Search This Blog

Loading...

Monday, February 28, 2011

The Most Ethical Administration Evah!

Not!  Remember the early 90's?  That was the hot saying of the, "in," crowd.  It seems apropos today.  The most ethical administration evah was promised by candidate Obama.  To that, I have this to say, NOT!  Never mind that no politician from Chicago should ever be lecturing America on ethics in politics, or on how to avoid catering to the special interests.  Chicago leads the league in every category invented for keeping score on corrupt politicking.  The phrase, "pay to play," did not start out as a description of school activities as most of the parents among you will recognize it in its current form.  It started out as a description on Chicago's special interest and politician symbiotic relationship of perpetuating power and control by the Democrat Party.  Remember Mayor Daley, father of the current White House Chief of Staff, he once quipped about Chicago's voting dead, "they voted solidly Democratic when they were alive, why should they stop now, just cause they're dead."  So here we are today, with the product of the political slime produced by Chicago in charge of the Executive Branch, what do you think it has produced so far, ethically speaking?

Well, as it turns out, there's a reason President Obama is able to claim accurately that lobbyist visits to the Whitehouse are down considerably.  This is because Administration officials have taken to clandestine meetings held in upscale coffee shops in the D.C. area.  There are a couple of dangers here, beyond the fact that lobbyist meetings are happening at all.  First, a brief discussion about lobbyists.  They are an exercise of a group of citizens first amendment rights.  I have no problem with a paid mouthpiece speaking to politicians on behalf of any group who wishes to petition our elected leaders.  I have sat for a while and listened to people whine and moan about the corrupting influence money has on politics, while discounting the money used by the interest groups on their side of a debate.  I will state it another way.  The definition of a special interest is dependant entirely on which side you agree with.  I choose to put my faith in the American People to make the right decisions most of the time.  We get elections right more often than we get them wrong.  When it is all said and done, our Constitution will survive the current crop of dolts who make up the Executive Branch.  My complaint is not that President Obama and his crew of thugs and criminals are meeting with lobbyists.  My complaint is that there is no transparency.  The guest books are not being signed.  Candidate Obama decried the horrible conflicts of interest which were supposedly commonplace under George Bush's watch.  He immediately issued, with much fanfare, an executive order prohibiting lobbyist from serving in his Administration for any purpose which they had ever worked on as a lobbyist.  With much less fanfare, he issued his voluminous waivers, so that his rule could be ignored.  At least with other Presidents, we were alerted to the possibility of conflicts, as we had the guest logs of Presidential appointments to look at.  With Bush, we knew who the President met with, and who his staff met with.  With President Obama, it took a court order to get the log books, and it spurred on the clandestine meetings in and around Washington D.C. 

Is our President perpetrating the pay to play scams that are so prevalent in the Chicago swampland where he honed his political skills?  It sure would be nice to have a glimmer of that new transparency he promised all through 2008.  Is this loopy insistence on high speed rail projects at a cost in excess of $53 Billion payback to the hundreds of union locals which will benefit the most part of a deal made between the Interior department and AFLCIO President Richard Trumka at a Caribou Coffee house on K Street.  No one is talking about the meeting, but Trumka is certainly not keeping quiet about the fact that he wields power within the Executive Branch.  As a matter of fact, Trumka is down right braggadocios about the influence he has now a days. 

From the New York Times, here is some more info. 

On the agenda over espressos and lattes, according to more than a dozen lobbyists and political operatives who have taken part in the sessions, have been front-burner issues like Wall Street regulation, health care rules, federal stimulus money, energy policy and climate control — and their impact on the lobbyists’ corporate clients.
But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors’ log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the “most transparent presidential administration in history.”
The off-site meetings, lobbyists say, reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ “battalions” of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.
Attempts to put distance between the White House and lobbyists are not limited to meetings. Some lobbyists say that they routinely get e-mail messages from White House staff members’ personal accounts rather than from their official White House accounts, which can become subject to public review. Administration officials said there were some permissible exceptions to a federal law requiring staff members to use their official accounts and retain the correspondence.
And while Mr. Obama has imposed restrictions on hiring lobbyists for government posts, the administration has used waivers and recusals more than two dozen times to appoint lobbyists to political positions. Two lobbyists also cited instances in which the White House had suggested that a job candidate be “deregistered” as a lobbyist in Senate records to avoid violating the administration’s hiring restrictions.
Employees at Caribou Coffee — which many lobbyists said appeared to be the favorite spot for off-site meetings, in part because of its proximity to the White House — welcome the increased traffic.
“They’re here all the time — all day,” Andre Williams, a manager at Caribou Coffee, said of his White House customers. (He can spot White House officials by the security badges around their necks, or the Secret Service agents lurking nearby.)

As I stated before, I don't mind the meetings with lobbyists.  I do however mind that the meetings are kept secret.  We, as taxpayers and citizens have a right to know what the Executive Branch is up to.  Obama got himself elected by promising to end the cynical nature of politics in Washington.  He has led as perhaps the opposite of that.  He has fought tooth and nail to keep the citizens' business a secret from the citizens.  His is so far the single most cynical Administration Evah.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Sunday Palate cleanser! Governor Rick Perry On The Fleebaggers.

The tactic of running away from their constitutional duties is nothing new for the Democrat Party. When democracy speaks, and they do in fact lose elections, they will try to inflict the rule of their minority view through thuggish tactics, as seen by the throngs of violent manufactured mobs in Tennessee, Indiana, and Ohio. Well they did it first in Texas, won the battle, but then lost the war. The Democrats should pay attention to Texas, as they saw a once solidly Democrat strong hold turn into a super majority for Republicans in both houses of the Texas Congress.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Saturday Palate Cleanser! Olberman Replaced by Lawrence O'Donnell, Good Choice!



What a way to get ratings, pick a fight at anyone affiliated with Fox. Perhaps Lawrence will continue, "worst person in the world," and give the honor to one of the Fox parking attendants.

Friday, February 25, 2011

All We Really Ever Needed To Know About The U.N.



That man in the photo, is the President of the U.N. Human Rights Council.  Moamar Qaddafi, one of the most virulently thuggish dictators in the world today, is the U.N.'s chief guardian on Human Rights.  That's right, the only leader of a nation alive today to be declared legally insane, found himself to be the darling of the United Nations.  Soak that in for a moment.

Now, this is not an essay designed to be about the revolution going on in his own country, but I will address at least a couple of points.  One, I wish both sides could lose this thing.  He was the worst kind of slime to be leading a nation.  He ordered the Lockerbie Bombing, the 1972 Munich Kidnappers found a safe haven in his country, he funds and exports terrorism, he brutally oppresses his own population, and he was friends with Billy Carter.  What is about to replace him will make him look saintly.  It will be the Muslim Brotherhood.  Remember that grandfatherly figure, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood who just returned from exile to Egypt?  Well, as it turns out, this revolution in Libya was his doing.  Suddenly that Democratic Uprising in Egypt appears to be not so Democratic anymore.  The idiotic Google Executive who was at the forefront of the goings on in Egypt, he has already been chased out of that country, replaced by Brotherhood thugs.

This essay is more about what a useless organization the U.N. has become.  How does a legally insane oppressive thug become head of the 47 nations charged with protecting human rights?  How does that organization then bear its weight upon the world's democracies?  How is it that the most free nation on Earth would allow itself to be the subject of pointed inspections of this group of thugs and capitulate to its demands?   The answers are in the convergence of liberalism which has swept the world for the last 30 years.  The left invariably will end up supporting the very thuggish dictatorships they claim to hate.  This is the only logical conclusion by which they can operate.  Once there, we see some spectacular logical acrobatics as to why they are justified.  The U.N. is the perfect example of leftist politics run amok.  Learn from this example, as this is the direction of our nation and indeed the globe should we not fight back beginning now.

Evan Sayet says it so much better than I could.  It's an hour, but well worth it.



I would also like to note here, our current President wants to turn our foreign policy direction over to these same thugs running the U.N. That is what Obama meant by smart diplomacy and improving our standing in the world. He wants to increase our funding of this group of criminals and allow them the power to tax us as a member of a larger world government. How on Earth can the Democrats among you still support this imbecile who currently occupies the White House? November of 2012 is sure taking its sweet old time.

UPDATE:  It would appear as though the UNHRC no longer feels that Qaddafi is the best face to put on their image.  This changes nothing however, as the head scratcher is that he ever was considered the best face to be associated with their image.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Somalia, It Is Yesterday Once More Part II.

The great thing about history is that it often provides a blue print for previous courses of action which have been successful.  I have heard many times during my life that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  What I haven't heard is the corollary, which is just as true.  Those who do not learn from history and do not follow a course of action which has proved successful, are very probably doomed to failure.  It may interest everyone to know that Islamic terrorists performing acts of piracy on the high seas is nothing new.  It was the very first crisis faced by our nation in 1789.  It was resolved in 1801, immediately after Thomas Jefferson became President. 

For a couple of centuries prior to America becoming a nation, Islamic extremists read their Quran and discovered that Allah wanted them to convert, kill, or enslave every non Muslim on Earth.  There is a possible temporary respite for the rest of us, it is called a Jizya.  The Jizya is a temporary solution which allows a non Muslim to pay a Ransom to the Muslim in charge so that he can turn his conquesting attention elsewhere.  It basically allows you to barter to be the last one conquered.  The Islamic extremists living in the Barbary Coast were exacting the Jizya from every European nation sailing anywhere their ships could reach.  Most countries were willing to pay this.  As the first President of the United States, George Washington dispatched his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson to England to meet with the Ambassador from the Barbary Coast.  When asked what gave these pirates the right to infringe upon the American ships this abridgement of our right to sail freely upon the high seas, Jefferson was told that the Quran gave them that right.  Jefferson purchased a Quran and read it on the voyage home.  Upon his arrival home, he wrote a very impassioned letter to George Washington and Chief Justice John Jay.  This letter made it quite clear that these people would not be able to be dealt with diplomatically, (insightful realization from the chief U.S. diplomat,) and in his opinion, the Jizya should not be paid, and we should fight the Muslims.  President Washington decided to pay the Jizya, which at first seemed reasonable, because our nation was brand new, and it had been working for the nations of Europe for centuries.  this went on for 12 years, with one caveat.  The Barbary Pirates saw fit to increase the Jizya.  Without warning, when the tax increased, more hostages would be taken and news of the increased ransom would be sent to the non Muslim world.  In January of 1801, Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated the third President of the United States of America.  Immediately after his inauguration, the Marine Corps and Navy were born.  An invasion of the Barbary Coast was ordered by Jefferson within a week of his assuming the Presidency.  The war, America's first lasted several years, but it also ended terrorist acts against the western world until 1904 when Islamic extremists killed the U.S. ambassador to Morocco and held his family for ransom.  President Ted Roosevelt answered again with decisive military force, and it again was a long time before we heard from the Islamic extremists. 

Read more about this history here.

Two years ago, in the first months of his Presidency I gave Obama kudos, (one of three times to date,) for allowing a Navy Seal Team to take decisive action against Somali Pirates.  He managed to not get in the way of a good decision.  What I fault him for is his complete lack of follow up.  Since that time, over 660 Americans have been taken hostage, a Jizya demanded, and 4 Americans killed by Islamic extremists operating from Somalia.  Our President's answer?  No one in our Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, or Department of State are allowed to notice the obvious connection of Islamic terrorism to Islam.  Our President's current foreign policy consists of an odd blend of appeasement of aggressive and openly hostile enemies coupled with an array of insults and diplomatic betrayal of our allies.  About the Jizya, Barak Obama has paid over $10 Million.  Is this what he meant by being smarter with our foreign policy.  He has eschewed the very successful lesson taught to us by one of our founding fathers.  Which is apropos, since he holds our Constitution in contempt, as evidenced by his being the only U.S. President to be slapped with an contempt order.  Whatever his reasons for choosing this asinine course, which history has shown will only beget more kidnappings and piracy, is not important to me.  what is important to me is that at our earliest possible opportunity we correct the mistake made in November of 2008 by electing a President who is clearly not up to the task of being President.  (Personally, I believe him to not be up to any productive task.)  The question is, how much more of this will Americans suffer until January of 2013.

On a side note, and because this part of our history needs to be told.  Much is made about the Quran purchased by Thomas Jefferson.  To bad our political correctness will not allow for most of it to be truthful.  Congressman Keith Ellison (D) Minnesota used it to be sworn into office.  Both President Bush and President Obama used it for Dinners commemorating Muslim Holidays in the White House.  It has been heralded as symbol of Jefferson's admiration for the Muslim people and of their contributions to the world blah blah blah.  The fact is that Thomas Jefferson read the Quran so that he could learn about his enemy in a war he realized he would have to fight, (which happened 12 years after he suggested it.)  James Madison, Jefferson's Secretary of State, wrote a foreword in that very Quran after he read it.  In that forward Madison wrote that Islam would be the gravest threat to the sovereignty of the United States in the future.  Prophetic words indeed.

UPDATE:  Correction, the Jizya is $10 Million per ship.  We have paid upwards of $600 Million so far. 

Hat tip Van Riper (Go Acacia)

UPDATE II: Our refusal to listen to what they themselves say will be our undoing.



My favorite quote occurs at 7:43. "Life and property of the Kuffar have no sanctity." Realize, as Jefferson did 210 years ago, there is no negotiation or diplomatic solution possible with people who feel they are bound by their Deity to destroy you.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Our Dangerous Schizophrenic Foreign Policy.

2011 revolution in Libya, Gaddafi Human Rights, UN : Dry Bones cartoon.


Two weeks ago I posted about the U.N. Security Council vote condemning Israel. I was in shock that our President would be the first to not veto such an action.  I was relieved when he did.  I admitted my mistake as an update to the original post.  It seems though, that my dish of crow was premature.  It seems as though his stance with Israel can best be described as thin and weak.  At worst, it could be called schizophrenic.  While President Obama realizes that he needs the appearance of being pro-Israel here in the United State, especially if he wants a prayer of being reelected President, he is doing his level best to show the remainder of the world that he is no friend of our only true Mid East ally. 

Yet afterward, both our ambassador to the U.N. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed public support for the substance of the resolutions they vetoed.
In explaining the U.S. veto, Ambassador Susan Rice apologized to the world on behalf of America, confessing that "we agree with our fellow Council members — and indeed, with the wider world — about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," and charging that it has "corroded hopes for peace and stability. . .. We therefore regrettably have opposed this draft resolution."
Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Secretary Clinton, like Rice, used the term "illegitimate" — a half-notch down from "illegal" (both words coming from the Latin lex, meaning "law." But no one could mistake that the U.S. was condemning our staunch ally Israel in word, while providing the semblance of a defense in deed.

How could anyone mistake Barak Obama as being friendly towards Israel.  This takes a level of mental acrobatics far beyond any feat performed by the Ringling Brothers or P.T. Barnum.  After my initial outrage though, I realized that President Obama's entire body of foreign policy is at best, schizophrenic.  He has approached each and every instance with two driving philosophies.  He has shown each one of our traditional allies the stick.  Our friends, who's friendship I hope survives this Presidency, have been constantly derided, bullied, and insulted.  Our traditional foes, who I hope will be reluctant to take advantage too much, have been lavished with state dinners, coddled, and praised beyond belief.  Some examples will follow.

The 2010 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Dali Lama, was forced from the White House through a rear entrance, and past the residence garbage.  In 2011, a State Dinner was held for the dictator who had the Dali Lama imprisoned.  We have refused to support our ally Columbia, by restricting trade, (which hurts us more, since they have plenty of oil,) and refusing to give them a hand in fighting the Farc lunatics which plague her jungles.  We have inexplicably lavished praise on Hugo Chavez, the tin pot dictator of Venezuela, and coincidentally the source of the Farc scourge plaguing the Columbians.  Even after Chavez nationalized American Assets, Obama thought it best to reward this thievery with preferred trade status.  Chavez is also a monetary supporter of Islamic Terrorists who continue attacking our citizens and interests.  Egypt, was allowed to fall in the exact same manner as Iran.  We had a pro western leader who was believed to be a hard line brute.  This was believed of him largely because of the way he dealt with the Islamic extremists in his country.  He was replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, who I assure you will make Mubarik's supposed cruelty seem like a town picnic.  When the Iranian's took to their streets to attempt to shed themselves from the truly thuggish reign of the Shia, who Jimmy Carter helped usher into power in 1978, our President showed his support for the thuggish brutes.  We have weakened our support for the Japanese, South Koreans, and Taiwanese.  We have enhanced our trade with the Chinese, North Koreans, and Russians.  Is this the smart diplomacy we were promised?  This President is a menace to our nation and dangerous for our future.  November of 2012 can't get here soon enough.

Special note for my fellow members of the Jewish faith:  If you continue to support Barak Obama, know that you are aiding in his desired destruction of Israel.  If you believe otherwise, you are either blind or delusional.  I recognize that support for the Democrats is a matter in most cases of momentum.  We have been voting this way as a bloc since the days of FDR.  It is time to reevaluate what is happening and take an earnest look at what the actions of our leaders are.  If you still wish to support Obama and the Progressive movement fine, but realize that your side is an enemy of the Jewish People.  I look forward to debating you in the arena of ideas.  I just happen to believe that this debate should be an honest statement of which direction our country should go.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Keynesian Myth Number Two: Blind Spending On Infrastructure.

President Obama's, "plan," to get our economy up and running is to, "invest," in pet infrastructure boondoggles. His idea, is to build mass transit systems to ween us into the, "green," economy. All one can say is wow. How did President Obama make it all the way through high school, college, and law school with out taking a single economics class. President Obama's cabinet and Administrative team has the dubious distinction of having the least amount of practical real world experience than any Executive Branch in our Nation's history. Where to start?

How about starting with this. What will be the possible advantage of building a mass transit system to carry people to somewhere they don't want to go. The problem with Detroit is not that people find going to the Downtown area inconvenient, the problem is that they find being there distasteful. Detroit is a crappy place to be. Once in Downtown, anyone with any sense wishes immediately to leave. The idea that once the mass transit system opens, businesses will magically appear is preposterous. Factories will not open up next to rail lines because they suddenly appear. Successful communities build transportation systems to suit the needs of the population they serve. Watch Marie Donigan in this video, she completely whiffs on the cause and effect relationship in any economic model. Part of the problem with government spending on public works projects for the purposes of ramping up an economy is that what is built seldom serves any purpose for the population it is being built for. Two summers ago, we here on Cleveland's west side were treated to having a highway resurfaced that did not need any actual work done to it. We had those terrific Stimulus signs adorning the freeway telling us that Barak Obama was the one to thank for the delay in our morning commute. When it was done, not a single business opened up simply because the roadway was now newer. The video states that Marie is from Royal Oak. Woodward Ave. runs right through Royal Oak, which brings up another point about pet projects. They very often are used as political payback and to curry favor rather than serve a practical need. They are nothing more than pork, with lipstick applied. Keynesian economics allow governments to act irresponsibly and dishonestly tell voters that this is somehow in their best interests.

Something else in the video to watch for, there is stock footage of the Model Cities Promotional Video from the Johnson Administration spiced in. Detroit was at one time, already what they envisioned as their perfectly planned city. It was the model city. So, they picked something that was already what they wanted to show off to America as a success story of their Socialist dream, before they enacted 45 years of Socialist Policies. What Detroit is today is the result of 45 years of liberal control. Remember my earlier post describing the Model Cities Program, Detroit received 450 Million 1965 dollars.

To answer Marie's question, what will happen to the vacant warehouses once the rail system is built is that they will stay empty. Of course, she has her excuse built in, the people just aren't educated on how valuable a shiny new train to nowhere is.



Then, there is also the argument that the stimulus money was actually Chicago style politics at its finest. Here is an example of that, caught on audio tape.



Hat Tip Gunloafer.

Monday, February 21, 2011

The Other Side of The Climate Debate: Do We Really Need to Inflict Economic Harm?

I realize that every one is busy. An hour and a half video during the week on some nerdy science presentation probably ranks at or near the bottom of everyone's list of fun and exciting things to do. But, here's the thing, listening to the environmental activists' hysterical propaganda has very real world consequences. We listened to the DDT scare, and as a direct result, 50 Million people have died of Malaria. We started taking food produced by farmers, and caused them to change their productive behaviors in order to produce ethanol rather than food, and now, famine has plagued several other nations, including the unfortunate folks of Egypt. Incandescent light bulbs have been made illegal to produce, making the 97 cent light bulb a thing of the past. It has been replaced with the made only in China three times more expensive and actually dangerous CFL bulb. I say actually dangerous, because if one breaks in your home, you will need a hasmat team for the cleanup of spilled mercury. The science is presented in a way that everyone will be able to understand it.  Everyone wants a clean planet to live on.  Everyone wants clean water to drink, and clean air to breathe.  We can achieve this without destroying our economy and standard of living.  Man made Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by con artists using it as a means to usurp more authority to take control of our destinies from us.  The entire vision of the new, "Green Economy," is a farce.  The cap and trade laws will produce real economic hardships, and it will be done based on our own naive good intentions.


Catastrophe Denied: The Science of the Skeptics Position (studio version) from Warren Meyer on Vimeo.

Any time you hear the words, the science is settled, in a sentence, you are being lied to.  Ending debate, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.  There is a fortune involved in perpetuating the climate science mythology.  Fleecing the citizens with these carbon exchanges, selling the more expensive goods used in production and utilization of energy, and guilting people to waste more of their hard earned resources to ease their guilty consciences is a very lucrative business.  Why would an entire society switch to a light bulb which is 300% more expensive, requires a hasmat team to clean up if broken, and quite frankly is less reliable.  If you believe it stops at the bulbs, look at the crap coming from Detroit.  When you buy a hybrid car, the Government is subsidizing a huge chunk of the cost, about $8000.  That cost is still there, you just pay for it through higher taxes.  Even with that government assistance, the sticker price paid by the consumer is way higher than for an all gas vehicle of comparable quality and features.  All this for a hoax.  It is time to stop these people, before they are given the opportunity to inflict more damage on America.

UPDATE:  More on that wreaking havoc on our economy, while never being around to accept their consequences.  California's Central valley reaches 40% unemployment in order to save the Delta Smelt.  The Smelt weren't saved, but what of the cost to human lives?  It's on to the next cause designed to ruin the livelihood of people while preaching junk science.  That anybody listens to these charlatans still is a travesty.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Sunday Palate Cleanser! The Values Democrats Teach.

In Wisconsin, plenty of doctors are on hand to breach their ethics by handing out sick excuses like leaflets without bothering to seriously examining a single patient. How easy was the excuse to get? Andrew Breitbart managed to score one.



So what about the kiddies that we care so much about? What are they learning? What happens when they play hooky from school and get a fake doctor's note? Not only are the teacher's shirking their duties, but they are bringing the school kids along with them. But Flyovercountry you say, they are learning the importance of civil dissent and how to stick it to the man. Well, let us check in with the kiddies and see what they are actually learning.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Saturday Palate Cleanser! Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Earns The Mars Tag.

This one is more than mildly amusing.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D) Mars is either incredibly disingenuous, or incredibly thin skinned.  I would tend to believe the former.  She is not the first Democrat to do this in the House during the 112th session, but she has provided the best Youtube video.  Apparently, the Democrats have decided to take offense to the term Obamacare when referring to the new health care boondoggle.  So much so that they feel a parliamentary rebuke is in order each and every time a Republican Congress Critter uses it.  Bear in mind, Wasserman-Schultz was present and silent the day former Representative, Alan Grayson (D) Somewhere further out than Mars, gave his 2 1/2 minute speech on the House Floor stating that all Republicans wanted to kill off all senior citizens.



I can think of no actual reason for the requested distinction except that the Democrats wish to distance themselves from this sink hole of a law they have inflicted on the rest of us. Their internal polling and the recent election have told them that Americans are really pissed. By referring to this sick joke inflicted on the citizens of the former home of the free and brave as Obamacare, Americans are reminded of which side of the aisle is responsible for it, and who did it to them. Keep going Republicans, take a moment of each day to work the word Obamacare into a sentence and use it on the House Floor. Make a game out of it.

UPDATE:  I was recently called out on this post by a liberal angry with my suggestion that a game be made out of using the phrase Obamacare on the House Floor as often as possible.  (Please refer to the comments section of this post.)  The shrill whine went something like this, you evil Republicans are only interested in playing games while the country is going to hell on your watch.  Then I remembered, as did the editors at Investor's Business Daily, when Steven Colbert, was called to testify in character in that very same Congressional Chamber.  This week, 4 Democrat Congressmen appeared at a press conference with a handful of muppets, and Elmo testified in a House subcommittee at the invitation of a Democrat in 1995.  Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.

Friday, February 18, 2011

The Lunacy In Wisconsin, Look for It Soon In Your State

When asked for a comment on the latest union unrest in Wisconsin, President Obama did his level best to appear as though he could see both sides of the issue. His answer ultimately betrayed him, but he at least tried. In his retort, Obama stated that the state workers of America were making hard sacrifices, which caused me again to spray coffee through my nose. What sacrifices have the State Unions made? Please name one, if you are able to think of any. Government workers average about 25% higher pay than private sector employees on a national level. They have the most generous pensions known on the planet. They contribute nothing to their medical or dental, and they are exempt from Social Security. They have built in generous raises completely independent of actual job performance, and absent any accountability even in the harshest of economic times. All of this is paid for by the shrinking Private sector, which is experiencing the economic downturn largely due to the meddling of the same tantruming Government unions. So, I must ask again, what sacrifices?



Each and every time these budget and economic crises occurs, and we fiscal conservatives start talking about where to cut, we get scolded by Democrats about how money which just became part of the ballooning budget a year ago is something which we can not live without. Why is it the Government is never part of the sacrifice they ask of the rest of us. We are told not to be so greedy, by people who are growing and giving themselves more funds and power. Then the heart wrenching stories come out, and the anecdotal stories of poor people who were adversely affected by the mean heartless fiscal conservatives who shut down the vital functions of the benevolent government agencies. After the debate and some research of course, these stories always turn out to be false and contrived. Another observation is why is it only the vital functions of government are the first things to be affected. For years, we were scolded that if we didn't pump more into education, our kids would be left behind academically. So here we are, spending more per student in our public schools than any nation on Earth, and no where near the top. Our public school system cost per student is double the cost per student in private schools, and the results are not even in the same planet. The reason is simple, what we give to education goes directly to the union. It funds massive and unaffordable pensions, health care, and political donations. So, the next time you hear someone wailing it's for the kids, realize that it isn't benefiting the kids in the least. If you watch the video, you can hear San Fran Nan make that exact plea.



Every time we have been down this road in the past, the GOP folds like a wet taco. We can not afford for them to do it again. Grow a backbone you dolts, and don't give in to the hype this time around. We can not afford to kick this can any further down the road.

UPDATE:  Then, there's this little tid bit right here.  It seems that a decent chunk of those protesting at the Wisconsin Capitol are not even from Wisconsin after all.  Once again, President Obama, who's sole accomplishment during his Presidency has been to produce bad Kabuki Theater, has bussed in SEIU thugs to give the appearance of a massive popular uprising.

UPDATE II:  Further insight worth reading is presented here by Hotair's Ed Morrisey.  This issue was debated in Wisconsin heavily during the 2010 midterm election campaign.  The people of Wisconsin already stated their complete disgust with being stolen from by the State Unions so much so that they voted the Democrats out of the Governor's Mansion and both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature.  It is not as if this is an unintended consequence of the election either.  The State Unions made this very issue the center piece of the campaign.  They lost, and are now trying to usurp government back from the will of the people of Wisconsin.

UPDATE III:  The Obama Administration is now frantically attempting to distance itself from the dishonest effort to organize outside protests in Wisconsin.  Unfortunately for them, they were bragging all over twitter about the effort late last week.  I wish I could get my hands on whatever internal polling told them that this was a public relations nightmare.  Another nail in the coffin which makes up Democrat electoral chances in 2012.

UPDATE IV:  Open statement for Governor Walker, here is how President Reagan, (a man our current President has taken great pains to liken himself to,) handled a similar situation.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Obama Stands Alone As America's First Enemy President Of Israel.

Special Note:  Please see update at bottom of post.  President Obama has in fact vetoed this resolution.

President Obama has distinguished himself at last.  He has claimed the mantle of Reagan, but he has governed as if he were severing the second term of Jimmy Carter.  His stance on Israel has been no exception, save for the fact that he has now doing something even James Earl Carter himself had never thought to do.  Barak Obama is, for the first time, refusing to veto a U.N Security Council Resolution sanctioning Israel.  This one event should be all the argument necessary with my liberal Jewish friends about Obama's bonafides as a claimed friend of the Jewish People and of Israel.  He is lying.  Anyone who apologizes for him on this point and defends these false bonafides is being intellectually dishonest.   President Obama is not only not a friend of Israel, He is the first President in U.S. history to openly side against Israel. 

Israel became a recognized ally of the United States in 1969.  It was Richard Nixon who bestowed that designation on the tiny nation.  I feel a look back at the last 9 Presidents and their political distinctions is important to my point here.  The reason for this is my ongoing battle with fellow members of my faith over where the antisemitism in today's America is actually coming from, the political left or right.

First we have Lyndon Johnson.  In 1967 as U.S. naval vessel took up a position with the invading Egyptian and Syrian fleet in the beginning of the 6 day war.  This ship was the U.S.S. Liberty.  The Liberty was a cement ship not designed for combat but for transport.  The Liberty Class Ships were built during WWII, and were constructed quickly and cheaply.  After WWII, they were transferred to the command of Black Ops and used as intelligence gathering ships.  Basically, they were electronic listening devices designed with all of the latest gadgets at the time and meant to listen in on the radio traffic of all of the Mediterranean nations.  There has been a lot of controversy over the years as to whether the Liberty was ordered to side with the Egyptians, whether she lost her way and accidentally took up a position during war time with Israel's enemies, or whether Capt. McGonnagle took it upon himself to position the Liberty where she was.  In any case, a U.S. naval vessel sailing to shore with an opposing fleet can hardly be considered friendly.  The more tolerant and liberal Johnson never attempted to make Israel an ally, and in fact was quite dodgy about the business of doing the exact opposite.

Next, we have Richard Nixon.  Nixon was considered by many to be a classic Jew hater.  This isn't just history calling him that, this is what his close personal friends said about the man.  Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry Kissenger, is Jewish.  Their dislike for one another was the stuff of legends.  All Nixon did, the antisemite, was to be the first President to declare Israel an ally.  He began a program of selling Israel our weapons, jets and technology, joint training and military cooperation.  He also began buying Israeli made weapons, drugs, and agriculture products.  Nixon, the intolerant easily established himself as the standard of Israeli friendship to which President's ought to be measured. 

Gerald Ford was President for a very short but tumultuous time in our nation's history.  During his watch as President, Ford sold Israel as many weapons as they asked to buy.  After the Yom Kippur war of 1973, Ford decided that the best way to protect Israel was to arm her to the teeth.  It was Ford who decided to sell the tiny nation our First Generation Weapons Systems.  By that, I mean our most recent and up to date equipment which was used for our own military.  It was the next President who stopped this practice for a period of 4 years.

Jimmy Carter the tolerant liberal Democrat preached a brotherly love for all of mankind, and even the Jews.  He is in second place on Presidential antisemitism.  Carter brokered the Camp David Accords, which remind me of the thespian smiling and frowning faces.  While Egypt has visibly held her end of the bargain, she has also used it as a thorn in the side of Israel for 32 years.  Egypt has exacted for herself $1 of national welfare for every dollar in trade the U.S. conducts with Israel.  Israel gave up the Sinai Peninsula, and inexplicably was forced to keep jurisdiction of Gaza.  Egypt, even though most Gazans are of Egyptian descent, refused to take responsibility for their own.  Since the Camp David Accords, Israel has not been attacked by multiple enemies at one time.  Israel has however had a continual weaker attack for the last 32 years from the Egyptians left within her borders.  There are a system of tunnels between Gaza and Egypt, which the Egyptians will not allow people out of , nor food to enter, but weapons, are allowed to pass freely.  Whether Carter new how this would end up is not certain.  What is certain is his record of support for the Gazans and his disdain for Israel since.  Carter has made a post Presidential career of writing books and giving speeches condemning Israel since being fired by the American People in November of 1980.

Ronald Reagan immediately reimplemented first generation weapons sales to Israel.  He upped the joint military exchange and training programs.  He stationed U.S. troops in various places to protect Israel in case of attack, and to maintain buffer zones designed to protect Israel from troops massing on her borders.  Reagan also began a program of permanently stationing flag rank staff as military advisers in Israel.  He deregulated all trade from Israel opening up both markets to the other respective nation.  Several tech companies began using Israeli scientists to help develop and augment our own productive capacities.  NCR, Apple, IBM, Intel, Verizon, Microsoft all use Israeli technology today in large part because of Reagan's foresight.  Reagan also correctly identified the Eastern Bloc as a major funding source for Islamic Terrorism.  His commitment to destroying the Soviet Empire which led to the falling of the Berlin Wall caused a temporary respite for about 5 years of terror attacks world wide, which also benefited Israel. 

Bush 41 comes from a suspect family in terms of Israeli support.  His dad, Prescott Bush was a nominal supporter of Hitler prior to WWII.  There are many believe however that this alliance was merely economic in nature.  Bush was a businessman, and was looking to legally sell his wares to anyone who would purchase them.  While Goerge maintained Reagan's policies during his term, he introduced the asinine tradition of requesting Israel show restraint while being attacked.  In the line of American Presidents, you would have to call him tepid towards our only Democratic Ally in the middle east.  One thing which tilts me towards labeling Bush 41 in the pro Israel camp is his keeping the flag rank officers stationed there. 

Bill Clinton remains an enigma for several dubious reasons.  I am not certain at all that he viewed his Presidency as anything more than a great way to pick up chicks.  He recalled the U.S. military stationed in Israel  He continued selling them weapons, but removed upgraded technology, and did not allow the most recently developed weapons systems to be sold.  He kept the free trade agreements in place, but strengthened the asinine restraint policy.  Yassar Arafat was the most oft dignitary invited to the White House.  Under his watch, the Palestinian Authority became a recognized entity within the U.N.  I am still not certain if Clinton is personally aware that any of this happened on his watch.  He is still using his position as former President as a means to pick up chicks, and several bad things for Israel happened on his watch, which apparently caught him by surprise according to his own memoirs.

Bush 43 was not my first choice in 2000.  He is from the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, which is the liberal Democrat Lite group.  I would have to put him down as the tepid type, except when push came to shove.  W, like his dad, continued the asinine restraint policy for Israel.  The Bush doctrine of dealing with terrorism preemptively, and decisively applied to every country on Earth, except for Israel.  When Israel was attacked during the Hezbollah war, Bush was the only world leader to back her unequivocally.  His support never wavered.  He resent the Military advisers for permanent deployment.  He did not however sell the first generation weapons to Israel. 

That brings us to Barak Obama.  He is the first and only U.S. President to refuse to veto a U.N. Security Council Sanction against Israel.  That is the endgame.  That is an overt act of hostility for our ally.  Any one defending Obama's record on Israel now is either an antisemite, or in denial.

Hat Tip to Iron Fist.

UPDATE:  In the last minute, President Obama did the right thing and exercised the U.S. veto power in the UNSC to block this resolution.  I will give credit where it is due, President Obama got this one right.

Hat Tip to Eliana for update info.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Pigford Heats Up!

Well, the stove has gone from merely being turned on to a full out simmer now. We have a law suit filed by Shirley Sherrod against Andrew Breitbart, which I bet will last up until the discovery process and Sherrod's deposition. The first two videos are Michelle Bachman (R) Minnesota, and Steve King (R) Iowa. They discuss various aspects of the case. The third video is Eddie Slaughter, a farmer from Georgia who got royally screwed in the whole deal. What's new in this so far from him? Listen to his explanation. He received compensation for his wrong in Pigford I. Then he was served with a lien through the Social Security Administration to repay his settlement. He received funds through Pigford II, but then he was hit with another lien and watched as money was dispersed to about 94,000 people who never farmed at all. A huge percentage of those non farmers were from Chicago's inner city, where there are no farms. Who is from Chicago again? It's probably not important. Any way, these three videos come from Breitbart's BigGovernment.com.







Steven King implicates Vilsac and Holder in this round. They stop short of calling the President an outright crook, but we heard implication of the President in an earlier video already. It is beginning to look very suspiciously like the Sherrod firing was to distance a lot of crooked people from the Pigford stench, and that Sherrod was a patsy set for the fall and buck stoppage. Strange that her lawsuit is leveled against Breitbart alone and does not include the people who actually fired her. The lawsuit is designed to shut Breitbart up, and is the tool of thugs from Chicago who are used to playing this kind of game. It will never see a court, nor so much as a plaintiff's deposition. For your viewing pleasure, and historical perspective, Keith Olberman's take on the Sherrod firing as documented by Glenn Beck.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Spending Freeze?! Am I The Only One Who Feels Like Charlie Brown Trying To Kick The Football?

This one is going to require two real life examples, (stories,) a short video, and some laughter. Our President has announced his plan to attack our mounting debt crisis, and surprise, it is the same plan that he unveiled the last two years. that's right, he is going to freeze discretionary spending. Freezing spending means something different to politicians than it does the rest of us. To you and me, people who probably live on a real budget which means not spending money we do not have, spending freeze means to stop spending money. To a politician, people who live in an alternate reality with pretend limits that can be magicked away, spending freeze means only that you will give a half assed effort to not spend more than you did last year. How did the main stream media react? Story number one should give you a hint.


When I was in my teen high school years, I went with my high school theater group to New York. That is where I learned a new word. A game of Three Card Monty was going on in Times Square. It looked easy to us naive kids from West Virginia. There was a guy who was able to guess the location of the queen every time. They were really raking in the cash. How on Earth could the fool running the game afford to keep playing like that?  The word of course was shill. When my friend Jay, plopped down his Hundred Dollar Bill, and exclaimed, "That's easy," wouldn't you know the result was somewhat different. At the time, a hundred bucks was a lot of money.  That is how our media reacted.  They failed to notice that this plan is not new, but tried and failed on numerous occasions already.  They also failed to notice that we have already learned that it is a gimmick.  The alphabet media is actively shilling for President Obama, like they have since his nomination speech in 2004.

In his speech, President Obama exclaimed that his plan would save us taxpayers $400 Billion over the next 10 years,  I can sense you giggling out there, and all I can say, I would join you if I weren't so scared that someone this clueless now holds the most powerful position in the world.  Story number two coming up here.  During the days I was still married to the first Mrs. Flyovercountry, I would come home from work, and I would meet Mrs. Flyovercountry at the door to our home with her toting several shopping bags from the mall.  I would look at the bags of merchandise and think, rats, we are mounting up debt.  Seeing the look on my face, Mrs. Flyovercountry would say, guess how much money I saved us today.  "All of this stuff was on sale, I saved us 40%. "  Each and every bit of it was purchased using those wonderful in house credit cards so easily given at the counter of the up-scale department stores.  They even gave her a gift for opening the account.  I immediately demanded a spending freeze, which meant cutting up the cards, returning the junk, and her getting a job.  Spending freeze did not mean, next year pooky try to only spend what you spent this year, regardless of the fact that we could not afford it.

In the two years since Obama has taken office, discretionary spending has increased 84%.  That, and we have instituted a brand new entitlement program which will dwarf all other such programs in the wildest dreams of Karl Marx himself.  President Obama has included no fewer than 15 hidden taxes in this new budget to go along with the 11 new taxes in the behemoth new entitlement program, while telling us all with a straight face that he has lowered our tax burden before the Superbowl.  Is nothing sacred? Ordinarily, I am not one to panic about deficits and budgets.  Both political parties use them when convenient to bludgeon the other during elections.  The best way, usually to solve a budget crisis is to grow the economy out of the problem.  As the business environment allows new businesses to grow, incomes and revenues rise and the budget crisis is solved.  This current crisis is different though.  I am fully panicked.  President Obama has instituted policies which will destroy the business environment, prevent any sustainable growth, and in fact has used Executive Regulation to wage a war against the Private Sector.  On our current path, with the laughable spending freeze, we as a nation will be insolvent by 2021.  Every year that Barak Obama remains President, this gets worse.  I would laugh if it weren't so scary.  As promised, a video to give perspective to the whole freeze thing.



Bear in mind, this video is a year old. That is because, this laughable idea is nothing new, nor newly stated by our President.  We need actual leadership now, and not another gimmick.  Call your Congress Critters and let them know that you expect them to actually cut this nonsense out.  Vote these imbeciles out if they don't get it, and soon.  Please, save your protest votes for after this current crisis has been averted.

UPDATE:  This is what true leadership looks like.  Paul Ryan, (R) Wisconsin is truly a rising star for the GOP.  Give Boehner credit on this one, he is letting Cantor and Ryan run with the long overdue entitlement reform.

Monday, February 14, 2011

The Senate Majority Leader Labeled Proposed Budget Cuts as Draconian!?

So, Senator Harry Reid (D) Mars, has called the proposed budget cuts from the 112th House draconian.  Most of us living in a place I like to call reality call them a very small step starting out somewhere near the right direction.  I have two videos I'd like to us to illustrate a small point.  The first will illustrate where we are in American Politics today.  I have two statements to make before the first video.    First, I notice that problems appear and disappear as a matter of convenience for those on the liberal side of things.  When Bush was in the White House, we had endless news stories about homelessness in America, the deficit at $100 Billion was tragic, and mass starvation was so bad in America, several states actually had to take out radio, t.v. and print ads to give away food stamps.  (This last part of the first statement actually showed off the success of the Bush economy, but was used as a means to bash it.  Think logically for a second, so few people were asking for food stamps that state agencies actually had a hard time giving them away.)  The second point I'd like to make is the difference in how a deficit is attacked.  The liberals start with the mindset of spend what we want, and worry about taxing for it on the back end.  Unfortunately, raising taxes has never resulted in increased tax revenue.  Not in the entire history of our nation has this approach worked.  The conservatives seek to deal with deficits by not spending money they don't have.  Eliminating the deficit means two entirely different things to liberals and conservatives.  Part of my frustration is that the liberals will never be totally honest about how their policies work.  On to the first video, Nancy Pelosi in 2007, when that evil George Bush was President.



Thank goodness that once the Democrats controlled the purse strings, we went to work on those terrible $100 Billion deficits.  Yes, I realize that statement is dripping in sarcasm, but darn it, sarcasm is so richly deserved in this instance.  One brief point to make before the next video.  We as humans have trouble some times with scale.  We hear big numbers, and we hear other big numbers, and our brains only register, wow, big numbers.  So, when President Obama announced in 2009 after people balked at the proposed $3.5 Trillion budget, he stated that he would work tirelessly to remove $100 Million from it.  Anyone paying attention laughed out loud, and in the case of the Chinese Delegation, in front of the President.  This next video will help you understand the concept of scale in terms of our current budgetary problems.



I do see the humor in the second video, but the problem is not so funny. If we as a nation don't take the so called draconian measures, and consider those a baby step, we will be in deep trouble. That deep trouble will be coming very quickly too. To the good people of Nevada I have to add, What in the hell were you thinking when you elected this dolt? The great Socialist experiment of America has failed, just like it has everywhere it has been tried. It is time to stop this lunacy. Let's all work to right this ship in November of 2012.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Sunday Palate Cleanser! LT. Colonel Allen West's Speech at CPAC.

The Farewell Speech at CPAC was delivered by Congressman Allen West (R) Florida.  As is usual for him, he was eloquent and spot on. 

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Saturday Palate Cleanser! Herman Cain's Speech at CPAC On Friday.

When discussing the possible GOP nominee for 2012, a person whoever it is will probably be the next POTUS, the same old tired names come up. I do not believe it will be any of those. It never is the front runner from two years out. Here is a guy I would not mind seeing be President. Herman Cain has a long history of success with every endeavor he associates himself with.



We have seen the results of academics with not enough for a single resume between the whole bunch. Those results are not pretty.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Could The President Have Done Any Worse With Whom He Surrounds Himself?

I have often heard from friends on both sides of the aisle, "I'm going to vote for this guy for President, because I believe he will surround himself with more qualified people." Each time it is said, it is stated as if the thought were original, and this logic belonged to them personally. That being said, I have to ask my liberal friends about the current POTUS, is this what you had in mind? In honor of college sports' inane ranking system for the useless BCS system, I give you my Obama Administration moron rankings, enjoy.

#1. At the number one spot, we have James Clapper. This Director of National Intelligence actually posited the belief that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization. That we here in America have nothing to fear from this collection of social workers who actually eschew jihad. Never mind the fact that several branches of the Brotherhood remain as unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 WTC Bombing and the Holy Land Terrorism Funding Scam. Hamas is a branch of the Brotherhood and they are literally raining Katusha Rockets on Northern Israel and continuing to send suicide bombers to schools, discos, pizza parlors, and synagogues. The idea that the Brotherhood is solely a social services political organization is so farcical in fact, it took other Administration officials about 5 whole minutes to retract the statement, while Clapper was still testifying.



#2. Leon Panetta, trying not to be outdone by his boss, Leon Panetta enlightened Congress Critters yesterday that his intelligence gathering technique is to watch the Television News channels. If that is all it takes, why do we need him to do anything? Certainly, Congressional Staffers are capable of watching T.V. themselves.

#3. Timothy Geitner, the man who we were assured we needed despite his felonious activity regarding dealings with the IRS. We were told that even though he engaged in behaviour which would have landed any one of us in jail, he was the only one in America smart enough to lead us back from the economic abyss of the housing bubble. Reality though, is a different animal. Little Timmy Geitner has worked feverishly to completely devalue our currency by turning the presses on full tilt while simultaneously engaging in a monetizing of the debt. The last President to do this was James Earl Carter, and the result was something known as Stagflation, high unemployment, high interest rates, and high inflation.



#4. Janet Napalitano, this woman earned her nick name of Incompetano. Let me add here that it is a testament to ineptitude that Janet finds herself in the fourth position on this list. Her greatest hits truly stagger the imagination. We'll pick the best one. When the Under Pants Bomber attempted to blow an American jet out of the sky by lighting his crotch on fire, it was readily apparent to all that he failed only because his wick wouldn't light. Incomprehensibly, our Homeland Security Director declared that the, "system worked."

#5. Eric Holder, Whether he is incompetent or just evil has yet to be decided. His treatment of the justice department has led to some head scratching moments. We have the Pigford scandal, which Holder had his team of crack investigators on, and they found only 3 cases of fraud. Of the 157 original Black Farmers who were screwed by the Agriculture Department, we are up to 22,500 plaintiffs who have been awarded settlements. Even if every Black farmer in the Nation were entitled to receive compensation, there would still be 4500 more claimants than those eligible. It shouldn't take a calculator being in your possession to realize that the claim of 3 fraud cases is woefully understated. We also have the NBP case, Suing Arizona for attempting to uphold the Federal Law, and I am certain there is a lot more in the skull jelly that sits between Holder's ears.

#6. Joe Biden, actually Joe stands as some of the best entertainment in the Administration. His gaffes became so prevalent during Obama's first year, that we now only see him in public with someone holding a leash. I guess that I'm a little perplexed here, as we were warned that Sarah Palin was somehow unfit for the #2 spot on a ticket, while this imbecile was heralded for his foreign policy experience. Perhaps he is the guy giving Obama advice on Egypt today, that certainly would explain why we have done everything disastrously wrong so far.

#7. Hillary Clinton, possesses the second thinnest resume in Washington. So naturally, we should give her the top spot at the State Department. Her failure started almost immediately with an attempted bit of snark by presenting a perplexed Russian official with a comically sized reset button. My guess, from the look on his face, was that he didn't watch a lot of American T.V. Since Hillary has set about the work of restoring our good standing in the world, we have become a laughing stock to our enemies, for whom we treat with lavish state dinners, and we have gone out of our way to alienate our allies. After this latest fiasco in Egypt, who on Earth will again trust the United States.

#8. Lisa Jackson, as head of the EPA is a solid dolt from the word go. She views the EPA not so much as an organization which is charged with protecting the environment, but as a tool to destroy the private sector economy altogether. Under her stewardship, oil exploration in this nation has stopped, Energy production has stagnated, and now even farmers are being ravaged by having to treat milk as a hazardous material. Jackson has instituted a policy of holding every American Citizen guilty of being polluters every time we draw a breath. Obeying the law is too trite a concern for Jackson who is busy making her own.

#9. Steven Chu, our Energy Secretary, who has allowed our energy production to dwindle by doing nothing real to boost output, ease the business environment and address the concerns of those who do produce energy, and failed in every way to fight the overreach of Lisa Jackson. What he has done is to do his part to help foment a world wide famine by taking food and attempting to turn it into bio-fuel. This highschool science fair run amok has actually helped to precipitate the riots in Egypt, as when the famine reached them, they took their anger out on Hosni Mubarak. One of my least liked things about liberals is their avoidance of taking any responsibility for their actions and policies. We turn corn into bio-fuel instead of drilling for oil, and gas will soon reach $4 per gallon while a simulteaneous world wide famine results. A good day's work for Mr. Chu.

#10. Van Jones rounds out the top 10. Van was named the Green Jobs Czar originally.  He was replaced by Jeffrey Immelt after his statements quoting Karl Marx could no longer be ignored even by Obama. Van Jones saw his position, which we were told was to help develop the green economy in order to protect our standard of living, as a means to inflict social justice on the success stories of the private sector.  Jones left the communist party roughly two weeks prior to the November 2008 election, plenty of time to be named as a top Obama Advisor.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Toyota, Being Wrongly Accused, Deserves Payback.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon



So, now that we are a year past the great Toyota Driving Scare, how do we make right for a company legally doing business in our country the damage inflicted on it by an Executive Branch and media run amok? Nasa, recently concluded their investigation into Toyota's breaking system, and found nothing wrong with either the design nor construction of Toyota automobiles. There were a lot of us, listening to those frantic 911 calls of people suddenly careening down highways, that said immediately, this sounds fishy. Those cars come without neutral, ignitions, emergency breaks, or drivers with working grey matter? Our national media, which enjoys creating crises in order to have something sensational to report was having a blast. Toyota executives were hauled in front of Congress and subsequently fined $33 Million. It should be pointed out, that Toyota, a foreign company, employs 200,000 Americans. Toyota provides those Americans with good wages, benefits including health care, retirement plans, vision, dental, and pre-paid legal. Where does Toyota go to get back her well deserved and wrongly appropriated $33 Million? Where does Toyota go to get her good will back. For well over a year, Toyota's reputation has been dragged through the mud, which by the way cost the car company 2% of the American market share.

Putting aside for the moment the fact that the Executive Branch had and still has a huge conflict of interest in terms of its witch hunt regarding any car company. (The Federal Government is now the principal share holder in Toyota's competitors, Chrysler and GM.) Is this what Barak Obama means when he claimed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which by the way claims Toyota as a member, that we are creating the best place in the world to run a business? What will be the cost for Americans if we continue to beat up on the 18 other car companies doing business in America which are not Chrysler or GM? We will continue to subsidize those two companies to build cars which nobody wants to drive. We will cost the productive employees their jobs and rob them of their ability to earn a living. We will force many Americans to pay the inflated costs of cars they don't want, either through direct purchase price or through tax subsidy. Most egregious of all, we run the very real risk of other companies who wish to do business with us opting not to do so. Toyota and BP are the two greatest examples of foreign companies who have faced the wrath of the Obama Executive Branch. How do you thing our economy will fare should they take their toys and go home? This reckless regulation from the hip is robbing wealth from all of us as well. We need to make a change in November of 2012. This President needs to be fired, before his assault on the free market system becomes successful.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Egypt, It Is Yesterday Once More.

America Loses Egypt : Dry Bones cartoon.


As a young boy, I saw a movie about the Alamo.  In the end of that movie, the actor, whose name I don't remember died in the most heroic manner possible.  It was larger than life.  Years later, I saw John Wayne in a different movie depicting events at the Alamo.  While it was a different movie, with different actors, Davy Crockett still perished.  Santa Anna still won the battle and lost the war.  A few years ago, Billy Bob Thornton played Davy Crockett in yet another version of the movie.  The story held no thrill for me, as I had actually experienced the movie twice before in my life, and the ending was known to me.  (Billy Bob Thornton's acting chops were certainly worth the price of the ticket however.)  Different actors, a different director, a different producer, and different writers could not save poor Davy Crockett from his fate.  Santa Anna, for a third time, won the battle and lost the war.

Today, we are all seeing a movie which originally aired in 1978.  The events have me transfixed to my television, hungry for news, but just like the three versions of the Alamo, the suspense of how the story ends is not there.  I have seen this movie before, I know how it ends.  This one is a horror film for the U.S., the Western World, and most of all, Israel.  Just like in 1978, I am listening to hippies tell me how wonderful it is that the youth movement is rising up against oppression.  That we are seeing a brutal U.S. supported thug being swept aside by a population of people who are refusing to tolerate the shackles of servitude and bondage.  In 1978, the movie ended with an even more oppressive and thuggish Islamic regime taking power and executing all of the young socialists who helped foment the fall of the Shaw.  Despite all of the idiotic cries and pleadings from the left that this time is different.  That this time the Internet has made the flow of learning and information so much more efficient, therefore providing the lessons which would prevent such a catastrophe from happening again.  I realize that I heard a similar line in 1978 and I know how this movie ends.  In the 1978 version of this movie, the role of the reportedly brilliant but weak U.S. President was played by Jimmy Carter who basically threw our ally under the bus by refusing to back him in his hour of need.  That President came to office professing a foreign policy direction based on the difficult to objectively explain Human Rights, which meant ridicule for our Democratic Allies and a perverse and vocalized love for some of the most oppressive thugocracies on the planet.  If that role sounds familiar, it is because we have the continuation of the Carter Presidency being played out today.  Now, just as then, room for our allies is becoming scarce under the Obama Bus, thugocracies the world over are being praised as shining lights to culture and enlightenment, and an ally was abandoned in his hour of need.  In 1978, once the Shaw left Iran, the void of power enabled the stronger and more ruthless elements of the Mullahs and Ayatollahs to take control of the revolution from the somewhat less experienced and naive students.  Those same young democrats, socialists, and otherwise wide eyed innocent children became the immediate first victims of the new direction of the revolution.  When thugs take over, the first victims are always those who helped usher them into power.  The thugs realize that those who helped them at the beginning will be the most disillusioned and first to turn on them should they prove to be even more brutal than what they replaced.  As a result, they will be accused and convicted of some crime against the revolution in short order.  Nothing on the streets of Cairo today looks or sounds any different than Tehran from 1978.  The Mullahs aren't there, but the Muslim Brotherhood is.  The Muslim Brotherhood is no social club, or philanthropic organization, despite their attempts to change their public image as of late.  Al Quaeda, Hamas, CAIR, ISNA, MSA are all amongst its branches.  They have been actively engaged in efforts to wage war against the U.S., Israel, and the west, since their inception.  For the fools who say, the Brotherhood is too small to take over, all I can say, is that they are the only organization in Egypt with an already built infrastructure, they already operate in 80 countries around the world, and it was one of their branches which brought down the WTC, flew a plane into the Pentagon, and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania.

Knowing that this movie will end the same way, one wonders where our President was while this was happening.   Well, here is how his new tone in foreign policy treats our staunchest allies.  The insults leveled against the British by the Obama Administration run deep.  I am certain that our special relationship with our cousins from across the pond will survive this Presidency, but that relationship will forever be altered for the worse.  Here is how President Obama treats the world's thugs.  Put the last bit of irony in that link into perspective this way.  The 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize held a State Dinner to honor the man who holds the 2010 winner of that prize in a political prison.  During the last three weeks, the world needed leadership from the President of the world's only superpower.  That leadership was woefully missing.  Instead, we gave them a remake of a terrible movie produced in 1978.  32 years later, that 1978 film still haunts the planet.  The repercussions of that horror film are still felt today.  Now, the remake will be playing in another theater on the other side of town.

UPDATE: This man is the guy playing the role of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 2011 remake.  He is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, living in exhile in Qatar.  Like Khomeini, who had a talk show on radio in Paris, Qaradawi has a talk show on Al-Jazeera.  Watch this one closely, if Qaradawi returns to Cairo with the same type of triumphant fan fare as did Khomeini, the young naive freedom fighting democrats are toast.

UPDATE II:  The endgame is here, as Qaradawi is scheduled for his triumphant return to Egypt tomorrow, and is speaking in Tahrir square.  The cycle of comparison to Iran in 1978 is now complete.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

From The, "Did He Really Say That?," Department.

In speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday, (bear in mind, these are the same people he accused of election shenanigans for their donations to Republican candidates during the midterm elections,) President Obama made the following Statement.

“Businesses have a responsibility, too, If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America. They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation.That’s their obligation.”
It staggers the imagination that a President of our nation could be so jaw dropping stupid.  I realize that calling anyone out as stupid is hardly in my character, and that doing so to a President, current or past is also typically bad form, but this statement leaves me no choice.  Since when is it a business' obligation to make the employment numbers look good for the sake of politics, or to help the President push his social agenda?  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's mission is to help the business community succeed in being profitable.  They do not exist to help the reelection chances of first term Presidents.  A business exists to produce a profit, and thereby a living for its shareholders.  This statement right here, this one should disqualify Barak Obama from being elected county dog catcher in Illinois. 

Now let's talk about the first part of the statement.  President Obama has not exactly done anything to make America the best place in the world to do business.  The regulations he has imposed on American Businesses  are overreaching and onerous to say the least.  As a matter of fact, the overreach has become so egregious, a Federal Court in Louisiana has found the President to be in contempt, a Presidential first in our Nation.  The Obama overreach is so egregious, the EPA now considers milk to be a hazardous material, incandescent light bulbs are illegal, and every insurance company that sells health insurance now fits the legal definition of financially distressed.  In short, Barak Obama has waged a war on the Private Sector, and on the Small Business Person in particular.

Now, let's have a brief discussion about whether the U.S. is in fact the best place to conduct business.  As you can see from the link, we rank number 9 in the world currently.  Maybe you feel that number 9 isn't that bad.  Here is the rub though, we used to be a hands down number 1 on that list.  The other thing that I notice, is that we are no longer in the solidly green category.  We have fallen to the mostly free category.  I can't help but notice something else about the economic freedom rankings.  The freer a nation is, the greater the prosperity in that nation.  The further down on this list a nation is, the greater their problems with poverty and every social issue the liberals claim to care about.  Perhaps there is a correlation between economic freedom and a nation's ability to maintain a quality standard of living for its citizens.

Then, there was this little gem as well.
"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line,"

I have often been ridiculed for noting that Barak Obama is a Socialist.  There are a lot of people who flat out called me a racist, stating that Socialist was some sort of secret code word for Racist thoughts.  I would just like to point out to the thought police, that the above statement is the very definition of Socialism.  In our economic system, workers are free to not work for people they feel are not paying a decent wage, or a wage that is not worth the effort needed for a particular job.  This is class envy being promoted by the President, and nothing more.  For every business owner who succeeds, and becomes, "rich," there is a back story.  Entrepreneurs take risks when they go into business.  They often work long and hard before they see a dime in return on their capital and or sweat.  Further, there is no guarantee of success.  It is not a business owners obligation to share their wealth with anybody once that return is realized.  Wages are paid for work performed.  Many smart business owners do have profit sharing plans and offer incentive related benefits, but they do so as means to serve business interests.  It is not Barak Obama's business to worry about how much money any American Citizen is earning.  By tearing down another who is doing better than I am, how is Barak Obama helping me?  The answer is he is not.  I eat no better when someone else is punished.  I would much rather allow that person who is doing well to hire a lot of people just like me, so that we may all share in the fruits of a successful enterprise.  The wage negotiated between myself and the business owner is our own business, and should not be the concern of a government bureaucrat.

UPDATE:  As luck would have it, today's Investor's Business Daily ran an editorial on this very subject.  They mentioned something which I had forgotten completely, and that is the Obama Administration's plan to promote law suits against employers by any one with any kind of a petty beef.  Quite literally, if anyone in this country does not like some aspect of their employment, and they don't find the desired outcome through normal channels, the White House will refer them to a contingency lawyer and is providing a toll free phone number for that service.  I am speechless.  Is this what he calls the most business friendly environment in the world?

Monday, February 7, 2011

You've got to be kidding!

imgres


Would this have ever, ever actually happened, my analysis may surprise you.  Bear in mind, that Reagan was able to make solid friendships with those he had political disagreements.  The fights between President Reagan and Speaker O'Neil were legendary.  What is not as widely known, was that once it became 5:00 pm., work stopped, politics ended, and they were actually close friends.  So, from Reagan's perspective, this would have been possible only from that stand point.  But, this faked photo is about more than an imaginary friendship.  This implies Reagan's approval for Obama's Policies, which quite frankly would represent the antithesis of what Ronald Reagan stood for.  The timing of the fauxtograph is also extremely suspect.  Judging from the free fall of Obama's approval rating since the SOTU, it would appear that the American People have not been fooled by the President's head fake to the right. 

Politicians have always sought to change personal positions in the wake of defeat.  This is nothing new.  Bill Clinton's triangulation on Conservative issues is well documented.  The Republican Contract with America had 10 campaign promises attached.  They were successful in passing 7 of those promises into law within two years.  During the Election of 1996, the Clinton/Gore team took credit for all 7 reforms, and Bill Clinton himself declared that the era of big government was over.  This was the President who had attempted to pass a socialized medicine scheme of his own not 3 years earlier.  The difference with Barak Obama's attempt however is that he is only giving lip service to his tack to the right.  His actions since the November elections have been all about bigger government.  while he has said things which make him sound more centrist, he has abused the power of executive fiat like no one before him.  He is on record as saying that his reforms will bankrupt the coal industry and electric energy producers.  He has effectively shut down all new domestic oil production.  Even the farming industry now has to develop and maintain expensive emergency action plans for the possibility of the world's first disastrous milk spill.  I shouldn't have to point out that this string of onerous regulations is hardly Reaganesque.  The problem I have with this picture is that Time Magazine, whether it be on their own or through coordination with the White House, is trying to rewrite Reagan's legacy to make Americans believe that this is what Reagan would do. 

I say coordinated for this reason, Obama has spent the last several weeks comparing himself, favorably with Ronald Reagan.  He has publicly praised Reagan's vision and leadership.  I personally can't fault him for that, as I believe Reagan to be on of the greatest Presidents in our nation's history.  What I am however, is surprised at President Obama's sudden conversion to becoming a Reagan fan.  Author Obama, in two autobiographies, (no truer sign of narcissism exists that the fact that this man inked two autobiographies prior to making a single accomplishment,) chastised Reagan for enacting his policies while both Governor of California and President of the United States.  As a matter of fact, Obama's criticism of President Reagan was so thorough, there was not a single positive thing Obama had to say about our 40th President.  So, when did his conversion occur?  It certainly wasn't during his time as Senator, during the election of 2008, nor even during his first 2 years as President.  He was just as negative towards Reagan during those times as well.  (Obama even managed to insult the British and the former occupant of the White House in one single act, by returning the bust of Winston Churchill given to Reagan by the British who knew of Reagan's admiration for the man.)  His conversion it seems happened suddenly, about a week prior to the SOTU.  There are many conservative pundits who believe that his sudden appreciation for Reagan is a shameless attempt to bolster his own appeal by trying to hitch his wagon to a more popular horse.  I am having a hard time playing devil's advocate on this one.

On every single core policy issue, and even on the intangibles, Obama is 180 degrees out of phase with Reagan.  Reagan believed in free trade, market principles, and massive deregulation.  Obama believes in restricting trade, increased government intrusion, and while he says deregulation, he is instituting the most onerous regulations the nation has ever seen.  President Reagan believed optimistically in any American's ability to rise to what ever standard of living and accomplishment they were willing to work to attain.  President Obama believes that all Americans need a nanny to make their decisions for them and that without government dependency, we will all end up screwing our neighbors and descend to anarchy.   President Reagan believed in American exceptionalism and the strength of entrepreneurialism to keep our country at the forefront of discovery, leadership, and prosperity.  President Obama believes that our leadership roles in all of those areas are unjust and imperialistic.  He further demonstrates his belief that American Prosperity is due to our chicanery and deceit.  In the world view of liberals, life is zero sum, and wealth can never be created, merely stolen.  So while President Reagan fought against the concept of wealth redistribution masquerading as, "social justice," President Obama is fighting full tilt for wealth redistribution thinly veiled as, "social justice."  In an ironic note, Social Justice is a term openly used today by several dozen of Obama's hand picked czars.  15 years ago, most Americans would have seen right through this.  President Reagan believed in achieving peace through strength.  He built up our military's capability and developed new defensive weapons designed to convince would be attackers that it would be pointless to show any aggression towards us or our interests.  President Obama is gutting the military, during a time of war, and when our enemies are actually engaged in both sabre rattling and actual attacks against us and our interests.  His belief is that our military's strength is immoral and unjust.  The only similarity between the two that I am able to find, is that they are both male, and both ran to become President of the United States.  Other than that, Time's fauxtograph should have been Carter's arm around Obama's shoulders.  At least that would have been honest, and possible to get without faking, as Carter is still alive.




UPDATE: And then, there's this laugher from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, in which she is actually making the claim that Ronald Reagan was not in fact a Conservative. I remember the 80's, and I remember specifically the members of the media using every opportunity to denigrate the character and policies of Ronald Reagan.