Category Archives: Political polemics

A PROFESSIONAL RADICAL

Obama is not a professional politician. He shows no concern for the damage he has done to his party. He has alienated Left, Right and Center. He doesn’t respond to circumstances and events like a professional politician. He neither thinks nor acts like a professional politician because he isn’t a professional politician. Obama is a professional radical.

Barack Obama has led the life of an organizer, an agitator, a revolutionary fighting for a cause. This has been his life. This is what he sees as his calling. He knows how to develop a following, how to work a crowd. Obama is a professional radical. He doesn’t know how to govern. He doesn’t care much about governing. He cares about change. His goal is nothing less than radical transformation of America.

Saul Alinsky gave barely a sentence about governing in his book Rules for Radicals. All he said was that governing was for someone else to do. The radical’s role is not to build, but to destroy. Not to lead, but to bring down the status quo paving the way for new leadership, radical transformational leadership that will emerge. Obama is well versed in radical activism. His associations with Ayers, Dorn, Rev. Wright, ACORN and the teachings of Saul Alinsky vouch for that. Now he’s learning that running a country is not as easy as manipulating an angry crowd.

THEY ALL WENT HOME

Congress is not in session. The Democratic leadership closed up shop until after the election.  That leaves voters in the dark with regard to the coming tax increases. You know increases are coming but you don’t know how much. That’s by design.

Right now the Democrats greatest fear is a stalemate. Advancement of the liberal agenda will come to a halt if Republicans win control of the house. The window will be slammed shut on tax increases for at least two years. The Democrats ace-in-the-hole is the automatic tax increase that will occur if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. That’s the plan.

To expose that hand before the election would be political suicide. No one votes for higher taxes. After the election all they have to do is … nothing. Or, to keep up appearances, debate the issue to death until the end of the year. They were unable to pass a budget for a whole year. Not passing a tax bill for a few weeks should be easy.

“One Nation Working Together”

Power Line comments on the  “One Nation Working Together” rally in Washington:

1) Four hundred organizations, including all the major labor unions, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, the Green Party, the Communist Party, Planned Parenthood and hundreds more were not able to turn out as many people as Glenn Beck.

2) One of the stated purposes of the gathering was to protest against lack of civility in public discourse. The program was opened by Ed Schultz.

Item 2 is good for a laugh and a cry. No one in public discourse, not even Keith Olberman, is less civil than Ed Schultz. If you don’t know him you must watch one full program of his on MSNBC,  6pm EST. Force yourself. You must know your adversaries. You cannot speak about a man with authority if you have not observed him for yourself.

What is striking about Power Line’s item 1 is the motley crowd of supporters. Have you ever been embarrassed to know Michael Savage is on your side? It beats knowing that your agenda coincides with that of Code Pink and the Communist Party.

AMANPOUR AND SAWYER DO ISLAM

Christine Amanpour and Diane Sawyer whitewashed Islam in Saturday night and Sunday morning programs. Pamela Geller covers it at Atlas Shrugs.

Given the exposure of various frauds and misrepresentations at CBS (Rather) and NBC (exploding trucks) not to mention the string of dishonesties by Mike Wallace (Google for them) it became apparent that network news “documentaries” are worse than useless; they are dangerous. These programs were, and still are, designed to create an air of integrity, the feeling that they are protecting us by enlightening us about who is defrauding and lying to us. They gain our confidence, then they lie to us.

Those with open minds, as all Conservatives have (wink), give the devil his due and say there must be some truth in what the other side has to say. The problem is, when watching these programs, how do you know which is truth and which is not, what to accept and what to not?

The shrewdest lie is not a lie at all; it is the technique of creating an impression that does not reflect the truth. It is the art of creating a lie by telling a carefully selected string of truths.

Immediately following Diane Sawyer’s 20/20 whitewash of Islam there was a program that focused on securities related crimes featuring a case from 2005 where an employee of a printing house informed another individual of the headlines that would appear in the next issue of Business Week magazine. The individual happened to work at Goldman Sachs, however, Goldman Sachs was not otherwise involved. the trades he initiated were strictly for his personal benefit and were executed through another broker. How might you title such a program?

Perhaps “Illegal Options Trader Exposed” or “The SEC Catches a Criminal”? Or here’s an idea, how about “Greedy Goldman Sachs Defines American Capitalism”? Sounds like a winner  just in need of some minor editing. The program was actually called “American Greed” and the promotional teaser invited viewers to stay tuned for an exposure of insider trading and greed at Goldman Sachs. Denunciation of capitalism was left inferred.

WHAT BROKEN INFRASTRUCTURE?

When seeking stimulus money, Barack Obama railed about how badly broken the nations infrastructure had become after years of pre-Obama neglect. I live in the Northeast, the oldest and least modernized portion of the country. If there are crumbling schools and pot-holed highways anywhere I should be able to find them here. But the state highways are good, the Interstates are mostly excellent. In the city where I live the high school building is fine although not luxurious. The towns on either side of us have million dollar ball fields and multi-million dollar gymnasiums. Room for improvement? Always. Decaying and crumbling? Not at all.

But Obama got his money and a good bit of it was spent on infrastructure. There is a very nice 40 or 50 mile parkway here. Work started on a stretch of it, perhaps 8 miles long, well before any signs went up. Those of us among the uninformed who drive that stretch of the parkway regularly were puzzled; what were they planning to do on this perfectly good section of the road. We soon found out.

Biden came, stood on the road and made a speech. “America is being revitalized and we are starting here.” Signs were posted, heavy equipment came in, barricades went up narrowing the road, trees came down and dirt was moved. A few millions of dollars later the equipment will be gone, the barricades will be removed, the road will be the same and the nice landscape that was on both sides will be a little nicer.

It’s not just us citizens who are losing our freedoms, cities and states are losing theirs as well. The Federal Highway Commission is requiring the City of New York to spend the city’s own money to replace signs that read like “PERRY AV” with signs that read like “Perry AV”.

Every street sign in the city must be replaced at an estimated cost to the city of $27.5M. Why? The Fed says the old ones are less safe. “Drivers can read Perry quicker than they can read PERRY so their eyes will return quicker to the road”. Hard to believe? Here’s a link to the story.

This sort of thing is much more than utter stupidity and waste, or perhaps a return to a sign maker for his campaign contribution. It’s the tyranny of central planning.

KRUGMAN IS CORRECT, PARTLY

Krugman may be a Progressive political advocate posing as an economist but when Krugman is right, Krugman is right, well partly. In a recent Op Ed piece for the Times he writes “Default Is In Our Stars”. His thesis is that excessive debt played a key role in the creation of the current financial crisis and that reducing debt to reasonable levels by curtailing spending puts a damper on the economy. That much is correct.

He didn’t exactly say debt, he said personal debt. I don’t think he considers government debt to be debt. Having started his piece by saying (personal) debt was a cause of the crisis he then says “A naive view says that what we need is a return to virtue: everyone needs to save more, pay down debt, and restore healthy balance sheets.” That is naïve?

Our Nobel winning economist has been calling all along for the government to go deeper in debt on another stimulus plan. Now he is calling for consumers not to save and not to slack off on their spending. In other words, to remain over-extended. That idea would push the problem further down the road and deepen it. Then what of the future?

It has long been my opinion that those on his side of the political divide are given to short term thinking. Give a hungry man a fish and the problem of hunger is solved. If he is hungry again tomorrow, give him another fish. Meanwhile, condemn the fisherman for trying to gain from his work. If the supply runs out…..no never mind that, the man is hungry. Just give him a fish.

Krugman’s solution – “In the end, I’d argue, what must happen is an effective default on a significant part of debt, one way or another.” What is default? It is a broken commitment. It is passing the cost of ones spending onto someone else. It is the liberal solution. And “one way or another” is an example of not thinking something through to its consequences.

The default could be implicit, via a period of moderate inflation that reduces the real burden of debt; that’s how World War II cured the depression.” Huh? It was inflation that cured the Depression? He could not have meant that it was WWII that got us out of the Depression, not FDR; that’s an observation only made by Conservatives and denied by the Left.

Let me see, do I have this right? What the nation needs now is is continued high levels of personal debt, less personal savings, more government money spent on stimulus programs, which means a higher level of government debt, and a return of inflation. It makes me proud to say I do not have a PhD.

Here is a link if you want to read the article.

TIMES COVERS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

It’s Monday morning. Michael Coates explosive testimony was Friday. See our Saturday post. As far as one can tell from Google, the editors at the print edition of the New York Times have not heard about it yet.

The NYT Online edition posted a short piece by the AP but without any comment of their own.

PRESS COVERAGE

Click the cartoon, then hold Ctrl and press the + key a few times to  enlarge it.

COATES TESTIMONY MADE PLAIN AND BOLD

Racism at the Department of Justice

Christopher Coates was the Section Chief for voting law enforcement at the Department of Justice (DOJ) headed by Eric Holder. Coates was served a subpoena ordering him to appear and give testimony before the United States Civil Rights Commission in the matter of the dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers who intimidated voters as they entered the poling place to cast their votes. However, Coates was ordered by his superiors at the DOJ not to comply with the subpoena.

Nevertheless, as he explains in his opening statement he says, he felt it to be his professional, ethical, legal and moral duty to comply with the subpoena and testify. In his testimony Coates spoke heroically but also carefully as befitting his circumstances. We have no such constraints

Here we go, this is Coates message made plain and bold. The division of the DOJ that is charged with enforcement of voting law violations, has a long standing policy of enforcing voting law violations only against white people. Racist attitudes are manifest both by flat refusal by attorneys and staff to participate in cases against blacks and by subsequent family harassment of one who did agree to participate during the Bush administration.

Anti-white racist views have permeated and dominated among attorneys and officials in the division of the DOJ responsible for voting act violations for many years. When Obama came to power these racists were elevated to more powerful positions in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

During the Bush administration one case was brought against a black violator (Ike Brown). The very idea of bringing charges against a black person enraged the anti-white racists within the department and set up deep resentments that were pivotal in the decision to dismiss the Black Panther case. The dismissal had no grounds based on the factors of the case. The brief video often seen of the three Black Panthers did not convey the extent of their intimidation and harassment. You can read Coates full statement here. Near the end he gives a picture of their actions.

The message to black community organizations and Democratic operatives everywhere is that cases simply will not be brought against blacks for voting violations while Obama is President. Dare we hope that exposure of this scandal changes that message?

FANNIE and FREDDIE, FRANK and DODD

Central to the recent financial industry troubles are two Government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) affectionately known as Fannie and Freddie. The formal first name for each is “Federal”, befitting their intimacy with federal folks like Frank and Dodd.

Both of these governmental failures (Fannie and Freddie, not Frank and Dodd) were conceived and created by Congress. They were not the progeny of entrepreneurial private industry.

As one of their own, Congress exempted them from the federal banking regulations applicable to the private sector. The Senate and House banking committees, recently chaired by Frank and Dodd, were given the responsibility for oversight of these, the legislatures own creations.

A shoe store buys shoes at one price and sells them for more. In like manner, F&F borrow money at one price and lend it for more. Their cost to borrow is dependent upon their credit rating. Their credit rating was set by agencies they hired and paid to set their credit rating. The rating agencies decided AAA would be appropriate. Is a picture beginning to form?

A sub-prime loan is by definition one of low creditworthiness. The government was mandating the making of loans to people ill-equipped to meet the payments. In 1999, 42% of mortgage loans were sub-prime. In 2000 Andrew Cuomo, appointed as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by Bill Clinton, mandated a quantum leap in the number of sub-prime loans that federally chartered banks must award. Forty-two percent was not enough bad loans to satisfy him.

Chairman Greenspan and the Federal Reserve kept interest rates lower than they might have been, which made borrowing attractive. It was generally thought the loans were guaranteed through F&F. Traditional lenders, backed, encouraged, even intimidated by the government enthusiastically joined the fray. The two GSE’s approved loans and provided the money with near total disregard for the ability of the borrower to pay. At the height of the bubble these Government Sponsored Entities were providing mortgage money to applicants called NINJA borrowers, no income, no job, no assets.

Eventually the bubble burst, as all bubbles do. Barney Frank said, read the fine print the loans are not guaranteed.

This was a government sponsored crisis. Don’t ever, ever let anyone convince you this fiasco was the result of anything, anything at all, other than government interference with the free market system.

HOW LOS ANGELES USED ITS STIMULUS MONEY

Plan #1 – Create 238 new government jobs in the Department of Public Works at a cost of nearly half a million dollars per job. That was a terrible plan.
The result – 46 new government jobs created at a cost of 2.4 million dollars each. The result was even worse than the plan.

Plan #2 – Create 26 new government jobs in the Department of Transportation at a cost of 1.5 million dollars per job. That was a terrible plan.
The result – 9 new government jobs created at a cost of 4.5 million dollars each. The result was even worse than the plan.

Plan #3 – Create private sector jobs.
There was no plan to create private sector jobs with the stimulus money received by the City of Los Angeles.

Rick Santelli, where are you? We need another rant. This time stress the “No Taxation” part of that original “Tea Party” in Boston to get a tax revolt started.