Fitzgerald is off the reservation

The Illinois legislature wants to impeach Governor Blagojevich for alleged crimes for which he has been indicted by a federal jury.

Outstanding for them! Perhaps this will just be the first step in addressing the corruption pervasive in Illinois politics, but alas I doubt it. I actually have a problem with the Illinois House investigating impeachment charges without investigating the underlying charges first. The mere fact that King Rod was indicted is not necessarily a criminal act. The committee has a list of acts which they believe may constitute impeachment, which is fine. But the fact that they are going into this to determine if the charges warrant impeachment means they are far from a fair and impartial panel. Even the lieutenant governor of the state is on record saying the impeachment should be complete before January 5th. Not only has the decision been made they have a rush on it.

The panel investigating Blagojevich asked the federal prosecutor handling the case, Fitzgerald, for access to witnesses, tape recordings and other evidence to use in Blagojevich's impeachment hearings. Fitzgerald has denied most of these requests but has said he "wants to release recordings of four conversations that aren't central to the Blagojevich investigation."

My biggest problem is that the federal prosecutor involved wants to assist local government to conduct their investigation. The federal wiretap warrants were approved for a federal investigation, not a state investigation. If the Illinois House wanted to investigate Blagojevich for corruption, and they had plenty of reasons to do so prior to the indictment, they should have initiated their own investigation.

If the guy is guilty I say go for it. But the House investigation was not prompted until the federal indictment was announced and the panel, all ready to announce the Governor's impeachment, has no evidence with which to do so. The law applies even to a guy like Blagojevich who is so crooked he makes a spiral staircase look like a fireman's ladder. If the guy is guilty I say go for it.

Of course perhaps Fitz is out to scuttle his own case and avoid the embarrassment of having to run down other politicians who are tainted by their association with Blago.

Now do you get it?

It is Christmas 2009. Mexican drug cartels have begun launching rockets into the heart of San Diego as reprisals for drug interdiction programs. They choose the holiday as it is slow news worldwide and people are unlikely to catch their part as the aggressor but sure to hear about any reprisals on the part of the US. It is a calculated and bold move on the part of the narcotraficantes.

The US asks the Mexican government to control these criminals but the Mexican Army cannot control the cartels who operate outside the law.

Over the course of a few days several dozen US citizens are killed and injured.
The US finally says that enough is enough and using satellite imaging and on the ground intelligence makes precision air raids knocking out cartel targets, unfortunately a few dozen civilians are killed in the attacks which deal a devastating blow to the cartels.

The Mexican government stands idly by while the drug cartel tells the UN the US is unfair. The world outcry is reserved for the US saying the reprisals were out of proportion to the risk posed by the cartels.

Venezuela and Colombia, known to be enemies of each other, one an enemy of the US and the other a purported ally both sign up mercenary volunteers, one officially the other more seratipously, to support the cartels against this overt act of aggression on the part of the US.

The UN Secretary General condemns the US for this brazen attack.

The US stands alone except for one ally and the Mexican people who while they hate this attack on their sovereign nation they are no fans of the cartels which are interrupting their lives and causing misery on a daily basis. And while some support the cartels the vast majority would just as soon live and let live with the US.

*****

Now substitute 2008 for 2009, Hamas for the drug cartel, the Palestinian Authority for the Mexican government, Israel for the US, Israel for San Diego, Iran for Venezuela, Saudi Arabia for Colombia, and rocket attacks on civilians for drug interdiction; you now understand the current Israeli-Hamas skirmish.

Israel lost a lot of political currency with the Lebanese incursion last year, especially within their own country as it was wildly unpopular. But this is a clearly a case of a country defending itself against a terrorist organization who in it's charter vows to eliminate Israel and who holds a majority of seats on the Palestinian parliament.

I am not a proponent of wars, nor am I proponent of terrorism. But if Cuba started launching rockets into Miami the resulting reaction would be as brutal as it would be brief. And we would all be celebrating and telling he rest of the world to go f*ck themselves. The difference Israel will not celebrate because they live in a war zone 24/7 and they understand it is a necessary evil.

RIP NYT, 1851 - 2009?

The title of this blog may turn out to be correct, but most likely I am off by about 2 years. And speaking of two years, in the past 24 months I have blogged several times about the imminent demise of the Gray Lady, the former Newspaper of Record.

Certainly it is not only the New York Times that is suffering, many newspapers are, the decline in the relevancy of printed news began shortly after the phenomenon known as television swept the nation. The advent of the internet and web delivered media hastened the printed paper to the precipice of it's grave.

But not all print media is failing. You have to keep one thing in mind; all media, print, TV, radio and web have one thing in common, they survive solely on advertising. Some papers are doing great at selling to their market and generating income, two other NYC newspapers, the Daily News and the New York Post are not turning record profits, but they are comfortably in the black. Many papers have learned how to market themselves in print and on the web to get readers and viewers in both mediums.

And then you have the stodgy NY Times, which chose to turn it's back on it's vaunted history of being the Newspaper of Record and instead over he past two decades p*ssed on it's history of being a bastion of truth. In order to appear profitable the NY Times is looking at selling one of it's two remaining assets of any value, it's interest in New England Sports Ventures, owners of the Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park and majority stake in the cable network that broadcasts their games.

While considered to be a good investment and guaranteed to be sold for more money than the purchase price Times Co is likely to toss in the Boston Globe newspaper as an extra, making that investment a net loss. And regardless of how much more the Red Sox are worth now than when purchased, in this economy it may not make up for the write off of the Globe. (In 2006 Jack Welch was considering a purchase offer for the Boston Globe for between $550MM and $600MM but Times Co refused to sell, it is now valued at about $20MM.)
With their roughly 17% stake in NESV valued at roughly $166MM the New York Times can show profitability for a year. (Times Co is asking $300MM which is laughably high in this economy that some would argue they helped to drive down). But then they are left with only one asset left... The New York Times name. And quite frankly they mortgaged that when they stopped reporting the news and adopted their biased slant on almost everything they print.

Like any pathological liar you can only run that game so long before people stop believing anything you say. To recover from that type of self inflicted wound takes time, usually years, to rebuild that trust... and after the sale of their last real asset the time they have left can likely be measured in months, far less than is needed.

The shifting semantics of global warming

B. Hussein Obama has made it difficult to pin down his opinions on anything as he has metamorphosed immeasurably since June 2008 changing his policies and stated philosophy on a good number of subjects. On everything from Universal Healthcare to government funded abortions Obama has changed his public stances. Although as an Illinois legislator he was a rabid liberal he is now repackaging himself as having a record as a reformer and agent of change (without proof of any or reform demonstrable change). And while I could go on detailing how he changed since being handed the DNC nomination that is not the point of this blog.

One of the few areas Obama has remained consistent since either getting his party's nod or winning the general election is his support for the myth of anthropogenic global warming. And despite all of the media hype about his "centrist" cabinet he is packing his cabinet with global warming leftards.

Over the past half decade the Church of Global Warming has hitched their wagon to one horse, that being the "fact" that man has caused global warming through excessive generation of carbon dioxide, most notably through fossil fuel combustion. I refer to those who support this myth as the Church of Global Warming because like all religions (cults or sects), it requires a level of blind faith and willingness to not question the doctrine, even when science exists that contradicts the dogma.

In 2006 the IPCC assembled a bunch of scientists and released their now famous report that "ended the debate on global climate change". They affirmed the rising temperatures were caused by man made contribution of carbon dioxide. Case closed, the sole reason has been identified.

However, many people questioned this. And the more people questioned this preposterous claim the more the truth came out about the composition of the IPCC panel which raised questions but not in the media, which true to it's liberal bias was proclaiming this myth as fact.

Obama has proven he will change to get what he wants, his panel of global warming czars will be no different. They will change their arguments but they cannot change the facts that their belief cannot be substantiated. I predict however, that their rhetoric will expand from the simplistic "man made carbon dioxide" diatribe used by the Global Warming Troofers and will require better use of science to combat their rhetoric.

But make no mistake, while it might sound more polished and professional in nature than "An Inconvenient Truth" it will still remain nothing more than rhetoric. I predict it won't be long before we see a new and improved effort from the global warming cultists and see a movement towards global cap and trade as a "solution" to this myth.

While the topic of Global Warming has gotten a bye in the alternate media in 2008 my prediction it will be getting renewed attention shortly. And while these theories will be forwarded by scientists there will be nothing scientific about it.

Sloppy and incompetent journalism? Or just rabid partisan bias?

This morning I caught a quick uninformative AP blurb off the main Yahoo page mentioning the federal investigation of a US Representative this morning.

It briefly mentioned the investigation but not in any detail. As a matter of fact one of the missing details was the Congressman's, Chaka Fattah, party affiliation. You have to get to the third paragraph to even get to his name.

I did a Yahoo News search for Chaka Fattah were all newspaper articles that inked back to this AP story, but all also included a reference to it being from the Philadephia Inquirer. So off to Google News for a search for Chaka Fattah and at the top of the page was the link to the original news article the AP got their blurb from.

Besides identifying the Congressman by name in paragraph one, they mention his party when you get to paragraph four. It also mentions his membership on the House Ways and Means Committee and the millions in earmarks he secured for the group he founded and is now under investigation.

So why would the AP "reporter" who based their story on the Enquirer story omit such pertinent details? Sloppy, lazy journalism? Or unabashed bias? And why would Yahoo, who claim they just act as a publisher and are not content providers, not link a search to one of the nation's leading newspapers?

Getting dizzy from the media spin

Talk abounds in the media this morning about how the Republicans in the Senate voted to kill the auto industry and ran the global economy further into the mud.

Many of us know that is bull crap. Last night a cloture vote was held to call the bill to a vote without debate and it lost 52 - 35... and the media will tell you that is because of the evil, America-hating Republicans.

But what the media is not saying is that Reid had an alternative, he could have opened debate on the bill. Which brings me to a quick aside, the auto bailout bill was not a bill, it was an amendment, the bill was intended to address the AMT for 2008, a bill guaranteed to pass... unless Pelosi and Reid attach a fundamentally unsound amendment that will cost tax payers 14 Billion dollars so Detroit can keep making the same jacked up mistakes while the banks, who have received $350 Billion can continue to horde that money and continue to disregard the reason the government issued the financial bailouts in the first place.

The media is also ignoring that while they are blaming the bill's defeat on Republicans, only 31 of those votes were Republicans... so the media is telling people that 31 Senators somehow prevented the other 68 members of congress from passing the measure. Reid voted against cloture so it can be brought back up for another vote, but three other Democrats also voted against cloture. That means had Reid and the other three Democrats voted for cloture then they would have been one vote shy of winning and moving the bill for a vote.
Since 52 and 35 do not equal 99 (the current number of Senate seats) lets look at the missing members of the Senate. Smith, Sununu and Stevens lost and have taken their marbles and gone home, Craig and Hagel chose not to run again and stayed home, and Kennedy is home ill.

That means Alexander, Biden, Cornyn, Graham, Kerry and Wyden opted to not report and vote. Had any one of the three Democrats listed shown up the bill would have passed cloture and been brought up for a vote without debate.

The media, instead of blaming the bill's failure on Democrats should instead be laying blame where it belongs... at the feet of Harry Reid who has distinguished himself as not being able to control the Senate, especially his side of the aisle, he even had the benefit of having 7 Republicans vote for cloture.

Reid has no one to blame for his failure but himself.

*****
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R. 7005. )
Vote Number:
215
Vote Date:
December 11, 2008, 10:42 PM
Required For Majority:
3/5
Vote Result:
Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number:
H.R. 7005 (Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 )
Measure Title:
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide alternative minimum tax relief for individuals for 2008.
Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI)Bayh (D-IN)Bingaman (D-NM)Bond (R-MO)Boxer (D-CA)Brown (D-OH)Brownback (R-KS)Byrd (D-WV)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Casey (D-PA)Clinton (D-NY)Collins (R-ME)Conrad (D-ND)Dodd (D-CT)Dole (R-NC)Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)Harkin (D-IA)Inouye (D-HI)Johnson (D-SD)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Landrieu (D-LA)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lugar (R-IN)McCaskill (D-MO)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Reed (D-RI)Rockefeller (D-WV)Salazar (D-CO)Sanders (I-VT)Schumer (D-NY)Snowe (R-ME)Specter (R-PA)Stabenow (D-MI)Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)Whitehouse (D-RI)

NAYs ---35
Allard (R-CO)Barrasso (R-WY)Baucus (D-MT)Bennett (R-UT)Bunning (R-KY)Burr (R-NC)Chambliss (R-GA)Coburn (R-OK)Cochran (R-MS)Coleman (R-MN)Corker (R-TN)Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)Ensign (R-NV)Enzi (R-WY)Grassley (R-IA)Gregg (R-NH)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inhofe (R-OK)Isakson (R-GA)Kyl (R-AZ)Lincoln (D-AR)Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)McConnell (R-KY)Murkowski (R-AK)Reid (D-NV)Roberts (R-KS)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL)Tester (D-MT)Thune (R-SD)Vitter (R-LA)Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 12
Alexander (R-TN)Biden (D-DE)Cornyn (R-TX)Craig (R-ID)
Graham (R-SC)Hagel (R-NE)Kennedy (D-MA)Kerry (D-MA)
Smith (R-OR)Stevens (R-AK)Sununu (R-NH)Wyden (D-OR)

I've been pilloried for saying it but I will repeat it... the auto bailout is a bad idea

Folks, I have to repeat myself... the auto bailout is a bad idea that keeps getting worse.

There are two clear cut reasons for this:

1. The government should not be loaning or in any other fashion giving money to private industry.
2. The last thing we want is the government having access to boardrooms
   

Both of these are equally important reasons. Not the least of which are the government can't satisfactorily perform their constitutionally mandated obligations.

Now Chris Dodd is starting to dictate terms not just for this bailout, but he is mandating terms if they want to get future loans. Dodd is saying Chrysler has to merge and GM has to replace their CEO. Now kids, let me tell you why this is patently disingenuous... both of those are forgone conclusions, but even if they weren't the government should not be setting any conditions on these loans that the shouldn't be making in the first place. (Added, since I wrote this the article linked to above added that Obama also said that some company execs should lose their jobs.)

Once the government starts to force it's way into the boardroom of one company it will get an uninsatiable appetite to get into more.

When the government guaranteed the loans for Chrysler the banks who made the actual loans put had access to the board and made sure that getting their money back was a priority. In order to get their money back they made sure Chrysler reinvented the way they did business, Lee Iaccoca was in a position to lead such change and did so.

The current crew in Detroit are not in a position or of the mindset to change. If the Big 3 do not file bankruptcy in a structured manner, assuring loans (perhaps government insured) from banks as part of the filing, it is a certainty that they will in the future. So they will declare bankruptcy AFTER getting the government loans and the government will be unsecured creditors and not be in a position to recoup the funds. And even if the government makes the loans so they are secured debtors there is no doubt in my mind that they will make sure other creditors get paid first in order to "save" those industries first leaving the taxpayer sucking hind tit.

Now notice Obama and Dodd have both said that there is a need for management change, Dodd even identified Rick Wagoner as being one to be replaced. Well, no crap, he piloted GM from $90 a share to $2 and change. The board should have replaced him, their failure to do so only underscores that there is no chance of the current brood in Detroit changing their business plans and the effecting the necessary change.

If the share holders don't care that their company is going bankrupt then the government should not step in to prevent just that from happening.

It is not the function of government to bail out private industry, it is not the job of government to run private industry, it is not the job of government to prevent private companies from tanking if their shareholders don't care.

Let the automakers declare bankruptcy and start anew with financing (if the government wants to force anyone to do something, they have already given the banking industry 350 Billion, they should force the banks to open up the credit lines, that was the sole purpose of the banking bailout... if that doesn't work the government can offer to guarantee the loans) that way they can slough off their legacy debt. If not the bailout will be annual events and the more the government "invests" the more they will have to keep tossing at the companies so they don't lose their money.

I predict that the automakers will declare bankruptcy anyway, so they should do so now and try to succeed befire they are subsidiaries of the US Government.

We're sorry. We won't do it again... until the next time.

I don't think I have ever hidden my disdain for the majority of the main stream media. They were granted a position of public trust in the founding of our country and they have forsaken it.
Although they abandoned any hope of redemption they are trying to convince us that they realize the error of their ways and promise they will be better reporters in the future.

Throughout the past 6 years and culminating in the media coronation of Barack Hussein Obama the MSM has become a cultural wasteland. With media empires such as the New York Times, Gannett, and the McClatchy Group forsaking any and all journalistic responsibility and smuggly continuing their rabid attacks on common sense while ignoring the facts surrounding the past of the man they chose to be President. All while KNOWING that their own polls, commissioned because they KNEW they were mortgaging their integrity to achieve their agenda, showed that even President Bush has stronger approval ratings that they do.

They commissioned the polls to gauge public opinion and trust in the media and saw the results were miserable because people knew they were in the tank for Obama... but they didn't care. They thumbed their noses at the wave of distrust, and by extension the American people, until they got what they wanted.

Now that the election is over the media is tripping over themselves, donning sack cloth and ashes, spewing mea culpas and rending their garments in anguish. They realize they have forsaken the public trust. And now they are sorry.

And that is horse crap.

The media had no great epiphany concerning their abandoning journalistic principles. (And I maintain abandoning their protection under the 1st Amendment.) Their rude awakening was caused when their accounting departments told them that they are going broke, there was not a wave of collective conscience that swept the industry. That is what they are sorry about... that we are not supporting them in their quest for a year end bonus.

They knew that people had little faith in them because of their unabashed bias, and they didn't care, they continued peddling lies and opinions as fact. Now they are going to try to regain people's trust, simply by saying they are sorry and won't repeat it.

The media used to be referred to as being the Fourth Estate. The protectors of liberty and freedom, that is the reason they are protected in the constitution, to protect the people from the government. But who is supposed to protect the people from the media?

So I hope people don't believe the editorials and articles that are certain to begin to flow from the editorial pages and broadcast journals saying they have realized the error of their ways. The proof of their contrition will be evident if they stop with their crazed bias and agenda pushing.
I expect to see journalists' round tables and blue ribbon panels gathering to ask how the media came so far off the mark. I'm sure there will be apologies, maybe even a token head will roll, but that is unlikely.

But I don't know why this surprises me so much. After all journalists all clamour for the Pulitzer Prize, an award named after a man who made his fortune in the days of Yellow Journalism. Ironically, the New York Times, perhaps the least credible and most biased of any print media source today, was founded as a credible alternative to Pulitzer's sensationalistic and often patently false brand of journalism.

Corporate Darwinism

Bailouts are bad for the economy. They foster a welfare mentality.

I am not just referring to the hundreds of thousands of people who stopped paying their mortgages voluntarily because they agreed to bad loans and believed the government would step in and pay their mortgage for them. I am referring to corporate welfare plans that Obama and other politicians are calling for. And while I plan to address mostly the corporate welfare angle I want to use the personal welfare mentality as that is easier to understand because it is easier to relate to, once you get that the idea of corporate welfare seems more comprehensible.

Now this is something I had intended on writing about this morning but got too busy, I don't intend for it to be a retread of what Jake and Tony have written about today. (Friday actually, it's been a busy few days.)

Months ago the media focused on Ed McMahon facing foreclosure because he had followed the path of instant gratification and kept refinancing his house and sucking the equity out of it while frittering away his life savings. Then the housing market in LA hit the crapper and Ed, like many others, found himself with a flipped mortgage, that is a mortgage where you owe more than the house is worth. However, CNN spun the interview a bit differently that the facts as I laid them out. But unlike Ed, who had literally pissed away his savings, there are people who when faced with the ugly reality that they refinanced their house one time too many and the mortgage was for more than the value of the house took the path of least resistance and mailed the key for their abandoned house to their mortgage holder.

"Now these people are not like the minority of foreclosure victims and were unable to comprehend the idea of adjustable rate mortgages, balloon payments, and the usual collection of financial jargon incomprehensible to many people buying their first homes. And they are different from the group of people who took out mortgages based on 125% of the value of the house, or 100% mortgages with $50K or greater lines of equity, and kept refinancing to have access to that equity in the home plus the projected equity and were caught when the housing market busted.

These people have stopped paying their mortgages because they believe they don't have to. They listened to the asshats running for office and abandoning any final vestiges of personal responsibility stop paying to live in their house, because they believe, honestly or otherwise, that the banks will not foreclose on them and the government will either force banks to renegotiate terms and principal or pay the mortgages for them. They abandoned personal responsibility and rather than work out a budget that impacts other aspects of their lives they are simply waiting for the government to help them.

We are seeing the same lack of responsibility in the auto industry. They were promised bailouts as concessions to the unions. The auto bailout proponents hide behind the reality that more than a million jobs and countless tax revenues are dependent upon the US auto industry. But these same people are hiding from the reality of Darwinism, survival of the fittest.

The US auto industry faced a crisis in the 1970s when gas shortages forced people to buy the far inferior Japanese imports for the sake of gas mileage. In 1979 the new chairman of Chrysler realized the company would fail unless if restructured itself and obtained loans to retool its factories and become competitive. Iacocca approached Congress and asked the federal government to guarantee loans so it would not go under. Congress approved these loan guarantees and banks came up with the money Chrysler needed to remake itself.

The only concession the US auto industry made to regain failing market share was to produce more cars so customers could walk into a dealership and pick up their new cars a few days later, as opposed to the wait of weeks or months that was customary. The Japanese auto makers were investing their profits into new plants and quality while the American motor companies were focusing on reducing the cost of their products so they could have large inventories.

Eventually the 90s came, Iacocca retired, and the auto industry played their incestuous game of musical chairs in which company executives changed companies eventually retuning to that homogenized look that the industry is famous for. Japan beat the US in quality and the US auto industry sunk, because once again every company needed to play catch up with the Japanese companies, first in gas mileage and then in quality. As that decade ended Ford and GM had caught up in quality but Chrysler still lagged behind.

Chrysler came out with a stable of great looking cars, the Dakota, Magnum, Charger, Avenger, 300, and the PT Cruiser. Chrysler souped up the engines offering the Hemi in the bigger vehicles but never figured out it needed a transmission for its cars, a fact that has haunted them since the introduction of automatic transmissions. And the cheesy plastic interiors don't help them either.

I didn't mean to go off on a Chrysler tangent but I felt it is relevant to explain the difference between Chrysler's loan guarantees of 1979 and the proposed bailout of 2008. Iacocca promised and laid out a plan for change for his company, in order to entice the government to guarantee the loans that Chrysler needed from banks and investors to pull out of it's nosedive, it had sought loans on the free market first and was denied based upon its history of inefficiency and the banking industry decided Chrysler would fall prey to corporate Darwinism and hence they were a bad risk.

This bailout does not ask the auto industry to change, it is just shoveling cash to, not stop, but augment the bleeding. If you have a patient hemorrhaging blood the first thing you do is address the injuries and stop the bleeding. In this case the government is offering to keep the auto industry afloat by injecting cash into it. Not by simply guaranteeing loans, but by directly making them. Not only is it a bad policy for the US to loan money to any industry it is a stupid strategy... you need to address why the patient is hemorrhaging money instead of just pumping more money into it. Just as running an IV into a bleeding patient will spill out on the floor unless you dress the staunch the flow first; pumping cash into these companies will be just as wasted.

The loans Iacocca asked the government to guarantee forced Chrysler to change their corporate strategy and be profitable. It allowed the major lenders to have a say in corporate affairs by having a say in the structure of the board to make sure they got their money from the company. It forced corporate responsibility prior to the loans being made.

The proposed government bailouts, for AIG, the banking industry, the auto industry, and every other corporation and eventually individuals are bad policy as they do not force the corporations or individuals to change and adopt a more responsible business model/lifestyle.

If the auto companies filed for bankruptcy protection and restructured it would allow them to rework their business model and either succeed as stand alone corporations or merge or find partners to continue existing. If they fail, as Chrysler may very well do, they will most likely merge or be purchased by a company like GM or Isuzu who wants their stable of cars and intellectual value, and in the case of Isuzu the dealerships. It would also mean that the manufacturing plants remain open so it is not like the manufacturing jobs will evaporate, but many white collar jobs will suffer.

The companies may emerge from restructuring stronger, or perhaps not at all. But it is a virtual guarantee that without forcing responsibility upon these companies they will return to this situation again. Sooner rather than later.

Essentially the US economy has been on a steady incline for the past quarter century. As the economy has prospered so has the poorest segments of society. That goes for businesses as well. Many inefficient companies, some small and others giant leviathans prospered in spite of themselves. A correction may be necessary to shake out the weaker companies and act as incentive for the stronger ones to adapt and thrive.

Let the auto companies declare bankruptcy, reorganize and restructure, refinance their debt, rework their union contracts. Only that way will they survive; if they are able to. Handouts and entitlements are addictive and will not act as incentive for the recipients to change their business plans, so all it will do is postpone the inevitable, not cure the problem.

And this is all without addressing the toxic subject of the government running the board room.

Buyer's Remorse

I have conducted an informal survey by driving to and from work. By Thursday afternoon the campaign signs for the state and local candidate and with one exception, Obama signs, had dissappeared from lawns and houses along the streets I take to and from work.
However, there are still seven McCain signs up.

The bumperstickers and home made signs (even a few pictures of Obama) are off, and out of , the cars. But again, McCain supporter still have their stickers adorning their cars.
Now this is a very unscienctific survey done on a roughly 10 mile stretch of roads in a heavily Republican county.

But one thing I realized over the years is that the losers' signs tend to disappear a lot faster than the winners'. People like to brag about having won and when they back a winner they leave the sign up a few extra days. Some real phoneys go and buy bumperstickers after the election so they to can be popular in their own mind.

Now I don't think anyone really has buyer's remorse yet. After all what has Obama done besides appoint a social retard as his Chief of Staff and two financial retards to his economic advisory board. Plus nominate an enviro-nazi who wants to shut off all sources of electricty as his EPA chief. And is considering the person who contributed most to 9-11 outside of Al-Qaeda as his Attorney General... she gets bonus points as she was the Vice Chair of Fannie Mae and, along with Franklin Raines, raided the company in a $10 billion accounting scandal.

In every other election the signs have remained up longer than a day or two. Why the conspicuous disappearance now?

Just asking.

I live in the most (openly) corrupt state in the union... and yet it could be worse

New Jersey is one of the country's most openly corrupt states. Not necessarily the most corrupt, but in New Jersey everyone complains about corruption and every election day sends every incumbent back to continue pillaging the tax coffers. Apparently people don't want to end corruption lest they find themselves in an elected position and have the opportunity to stuff their own pockets.

The US Attorney, Chris Christie, has made quite a reputation for himself cracking down on crooked politicians at the state and local levels. Neither Democrats, nor Republicans, have been safe from his team of investigators who have been rooting out corruption with a vengeance. I guarantee that he will be among the first US Attorneys replaced by Obama since he has sent quite a few powerful Democrats to the Gray Bar Hotel.

And yet... it could be worse.

Barely 10 days after having the city council of New York vote to change the term limit law allowing him to run for a third consecutive term as Mayor, Michael Bloomberg announced some radical, but "necessary" cost cutting measures.

New York City was devastated by the failure of the financial sector with millions in payroll taxes and sales taxes gone almost without warming. New York State is similarly screwed, as both the city and state are reliant upon the financial sector jobs to keep afloat.

So Bloomberg announced he was suspending the homestead rebate... so homeowners in the city should not expect their $400 payoff. Never fear, I predict they will manage to restore it with great fanfare next year, just in time for the election.

He also announced the cancellation of NYPD academy classes, ironically after spending millions this year on a recruitment blitz. It seems they don't anticipate street crime or burglaries to increase in this period of economic turmoil. Or perhaps he is jealous of all the attention that Chicago, St Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, St Paul, and Phoenix get over out of control crime rates.

Another cost saving measure he is implementing is to reduce the training period for new fire fighters. The current training period is 23 weeks, but last summer it was extended from 13 weeks. Under the mayor's plan it will end at 11 weeks.

But here is one area where the city will not be cutting costs... bridges.

No. Not maintenance of the many bridges crossing the rivers that connect Manhattan to the other boroughs, that has already been cut to a bare minimum.

The State of New York has renamed the venerable Triborough Bridge in honor of Robert F Kennedy, who served as a US Senator from the state. The city and state have dutifully spent $4 Million dollars for new signage for the span that connects, Bronx, Manhattan and Queens boroughs.

The Empire State and The Big Apple are crying the financial blues... but at the same time they can spend $4M in tax dollars to rename a bridge and redo all of the signage for it.

Police? We don't need police.

Firefighters? Put the wet stuff on the hot stuff. What training do they need?

But signage for the renaming of an ugly bridge? That is a gosh darn priority!

(And for those who enjoy irony. There is a spur of the Triborough Bridge leading to Randall's Island; that is the site of the FDNY Training Academy.)

What to do?

A close friend of mine is confused.

On one hand, as a black woman, she feels obligated to vote for Obama. As a social worker she understands that hopes and dreams are important to children. And while white children know that one day they could grow up to be President black children do not harbor that hope. An Obama presidency could change that forever.

On the other hand, she also wants her children raised in a country that develops people such as John McCain. People of honor, service and integrity. She wants people to understand that there are real heros, not just in the movies.

Another friend is also confused, but for different reasons.

She, as a left leaning moderate wants to be able to be able to say "I voted for Obama" because she believes that there is something about this man that carries such promise and energy to bring a new day to Washington.

But she is also one of the smartest people I know and knows more about constitutional law than Obama could ever hope to. She has no problem with some of Obama's more radical plans for tax increases to help the poor, but she does admit it means that she would most likely have to stop donating as much as she does to charity. She gives away 10% of her salary to charities and non-profits on a monthly basis. As much as she dislikes that idea, it is the idea of legislating away our constitutional rights and the potential of stacking the Supreme Court with activist justices that alarms her.

As we were sitting around last night talking I told them that what they should do is try to overlook the emotional reasons behind wanting to vote for a candidiate and look at the facts. To vote with their head, not their hearts. To think of it as a serious decision, not a game with a "do-over" in 48 months.

(I have no doubt that before 8 pm tonight one will have voted for McCain... or not at all, and the other will have voted for Obama... or not at all.)

I am excited about the prospect of people voting who have never voted before in their lives. People who, like Michelle Obama said, for the first time in their adult lives feel proud to be Americans. People who prior to this election were not disenfranchised through the actions of others, but who chose to be disenfranchised through their own inaction. It always struck me as a shame that only 35% of registered voters actually vote... and only about 50% of eligible citizens are registered.

However, as excited as I am I feel equally saddened that so many people are voting without learning the facts, without understanding the issues. A full 80% of voters pull the lever for a particular party while knowing nothing about the candiate, in many cases not even their names.
I am angered that the media chose and propped up a marginal candiate like John McCain while ignoring other more vibrant candidates. I am perplexed that Obama, the least qualified man to run for a major party nomination, actually won it.

I voted for John McCain this morning not because particularly like him, but solely because many of Barack Obama's campaign positions run contrary to the ideals of the United States' founding fathers, our country's constitution, and my own principles.

And that is the saddest thing of all... that a country as great as this has two major parties who have a marginal candiate facing off against a man who is uniquely unqualified to run for the position of POTUS. We should have a real choice for the next person to hold the most important job in the world.

A final word before the 2008 election

OK, that is a lie, there is more to come. Whether Obama wins or loses there will be a lot of discussion about the death of journalism and the impartial media, about the overuse of the race card option, about one candidate who wants the Presidency so badly they will stop at nothing, no lie to big, no promises so outrageously impossible to fulfill, about the other candidate who ran a half hearted campaign, but most importantly (IMHO) was about how the media chosen the two Presidential candidates through baised and partial reporting.

And no matter which candidate wins it will not be over for conservatives. McCain is not our candidate and neither is Obama. The constitution will need defending and so will our civil liberties. McCain, despite his promises otherwise, is a big government Republican, a RINO. Obama is a socialist at heart and in practice.

So regardless of the outcome we will remain to fight for those dumb enough to have chosen McCain and Obama to slug it out in order to be POTUS.

But rather than point out that conservatives have no dog in this hunt let me remind each and every one of you to vote.

Don't listen to the polls. Don't listen to the pundits. And that is doubly true of people on the left coast... you have to vote tomorrow. McCain, Obama, the DNC and the RNC have armies of lawyers to argue the validity of votes and ballots. Barring an unexpected landslide one way or the other the election will not necessarily be decided on Tuesday. But don't trust the media to tell you that.

Get out and vote.

More savagery from the "religion of peace"

Rape victim, 13, stoned to death in Somalia
Chris McGrealAfrica correspondentguardian.co.uk

An Islamist rebel administration in Somalia had a 13-year-old girl stoned to death for adultery after the child's father reported that three men had raped her.

Amnesty International said the al-Shabab militia, which controls the southern port city of Kismayo, arranged for a group of 50 men to stone Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow in front of a crowd of about 1,000 spectators. A lorryload of stones was brought to the stadium for the killing.
Amnesty said that Duhulow struggled with her captors and had to be forcibly carried into the stadium.

"At one point during the stoning, Amnesty International has been told by numerous eyewitnesses that nurses were instructed to check whether Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was still alive when buried in the ground. They removed her from the ground, declared that she was, and she was replaced in the hole where she had been buried for the stoning to continue," the human rights group said.

"Inside the stadium, militia members opened fire when some of the witnesses to the killing attempted to save her life, and shot dead a boy who was a bystander."

Amnesty said witnesses originally reported that Duhulow was 23-years-old, based on her appearance. But the human rights group found out from her father that she was a child.
Duhulow's father told Amnesty that when they tried to report her rape to the militia, the child was accused of adultery and detained. None of the men Duhulow accused was arrested.

"This was not justice, nor was it an execution," said Amnesty's Somalia campaigner, David Copeman. "This child suffered an horrendous death at the behest of the armed opposition groups who currently control Kismayo.

"This killing is yet another human rights abuse committed by the combatants to the conflict in Somalia, and again demonstrates the importance of international action to investigate and document such abuses, through an international commission of inquiry."Amnesty said al-Shabab had created a climate of fear in which government officials, journalists and human rights activists faced death threats and killing if they spoke against the militia.
.
A 13 year old rape victim was stoned to death by these animals. This misogymistics pigs murdered her for committing adultry with her married attacker. They claim to be the religion of peace. What horseshit!

And they claim it is a small minority of people who really hold these extreme views. Yet in a city of less than 2,000,000 they were able to gather 1,000 witnesses and 50 willing participants to stone the struggling girl and checked to make sure she was still alve before tossing her into a hole to be buried alive.

And what was the point of having so many witnesses? So women and men alike know that if the tell anyone that they or a family member was raped the victim will be killed.

Islam is not a "Religion of Peace"... it is not a religion at all... it is a Cult of Hate. A cult for filthy psychopathic retards stuck in the 7th Century.

Marxist Logic

Early in the beginning of the primaries Democrats were complaining that Republicans get help from PAC, 527s and "big corporate" donors and get around financing rules, Obama was one of the loudest critics. Although it was laughable because the Democrats have many more PACs and 527 and a huge benefactor in George Soros who funds or started many of the DNC oriented PACs and organizations.

Once McCain was the nominee he reached out and said he would accept the strict public financing rules and invited the potential Democrat nominees to do the same. Barack Hussein Obama accepted and agreed to it. In the meantime Obama started getting mysterious and untraceable funds from overseas and domestic donors, and Obama realized he would fair better if he retracted his agreement and kept taking this untraceable and seemingly unlimited source of campaign money.

John McCain, being a man of honor, did not go back on his word. In the two months from the end of the GOP convention until November 4th he will receive the maximum $84M from the Federal Elections Committee. Obama demonstrating the lack of value even he places on his own words collected $150M in the month of September alone. Much of it via untraceable pre-paid VISA cards.

So McCain got $42 million and Obama got $150 million. In the name of fairness, and in order to abide by his desire to spread the wealth around he should give the McCain $75 million.
Barack Obama said it is fair and better for everyone when we spread the wealth around, Joe Biden said it is patriotic.

Now some may be tempted to say that is not fair. That McCain had the opportunity to raise as much money as he wanted, but he chose not to. Others might say that they both had he same opportunity but Obama had more skill, worked harder, or was just luckier to get the breaks and earn more money.

Some would propose that the two pool their funds and split it evenly, $91 million for each... but that would be unfair to expect the candidate with the least money to have to give up what little he had while Obama acquired almost 4 times his wealth in just one month.

And in order to oversee this transfer of funds they will need to establish a government agency that acts independent of the FEC; establishing a non-governmental organization to assist this transfer would not be satisfactory. So in order to get John McCain the $75 million from Obama, it will be necessary to tax the Obama campaign 187.5 million dollars since only about 40% of all government programs directly assist the recipients, the balance is overhead.

A fair program and efficiently managed by the government.

The "R" Word

(originally posted October 28, 2008)

A few months back a rumor was started (likely by someone on the right) that there was a telling video of Michelle Obama giving a speech and using "The R Word". The R word in this case was rumored to be RETRIBUTIONS. Then someone started a rumor (most likely by someone on the left) that Sean Hannity had the video and was holding it during the "Stop Hillary Express" campaign he was running, and that he planned to reveal it once Obama won the nomination.

By now most people realize that the video wasn't a video, it was an audio tape. STRIKE ONE!

And it wasn't Michelle Obama, it was Barack. STRIKE TWO!!

And the "R" word wasn't retributions, it was REDISTRIBUTE. STRIKE THREE!!!

But it's not out! Because it was a good rumor, it played into the circus surrounding Rev Wright, a black angry man, and attributed it to Michelle Obama, a black angry woman. Easy to believe.

However, instead of the Black Liberation philosophy of retributions it is the Marxist philosophy of redistribution of wealth that was being discussed.

And what makes that hard to believe is that Barack Obama and Joe Biden started talking about redistribution of wealth before the tape surfaced. And that is the most incredible thing of all. That a candidate from a major party was telling people he was going to spread the wealth around. Well not their wealth, our wealth. Or rather what we consider our wealth to be.

Which brings me to the thing I wanted to write about. When Joe Biden says that he and Obama have no plant to redistribute wealth he is technically correct. That is right, he is correct. mark your calenders, because pretty much everything else Joe says is wrong or a lie... mostly its a lie.

You see, what Obama and Biden are talking about doing is NOT redistributing wealth; they are going to redistribute income.

While they pretend to be "progressive" and "reformers" they are elitists. Oddly enough since neither of them are in the wealthy category, but they are rich according to most people's standards.

But they are not truly Marxist or socialist, they are just borrowing those principles. They are allowing people to keep their wealth (for now anyway) and are increasing taxes on income. Sure they want to reinstitute the estate taxes making sure the government gets their hands on more of a family's wealth after dad dies, but the wealthy have foundations, trusts, and other means with which to protect their assets from the tax man.

What they want to do is increase the tax burden on the middle and upper middle classes while bestowing that money on the lower classes. The sums they are talking about does not begin to relieve the burden on the lower class, but it does increase their numbers. For the last 25 years the percentage of households living in poverty and earning lowest 20% of income has declined. While the top 40% of wage earners has increased. In this period, from 1983 until 2002 the poverty rate has dropped and the middle class has risen. From 2002 until 2008 poverty continued to decline along with the middle class, which declined because the upper class grew.
So when Joe Biden says "Bush devastated the middle class", it is because they moved into the top 40% of wage earners. And while it is accurate to claim that in the Bush administration the middle class shrunk, it is at the same time bit disingenuous, because those people succeeded in moving into the upper class.

Obama has stated he wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire... all of them, capital gains, estate tax, and income tax. So that increases taxes on everyone, not just those making more than the $250K figure he has been throwing about. A family that earns $75,000 will see their income tax burden increase by $3,000 a year. Children tax credits? Gone. And of course the marriage penalty is back, Obama has been careful to say taxpayer instead of wage earner in his speeches.

Of course the tax credits that he proposes are nothing more than entitlements for the low end wage earners. The problem is that unless you do not earning anything, those tax credits are being used to partially pay for the increase in your tax burden. And the increase at the corporate end of the spectrum, who pays for that? The consumer. And who, according to progressive theory, does the increased prices (to pay for the increased taxes) affect the most? The most vulnerable end of the low pay scale. But that is OK, because Obama has already accounted for that in his tax credits.

So his tax credits will go for paying taxes. How ironic.

But if his tax credits go to pay taxes, why bother to redistribute income? Because it will increase the number of poor and those in poverty who need to be served by government programs. It will (in the short time at least) decrease the discretionary spending of people who donate the most to private and faith based charities who are far more efficient at tending to those in need than the government. That will increase the number of people who will have to be served by the government.

It is about growing the government and increasing dependence on the government.

You see, if Obama and Biden really planned on redistributing wealth Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, T. Boone Pickens and every major corporation in the country would buy every available minute of air time on TV to run ads against him. But instead they are silent. And they are silent because Obama wants to redistribute income, not wealth.

In the US the top 5% of wager earners represent 22% of all income but 59% of all wealth. Obama's tax plan will tax their income, but not their wealth. Their money is safe. We cannot say the same thing

Integrity

A trait overlooked by many. However, consciously or not, it is a characteristic many seek… at least in others. I have a huge character flaw, I take getting lied to personally. It is one of the reasons that I cannot get behind Obama, although his supporters are saying that Obama is not a liar, he is promising higher taxes and enlarging the welfare state, not issues liberal Democrats have readily admitted in a close election.

But what he is not admitting is the truth about his associations. He is not admitting he is a socialist. And he is attacking people who dare to question his integrity. His supporters used Ohio state computers to dig up info on Joe the Plumber. But savagely attacking a private citizen for asking a question about taxes when you approached him on his street is not an issue of integrity, B. Hussein’s other character flaws are for another blog(s).

The polls are telling.

President Bush’s ratings are dismal, although not the lowest of any sitting President, primarily because the media and his political opponents launched attacks calling his integrity into question. It wasn’t the missteps of the Iraq war that damaged his ratings, it was the perception that he lied about his reasons for getting into the war. It wasn’t low for allowing Congress to ignore his repeated warnings of the imminent failure of the economy, nor , unbelievably, was it the actual failure of the economy… it was the perception that the economy was bad despite all key indicators being up. The Democrats in Congress and the media was telling everyone how bad the economy was for the best 5 year period in American history. People gave him low ratings because they perceived he lacked the integrity to address the faltering economy, that he was ignoring the economy rather than fixing it. Others gave his low ratings for failing to stand up to the lies, letting the deceit go unchallenged is also an integrity issue.

Congress is another example of a lack of integrity affecting public opinion. The 110th session of Congress came in promising to change the way government worked. Nancy Pelosi, the presumed Speaker of the House, promised reform, honesty, and transparency in making earmarks. She then made a grand show of her first “100 Hours”, which took 6 weeks to reach because she was only counting legislative hours. As she celebrated her 6 “essential” pieces of legislation that she rammed through the house without debate people noticed that apart from the raise in the minimum wage people noticed it took 40 days to get to her 100 hours and she is celebrating one accomplishment, the minimum wage increase, the others were partisan window dressing. And in the time it took her to reach 100 hours Congress’ approval rating was below 40%... within a year it would be around 26% and before the end of the 110th Congress she will have guided the approval rating to the lowest of any modern Congress… below 10%. Of course she wasn’t alone, her partner in the Congress, Harry Reid helped. Their phoniness shines like a beacon in the night, they have no integrity and are proud about it… the people understand that.

The third, and most important example of how people expect integrity, is the media. People’s trust for the media exceeds that of the President and eclipses that of Congress, but that is very likely because the polls to gauge people’s trust in the media were also commissioned by the media. In a May 2008 poll 46% of people said they trust the media, with only 19% totally believing them. Instead of stepping back to see where this break in perception lies (media outlets in the US are commercial establishments, loss of market share equals loss of revenue) they dropped all pretences of being dispassionate reporters of events and started creating stories, essentially engaging in yellow journalism. Ironically one of the prime offenders, and one which is bleeding money because of it (but they refuse to admit they are wrong, it must be everyone else), is the New York Times. The New York Times, formally known as the Newspaper of Record, was started in 1851 as a conservative alternative to the yellow journals fighting it out for NYC market share. While Hearst and Pulitzer gained fame and then notoriety for their patently false reporting, the New York Times was given the moniker The Gray Lady, because it used a standard print and format and avoided the bombastic inflammatory headlines the other NYC papers used.

People expect the media to be honest and have integrity. The standard for broadcast newscasters was Walter Cronkite. He was the voice of authority and an icon for generations. At his pinnacle 30 million people a night turned on CBS to hear Walter Cronkite tell them what was happening in the world. Today all three major networks don’t share 30 million viewers. And while apologists can try to point out there is now cable competition, the truth remains that the decline started almost 20 years after CNN came on the scene. It was the birth of FoxNews that gave a home to people who wanted to hear more than what was becoming a more and more leftist distortion of events. The broadcast news and cable stations (along with many local non-affiliated stations) allowed their editorial content to filter the news, and eventually ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and many non-network stations stopped broadcasting news and started airing propaganda.

I’ve blogged in the past about the difference between perspective and spin. But Dan Rather’s airing of the patently false story concerning President Bush’s military records was met with limited outrage because by 2004 people expected the media to lie to them. People on the right were outraged, not so much about the deliberate lie being broadcast, but that no one else was outraged by it.

The media has forfeited their standing in society. Their integrity is gone. And like virginity, once it is gone it cannot be restored. The liberals (why be dishonest, after all I’m talking about integrity), I mean the socialists who hope to get into office with super majorities of both houses and the executive branch of the government, have announced their plans on how to limit dissent. The first plan they have is called “The Fairness Doctrine”. Since talk radio, along with FoxNews has led to the declining viewership and readership of main stream media sources, the MSM is likely to side with them on it.

But if the government’s power is allowed to go unchecked, one day perhaps the main stream media will start to talk about it, attempting to regain its previous status. But it will be too late. No one will believe them as they have already rendered themselves irrelevant. And the last vanguard against tyranny, a free press, will find itself at the mercy of the government, rather than acting as the fourth estate, designed to keep the government in check.

Our founding fathers’ were careful to provide for a free press in the constitution to assure the citizens will always have a free press. The 1st Amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is a protection from the government for its citizens, not the press. And in giving up their integrity and valuing propaganda over substance the media didn’t fail themselves, but the people they were expected to protect.

Best line concerning the bailout

(originally posted September 26, 2008)

While most readily admit the economy is too complex to understand how all of the pieces come together, not to mention how those pieces interact to affect the whole, Mike Pence of Indiana puts things into perspective for the common man.

"There are those in the public debate who say we must act now," said Indiana
Republican Mike Pence. "The last time I heard that, I was on a used car lot. The truth is every time somebody tells you that you have to do the deal right now, it usually means they are going to get the better part of the deal. The American people
deserve a seat at the table in this debate as well."

The Enemies Within the Gates

" A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lie deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."

Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106 - 43 B.C.

Since 2006 the liberals in Congress, and running for the Presidency, have promised a lot of programs, entitlements and changing of tax codes to pay for them. But it is not the money I am concerned about, it is the flagrant disregard of the constitution and the core values of our country that these urban limousine liberals want to inflict on thecountry.

They talk of "spreading the wealth", and giving everyone "affordable health care",
all of it couched in lies and deceit.

Compare Obama's 18 month primary run where he was upholding his position as the most liberal person in the Senate with his rhetoric, only to do a 180 degree turn when he began to face off against McCain. It has only been the past three weeks where his campaign has decided to re-energize their leftist base and begin to publicly discuss the increased taxes, generous tax credits, and windfall profit penalties out in the open... they have already deemed themselves unbeatable.

What they want is a socialist society and redistribution of wealth. They want to change our
federal republic into a socialist union. Marxism has failed in every instance it has been attempted. Just as throwing more money at poverty doesn't make people richer, frittering away the country's wealth won't make socialism work either, it will just delay the inevitable.

They want to gut the constitution... they have said as much. They want to change the moral fabric of our country... they have stated our values are anachronistic. They want us to support them as they construct an all powerful state that grants privileges instead of protecting our
liberties.

They believe that everything that this country was founded on is merely prologue, it is not pertinent in this modern world... especially, they say, our constitution. While an Obama victory may not be the end of the world, it may very well be the beginning of the end of the world's oldest constitution based federal republic.

Why deny the obvious?

(originally posted October 21, 2008)

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hillary Clinton, Rangel, Schumer, Biden, and a few dozen other elected members of the US Congress are socialists.

Recently Obama and Biden have dropped all pretences at being socialists except one; they deny it when it is painfully obvious to most everyone else. Like Bill Clinton lying to the bitter end about not having sex with "that woman", then having to redefine oral sex as not being sex, then questioning the definition of the word "is", piling on the lies until everyone felt sorry for him and even Clinton's worst detractors wished Starr would let the guy off the hook.
First Biden said that people making money should feel patriotic about paying more taxes. Then Obama told Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher that it is only fair to take some of his wealth and spread it around.

To quote Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Which is great if you are the one who chooses to need. What about those who chose to exercise their abilities to succeed? Obama says paying more in taxes to give some to those in need is only fair.

Fair to whom? The person who earned the money to make a better life for them and their family? Or to the person who through choice or circumstance did not exercise their talents or abilities?

The people supporting Obama are some of the same people who hate George Bush. One of the reasons for their irrational rage is what they perceive to be how Bush misused the power of the government. Imagine the use of the government to raise your taxes, and here is a fact check for you, Obama supported raising the tax rates on taxpayers earning as little as $42,000/year during the primaries. What makes anyone think his $250,000 tax hike will stay that high? Obama, a proven liar, is more likely to drop the rate as he called for during his short tenure in the Senate and in his primary run.

Another quote from Karl Marx: "Democracy is the road to socialism."

In this case the Democrat party is intent on bringing socialism to the shores of the US. Instead of being a world leader, they want the US to take a position secondary to that of the UN. Everything these socialists say they want to do runs contrary to the Constitution of our country.

Using words such as "fair", "spread the wealth", ironically wrapping themselves in the flag to guilt people into feeling bad about not paying enough in taxes, are typical strategies employed to convert democracies to socialist states.

Since Obama/Biden and Democrat "leaders" in Congress are slowly revealing their plans, and using the jargon of socialism, why don't they just admit that is what they are?

Why are they embarrassed about who they are? Perhaps because instead of having the intelligence or economic acumen to do justice to their idol Karl Marx, they more closely resemble the Marx Brothers.

(originally posted October 3, 2008)

So the bailout bill passed. The US steps one closer towards socialism and the government grows one bureau larger. And the debt grow by over $1,000,000,000,000. The GDP grew by a meager .7%, and the deficit grew by 14.28%.

And this I promise you, the deficit spending and unbridled growth of governemnt is just beginning... this is not a one shot deal.

$700B in unfunded monies to go to purchase toxic mortgages. But they tell us that once the banks get healthy they will buy those loans back at a profit. Why? Those loans caused the problems, why would banks waste good capital on those turds.

Another $105 billion in rescues monies for flood victims, earmarks, buyouts, tax rebates and reductions in taxes… only $30 billion of which were funded.

On the positive side, and a giant kick in the rocks to all the Republicans that voted for the bill because of the tax breaks… you can rest assured they will be repealed in the first piece of legislature of the next congressional session. Well, all except the AMT since every congressperson is subject to that.

Now I understand that many Republicans were afraid to vote against this bill because many of the goodies thrown into the bailout bill were targeting Republican areas to get them to flip. I also don’t doubt that the Wicked Witch if the West had Steny remind the 95 Democrats who voted against it the first time that Queen Nancy would remember them when she is deciding committee assignments over the break.

But the reason I am angry is not because Congress ignored 82% of the population who was against the bill. I am angry for two reasons.

The first is that not one single leader took time to explain why the bail out was necessary to the American public. In a moment straight out of the Joe Biden playbook the Congress decided it was smarter than us… so smart in fact this issue was above our ability to understand. So instead they bought off each other in a series of payoffs and reach arounds. The comtempt they show for us is amazing… abso-freaking-lutely amazing.

The second is that not one of the 338 legislators who voted to support the bill in the House and Senate stopped to consider fixing the problems that caused the economy to lock up. The problem was not a lack of $700B dollars, the problem was not a lack of regulation (the regulators warned of this and were dismissed out of hand) the problem is the government had their hands in the affairs of private business by forcing the banks to issue these bad loans in the first place.

The problem that led to this crisis was Congress sticking their noses where it didn’t belong… and their solution is to become more involved in the problem. The solution is less interference, not greater interference.

This bailout… and make no mistake, it is not a rescue… is addressing a symptom and not the disease. It is akin to bailing out a sinking boat without patching the hole in the bottom of it; no matter how much you try the water will keep coming in until you patch the hole. Congress’ plan is to make the hole bigger so the water drains out of the boat faster.

I believe there is room for these 338 Congresspersons who put their own self-interests about that of the nations at Guantanamo. They can use part of the $700 billion dollars to buy the orange jumpsuits… maybe Sheriff Joe can donate a few pairs of pink undies for them.