From The Hill via Drudge:
“The critical issues will be revenue generation …"
"Honda, meanwhile, wants Obama to return to healthcare reform...We've got more to do."
"...achieve one-third of the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050."
"Whatever we go after first has to be a bipartisan issue, whether it's
cyber-security, whether it's payroll tax, whether it's the doc fix in
Medicare, whether it's the jobs bill – whatever it is – we've got to do
it together."
That last quote is the scariest.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
"Steven Rattner Is Basically an Asshole" And A "Lying Scumbag"
Whoa!! That's not me saying those nasty things about Mr. Rattner. I'm just your dutiful reporter telling it like it is, as a preamble to my commentary on Mr. Rattner's ObamaCare editorial in the NY Times.
John Cook in an article at Gawker is responsible for the first half of the headline above, and somebody pseudonymed "suyts" in an article on a blog named "suyts space" is responsible for the second half.
Apparently, Mr. Cook is put off by Mr. Rattner's supposed money and power-grubbing style:
Speaking on CNN as a "private equity insider," Mr. Rattner complained that neither he nor any of his investment equity pals "had even known this was a possible trick" and that "Americans would find that pretty distasteful." Suyts, employing a rather crude nickname, said of Mr. Rattner:
In point of fact I actually rather admire Mr. Rattner, President Obama's former "Car Czar" and current NY financier, NY Times Op-Ed writer and MSNBC analyst who manages NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "personal and philanthropic assets," who reportedly resigned from the Obama administration in the midst of a scandal and SEC investigation alleging kickbacks "involving officials with New York state's pension fund" and who has reportedly settled with the SEC by paying "more than $5 million in fines to the federal agency" and by accepting "a ban from the securities industry for several years."
Such a long and varied history of honorable public and private service commands admiration.
Anywho, some probably biased critics -- like the minions at the Boston Globe -- refer to Mr. Rattner's famous "Cash for Clunkers" program as "classic government folly." They allege the program encouraged American consumers to "take 'free' money to make a purchase most of them were going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come." The spurious Globe report concludes: "By any rational standard...this program was sheer folly."
Moreover, a recent study concludes that the program was slightly less effective than running in place:
None other than President Obama has referred to Mr. Rattner's signature achievement in government as "successful beyond anybody’s imagination."
The truth, as always, is probably somewhere in the middle.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand, a NY Times Op-Ed piece written by Mr. Rattner entitled: "Beyond Obamacare," in which Mr. Rattner argues that the new healthcare law of the land kinda, sorta needs "death panels:"
However, near as I can tell, Mr. Rattner wants the ObamaCare law to have more "teeth" in it when it comes to "reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life." Like Willie Sutton the bank robber, Mr. Rattner suggests that's where the money is and, if Medicare and ObamaCare are to be saved, that's where we ought to get the savings.
Some might object that Mr. Rattner isn't talking about rationing at all, but is in fact recommending a kind of ObamaCare Star Chamber that sits in judgement of all our geezers and decides which of them needs putting down.
I doubt that's what he has in mind. His language is so fluent and his tone so tender...well, contrary to John Cook who writes that "everyone thinks Rattner is an arrogant prick," I happen to believe Mr. Rattner has a sympathetic soul and the best interests of all Americans at heart.
The details of Mr. Rattner's plan to save Medicare and ObamaCare are not the point! As he says himself, there are plenty of model health care systems in the world to draw upon, such as the National Health Service in England "which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels."
The point is ObamaCare has taken the power of healthcare decision-making out of the hands of individual Americans and has put it in the hands of selfless, imaginative, public servants like Mr. Rattner. Now is not the time to criticize these folks who literally have the lives of the rest of us in their hands. Now is the time to support and celebrate them, and to draw upon their singular expertise and exemplary moral character.
Without advisers like Mr. Rattner we would have to make healthcare decision on our own! We'd be lost like babes in the wood!
Besides, it irks me that we're talking about ObamaCare as if it is flawed and in need of reform before it has even kicked in! We need to give this wondrous new health system a chance!
We need to allow the experts, like Mr. Rattner, to figure out what is in our best interests. Isn't that why Congress passed ObamaCare in the first place?
Of course there will be bumps in the road. That's understandable. As Mr. Rattner declares in his Op-Ed, Medicare is bankrupting the country. Still. Despite the ObamaCare fix. Without creative ways to cut costs, Mr. Rattner says the healthcare "spending target looms impossibly large."
Mr. Rattner is positive the cost problem boils down to that pesky and expensive "last year of life" which Medicare and ObamaCare continue to subsidize to the hilt. He explains:
I think Mr. Rattner sees ObamaCare and Medicare being saved by a program similar to "Cash For Clunkers." You know, the government would give young folks free money -- a stipend of a few hundred dollars -- to withhold million-dollar medical treatment from their elderly folks during their last year of life.
In turn, the government would stipulate that these young folks must use their stipend to procreate new models. For instance, they could rent a sexy, but otherwise unaffordable, bridal suite at the Ritz Carleton.
You get my drift. Society benefits all around.
John Cook in an article at Gawker is responsible for the first half of the headline above, and somebody pseudonymed "suyts" in an article on a blog named "suyts space" is responsible for the second half.
Apparently, Mr. Cook is put off by Mr. Rattner's supposed money and power-grubbing style:
Why wouldn't you like someone who decided, when he was a reporter at the Times, that he deserved the status, power, and money that had been acquired by the idiots he covered?As for suyts, well, he or she is upset by Mr. Rattner's hypocritical and envious attitude about Mitt Romney's investment prowess. It seems Mr. Romney socked away up to $100-million in a tax-free IRA account and that struck a nerve with Mr. Rattner.
Speaking on CNN as a "private equity insider," Mr. Rattner complained that neither he nor any of his investment equity pals "had even known this was a possible trick" and that "Americans would find that pretty distasteful." Suyts, employing a rather crude nickname, said of Mr. Rattner:
Can you imagine anything as stupid as what Rat is suggesting? You take your taxes to a CPA or even H&R block. They get done with them but they failed to get you all of the tax breaks and refunds available. And, when you ask for an explanation, they’ll say “that Americans would find this distasteful.” How stupid is that?Well, anyway, that explains my headline. It's their bad, not mine.
In point of fact I actually rather admire Mr. Rattner, President Obama's former "Car Czar" and current NY financier, NY Times Op-Ed writer and MSNBC analyst who manages NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "personal and philanthropic assets," who reportedly resigned from the Obama administration in the midst of a scandal and SEC investigation alleging kickbacks "involving officials with New York state's pension fund" and who has reportedly settled with the SEC by paying "more than $5 million in fines to the federal agency" and by accepting "a ban from the securities industry for several years."
Such a long and varied history of honorable public and private service commands admiration.
Anywho, some probably biased critics -- like the minions at the Boston Globe -- refer to Mr. Rattner's famous "Cash for Clunkers" program as "classic government folly." They allege the program encouraged American consumers to "take 'free' money to make a purchase most of them were going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come." The spurious Globe report concludes: "By any rational standard...this program was sheer folly."
Moreover, a recent study concludes that the program was slightly less effective than running in place:
The government's "cash for clunkers" program boosted auto sales by 360,000 during the two months it was in place...But in the seven months that followed, sales were down by 360,000 compared with what they would have been without the program.Meh.
None other than President Obama has referred to Mr. Rattner's signature achievement in government as "successful beyond anybody’s imagination."
The truth, as always, is probably somewhere in the middle.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand, a NY Times Op-Ed piece written by Mr. Rattner entitled: "Beyond Obamacare," in which Mr. Rattner argues that the new healthcare law of the land kinda, sorta needs "death panels:"
Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.Given Mr. Rattner's competence and expertise both inside and outside of government, I think the country should take his counsel seriously. I won't go into the specifics of Mr. Rattner's exact plan because I haven't read the ObamaCare law, much less the Medicare law, so I'm operating strictly on information contained in Mr. Rattner's Op-Ed piece and, frankly, I haven't finished that either.
However, near as I can tell, Mr. Rattner wants the ObamaCare law to have more "teeth" in it when it comes to "reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life." Like Willie Sutton the bank robber, Mr. Rattner suggests that's where the money is and, if Medicare and ObamaCare are to be saved, that's where we ought to get the savings.
Some might object that Mr. Rattner isn't talking about rationing at all, but is in fact recommending a kind of ObamaCare Star Chamber that sits in judgement of all our geezers and decides which of them needs putting down.
I doubt that's what he has in mind. His language is so fluent and his tone so tender...well, contrary to John Cook who writes that "everyone thinks Rattner is an arrogant prick," I happen to believe Mr. Rattner has a sympathetic soul and the best interests of all Americans at heart.
The details of Mr. Rattner's plan to save Medicare and ObamaCare are not the point! As he says himself, there are plenty of model health care systems in the world to draw upon, such as the National Health Service in England "which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels."
The point is ObamaCare has taken the power of healthcare decision-making out of the hands of individual Americans and has put it in the hands of selfless, imaginative, public servants like Mr. Rattner. Now is not the time to criticize these folks who literally have the lives of the rest of us in their hands. Now is the time to support and celebrate them, and to draw upon their singular expertise and exemplary moral character.
Without advisers like Mr. Rattner we would have to make healthcare decision on our own! We'd be lost like babes in the wood!
Besides, it irks me that we're talking about ObamaCare as if it is flawed and in need of reform before it has even kicked in! We need to give this wondrous new health system a chance!
We need to allow the experts, like Mr. Rattner, to figure out what is in our best interests. Isn't that why Congress passed ObamaCare in the first place?
Of course there will be bumps in the road. That's understandable. As Mr. Rattner declares in his Op-Ed, Medicare is bankrupting the country. Still. Despite the ObamaCare fix. Without creative ways to cut costs, Mr. Rattner says the healthcare "spending target looms impossibly large."
Mr. Rattner is positive the cost problem boils down to that pesky and expensive "last year of life" which Medicare and ObamaCare continue to subsidize to the hilt. He explains:
No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy.I don't know about you, but he has a point, doesn't he? I'm excited to have Mr. Rattner on the job helping us out of the quagmire the administration he served created. He's truly an out-of-the-box thinker. And you know what? I think I know where he's heading with his Op-Ed.
I think Mr. Rattner sees ObamaCare and Medicare being saved by a program similar to "Cash For Clunkers." You know, the government would give young folks free money -- a stipend of a few hundred dollars -- to withhold million-dollar medical treatment from their elderly folks during their last year of life.
In turn, the government would stipulate that these young folks must use their stipend to procreate new models. For instance, they could rent a sexy, but otherwise unaffordable, bridal suite at the Ritz Carleton.
You get my drift. Society benefits all around.
Another Good Idea That Doesn't Stand The Chance Of An Ice Cube In Hell
Congressional Reform Act of 2012
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below:
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective the day this is signed into law.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If you agree that the Act as described above just might be a good start at bringing this country back to its roots, click here and sign the petition to Congress.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Is Europe The Canary Dying In The Mine Shaft?
How can anyone read the latest headlines describing what is going on in Europe and not be alarmed?
GREECE -- On Wednesday Greek workers began a general strike "backed by the country's biggest private sector force, the General Confederation of Greek workers (GSEE), the union of civil servants (ADEDY), and militant unionists attached to the KKE communist party."
According to reports, Greece accounts for "about 2 percent of the eurozone's total economy." The country is in it's fifth year of recession and it's unemployment rate is "above 24%."
Greece's nearly four-month old, conservative party coalition government is surviving "on billions of euros in two rescue loan packages from other eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund." To appease its creditors the government has "slashed salaries and pensions and hiked taxes." To secure another round of bailout money the government is proposing more spending cuts and "improved tax collection." This "austerity" is what has the unionists upset:
SPAIN -- On Thursday the Spanish government announced "a crisis budget for 2013." Spain accounts for about 9% of the total eurozone economy. Spain's economic downturn has persisted for at least three years and its unemployment rate is about 25%.
Spain's "center-right" government, in power for less than a year, projects spending will be down 7.3% in 2013 "not including social security and interest payments." Central government revenue will rise 4% in 2013 because of a 15% increase in Spain's VAT "tax take."
These "austerity" measures are all mere proposals, of course, and the country is still awaiting required budget cut proposals from Spain's 17 "autonomous regions." One wealthy region, Catalonia, is already experiencing "anti-austerity protests" and is threatening "secession."
The Spanish government's budget projections hinge on a rosy prediction of its near-term growth rate and on cuts in government pensions which "are likely to fuel further street protests, which have become increasingly violent as tensions rise and police use force to disperse crowds."
Possible investors in Spain "fear Madrid cannot control its finances." Currently, the government "is talking to EU authorities about the terms of a possible aid package" in order to "ease Spain's unsustainable funding costs."
FRANCE -- Today the French government announced the country's "toughest single belt-tightening in 30 years" including a new 75% tax on the "super-rich."
France accounts for about 16% of the total eurozone economy. France has experienced at least a year of economic stagnation and has a record unemployment rate of 10.2%.
The recently elected, socialist French government announced that two-thirds of its "austerity" belt tightening would come from "tax increases on households and companies" and one-third from a "freeze on spending." The new "temporary" tax on the super-rich is expected to bring in a relative pittance. The bulk of the tax revenue increase will come from higher tax rates "on dividends and other investments" and "cuts to existing tax breaks."
Reportedly, the new budget "dismayed business and pro-reform lobbyists." Given the tax-heavy budget, they feared France would fall short of its growth rate target for next year which stands at a meager 0.8%! The new taxes also prompted fears of "an exodus of top talent." A few weeks ago France's richest man declared "he had applied for Belgian nationality - but stressed he would continue to pay taxes in France."
CONCLUSION -- Readers may draw their own conclusions about where all this economic turmoil is heading, and what implications it holds for our own country. What I find most interesting are the efforts by these welfare state government to fix their problems by extracting more and more resources from their non-public economies. So many individuals in these countries are so deeply invested in government jobs, pensions and welfare payments that any slight cut in spending triggers protests, some of them violent.
Consequently, while politicians label their new budget solutions courageous and austere, they are top heavy in new taxes aimed at defusing public anger and continuing a "comfortable" welfare state status quo. But how can any sane economist believe that increased taxes on investment will spur growth?
What's needed is a meat-axe approach to budget cuts and a corresponding lowering of taxes on business and capital investment.
These countries will never be able to tax their way out from under the mountain of debt they've created for themselves. Neither will they be able to get out from under this debt by implementing "comfortable" cuts in spending. The only way out is to dissolve the welfare state completely. Which means taking control away from central government planners, bankers and politicians and returning liberty of action and property to individuals in a free and private market.
Of course, the odds of such a thing happening are zero. So, as my mother used to say, sometimes you have to learn your lessons the hard way.
EPILOG -- As an aside, I also take the opinions of private brokers and investors quoted in the referenced articles above with a huge lump of salt.
Why?
Consider the mentality of equity brokers and investors in our own American markets. Did anyone else see this headline Tuesday: "Dow drops 100 after Fed official's warning?"
According to Yahoo! Finance:
Who puts their investment money in the hands of morons like these?
I guess the answer is everyone who is invested in the stock market.
Good luck to those folks.
GREECE -- On Wednesday Greek workers began a general strike "backed by the country's biggest private sector force, the General Confederation of Greek workers (GSEE), the union of civil servants (ADEDY), and militant unionists attached to the KKE communist party."
According to reports, Greece accounts for "about 2 percent of the eurozone's total economy." The country is in it's fifth year of recession and it's unemployment rate is "above 24%."
 |
| Greek policemen fleeing protesters' "gasoline bomb" |
While the demonstration began peacefully, a couple of hundred protesters broke away to smash paving stones and marble facades to use as missiles against riot police, leading to clashes that petered out after about an hour.
Eight policemen were injured, including one hit by a gasoline bomb, and 21 people were arrested, police said. At least two demonstrators were also injured.
Government spokesman Simos Kedikoglou said the limited violence and what he called a smaller turnout than opposition parties had hoped for showed that "Greek society understands what the government is doing is the only possible solution."
SPAIN -- On Thursday the Spanish government announced "a crisis budget for 2013." Spain accounts for about 9% of the total eurozone economy. Spain's economic downturn has persisted for at least three years and its unemployment rate is about 25%.
 |
| Protesters in Catalonia demanding secession |
These "austerity" measures are all mere proposals, of course, and the country is still awaiting required budget cut proposals from Spain's 17 "autonomous regions." One wealthy region, Catalonia, is already experiencing "anti-austerity protests" and is threatening "secession."
The Spanish government's budget projections hinge on a rosy prediction of its near-term growth rate and on cuts in government pensions which "are likely to fuel further street protests, which have become increasingly violent as tensions rise and police use force to disperse crowds."
Possible investors in Spain "fear Madrid cannot control its finances." Currently, the government "is talking to EU authorities about the terms of a possible aid package" in order to "ease Spain's unsustainable funding costs."
FRANCE -- Today the French government announced the country's "toughest single belt-tightening in 30 years" including a new 75% tax on the "super-rich."
France accounts for about 16% of the total eurozone economy. France has experienced at least a year of economic stagnation and has a record unemployment rate of 10.2%.
 |
| French health workers in 2011 protesting austerity measures |
Reportedly, the new budget "dismayed business and pro-reform lobbyists." Given the tax-heavy budget, they feared France would fall short of its growth rate target for next year which stands at a meager 0.8%! The new taxes also prompted fears of "an exodus of top talent." A few weeks ago France's richest man declared "he had applied for Belgian nationality - but stressed he would continue to pay taxes in France."
CONCLUSION -- Readers may draw their own conclusions about where all this economic turmoil is heading, and what implications it holds for our own country. What I find most interesting are the efforts by these welfare state government to fix their problems by extracting more and more resources from their non-public economies. So many individuals in these countries are so deeply invested in government jobs, pensions and welfare payments that any slight cut in spending triggers protests, some of them violent.
Consequently, while politicians label their new budget solutions courageous and austere, they are top heavy in new taxes aimed at defusing public anger and continuing a "comfortable" welfare state status quo. But how can any sane economist believe that increased taxes on investment will spur growth?
What's needed is a meat-axe approach to budget cuts and a corresponding lowering of taxes on business and capital investment.
These countries will never be able to tax their way out from under the mountain of debt they've created for themselves. Neither will they be able to get out from under this debt by implementing "comfortable" cuts in spending. The only way out is to dissolve the welfare state completely. Which means taking control away from central government planners, bankers and politicians and returning liberty of action and property to individuals in a free and private market.
Of course, the odds of such a thing happening are zero. So, as my mother used to say, sometimes you have to learn your lessons the hard way.
EPILOG -- As an aside, I also take the opinions of private brokers and investors quoted in the referenced articles above with a huge lump of salt.
Why?
Consider the mentality of equity brokers and investors in our own American markets. Did anyone else see this headline Tuesday: "Dow drops 100 after Fed official's warning?"
According to Yahoo! Finance:
A quiet day on Wall Street turned into the worst sell-off in three months after a Federal Reserve official said he doubted the bank's effort to boost economic growth would work.Are you kidding me? Are Wall Street brokers really that stupid, economically illiterate and impressionable? Did they sell off because they honestly thought the Fed's QE3 would "boost economic growth?" Or did they sell off because they knew QE3 was a con job and because the Fed official had just spilled the beans to their clients?
Who puts their investment money in the hands of morons like these?
I guess the answer is everyone who is invested in the stock market.
Good luck to those folks.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
In The Garden Of Slick Willies
Lately I've been traveling coach cross-country on Delta Airlines. I took the opportunity to read In The Garden of Beasts by Erik Larson. Told from the perspective of a naive, American ambassador and his family, this exceptional, historical novel documents Hitler's ascent to power in Nazi Germany circa 1933. The question always on my mind as I read was: "Could it happen here?"
A fair answer to that question requires that we put aside politics for a moment. No matter how greatly we as conservatives detest the President's policies, Mr. Obama is no Hitler and the United States is not pre-WWII Germany.
Yes, there are similarities of a sort. Germany's economy was in a shambles. Unemployment was high and the official numbers were fudged by the government. German debt owed to foreigners was crushing. The German people, who emerged from WWI battered and beaten, felt victimized. A great portion of them easily bought into government propaganda that insisted racism -- "the Jewish problem" -- was responsible for the country's misfortunes.
But the differences are significant. Germans were for the most part passive citizens, used to relying on a strong, autocratic government to maintain order and give direction. Most accepted militarism as a legitimate means of restoring national pride and the country's rightful standing in the world order.
Hitler, Goring and Goebbels were made to order for the time and place. They were ideological nationalists willing to use whatever means necessary to seize power and impose their glorious vision of the Third Reich. They were brutal and seemingly without conscience, expertly employing terror to dominate.
The infamous SA Storm Troopers -- a semi-trained gang of punks, bullies and malcontents under the leadership of Ernst Rohm, a personal friend of Hitler -- acted as Hitler's civilian national security force. The SA thugs terrorized the German citizenry, coercing it into conforming to the Nazi ideology of nationalism, socialism and racism.
On June 30, 1934, when the SA's usefulness was at an end and its very existence threatened Hitler's ambitions, he and Goring embarked on a bloody purge, personally leading loyal SS and Gestapo agents in Munich and in Berlin on a savage sweep of their foes in and out of government. They killed hundreds, if not thousands in cold blood, including some who were mere public critics of Hitler and his Nazi Party.
The nation was stunned, but acquiesced in silent fear. One night of butchery had effectively given Hitler dictatorial power over the German state. In a speech afterwards, framing those murdered as political insurrectionists and the murders themselves as crisis management, Hitler declared:
Although a microscopic percent of Americans both on the left and the right advocate violence to get their way, violence will not succeed here. It doesn't have to. For in the 21st century those among us who wish to gain autocratic power over individuals have learned the politically correct art of patience and finesse.
Modern dictatorial wannabees have learned to democratize and politicize even the most trivial of issues, thereby insuring that we, as individuals, will turn against ourselves and, in final desperation, agree for the sake of harmony and community to settle our differences at the ballot box. However, this naive political solution amounts no less to our public acknowledgement that we believe the government has authority to rule every aspect of our life.
Virtually nothing in America is currently beyond the reach of politics. What and where we smoke. What we eat and drink. Where and how we live. What we say and write. Whom we marry. These and so many other trivial and individual actions have now become grist for the political mill, have now become subjects which pit neighbor against neighbor in nationally televised debate where no one -- whether a disputant or not -- is shy of an opinion or a vote.
With literally everything at stake, is it any wonder that the government collective in this country has ballooned out of all necessary proportion? That lobbyists on one side or another overwhelm our politicians with promises of jobs and payoffs? That we are deluged 24/7 with advertisements and media pronouncements advocating this or that position on this or that "critical" issue, such as whether or not individuals should have the liberty to drink a sugared beverage of a certain size?
Of course, our modern, enterprising politicians have also learned the subtle power of crisis management, demagoguery, obfuscation by complexity, mendacity, media management and the not too subtle persuasive power of celebrity endorsement. Ambitious politicians like President Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton no longer have to cut the throats of their opponents to gain and keep power, they merely have to spin the truth and smile or scowl into the camera.
Politics now is about impugning the motives of political opponents as racist, ridiculing their faith, wealth or personal appearance, distorting facts or simply making them up, interpreting every gaffe as a window into their "real" soul and employing popular celebrities to stir the pot in ways the politicians themselves would not dare.
Recently, according to CNN, Samuel L. Jackson "entered the political fray...urging Americans to 'Wake the F*** Up' and vote for President Barack Obama." Jackson's efforts, according to the news article, were funded by the "Jewish Council for Education and Research, a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama."
I do not share Jackson's political or social philosophy, but I can certainly understand his frustration, if not the point of his outburst.
Over the years, we in this country have made every individual action a subject for legitimate political debate and lawmaking. We beg our politicians to rule in our favor and when they don't we disparage them. Either way, they rule us as surely as despots. Oh, they are not butchers like Hitler. We in America do not live in the garden of beasts. We sleepwalk in the garden of Slick Willies.
If Americans want their individual liberty back, there is only one way to have it back.
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson, they must: "Wake the F*** UP!"
A fair answer to that question requires that we put aside politics for a moment. No matter how greatly we as conservatives detest the President's policies, Mr. Obama is no Hitler and the United States is not pre-WWII Germany.
Yes, there are similarities of a sort. Germany's economy was in a shambles. Unemployment was high and the official numbers were fudged by the government. German debt owed to foreigners was crushing. The German people, who emerged from WWI battered and beaten, felt victimized. A great portion of them easily bought into government propaganda that insisted racism -- "the Jewish problem" -- was responsible for the country's misfortunes.
But the differences are significant. Germans were for the most part passive citizens, used to relying on a strong, autocratic government to maintain order and give direction. Most accepted militarism as a legitimate means of restoring national pride and the country's rightful standing in the world order.
Hitler, Goring and Goebbels were made to order for the time and place. They were ideological nationalists willing to use whatever means necessary to seize power and impose their glorious vision of the Third Reich. They were brutal and seemingly without conscience, expertly employing terror to dominate.
The infamous SA Storm Troopers -- a semi-trained gang of punks, bullies and malcontents under the leadership of Ernst Rohm, a personal friend of Hitler -- acted as Hitler's civilian national security force. The SA thugs terrorized the German citizenry, coercing it into conforming to the Nazi ideology of nationalism, socialism and racism.
On June 30, 1934, when the SA's usefulness was at an end and its very existence threatened Hitler's ambitions, he and Goring embarked on a bloody purge, personally leading loyal SS and Gestapo agents in Munich and in Berlin on a savage sweep of their foes in and out of government. They killed hundreds, if not thousands in cold blood, including some who were mere public critics of Hitler and his Nazi Party.
The nation was stunned, but acquiesced in silent fear. One night of butchery had effectively given Hitler dictatorial power over the German state. In a speech afterwards, framing those murdered as political insurrectionists and the murders themselves as crisis management, Hitler declared:
"Only a ferocious and bloody repression could nip the revolt in the bud... ...If someone asks me why we did not use the regular courts I would reply: at the moment I was responsible for the German nation; consequently, it was I alone who, during those twenty-four hours, was the Supreme Court of Justice of the German People... ...I ordered the leaders of the guilty shot. I also ordered the abscesses caused by our internal and external poisons cauterized until the living flesh was burned. I also ordered that any rebel attempting to resist arrest should be killed immediately. The nation must know that its existence cannot be menaced with impunity by anyone, and that whoever lifts his hand against the State shall die of it."That was Germany in 1934. This is the United States in 2012. Today in our country such barbarism would be roundly condemned and forcefully resisted almost universally. No matter what our political disagreements, Americans are at heart a peaceful, moral and self-reliant people, primarily interested in building a more comfortable life for themselves and their families.
Although a microscopic percent of Americans both on the left and the right advocate violence to get their way, violence will not succeed here. It doesn't have to. For in the 21st century those among us who wish to gain autocratic power over individuals have learned the politically correct art of patience and finesse.
Modern dictatorial wannabees have learned to democratize and politicize even the most trivial of issues, thereby insuring that we, as individuals, will turn against ourselves and, in final desperation, agree for the sake of harmony and community to settle our differences at the ballot box. However, this naive political solution amounts no less to our public acknowledgement that we believe the government has authority to rule every aspect of our life.
Virtually nothing in America is currently beyond the reach of politics. What and where we smoke. What we eat and drink. Where and how we live. What we say and write. Whom we marry. These and so many other trivial and individual actions have now become grist for the political mill, have now become subjects which pit neighbor against neighbor in nationally televised debate where no one -- whether a disputant or not -- is shy of an opinion or a vote.
With literally everything at stake, is it any wonder that the government collective in this country has ballooned out of all necessary proportion? That lobbyists on one side or another overwhelm our politicians with promises of jobs and payoffs? That we are deluged 24/7 with advertisements and media pronouncements advocating this or that position on this or that "critical" issue, such as whether or not individuals should have the liberty to drink a sugared beverage of a certain size?
Of course, our modern, enterprising politicians have also learned the subtle power of crisis management, demagoguery, obfuscation by complexity, mendacity, media management and the not too subtle persuasive power of celebrity endorsement. Ambitious politicians like President Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton no longer have to cut the throats of their opponents to gain and keep power, they merely have to spin the truth and smile or scowl into the camera.
Politics now is about impugning the motives of political opponents as racist, ridiculing their faith, wealth or personal appearance, distorting facts or simply making them up, interpreting every gaffe as a window into their "real" soul and employing popular celebrities to stir the pot in ways the politicians themselves would not dare.
Recently, according to CNN, Samuel L. Jackson "entered the political fray...urging Americans to 'Wake the F*** Up' and vote for President Barack Obama." Jackson's efforts, according to the news article, were funded by the "Jewish Council for Education and Research, a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama."
I do not share Jackson's political or social philosophy, but I can certainly understand his frustration, if not the point of his outburst.
Over the years, we in this country have made every individual action a subject for legitimate political debate and lawmaking. We beg our politicians to rule in our favor and when they don't we disparage them. Either way, they rule us as surely as despots. Oh, they are not butchers like Hitler. We in America do not live in the garden of beasts. We sleepwalk in the garden of Slick Willies.
If Americans want their individual liberty back, there is only one way to have it back.
In the words of Samuel L. Jackson, they must: "Wake the F*** UP!"
Monday, September 24, 2012
A Weekend In Obama Country...NEW MEXICO!
The photo below was taken Saturday at the Farmers' Market in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
The larger sign on the car is hard to read, but it says "OBAMANOS! GOTTA VOTE."
I saw "Obamanos!" yard signs throughout the Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Taos corridor. I didn't see a single Romney sign. I saw numerous Obama supporters registering voters everywhere I went.
Last time I checked, Obama was leading Romney in New Mexico by 10 percentage points. This is in a state where Gary Johnson was a wildly popular, two-term Republican Governor from 1995 - 2003. Johnson is polling about 9% in New Mexico.
The larger sign on the car is hard to read, but it says "OBAMANOS! GOTTA VOTE."
I saw "Obamanos!" yard signs throughout the Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Taos corridor. I didn't see a single Romney sign. I saw numerous Obama supporters registering voters everywhere I went.
Last time I checked, Obama was leading Romney in New Mexico by 10 percentage points. This is in a state where Gary Johnson was a wildly popular, two-term Republican Governor from 1995 - 2003. Johnson is polling about 9% in New Mexico.
Friday, September 14, 2012
"Is It Because He's Black?"
Thank God for Jesse Washington, the "race and ethnicity writer" for the Associated Press!
According to the AP, race and ethnicity writers serve a vital purpose:
As I begin to read, I am immediately disappointed.
Three sentences into his article Washington writes that racial bias against Barack Obama is "an accusation almost impossible to prove."
Shoot, I wonder. Should I continue reading? I mean, how can even a skilled race and ethnicity writer explain something that is "almost" impossible to prove?
Nevertheless, that pesky word "almost" persuades me to continue reading. And, boy, am I glad I do!
Just a few sentences later Washington quotes Susan Glisson, director of the Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi:
A few words later and I have my answer. Washington explains that Glisson's "conclusion is based on something called 'implicit bias'- prejudices that people don't realize they have."
There you have it. I am indeed a victim of implicit bias, which must be something like colon cancer because I don't feel any symptoms. I begin to wonder if maybe I need the cultural equivalent of a colonoscopy. I should nip this implicit bias stuff in the butt before it gets out of hand.
...Naw. After a few minutes of reflection, I reconsider. Washington and Glisson are probably exaggerating. There's nothing to worry about. Besides, I don't think Blue Cross/Blue Shield covers a cultural colonoscopy. ObamaCare probably does, but it hasn't fully kicked in yet.
Washington's next paragraph seals the deal. It's got me sweating bullets:
Then I focus on something else Washington says that goes off like a bomb in my head:
Well, that tidbit of information puts a whole different light on things! If blacks can have unconscious bias, why does Washington's article dwell on white unconscious bias against Obama? Maybe he should have written about black unconscious bias against Romney.
I mean black unconscious bias against whites must exist too, don't you think?
Take, for instance, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. He recently went on a rant about "Tea Party types." He said they wanted "to push voters away from the polls," and that "they don't want racial minorities to vote at all."
It's now obvious to me what's going on here. Brown's embedded, implicit bias is making him assume that "they" -- all the Tea Party activists -- are white. And his unconscious bias against whites is making him believe that whites don't want blacks to vote.
Which, when you think about it, is not altogether bat-crap crazy either. Maybe blacks have way more unconscious bias than whites and should be prevented from voting. I mean, in 2008 43% of whites voted for a black guy while only 5% of blacks voted for a white guy.
But then again that kind of thinking might be due to my own, disturbing unconscious bias against blacks.
You know, I'm so confused I don't know what to think... ...Wait a minute! Wait a minute!! I wonder what color Jesse Washington is...?
Sure enough. A Google search proves that Washington is black. Which means he is most likely afflicted with black unconscious bias against whites. Which is why his whole article is about white bias against blacks. Which is impossible to prove...
...On the other hand, if unconscious bias does exist, then I might have white unconscious bias against Jesse Washington, the black race and ethnicity writer.
Darn! This unconscious bias stuff can tie you into knots so bad you don't know whether you're coming or going.
...However, I do know one thing for sure. Jesse Washington ain't much of a race and ethnicity writer.
His article sure doesn't serve a vital purpose by expanding my understanding of America.
Jesse Washington makes the issue of racism about as clear as a pile of horse manure.
According to the AP, race and ethnicity writers serve a vital purpose:
Few subjects permeate every corner of American life -- and can expand our understanding of America -- more than issues of race and ethnicity.Ever eager to expand my understanding of America, I dive head first into Jesse Washington's latest article: "Does racial bias fuel Obama foes? How to tell?" I expect the article will shine a clarifying light on all the accusations of racism that are being flung around like horse manure in this current presidential election.
As I begin to read, I am immediately disappointed.
Three sentences into his article Washington writes that racial bias against Barack Obama is "an accusation almost impossible to prove."
Shoot, I wonder. Should I continue reading? I mean, how can even a skilled race and ethnicity writer explain something that is "almost" impossible to prove?
Nevertheless, that pesky word "almost" persuades me to continue reading. And, boy, am I glad I do!
Just a few sentences later Washington quotes Susan Glisson, director of the Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi:
"...I am...quite certain that there are others who object to the president because of his race, because they have a fear of blacks that is embedded in our culture.Whoa! I'm white! Could I be an Obama foe simply because fear of blacks is somehow "embedded" in my psyche by American culture?
A few words later and I have my answer. Washington explains that Glisson's "conclusion is based on something called 'implicit bias'- prejudices that people don't realize they have."
There you have it. I am indeed a victim of implicit bias, which must be something like colon cancer because I don't feel any symptoms. I begin to wonder if maybe I need the cultural equivalent of a colonoscopy. I should nip this implicit bias stuff in the butt before it gets out of hand.
...Naw. After a few minutes of reflection, I reconsider. Washington and Glisson are probably exaggerating. There's nothing to worry about. Besides, I don't think Blue Cross/Blue Shield covers a cultural colonoscopy. ObamaCare probably does, but it hasn't fully kicked in yet.
Washington's next paragraph seals the deal. It's got me sweating bullets:
Studies show that due to longstanding negative stereotypes about African-Americans - which give such false impressions as most black people are dangerous, unintelligent or prefer welfare to work - many people harbor anti-black biases yet don't even know it."Studies show!" Those are the two most fearsome words in the English language. And if that isn't bad enough, Washington quotes an expert! Gail Christopher, vice president of program strategy for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which has "funded research" on bias, says:
Our [American] history has created...unconscious bias. Now we need to create safe places to discuss and educate people about unconscious bias, where we are not blaming and shaming them.Fear now is pushing me over the edge. Unconscious bias sounds a whole lot worse than implicit bias. Although, I must admit, it's a bit of a relief to know that having unconscious bias is nothing to be ashamed of. Maybe it's like picking up something from a toilet seat in a public rest room. How can I be blamed for that?
Then I focus on something else Washington says that goes off like a bomb in my head:
Such unconscious biases, the studies show, are present in people of all backgrounds, not just whites.Unbelievable! Not just whites like me, but Latinos and Asians can catch unconscious bias too? Even blacks?
Well, that tidbit of information puts a whole different light on things! If blacks can have unconscious bias, why does Washington's article dwell on white unconscious bias against Obama? Maybe he should have written about black unconscious bias against Romney.
I mean black unconscious bias against whites must exist too, don't you think?
Take, for instance, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. He recently went on a rant about "Tea Party types." He said they wanted "to push voters away from the polls," and that "they don't want racial minorities to vote at all."
It's now obvious to me what's going on here. Brown's embedded, implicit bias is making him assume that "they" -- all the Tea Party activists -- are white. And his unconscious bias against whites is making him believe that whites don't want blacks to vote.
Which, when you think about it, is not altogether bat-crap crazy either. Maybe blacks have way more unconscious bias than whites and should be prevented from voting. I mean, in 2008 43% of whites voted for a black guy while only 5% of blacks voted for a white guy.
But then again that kind of thinking might be due to my own, disturbing unconscious bias against blacks.
You know, I'm so confused I don't know what to think... ...Wait a minute! Wait a minute!! I wonder what color Jesse Washington is...?
 |
| Jesse Washington |
...On the other hand, if unconscious bias does exist, then I might have white unconscious bias against Jesse Washington, the black race and ethnicity writer.
Darn! This unconscious bias stuff can tie you into knots so bad you don't know whether you're coming or going.
...However, I do know one thing for sure. Jesse Washington ain't much of a race and ethnicity writer.
His article sure doesn't serve a vital purpose by expanding my understanding of America.
Jesse Washington makes the issue of racism about as clear as a pile of horse manure.
Obama Is In The Catbird Seat
On March 2 of this year I posted this: Events May Determine Obama's Fate, an article which outlined several possible events that could tip the coming Presidential election either to Obama or to Romney.
First on my list of events that would favor Obama is "A Well-Timed QE3." Yesterday, Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed would begin buying $85-billion worth of debt every month until further notice beginning today.
This is bad news for America, but good news for the President. Anyone who believes the Fed operates independent of the administration and of politics is a fool. Whether this infusion of new money into the financial system is "well-timed" is yet to be determined. I had predicted a June QE3.
Yesterday, the stock market exploded upward at the news. Expect the administration to announce the economy has rebounded. In the next two months, expect the media to publish many stories about new economic activity in the private sector which will generate new jobs. Expect the CEO's of large corporations to announce new plans for expansion and/or to cancel planned retrenchment activities.
Of course, the timing of this QE3 will prohibit any of this propaganda from being verified by official government statistics. Perhaps that's why it happened now rather than in June.
Another advantage of doing QE3 now is that its primary negative effect -- a surge in price inflation -- will not be noticed by consumers until after the election. The dollar will eventually fall against rival currencies, but rival governments are sure to print their currencies as well, thus mitigating the dollar's fall in value against them. Any action by the Chinese, Russians or others interested in ending the dollar's reign as the world's reserve currency would also occur after the election.
By the way, the only remaining "event" on my list that could benefit the President is "A Well-Timed National Emergency." This event is still possible should QE3 disappoint the President's reelection campaign by not exhibiting the expected effects -- or by exhibiting unexpected adverse effects. The possibilities are endless. War in the Middle East is always on the table. Another financial "crisis" can always be manufactured. And, of course, urban violence of one sort or another may flare up at just the right moment. Coincidentally, ABC News reported today that the "FBI Warns of Violence in America Over Anti-Islamic Movie."
Stay tuned.
By the way, the events I outlined that could benefit Romney seem unlikely to occur prior to the election. Although economic activity is still stagnant, Obama and the media are effectively papering over the bad news that too many Americans are sick and tired of hearing. There seems no chance in hell that birther issues or Obama's college records will injure him. The truth about Bin Laden's death is trickling out but there are no bombshells. Fast and Furious has been defused. The Solyndra story has no legs.
The bottom line is Obama is perched in the driver's seat -- or should I say the catbird seat -- and Romney can do nothing about it except spit into the wind.
The advantages of incumbency and a sympathetic media cannot be overestimated.
First on my list of events that would favor Obama is "A Well-Timed QE3." Yesterday, Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed would begin buying $85-billion worth of debt every month until further notice beginning today.
This is bad news for America, but good news for the President. Anyone who believes the Fed operates independent of the administration and of politics is a fool. Whether this infusion of new money into the financial system is "well-timed" is yet to be determined. I had predicted a June QE3.
Yesterday, the stock market exploded upward at the news. Expect the administration to announce the economy has rebounded. In the next two months, expect the media to publish many stories about new economic activity in the private sector which will generate new jobs. Expect the CEO's of large corporations to announce new plans for expansion and/or to cancel planned retrenchment activities.
Of course, the timing of this QE3 will prohibit any of this propaganda from being verified by official government statistics. Perhaps that's why it happened now rather than in June.
Another advantage of doing QE3 now is that its primary negative effect -- a surge in price inflation -- will not be noticed by consumers until after the election. The dollar will eventually fall against rival currencies, but rival governments are sure to print their currencies as well, thus mitigating the dollar's fall in value against them. Any action by the Chinese, Russians or others interested in ending the dollar's reign as the world's reserve currency would also occur after the election.
By the way, the only remaining "event" on my list that could benefit the President is "A Well-Timed National Emergency." This event is still possible should QE3 disappoint the President's reelection campaign by not exhibiting the expected effects -- or by exhibiting unexpected adverse effects. The possibilities are endless. War in the Middle East is always on the table. Another financial "crisis" can always be manufactured. And, of course, urban violence of one sort or another may flare up at just the right moment. Coincidentally, ABC News reported today that the "FBI Warns of Violence in America Over Anti-Islamic Movie."
Stay tuned.
By the way, the events I outlined that could benefit Romney seem unlikely to occur prior to the election. Although economic activity is still stagnant, Obama and the media are effectively papering over the bad news that too many Americans are sick and tired of hearing. There seems no chance in hell that birther issues or Obama's college records will injure him. The truth about Bin Laden's death is trickling out but there are no bombshells. Fast and Furious has been defused. The Solyndra story has no legs.
The bottom line is Obama is perched in the driver's seat -- or should I say the catbird seat -- and Romney can do nothing about it except spit into the wind.
The advantages of incumbency and a sympathetic media cannot be overestimated.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Attention: Austrian Economics Nerds!
There is an interesting discussion in progress over at Cato Unbound called "Theory and Practice in the Austrian School."
Steven Horwitz kicked the debate off with an article titled: The Empirics of Austrian Economics.
Essentially Horwitz argues that Austrian economics has been given a bum rap by mainstream critics. Austrians, Horwitz says, are not all merely armchair theorists. Some Austrians actually do empirical research, he states, and in many cases do it better than mainstream economists.
In a post at The Circle Bastiat, Daniel James Sanchez contributes his two cents worth writing:
On Monday, George A. Selgin will weigh in. On Wednesday, Antony Davies has his say.
Steven Horwitz kicked the debate off with an article titled: The Empirics of Austrian Economics.
Essentially Horwitz argues that Austrian economics has been given a bum rap by mainstream critics. Austrians, Horwitz says, are not all merely armchair theorists. Some Austrians actually do empirical research, he states, and in many cases do it better than mainstream economists.
In a post at The Circle Bastiat, Daniel James Sanchez contributes his two cents worth writing:
Horwitz’s error is to think that, if you introduce assumptions to your theorizing because of experience, that makes the result “empirical” or “applied theory”. But that is not the case. For the truth of a theory, it makes no difference why it was constructed the way it was (that is to say, why it includes the assumptions it does). A self-contained theorem is true or false based on its logical structure, regardless of whether the assumptions are introduced because of experience, because of pure fancy, or for any other reason.Bryan Caplan takes a completely different tact in criticizing the Horwitz article. He claims that the Austrians Horwitz cites as doing empirical research are really doing mainstream economics using Austrian lingo:
But if Austrians can translate their empirical insights into mainstream language and sell them to a broad audience, why don’t they use mainstream language in the first place? Austrian contributions will continue to be undervalued as long as they continue to spend most of their time talking to each other in their own eccentric dialect.Though they do empirical research, Caplan asserts, Austrians contribute no insights to this research that are "uniquely Austrian."
On Monday, George A. Selgin will weigh in. On Wednesday, Antony Davies has his say.
This Is Why I'm Not A Scientist...
William M. Briggs is "a meteorology-trained statistician and former associate editor of the Monthly Weather Review."
That description is at the bottom of this article: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note, Sunspots do impact climate."
Briggs has an interesting website where I found the article referenced. Briggs was all the rage back in April when Bill Whittle made the video below claiming Briggs had posted the "Greatest sentence ever written" on his website.
Briggs regularly debunks statistical errors and claims. I recommend his website highly. I regard him as a scientist with integrity, a truly open mind and a love of truth. Consider this bit of Briggs' wisdom:
In his sunspots article, Briggs reproduces the following graph with the following description:
"Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising
relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures
taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project. The remarkable nature of
these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from
areas as large as the United States."
The graph shows almost an exact correlation between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures.
What? Am I wrong or is this graph simply an illustration of the obvious, i.e., it gets hotter when the sun's out?
God bless Briggs for being a scientist and being interested in and writing about the apparently obvious. I couldn't do it.
The worst part is the global warming "scientists" Briggs is criticizing don't see and don't believe in what's obvious to the rest of us.
How does Briggs maintain his cool, scientific detachment in the face of such idiocy?
Do you think the global warming "scientists" will change their mind after Briggs took the time to spell the truth out for them in words and a picture?
My bet is "no," because of the truth contained in Briggs' greatest sentence ever written:
The love of theory is the root of all evil.
That description is at the bottom of this article: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note, Sunspots do impact climate."
Briggs has an interesting website where I found the article referenced. Briggs was all the rage back in April when Bill Whittle made the video below claiming Briggs had posted the "Greatest sentence ever written" on his website.
Briggs regularly debunks statistical errors and claims. I recommend his website highly. I regard him as a scientist with integrity, a truly open mind and a love of truth. Consider this bit of Briggs' wisdom:
When and if a theory describes reality without error it is no longer a theory but truth. If a theory does not describe reality perfectly, then it is not true. To love a theory over truth is the mark of madness. Or of Enlightenment. Or, nowadays often, of tenure.But I digress. Here is why I'm not a scientist.
In his sunspots article, Briggs reproduces the following graph with the following description:
The graph shows almost an exact correlation between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures.
What? Am I wrong or is this graph simply an illustration of the obvious, i.e., it gets hotter when the sun's out?
God bless Briggs for being a scientist and being interested in and writing about the apparently obvious. I couldn't do it.
The worst part is the global warming "scientists" Briggs is criticizing don't see and don't believe in what's obvious to the rest of us.
How does Briggs maintain his cool, scientific detachment in the face of such idiocy?
Do you think the global warming "scientists" will change their mind after Briggs took the time to spell the truth out for them in words and a picture?
My bet is "no," because of the truth contained in Briggs' greatest sentence ever written:
The love of theory is the root of all evil.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
I Had Always Wanted To Do This...
...Now someone has. An anonymous editor has made a video that turns Maximum Leader Obama's words and promises against themselves, exposing him as the two-faced, cheap politician he really is!
You have to watch this video. Send it to your Democrat friends. Send it to your undecided friends. Help it go viral.
The video is called "Words Matter." [via Pat Dollard and The Blaze]
Enjoy!
You have to watch this video. Send it to your Democrat friends. Send it to your undecided friends. Help it go viral.
The video is called "Words Matter." [via Pat Dollard and The Blaze]
Enjoy!
Saul Alinsky Lives...In Charlotte, NC
LD Jackson over at Political Realities has posted a great article today asking: "How Did We Survive Before Barack Obama?" LD summarizes the point of his post as follows:
LD Jackson asks: How did we survive before Barack Obama? I'm asking: How will our society survive the coming presidential election in the face of such manufactured hate and fear?
You want proof that the Democrats are playing with matches? Here is a sampling of headlines coming out of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte over the past few days courtesy of the Drudge Report:
And these headlines, courtesy of Weazel Zippers:
In short, the Democrats have absolutely lost their grip on reality. They are making all kinds of outrageous claims against the Republicans.That got me thinking. I posted the following comment:
I hate to be trite, but the Democrat strategy is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook: demonize and ridicule your "enemy," advocate simple-minded policies within the "experience" of the party base, always "push a negative hard and deep," execute an "anything goes" strategy while pressing the enemy to live up to his own "book of rules," and "cause confusion, fear and retreat."By resorting to Alinsky tactics the Democrats are playing with fire. It's easy to light an emotional fire by demonizing, ridiculing and confusing. But fires are more easily set than put out.
An example? How's this? The Democratic Party platform calls for an "All-of-the-Above Energy Policy." Anyone with half-a-brain knows Obama has tried to kill coal production, has squelched the Keystone pipeline, prevented oil exploration on shore and has made drilling off shore almost impossible. The fine print in the platform specifies the party will pursue an all-of-the-above "clean" energy policy.
No matter. The goal is simply to confuse the issue in the voter's mind. And remember, the Democrat appeal is to those with less than half-a-brain.
As for the Democrats' "outright lies?" It is important to remember that lying is a vice only in our rule book. In the Saul Alinsky rule book lying is a virtue. This is why creatures like Debbie Wasserman Schultz are able to lie continuously and shamelessly. Her less than half-a-brain rationalizes her actions as those of a good soldier. She's convinced the ends justify the means.
LD Jackson asks: How did we survive before Barack Obama? I'm asking: How will our society survive the coming presidential election in the face of such manufactured hate and fear?
You want proof that the Democrats are playing with matches? Here is a sampling of headlines coming out of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte over the past few days courtesy of the Drudge Report:
Obama Lies While Accusing Romney Campaign of Lying...
Top Dem. Compares Paul Ryan to Nazi Goebbels...
Dem chair apologizes for calling Scott Brown 'girl'...
DEM SEN: Eastwood 'old angry white man'...
Another Delegate Compares GOP To Hitler...
DNC LIES ON CIVIL RIGHTS 'BIG, BOLD, PROMINENT'...
RACIAL CAMPAIGN BUTTONS RAISE EYEBROWS...
SC Dem Chair Compares Nikki Haley To Hitler's Mistress...
Florida DNC Boss: Christians Want Jews Slaughtered...
And these headlines, courtesy of Weazel Zippers:
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-CAIR): GOP “Basically A Bigoted Party”…
Death Threat From DNC Delegate: “Mitt Romney… I Would Like To Kill Him!”..
Sandra Fluke At DNC: Paul Ryan “Would Allow Women To Die In Emergency Rooms”…
Former Dem Gov. Ted Strickland: GOP Criticism Of Obama Gutting Welfare Reform “Not So Subtle Racism”…
Democratic Women’s Caucus: Republicans “Want To Relegate Women To The Back Of The Bus”…
Harry Reid Fear Mongers At DNC: “We Must Stop The Tea Party Before The Senate Falls Into The Hands Of Extremists And Ideologues”…
Monday, September 3, 2012
Three Movies They Won't Be Showing In Charlotte This Week
The Fountainhead Ayn Rand's powerful and inimitable novel -- celebrating individualism and private property -- brought to the screen. Starring Gary Cooper as Howard Roark and Patricia Neal as Dominique Francon.
McLintock! A 1963 film celebrating rugged individualism, private enterprise and good, old fashioned American values. Starring John Wayne as George Washington McLintock and Maureen O'Hara as his headstrong wife.
Apartment For Peggy A film celebrating the spunk and spirit of a young American wife and mother. Starring Jeanne Crain [who, by the way, was a Republican] as the optimistic and unflappable Peggy Taylor, William Holden as her struggling husband, Jason, and Edmund Gwenn as the unforgettable Prof. Henry Barnes.
[Entire movie is available in 10 Parts on YouTube. Enter "Apartment For Peggy" in the YouTube search engine and follow the links.]
McLintock! A 1963 film celebrating rugged individualism, private enterprise and good, old fashioned American values. Starring John Wayne as George Washington McLintock and Maureen O'Hara as his headstrong wife.
Apartment For Peggy A film celebrating the spunk and spirit of a young American wife and mother. Starring Jeanne Crain [who, by the way, was a Republican] as the optimistic and unflappable Peggy Taylor, William Holden as her struggling husband, Jason, and Edmund Gwenn as the unforgettable Prof. Henry Barnes.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
What Up, Moon Pie?
Gary Johnson is a self-made millionaire and nerd. He was a wildly successful business owner and entrepreneur.
From Wikipedia, about Johnson's entrepreneurship:
While in college, Johnson earned money as a door-to-door handyman.[19] His success in that arena encouraged him to start his own business, Big J Enterprises, in 1976. When he started the business, which focused on mechanical contracting, Johnson was its only employee.[20] His major break with the firm was receiving a large contract from Intel's expansion in Rio Rancho, which increased Big J's revenue to $38 million.[16] Over-stretched by his success, Johnson enrolled in a time management course at night school, which he credits with making him heavily goal-driven.[16] He eventually grew Big J into a multi-million dollar corporation with over 1,000 employees.[21] By the time he sold the company in 1999, it was one of New Mexico's leading construction companies.[22]
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party candidate for President, was a wildly successful and popular governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003.
From Wikipedia, about Johnson's first term:
He [Johnson] entered politics for the first time by running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994 on a fiscally conservative, low-tax, anti-crime platform.[3] Johnson won the Republican Party of New Mexico's gubernatorial nomination, and defeated incumbent Democratic governor Bruce King by 50% to 40%. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget: in part, due to his use of the gubernatorial veto 200 times during his first six months in office,[2] which gained him the nickname "Governor Veto".[4][5]
From Wikipedia, about Johnson's second term:
Johnson sought re-election in 1998, winning by 55% to 45%. In his second term, he concentrated on the issue of school voucher reforms,[6] as well as campaigning for marijuana decriminalization and opposition to the War on Drugs. During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to a stringent anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy driven by a cost–benefit analysis rationale, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers:[2] more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together.[7][8] Term-limited, Johnson could not run for re-election at the end of his second term.Voters in New Mexico know -- and have loved -- Gary Johnson better than any candidate running for President in 2012. They've experienced Johnson's popular and able libertarian leadership.
If Gary Johnson has any chance in hell to carry any state in the Union for the Libertarian Party, that state should be New Mexico.
Yet, according to Real Clear Politics, President Obama leads Governor Romney by 10% in New Mexico. Rasmussen Reports has 9% of likely voters preferring "some other candidate."
What up, Moon Pie????
ObamaCare Alert! Women And Breast Cancer
I just received a disturbing email from my sister regarding ObamaCare, women and breast cancer. The email advises that all women watch this video:
The video was made a day after the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare constitutional. I had not seen it before. Nor was I familiar with Dr. Jill Vecchio. Apparently, she has been an ObamaCare Truther for quite some time.
Dr. Vecchio has produced a series of seven YouTube videos which seem to fairly document and explain the substance and consequences of PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) -- aka ObamaCare. The videos are concise, easy to understand and persuasive. Most importantly, as best I can tell, Dr. Vecchio has read the bill! She impresses me as sincere and honest.
Here's Part 1 of the 7 Part series:
All seven of her ObamaCare videos are available at Dr. Vecchio's YouTube video channel here. Additional Vecchio videos can be found by entering her name in the YouTube search engine.
The video was made a day after the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare constitutional. I had not seen it before. Nor was I familiar with Dr. Jill Vecchio. Apparently, she has been an ObamaCare Truther for quite some time.
Dr. Vecchio has produced a series of seven YouTube videos which seem to fairly document and explain the substance and consequences of PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) -- aka ObamaCare. The videos are concise, easy to understand and persuasive. Most importantly, as best I can tell, Dr. Vecchio has read the bill! She impresses me as sincere and honest.
Here's Part 1 of the 7 Part series:
All seven of her ObamaCare videos are available at Dr. Vecchio's YouTube video channel here. Additional Vecchio videos can be found by entering her name in the YouTube search engine.
Site Note: Cleanup Duty
I had intended to begin regular posting again last Wednesday. Unfortunately, Isaac interfered with my plans. I am currently working long hours helping Gulf coast residents cope with the aftermath of Hurricane Isaac.
I don't want to leave the wrong impression. I am not an altruist. I am being paid for my labor. Nevertheless, the cleanup is time consuming.
When I have a respite here and there, I'll try to fit in a post or two.
I don't want to leave the wrong impression. I am not an altruist. I am being paid for my labor. Nevertheless, the cleanup is time consuming.
When I have a respite here and there, I'll try to fit in a post or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)