Politcal Zombie

New Blog

2010-01-12T18:57:00.001-08:00

I moved over to wordpress. My new URL is http://zombiehero213.wordpress.com/

Government Failure vs Private Solutions

2009-12-28T08:23:00.000-08:00

Government failure:
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined GOP critics in asking how the suspect was able to retain a U.S. visa — issued by the U.S. Embassy in London in 2008 — after his name appeared in the terrorist database.

“What happened after this man’s father called our embassy in Nigeria?” Lieberman asked. “What happened to that information? Was there follow-up to try to determine where this suspect was?”

Private Solution:
Jasper Schuringa, an Amsterdam resident, lunged toward the fire in Row 19, jumping from one side of the plane to the other and over several other passengers. He burned his fingers as he grabbed a piece of melting plastic held by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused Saturday of trying to bring down the passenger jet with a homemade explosive device.

Schuringa, a video producer, restrained Abdulmutallab as others used blankets and fire extinguishers to douse the flames.

"When I saw the suspect, that he was getting on fire, I freaked, of course, and without any hesitation I just jumped over all the seats," Schuringa told CNN on Saturday. "And I jumped to the suspect. I was thinking like, he's trying to blow up the plane."

"I am grateful to the passengers and crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 who reacted quickly and heroically to an incident that could have had tragic results..."

ClimateGate Denial

2009-11-27T18:03:00.000-08:00

There is a lot of denial out there, from the alarmist crowd on the effect of ClimateGate on Global Warming, err, Climate Change. Jones wrote: “My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well… Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.”

As can be suspected, RealClimate is still in full "Cover Our Ass" mode. They are saying that it is all taken out of context. As I said before, I'm sure some of it is out of context. The code that CRU used is the worst offender. The code used to plot the data and create those wonderful "hockey Stick" graphs used to scare everyone to cut off their left foot to save the planet, was not, I repeat not out of context nor was is written in the "heat of the moment." The coding is deliberate, and as such gives a greater insight into what was going on.

In the Files maps12.pro maps15.pro maps24.pro

; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures. of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually

From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid ; the decline

From file documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY’S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid ; the decline

From file recon_mann.pro

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
; IN FACT, I NOW HAVE AN ANNUAL LAND-ONLY NORTH OF 20N VERSION OF MANN,
; SO I CAN CALIBRATE THIS TOO – WHICH MEANS I’m ONLY ALTERING THE SEASON

briff_sep98_e.pro:

; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

Of course there is more. It will take time to figure out all the tricks they used to "avoid the decline." The main point is that they CRU crew were deathly afraid of this decline. Specifically the divergence from the tree ring data and temperature. Here is what the graph would look like if the post 1960 data is put in to the graph.
Where is the sudden rise in temperatures that the very "credible" CRU crew has been telling us is right there? There is no "Hockey Stick!" Tell Gore to give back his Nobel.

Now there can be something said that the tree ring data for post-1960 isn't accurate. So if it's not accurate post-60's, how can we be certain it's accurate pre-1960? There is a serious lack of credibility in the data here. This same data has been used to write up IPCC reports that keep telling us we are cooking the planet. These same data sets have been referenced and used in hundred of climate models. The same models that fail to show the recent cooling/stability in global mean temperature. Simply put, the whole deck of cards has been built on a very weak foundation, that is now starting to crumble. Every paper that has used the CRU data sets, has to be re-written and reevaluated. Anything less is sloppy and junk science. This from CBS news.

...the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Let's put it in terms that the Left knows, Enron scandal.
Enron (CRU) has been keeping it's books closed so know one can verify what they have been doing. A whistleblower (hacker) alerts everyone that Enron has been cooking the books. Auditors (McIntyre/Skeptical crowd) comes in and finds serious breaches in ethics and standards (Emails, Code from Jones, Mann and Hansen).
Do you:
A) Try to prosecute the whitle blower for violating Enron's right to privacy? (Not the case in CG, since CRU is publicly funded and subject to FOI laws)

B) Admit that is looks bad, but assure everyone that Enron is doing a full internal audit and they will straighten everything out themselves. (This is whats coming from RealClimate, Univ East Anglia, WaPo and numerous Left media camps)

C) Demand full transperency and hold Enron (Jones, Mann, Harris, Schmidt etc) accountable for what is, FRUAD! Demand that everyone has a chance too look at the books and do full independent audits and hold Congressional hearing in the matter.

D) A&B

I'm simply amazed at how the Left, in response to Enron, wants C. Now that it's ClimateGate, they want D.

Cure is worse than the disease

2009-11-24T18:16:00.000-08:00

A response to this post at Liberal Rapture.

Most of what Bush and Obama has done with the economy is to put lipstick on a pig. That's why the numbers are "farcically low" and yes everyone knows it. Those "economists yapping on TV" aren't economists, I doubt any of them has a solid economic background, most likely just the standard simple Keynesian background. They either can't see the forest for the trees or more simply they are just going with the propaganda that the Feds are feeding them.

CNBC, whose parent company is NBC, whose parent company is GE has a huge stake in towing the Administration line, lest they lose all those generous contracts. Yes it sounds like a conspiracy theory but that doesn't take away from the underlying message. You can't pay the people who are supposed to keep you accountable. Why do you think all those people bought all those mortgage backed securities, because the ratings agencies were being paid by the originators of those securities to rate them AAA. It was a huge con job, back with full faith and credit of the US Government, based on horrible Keynesian economic policies.

The truth of the matter is, everything to government is doing now is all wrong. They are treating the symptoms instead of the disease. More to the point they are treating the symptoms with the disease. Ultra low interest rates fueled the bubble, so what do they do...keep interest rates ultra low. An over investment in low income home ownership built the bubble, so what do they do...expand government housing subsidies for low income earners. They haven't learned anything, and it's naive to think they ever will. There is just too much money to be made and the politicians are on the take, just like any other day.

It will only get worse before it gets better. Housing prices haven't been allowed to correct themselves and the commercial real estate market is on the verge of collapse. Inflation will pick up again once all those reserves that the banks have start to flow into the economy. That will happen once money demand reaches the new equilibrium. Unemployment will stay high for years to come.

Credibility Meltdown

2009-11-22T23:51:00.000-08:00

I loved that title, so I lifted it from Mises.org. Sorry bout that.

This has been and exciting week for anyone that is skeptical of the "consensus" on Global Warming. A hacker or someone from the inside out to get someone, posted emails, documents, and other sundries from the Climate Research Unit (CRU)'s webmail server. There is even a search engine for you to enjoy. I won't blame anyone in the US for not knowing about it, the only US MSM outlet that I know to do a story about it was Washington Post. Leave it to the Brits to call out the MSM for their shoddy reporting on what can be described as one of the greatest scandal for science in the last 100 years.

Skeptics have wanted to see the data for years. If AGW is the threat that the alarmist have been saying, then the data should speak for itself. Only then, can we all agree on a course of action to take. Much to the chagrin to the alarmist side of the debate, there is no "consensus." The debate is far from "over." These series of email show how some reportedly "reputable" scientists have been doing not so scientific things to the data. They have been hiding data, messaging data, threatening journals not to publish contrarian views and much much more. Here are some of the highlights:

From Michael E. Mann (withholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones (withholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!

From Phil Jones (fudging the data to fit the model)

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

What does this all mean? Well for one, this means that, as said above, the debate is far from "over." Anyone that used that excuse in the first place, has no notion of what science really is. Science is not about fudging the data. Science is not about withholding data. Science is not about disregarding the data if it doesn't fit the model.

Science is above all else about skepticism. Skepticism is the core of scientific progress. It's about rejecting the consensus view and looking for new answers to old questions and in the process coming up with new questions that need answering. The word skeptic comes from the Latin; 1) to analyze 2) to think through thoughtfully. That's what science is!

This scandal also means that science is not above the political. Hiding, evading and trying to control the message are all elements of the political, not the scientific realm. The AGW skeptics have been trying to show how politicized the debate has become for years. The emails, going back to 2000, show how Jones has been trying to control the message and stifle debate. It can't be stressed enough, that is not science. While Jones and the rest at Hadley have PHds, what they did crosses a very fine line. One could say they should take an ethics class, but just as in the political realm, ethics is very subjective. Even Jones' response seems like a political response, "it was taken out of context." How many times have we heard a politician say the exact same thing.

The AGW alarmist crowd is in full CYA (Cover Your Ass) mode as can be seen at realclimate.org. The cries of how it's "just interoffice emails so please don't pay attention" might reassure some, but it smells of a con job to me. There are emails talking about deleting data that might come under a British FOIA request, that doesn't seem to strike me as just "run of the mill" interoffice mail. Sorry alarmists, your going to have to come up with better. Now I fully admit some of the emails might actually be "out of context." We only have a small sample and the only way to put everything in the proper context would be to release everything; emails, memos, data, reports...everything to the public. Ha, I'll be holding my breath for that one.

While most of the skeptic crowd is jumping on the band wagon, I think people are missing how this fundamentally destroys the reputation of that data we have and are going to use in the future. (Sorry alarmist, but even Jones said the emails were authentic.) The James Hansen affair already shook my confidence in the GISS data. No matter how much NASA might say that the current data is the "true" measure, my confidence in their credibility is gone. Indeed the credibility of all the data is now suspect in my eyes. Once you have "reputable" scientists talking about hiding and deleting data, no amount of spin is going to make me forget that sin.

Crediblity has been lost. I'm afriad of what that might do to some. I'm sure there are a lot of laymen that feel that science is the be all and end all of reason. That science and scientists are above the political and the petty partisanship. In essence, you can question politicians, but the scientists are usually always right, so trust them when they are talking about something; a very romanticiszed veiw of science. Now that romanticizm is crushed. Scientists are now mere mortals and are nto above regular human falibilities. They have been shown to manipulate data to serve their own ends. I'm afriad there might be a backlash against science. Once it is shown that a small group of a whole that is in a position of trust is corupt, then people tend to veiw the whole group as corupt. We do it all the time with politicians, clergy, media; I do it myself. It's a very human emotional response, the whole fool me once...fool me twice cliche. Are the once faithful going to rebel? Are they going to dig in against all evidence contrary to try and save face? I don't know. All I know is that the CRU has betrayed the public trust and hopefully people will be more skeptical in the future.

Update: To add some more thoughts on the Denial of ClimateGate by the Left here.

Comments

2009-10-17T05:42:00.000-07:00

Here is my comment to Angus over at the Kids Prefer Cheese blog.

Wasn't the who cares argument also used by Lehman, Bear etc when they were looking at risk?
"Who cares if housing prices go down 50%, we are making a lot of money now!!"
I think your failing into that trap Angus.
Where's Admiral Akbar when you need him?!?
I care less about economic performance now than I do about econ performance later. Meaning, I want a stronger economy for my kids than what I have. Most of the thinking, which indecently I think is a boomer generational thing, is all about the now and the me.

I say boomer generational thing only because it really started to hit in the 70s and 80s, then as the boomers had kids (Gen X), they too became even more infatuated with the now over the future. Now we have the new generation that hardly ever thinks of the future, because their parents (Gen X) and their grandparents (Boomers) taught them not to.

Guardians of Asgaard

2009-09-15T08:08:00.000-07:00

Because I love Amon Amarth!

Fed Must Release Reports

2009-08-26T12:13:00.000-07:00

The Federal Reserve must release reports on emergency bank loans to Bloomburg under FOIA.

Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected the central bank’s argument that the records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions. The collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” according to the lawsuit that led to yesterday’s ruling.

Didn't Obama run on the vow to bring transparency to Government?

“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Mathew Winkler , the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”

‘Involuntary Investor’

Bloomberg said in the suit U.S. taxpayers need to know the risks behind the central bank’s $2 trillion in lending because the public is an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks.

I love that word "Involuntary Investor." It's a nice euphemism for what Socialist and Fascist Governments do with the peoples money.
We are also involuntary investors to:
1. GM
2. Chrysler
3. AIG
4. Goldman Sachs
5. SEIU...
The list could go on and on. All we need to do is look at the TARP to see who we are involuntary investing in.

Oh and don't forget to mention that we are paying interest to banks holding Fed reserve notes. What will this do? Well I'm not an expert but from my readings it would suggest that; given that banks are holding the reserves, and the whole point of issuing the massive amount of reserves was to avoid Great Depression low levels of liquidity, that paying interest is counterproductive. Why would a bank want to make risky loans, when they can just sit on the money and collect directly from the Fed?
I think it's because someone at the Fed realizes the among of liquidity out there right now. They know that once confidence comes that amount of money will lead to high rates on inflation. Then again I might be giving the Fed to much credit.
Somewhere along 2008, we stopped being a capitalistic country and moved to corporate welfare state aka Fascism.
All those Liberals were right, Bush was a fascist all along. Then again so is Obama. Thor help us.

RIP Kopechne....and Kennedy

2009-08-26T11:41:00.000-07:00

I'm not one to get sad for a celebrity dying. I really could care less most of the time, if not all the time. I get accused of being heartless, but then I ask them why they aren't sad for the nearly four children die every day as a result of child abuse or neglect? Or the one million child deaths that could have been prevented annually at a cost of $US 1 billion per year. Why did we give $3 billion to CARS again?

One thing about Kennedy's death that isn't getting much coverage is the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Yes I know she is getting mentioned in passing but what 2 whole minutes out of maybe 3 hours worth of news coverage? Give me a break.

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940 – July 18, 1969) was an American school teacher, secretary and political campaign specialist who died in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island while being driven by US Senator Ted Kennedy.
Kopechne left the party at 11:15 p.m. with Robert's brother Ted Kennedy , after he — according to his own account — offered to drive her to catch the last ferry back to Edgartown , where she was staying. Kennedy stated he made a wrong turn on the way and came upon a narrow, unlit bridge without guardrails. Kennedy drove the 1967 Olds off the bridge and it overturned in the water. Kennedy extricated himself from the submerged car but Kopechne died, after what Kennedy said were several diving attempts to free her.
Kennedy contacted several aides that night, but failed to report the incident to the authorities until the car and Kopechne's body were discovered the next morning. Kopechne's parents said that they learned of their daughter's death from Ted Kennedy himself before he reported his involvement to the authorities, but that they learned Kennedy had been the driver only from wire press releases some time later.

Iowahawk made references to it in a HealthCare satire a few months ago. You can read it here. Iowahawk's post bring me to horror, not for his satire but for what he is alluding to, Liberals will use Kennedy's death to pass Obamacare. It's already happening.
Here is what I wrote on a Cafehayek thread.

I'm more afraid of him in death than I am when he was still alive.
I had mentioned to a friend that I had hoped he would live a nice long life for many years to come, if nothing more than to stop the liberals from reframing the Health Care Debate into a Memorial for the Liberal Lion. It seems from one of the headlines on WSJ, that that is exactly how Pelosi, Reid and Obama will frame the debate now.

I think he did some good things and some crappy ones. Samgrove's point is particularly important to note. Ted never once had to deal with the Forgotten Man's reality. I'm speaking of William Graham Sumner's Forgotten Man.

I also think that if Obamacare is passed as a memorial for Kennedy, then Kennedy's enduring legacy will be of America finally jumping the shark and going down the Road to Serfdom. I'm sure that's not what Kennedy intended but we all know the law of unintended consequences.

Update: Google Trends for today as of 1439 8/26/09

1.	tropical storm danny
2.	hurricane danny
3.	mary jo kopechne
4.	chappaquiddick incident
5.	joan kennedy today
6.	chappaquiddick ted kennedy

At least people aren't forgetting Mary Jo.

Intro to Macroeconomics

2009-08-25T07:13:00.001-07:00

I'm not an economist. I'm learning and I admit that I don't know everything. Who's smarter the man that admits ignorance or the man flaunting his superior intellect?

Anyway, in my Macro class that we (My wife and I) taking right now, we are learning the "glories" of Keynesianism. Now to be sure, I don't like Keynesian macro theory in at least how it is applied. It is my believe that Keynesian polices are partially responsible for the current recession and housing bubble. The other half being the Federal Reserve. One thing that strikes me about Keynesian theory is it's "Socialist-lite" influences. Keynes openly touts the need to "smart people" to fix the messes that the "market creates." I believe as do most Austrian and Free Market economists and minded people, that the Government creates "market failures" by interfering with market processes.
Take the Housing bubble, more and more economists (except the Krugmanites) are coming to the realization that Fed funds rates, housing tax breaks, and a reinterpretation of lending practices lead to the creation of the housing bubble and the subsequent collapse. Basically the Government created the problem, thanks to Lord Keynes.

Two of the pillars of Keynesian macrotheory is the notion of the paradox of thrift and the multiplier.

The Paradox of thrift is a situation in which; The paradox states that if everyone tries to save more money during times of recession, then aggregate demand will fall and will in turn lower total savings in the population because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total savings may fall even when individual savings attempt to rise, and, broadly speaking, that increases in savings may be harmful to an economy.

Krugman lives by the Paradox. Which only makes me wonder if it hold true or if it can only hold assuming people don't act like people and only act like wild animals, running into fire type of behaviors. Bob Murphy does a pretty good job at discrediting the notion of the paradox of thrift.

Keynes wants everyone to spend. That's it. Always spend and never save. According to Keynes, savings leads to the road of ruin. My macro teacher says this in his lecture notes.

Deficits stimulate, surpluses restrain. Use each accordingly.

How can this be? Well because of the multiplier of course. The multiplier is a nice little term thrown around by Keynesian that somehow "prove" Government spending is so great.
In a Y = C + I + G + NX system, where Y is income or GDP, C is consumption or spending, I is investment or saving, G is government spending and NX is net exports, Keynesian's assumes that if GDP or Y goes down, it "has" to be because of falling spending. The only answer of course is more G. Later on they will talk about how G gets it's money.
The multiplier is m, where; change in income is equal to m times the change in spending. Seems appropriate, but only helps the Keynesian case if the multiplier is greater than 1. If m is less then 1, then any increase in government spending wastes money. If m is less than 1 lets say 0.80, then for every one dollar the Government takes away via taxes, only 80 cents of that dollar will be spent. The other 20 cents is wasted in due to Government inefficiencies. If on the other hand, m is greater than 1, then income will magically appear from the heavens, all thanks to the wonders of Government know how. To think, people called supply side economics, voodoo economics. Keynesian is more pixies dust and unicorn horns than anything else.
So what is the multiplier term? Is it greater than 1 or less then 1? My macro teacher says a good rule of thumb is 2.5. Of course we have to trust him right? No not really, I did some digging around the glorious internets and found an article by Robert Barro. Barro writes that the multiplier is closer to zero. If that is the case, which to me is more plausible, then for every dollar the Government takes away is burned. We get nothing from it except a bloated bureaucracy.
Digging around some more I found an IMF report which say the average fiscal multiplier for the past 43 recessions is more likely around -1.5. Yet they hedge by taking out any outliers + - 5 so that it is only "marginally negative."
It certainly makes the case that multipliers don't really work the way Keynes wanted them to. It certainly makes the case against Government spending stronger.

Health Care Ignorance

2009-08-04T17:57:00.000-07:00

We are all ignorant to a certain degree. Even the so called experts don't know all the relevant information, since it is too vast for anyone person to have a full grasp of every concept and nuance.
That being said, we can do something about our level of ignorance. The old anecdote that knowledge is power is almost always true.
I found this site about health care economics. Maybe we can learn something.

Cash for Clunkers

2009-08-01T07:20:00.000-07:00

Hopefully by now everyone has heard of the Cash for Clunker debacle. It is a Government program designed to stimulate the car manufacturers as well as "help" curb greenhouse gas emission from older model cars. This of course is a clear case of Bootleggers and Baptists phenomenon:

Supplement to the Economic theory of regulation by Yandle: Bootleggers and Baptists. Baptists lobby legislatures to shut down liquor stores on Sunday, but demand for alcohol doesn't go away and is satisfied by bootleggers. Bootleggers earn a living satisfying this demand! Upshot is that government regulation works out in complicated ways.

In Cash for Clunkers, the Bootleggers (the ones making the money) are the car manufacturers, where the Baptists are the "Greenies." The deal was that people would scrap their "older" cars for newer ones that were more fuel efficient ones. It's supposed to be a win-win for everyone, if everyone includes only the Green Lobby and the Car makers. Everyone else, the taxpayers, gets the shaft. It was hugely popular, for obvious reasons, it made a car that might have been worth $500 dollars, now worth up to $4500. The program was supposed to last until November 1st, but unfortunately it already ran out of money.

It was unclear how many cars had been sold under the program on Friday, but the number was far higher than anyone had expected. About 40,000 vehicle sales were done through the program but dealers estimated they were trying to complete transactions on an additional 200,000 vehicles, said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

This is a clear case of the Government not knowing the consequences of their actions. They should have known that they were going to cause a artificial mini boom. Then of course these are the same politicians and officials that didn't have a clue they were creating an artificial boom in housing. So really this is par for the course. It begs the question, why do people think government run health care is a good thing? That is for a different post though.

Going back to the Bootlegger model, lets look at the car companies. It's not hard to see why they wouldn't love this idea. They would be selling more cars without having to cut their own sales prices. The $4500 is being paid for by the taxpayer, so anyone reading this is helping pay for someone else's brand new car! I bet you didn't know you were so generous or that you had all that extra money to help your fellow man out! Well I really can't say everyone is paying since 43.4% of Americans pay zero or negative taxes.
Now to be fair there are a lot of dealerships that are offering other incentives to help move cars but the problem here is that you have to ask why no one was buying the cars in the first place? Could it be that people don't want to shell out money of big ticket items in a time of still rising unemployment? Now of course that can't be it.

Now looking at the Baptists here, the Greenies. There argument is that these older cars wer putting more GHG in the air that will lead to catastrophic global warming that will destroy everything! I don't believe it. This is an excellent book which should spark the death knell for the AGW alarmists; Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science.

One of the things not really considered here are the poor. It will be interesting when all this is said and done, to see the statistics and what income levels were able to buy these newer cars. I don't think it takes a Ph.D to see that only the well off will be able to afford the new cars, while at the same time, destroying older model and usually cheaper cars will not be available for lower income folks. One of the unintended consequences of this will be, a shortage of "affordable" cars for the poor. Which is probably what some want to happen all along. That will give them a reason to "help" the poor afford cars, much in the same way as they did for housing.

Can ayone say Boom/Bust?

UPDATE: Added a comment made over at CafeHayek.

C4C is a broken window fallacy.

It's a perfect example of law of unintended consequences and the ineptness of Government all rolled into one bill.

Partial list of unintended consequences:
1. The poor will be worse off since there will be fewer lower prices, perfectly usable cars on the market.
2. Short term boost in auto sales for dealerships, all this does is reduce inventory, by offering incentives to buy but does nothing about the long run outlook for the auto manufacturing companies. The underlining problem is why there was so much pent up inventory? That's something government fiat cannot fix.
3. From number 1, we will see a "crisis" in "affordable" cars for the poor, looks for another government program to help elevate that, which will cost even more tax dollars.
4. From number 2, the auto companies will see this short term boost as a sign of consumer confidence and long term expectations. They will boost production, but quantity demanded hasn't changed. If anything quantity demanded will go down in the long run because of this program. The Auto companies will loose money in the long run because of C4C and will require government intervention, which thanks to all those campaign donations, they'll receive able tax money to pay for their foolish investments.

This is a layperson view with an Austrian twist. I am no economist and haven't even finish Intro to Macro yet...which probably is the reason why I see this so clearly. My head isn't filled with Keynesian mumbo jumbo yet so my ability to reason hasn't been dulled.

This is just another piece of evidence as to why Keynesianism is a worthless theory and needs to be scrapped. I'm convinced if and when we get out of this mess, in 2 hundred years when they look back at the 20th century, the top 5 most "evil" people from the 20th will be; Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Lord Keynes.

Still Center Right Country

2009-07-29T11:16:00.000-07:00

You might have heard from the chattering class that the election of Obama marks a shift in the country wide political spectrum. I disagree. Here is some proof.
1. Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies
3. Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine
7. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto
10. Catastrophe
20. Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science

Not a scientific survey I know, but probably more accurate than any phone survey. People are putting their money where there mouth is....
It's interesting to note that all those books are on the rise.

2009-07-16T15:53:00.001-07:00

Good new everyone...the Stimulus wasn't meant to "Stimulate."

Turns out the $787 billion “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” (AARA) was not designed for full economic recovery, but rather to “stabilize” the downturn. That’s the word from White House officials today, who held off-camera briefings with reporters on how the AARA is working so far.

“This legislation was designed to cushion the downturn,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “That’s why we have always talked about this as one function of economic recovery.”

When pressed about the change in terminology, Gibbs said he was not trying to temper expectations after the fact. “I can probably find 15 or 20 occasions when I said this in the lead up,” Gibbs said, explaining that he had always defined the AARA as part of a “multi-legged stool.”

If we don't pass Cap and Trade we will all DIE!!!

2009-07-09T13:56:00.000-07:00

Meanwhile Canada issues a frost warning...in JULY!!!!

Environment Canada has issued a frost risk warning in low-lying areas of the province for Wednesday night. The temperature is expected to dip to 4 C.

Bootleggers and Baptists - FDA and Waxman

2009-07-08T20:53:00.000-07:00

Via Econlog:

To save money for consumers, Waxman is willing to allow certain drugs, called biologic drugs, to enter the market without clinical testing that proves their efficacy. He realizes that requiring clinical testing for efficacy will slow things down and needlessly keep important drugs out of the hands of suffering patients.

Sound nice, but you know Waxman has some other motive.

Bruce Yandle of Clemson University has a theory called Bootleggers and Baptists. You can read and hear him talk about it at Econtalk.
Simply put, it goes that government regulations usually are lobbied by two different groups with two different motivations.
The baptists are the moralists. They do what they do with the air of moral high ground. Yandle uses the metaphor of Baptists trying to ban liquor sales on Sunday. The Baptists faith in the Bible and the belief that alcohol is evil, feel that they are doing society a favour.
The bootleggers are the exploiters. They do what they do because there is money to be made. The bootleggers lobby for the Sunday liquor ban because they can then sell liquor on Sundays via Black Market.
Politics make strange befellows.
Anyway back to Waxman. So my question is who are the bootleggers here?

It's obvious, at least to me, that the Baptists are they ones wanting lower cost drugs, which no FDA testing will surely do. Yet, we all know, no politician will do anything altruistic without a money man greasing his wheels.

So who is greasing Waxman's wheels?

I'm lazy right now, but does anyone know where you can get the info to see which Pharm companies have a new "biologic drug" coming out and just gave Waxman a campaign contribution?

Equal Protection

2009-06-29T11:37:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court today decided, 5-4, for the white and Hispanic firefighters in Ricci vs DeStefano today saying that they were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. The split was down the usual lines with Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy going for the plaintiffs.

This is interesting for two reasons.
First it overrules Sotomayors decision which no doubt will be used against her in her confirmation hearings. Remember the Democrats wanted the confirmation hearing to be in mid-July and the GOP wanted it to be later. With Ricci fresh off the docket, I'm sure there will be a sudden and nuanced shift, with Democrats wanting to wait a bit. Not that I can blame them, they touted Sotomayor as a brilliant mind, even if she has said some really stupid things. Public opinion also is against Sotomayor, so expect that angle to be played as well.

A new national poll suggests that nearly two-thirds of Americans think white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut where discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam after too few minorities scored high enough on the test.

The other interesting thing about this decision comes from Justice Scalia. In his concurrence opinion, he writes.

I join the Court's opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection? The question is not an easy one.
The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII's disparate-treatment provisions forbid "remedial" race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result- the question resolved by the Court today- it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties - e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal - discriminate on the basis of race. As the facts of these cases illustrate, Title VII's disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes. That type of racial decision making is, as the Court explains, discriminatory.

So when will racial discrimination end? Obviously it is still going on in the workplace. It's going on in the Universities.

Beginning in 2012, UC will no longer automatically admit the top 12.5% of all students based on statewide performance, and will no longer rely so heavily on grades and test scores. Instead, the eligibility pool will be expanded by a projected 40% by eliminating the requirement for applicants to take the SAT subject matter tests. The net effect of these changes is that academic achievement will be less significant and UC admissions administrators will have the "flexibility" to discriminate against those "dull" Asians who "study, study, study" all the time without violating Proposition 209.

What is wrong with these people? What is obvious to most is that all of this is being done in the name of "Diversity."
When will we live in a world when the color of ones skin is no longer a factor in hiring or admissions. Discrimination in any name, no matter the motive is wrong. It's wrong to deny a white the opportunity for advancement, it's wrong to deny a Hispanic the opportunity for advancement, and it's wrong to deny a black the same opportunities.
There is a big difference in equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. They are not the same. Giving everyone the same opportunities is what this country was founded on. Some will succeed and some will fail. The outcome is wholly dependant on the person, not society.
Using the equality of outcomes logic, the State and individuals will continue to use racial discrimination as a factor in everything. They will still rely on the quota system or in Ricci's case, use the threat of litigation as a factor in their hiring. The problem as SCOTUS decision puts clearly, the treat of litigation is not justification for any sort of racial discrimination (2.c.i)
In my talks with supporters of Affirmative Action, they usually base their argument on the equality of outcomes logic. They usually say that it is still needed. The obvious question to ask is until when? When will it not be needed? Five years ago, I had the same conversation and they said, "When we have a Black President." Well, now we do. So it's time to end it.
Sooner or later a case will make it to the Supreme Court challenging race based quotas and we will have to finally choose for the full implementation of Equal protection. Anything that places a "racial thumb" on the scales of justice is wrong morally, and ethically.

Score One for Single Payer.

2009-06-28T10:43:00.000-07:00

A critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton is all alone in a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital after she was turned away for treatment at local facility and transferred across the border without her parents, who don't have passports.
A provincewide search for an open neonatal intensive care unit bed came up empty, leaving no choice but to send the two pound, four ounce baby to Buffalo.

I still can't quite grasp, how some people think this is a good thing. Why do people think a Single Payer system, will be efficient? Hello, look at Medicare, Medicaid and Walter Reed, is that the kind of health care they want?

H/T: HotAir

Here are some of the wait times associated with Pediatric Medical services in Ontario.

Provincial Paediatric Wait Times Analysis by Subspecialty

	5 out of 10 Patients Treated Within (Days)	9 out of 10 Patients Treated Within (Days)	Volumes
	May 2009	May 2009	May 2009
All Services	59	195	1155

Cardiovascular Surgery	37	171	52
General Surgery	33	88	171
Gynecology	39	74	10
Neurosurgery	20	77	35
Ophthalmology	55	146	85
Dental/Oral Surgery	102	356	159
Orthopedic Surgery	79	207	109
Otolaryngology	64	252	262
Plastic Surgery	52	169	130
Urology	62	170	142

That Bigot Perez Hilton

2009-06-26T05:37:00.001-07:00

I really don't like Perez Hilton. So I really hate writing this, but the hypocrisy is just too great.

Remember way back when, when Hilton asked Carrie Prejean about her views on Gay Marriage?

I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.

Then came Hilton's vBlog tirade, calling her all sorts of vile sexist names. All of which he pretty much got a pass for in the MSM.

Now Hilton is in the news again, hopefully not for long, over an incident with the Black Eyed Peas in Toronto. Apparently, Will.I.Am asked Hilton to not write anything about his band anymore. In response, Hilton called Will.I.Am a Fag.

Is it okay for a gay man to use homophobic rhetoric against straight man?

One level of hypocrisy, is how the MSM treated Prejean's statement, which is the same stance our Deal Leader has and how they treated Hilton's openly hateful language against another man.
The silence from the gay rights groups is deafening.
The other hypocrisy is of course Hilton's own personal hypocrisy. His whole reasoning for his vBlog tirade against Prejean was that he was upset with HOW she answered the question. Which is why I quoted it. I don't see any hateful remarks against gays in that statement. If what Prejean said was hate, then Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a whole slew of politicians in Washington are full of hate. Of course we can't criticize our Dear Leader like that now can we. That's a whole different subject.

Needless to say, Hilton was "forced" to issue an apology. I say "forced," because it seems to me that he did it to try and save his "brand." His brand for me is dead. I never really cared at all about anything he did, I find his "How Gay was that?" segment on VH-1's remember the Millenium to be the dumbest thing on the show, even dumber than Moby's segment.
Hilton in an offer of good faith or just self-promoting, take your pick, said he would give the proceeds of his lawsuit against the Black Eyed Peas to the Mathew Shepard Foundation. Which they replied.

We do not know the details of the lawsuit, whether it has been filed, the nature of his claims or the likely outcome. But because the lawsuit presumably involves the physical attack prompted by Mr. Hilton's admitted use of an anti-gay slur, the Foundation will be unable to accept any funds obtained in such a manner.

At least there are some gay rights groups out there with some core principles. Equal rights doesn't mean some groups are more "equal" than others.

H/T Hotair.com for the gawker link.

Creating Jobs?

2009-06-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

How many jobs are being lost thanks to Barry and his hypocritical no smoking law?

Tampa will lose part of its cigar heritage in August when Hav-A-Tampa shuts its factory near Seffner and lays off about 495 employees, closing a factory that has been operating since 1902.

Work that had been done in Tampa will now be performed in an Altadis plant in Puerto Rico, where it has extra manufacturing capacity, McKenzie said.
However, the company attributed much of its trouble to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, a federal program that provides health insurance to low-income children. It is funded, in part, by a new federal tax on cigars and cigarettes. McKenzie couldn't say how much sales of Hav-A-Tampa cigars had fallen off, but the numbers have dropped significantly, he said.

Previously, federal excise taxes on cigars were limited to no more than a nickel, said Norman Sharp, president of the Cigar Association of America trade group. The tax increase, which took effect April 1, raises the maximum tax on cigars to about 40 cents, Sharp said.

Instead of Barry's nefarious "Create or sustain" jobs notion, we need a number to the number of jobs Barry and this Congress have destroyed or shipped overseas to where taxes are lower?

H/T Mises

Biden was right for once.

2009-06-14T16:43:00.001-07:00

Thank goodness, the Dems put their head in the sand when Biden, in a moment of honesty and candor, told everyone that in 6 months there would be a testing for Obama.

Iran in ruins
British pissed off about Uighers
N. Korea talking about nuclear war
Economy in shambles with inflation on the rise
and China thinking about unloading their US Treasuries....

Which crisis did Biden think was coming?

Palin plagerizes Gingrich?

2009-06-07T21:21:00.000-07:00

According to Huffington Post she did. Then again, liberals never plagiarize right?

Ha ha actually Palin cited Gingrich twice throughout her speech. So if citing the source still counts as plagerism...there are a lot of college grads out there that need to give back their degrees.

Conservatives4Palin.com has the 411.

Of course plagerism is something Obama and Biden would never do.

Ha if you believe that, I got a bridge to sell you.

This just highlights the point that liberals are scared to death of the Sarahcuda.

I am behing her 100% and hope to hell she runs in 4 years. That's change we can believe in.

When Liberals attack...who ya gonna call?

2009-06-05T07:40:00.000-07:00

It's a funny thing when liberals turn on one of their own. The outcast is usually shunned like a leper and immediately the object of attack. Anyone who dared oppose Obama this last election saw it.
Newsbusters has an interested story today of a liberal writer who was fired from AOL for reporting a story about Playboy and misogyny.

AOL News has been bending over backwards lately to make sure that the do not cover the controversy surrounding Playboy.com writer Guy Cimbalo's vile attack on conservative women. AOL News has taken some drastic steps to censor any mention, let alone criticism, of Playboy's screed. They have deleted posts about the article, banned contributors from mentioning it, and even fired one of their liberal writers over it.
The evidence is stacking up quite high that AOL News fired liberal writer Tommy Christopher today due to his repeated attempts to get coverage of the Playboy attack list on AOL's Politics Daily. Christopher had first attempted to post this criticism of Playboy's sick list the day it was published on their website. However, he was surprised to find that shortly after putting his article on Politics Daily it was deleted by an editor.

Now deleting posts from a website, called scrubbing, is common practice in today's media. Obama used the technique quite frequently during the campaign.
What's interesting is that the people that are defending Tommy Christopher are the people he'd normally attacking, conservatives and twitter. You can read his own website for more info.

Exit question: Why is it okay for liberals to hate women and want to rape them?

A Long Dead Economist

2009-06-04T13:04:00.000-07:00

That economist is Keynes.
Keynes is dead and hopefully too will his General Theory, soon.

I'm not a big fan of Keynes. I think his theories have given politicians a carte blanc to spend spend spend, with no fear of ever paying the bill. With over a trillion dollar deficits this year and rising budget deficits for years to come, all based on a theory of a long dead economist. Maybe we should be looking to see if any of his theories proved to be right?

That is a topic for another day but I found this article to be good. Mainly because I really don't like Paul Krugman.

No doubt there are powerful deflationary headwinds blowing in the other direction today. There is surplus capacity in world manufacturing. But the price of key commodities has surged since February. Monetary expansion in the US, where M2 is growing at an annual rate of 9 per cent, well above its post-1960 average, seems likely to lead to inflation if not this year, then next. In the words of the Chinese central bank’s latest quarterly report: “A policy mistake ... may bring inflation risks to the whole world.”
The policy mistake has already been made – to adopt the fiscal policy of a world war to fight a recession. In the absence of credible commitments to end the chronic US structural deficit, there will be further upward pressure on interest rates, despite the glut of global savings. It was Keynes who noted that “even the most practical man of affairs is usually in the thrall of the ideas of some long-dead economist”. Today the long-dead economist is Keynes, and it is professors of economics, not practical men, who are in thrall to his ideas.

Liberals turning on Obama?

2009-06-04T12:49:00.000-07:00

President Obama is just killing the progressive movement.

This is from Dana Milbank, a regular on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
Maybe this is a sign that the kool aid scales are starting to fall from liberals eyes?

I doubt it by reading the comment to Milbank's piece.
He does make a good observation, liberals had so much fun being the opposition, they aren't really enthused by being a defender instead of the instigator. You know it's not fun to protest when you don't have much to protest about.

Reminding the audience of the group's more muscular days, Borosage played a tape of Obama speeches at the 2006 and 2007 Take Back America conferences. Over rock music, one clip had him saying: "It's going to be because of you that we take our country back."

That was from June 2007, before Obama took back America -- and took away the progressives' rallying cry.

Is it still fun to be anti-war, when the President from your own party is escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
You know trivial stuff like that.

Even More LIberal Hypocricy

2009-06-03T05:48:00.000-07:00

Democrats are at it again...proclaiming tactics that they once used, but now they are race baiting.
Jesse Jackson knows race-baiting well. He's been using it his whole adult life to make lots and lots of money. Enough money to try and buy his son a Senate Seat perhaps?

But the assault on Sotomayor isn't about her skills as a jurist. This is classic race-based politics from the Republican right. Our real problems are too great for us to fall back into this. The slurs reveal a lot more about those who are spreading them...

Perhaps Mr. Jackson will listen to his own last sentence and look himself in the mirror.

Smoot-Hawley?

2009-05-21T20:14:00.000-07:00

Remember that "Buy American" provision in the $787 Billion Stimulus Package?
It inserted "shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements," to help appease our trading partners and rightfully so.
The most basic fact about trade is that it's a two way street.
You buy my goods, pay me in your currency and I buy your goods that you pay with my currency. Simple enough even Congress sometimes figures it out.

Apparently though, local municipalities and state governments read "international trade agreements" like Congress reads the Bills it passes.

Ordered by Congress to “buy American” when spending money from the $787 billion stimulus package, the town of Peru, Ind., stunned its Canadian supplier by rejecting sewage pumps made outside of Toronto. After a Navy official spotted Canadian pipe fittings in a construction project at Camp Pendleton, Calif., they were hauled out of the ground and replaced with American versions. In recent weeks, other Canadian manufacturers doing business with U.S. state and local governments say they have been besieged with requests to sign affidavits pledging that they will only supply materials made in the USA.

Outrage spread in Canada, with the Toronto Star last week bemoaning “a plague of protectionist measures in the U.S.” and Canadian companies openly fretting about having to shift jobs to the United States to meet made-in-the-USA requirements. This week, the Canadians fired back. A number of Ontario towns, with a collective population of nearly 500,000, retaliated with measures effectively barring U.S. companies from their municipal contracts — the first shot in a larger campaign that could shut U.S. companies out of billions of dollars worth of Canadian projects.

You know what that means....those Canadian's are not buy our goods. Which means, our goods are not going to get sold, which means a cut in productions which means a cut in employment.
Economists know it, that's why they opposed the "Buy American" provisions in the first place.

Second, the notion that even an effective W.T.O.-consistency qualifier in our procurements will soothe other nations and prevent trade retaliations and trade wars is naïve. Contrary to what others believe, countries like Brazil, China and India, which have not signed the W.T.O.’s 1995 agreement on governmental procurement and, therefore, do not enjoy those rights to our procurement purchases, will retaliate. They can raise many current tariffs also in a “W.T.O.-consistent” way. (Remember that China and India have large public sectors.) They can easily shift their purchases of aircraft, nuclear reactors and other high-value goods from us to Europe and Japan. We would then retaliate, prompting retaliations by the others: all in a W.T.O.-consistent fashion. Indeed, President Obama would find himself in a W.T.O.-consistent trade war.

This one from Burton Folsom author of New Deal or Raw Deal?

“Slap a tariff on China and save American jobs,” the protectionists say.
This tempting line of reasoning is flawed for two reasons. First, if Americans pay more for, say, American-made shoes or shirts, then they have less to spend for other things they might need — they are simply subsidizing inefficient local producers. And those American manufacturers, who are protected from foreign competitors, have little incentive to innovate and cut prices.

Second, if we refuse to buy China’s imports, China will refuse to buy our exports, including our first-rate computers and iPods. Our export market collapses. We saw this happen during the The Great Depression when Congress passed, and President Herbert Hoover signed, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. That tariff, the highest in United States history, foisted high import duties on more than 3,000 foreign items. The Europeans immediately retaliated, and this deepened the Depression throughout the world. When we refused to buy Swiss watches, for example, the Swiss refused to buy American wheat and Chevrolets.

The collapsing export market after 1930 helped to set off a decline in American industry. United States automakers sold more than five million cars and trucks in 1929, but only about 1.8 million in 1933. Other causes (including tax increases under both Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt) also made the Great Depression worse, but the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a significant reason the Depression was as severe as it was — 25 percent unemployment at its worst.
Free trade benefits buyers and sellers. Tariffs benefit certain sellers at the expense of all buyers.

Unfortunately, those who don't learn from history are doomed....well you know the rest.

Dems need to start their 12 steps.

2009-05-15T15:32:00.000-07:00

So I don't have much time to post, but I was reading at Liberal Rapture a post today that had this in relation to Obama's Gitmo reversal today.

But here's the worst problem with the reversal - it empowers the right wing:
Liz Cheney Claims Victory In Obama Detainee Photo Reversal

It got me thinking about what's so wrong with admitting that Cheney was right?
Here is what I wrote...
hat really amazes me about this Gitmo thing, is the amount of spinning going on to basically not say....Bush and Cheney were right the whole time and Barry was wrong.

The Democrats have a problem. It's not just Slim. Democrats know how to oppose. They know how to protest the Right and they know how to ridicule (ala Prejean) even if they have the exact same view as the people they ridicule (Prejean/Obama/Clinton...all have the same view on Gay Marriage)
The problem is that when rubber meet the road, the Democrats don't know how to move past the ridicule/oppose your opponent at all costs stage. Gitmo is a great example of this.
They (Dems) want and need to oppose everything Bush and Cheney stood for. They put it in their heads that Bush and Cheney and anything, I repeat anything that they are for, has to be evil.
I mean how can Darth Cheney do anything "good." The Democrats label Republicans as evil in almost religious, making very very hard to admit that sometimes, the GOP can be right. Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Daschle and Obama are no better than Bush. I'm sure it would surprise people how much they agree with one another on a lot of issues, the problem is, in public even if Obama and Bush agree on say gay marriage, Obama still has to make Bush out as some sort of evil Monster to appease the base.
Pelosi voted for Iraq and said nothing against the CIA's EITs (essentially approving it) which is the exact same position Bush wanted. Now she either has to admit that the "Village Idoit" fooled her not once, but twice...making her ever dumber than the "Village Idiot" or actually admit to her base, that Bush might have made the best decision he could at a difficult time. Obama is echoing the latter with his reversal. Bush wasn't perfect, far from it. He did a lot of shitting things, but his decision to hold military tribunal is far better than civilian courts, which let the terrorists go free and go back to killing Americans (1 in 10 according to Obama's Pentagon)
Why it's only reported in a British Newspaper could help explain why our newspapers are going out of print? Hmmm I wonder?

Democrats, progressive and liberals need to admit they have a problem. Like any good 12 stepper, if they want to reform the Democratic party, they need to admit that the Democrats in office and democrats in general can be bigots, sexist, hypocrites, anti-gay rights, pretty much everything they say Republicans are. Only then will they be able to reform the party.

One thing I love about LR readers is the comments that sexism is so blatant in today's society and the reason HRC wasn't nominated. Yet no one wants to look at the elephant in the room, that it was the Democrats sexism and the Democrats bigotry that coast HRC the nomination. It was Democratic Party sexism, bigotry, age-ism, racism that helped put Obama in power. Now we reap the consequences of DNC bigotry.
Why did Obama block Cheney's attempt to release 2 CIA memo's that Cheney says prove the EIT's worked?

Obama can and has declassified any memo he wants. He has full authority to wave his fucking hand and let the memo's go public.

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the CIA's EITs...isn't it better to have all the facts on the table? If your morals are such that nothing is worth "Torture." Then what would it hurt to release Cheney's memos?

Obama already has admitted that Cheney was right about Military commissions. I guess letting Cheney be right about 2 things is more than Democrats can handle without their heads exploding.

By saying that he has now concluded that releasing the photos would endanger the troops, Obama is reinforcing the idea that he was originally prepared to do something that would endanger the troops, and only reversed himself after conservatives called him out on it.

There really is more that needs to be said of this. Democrats have built an empire on insults and prejudices that just can't be sustained any longer. The world is too dangerous to keep going on with this pettiness.

There was also a comment on one reason why Carrie Prejean get's her own segment on Countdown for her view on Same Sex Marriage, and Obama doesn't, even though they hold the exact same view on Same Sex Marriage.
Maybe it's sexism? Gee you think?
That ties in with what I was trying to say above. The Democratic Party is full of sexists, racists and bigots. They can't admit it or all their insults about Republicans will finally be correctly viewed as hypocritical.
Eventually, the glass house the Democrats have built will come crashing down.
I just hope it sooner rather than later.

Cap and Trade dead?

2009-05-12T16:43:00.000-07:00

Maybe not yet, but it took a serious blow today from and EPA report from the OMB.

An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.

The memo has no listed author but is marked “Deliberative–Attorney Client Privilege.” A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a “conglomeration of counsel we’ve received from various agencies” about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

“In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.

I repeat, "Negative Economic Impact!"
Skeptics like me have been harping on this for a while now...and this new report comes from Obama's OMB!

We'll just have to see how this unfolds, but I know I'll be using this memo for a while now.

Obama's Don't ask Don't Tell

2009-05-12T16:41:00.000-07:00

You know Obama and the rest don't give a damn about Don't Ask Don't Tell. Why should they? They will use it again in 2010 and again in 2012 to keep the gay rights vote. If they were actually going to go through with their promise, they would have done something by now.

They are using gays for votes. So they use Fear.
Just like the throw the "racist" card out there to scare blacks to vote Dem.

It's the oldest political ploy in the book, straight out of ol' Saul Alinsky...it's just funny that people keep falling for it.

I repeat...I'll keep harping on this...Vote all the fuckers out of office
Keep voting them out until they get the message....listen to the people or your ass is out

But...I'm sure there are plenty of gays, blacks, feminists that are too afraid of changing their vote...so the status quo will just go on.

Just like with HRC, if it weren't for the "status quo" politicians (aka Super Delegates), HRC would have won the nomination, and some real change would have occurred...I wouldn't like her health plan for sure...but a real breath of fresh air would have been nice...instead we get the status quo POTUS that is Obama, hence the Bush=Obama.

But partisan prejudice runs too deep...so I don't think we will ever get real change until we are all broke wondering what the hell happened.

Obama and the Unions

2009-05-11T17:10:00.001-07:00

A common theme in the Obama administration is he will do anything Big Labor wants.
He did it with the Chrysler bankruptcy. You know he will do with with GM.
The level of corruption is horrendous, yet nothing is being reported.
The press is in the bag for Obama. That is nothing new.
It's surprising to see the LA Times report on the SEIU's involvement in Obama's California thuggery.

The officials say they are particularly troubled that the Service Employees International Union, which lobbied the federal government to step in, was included in a conference call in which state and federal officials reviewed the wage cut and the terms of the stimulus package.

This is yet another example of Obama's willingness to break his campaign promises for the people that gave him money.
Ed Morrissey at Hotair has a great post on it.
What really puzzles me is why he isn't pushing for Card Check all that much?
I think maybe, it's because he's waiting for after the 2010 elections. That way if the GOP make gains, he has a fall back. If the Dems stay in power then he has nothing to worry about. It will pass and he won't have to expend any of that political capital.
Basically, he is selfish. Of course that's nothing new.

Gaming the System

2009-05-09T15:13:00.000-07:00

J-SOM over at Liberal Rapture posted about how people really don't know what the hell is going on.

I see no "recovery" at all in the traditional sense. I know. I know. Who am I to make predictions on the economy? After watching one "economist" after another get it ridiculously wrong on national television, why shouldn't I join in? Apparently all it takes to become an "economist" is the ability to speak and play guessing games. I am more than qualified as I can speak, play guessing games and push publish on the blogger "New Post" thingy. Therefore I am an economist.

While I agree that the recovery won't be in the normal sense. It really got me thinking about the system as a whole. How in the hell did we get here in the first place? Does anyone know what the hell is going on?
I'll start with the last one. I do think there are some people out there that know what the hell is going on. People like Peter Schiff, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and those pesky Austrian school economists over at Mises.org
Peter Schiff back in 2006 said that accurately forecast that the U.S. housing market was a bubble that would soon burst. He also is quoted as saying in 2006, "The United States economy is like the Titanic and I am here with the lifeboat trying to get people to leave the ship ...I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States."
Of course for being a prognosticator of things to come of which nobody wanted to hear, he was subject to ridicule. I'm not going to glorify Schiff by comparing him to Cassandra. Although I guess I just did.
The same could be said of the Austrians. Their economics don't fit with the current political and elite class in our society so they are ridiculed.

The next question which ties back in to my last sentence is how did we get here?
In my opinion, it's because we, as a public, have been fooled into believing that the solution to our economic woes are the same thing that got us into the predicament in the first place, spending.
Government spending has always been with us, governments tax and then spend. It's as natural as water flowing down a stream.
What isn't natural is what happened during the 1930's. The level of Government intrusion into the private sector was unheard of not just in the US but in Europe as well. Politicians have always been dirty, again that's natural. What the levels of spending did, was give the politicians more and more leverage to use to keep them in power.
Take Social Security, FDR was a genius passing that through. What it did was give people something for relatively nothing, and guarantee their votes for him as long as the government paid up. Politicians of both parties have been doing it ever since.
The Government has never, except for the ending of the two World Wars, decreased the level of spending compared to previous years. Government continue to grow, even if the economy doesn't. The true evil here is, thanks to the crack cocaine of Keynesianism, they spend more, when the economy is at it's worse. Of course where does the government get the money? From tax payers, borrowing or printing.
FDR was the original street hustler. Not only did he get the country addicted to "Free" government money, but his breaking away from the Gold Standard, made the government printing press more dangerous than all the flu outbreaks in the last 100 years. Fiat money, that's what we are addicted to. Gold used to be $30 an ounce, now it's around the $900 range and growing. The easy money policies, increased consumer credit. The increase in consumer credit made it easier for people to buy. And buy they did. J-Som hit it on the head when he said:

70% of US GDP is consumer spending. An economy that is based on consumer spending is, in fact, not an economy at all. It is the basis for other countries' economies. Further , it is a sink hole dependant on ever expanding lines of credit and the need for us wee folk to forever be debting to purchase more crap we do not need or want. The model of human beings/American citizens, called "consumers" by our good friends the economists, always consuming more as a way of life, thereby propping up the world economy is dying.

Washington wants us to buy buy buy shit we don't need. The over extension of credit, caused the housing bubble. People that couldn't afford a house, were given easy loans thanks to Fannie, Freddie, Politicians and ACORN. The banks didn't want to do it at first, but once they got a taste of that good government crack, they couldn't say no. So they became the "evil banks preying on the poor." It's easy to blame the banks for giving people money they couldn't pay back, for giving 10 credit cards to people making $10 bucks an hour, but lets not forget what enabled the banks to do it in the first place, the Government and its spending.
Now it's on to the bailouts and TARP. First of all, lets get something straight. The banks gave this money out, knowing full well that the Government would bail them out if they needed it. Why? because the government has been bought and paid for by Wall Street. Both parties get huge sums from Wall Street Banks every election cycle. This last cycle, Obama was at the top of the chart, well next to Dodd. It's an investment to Wall Street. Give the politicians money and a job, before or after office, and they will never be short of cash again. The government can force money from it's citizens, where as banks have to offer incentives. Which one do you think brings in the more cash?
And the system works wonderfully. TARP has given billions to the banks. Who knows how much and to whom. One thing is sure, the politicians in office now won't be short of campaign contributions come 2010 and beyond.
They games the system. It's the public that are the patsies. We pay the bill in the end. It's only a matter of what will be left when the dust settles.

This is more of a rant than anything else, so apologies if it doesn't flow that well.

Is it worth it?

2009-05-08T14:36:00.001-07:00

Is it worth $357,000?
Was it worth the terror felt by the NYC inhabitants, when they saw a 747 heading towards the Manhattan skyline, fearing another 9/11 style attack?

Finals

2009-05-08T14:25:00.000-07:00

Sorry haven't posted in a while, have finals and helping the wife with her finals. Next week, when I'm in San Antonio I should have some more time.

Obama hardball tactics

2009-05-05T11:39:00.000-07:00

And they used to say Bush was trying to shred the Constitution and civil liberties. Ha

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.

The White House has denied the allegation that it threatened Perella Weinberg.

They deny everything of course, but this story could have legs if the Obamamedia gets off Barry's nuts and actually reports the story...that of course remains to be seen.

I still hate Krugman

2009-05-04T19:42:00.000-07:00

His new piece is a piece of crap.
Talking about cutting wages...I know Krugman is drunk of the Keynesian Kool Aid. The same draught that help bring on this global recession, but leave it to a drunk to search for the answers in the same bottle that brought all the problems.

And soon we may be facing the paradox of wages: workers at any one company can help save their jobs by accepting lower wages, but when employers across the economy cut wages at the same time, the result is higher unemployment.

Krugman assumes that every industry in the entire country will cut wages, this of course will never happen. For one the huge Government employment machine can and will never cut wages. With Obama growing Government to astronomical levels, its hard to see wage cuts in xyz industry effecting the economy as a whole
Also, not all industries are effected the same way. Some industries are booming, can we say guns and ammo? The gun industry can't keep enough product on the shelf, demand is just too high. Oh and Best Buy is as busy as ever.
Of course Krugman doesn't mention Unions, whose wages were artificially inflated in the first place. Cutting UAW wages by 20% won't even bring then down to Toyota, or Honda wage levels.

Then Krugman goes on to quote Jack Daniels himself, Keynes.

Things get even worse if businesses and consumers expect wages to fall further in the future. John Maynard Keynes put it clearly, more than 70 years ago: “The effect of an expectation that wages are going to sag by, say, 2 percent in the coming year will be roughly equivalent to the effect of a rise of 2 percent in the amount of interest payable for the same period.” And a rise in the effective interest rate is the last thing this economy needs.

He is blind to the fact that wages, and prices never fall or rise uniformily. Like I said above, it's all relative. Krugman and Keynes are basing their arguement that the wages will fall for everyone at the same rate, which is simple not true nor can it ever be true. Their whole argument is based on a lie!

I encourage everyone to read, Failure of the New Economics by Henry Hazlitt. It is essential to disproving Keynes once and for all.

TARP Unconstitutional?

2009-05-04T13:23:00.000-07:00

TARP has been a power grab from the get go.

Now the Obama administration is using the authority in TARP to push through a bankruptcy plan for Chrysler.
It sets a very bad precedent. Under the plan, Chrysler's secured creditors, you know the people that loan Chrysler money, will get screwed in favor of the UAW.

The kicker is now those creditors, that Obama wanted to push out have filed in court that it violates their 5th amendment rights.

Remember all the Dems that said Bush was trying to destroy the consitution? Yeah....right.

15. Relying on purported authority provided by TARP, the Treasury Department is demanding that Chrysler’s assets be stripped away from the coverage of the Senior Lenders’ liens – thereby impairing the rights of the Senior Lenders to realize upon those assets – so that those assets may be put in New Chrysler and used to the benefit of unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then be paid much more than the Senior Lenders. But, even assuming that TARP provides the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors and impose the transfer of collateral away from the Senior Lenders, TARP was enacted long after the Senior Lenders contracted with the Debtors and received senior liens on the Debtors’ property. Radford specifically disallowed the use of a law to retroactively alter existing liens on property.

God I hope this goes to the SCOTUS and I hope they strike TARP down as unconsitituional once and for all.

SCOTUS Problems?

2009-05-01T06:32:00.000-07:00

Who do you think Obama will appoint to SCOTUS?

The first Hispanic? Asian? Openly Gay? A woman?

Or run of the mill old white liberal male?

Given that Souter has been one of the more liberal judges, even though he was appointed by Bush I, it could give Obama big headaches, since he has a host of special interest groups that will want their own kind of judge on the bench.

Michael Cane is awesome!

2009-04-28T12:25:00.000-07:00

For background, Britain is on the verge of collapse.

Instead of cutting back on spending, they want to raise taxes up to 50%.

Will there be a Tea Party in Britain like here in the States?

Maybe if there are more people like Sir Michael Cane...

His name, as they say, is Michael Caine. And he's not a happy bunny. The 76-year-old film star has revealed in colourful terms that he has had it, and will leave Britain if taxes get any higher.

"The Government has taken tax up to 50 per cent, and if it goes to 51 I will be back in America," he said at the weekend. "We've got 3.5 million layabouts on benefits, and I'm 76, getting up at 6am to go to work to keep them. Let's get everybody back to work so we can save a couple of billion and cut tax, not keep sticking it up."

Who knows, but doesn't that response sound remarkably similar to what we will being doing in the US soon?
The Obama administration wants a de facto nationalization of GM, probably Chrysler too.
Of course the Treasury math doesn't add up.

The point is, Britain nationalized their car industry and it is gone. Now they don't get any revenue from it. Their industrial base is dying and now they are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Unions help kill theirs and now want to help kill ours.
How long before our car industry is gone?
How long before we are all bankrupt and forced to live off China's handouts?
I'm sure glad I bought a Ford now!

Obama Tortures NYC

2009-04-27T20:00:00.001-07:00

What would you call flying a plane flying this dangerously close to the NYC skyline?

I don't quite know how to embed a video so you'll have to watch this at breitbart.tv

What in the hell were they thinking?

President Obama's White House was forced to issue an apology Monday after a photo opportunity gone badly wrong — an Air Force 747 plane did a low flyover over Lower Manhattan, prompting terrified citizens to flee from their offices and high-profile accusations of government insensitivity in the post 9/11 era.

All for a damn photo op? Something is seriously wrong with these people in Government.
If anyone had any thought that the Democrats in power have reverted back to a pre-9/11 mindset, this should be proof positive that they have.

So let's get this straight.

Slapping a terrorist is torture.
Putting a terrorist in a cell with a caterpillar is torture.
Waterboarding the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks to get information to stop future attacks is torture.
Flying airplanes over the New York skyline not all that far from ground zero is "insensitive."

Let's get this straight right here and right now. The CIA interrogation techniques were used against enemy combatants. They weren't innocent victims plucked of the street. These people killed or had the intention to kill American civilians any way they could. These people killed innocent women and children. These people beheaded civilians and soldiers alike. And these asshats in Washington, want up to feel sorry for them, and wand us to feel immoral because we slapped them around to get information? Get fucking Real!!!!

Then those asshats in Washington think it's ok to partially recreate one the worst acts of violence in the last 50 years for a fucking photo?

What side are they one?

A civil rights President?

2009-04-25T14:32:00.000-07:00

There is really not much to say here. Obama pretty much says it all. Why did anyone vote for this man?

The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.
However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.
The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be "represented by counsel", but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to "protect the adversary process" in a criminal trial.

Go figure, only a UK paper will cover it.

Why are Democrats so dumb?

2009-04-23T21:43:00.000-07:00

So they were tricked by that "idiot" Bush into a war with Iraq.

Now Pelosi is playing dumb on when she was briefed on CIA interrogation techniques.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

Now it's really not hard to believe that Pelosi is an idiot. Still...Democrat's will tell everyone how stupid they were to be tricked into doing what they were "morally" opposed to.
And this woman is 3rd in line to POTUS!!!!

Thor help us!

Political Compass Test

2009-04-23T14:52:00.000-07:00

Here take this test.

Have to warn you though, it's heavily liberally biased. It's a perfect example of how Obama can get a 73% approval rating.

All you have to do is frame the question a certain way, oh like..."Do you agree with Dick Cheney's assessment that Obama is going to wreck the country?"
Since you know most people hate Dick Cheney, then most people will automaticall disagree with Cheney and Obama's "Approval Rating" will then go up. That's what CBS/NYTimes poll did last week.

What Pew did was different. They just sampled 100 more Democrats than Republicans, and then who knows how many of the "independents" were in fact independents. Obviously they weren't any Tea Party demonstrators, that is sure.

They go by the philosophy that perception is reality. If you don't agree with Obama, they want you to think your the extreme minority and therefor your opinion should be marginalized. It's a tactic they have and will use time and time again.

I rather like this poll.

Sixty percent (60%) of Americans say the federal government has too much power and too much money, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Or how about this one?

70% of U.S. voters believe that big business and big government generally work together against the interests of investors and consumers, according to Rasmussen Reports surveying. Just 14% disagree with the assessment, and 17% are not sure.

So who do you think Obama is working for?

Oh yeah here is my score for the political compass test.

Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92

Liberal Hypocrisy

2009-04-21T19:26:00.000-07:00

Now I don't watch pageants at all. I didn't even know that Miss America was on this last weekend. I had much better things to do, so I didn't watch it.
I watched this clip. I was totally appalled.
Perez Hilton is a jackass, asshat. I really can't apply describe the level of bigotry and hate coming out of that man.
For one, trying to make a political statement out of a damn beauty pageant is stupid. That is besides the point, but his tirade after the fact. Calling Miss California and "B$%ch" and a "Cu$t" is beyond mean.
Watching Perez and Garaffalo, you can get a real sense of how tolerant Liberals really are.
Democrats have been and still are the party of bigots. They hate anyone that doesn't think exactly like them. They hate you if you have an opinion of your own and they hate you for any reason they can think of.

I'm so glad I dumped the Democratic Party.

Fiscal Responsibility?

2009-04-20T18:24:00.000-07:00

I can't believe it but the Associated Press is calling bullshit on Obama's budget cuts.

Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you've just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.
Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital's attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.
The bottom line: Not much.

Is it the end of the honeymoon?

I'd say so, now that Axelrod calls protests "Unhealthy."

Seriously, such hypocrisy is why I left the Democratic Party. Thank the gods I did!

Non-Political Front

2009-04-19T10:32:00.000-07:00

I miss Vegas. I can't wait to go back for a week or so in October.

Climate Change Update

2009-04-19T06:29:00.000-07:00

Great news today from Rasmussen.

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying.

That number is down from last year's number of 47%. Now that we are getting real scientists looking at the problem, I think that number will drop another 10 points next year. Especially now that the EPA wants to regulate CO2.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.

Imagine that, the Earth actually goes through natural climate changes? So all the warming since the last ice age wasn't caused by man? Oh no...Gore's head will explode soon.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem.

That number will go down as soon as the schools start teaching little things like Photosynthesis, and how the ecosystem works. Of course that would mean, schools would have to divert resources away from teaching kids that FDR is a God and all must worship him. No matter, I have my faith in science and that cooler climate heads will win out. Much like the Flat Earth is a no brainer now, AGW will be a no brainer in 20 years.

This is on top of the wonderful news that Antarctic Ice is growing.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

I don't expect that paper to be circulated much around the US though. The MSM here has been way too over the top in the tank with Gore and the blame humans for everything crowd.

If you actually want to have a debate, read this article by Roy Spencer.

There are two new scientific findings that will have a huge impact on the global warming debate—if they are allowed to see the light of day. The fi rst is compelling new evidence that suggests that global warming has been mostly natural, the result of an internally generated climate fluctuation called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The second is the increasing amount of observational evidence that the climate system is largely insensitive to our greenhouse gas emissions.

Imagine a scientist actually doing real science. Life is good again.

Obama's CIA doubletake

2009-04-17T16:36:00.000-07:00

There is growing anger from the Left over Obama's refusal to charge CIA agents with war crimes. You know you have made the Left mad, when Olbermann wags his finger at you.
On one of my favorite blogs Liberal Rapture a commenter asked this.

"Why is it ok for them to be arrested and tried and not the CIA agents who participated in this torture? Were the guards and officers in the Concentration Camps only following the orders of their leader, Hitler? Am I the only one who sees this?" - Mary Ellen

This was my response.

The simple reason is that the Nazi were the enemy. The CIA agents are working for the US.

If Hitler would have won, who would he have had tried at Nuremberg? He who wins, gets the spoils. It's not "fair" or "just" but neither is war and neither is terror. Was it fair for AQ to ram planes into the WTC? Was it fair for AQ to behead American, Japanese citizens and broadcast it over the Internet?
Let me be clear here, I'm not complacent in what happened. We (the US) needs to be held accountable for our offenses. Yet I only have sympathy for those that were not guilty, but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
For those like Khalid Sheik Mohammad that planned the WTC attack and those like him, they deserve what they get.

Think about this, how far would you be willing to go to get information from someone who, let's say has kidnapped your child and that child will die if the police don't get them quickly? Yes it's a rhetorical question, but it needs to be answered. Would you let your child die, because you think shoving water down the perps thought to get him to talk is wrong? Or would you pull out his fingernails to get him to talk. Say what you want on this board, but at least be honest to yourself.
Make no mistake, I would take a frackin meat grinder to any asshole that messed with my family like that, nail guns, hot oil and bacon if their Muslim.

But it got me thinking about what Obama is doing. Seriously why did Obama release the memos then go and say he wasn't going to do anything?

By releasing the memos, I think Obama is at once trying to appease the growing hostility from the Left, that feels like he is dragging his feet. Remember how Obama said he was going to shut Guantanamo down immediately, but it's still not shut down. Obama doesn't know what do to with the prisoners, France will only take 1.
The memos from the Bush administration will and have created a outcry for "justice" from the Left. But really, it's just more Bush bashing. See how quickly Bush and Nazi have come up. The problem with that is obvious. Hitler killed millions of Jews, Bush overthrew Saddam and set up the foundation for a deomocratic government in Iraq.
To the Left though, the ends don't justify the means. If they did, then the shear proof that we haven't been attacked since 9/11, while Spain, UK, and India all have should be enough.

No...Obama's release is a political ploy. But what is he trying to hide?
I think he is trying to hide his domestic spying power grab from the Left. What else could blind the Left more fervently than more Bush bashing. Meanwhile Obama lays waste to all his campaign promises on domestic spying and FISA. Glenn Greenwald has been adamant in his attacks on Obama over this.
I've said before I don't agree with Greenwald on much anymore, but at least he has a core set of values. Something Obama clearly lacks.
Yet in simultaneously releasing the memos and don't doing anything, he opened a can of worms. The Right will attack him no matter what. But now the he has given the Left some new ammunition to use. And we all know the kind of venom the Left can spew. Just look at Garofalo talk about the Tea Party Protests.

The Right has been saying Obama = Carter 2 for a while now.
The Left is now going to start saying Obama = Bush 3.

We are all 'Right Wing Extremists" now

2009-04-14T18:01:00.000-07:00

The DHS has a new report out titled:
Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

Michelle Malkin has excellent coverage of it on her site.

The best part is that by the DHS, own definition everyone can be labeled a "Right Wing Extremist."

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The Left definitely falls into the anti-government during the Bush years, the Right is that way now.

It's good to now that if you don't follow exactly the Left's talking points, you are by definition a "Right Wing"er.

Anyone know where I can find another copy of 1984?

It's nice to know that the Government is watching the little guy.

Moar Churchill

2009-04-14T02:04:00.000-07:00

We need more men like Winston Churchill in times like these.
North Korea vows to boycott any disarmament talks, basically telling the world to eat shit.
Iran trying US citizens behind closed doors on propped up charges.
Is there a leader we can turn to?
For god sake, we are all screwed if all we have to rely on is President "Blame America for everything" Obama.

There is a striking similarity between the current situation of North Korea and Iran trying to get nuclear weapons and 1930's Germany and Italy. Particularly in the reactions from the international communities.
What did the League of Nations do to stem the rise of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany?
Nothing

What has the UN done to stop North Korea and Iran from gaining nuclear weapons?
Nothing

Obama did give a strongly worded letter to Mr Kim Jong Il.

No what we need are men of courage and men of integrity like Churchill.
Churchill on the Munich Agreement:

"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral heal

th and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

I'm on Twitter

2009-04-13T12:19:00.001-07:00

http://twitter.com/Zombiehero

Paul Krugman is a Dips#$t.

2009-04-13T11:47:00.001-07:00

Just to let everyone know, I really don't like Paul Krugman.
His new column doesn't help that any.

Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.

Ok I can buy that, the Democrats have a majority in the House and almost Filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Then Krugster goes in to his GOP bashing.

Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.

Actually it doesn't feel right to make fun of Democrats, but that's subjective. Let's see, the Dems have the power to do what they want but can't get:

Card Check
Cap and Trade
Health Care

through Congress....yeah must be those Republicans that have "no ability to make or even significantly shape policy."

But of course since the GOP doesn't have the ability to shape policy, that doesn't stop Paul from making fun of them. But then to say that the only policy Debates are coming from the Democrats? What the hell is he smoking?
There is no debate among the Dems, if your not with them, then your a racist....just see the whole Sen Roland Burris debacle.
Actually the only debate at the Obama Administration seems to be how many of Bush's policies can we keep in place without everyone knowing about it.
Oh wait Republican's are "crazy people."
So Obama is dumber than a "crazy" person, for keeping all those "crazy" policies in place....

Yeah some policy debate.

I have a big problem with Krugman's arrogant stance against the Tea Party movement.

These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.

The only mockery comes from the Left. Spending 13 min on MSNBC to "Teabagging Puns." Yeah that's real mature from the Left.
What do you expect from the "War is lost" party, to the now let's escalate the war in Afghanistan, and ask for more money, while hoping no one calls out the rank hypocrisy of the whole situation because they voted against Bush doing the same thing.
So what does that say about Obama, who is keeping all of Bush's "crazy" policies in place?
Yeah no need to answer...

I think Paul is upset because the Left can't organize demonstrations of their own anymore.
He is probably sad because no one actually agrees with his own call for nationalization. And rightly so, that would be socialistic. So Krugman tries to deflect the charge of socialism.

But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to.

Didn't Obama say something about "spreading the wealth around?" Oh I'm sure little details like that are too petty for Krugman to worry about.

Then Krugman tries to smear the Tea Party movement using flat out lies.

Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim.

Yeah claims...no need to quote a source at all...just throw out insinuations and lies to make a point. Oh wait, my bad....yeah there were people saying those things, they work for ACORN.

Don't let the facts get in your diatribe Mr. Krugman. No one is seriously listening to you anyway.

Why do we have to go to Foreign Media to get the story?

2009-04-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

From the Australian:

After all, on all the big foreign policy questions, Obama has continued Bush's policies. The predator drones still fly over Pakistan, destroying any al-Qa'ida operative dumb enough to talk on the phone. The terrorists are still in Guantanamo as Obama's administration develops the Bush administration's decision to shut Guantanamo, as a necessity of global PR, while trying to stop the terrorists from going back to killing civilians. Like Bush, Obama is pursuing an attempt to engage the Iranian regime and even using the same official Bush did. He is withdrawing from Iraq very slowly, on a timetable approved by Republican senator John McCain. He acknowledges the success of the US troop surge in Iraq and wants to emulate it in Afghanistan. He stands four square behind Israel's security. And so on.
Yet while much of the world hated Bush with an irrational passion, allegedly for these policies, it loves Obama with at least a seemingly similar passion, notwithstanding these very same policies.

From the UK Telegraph:

President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice.
Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l'il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.

"Rules must be binding," declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. "Violations must be punished." (Sounds ominous.) "Words must mean something." (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)

President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.

That's just for Foreign Policy. when we start talking about something closer to home like the Global Warming Hoax, we get gems like these.

The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told the Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geo-engineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays.

Of course nothing can possible go wrong, right? Oh but wait is the science behind this global warming fiasco conclusive?
Well of course you have to go to the UK Register in order to read about a new NASA study on the melting Arctic ice. The AGW alarmists love to use Arctic Ice as evidence of AGW, so what dos NASA have to say?

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Just let the Left keep telling themselves, that there is no Media Bias. Just like little kids hide under the blanket to protect themselves from the Boogyman. The left keeps it's blinders on to what Obama is doing. See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil....eventually you can convince yourself of anything.

At least there are a few Left commentators that actually have some values and a spine.

The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions. Leave aside for the moment the issue of whether you believe that the U.S. Government should have the right to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to faraway prisons and hold them there indefinitely without charges or any rights at all. The Bush DOJ -- and now the Obama DOJ -- maintain the President does and should have that right, and that's an issue that has been extensively debated. It was, after all, one of the centerpieces of the Bush regime of radicalism, lawlessness and extremism.

I encourage everyone to read Glenn Greenwald at Salon. I don't agree with him on much anymore, but at least he is willing to challenge Obama on the Administrations hypocracy.

This is scary

2009-04-07T19:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.end22.com/

Then we can be like Venezuela too!!!

More Sowell

2009-04-07T06:16:00.000-07:00

It gets harder and harder for me to make regular posts with school and work. I did work 112 hours this last two weeks. I need to find a format that works for me. Instead of try, rather badly IMO, to write a big commentary, I think I will try a Post a link and write a few sentences about it approach. I will rant and rave on a few things though. I also will try and post some comments that I make to various blogs, I think my 5 min of madness posts are the better ones than my try to think of something for 50 min approach. Anywho on that note...some killer quotes from Professor Sowell, my favorite economist and social commentator.

The famous editorial cartoonist Herblock could write as well as draw. In one of his books, he said something like: "You too can have the soothing feeling of nature's own baby-soft wool being pulled gently over your resting eyes." I think of that every time I see Barack Obama talking.

You ain't kiddin'. The hope and change mantra is slowly going away but there are way too many people still star struck. Maybe now that his budget is passed in the House and Senate, people will realize the kind of deficits Obama will "enjoy" for his term.

Barack Obama seems determined to repeat every disastrous mistake of the 1930s, at home and abroad. He has already repeated Herbert Hoover's policy of raising taxes on high income earners, FDR's policy of trying to micro-manage the economy and Neville Chamberlain's policy of seeking dialogues with hostile nations while downplaying the dangers they represent.

The reason more people don't talk about his....see quote one.

Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points, rather than in terms of real world consequences.

I agree this is the scariest one. People want to think in terms on labels. If your free market and less government intervention, then you must be a "Rethuglican." If you want low taxes on what you earn and want to keep the fruits of your labor, then you must just want to horde and stick it to the poor while trying to keep them down.
It's truly disingenuous argument to say that if your a AGW (man made global warming) skeptic, then you must be bought and paid for by the oil industry or worse they say you must not believe science. Of course the fact that they "have the soothing feeling of nature's own baby-soft wool being pulled gently" pulled over their own eyes by the likes of Al Gore and his fellow Democrats because they see Cap and Trade as a money making venture, never come into question.
What is truly sad is the state of education in this country. Me and my wife have already decided that we are going for private school starting with pre-K. She told me the story of her history teacher telling her that the Holocaust didn't happen, and that she was sent to the dean because she called "BS" on her teacher did it for me. I can see that the current public system is rotten to the core. It only took reading about the Little Rock School District and how it is so ineptly run by the gang of 4, to get me on the path to private school. They are getting way too much money for the shitty job they are doing to our kids. That is a fact.
We have two sides in my view. On one side is the people that really want whats best for the kids. They want more choice in schools. Letting parents decide which schools they want their own kids to go to, that means vouchers for those that can't afford them. That's what DC kids enjoyed until recently. The other side is on the side of teacher and administration unions. They want more money, more money and yes even more money. They say they don't have enough funding and the only way to improve schools, test scores and graduation rates is more and more money. Where has all the previous money gone? No, I'm not talking about TARP. Why are teachers being paid so little and the administration being paid so much for such and inferior product?
This being my blog, I'll tell you what I think. I think it because they want it. They want an inferior product. They are against vouchers, private schools and homeschooling because they want the money those programs get. They pay teachers so much less, so they drive out the good teachers, keep the shitty ones and then use that to say they need more funding. Like the Leviathan, they will never be satiated. They want all the money.

Liberals seem to think that they are doing lagging groups a favor by making excuses for counterproductive and self-destructive behavior. The poor do not need press agents. They need the truth. No one ever said, "Press agents will make you free."

Thank the Gods for people like Sowell.

Big Brother to set wages for everyone.

2009-03-31T10:12:00.000-07:00

There is a book out there, well two that everyone needs to read, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged. We are slowly yet surely going to turn into a socialist state. I say small S socialism, because the government won't actually own all that much. Big S socialism is that little thing they have in Venezuela.

Step one: Bail out companies that should have died away in the first place, because those companies gave a lot of money to your campaign fund. Check
Step two: Create a public out rage at executive compensasion, yet keep the fact that the companies gave heftily to your campaign fund. Check
Step three: Use that public outrage to pass legislation for even more government control of wages. In Progress.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

Of course this leaves the Obama administration as the sole body to determine what pay is "reasonable" or "fair." Hmmm...smells like Chicago politics to me.
Let's see, if you gave money to the Obama campaign and are a good foot soldier, I'm sure your pay will be "reasonable."
If you voted for the other guy and don't have a lot of nice things to say about Obama, I'm sure your pay will be made more "reasonable."
Let's recap. The banks get off, except for a few strawmen at AIG. The car companies get hostilly taken over by the government. Now the Fed can dictate what a person can get paid.
Yep thats small S socialism. I don't know about you, but I have a craving for Tea.

This is why I love Thomas Sowell

2009-03-30T21:11:00.000-07:00

A Rookie President

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.
Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies.
However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

Obama is this years Ryan Leaf.

Gotta Love that ACORN President

2009-03-30T20:36:00.000-07:00

From the Philadelphia Bulletin:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”
During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:
“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom [a NYT reporter] reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

You really have to love the NY Times. They will do anything to make sure there man gets elected.

Epic Fail

2009-03-30T15:39:00.000-07:00

"Scenario 2: The main risk scenario (30% probability)

Stimulus fails, leading to continued asset price deflation and sustained contraction in the leading economies—a depression persisting for some years. The stubborn decline in global economic activity is punctuated by occasional rallies that are taken as signs of recovery, but these quickly fade as the underlying downward trend reasserts itself. The prominent role of governments in propping up banks and reviving domestic demand leads to strong political pressure for protectionism, effectively putting the process of globalization into reverse."

I think we are seeing that now.

The Dow tumbled 254.16, or 3.3 percent, to 7,522.02.
We are effectively in a trade war with Mexico, soon to be in one with Canada.
The Fed is printing money like crazy to try and stop deflation, to the detriment of the dollar.
Now China wants a new international currency, something Turbo Tax Tim says is good...therefore it's really really bad.

The good news is that everyone that wants to see Obama fail will see EPIC FAIL.
The bad news is he will take everyone down with him.

Skeptics are growing.

2009-03-26T21:57:00.000-07:00

It's nice to see scientists start to question the validity of Man made Global Warming. The newest Thinker to add his name to skeptic column is the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson. The NY Times of all places, writes about his skepticism.
One thing I find particularly interesting is the notion of consensus. Most AGW (man made global warming) purveyors use the idea of a consensus as a bludgeon. They want to stifle debate by saying "Science has proven," "All scientists," or "Any intelligent person must believe that man is the cause of global warming." The truth of the matter is that nothing in science can ever be proven. I firmly belive that when every scientists come to and believe the exact same thing, the science itself is dead.
There is a new religion in town and it's called environmentalism. Like any religion, it started out as a force for good. Cleaning up the planet, curbing polution, and protecting dying species are good things. We want to leave the planet in as good a condition as we found it. Yet, it had now been perverted by the cult of AGW.
Al Gore, the cheif Propoganists relies too much on computer models and his hockey stick graphs. As more and more data come to light that casts doubt on the validity of the models, people just keep making excuses. They can't possible fathom, why in the last 10 years, when Carbon Dioxide emissions have spiked, global tempuratures havn't. Dyson was saying. “They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”
Dyson is one of those skeptics that thinks increased Carbon Dioxide is...wait for it...good for plants. He contends that AGW alarmists don't look at the biology, that plants actually like Carbon...something about a Photosynthesis?

Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.”

This comming from a man with an Obama sticker on his car. True scientists don't just bow down to ideology. Ideological driven science is a cancer that must be irradiated. The quasi-religous AGW backers will try to slander people like Dyson. It's always easier to kill the messenger than actually debate the message.

Dyson says it’s only principle that leads him to question global warming: “According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because I’m paid by the oil industry. Of course I’m not, but that’s part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you’re a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry.” Global warming, he added, “has become a party line.”

I predict more and more people will actually look at the data, look at the models and see that the models are full of it. All those people that depend on models and consensus don't want a debate, since they know real debate will show their position to be lacking.

Mandatory Volunteerism?

2009-03-21T19:08:00.000-07:00

The House passed the The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act by a vote of 321-105.

The really scary part is the creation of a commission on "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

I'm sorry but this is just way too scary. Does anyone remember history? I wonder who will be forced to "Volunteer?"

Fiddling While Rome Burns

2009-03-13T12:37:00.000-07:00

The depiction of Nero fiddling while Rome burns in the background has become synonymous with both incompetence and a total detachment to reality. It’s a metaphor that has been increasingly used to describe the Obama Administration. The Economy is in the tank, thanks to a carefully crafted campaign by Obama to depict it as a “Catastrophe” waiting to happen. All the while, the Administration has yet to give a solid plan to recovery.

While the Economy burned, Obama took a hands off approach to crafting the Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The result, a partisan mess that deflated, rather quickly, the much talked about era of post-partisanship. It didn’t receive one Republican vote in the House and only enough to barely pass in the Senate. It didn’t even meet Treasury Sec. Geithner’s conditions of temporary, targeted and timely.

Obama’s budget calls for even more spending; while at the same time saying it will cut budget deficits. It assumes an overly generous assessment of economic growth in order to semi-balance its books. Tim Geithner recently went to the Senate to defend Obama’s budget, getting a dressing down by Judd Greg, Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary. Gregg told Sec. Geithner, “The argument that it cuts the debt in half in four years is, ah, is truly spurious.” He even went as far to say “When you take the deficit and quadruple it and then you cut it and half, that’s like taking four steps back and two steps forward, That’s not making any progress; you’re still going backwards.” Much of the details of Obama’s budget will be filled in later.

Then enter the Omnibus bill, which even though people are hurting in this economic downturn, has over 9,000 earmarks of Pork. Obama didn’t want to tarnish his image so he had his friends strip his name off of earmarks he put in while still a Senator. It was signed behind closed doors the day after it passed Congress, a direct slap in the face to all the rhetoric of transparency and accountability.

While Rome burns, Obama wants to spend. It’s not his money; it’s not even our money. Most of the money will be borrowed. Creating a huge debt that will have to be paid of eventually. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently said

“In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion between the Stimulus and the Omnibus. To put that in perspective, that’s about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour—most of it borrowed. There’s simply no question: government spending has spun out of control.”

While Rome burns, instead of actually giving, instead of just promising, hope and confidence in the economy. He has his staff attack the critics of his economic and social plans. Meanwhile, Americans have lost 18% of their worth due to the decline of the Stock Market. Instead of taking any responsibility, Obama keeps blaming others.

While Rome burns, the Obama’s have been busy trying to get their place in the DC social scene. According to the Washington Times;

“Earlier this year, the Obama administration invited top editors of three of Washington’s local luxury lifestyle magazines to a meeting where they discussed, among other things, how President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama can embrace Washington’s glittery social scene.”

It amazes me that a President that so wants to be part of the in crowd, doesn’t even know how to treat a valued guest and friend, in UK’s Prime Minister. It is absolutely scandalous how Obama treated Gordon Brown. I personally apologize to any Brit for the way Brown was treated. Michelle definitely didn’t do dignity to the title of First Lady by giving Mr. Brown’s children $15 souvenirs of Marine One. It shows a serious lack of class on the Obamas, and in turn the American people.

While Rome burns, Obama want to pass his, very partisan version of Health Care Reform. To bad his initial pick for Health and Human Services Secretary couldn’t have the grace enough to pay his taxes. Instead, he wants to spend our tax money to help create a new entitlement program that will cost the taxpayers billions, $600 billion is after all just a “down payment.” Silly me, my plebian brain, actually thought “toxic” assets were the root cause of our economic downturn. It was lack of health care all along, why did we spend $700 billion, which Obama voted for in the Senate, for TARP? What about TARP II? Why the hell is Pelosi calling for a second stimulus package, if all we need is affordable health care?

While Rome burn, Obama is pushing for a Cap and Trade scheme for carbon emissions. Let’s totally ignore the fact, that cap and trade has failed Europe. Let’s totally ignore the fact, that cap and trade is another tax, a tax that will be passed on to the consumer. Consumers are experiencing hard financial times, how many economists out there say that raising any taxes during a recession is a good thing to jump start the economy.

While Rome burns, Obama is using the fires to recreate the Government in his own image. Obamanomics is already a failure. Geithner doesn’t know how to answer the simple question of what is a saved job? Geithner, who was assured by Obama, was needed in order to turn the economy around has offered a sum total of Zero plans. His lack of a plan, help precipitate the biggest decline of the Stock Market since Obama took office.

Obama seems totally ignorant of the fact that most Americans have much other life savings tied to the Stock Market. He even says he doesn’t care about the day to day “gyrations” of the market. Hell he doesn’t even know that “profits and earnings” are the same damn thing. Are the American people that are seeing their worth go down the tubes mean anything?

If the President cared a damn, he would have the SEC get rid of the Mark to Market rules that helped cause this mortgage meltdown. He would actually have to take his eye off the fiddle and see the fires burning around him. It’s clear to me and a lot of other people, that Obama was more interested in becoming the President than actually being the President. His “hands off” approach to governing is the epitome of Nero fiddling. I just hope that the American people have enough buckets to put out the fires that Obama doesn’t seem to notice.

Obama loves Pork

2009-03-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

Good news kids, Obama has broken another campaign promise today. Remember back during the debates when Obama said he would go "line by line" to cut unnecessary spending? Yeah, I knew he was shoveling BS, but people bought it. Well today Pres. Sunshine signed, behind closed doors, the bill that contains 9,000+ earmarks for about $5.5 billion dollars.
Remember this bill also contained Earmarks by Obama that conveiniently had his name stricken from them.
Even more hypocritical is that Obama issued a signing statement along with the bill. He has attacked Bush in the past about the use of signing statements. What do you expect from Obama though. Peter Schweizer needs to have a whole volume of Do As I Say (Not As I D0), sepecifially for Obama.

I need that job!

2009-03-11T08:53:00.000-07:00

Is this a distraction too?

“In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion between the Stimulus and the Omnibus,” McConnell says. “To put that in perspective, that’s about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour—most of it borrowed. There’s simply no question: government spending has spun out of control.”

Maybe there all at the gym?

2009-03-11T08:16:00.000-07:00

It seems that the Obama administration really has no clue on how to run a government. It should be no surprise to anyone, who actually looked at Obama's past. He might be a great organizer, but organization and management are two completely different things. Case in point, Obama's totally and complete amateurish handling of Gordon Brown's state visit last week.
Since the MSM here in the US thought that talking about Michelle Obama's arms were more important than talking about the Brown visit. You have to look at the UK press for the information.
Simply put Obama was too tired to care.

They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.
But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship

Hey guess what President Sunshine, you wanted the job! If you can't handle it then GTFO. Giving Brown a $39.99 stack of DVD from Wal-Mart isn't how you handle the US's best and most revered ally for the last century. British and American soldiers bleed on the same beaches, trying to rescue Europe from Socialist Dictators like Hitler and Mousolini. British and American diplomats and Military worked together to fight the Cold War. British Intelligence is vital to keeping not only Europe safe, but also America safe from global terrorism.

Obama and his staff (Clinton holdovers who know what to do and how to handle foreign dignitaries) have had the worst transition in the last 100 years.

You have a Tresury that has no staff, in times of "Catastrophe." If the economy is so bad, why doesn't the Obama Administration have 100s of staffers working around the clock to help in this financial crisis? Are they all at the gym?

But yesterday, Sir Gus O'Donnell, Britain's most senior civil servant, exposed transatlantic tension when he protested that Downing Street was finding it "unbelievably difficult" to plan for next month's G20 summit in London because of problems tracking down senior figures in the US administration. "There is nobody there. You cannot believe how difficult it is," the Cabinet Secretary told a civil service conference in Gateshead.

To quote Dowd, "Let’s face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps." Seems like she is onto something. The Obama administration doesn't know what to do, maybe they need Michelle to whip them into shape. I guess we know who wears the pants in that family now.

What if he succeeds?

2009-03-08T14:00:00.000-07:00

There is a lot hubbub on Rush Limbaugh’s comments about wanting Obama to fail. People on the Left are accusing Rush of a great many things, my favorite being that Rush is guilty of treason. Now coming as someone that criticized Bush on a lot of things over the last 8 years, I know most of the arguments and especially the treason argument is intellectually dishonest and frankly really low brow. Dissent is still patriotic, no matter who is in the White House. It’s hypocritical to say any different just because a Democrat is it’s resident instead of a Republican.

Only Rush knows exactly what he meant, when he said it. My personal interpretation is that he was talking about particular economic, social and foreign policies that he wants to fail. It’s his right as an American citizen to say whatever he damn well pleases. I don’t have to agree with him but I have no right to forcibly shut him up. Those that do probably never learned much in History class, particularly the lectures on Fascism and Stalinism. Yet it brings up an important point, what if Obama succeeds in implementing his economic, social and foreign policies?

What if Obama passes his Health Care “Reform?” How will that affect the average you? There are many things to consider in the long term, that isn’t being talked about in the media. What will happen to the quality of Health Care? Above all, this is what I consider the most important question. I think most proponents of a Universal Health Care system, think that the quality of care will remain the same as they are now. That the only difference is that more people will have access. They are delusional.

One thing the government does really well is put price controls on anything they touch. The Left claims it’s all in the name of fairness, for the poor. It’s easy to attack insurance carriers about the high cost of health care, but when the government becomes the insurance carrier, will dissent still be patriotic? Think about this, if the government wants to cut costs on health procedures, the easiest way is to put price controls in place to stop doctors from charging “exorbitant” fees. The Government already does this with Medicare and Medicaid, which causes the doctors to have to charge more to private insurance carriers in order to pay for little things like, equipment, supplies, nurses, diagnostic equipment, even conferences to learn new techniques and learn about new medicines to help extent human longevity. The doctor might still have medical school loans to pay off and he might have the audacity to think he deserves some compensation for his/her years of training and hard work helping those with medical needs.

So what are we going to cut? The doctor will have costs that vary depending on market conditions yet will be saddles with a fixed income from the Government. Will the doctor trim the fat on equipment and diagnostic tools? The patients will suffer from an inability to properly diagnose illnesses.

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, the would be architect of Obama’s Health Care system even said in his book Critical, that people will have to forgo expensive procedures in order to cut costs, “Those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.” Some of these unnecessary procedures are things like, CT Scans, MRIs, Experimental Cancer and AIDS treatment, pretty much anything that involves cutting edge technology and research. They are expensive because they are still in trials and haven’t been streamlined by industry and business. Daschle talks about his desire to create a federal planning board to make Americans’ health care decisions. This system is the same as they have in Britain. This same system denies patients with new treatments for Alzheimer’s and breast cancer. I really would like some to explain how that is in the best interest of the patient.

Let’s look at the hypothetical, what if the doctor is forced to take a pay cut as well. I can hear the argument now; doctors make too much money off the backs of the poor. It is unfair to pay $100 for a Cortisone shot and just like CEOs, the doctors are making too much money. This totally disregards the fact that a doctor has to charge $100 to a Cortisone shot to make up for the lost $3000 because Medicare has a cap on what they pay. I’m of course talking about the present situation, but a Government run system will on exacerbate the problem.

So in order to cut costs, doctors must take a pay cut. Who do you think will want to become a doctor, when they can make much more money as a lawyer suing doctors for malpractice? It’s simple economics, a person can make $X as a lawyer or $X-100, 000 as a doctor plus have to pay for sky-high malpractice insurance. What would you choose? As a result, the best and brightest will go to Harvard Law instead of Harvard Medical. Who will be left to fill those spots at Harvard Medical? It’s easy, the second tier candidates. Then who will be left to fill the spots at those second tier medical schools? The third tier medical students, you see where I’m going with this. If you think the quality of doctors coming out of the Island of St. Thomas Medical School is a joke now. Just wait until after Obamacare. Lower quality doctors mean higher rates of malpractice, which in turn means more lawyers, creating a positive feedback system that only lowers the quality of health care for all.

This of course leads to a second point in Obama’s Health Care Plan. Much like his Stimulus Bill and Mortgage Bill, it fails to address some fundamental issues that contribute to rising health care costs.

As I mentioned above, a lot of the costs attributed to cost control measures put in place under Medicare. According to the American Medical Association, Medicare will cut payments to doctors by 40% by 2018. Assuming Obamacare doesn’t pass, this extra 40% will be carried by private insurance and people paying out of pocket. If a procedure cost $5000, and Medicare will only pay $4000, the other $1000 will have to be picked up by someone. Insurance companies will pass this extra cost onto the consumer via an increase in premiums and/or increase co-payments.

A hospital is required by law to offer medical care to anyone regardless if they can pay or not. So if person A comes in to the hospital with an illness, the costs attributed to that patient will be transferred to the people with the resources to pay, increasing insurance premiums and out of pockets hospital fees. The hard luck cases about people that can’t pay their medical bills, means that the hospital must charge more for the people that can pay and/or the people with medical insurance in order to stay running. Hospitals kind of need electricity, doctors, nurses, beds, orderlies, surgical equipment, diagnostic equipment, technicians to operate and service the equipment, janitorial staff, … etc, and the staff must be competent in order to stay clear of lawsuits. Lawsuits are driving up the costs of health care thanks to a failed Tort law. Tort reform is a must if we are really going to help reform health care.

This of course is only one tiny part of the health care debate. The economics are simple; it will cost a lot of money to pay for Obamacare. Will the top 2% be able to afford universal coverage?

$634 Billion Swindle

2009-02-26T08:47:00.000-08:00

Obama just asked Congress for $634 billion for a "down payment" on Health Care Reform. He plans on raising taxes and cutting cost in Medicare. Most experts say that, that number is really low and can go as high as $1 trillion dollars.
This is on top of the more than $410 billion dollars that just passed the House. Which oddly enough has $7.7 million dollars for an earmark by President Obama. This of course is the same Obama, that repeatedly pledged to not have any earmarks. This is also the President that promised to go "line by line" to cut wastefull spending. Like everything else, it was a lie. File it with his promise to have Bills online for 5 days before he'd sign it, with allowing 48 hours to read Bills before they went to a vote, and of course his whole promise of bipartisanship.
The bigger picture about Obama's Health Care proposal is that it part of a $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit this year. We don't know what it will be next year, or four years from now. Of course this leads to the question of where is the money going to come from. The only answer any Democrat will give is of course new taxes.
Apperently no one told President Obama, that raising taxes on anyone in a recession, even if its half as bad as Obama keeps trying to say it is, is a very bad thing to do. So when will Obama break his promise to not raise taxes for couples making less than $250,000? I'm pretty sure anyone that isn't a Pod, knows it is coming. It's only a matter of when.
Oh wait, Obama has asked for another $75 billion for his wars in Afganistan and Iraq. You know the one's he promised to get out of. Now he is even asking for money for a TARP II.
It's audactious!

Oh and the kicker, as if we needed anymore, Obama wants to institute a cap and trade scheme here in the US like they have in Europe. That's great news for the Global Warming/Climate Change crowd. The science dosen't back them up but what science can't provide, ideology will surely make up for. Unfortunatley, the carbon trading scheme, Obama wants, has already failed in Europe.

Few but the professionals, however, know that this market is now failing in its purpose: to edge up the cost of emitting CO2.

The next four years are going to be rough with Obama at the helm. I only hope we can weather the storm and make it through.

Contradictions

2009-02-26T07:20:00.000-08:00

It's amazing how Obama can go from the "Catastrophic" to the "the United States of America will emerge stronger than ever" in the matter of weeks without anyone calling him out on it. I mean of course the Mainstream Media. There are blogs out there, with people like me who see the bold face hypocrisy.

Let's have some Tea

2009-02-22T14:56:00.000-08:00

Something really remarkable is happening in America. You can thank President Obama for actually bringing people to together for a common purpose. The problem for Obama, is that the people are protesting his Stimulus/Housing Bill.

Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows

You can thank CNBC's Rick Santelli for his rant on cable TV that has gotten a lot of taxpayers thinking.

Santelli asked traders on the floor: "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (no hands raised, lots of booing) President Obama, are you listening?"
“You know, Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective. Now, they’re driving ‘54 Chevys, maybe the last great car to come out of Detroit. [Traders are] thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing...”

Boston had a tea party thanks to people being over taxed. It's about time for another one.

Tea Parties are being organized in San Diego, Chicago, Fayetteville, NC, San Diego, Omaha, Kansas City and Atlanta.

Here's how to organize your own.

I actually agree with Krugman.

2009-02-20T20:45:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning NYT columnist writes today some very interesting things about the Recession.

Well, the Great Depression did eventually come to an end, but that was thanks to an enormous war, something we’d rather not emulate.

This comes after telling the reader that Obama's plan is a bunch of crap, only trying to mitigate the crisis, not actually doing anything about it. Is Krugman actually going to start to criticize the One now?
It leads to the question how will we get out of this?

The same story can be told for durable goods and assets throughout the economy: given time, the current slump will end itself, the way slumps did in the 19th century.

Of course Krugman doesn't say it but how did your Great Grandfather's recession end? Without Government interference and through Market forces.
In a round about way Krugman is validating exactly what I have been saying.
The New Deal didn't end the Depression (only prolonged it) and only through Market forces (capitalism) will this recession end itself. Obama is only making the matter worse, thanks to his new New Deal stimulus package.
Obama keeps talking about the failed policies of the past, so what is he doing. Continuing the same failed policies of the past! Of course, it's change we can believe in.

Enemy of my Enemy...

2009-02-20T19:25:00.000-08:00

"Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers," writes Dr Fadl.

Fadl is one of the creators of Al-Qaeda with Bin Laden. This has some huge implications, but I doubt we will hear anything about it on MSNBC, CNN or CBS.

How I learned to love stop worring and love the War.

2009-02-20T18:55:00.000-08:00

Awww, poor Barry. Seems like all that rhetoric was all for naught. I don't expect this article to be talked about on the news anytime soon.

A Pentagon review of conditions in the Guantanamo Bay military prison has concluded that the treatment of detainees meets the requirements of the Geneva Conventions but that prisoners in the highest-security camps should be allowed more religious and social interaction, according to a government official who has read the 85-page document.

So let us see:

Obama signed an order to close GITMO within a year, citing of course the horrible conditions that those poor poor "So called" Terrorists have to endure. It was just so bad that it had to be closed. Of course, he didn't know what to do with the prisoners at all. Breaking his campaign promise to immediately end and close GITMO as soon as he becomes President. Yeah it's been a month now, still don't know what to do with those terrorist.
Don't worry, he's just wingin' it.
Obama then sends drones into Pakistan, in his first week, err first 3 days. 15 people are dead. Now if McCain would have done that, he immediately would be called a warmonger.
Now of course comes the cu de gras. Obama announces 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

What's even better about the Afghan "surge" is that Obama didn't even have the decency to have a Press Conference about it. He just slipped it into a press release at 17:00 on Monday, waiting to have a statement on Tuesday.

"This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan," Obama said in a statement. "I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need."

I wonder if code pinkers will be calling Obama warmonger anytime soon. Obama couldn't admit that the Surge worked, yet of course he is going to use the exact same strategy that he once called "a failure." Ha some change. I wonder if any Democrats will put funding cuts for Afghanistan in any bills this year?

One word to describe this administration so far: Hypocrisy.

More failed policies of the past?

2009-02-18T19:46:00.001-08:00

Today President Obama put his Mortgage program.

On one hand, at least Obama learned to not delegate this plan to Pelosi and Reid (Stimulus) or Geitner (Tarp). Pelosi and Reid filled up the Stimulus full of Pork project that they have been dying to fund. I mean, gee, I wonder who would want an $8 billion dollar high-speed rail from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? Being from Las Vegas, I can make an educated guess, and it wasn’t John Ensign. Of course Obama said that there were no earmarks, so it must be true.

Geitner’s TARP plan is a joke. He will get us the details later.

Obama’s Housing Plan is a joke. I’ve been telling people at work for a while now, that Obama will spend as much money as he can all the while using Fear to sell it to the public. No matter if you think this recession is a catastrophe waiting to happen, or you’re like me and think its much ado about nothing is irrelevant.

The amount of money being thrown at it is horrendous. We already spend almost $700 billion for TARP, a program that was sold as a fix for the Housing Crisis. Where did the money go? Who knows, ask Pelosi and Reid. They wrote the original TARP bill. Bush did a terrible job handling it for sure. He never should have given money to GM and Chrysler too. Of course we are supposed to learn from our mistakes. Apparently not our new President, given that the second half of TARP money has no details either.

The new Housing bill, which I’m sure will be absolutely required to pass or yet another
”catastrophe” will happen, is the same old same old. Look at who gets the money.

$100 Billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

They were too big to fail before, so lets just make it grow bigger. Instead of tackling the problem, the over valuation of housing in the US and irresponsible lending and borrowing habits of the American Public, we are rewarding Failure.

A provision to “Allow Judicial Modifications of Home Mortgages.”

My gods, so now all those people that were irresponsible to begin with, borrowing money they couldn’t afford to pay back, will just get a pass? Why should I even pay my mortgage? Why should anyone? We can all just go into default, go to bankruptcy court and have the judge modify our mortgage contracts letting us off the hook. How are they going to do it? Will it be interest rates or principle? Who will qualify?

If you look at the bill, there is an awful lot of money going to “servicers” (third parties) and “mortgage holders” (banks). I wonder how many of them are friends of Chris Dodd? The only people this bill helps are bankers and lawyers.

Here are some questions that need asking:

Why should the Government be guaranteeing these at risk mortgages again, isn’t that why we got here in the first place?
Why should the Government (judges) be setting interest rates?
Who get the bailed out and who doesn’t?
Why are we rewarding irresponsible behavior?

The quest for affordable housing is what got us in this mess. It lead to the Government forcing banks to give home loans to people that should never have gotten them in the first place. The Community Reinvestment Act, singed into law by Carter, and expanded by Clinton started this whole snowball, all in the name of fairness. How is it fair that I now have to pay, through taxation, for other peoples reckless borrowing? I work, pay my taxes, pay my mortgage for a house I knew I could afford, yet now have to pay for someone else’s house because they cashed out their equity during the bubble? Paying for the people that willfully signed onto an Adjustable Rate Mortgage. I am being forced to pay for people that thought they could afford a $300,000 home, even though they only made $30,000 a year. Please explain to me how that is fair?

Afternoon update

2009-02-18T13:29:00.000-08:00

The Obots are starting to see the shine come off.

Liberal Blogger Glenn Greenwald compares Obama to Cheney now.

Obama wants to spend 275 billion more tax dollars. He will not stop wanting to spend. After this bill, if it gets passed, Obama will want to spend another 300 billion for National Health Care.

This is how socialism infects. Little by little, we will move more and more to a european style socialism. How has that worked for the British? Or the Germans. They live in permanent 10% unemployment. Yeah that's change I want.

Write your Senators and Congressmen. If they don't listen, then do what you can to ensure they are voted out in 2010.

My Letter to Editor

2009-02-17T03:18:00.000-08:00

Here is what I wrote to the Arkansas Democratic Gazette in a letter to the editor. It's my first letter, sparked in part to an ongoing debate over at Liberal Rapture on global warming.

There is a growing fallacy in America that science has "proven" Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW).

Science is a tricky fellow. True science can never be proven only disproved. Ask any scientist who is worth anything. Better yet ask Einstein, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

This leads me, or hopefully any rational person, to believe that anyone claiming that science has "proven" that man is the cause of Global Warming is full of it.

There is no consensus in the scientific community. As recently as December in Poznan, over 650 scientists, including some former IPCC scientists, have now come out against the notion of AGW. Antarctic Sea Ice is up 35% since 1997 according to NSIDC. There have been scientists who have fudged the data to stoke the fires of alarmism, google James Hansen.

This is not an all-encompassing argument, but just a fraction of the debate. It should be debated, especially considering the economic consequences, which will have drastic long term often unforeseen consequences. The one's trying to stifle the debate are usually the ones telling you that science has "proven" AGW. For them AGW is Dogma. The problem with Dogma, no matter what stripe, is that it's hard to prove and even harder to admit that it might be wrong.

The New New Deal will fail.

2009-02-13T03:03:00.000-08:00

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

Sounds like something Boehner might say right?

"I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises."
"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
Something Kucinich or Pelosi might say right?

All wrong.

They were said by Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR's Treasury Secretary in 1939 about....gasp....The New Deal.

Remember those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Bloggin Around

2009-02-12T17:57:00.000-08:00

Here is what I said at Liberal Rapture, in response to the economy.

No I'm talking about the language coming from the Obama administration. They will tell you, no matter what the data, that the stimulus is helping. It's Orwellian for sure, but that's what they are going to tell you. Then in 2011, they will try and blame Bush, in hopes of getting re-elected. It's a shell game.

I agree with most economists that the recession will probably not reach Great Depression era unemployment, I'm thinking it'll top out at 11%. The stimulus won't effect unemployment to the degree Obama wants everyone to believe. Look at Japan, for Thor's sake...we should be learning what not to do from Japan, not trying to recreate it here. Obama is setting us up for our own "Lost Decade."

Only through the 2010 election, can we do something about it. Vote out every Democrat and Republican that voted for the Stimulus Bill, I'm trying to get it started here in Little Rock. Make them accountable for their votes. Write letters to the Editor and letters to donators. I don't advocate anything on par with the Prop 8 scum, but a civil boycott of groups that donate to politicians that voted for it is in order. You get enough people to tell a company that you aren't going to buy their product because they donate to X Senator or Y Congressman, they won't donate. We have the all the tools, we just need the will to use them.

*hops off soap box*

WaPO

2009-02-11T19:01:00.000-08:00

Washington Post has a nice little graphic of the huge turd sandwich Congress just passed.

Check it out.

Historic Press Conference

2009-02-09T16:53:00.000-08:00

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." When most people hear those words, a sense of hope, real hope emerges.
Those words are meant to inspire people, to make them think of a better tomorrow. It gives people a real sense that anything can be accomplished.
Failure to act "could turn a crisis into a catastrophe." The tone set by the Obama administration is a very dire and depressing one. When he says it's only going to get worse, people don't look to a brighter future. They only look to a bleak, bumpy road ahead. There are arguments for Obama being pragmatic and telling people what they need to hear. There are of course arguments for trying to inspire people and give them hope. I believe both are valid. Of course I didn't run the entire campaign on a message of "Hope" and "Change."
"Change" is dead. It was put on life support with Tim Geithner's tax problems. It died when Daschle stepped down for failure to pay his taxes. Now of course "Hope" is being put on life support.
Let me be clear, I know why Obama is using doom and fear to sell his bill. He has too, it's the only way on earth that the bill could pass. It was loaded wall to wall with Democrat pork. Obama said tonight during his first press conference, that there were no earmarks. Yet, what Obama failed to mention is that there doesn't have to be. Giving how many billions to bail out states like California, Michigan, New York, all big democrat leading states. It is all one big earmark, paid to Democrat special interest groups. How many millions for "global warming research?" That only makes Democrats happy, of course that it fails to create any jobs is irrelevant. If we don't give it money will will have a "catastrophe" on our hands.
Obama did what he needed to do. He has to sell his bill and he went back to campaign mode to do it. It's what he is good at. I'm actually really delighted that he laid out some guidelines on how to measure the stimulus bill.

It has to create 4 million jobs.

There is no timetable of course, he is smart enough to give himself some wiggle room later on. Have to remember 2012 is just around the corner.

It has to get money flowing through the banks.

Meaning that, we have to see an increase in loans to individuals to buy that ugly Prius after all. The stimulus bill doesn't do anything for lending organizations at all. Facts can be a distraction after all.

It has to stabilize the housing market.

Other than the billions going to Community block grants (For future Tony Rezkos to exploit the poor to get government money), the Stimulus does what for homeowners? The only relief so far is in the Senate bill as a tax credit for buy new homes. The best idea, I thought, was in the Republican amendment to refinance houses on the market. It would decrease interest costs and put more money into homeowners pockets, to invest or spend as they see fit. I'd love to refinance at a 4% rate. Since I bought my house a month to early to qualify for this years first time home buyers tax credit, I could use the extra cash for a new floor, bed, pavers, whatever. The point is I would be using that cash and injecting it into my local economy. That's real long term stimulus.
This all brings up another point. This stimulus bill is only focused on jobs. That's my take on what Obama said at his press conference. He already is passing the buck to Geithner to do something about the credit crunch. Who is going to be in charge of fixing the housing problem. More importantly. How much money are we going to throw around? How many bills will have to be passed to do it? Obama is trying to label the current Stimulus bill as an omnibus for all three problems. He even says that's how it will be measured. The reality is that we (You, me and every person who pays taxes) will be spending even more money on TARP. The last 300 billion isn't enough. Obama pulled out his Ali impersonation ducking that question. We will have to have yet another bill and another couple hundred billion to do something about the housing problem.
I think it's very disingenuous for Obama to portray to the American public that this one bill will solve all those problems. Please Mr. President, how will $1.7 billion for the National Park System, help anyone in foreclosure or trying to get a car loan? How will $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects, create any new blue collar jobs? $1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees, will only give loans to a very few and soon to be very wealthy friends of Al Gore, not for Joe Blow trying to buy a house.
All that being said, I think Obama is doing what he has to do. Pelosi and Reid dealt him low cards and Obama is trying to check. Hoping the "turn" gives him gives him a pair or 3 of a kind. Obama knows his name will be on the bill. He is in a bind. He should have done a lot of things, but hey rookie mistake right? I just hope this one doesn't turn out to be as bad as JFK's. How does the old adage go, with friends like these, who needs enemies.

A Democrat with a backbone?

2009-02-08T04:14:00.000-08:00

At least there are some Democrats with a backbone. Who's all for moving to Oregon? I love it there. Portland is a great city.

"Every penny of the $825 billion is borrowed against the future of our kids and grandkids, and so the question is: What benefit are we providing them? What are we doing for the country? It's the difference between real investment that will serve the nation for 30, 50 years and tax cuts, and that's a very poor tradeoff," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.). "I go to my district and people say, 'Yeah, I can use 10 extra bucks a week, but I would rather see more substantial investment.' We've gone through a couple bubbles that were borrowing and consumer-driven. We want a recovery that's solid and based in investment and productivity, and that points us at building things that will serve us decades to come."

BBQ Pork Sandwich

2009-02-07T12:20:00.000-08:00

Americans, by enlarge, have elected more than just a man for President, but a system of government. Most Americans were not aware of it last November. They wanted “Change.” Like most of what your parents told you when you were young, but never listened; beware what you with for, you just might get it.

President Obama won partly, because of the current economic downturn. He proclaimed that that the current market system in the US had failed. He promised change, never really explaining what would change or what the new system would look like. Most people now don’t remember Obama saying, he would pursue a “pay as you go” fiscal policy or that he would curb government spending. He promised to take a scalpel instead of a hatchet to the pork barrel spending that was that dominated “old politics.”

Now let’s fast forward 3 months.

The Senate looks poised to pass its own version of the House “Porkulus”/Stimulus bill. It is estimated to be around $780,000,000,000. Sen. Carl Levin promises to reinsert the money cut to bring over 3 Republican Senators, Sen. Collins (Maine), Sen. Snowe (Maine) and Sen. Specter (PA); when the Senate and House compromise committee meets. It is a bill full of Pork. Some of the spending has merit; most of it does and will not have any simulative effect at all. Democrats are evoking the revered James Maynard Keynes in order to justify their Bill. I do say it is their Bill, because 3 centrist Republicans do not make it a bipartisan bill.

Keynes theorized that there were two approaches to stimulate the Economy.

Through a reduction of interest rates and though Government spending on infrastructure. It is easy to see the similarities to Keynesian economics and the New Deal. Keynesians advocate deficit spending to invest on infrastructure, which in turn will stimulate more productions and investment, starting a cascade of events which is the basis for the multiplier effect, we hear about in the current Stimulus Bill debate.

The Keynesian approach is what brought Bush and Congress last year to give out Rebate Checks. Bush and Congress had hoped that the influx of cash would induce more spending. It was assumed that this increase of spending would nip the coming recession in the proverbial bud. President Obama claimed, during the campaign, claimed that his ideas were basis for the bill. When the rebate checks failed to induce the spending, as most Keynesians thought, Obama stopped making that claim.

I’m assuming here, that the prevailing thought, among Democrats, is that any and all government spending will beneficial and the bigger the federal deficit the better. What would Keynes think about $5,200,000,000 more for community block grants? They do not offer any simulative effects at all? The US government has been pumping money into block grant programs since the 70’s. They do nothing for infrastructure nor do they do anything to create jobs. What they do offer is political payback to ACORN. $15,000,000,000 more for Pell Grants is a good idea, to be debated during a regular budget session. They do not however, do anything for interest rates or infrastructure (Keynesian) nor are they temporary, targeted but they are substantial. If this passes into law, the next budget session, the Democrats will charge anyone wanting to stop the $15,000,000,000 as being against education.

$2,000,000,000 for renewable energy research, with $400,000,000 going towards global warming research do not meet either the Keynesian or Summers’ definition of stimulus at all. The list of un-simulative and un-Keynesian projects is massive.

$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$6 billion for university building projects
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program

This is not stimulus by any sense of the word. It is pure pork. The same pork President Obama cried out against during his campaign.

GO Sarah!

2009-02-02T18:16:00.000-08:00

Let me say right now, that I like Sarah Palin. She is the kind of person this country needs right now. A leader not entrenched in Washington politics. An outsider with a known background to fight corruption. I hope she runs for POTUS in 2012. The Media outlets will try bully her, they won't publish anything favorble to her. I'm happy that she formed her own PAC. http://sarahpac.com/

Victory in Iraq

2009-02-02T18:08:00.000-08:00

Of course the Obama administration will never admit this, but George W. Bush won in Iraq.

The second elections came and went. How many rioters where there? None It was more orderly than the last US presidential elections. The result won't be in for another week or so, but that doesn't matter.
What was once though to be impossible 10 years ago is a now a reality.
Obama's position throughout his national political life, is to deny and try to thwart, what we hold dear in this country.

Thank you President Bush.

We will have to see if President Obama is willing to let the people in Iraq have the same luxury we have in the US.

SuperDUD!

2009-02-02T02:52:00.000-08:00

Where was the Booth Review?

2009-01-28T08:47:00.000-08:00

Obama will do what Obama wants to do, not for the betterment of the country but for the betterment of Obama. He'll do that just because he doesn't know what else to do. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, but we all know about the road to hell and what is paved with. Obama's problem, and it will continue to be a problem for another two years are Pelosi and Reid. Obama can't lead his own party, how can he lead a nation? Obama owes way too much to special interest groups.
It's easy to bash Bush because his special interest groups were big Corporations. Obama's are harder because they are the labor unions, teachers union, and activists like NARL, Emily's list, Code Pink, Daily Kos. How can you transpose all the ill of the world on teachers but it's so easy to put that blame on a CEO. Obama is simply too indebted to special interest groups to make a tough decision. He is looking ahead to 2012 not doing what needs to be done now. Look at the Stimulus Bill. Making Work Pay is a joke, they tried that last year. It didn't work then, so what makes them think it will work now. For Heaven's sake Obama claimed that he wrote that failed experiment, yet no one is calling him on it.

"In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress."
--Barack Obama, Golden, Co., Sept. 16, 2008.

If his plan was the basis for the stimulus checks, then we already know his ideas amount to complete and utter BULLSHIT! All those new roads and new paint jobs will contribute jack shit when inflation kicks in and small business and companies have to lay even more people off because inventory prices skyrocket.
Democrats think that if they keep on harping on something long enough, all evidence that disproves their claims will magically go away. Look at Al Gore for Christ's sake. He is giving testimony today on global warming, when half the damn country is in the middle of an ice storm. It makes you want to bang your head against the wall. Yet Obama and Gore will keep doing what a lot of people know won't work because they are too indebted to a special interest to stop.

I'm putting this up here because it shows the insanity of the Obama Administration:

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
Reverse Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama and Biden will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but they will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
Cut Pork Barrel Spending: As a Senator, President Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama and Biden will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama and Biden will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama and Biden have called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama and Biden will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

How long before that website is washed?

Stimulate this....

2009-01-27T17:29:00.000-08:00

Will the Stimulus work?

I don't think so. Not the way it's written by the Dems.
Obama's Making work pay is an end of year credit attached to the tax refund, alomst like the one they tried last year, the one that did not work. A tax credit will not stimulate the average consumer to spend more overall. It's a one time pop, that I know I will be using to pay bills. A lot of people will be paying bills with their tax refund. It won't make me want to spend more money over the course of the year, which is what the economy will need to get back on track. My one time pop will not cause Best Buy to hire hundreds of workers, nor will Sam's Club be hiring just for my tax refund check.

What we need is a lowering of the tax brackets. Giving me an extra $50 - $100 dollars bi weekly will cause me to spend differently. It will cause me to spend more, as I'll have more disposable income. Of course common sense like that goes out of the window, since Pelosi think Planned Parenthood will stimulate the economy.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) misspoke earlier today when he said that the Democrats' bill contains $4 in spending on landscaping for the National Mall for every $1 in small business tax relief. In fact, it contains $5 for landscaping the National Mall for every dollar in small business tax relief.

Deficit spending is not the answer. Government cannot grow money. It has to be printed. Printing more money to spend will only lead to inflation. Any raise in inflation rates will kill any stimulative effect the bill has. It's very simple even a Democrat can figure it out. You can give everyone an extra $500 but when the price of bread, milk, and meat goes up and extra $0.50 over the course of the year, that person is even more screwed than if you didn't give him that $500. Of course logic has no place in Reid's Senate or Pelosi's House.

Obama's new chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer, is among those skeptical of the idea that it does. In 1994, Romer co-authored a technical 72-page economics paper titled "What Ends Recessions," containing specific warnings about the limitations of deficit spending in saving the economy. Her conclusion: "Although there is substantial variation in the estimates of policies' impact, the results suggest that monetary policy has been crucial in ending recessions, while fiscal policy has contributed very little."

Republicans need to stick to their guns. It's a fine line they have to walk, I don't know if they can pull it off. If they can pressure Obama into changing the Stimulus into something that might actually stimulate the economy, we might get out of it in 2 years. Otherwise, while we will be rid of Reid and Pelosi in 2010, we will all be too fucked to care.

A lobbyist by any other name...

2009-01-25T16:02:00.000-08:00

Google is locked cocked and ready to lobby.

"Google is not just a benign corporate entity. It has a variety of special interests," said Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, who has sparred with Google over data-privacy issues. "They're in a great position to push their agenda through with the support of the president and the Democrats in Congress."

New Politics right?

President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.
They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.

Oh and let's not forget, the new Ethics Rules.

The Obama administration has given an ethics waiver for Bill Lynn, a Defense Department nominee who is a former lobbyist.
In a written statement released moments ago, Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin said the administration "has removed an obstacle to the confirmation of Bill Lynn to be Deputy Secretary of Defense by waiving the provisions of President Obama's Executive Order on Ethics Commitments that would have precluded Mr. Lynn's service."

At least Sen Levin and McCain called Obama out on it.

The move immediately drew criticism from Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "I am disappointed in President Obama's decision to waive the 'revolving door' provisions of the executive order for Mr. Bill Lynn," he said in a written statement. "While I applaud the President's action to implement new, more stringent ethical rules, I had hoped he would not find it necessary to waive them so soon."

And Levin said he will delay confirmation. Still is this the change we are all waiting for?

Another note on GITMO. I really can't help myself. I am passionate that we are never attacked again on US soil. Here is an idea for all those Leftys that want GITMO closed because it looks bad. Let them adopt a detainee!

GAP (GITMO Adoption Program)

Option 1: Let any person that says GITMO should be closed because of a "Stain" on the US or because Europeans think bad of us for GITMO, take one of the more than 200 detaines into their homes and rehabilitate them.
Option 2: Send them to Alcatraz. NIMBY will be in full effect and maybe Pelosi will get voted out because of it.

Let them put their money where there mouth is. I really doubt it will fly. You know when rhetoric meets reality, reality demands tough choices. Obama is learning that right now.

A word on Pelosi. I can't tell anyone how much this woman drives me crazy. She claims the Stimulus Bill is "bipartisan" yet just the other day she said, "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election." Even Obama, who is the new bastion of bipartisanship said the same, "I won" when asked about GOP involvment in the Stimulus Bill.
With the victor comes the spoils. Yet with the victor also comes the responsibility. Obama now own the Stimulus via "I won" response. Obama owns GITMO. I'm sure we will all hear about how Bush got us into this mess until the cows come home. The clock is ticking. If Obama can't do anything to help the economy by 2010, we will have new House and Senate leadership via a slew of new Republicans forming a new majority. Obama will have to work bipartisan then. This democratic tyranny of the majority, that the Dems are calling Bipartisanship if pure Orwellian. It's too bad the average voter recieved a good Liberal education, and never had to read 1984.

Sunday Morning Post

2009-01-25T09:00:00.000-08:00

It's really nice to see how tolerant the Obamaniacs are.

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, "Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye." And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the "one-finger salute," thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Stay classy San Diego. So is dissent still Patriotic?

So much for the "responsibility" era, that Obama was supposed to bring to the country. So much for a "New Politics." Unless of course you were like me and knew that "New Politics" really means the Chicago Way.
Look at the Stimulus Bill. If anything needs a "New" way it's that.

"We're being a little too politically sensitive to the conservative right," said Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), drifting well off the new administration's message. "Coming to the middle on a political spectrum does not make it right."

At which point the House of Representatives fell back into its comfortable partisan ways: The majority pushed its bill through committees last week on largely party-line votes, and the minority complained that it had been railroaded.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summoned her no-nonsense voice to remind the losers of how majority rule works: "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election." (The California Democrat then remembered to add: "That doesn't mean we don't want ... bipartisan support.")

I agree with Rep. Boehner, the bill is little more than "liberal Democrat ideas that were stuck in the back of a cabinet somewhere." Of course when the CBO report came out and it wasn't what the Democrats wanted to hear. The report that projected less than half of the $355 billion that House Democrats would spend to create jobs through infrastructure programs and other efforts is likely to be used before the end of fiscal 2010, had to immediately be ignored by the Dem Leadership. It needs to be bigger they say. $13 billion for formula grants to increase the federal share of special education costs and prevent these mandatory costs from forcing states to cut other areas of education. How much of that will be going straight to the Teachers Unions, then right back to House and Senate Democrats as "Campaign Contributions?"

As for GITMO, Barry screwed the pouch. He caved in to the anti-war left. When we are attacked, all those anti-war code pinkers will all be yelling, "It's not my fault." I really do hope that Obama screws everyone, closes GITMO, open another detention area and sends all those prisoners to some pacific island 300 miles from nowhere.
He can't free them (see Said Ali al-Shihri), most of their own countries don't want them. Sending them to Egypt and Yemen will amount to Extraordinary Rendition, which he said he wouldn't do. So what send them to Fort Levenworth? Ha I'd like to see anyone welcome those detainees to their homes. Maybe we should start a Code Pink/Detainee Big Brother program. Everyone that wants the prisoners free, will have to take one in and try to rehabilitate them with love and kindness. It'll will kill two birds with one stone.

Churchill

2009-01-22T18:48:00.000-08:00

If you're under 30 and not a liberal you don't have a heart. If you're over 30
and not a conservative, you don't have a brain.
Winston is absolutly right. It took me almost 30 years. (I voted McCain 7 days before my 30th birthday) Maybe it's because I'm married and own a house. A house that I knew going in that I could afford. I don't relay on welfare or any government assistance. I want my taxes low so I can make capital improvments on my home. I don't want the government to mandate that I switch out lightblubs or replace thermostats, I do it because it saves me money. I have 4 dogs that fart a lot just to increase my carbon footprint thank you.

Why do I feel it's my obligation to criticize Obama? Take it away Churchill
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same
function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of
things.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Obama...

2009-01-22T17:57:00.000-08:00

Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, those bastions of wisdom and virtue, have made video pledge to the Great One, Obama.
Kneel before Zod!
Does Obama has a Presidential Ring complete with the Seal yet? I'm sure Kutcher would be the first one to get on his knees and kiss the ring, swear his oath of fealty. The US is obviously only here to serve the Obama, not the other way around.
Creepy isn't a strong enough word to use to describe the video. Psychotic might be better one.
Does anyone remember the Hitler Youth? Probably not, I have serious doubts about celebrities anyway but this make me lose all hope. It's not cool to pledge to the nation, but pledging to Obama, now that's cool. Give me a break, these celebrities need to get over themselves. How many of them rushed to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?
Micheal Strahan why?

Heaven Help us all, if these moonbats have any influence on policy.

Day 1

2009-01-21T21:22:00.000-08:00

Less than half the money dedicated to highways, school construction and other infrastructure projects in a massive economic stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats is likely to be spent within the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts, meaning most of the spending would come too late to lift the nation out of recession.

That is from a new CBO report on the Stimulus (Pork) Omnibus bill. The CBO reports that less than half the $355 billion for infrastructure spending will be dispersed before 2010, when the CBO predicts the economy will turn.

For example, of $30 billion in highway spending, less than $4 billion would occur over the next two years. Of $18.5 billion proposed for renewable energy, less than $3 billion would be spent by 2011. And of $14 billion for school construction, less than $7 billion would be spent in the first two years.

Just in time to help raise inflation and keep this "national emergency" according to Alxerod going for another 4 years. Of course going into the 2010 elections, I'm sure we will hear about how much more time the Dems need to fix what they helped break. Going into the 2012 elections, inflation will start raising, the FED will have to raise interest rates to combat inflation, causing job loss. Perfect for Obama to role out a new Stimulus (pork) omnibus bill to save another economic "national emergency."

This is Day One of the Obama Administration. 6 months ago I was hoping this day would never come, or at least wait another 4 to 8 years. I will try to make the best of it. Dissent is still patriotic. No matter what the liberal hypocrites say now.

Princess Caroline withdraws her name for Hillary's Senate Seat.
So there is a god. The last thing we need is more Camelot. I'm Cameloted to death. Every time we hear about JKF, all we hear a tale of roses and sunshine. Bullshit. JFK was dirty, the whole family is dirty. Correct me if I'm wrong but seems like Caroline is the only Kennedy that hasn't had a sex scandal. Joseph Kennedy used to praise Hilter, got his money from running booze during Prohibition and has the distinction of being the First inside trader, pulling out huge sums right before the 1929 collapse.

JFK and Bobby got more poon than Bill Clinton. JFK lead the US into Vietnam by increasing the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300. He tried and failed to invade Cuba. JFK was elected on false pretenses and voter fraud. I'll stop there. I could go on for a while. Needless to say, I don't hold the Kennedy clan in high regard. I'm very happy Caroline isn't gong to be a Senator anytime soon.

The Speech
There are lots of different reaction to Obama's inaugural address. It all depends on your ideological bent; if you voted for him then you probably had goosebumps going up your leg. If your like me and didn't vote for the guy, your reaction could be like mine, What did he say? Maybe I'll do an exhaustive in depth personal analysis on his inaugural address. Or I could just say I am in about 90% agreement with Ed Morrissey. At least the inauguration pissed off some Obamabots. Not to mention dropping the Dow 5.3%, way to go Mr. President!

Staying Classy
Democrats and MSNBC shows everyone how to win with class.

Caroline Update: She is back in!

Obama start reversing Bush policies. Gitmo is to be closed. I just wonder how long it will take? What is he going to do with all the prisoners?

Caroline Update: She is out again. For real this time.

I'm cautiously optimistic right now. I can't say I wish Obama the best. I am still very suspicious about his motives and what he is going to do. Time will only tell. I "hope" that he does listen to both sides of an issue and chooses the most pragmatic course of action. If he does that he will piss a lot of the Left off, which is sort of bonus for me anyway.

What do to with Gitmo?

2009-01-19T22:48:00.000-08:00

Today Obama becomes POTUS. No more fake seals. No more Office of President Elect, still trying to find the in the US Constitution. If you know where it is in there please let me know.

We will now see if Obama will keep a promise: To close Gitmo.

"That's a challenge," Obama said on ABC's "This Week." "I think it's going to
take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national
security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.
"But I don't want to be ambiguous about this," he said. "We are going to
close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are
ones that abide by our constitution."

What do with them is the big question. Do you want them in your city? Obama has a huge problem. Throughout the campaign, Obama blasted Bush over Gitmo, FISA, and torture.
Obama sided with Bush on FISA, much to the chagrin of the liberal base. Remember Olbermann's hysterical rant against Bush and warrent-less wiretaps? Do you remember his rant when Obama voted for warrant-less wiretaps?
Now Obama can put his money where his rhetoric is. What will he do?
I think Obama will close Gitmo. He will issue an Exec Order to close Gitmo with a timetable. Remember Obama really likes timetables. I say he will mandate Gitmo to be closed in 4 years, with the possibility to extend another 4 depending on circumstances. (how his reelection looks like)
As what to do with the prisoners, you just need to look at Obama new CIA cheif, Leon Panetta.

Leon served as White House Chief of Staff under Clinton. President Clinton had the same problem as Obama will have, what do to with prisoners hell bent on the destruction of the US. Prisoners that could get out of jail on technicalities in the system. What did Clinton do? What did Panetta help Clinton do? Send them to other countries, countries with history of torture. Let those countries get the information the US wants. Eli Lake at the Washington Times has a great piece on "extraordinary rendition."

Leon Panetta, served as White House chief of staff during the time the Clinton
administration accelerated a practice of kidnapping terrorist suspects and
sending them to countries with records of torturing prisoners, human rights
organizations and former U.S. officials say.

Now that's change I can believe in. At least now, when a liberal friend or colleague says anything about Bush and torture, you can have a quick come back. Obama is just another Bush. On everything Foreign Policy, Obama has sided with Bush over his Liberal Base.
Obama will close Gitmo to appease his base, but at the same time, he knows that he can't let these prisoners into the civil court system, where they will be free on technicalities.

What Stimulus?

2009-01-19T21:37:00.000-08:00

$825 billion stiumuls bill designed to create 4 millions jobs, thats $206, 250 in taxpayer dollars per job. How do I get one of those jobs?

The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009

So lets see what they want to stimulate our "dire" "horrific" "Catastrophic" blah blah blah.... Economy with

Creation of a board to track and elimitate wasteful spending....sounds good right... Cost $14,000,000
Fund the Community Development Block Grant. Cost 1,000,000,000

The program lacks a clear purpose. The program lacks short-term and long-term
outcome measures. Funds are not targeted to places with the greatest needs.

Capital and Debt Service Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Money goes to Amtrack).... Cost $800,000,000

Amtrak's purpose is ambiguous, and the program has been ineffectively managed
due to this lack of clarity. Amtrak performs poorly both financially and
operationally.

$50,000,000 for YouthBuild activities. Let's see what expectmore.gov says about Youthbuild.

Youthbuild lacks long-term performance outcome measures, and has not
developed ambitious targets for its annual performance measures. Youthbuild has
insufficient program management processes.

Smithsonian Institute for "Facilities Capital’’.... Cost $150,000,000
$245,000,000 for FARM SERVICE AGENCY SALARIES AND EXPENSES. Where do I get one of those jobs?
$22,129,000,000 for the "rural housing insurance fund." How is that creating a job?
$2,825,000,000 to bring Broadband internet access to rural areas. That's a whole lot of bang for your buck. I expect at least 200,000 jobs to be created just form this alone...jobs that will last all of 6 months.
$150,000,000 for food stamps for Puerto Rico (Pop. 3,994,259 ) and American Samoa (Pop. 68,200). Now I find it very hard to believe that everyone in those places needs foodstamps.
$350,000,000 for ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ to "to identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband services within each State, and to develop and maintain a nationwide broadband inventory map" Again how do I get one of those jobs? I'm sure the Directors starting salary will be at least $150,000 alone.
$2,825,000,000 more for Broadband Grant money. I wonder which House Democrat has a buddy that will make lots of money that he will donate to his friends PAC or campaign fund?
$100,000,000 to the NIST. I'm sure they are jealous, the Smithsonian got 150 million for paint.

There is plenty more where that came from...$850 Billion in 334 pages. Go read it for yourself.

God Save the Queen.

2009-01-18T17:51:00.000-08:00

In two days, the coronation of the Obama-nation will commence. Even though I live in a state that voted the most for McCain, I still see Obama shirts and hats and what nots all around. I can't imagine the let down most of these people will face, when they realize Obama is just a man and a very flawed one at that. Putting all their hopes and dreams on the shoulders of rookie, is very dangerous and can lead to very dangerous consequences.
Apperantly Obama thinks we need a new Declaration of Independance.

What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives...

I guess the first one wasn't good enough. I'd have to agree to a certain extent. We are treating Obama like royalty.

Barack Obama has a four-year rental on the White House. We would do well to remember he doesn't possess the freehold.

Is this the new Camelot? I hope not, the first one wasn't that good to begin with. Of course most people probably couldn't tell you about the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban Missle Crisis or that damn missle gap.
Our future generation isn't required to learn history anymore. So we are doomed to repeating mistakes that we made before and will make again.

Oh a brighter note....at least those Damn Eagles are not going to the Superbowl.

More Roads to Nowhere.

2009-01-17T09:33:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite blogs right now is Liberal Rapture. J-SOM has a great post today on Obamanomics. Specifically on the new found love to print more and more money to solve today's problems.

There are two articles that are well worth reading, one by Ron Paul and one by Paul Krugman.

I have more than a few reservations on Krugman's Keys to Success.

Like any good epic poem, Krugman invokes his muse. In this case Krugman picks, Melpomene.

How bad is the economic outlook? Worse than almost anyone imagined.

The Democrats have been saying this for over the past year. Even before the GDP went into the red, they were crying out for a Recession. Then when the GDP did go into the red, they were calling it the new Depression. How else could they take advantage of a crisis of their own making? Or is it still too much of a "Distraction" to talk about the Democratic culpability in the mess cause by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, Countrywide and Leihman Bros? Who were the leading recipients of campaign cash from those companies? But I digress, that is for a different post.
Back to Mr. Krugman, who likes to play up to his Nobel Prize cult followers, by using job data, but like a true intellectual dishonest political hack, fails to mention any of the causes to the job loss data. He gives Bush some props,

Even before the crisis, job growth under Bush averaged only 800,000 a year...

Yet yet fails to give the Democrats their props too.

and over the past year, instead of gaining a million-plus jobs, we lost 2 million. Today we're continuing to lose jobs at the rate of a half million a month.

Who was in control of Congress over the last TWO YEARS? Yet later on Krugman acknowledges that you can never have 100% percent employment.

"Full employment" means a jobless rate of five percent

Wait aren't we at 7.2%? Doesn't sounds like the 15% during the Great Depression does it? Not far off from what Krugman even acknowledges to be full employment.

Krugman article goes on to say that no other President did anything at all to help or hurt the economy its all the Feds doing. I can reasonably see some validity in this argument to a point. I'm not an economist or pretend to be, but I find it very hard to believe that any President has and can do nothing to help or hurt the Economy, because it's all run the the shadowy Fed Reserve system. Krugman uses this argument mainly because he is at heart a Liberal. Nothing wrong with that at all. Yet he tries to hide his Liberalism behind his Princeton Professorship. He like any other political hack cherry picks the data that best suits his preconceived notions. Is it any wonder economics is not considered a true science?
The Bailout was and is a failure. Too many banks and companies are allowed to survive that would be better off six feet under. Business week has an excellent article about Zombie Companies. That I urge everyone to read.
I do have to agree with Krugman that Bush didn't attach enough strings to the TARP funds, but wasn't it the Democrats that passed the Bailout bill? I seem to remember something about the Democrats being in con troll of the House and Senate during the current economic troubles.
Krugman advises Obama to nationalize the financial system. Make no mistake this leads to Socialism and is the first step to a Communistic Sate. Krugman at least has the calls to call it what it is.

And the truth is that you will, in a way, be engaging in temporary nationalization. But that's OK: In the long run we don't want the government running financial institutions, but for now we need to do whatever it takes to get credit flowing again.

All in the name of public good, right Comrade? All I have to ask is name a Government that has ever willingly given up nationalization without fear of revolt? Oh but there is more!
Build more Roads and bridges, upgrade the internet and electrical grids and give more money to the States and Local governments. They all sounds good and in fact I agree with some of them. Roads and Bridges need to be improved, but its not the governments job to upgrade electrical and internet systems, let the companies that run, operate and make money from them pay the bill. I don't want my tax dollars being spent to give internet access to a hermit living 200 miles from civilization in Montana. Let them move closer to a city or for heaven sakes, make them get a aircard from AT&T, those things work practically everywhere now, no matter how slow they are.
Building roads and bridges sound good until you think about all the waste that is inherent in the system. How long will it take and how much money will be wasted planning these massive public works projects? How many will actually do any good for the public? We don't need any more bridges to nowhere.
I'm not even going to go into Health Care, I don't see how Krugman can even seem to think Health Care is a cause for the current economic downturn. It just shows his political hackness, in my opinion. Health Care is a separate issue and taking it into the Stimulus Bill is intellectually dishonest. No wonder why Krugman wants it in there.

Make no mistake I don't like Krugman. I'm a Wall Street Journal Reader after all. I think he is a political hack and a charlatan. He is on par with Al Gore, in my opinion. They both received a Nobel Prize for no apparent reason, except of course if cherry picking data is reason enough alone. Like Gore, Krugman is trying to leverage his Nobel into his politics. Gore's global warming farce is finally being discredited and soon Krugman's new New Deal will be discredited soon before his ideas cause a new Great Depression.

Test

2009-01-10T06:21:00.000-08:00

This is a test post.