and borrowed more than $38.7 billion to provide a safety net, according to a report released Thursday by the National Employment Law Project. Four others are at the brink of insolvency.(CNN)

But don’t worry, it’s George Bush, the Republicans, “Secret Money” and Corporate America’s fault! Vote Democrat!

Bromley illustration

Pollster Scott Rasmussen said it best in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That’s never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people.

Voters today want hope and change every bit as much as in 2008. But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn’t win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

And that’s the ideological opposite of the Narcissistic Progressive Liberal Democrat.

If you think that smart businesspeople will sit around and let our government tax them out of existence before they move their operations overseas — vote Democrat.
If you think it helps you if your boss gets hit with a huge tax bill — vote Democrat.
If you want the American government to be feared by the American people — but laughed at by Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — vote Democrat.
If you want to pay through the nose in taxes until you are 70 so union thugs in purple shirts can retire in security at age 50 — vote Democrat.
If you like the fact that people who actually know the Constitution get laughed at by people who are ignorant of it — vote Democrat.
If you want the entire country to be like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Chicago — vote Democrat.
If you think liberalism and socialism have done a good job of managing the incredibly beautiful and rich state of California, vote Democrat.
If you want a government bureaucrat, who can no doubt access your voter registration records, to determine whether or not you get a hip replacement or a cancer treatment — vote Democrat.
If you want electricity bills to “necessarily skyrocket” — vote Democrat.
If you think civil rights means that all white Americans are by definition guilty and all African-Americans are by definition innocent, vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the dead are voting — vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the felons are voting — vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the Illegal Aliens are voting — vote Democrat.
If you like the fact that our military men and women are being disenfranchised — vote Democrat.
If you think Cuba is a success story — vote Democrat.
If you think insurance companies can lower rates, pay for every small medical item — and every preexisting condition — and every illegal alien — and stay in business — vote Democrat.
If you agree with the French union protesters upset about having to delay retirement for two years to age 62 — vote Democrat.
If you think a rally sponsored by Arianna Huffington, the SEIU, and the DNC is a non-political rally — vote Democrat. (American Thinker)

If you like George Soros, a foreign Billionaire socialist (giving money to a host of originizations including NPR,Huffington Post, Media Matters, ACORN, and many unions and other groups) running your media and your government by proxy– Vote Democrat.

I dare you!

But when you have no freedom and the government controls your every waking moment and your very existence from one second to the next because you voted for the Democrats in 2010 don’t whine to me.

Washington was convinced that Americans had devised the greatest political system ever. In discarded notes for his first Inaugural Address, Washington expressed certainty that senators and congressmen could never “exempt themselves from consequences of any unjust and tyrannical acts which they may impose upon others. For in a short time they will mingle with the mass of the people.”

And “besides,” Washington added, “their reelection must always depend upon the good reputation which they shall have maintained in the judgment of their fellow citizens.”

If through some crystal ball he could have seen today’s Congress, George Washington might have had second thoughts. But the father of our country would be proud to see what “the mass of the people” do today at the voting booth.

The Choice is yours. Choose Wisely. The Future itself hangs in the balance.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Quintessential Partisan

More of David Limbaugh (Daily Caller): President Obama is the quintessential partisan, for sure, but he doesn’t reserve his vitriol for Republican politicians. He’ll turn on anyone who stands in his way, and he’ll make it personal through bullying, ridicule, and demonizing. Obama believes he can use his presidential bully pulpit to say whatever he wants about anyone or any group, whether foreign leaders, bankers, or tea party protesters.

Consistent with his narcissistic proclivities, Obama is angrily intolerant of his critics. He dismissed President Bush’s rare criticism by snapping, “We won.” Likewise, he lashed out at Senator John McCain for objecting to his stance on Iran, declaring, “Only I’m the president of the United States . . . and I’ll carry out my responsibilities the way I think is appropriate”—completely ignoring the substance of McCain’s criticism.

This is a hallmark of Obama’s governing style: he takes things personally and keeps score. He exudes a sense of entitlement about his agenda, expecting legislators to vote as he commands, as opposed to, say, their consciences or the wishes of their constituents.

For Obama, it’s more than just a matter of political power. There’s also his egotistical sense that he is absolutely right about everything, that everyone else is wrong, and that if given enough time, he can persuade the rest of the rubes of the superiority of his positions.

It has been my experience, online and in the media (say MSDNC), that the more Progressive Left they are they more that condescending snottiness and absolute Right of God comes out. The more left they are the more they are The Insufferably Superior Left. And thus, they are utterly incapable of being wrong and even if you can prove it, they will just attack you like a rabid raptor.

In their heads there is no such thing as them being wrong. EVER!

An easy test: Ask one of these nuts when will it not be George Bush’s fault?

Get out a wetsuit because the dripping condescending snottiness  and Bush Derangement Syndrome will flow like the flood of the century!

And don’t expect the Mainstream Media, The Ministry of Truth, to be there to protect you they are ideological now and they’re not news reporters. And they are in favor of Obama’s agenda and so they are going to disregard the kind of things he does and will make you (or Bush) the cause not him.

They still love him. Some on the far-far left are mad, it’s true, but that’s because he’s not been to far left ENOUGH  for their tastes!

He didn’t get the Public Option. He didn’t get Cap & Trade in full. He hasn’t redistributed the wealth enough for them. He hasn’t crushed Wall Street and the “rich” enough for them.

Yes, they are that radically out of touch with reality.

We’ve seen how he attributed the public’s repudiation of his agenda via the Massachusetts Senate election to his failure to sufficiently explain his healthcare position—though he had talked ad nauseam on the issue. But it was true of other issues as well—even strong moral issues for which there would never be a consensus, as with his attempt to confront pro-life forces at Notre Dame.

He took the same tack with the issue of homosexuality. At a White House celebration of Gay Pride Month—a controversial act in itself—Obama said he aspired to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality—as if the issue were simply about “accepting homosexuals,” and that anyone opposing special legal classifications for homosexuality was prejudiced, discriminatory, and as Obama claimed, possessed of “worn arguments and old attitudes.” He added, “There are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters—not yet.”

As a candidate, Obama usually told voters what he thought they wanted to hear. He told an audience in Las Vegas he wanted to help “not just the folks who own casinos but the folks who are serving in casinos.” But after becoming president he wasn’t quite as solicitous. In one of his many anti-capitalist riffs he took a cheap shot at CEOs at a townhall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana, in February 2009. “You can’t take a trip to Las Vegas or down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.” Obama’s careless statement elicited a strong reaction from Las Vegas businessmen, many pointing out that if their business suffers, the first and hardest hit are the front line workers—the people at the front desk, the bell staff, and the taxi drivers, precisely the people Obama courted during the campaign.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reported that more than 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled in the city had been canceled, translating into 111,800 guests and more than 250,000 “room nights,” costing the city’s economy more than $100 million, apart from lost gaming revenue.

And despite British Petroleum’s assurances that it was “absolutely” responsible for the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama unleashed on BP a non-stop barrage of verbal abuse. Using language not usually heard from a U.S. president, he told NBC’s Today Show that he consults experts about the spill to find out “whose ass to kick.”

Even Obama’s supporters recognized he was resorting to sheer intimidation. As Democratic strategist James Carville noted, “It looks as if President Obama applied a little old-school Chicago persuasion to the oil executives.” But American presidents, of course, are not supposed to resort to this kind of outright thuggery to get their way. As Conn Carroll remarked on the Heritage Foundation’s blog, “Making ‘offers you can’t refuse’ may be a great way to run the mob, but it is no way to run a country.”

And the President oh-so-political Oil Drilling Moratorium (even now that the leak has been plugged it continues) has cost 10’s of thousands of jobs and continues to hurt the Gulf States, especially Louisiana.

But he doesn’t care. He has the backing of his environmentalist apparatchiks. So what does he care about jobs lost in a recession due directly to his meddling. It’s not his fault!

He’s scoring points for his agenda.

And leaving other apparatchiks to do the job for him also, Like the EPA and there declaration that “that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels poses a threat to human health and welfare, a designation that set the federal government on the path toward regulating of emissions from power plants, factories, automobiles and other major sources.” (see also: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/stop-breathing-save-the-planet/) statement and now apparently Connecticut’s attorney general and Democratic nominee for the Senate, Richard Blumenthal, is working to get courts to declare “cap and trade” regulations the law of the land.

Blumenthal’s suit, Connecticut v. American Electric Power, is the most prominent of a handful of “climate change” lawsuits filed by environmental activists, state attorneys general and trial lawyers. These suits threaten to impose a steep tax on the American economy, with no input from our national elected representatives.

In 2004, Connecticut, along with seven other states, New York City and three environmental groups, filed suit against five companies responsible for “approximately one-quarter of the U.S. electric power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions.”

Their lawsuit sought to hold the companies “jointly and severally liable for contributing to an ongoing public nuisance, global warming” and asked the court to force each company “to abate its contribution to the nuisance by capping its emissions of carbon dioxide and then reducing those emissions by a specified percentage each year.”(IBD)

So Congress doesn’t have the stomach to do it, the Progressives will just use their judicial apparatchiks to force it down your throat!!

The Bully that never gives up.

Based on his behavior as president, it is clear he truly believes his own hype. He behaves and governs as though he has been sheltered all his life, or at least since he was a young adult, living in a bizarre bubble, hearing only positive reinforcement and made to believe in his own supernatural powers. This is a major reason he cannot bear opposition; this is a major reason he is not, in the end, a man of the people and deferential to their will, but a top-down autocrat determined to permanently change America and its place in the world despite intense resistance from the American people themselves.

David Limbaugh:  This is a guy who’s taken over private companies. This is a guy who — contravening the rule of law — allocates and pledges $140 billion to the IMF when Congress specifically said you cannot do that without our authority.

And he said — with an Orwellian argument, I can — this is foreign policy, I can divert $140 billion to the IMF for wealth redistribution in third world countries. Nothing to do with what the IMF was originally been set up for.

He can go after Gerald Walpin who is an IG for AmeriCorps because he uncovered fraud on the part of Obama’s friends and so he fires him without notice in total contravention of the rule of law there.

It’s a means to an end for him. He appoints judges who will rewrite the law. He will circumvent Congress when it comes to environmental policy by having his EPA declare carbon dioxide a toxic pollutant.

He will go out and thwart the secured creditors’ legal rights under the law — their rights under the law and favor the unions who are unsecured creditors, give them 50 percent on the dollar. Give the secured creditors 20 percent and then slam and slander the lawyer and slander them as speculators when they’re just trying to enforce their own rights under the law. (FOX)

“I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” Obama told ABC’s “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer last year.

And in his mind, and The Ministry of Truth, he is really good. Look at all the “legislative victories” he’s had!!

So what if 60+% of the people hate them. He won! That’s all that matters.

Like he cares.  As long as he’s right and the Ministry of Truth tell him he’s right and cover up any gaffes or “misquotes” he’s perfectly fine with doing whatever he wants.

After all, as he told Sen. McCain during the Health Care roundtable, He won the election! Get over it 😦

But there’s also the fact that he’s tone-deaf. In addition to not caring what we think, he’s also tone-deaf because he has no clue after he passed – – he crammed Obamacare through he says, I’m going to continue to fight for the American people.

Oh, you are? So 24 percent of the people support what you’re doing and you’re fighting for us? How oblivious.

And how many times has he said that he will focus on jobs, then a shiny object like Health Care or Oil or some other Liberal fantasy distracts him and he just wanders off on vacation…

We either go full blown toward socialism, Marxism, Statism or we turn back and restore our founding principles. This upcoming election in November will tell the tale.

Freedom matters.

The Ship is Sinking, Save the Apparatchiks!

Americans should all print this out and carry it everywhere . . .

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

Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Christina Romer is best known for drafting the February 2009 report “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” which the White House used as an ammunition belt in the fight to gain passage of its $862 billion economic stimulus bill (the actual cost of which exceeds $1 trillion when interest is included). Romer predicted that following passage of the stimulus bill, unemployment would plateau below 8 percent last fall and by this month register at 7 percent. That’s not close enough for government work, as unemployment stands at 9.5 percent today. It would be higher except that hundreds of thousands of frustrated job seekers have given up looking for new jobs and dropped out of the labor force.

Predictably, the stimulus bill has proven to be an extraordinary waste of borrowed money that has failed to create jobs, generate economic growth or do much of anything other than line the pockets of White House political allies. That and give $308 million in subsidies to BP before the Gulf oil spill disaster, and subsidize a study on what happens when monkeys snort coke.

Obama is adding to the economic misery by creating an environment of regulatory uncertainty. The Wall Street reform law Obama recently signed potentially requires 533 new regulations, 60 studies and 93 reports, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has 29 active rulemakings, and there are 100 new rules on the Labor Department’s agenda and 26 at the Transportation Department.

Add Obama’s determination to raise everybody’s taxes by allowing the Bush cuts from 2001 and 2003 to expire Jan. 1, 2011, and it’s easy to why banks, businesses and consumers are hoarding trillions of dollars that could otherwise spur economic growth. And we haven’t even addressed the destructive effect on economic growth of Obama’s nationalization of major portions of the economy, including the banks, health care and the auto industry.

The economy is stalling, unemployment seems stuck at European levels of idleness, the federal deficit and the national debt are at historic highs, public confidence in Congress is at its lowest-ever level and big majorities of Mainstream Americans say Obama has the country on the wrong path. Obamanomics has failed miserably and it’s time for everybody in this town to admit it so we can move on.

But The Democrats and Liberals can’t and won’t do that. They can’t politically admit the stuff they have waited generations to cram down everyone’s throat is total crap on a stick!

“Recovery summer”? Time for another sobriquet.

So the little buggers went off on their 6 week holiday, BUT, nope they were ordered back by the likes of Speaker Pelosi

because they needed to pass a $26 Billion spending bill to give more money to public sector employees!

More money for their Peeps. The apparatchiks need more money!

On Friday, after release of the jobs report, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis touted the economy’s “turnaround” and credited “strong and immediate action” President Obama took after entering office. The only real problem, she hinted, was Republicans who refuse to support a $26 billion bailout for state and local governments and their pampered unions.

“There is no room for partisan roadblocks when Americans are depending on their government’s action and the stakes are so high,” Solis said. In this White House, economic recovery is always just one massive stimulus or bailout bill away. (IBD)

This would be the Hilda Solis who earlier this year created a PSA advising Illegal aliens to call her if their mean, capitalist boss was exploiting them so she could crack down on their boss!

And naturally, voting against it, is hurting children! 🙂

WASHINGTON — House members are giving up a couple of days reconnecting with folks in their districts this week to pass a jobs bill that Democrats say is crucial to the nation’s well-being.

The unusual in-and-out session was called because the Senate waited until last Thursday, after the House had already recessed for its summer break, to pass a $26 billion bill to prevent tens of thousands of teachers and an equal number of other state and local government workers from being laid off before the November election.

Oh no!  Not that! We can’t have public sector employees (unemployment rate 3%) hurt before the election while the little people have 9.5% (officially) closer to 18% in reality (with those who have given up) are in actual need but not politically necessary enough to care about.

“This legislation is about creating and saving American jobs, and preventing a double-dip recession,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in announcing the special session just hours after the Senate passed the bill that the administration says could save the jobs of nearly 300,000 teachers and other public workers.

“It’s not a gamble,” he said, but “it would be gambling our childrens’ education to have them go back to school and find no teacher in the classroom or a larger class size.”-Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

It’s all for the children…:)

Well, you’ve heard it hear first. Everything is now perfect and we’ll all be better off and the recession is officially been sorted by saving 300,000 public sector employees!!

Democrats should be staying home and listening to their constituents “instead of scampering back to Washington to push through more special interest bailouts and job-killing tax hikes,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Republicans portrayed the special session as the Democrats’ pre-election gift to their labor union allies and objected to provisions to raise taxes on some U.S.-based multinational companies as a way to partially cover the $26 billion cost of the bill.

So raising taxes on evil capitalists to “save” some jobs will save us all.

Utopia is upon us all  🙂

REJOICE!

Bask in the splendor and the wonder that is Obamanomics!

Here’s the real record: America has lost 4.1 million jobs since Obama took office and 7.7 million since the recession began in December 2007. So most of the jobs lost have been under this administration. Whatever else you might call Obamanomics, “successful” isn’t it.

You’d never know that Democrats controlled Congress for Bush’s last two years, or that policies they enacted during their many decades in power — in particular, using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue trillions of dollars of mortgages to unqualified borrowers — are the root cause of our crisis.

As with most progressives, they believe bigger government is always the solution to our problems…(IBD)

So the Democrats stategy to stave off a political bloodbath is to SPEND EVEN MORE and then Blame Bush for it!

Haven’t we seen re-run before? 😦

Following release of Friday’s government report on unemployment and job creation, consumer and investor confidence has fallen to the lowest level of 2010. Just 21% of Adults nationwide now believe the economy is getting better. That’s down from 30% on Friday morning. The number who believe the economy is getting worse is now up to 54%.

The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures the economic confidence of consumers on a daily basis, slipped on Monday to 69.7. That’s down nine points since release of Friday’s disappointing jobs report and the lowest level of confidence measured since December 2, 2009. Eight percent (8%) rate the economy as good or excellent while 55% say it’s in poor shape.

Looked at on a month-by-month basis, consumer confidence increased on four of the first five months in 2010 and held steady in the fifth. However, it has fallen in the past two months, June and July.

But don’t worry, everything will be a utopia when these 300,000 government union people are kept off the unemployment line!!

Everything will be great when your taxes go up!  (sorry, “pro-growth revenue”)
or was that the Health Care Mandate that wasn’t tax, it’s a penalty, that’s a tax because of the Commerce Clause.

The Border is more secure now than ever! 🙂

When Social Security is officially broke (and it is).

When Medicare Advantage is slashed and your Health Savings Account is gutted.

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (left out of financial reform) are bailed out YET AGAIN!

When your bosses taxes and regulations go up!

When evil capitalist pigs are crushed under the boot of Big Brother!

When the government runs your Health Care.

When Illegal aliens are granted Amnesty (but we’ll come up with an Orwellian term for it, like “deferred action”).

Rejoice in the grandeur and splendor of Obama, Pelosi, Reid!

OR ELSE! 🙂

You Can Fool People with Spin

Government these days isn’t about making the hard choices. It’s about making the choice that will sell, either to “your base” (thus ignoring everyone else) or by spin (which is inevitably deceitful) because it will benefit you or one of your “sides” interests.

They write 2000+ bills they won’t read. But expect everyone to follow.

They can’t be bothered to read SB1070, at a minimalist 16 pages.

Much easier to just play on people fears, anxiety,biases, and divide and conquer.

And when that doesn’t work, just lie.

Then there’s the politician favorite phrase these days, “I misspoke”.

No, we have it on tape or audio.

But they “misspoke”.

Then you get stuff like this:

President Barack Obama, fresh from a win on a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulations, on Saturday urged Congress to take up his proposal for a $90 billion, 10-year tax on banks as the next step in reform.

Obama wants to slap a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of the biggest U.S. financial institutions to recoup the costs to taxpayers of the financial bailout.

“We need to impose a fee on the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayer assistance at the height of our financial crisis — so we can recover every dime of taxpayer money,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

He does realize that a tax on business is passed onto the consumer right?

He doesn’t care. It sounds good.

It plays to his anti-capitalist base and the “wall street” anger that has been ginned up.

The fact that Congress in the 1990’s set up the roots of this problem and the Government agency in charge of monitoring them were too busy with Porn is not a matter for discussion.

And one of the biggest players in this whole mess, Fannie and Freddie were and are  ignored should be a sign.

Alinsky, Rules for Radicals:
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

Daniel Foster at the conservative National Review Online argues that the bill is filled with unnecessary or useless measures.

“There is much in the bill that has nothing to do with ‘Wall Street’ or the root causes of the crisis (i.e. debit card and interchange fee rules),” Foster writes. “There is little in it that will ‘reform’ too big to fail or change the incentives for the kind of behavior that led to the crisis (implicit subsidies and bailout authority galore); and it was a ‘compromise’ mostly between Democrats.”

Then you have VP Joe Biden, a one man gaffe machine:
VP Biden ran into an ice cream shot owner (in his shop) who aked him to lower the taxes and he called the guy a “smartass”

And it gets better:
Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy Friday, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

“We inherited a godawful mess,” he said, adding there was “no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost.” (CBS)

Andrew Langer, The Daily Caller:

Ultimately, with election victory comes the responsibility of governance. That responsibility requires grappling with the excruciating problem of making tough choices. This is something all elected officials face at some time or another, and it is the caveat for anyone interested in pursuing a political career. Problems ensue when political leaders abdicate their responsibilities—and a case can be made that such abdication is an abuse of the public trust. And when it comes to domestic policy, there is no more important issue than the creation of a government’s annual budget.

For the past three years, there has been a disturbing trend of federal legislators essentially punting their responsibilities—whether it comes to oversight of federal agencies, understanding the constitutional implications of legislation, or, at its most basic, actually reading legislation being voted upon. This seemingly fundamental misunderstanding of the role of legislators in our republic has resulted in an unprecedented outpouring of public ire, from Tea Parties to very public “dressing downs” of congressmen at Town Hall meetings.

Congress should have gotten the message, yet as proof they are deaf to their constituencies, leaders in the House have recently done—or not done—something stunning. Congressional leaders have decided that they are unable to even propose, let alone pass, a federal budget this year.

They have ostensibly done this while they await the decision of President Obama’s “Deficit Commission,” a convenient fiction created to give cowardly Democrats the “cover” necessary for a tax increase following the 2010 elections. It is not their fault, they will argue when they eventually do propose a budget. They were forced to do this because of the recommendations of the commission.

It is an excuse that doesn’t hold water. Congress has the responsibility for the budget, which means that the majority party has the responsibility for getting it prepared and shepherded through the system and passed. It is, in fact, statutorily mandated. But without any consequences, the law has about as much real power as a Las Vegas illusionist: it’s great theatre, but it really doesn’t do what it claims.

The problem is that more and more government entities (including state and local governments) are shifting these powers to unelected commissions. While some might call it mere “punting”—moving the power to some other group of individuals—it’s more accurately a form of political surrender; the functional equivalent of throwing in the towel because, well, the job is just too darn hard, and, in an election cycle, these guys want the title but they don’t want the responsibilities to go along with it.

Spending and size of government are the two top issues going into this fall election, with healthcare reform playing a role in both. Voters not only are fed up with out-of-control spending, they’re genuinely fearful of the potential economic instability runaway spending creates. Controlling that spending is infinitely more complicated when government officials refuse to release a budget detailing just how that money is being spent. It was, interestingly enough, the continued secrecy of national budgets that brought Gorbachev to power as the Soviet Union’s last premier—and opening up those budgets to greater scrutiny one of the hallmarks of his Perestroika program. How ironic, then, that more than two decades later, America is moving in that direction—an entirely wrong direction—when it comes to budgets.

Americans are tired of cowardly politicians. They are tired of being lied to, of having polls say one thing and do quite the opposite. They are hungry for real leaders—leaders who mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders who are willing to make the tough choices, like Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey.

Whether it’s trying to shift responsibility or surrendering to the difficulties of governance, either way the result is the same: Americans’ government grows larger without anyone exercising fiscal restraint. Political leaders raise taxes to try and pay for their inability to control spending. Overall we all suffer. Unfortunately, in this case, waiting until January 2011 might just be too late.

  • Entitlements lead to Tax Increases The deficit will reach a stunning $1.5 trillion this year. Even after the recession ends, trillion-dollar deficits will persist, causing the national debt to double by 2020.
  • Excessive spending—not low revenues—accounts for 92% of deficits by 2014 and 100% by 2017.
  • Solutions that “split the difference” between tax hikes and spending cuts doesn’t really address the source of the problem: spending.
  • Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest costs will surge by nearly $2 trillion by 2020. By comparison, the cost of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is 85% less at $404 billion.

Tax Increases Are Not the Solution

  • Raising federal income taxes to pay for entitlement spending would require rates to double by 2050 and continue to rise thereafter.
  • Balancing the budget with tax increases alone would increase the tax burden from an average of 18% of the economy to 30% by 2055.
  • Layering on a value added tax (VAT)—a new national sales tax—would create a huge drag on the economy and family budgets.
  • A VAT would cause the price of everything to rise by 15–20%. By 2019, 44 cents of every dollar would go to the federal government, compared to 15 cents today.

Tax Hikes Have Harmful Economic Consequences

  • Tax increases take money from families and businesses, lowering savings and investment and killing jobs. This is especially harmful in the current economic climate.
  • Future generations—who can’t yet vote—will be stuck paying the higher taxes and inheriting lower standards of living that go with it.
  • Any new federal income taxes would be on top of state and local taxes, such as income, property, excise, fuel, and sales taxes.
  • A VAT would become a cash cow for Congress to fund new spending and open the door for continued, stealthy rate increases.
  • Twenty of 29 developed economies with a VAT have increased rates since passage. Denmark leads, having increased their VAT from 15 to 25% since it was enacted.

Congress has been mismanaging taxpayer dollars for decades. Can Washington really be trusted to use new revenues to close the deficit gap, or would they just spend the money on new programs? (heritage.org)

I would say no.

When you can just “misspeak” or “The previous administration…” or “the party of no” or just demonize someone else, why bother.

It is much easier to spend than to be responsible.

After all, it’s not the politician’s money.

It’s yours.

And you’ll always be there for them so why should they worry. 🙂

Getting in Touch with your Inner Banana

I will explain the title in due course.  So bear with me. there’s a bit of a set up needed.

Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geithner:  US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.

He said that other major economies would have to grow more for the global economy to prosper.

We are now declare The United States Not to be a Super Power and a World Leader, so piss off!

Yes, that’s the demoralizing sound of the White House spreading more malaise.

Welcome to Carter Malaise II: The Intentional Sequel.

In other words, don’t expect the engine that has been the driver for the world economy for over a century to keep up the pace.

This fits with President Obama’s conviction that the U.S. is no more extraordinary than any other country.

We’re nothing special. We are just another country of many. Nothing to see here, move along…

Everyone is equal and no one is better than anyone else.

“I believe we must each start by setting out plans for getting our national finances under control,” New UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was tossed out this week BY HIS OWN LABOR PARTY.

He was replaced by his deputy Julia Gillard, who became the story of the day by becoming Australia’s first woman prime minister.

It was a bad fall for the man dubbed Australia’s Barack Obama.

Like the latter, the youthful Rudd initiated costly health care, home weatherization, entitlement, and global warming pork barrel projects. In the process, he blew out the Australian budget.

When the time came to pay the bill, he effectively committed political suicide by calling for a 40% tax on Aussie mining companies.

Those firms form the backbone of Australia’s dynamic economy, accounting for half of its exports. As Rudd imagined that it was he who kept Australia out of financial crisis, the reality was it was private firms like these that created the value and jobs for Australians.

When news of Rudd’s tax hikes suggested a bid to expropriate companies’ profits, the stock market took a beating.

To pay for his own bloated government programs, Rudd claimed — as his union supporters did — that he only wanted companies to pay their “fair share.” Unions themselves added to the fantasy by claiming these taxes would create jobs. Rudd echoed that, absurdly claiming the tax would be good for the economy.

“It is important to pay emphasis on the independent modeling of Treasury who’s put all the factors together and projects this industry will grow by 6.5% over five to 10 years,” Rudd told incredulous mining executives from BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Fortescue last May as stocks fell. “As a result of (this 40% tax) we will see a better and more dynamic mining industry in the future.” (IBD)

Beginning to sound familiar??

The Full on Socialist German State:

German leader Angela Merkel believes that the massive spending President Obama is advocating is not right for her country to undertake. Merkel, sounding and parroting the familiar refrain of Conservative Republicans, is a proponent, at this juncture, of curtailing spending and sees merit in the German engaging in more savings. President Obama on the hand wants the major economies like that of Germany (ranked number 4) to emulate the profligate spending him and the U.S. lawmakers – at least the Democrats – have contributed to the world money supply. President Obama also wants Germany to curtail its forays into exports and focus it fiscal policies on consumer spending so as to spur economic growth.

Chancellor Merkel may not be operating on her own accord concerning the fiscal policies that she is currently championing like any astute politician, Merkel may be listening to her people’s voice on this matter. Much of the German people did not support the bailout (110 billion Euros) provided for Greece and (750 billion for the European safety net).

//

This posture by the German people of disagreeing on their version of bailouts mirrors the angst felt by the Tea Partiers in America.

So the Socialists have had enough of full-on socialism, and what does Obama want?

Full on Socialism.

You have to wonder why European Socialists are worried about debt and spending and Obama is not.

Add in Timothy “We are no longer a Super Power” Geithner’s comments and you start to see where I’m going with this.

I hope. 🙂

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has added his voice to the growing discussion about the United States’ recession spending spree.  In a response to President Obama’s call for further international recession spending, Schäuble stated “governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand. Deficit spending cannot become a permanent state of affairs.”

As if there were any doubt about the United States’ spending addiction, Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl explains, “the annual federal budget deficit is projected to reach 8.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020—more than three times the historical average.”

This means that if the US wanted to balance the budget by 2020, one-third of all spending would need to be eliminated or taxes would need to increase by 50 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office has just released its assessment of the administration’s budget outlook. The numbers are shocking. Under the president’s policies the federal deficit will exceed $700bn (€520bn, £467bn) in every year over the next decade. The sea of red ink will more than double the national debt to more than $20,000bn. The upshot is that in 2020, the deficit is projected to be $1,200bn, of which more than $900bn is borrowing to pay interest on previous debt. It is a sorry state of affairs.

So Obama and The Democrats want Financial “reform”.

They want to punish Wall Street!  Those evil, corrupt Capitalist Bastards!

But just like the Health Care “reform” that was more about stealth tactics to eventually kill off the private industry and have you dependent on the government, this too is not about Finances and Wall Street and just another polarized Alinsky tactic.

The upshot: no downgrade in our status as a AAA  Credit nation until interest equals 14 per cent of revenues. (and when it is downgraded the cost of the 13+ Trillion dollar debt goes up!)

Let’s party ‘til 2014 because in the Obama administration budget, D-Day (Downgrade Day) is 2015 when the magic number reaches 14.8 per cent. Moreover, the plan is not merely to flirt with modest deterioration in creditworthiness. In 2020, the ratio reaches 20.1 per cent. The US is on track for a junk-bond bonanza.

Just after 2014 when all the Health Care taxes come into full force and by then private health plans will likely be near extinction.

Coincidence?

I think not.

It’s just another takeover, but in the 2000+ plus throw the frog in cold water and then boil him slowly to death kind of way these Democrats seem to prefer.

Hell, they don’t even READ their own damn bills!

And it’s brought to you by Barney Frank and the retiring Chris Dodd, the guys who created the Mortgage mess!!

So the fox is going to save the chickens in the chicken coop!

Some Highlights

The Power to Unwind:

The FDIC would have the authority to liquidate failing firms while the Treasury Department fronts the money to do so. There would also be a repayment plan so that taxpayers are guaranteed to get the money back (and where does the government get the money??? You’re looking at his computer!).

So if the government “deems” you failing, you get taken over and sold off.

Gee, that can’t be abused at all can it! 😦
Financial Stability Oversight Council:

The council would monitor systemic risk across the entire financial system and make recommendations to the Federal Reserve to alleviate that risk. The ten-member council would include the heads of the federal financial agencies.

Corporate America’s Sith Overload. What do you bet they will be political appointees?

Just like the Oil Spill Investigation commission that has a bunch of left wing environmentalists and not one Engineer or Oil Businessperson!

They would never use any of those Chicago tactics on them, now would they… 😦

The government also gets to decide what is a “financial” firm. Does GM, which makes loans, fall into that category? How about Wal-Mart, which issues its own credit cards?

In effect, this lets the government seize and dismantle the assets of almost any company — and then force others to pay for it.
Fannie/Freddie:

Republicans biggest beef with the whole bill is that it does nothing to address the problems, and sustainability, of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

For instance: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were in arguably at the heart of the financial crisis, and which have already cost U.S. taxpayers $146 billion (with hundreds of billions more on the way), aren’t addressed in this bill at all.

The major reason for the collapse in the first place gets ignored!

Wonder Why?

Oh, that’s right, it’s government owned, heavily in debt, and guaranteed to be bailed out! (by you of course!)

Just Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security!

No problems there! 🙂

No Resolution Fund:

The House wanted to create a $150 billion fund to pay for any future bailouts. The fund would be paid for by the banks. This provision was gutted. Conferees agreed that this could only be created after a massive collapse. This is the fund that Republicans successfully painted as a permanent bailout fund when Democrats in the Senate tried to include a similar, but only $50 billion, fund.

And the Republicans were right. Can you say, slush fund!

Any bank that runs into trouble can still walk up to Uncle Sam’s borrowing window and, hand outstretched, ask for money. And if the bank is politically connected or very large, it will get it.

The bill also creates a new agency inside the Federal Reserve that will have extensive power over consumer lenders. Hold the applause, because likely new limits on checking account fees and interest on credit cards will mean less access to credit, not more.

So you have less credit available, you have new regulations and new taxes, an Oversight committe that can swoop in and shut you down, and Health care cost are going to skyrocket under ObamaCare.

Sounds like a great business climate to me. Sign me up. 🙂

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.

Because the Government is going to intentionally, “for your protection” get in the way of business even more now than before.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economic recovery won’t be catching fire any time soon.

Businesses and governments are likely to reduce spending in the second half of the year. Consumers, who drive most economic growth, aren’t expected to take up the slack.

The Commerce Department said Friday that the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the first quarter, offering its third and final estimate for the period. It was slower than initially thought because consumers spent less and imports rose faster that previously calculated.

Economists anticipate even slower growth ahead as companies bring their stockpiles more in line with sales. Factory output has climbed this year. But it was driven more by businesses replenishing their warehouses after the recession and less by consumer demand.

“The economy is growing, but still at a disappointingly slow pace,” said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities. Take away businesses restocking their inventories and “you still have a lukewarm recovery,” he said.

Other factors could hold back growth. Federal government stimulus spending is expected to fade. The European debt crisis could slow U.S. exports and world trade. And state and local governments are likely to rein in spending and raise taxes as they struggle to close budget gaps.

“This is still the weakest and longest economic recovery in U.S. postwar history,” said Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics.

High unemployment and tight credit have kept consumers from ramping up their spending as in past recoveries. The housing industry has played a big role after previous recessions. But this time it is slumping and subtracting from economic growth.

Most economists expect the unemployment rate, currently at 9.7 percent, to remain above 9 percent through the end of the year.

The economy has grown for three consecutive quarters after shrinking for four straight during the recession — the longest contraction since World War II.

And Stimulus III is on the way. After all, the previous ones were a roaring success!! So let’s do it again! and again! and again!!

Another part of the bill, and one that’s gotten little attention, makes changes to the amount of capital banks must keep to back up their loans. Banks eventually will be forced to raise more capital, or to reduce their lending. It also gives the government oversight over the $600 trillion derivatives market, without telling us what the rules will be. That, no doubt, will be left to bureaucrats. (IBD)

And they do a bang up job of it, always.

Add in that the Government has taken over Banks, Car Companies,Insurance Companies, and now wants to micromanage the financial sector.

So they want to decide who lives and who dies (Health Care)

Who is employed, by who whom and how that company operates. And if they don’t like it, they will swoop in “for your own protection” and save you from the evil capitalist exploiters.

Unions, especially Government Unions get special perks, deals and exemptions.

They are actively trying to destroy the Oil Industry (the moratorium) so they can take that over because “it’s too big and too important fail”. But if we help it fail, that’s ok.

Medicare and Medicaid  and Social Security are bankrupt. Fannie and Freddie are a bottomless pit.

The Congress wants an Internet “kill switch” for cyber-terrorists (terrorists being Right-wingers according to Homeland Security Secretary Napalitano last year)

Taxes are going up in 2011 by large amounts.

New taxes from ObamaCare start in 2011.

Unemployment may permanently be around 10% some economist are saying if everything remains as is.

50% of the people don’t even pay taxes.

The only sector of jobs that’s growing is the Public, government sector.

They want “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” aka Amnesty. And will not settle for less.

They are going to sue Arizona for wanting to protect itself.

That’s the Government’s job! 🙂

And if you don’t like the fact that they aren’t and don’t care to, tough bovine fecal matter!

We are the Power. Not You!

So they want to control your Energy, you Job, your Boss, your security, your Medical Care, Your Health, your retirement, and your how you make money.

So what does this all mean?

It means we have a President who willfully and with ideological malice wants to downgrade America to not only  ‘just another country’ but a banana 2nd or third tier one to boot. Nothing special.

What our country needs today is an inspirational leader, one who gets what makes the U.S. unique and who’ll boldly lead the nation out of its slide toward despair as he invites the world to climb with us.

What we have is a Banana Republic Dictator Wannabe.

He wants to throw the American People (the frog) in the cold water and boil them to death slowly.

To take over your life completely.

He want’s to “know whose ass to kick”.

Yours.

So he’s in touch with his Inner Banana (Dictator that is!). 🙂

The Pot is Black

Remember the old saying, “That’s like the pot calling the kettle black”?

Well, you have outraged and falsely sanctimonious Democrats demagoging about the evils of Wall Street and BP (British Petroleum) but yet they are the one with their hands in the cookie jar.

Subprime Scandal: Democrats blame “greedy” Wall Street for the financial crisis, but Democratic operatives lined their own pockets throughout the mess.

Take Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd. The Senate Banking Committee chairman recently blew a gasket on the Senate floor over GOP opposition to his tougher financial regulations.

“You have to ask yourself: ‘Who benefits if this bill to rein in Wall Street or large financial institutions is strangled by a filibuster?'” he said. “Certainly no one can make the case that the American family would benefit. These families have seen millions of jobs lost, trillions in savings wiped out, because of the greedy few on Wall Street who gambled with money that didn’t even belong to them.”

But Dodd was one of the power brokers who played fast and loose with taxpayer-backed money at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As late as July 2008, as the congressionally chartered mortgage giants buckled under the weight of HUD-mandated subprime loans, the banking panel chief insisted they were “viable, strong institutions.” Dodd asserted that there was no need to rein in their risky affordable-lending programs.

By suspending oversight, Dodd helped gamble away more than $400 billion — the current estimate of how much it will cost the Treasury to bail out Fannie and Freddie.

At the same time, Dodd personally took advantage of the easy credit scam that he and his affordable-housing cronies fostered. He received not one, but two sweetheart mortgages from subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which at the time was the darling of the affordable-housing movement. Points were shaved from the loans, and Dodd saved thousands of dollars.

Fannie CEO Franklin Raines also got special treatment from Countrywide, which became Fannie’s top client. Democrat Raines, who griped that homeownership was “unevenly distributed in society,” even held it up as the model for affordable lending.

After stepping down as White House budget director, Clinton installed him at the helm of Fannie where he proceeded to cook the books and pocket huge bonuses. By the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud, Raines had looted Fannie for nearly $100 million in compensation. Other Clinton cronies padded their pockets with sums that make some Wall Street CEOs look like pikers.

Raines is now an informal housing adviser to President Obama. Obama maintains that “fat cat bankers” caused the mortgage meltdown. But it was HUD that encouraged Fannie and Freddie to take “reckless risks” to satisfy affirmative-lending quotas. And Democrats on the Hill looked the other way.

Dodd and others abdicated their oversight duties. In effect, they gave the mortgage giants a blank check and told them to make it out to uncreditworthy minority and low-income homebuyers, who could not afford to repay loans.

As long as Fannie and Freddie kept underwriting politically correct mortgages, Democrats turned a blind eye to the mounting risk. And they also ignored the book-cooking and looting going on there.

In turn, Fannie and Freddie paid them protection money in the form of generous political donations. In fact, Dodd and Obama were among the top recipients of their largesse in the Senate.

Then there is White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an old Chicago crony of Obama. In 2000, after serving as a top White House aide, President Clinton appointed Emanuel to the Freddie Mac board, where he raked in a cool $320,000 in compensation.

Following his stint there, Emanuel hauled in millions of dollars working for a Chicago investment firm that backed — you guessed it — subprime mortgage lending firms.

Before demonizing greedy bankers on Wall Street, Democrats in Washington ought to take a long, hard look in the mirror. (IBD)

BP: Washington (CNN) — As petroleum giant BP comes under congressional scrutiny as its ruptured oil rig pumps thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, its political contributions are being scrutinized, too.

The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 presidential election was Barack Obama, who collected $71,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

When questioned about the donations Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a point of noting that the money came from employees and not the company itself.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt added that Obama wasn’t tied to big oil companies.

“This claim lacks one thing: credibility,” LaBolt said in a statement. “President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign. He raised $750 million from nearly 4 million Americans. And since he became President, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”

Where’s my barf bag?

He got it all from the little people…Bovine Fecal Matter!

IMMIGRATION:

The Al Sharpton road show was here over the last few days. It may still be here, but I doubt it.

His hit-and-run included such gems as:  “We Won’t Have True Social Justice Until Everything Is ‘Equal in Everybody’s House’ “

Now you wouldn’t call that socialism now would you?

Because, then you’d be a Racist….and you don’t want to be that now do you…. 😦

Then there was this little ditty from the liberal epicenter of the San Francisco Bay Area:

Freedom of expression or cultural disrespect on Cinco de Mayo?

On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal’s office.

“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Daniel Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”

The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts “incendiary” that would lead to fights on campus.

“They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we would get suspended,” Dominic Maciel, Galli’s friend, said.

The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they’re angry they were not allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their children, “total nonsense.”

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel’s mom, said. “All they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They’re expressing their individuality.”

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

“I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”

As for an apology, the boys and their families say, “fat chance.”

“I’m not going to apologize. I did nothing wrong,” Galli said. “I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag, but I’m an American and I’m proud to be an American.”

The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night. The district released a statement saying it does not agree with how Live Oak High School administrators handled this incident.

The boys will not be suspended and they were told they can go back to school Thursday. They may even wear their red, white, and blue colors again, but this time, the day after Cinco de Mayo, there will be no controversy.

Ah, the politically correct.

So what’s next, are we going to be observing all Mexican and Latino holidays so as not to offend them?

After all, an American Flag (on an Old Navy shirt) is tantamount to racism you know…

Why is Obama vilifying FOX News? Why does Harry Reid push an immigration bill he knows can’t pass? Why won’t Schumer compromise on regulatory reform and why does he try to hang Goldman Sachs around the GOP? Why did Bill Clinton blame conservatives who oppose big government for the Oklahoma City bombing?

All share one motivation: To increase their base’s turnout in the off year elections of 2010. Going after FOX News stimulates a feeling of victimization on the left. The immigration bill and the new Arizona law catalyzes a Latino turnout. Goldman Sachs enrages liberal anti-Wall Street populists. By characterizing the Tea Party activists as dangerous, liberals are aroused to vote in November.

There are two way to win any election: energize the base or appeal to the center. Obama is, predictably, choosing the former, deliberately pushing policies that drive Independents into Republican arms as the price for generating passion on the part of his supporters. (Dick Morris)

So the great “unifier” is dividing people in order to try and save his party.

So the party that decries “fear tactics” is slopping it on like there’s no tomorrow.

And they are the victims.

And Me,  I’m still a racist…. 🙂

The Democrat Convenience Store

Alinsky Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

Obama and The Democrats want to control the Financial Sector next. Or at the very least, scare them or scar them into compliance.

So the Next great Boogeyman has emerged from the Democrats.

First (and still champ) was George W. Bush.

Then it Halliburton.

Then it was The Banks.

Then it was the Insurance Industry.

Now it’s Wall Street.

Specifically Goldman Sachs.

Obama and The Democrats have their target.

But they also have some real problems.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, is demanding a slew of documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, asserting that the timing of civil charges against Goldman Sachs raises “serious questions about the commission’s independence and impartiality.”

Issa’s letter, addressed to SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro and signed by eight other House Republicans, asks whether the commission had any contact about the case, prior to its public release, with White House aides, Democratic Party committee officials, or members of Congress or their staff.

“[W]e are concerned that politics have unduly influenced the decision and timing of the commission’s controversial enforcement action against Goldman,” Issa writes.

Issa implied that the timing was a bit too convenient, saying President Barack Obama’s push on Wall Street reform “neatly coincided with the commission’s announcement of the suit.”

And if that wasn’t enough, Obama took nearly a million dollars in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs, and a former White Aide is now a lawyer for Goldman Sachs!

(Former White House counsel Greg Craig has just signed on as an institutional Sherpa for Goldman Sachs, the iconic financial firm facing fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission.)

“The Goldman litigation … has been widely cited by Democrats in support of the financial regulatory legislation currently before the United States Senate,” Issa writes. “The American people have a right to know whether the commission, or any of its officers or employees, may have violated federal law by using the resources of an independent regulatory agency to promote a partisan political agenda.

…“[T]he events of the past five days have fueled legitimate suspicion on the part of the American people that the commission has attempted to assist the White House, the Democratic Party, and Congressional Democrats by timing the suit to coincide with the Senate’s consideration of financial regulatory legislation, or by providing Democrats with advance notice.”

The Democrats would never stoop to that level of intimidation and misuse of government power, now would they…..

In fact, the aggressive campaign by Democrats in support of the legislation neatly coincided with the Commission’s announcement of the suit. For example:

–The Commission approved the Goldman suit in a vote that spit along party lines – a rare occurrence for approvals of enforcement litigation.

–Before the Commission had released its announcement, the New York Times published on its website a story describing the suit.

–Less than half an hour after the Times story’s publication, Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America and now a project of the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), sent millions of supporters an e-mail message from President Obama urging support for “Wall Street Reform.”

–Within hours, the Democratic National Committee had purchased AdWords advertising from Google, Inc. The DNC’s Google campaign fundraising advertisement, headed “Fight Wall Street Greed,” appeared whenever a user ran a Google search for the phrase “Goldman Sachs SEC.” It read, “Help Pres. Obama Reform Wall Street and Create Jobs. Families First!” and included a link to http://www.BarackObama.com, the website of Organizing for America.

–Democrats in Congress and the Administration have heralded the Commission’s suit against Goldman as a welcome boost to their case for the legislation.

–Members of the media have already begun to question the timing of the Commission’s suit and the actions of the Democratic National Committee.

As supported by the Commission’s canons of ethics, and as frequently reiterated by you and other Commissioners, the unqualified independence of financial regulators is crucial to the health of the financial system and the U.S. economy. For this reason, doubts about whether the Commission has scrupulously guarded its independence from the Administration’s partisan political agenda and concerted efforts to manipulate Congressional action are very serious, and should be addressed with full transparency.

Transparency, oooh there’s that word again… 🙂

President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promising a climactic clash with Wall Street, but there’s a complication in their battle plan: The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America — and to Wall Street in particular — than many Democrats would care to admit. (or the Media for that matter)

Former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt lobbies for Goldman Sachs, Visa and the coal industry. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle — Obama’s first choice to head Health and Human Services — is an adviser for a lobbying firm that represents Charles Schwab, Comcast, Lockheed Martin, Verizon and a host of other corporate interests.

Attorney General Eric Holder once lobbied for Global Crossing — sometimes described as the Democratic Enron — and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel made eight figures in a little more than two years as the Chicago-based managing director at Wasserstein Perella & Co. between jobs as a senior aide in President Bill Clinton’s White House and as the congressman representing Illinois’s 5th District.

And the Democrats rode to their majorities in the House and the Senate on a wave of cash Emanuel and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer helped them raise from Wall Street. Earlier this month, a hedge fund manager at the center of the Goldman Sachs fraud case held a fundraiser for Schumer in New York. (Politico)

Whoops!

Let’s Make sure the Ministry of Truth Media buries that!!

Goldman Sachs and its employees and family members gave $5.9 million to candidates in the 2007-2008 election cycle, the Washington-based center’s data shows. Three-quarters of that went to Democrats, the non-partisan group said. (Bloomberg)

The SEC filed a civil suit on April 16 alleging the firm failed to tell investors in a 2007 collateralized debt obligation that hedge fund Paulson & Co., which planned to bet against the CDO, helped select the underlying assets.

Goldman Sachs has denied the SEC’s accusations and Greg Palm, co-general counsel, told analysts on a conference call today that the firm didn’t intentionally mislead anyone.

Wall Street provided three of Obama’s seven biggest sources of contributors for his presidential bid. In 2007 and 2008, Goldman Sachs employees and family members gave him $994,795, Citigroup Inc. $701,290, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. $695,132.

The only friends of  Democrats are friends of convenience.

“Every day we don’t act, the same system that led to bailouts remains in place, with the exact same loopholes and the exact same liabilities,” President Obama says. “And if we don’t change what led to the crisis, we’ll doom ourselves to repeat it.”(IBD)

Sound Familiar??

And rest assured, you will hear it over and over…

It’s convenient.

Let the Show Begin

Tonight, President Obama will give his State of The Union Speech.

It’s not really a speech about the real State of the Union so much as a Campaign Speech to try and shore up the State of his Union with the voters who are mad at him.

But it will be all platitudes and pagentry.

It’s a Show.

I will be working to pay my bills at the time he’s pontificating about he “I hear your pain”.

So I won’t need the barf bag on stand-by.

“The middle class feels beleaguered, and I think the message of Massachusetts, which I believe the president is now heeding, was pay attention to our plight. We’re not as worried about changing the health care system as we are about getting by week to week,” Sen. Charles Schumer said to CBS 2 in NY.

D’oh!

It took him a year to figure that one out. Give that man the Nobel Prize!

Whoops, Obama already has one. 🙂

But does he really believe it?

NO.

Does he really care?

NO.

It’s all Show.

But I hope they put a seat belt on Nancy Pelosi’s and Vice-President Biden’s  chairs tonight and strap them down! 🙂

The Americans For Tax relief have a way for you play at home : atr.org

Back by popular demand: Obama BINGO! To help you get through the State of the Union address on Wednesday night, Americans for Tax Reform once again presents Obama BINGO!  Use the cards to check off terms and phrases likely to be used during President Obama’s State of the Union address.

We’ve prepared four different cards this year so that you may compete with your friends and family:

Obama BINGO Card 1

Obama BINGO Card 2

Obama BINGO Card 3

Obama BINGO Card 4

I guess a square with “I…” would be too easy… 🙂

Or “I inherited…” or “The Last 8 years…” (like the last year didn’t exist).

But never let it be said that I don’t provide entertainment. 🙂

A few thoughts from atr.org:

  1. Welcome to the fiscal responsibility party, Mr. President.  After a year of trillion-dollar bailouts, trillion-dollar stimulus bills, and trillion-dollar healthcare plans, it’s nice to see at least a rhetorical nod toward sanity coming out of the White House.
  2. One little problem: CBO was actually projecting a decline in non-defense discretionary spending over the next few years (from $682 billion in FY 2010 gradually down to $640 billion in 2014).   The reason is all the “temporary” spending programs that were enacted the first year of the Obama Administration.  This is like the weatherman taking credit for a sunny day–it was happening anyway.  In fact, freezing this spending is actually a hike in projected spending over the next several years.
  3. The spending “restraint” is a drop in the bucket.  Let’s take the White House claim on its face–that this measure will reduce total spending over the next decade by $250 billion.  CBO says that under current services, the federal government will be spending $42.9 trillion.  So even if this “freeze” is followed through on by the Congressional appropriators, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime will still be spending 99.42% as much as they were planning to, anyway.  Big deal.  It’s like if you were planning on spending $100 on groceries this week, and instead spent only $99.42.
  4. It’s awfully heroic to say that you’re not going to increase spending after it just went up by 17.4 percent.  That’s right: non-defense discretionary spending grew by 17.4 percent in Obama’s first year. Even if it stays at that level for the next three years, that would still be an average annual increase of 5.5 percent.  That’s faster than the economy is expected to grow, and faster than wages are expected to grow.

And here’s a disturbing statistic you won’t hear spoken of at all, let alone tonight as we get another “Feel your pain” speech.

ATR: According to data released last week, for the first time in history, more than 50 percent of union members work for the federal, state or local government.

This unprecedented event raises the question: How can a public that wants smaller government achieve that goal when every dollar that goes into that government is paying to build an interest group intent on growing the government?

And we have a Union President and a Union Congress, given the private White House session the Unions got during December on the Health Care bill that led to them being exempted for 5 years.

So the bloat now has a Union.

God help us all!

And then there’s the Bank Tax.

Obama will assault the The evils of Wall Street and The Banks (he bailed out) tonight. It’s his version of get tough.

It’s so phony.

And those “middle class” voters he’s trying to “reconnect” with will get a dial tone.

ATR: One natural question is, “who will pay the bank tax?”  It’s true that it’s assessed on the 50 biggest banks, but surely that will be passed along to all of us.  The “bank tax” is actually one of the most regressive taxes likely to be proposed by the Obama regime.

How will we pay the bank tax?

  • Imagine opening up your bank statement every month and seeing a $1 “bank tax” surcharge in there.  Assuming about 100 million active bank accounts in America and $12 in annual fees, that alone would be enough to pay about 10 percent of the tax every year
  • Another mechanism might be to increase fees to manage 401(k) and IRA accounts.  This could take the form of fees assessed to your employer (which you never see), or 12b-1 fees on your mutual funds (which you didn’t even know existed before I typed that)
  • Befuddled by all the fees and costs on your house’s HUD-1 closing form?  Here’s another one that might be in there.  Check for it just above “county recorder fee” and just below “water reclamation fee”

The list could go on, but I take it you see my point.  You can’t force the banks to reduce their profits in order to pay this new tax.  Ultimately, the only way any business has to pay any tax is by increasing prices for what they sell.  That’s exactly what’s going to happen here.  It’s not the banks’ fault–it’s the Obama Administration’s fault for hiking taxes on a crippled industry in the middle of a deep recession.

But it will make the liberals feel better, they have a new greedy capitalist pig to squeal about.

So get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.

But have the anti-acid tablets near by and the barf bag on stand by as the “new”  Touchy-feely Obama “feels your pain”….