LEAVWORLD: GRAFFITI POLITTI

XL Pipeline Politics Attached To Middle Class Tax Cuts: House Gives Senate A "Poison Pill"

2011-12-15T05:06:00.002-05:00

President Obama has indicated that he will veto any tax bill that has language forcing him to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project. The House has passed legislation to that end, and now the Senate will be forced to deal with the pipeline issue. That's not something Obama or the Senate Dem majority would like to deal with, right now

Look for it to be called a "poison pill" strategy, perpetrated by the House GOP, because they don't want to extend the payroll tax cut. Others, like me, will see it as linking tax cuts to greater employment, and daring the Dems to shoot it down. It's almost 2012, and both sides are pullin' out all the stops!

We'll have to see if Sen. Reid brings it up, but the pressure is enormous. I think it's perfect political Jiu Jitsu, with the GOP calling out the President with his own words... "pass this bill, now!" Remember, Reid didn't act on the President's jobs bill, so it would be a big-ass "cave" if he moves on an issue raised by the House GOP. Too bad, if it happens, because it will just prove that the "political center" has moved somewhat to the right, again. No hard feelings, just cold facts....

Let's see what the Senate does about sustaining this payroll tax cut. Nothing, or Something...

"Fast and Furious" and "Solyndra" Show Incompetence, If Not Political Corruption

2011-10-16T06:23:00.002-04:00

Two things that may combine to hurt the Obama Administration are the growing "Fast and Furious" scandal, where the US sold guns to the Mexican drug cartels, with no way of arresting anyone. The other is the scandal involving Solyndra, a bankrupt solar panel manufacturer based in California, which cost the US taxpayer around half a Billion dollars. Both are going to be thoroughly investigated in the near future, and the OA doesn't seem to have an adequate response, so far.

These are examples of stories the "in the tank for Obama" media stay away from, until they "have legs," meaning they get too big to ignore. While Solyndra is fading from the fleeting media mentions it got, it will not be the last "green" initiative of the OA's that will be scrutinized (link). Any other one (or more) that was a bad deal may end Obama's political chances at enacting any of that agenda. The Justice Department is investigating, but they can't afford another "cover-up" right now, which leads me to the second scandal...

"Fast and Furious" was an ill-designed operation, which consisted of telling gun shops and dealers to sell weapons illegally, and waiting to find out where they ended up, often after they'd used to kill someone. Eric Holder has yet to give his version of what this operation amounted to, but since he's called the House GOP's investigation "partisan," I'm guessing there's something he's hiding, for political reasons. It's always the coverup that's criminal, and AG Holder is stickin' to his story about only hearing about the operation "a few weeks" before his congressional testimony, on May 3rd. Now, he's claiming that the emails from a year earlier about the operation were not shown to him, or that he didn't read them. In other words, he's pleading ignorance, and incompetence, rather than a corrupt attempt to "cover up" an ill-conceived law enforcement operation (link).

These two scandals are "body blows" that this administration can't afford to let "drag out," but that seems to be their strategy. Right now, Dems seem happy to revel in the "Occupy Wall St (or name your city)" protests, because it is taking the media spotlight off of the OA's predicament. The "Wall St. protesters," and their cacophony of leftist cliches will fade, but these scandals, and the issues they raise about the OA will not go away. I expect Holder to go "under the bus" soon, but it won't look good, in any case.

Wall St. Protesters Agree With TEA Party On Bailouts

2011-10-08T16:23:00.001-04:00

Ask any of the Wall St. protesters if they agree with Republicans, or the TEA Party, and they'll say "Hell, NO"! How many of them know that the GOP actually blocked the bailouts, the first time they were voted on. When the bill came up for a second vote, the "moderate" Republicans voted for the bailout, along with all of the Dems. The ones who still opposed them, in the face of withering political pressure, were the TEA Party caucus members. I'd like to see someone ask the protesters what they think about that. They should all support Michelle Bachmann for President.

Bank of America "On the Ropes": Thanks, Sen. DICK!

2011-10-08T16:17:00.003-04:00

If there was any doubt that Senate Democrats' attempts at "regulating" US banks is a thinly-veiled attempt at crippling them, Sen. Dick Durbin's latest comments about Bank of America just removed it. On the Senate floor, he suggested that BoA customers pull their money out of their accounts there, and deposit it in another bank. Rush Limbaugh mentioned this today, and how (my) NY Sen. Chuck Shumer's comments caused another "run," on a smaller bank, a while back, which resulted in it not existing anymore. BoA, however, is already a recipient of a taxpayer bailout, so it's doubtful that will happen. There is also the example of Lehman, which the government declined to "bail out." The Dems attitude toward the US banking industry seems to be like a "mob" money collector: "We don't wanna kill you, we're just gonna break your legs."

The point that stands out to me is that "taking your money out of BoA" was the answer in the first place, before Durbin decided to switch debit fees to the banks, who passed it on to their consumers. If he feels the need to tell people that, from the Senate floor, after the "Dodd-Frank" bill, and his "Durbin amendment" passed, why didn't he tell BoA's customers to get out before that law was passed? I see commercials all the time for BoA's competitors, and haven't had an account with BoA since the 1980's, when I was getting 10% on an annual CD (full disclosure). There are plenty of smaller banks that offer better terms on accounts, and none of their personal account business had anything to do with the financial crash of '07, anyway.

Why did the "Durbin amendment" cap "debit transaction" fees? Well, those fees came from "small businesses," and Sen. Dick just wanted to help them out of being screwed by the banks. He didn't think of all the constituents that he would screw over, when BoA reacted to this deprivation of revenue from retailers by transferring the fee to the debit cardholders. Of course, the customers have less political clout than small businesses, who supposedly have less clout than big businesses, like BoA...crap rolls downhill, until it gets recycled by some pol, like Dick Durbin!

The new fees that BoA and the others are imopsing are expected to bring in more revenue than their old fee structure did, even with fewer debit card customers...the only ones getting screwed here are the people who work for Bank of America. Every employee of that bank has to wake up every day wondering how long they'll have a job. They were already planning on laying off tens of thousands of workers, and this won't help.

It's more than Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's insane ideology that got this bill signed into law. President Obama buys into it, as well. He signed it, and I was as pissed as I was at Pres. Bush for signing McCain-Feingold! I don't care about party politics or ideology, I don't like legislation that has a bad outcome. He still supports it, with a weak cry that banks should "eat" the lost profit he took away from their debit card transactions...he sounds like Michael Moore, who's out selling his new book on the liberal circuit.

Michael Moore and Obama can rail against outrageous "corporate compensation," and there is a real problem with failure being rewarded. Unfortunately, this is a situation that government regulation created. Attempts to limit "monetary compensation" led to huge "benefits" and "stock option" packages, and indeed caused our whole system of "employer provided health care," as well as "corporate stock options," (which were ironically designed by the market to "regulate" executive compensation). Attempts to tax "medical benefits" led to the issuance of hundreds of waivers to "Obamacare." If Obama gets to raise "capital gains" taxes, expect waivers to be given to every company that any public pension fund invests in, which means all of the "large cap" companies, unless they're "excessive polluters," or something as politically incorrect. BoA is "too big to fail," but may be thrown under the bus, if Obama's radical side takes over!

I'm only being half sarcastic, because the economic problems we face are all to real. Maybe BoA should go under, and all of the other "big banks," as well. How else will we unwind the question of who owns the debt on all of the "underwater" mortgages, at least in the US? OK, we sold those crappy bonds to the rest of the world...so any US housing market devaluation will be a bigger "hit" than the world markets can take right now. If Obama's supporters want to "destroy capitalism," this is the best shot they'll ever get...this is what scares me; if they accept that he'll be a "one termer," will the economy repeat what happened at the end of Bush's second term? Paging George Soros, are you coming back?

Could BoA be the next "Lehman," brothers? Thanks, Senator Dick!

Tax The Millionaires! Again!

2011-09-23T06:34:00.001-04:00

Several decades ago, it was discovered that sixteen people with incomes over one million dollars paid no tax on it. The result of this discovery was that the Congress created the "Alternative Minimum Tax." People in the highest tax bracket had to hire an accountant to calculate their taxes under the regular tax code, and the AMT code, and pay whichever amount was greater. The only problem was that the AMT was not pegged to inflation. This has forced successive congresses to pass "patches" to keep it from affecting millions of current-day middle class taxpayers. For some reason, they've never gotten rid of it.

Recently, I read that over one thousand people who earned over one million dollars in income paid no tax on it. I guess that not pegging the AMT to inflation wasn't the only problem with it, after all, if the number of million-dollar earners who paid no tax grew by around 7,000%. I don't know what percentage of all US million-dollar earners those 16 people were all those decades ago, but the thousand or so today make up less than three percent of that population. In fact, the average tax rate on that group today is somewhere between 27 and 29 percent, according to the IRS.

I have to laugh all the farcial presidential rhetoric about "making the rich pay their fair share," especially when he trots out Warren Buffet to say "tax me more"! This is a man whose core business is built on avoiding the payment of taxes! If the President and the Congress want to actually fix the problem of million-dollar earners paying no tax, here's an idea. Have the nice people from the IRS come in and explain which tax "loopholes" these people are using, and close them.

Of course, that's not what happened in the past with the AMT, and not likely to happen today, under this president. Instead, he proposes "carpet bombing" all wealthy Americans with a higher tax burden. Many of these people are the backbone of the US economy, small business owners, and others are senior executives at many mid-sized corporations, and junior executives at most large corporations. Remember, this president is classifying people who make two hundred thousand dollars a year as "millionaires," which is only the least of faults with his plans. Most of these people already pay a higher tax rate than middle class taxpayers, and inflation has made that income bracket "middle class" in places like NYC and parts of California. It's the 1970's all over again, in more ways than one, under this president.

JIMMY HOFFA's Army Is Smaller Than His Father's...Who's Getting "Taken Out"?

2011-09-11T03:53:00.002-04:00

Jimmy Hoffa Jr. claims to represent "working families," but unions represent around 6% of the private workforce, and less than 25% of public employees. If this is his "army," it's dwarfed by the majority of working people, who have to compete for employment based on competence, not seniority in a union. Public sector unions have even less claim to represent "all working people," since they are paid by the much larger group of taxpaying citizens, who don't receive anywhere near the generous benefits they provide for unionized, and elected public employees.

The federal government follows the unions' lead blindly. The Department of Labor has little impact on the majority of Americans who work for small businesses. Most of their policies don't affect companies with less than 50 employees. The Department of Labor has become little more than the unions' enforcement agency.

A perfect example is the Boeing situation. Boeing wants to expand US employment, by opening a new plant in South Carolina. The National Labor Relations Board has bizzarley labelled this "retaliation" against Boeing's union workers in Washington state.

I say "bizzarely" because Boeing isn't closing it's Washington plant, it's just not expanding it. Washington is a "forced union" state, and South Casrolina is a "right to work" state. If you want to work for Boeing in Washington, you have to join the union. In South Carolina, Boeing has to offer competitive wages to attract competent workers, who will not be forced to pay union dues.

Unions are particularly harmful to "lower wage" workers,for several reasons. People in these jobs don't earn enough to provide for the more generous benefits that their higher-wage union "brethren" get, but they still get union dues deducted from their paychecks.

They're also easily replaced, so they have no real bargaining power, even with a union. That's why most large businesses contract out workplace cleaning to smaller, non-union companies. Most of these jobs are not "lifetime careers," but mopre accurately labeled "entry level jobs," which serve the economy by providing for those with little work skills or experience.

Unions give these workers the false belief that they will be "taken care of" in perpetuity, as long as they belong to the union. The truth is that no union, company, or government can "take care of" ANYONE "in perpetuity," in the real world. Does any stockboy in a supermarket really believe this? HELL, NO! The union is a joke to them, and they're moving on to something else, sooner or later!

I don't fault Mr. Hoffa for fighting for the people he does represent. I'm just stating that the people he represents are far from a majority of "working Americans," and the positions he supports are actually harmful to both the American people, and economy, as a whole. President Obama shows his bias against "working Americans" when he appears after this clown. Neither of them gives a crap about us, but the feeling is mutual. I can't believe Hoffa stands by the union that got his father "taken out," but maybe someone's got a gun to his head. Whoever is directing this liberal assault on the "tea party" conservatives, my rhetorical gun is pointed at you...and my army is bigger!

RFK Jr. "Lies on TV" About "Free Electricity" on Smiley's PBS Show

2011-08-12T06:58:00.002-04:00

On Teusday night's Tavis Smiley PBS show, the the guest was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In the space of five minutes, he went from talking about how Fox News "lies on TV" to saying that a new solar plant would provide "free electricity." He cited no examples of FNC "lying," then went ahead and spouted a huge "whopper" of his own! Noting that "the sun is shooting those protons down here," he twice used the phrase "free electricity," emphatically. Now, I suppose that solar energy may become cheaper than coal for generating electricity, in some areas (like the desert), but it will never be "free." Beside the cost of building the plant, there will be operation and maintenance costs, which will be ongoing. These workers will need health care and pensions, of course, so the electricity will be far from "free."

Of course, Kennedy doesn't see how perfectly he illustrates the typical liberal hypocrisy. Attack your ideological opponents as "lying," while lying in support of your own idealogical goals. Maybe he thinks Smiley's audience is not intelligent enough to see through his bogus claims, but at least this Smiley viewer also watches FNC. What is apparent that if RFK Jr spouted that "free electricity" line on FNC, even one of their news readers would have challenged it. The sad thing is that on many other networks, it would have gone unchallenged, as it did on Smiley's show.

Obama's No Reagan

2011-07-14T05:35:00.003-04:00

"I have reached the point where I say enough," Obama said, according to the aide. "Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."

This is funny, because in the past week, House Majority Leader Boehner was compared to "Reagan at

Reykjavik" in a Reuters blog, when he wouldn't yield on higher taxes. Obama's statement is asinine: Reagan would agree with the GOP position, but Obama seeks to just "transpose" liberal vs. conservative positions as equally valid. He seeks to claim Reagan's "optimism" about the economy, but his policies are the opposite of Reagan's. This quote shows how shameless a political poseur he is, though I suppose every president has to "play the game."

Good luck with that strategy, when they'll be saying "Mourning in America," instead of "Morning in America." Oh, wait, they're already saying that!

Vile Rhetoric: What Would Rep. Giffords Think of Obama's "Gun to the Head" Comment?

2011-07-10T23:29:00.000-04:00

Not to belabor the point, but does President Obama remember his own sentiments after the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords? Or was it just rhetoric, no different from his accusation that the GOP is "holding a gun to the head" of the nation? No excuses, that's vile hypocrisy, and an insight into our president's POV. It's twisted, yet understood by most Americans. When you don't have a better argument to make, call your opponent "the devil." Once again, the President of the USA has done the opposite of his promise to "elevate the political debate." I am more ashamed of President Obama than any liberal could have been ashamed of Pres. Bush...

Did Weiner's Scandal Hasten Spitzer's Ouster?

2011-07-10T23:24:00.000-04:00

CNN canned Eliot Spitzer's "In The Arena" show because of low ratings. That is the bottom line, and I don't intend to say otherwise, here. I want to look at the impact that the Anthony Weiner scandal had on an already failing program. This show was seen as the "rehabilitation" of Eliot Spitzer, and it wasn't going well. I think Spitzer would have been given more time to build an audience, had another prominent NY politician (Weiner) not been caught with his pants down.

Giving Spitzer a show was a gamble, and CNN paired him up with the conservative Kathleen Parker, trying to do the basic "left/right" format. Unfortunately, "Parker-Spizer" had low ratings, and there was some animosity between the two. Parker left the show, and the show was renamed "In the Arena, with Eliot Spitzer." It received even lower ratings.

Along comes the Anthony Weiner scandal, and the inevitable jokes about him joining Spitzer on CNN. I never watched the show, but I'll guess that Spitzer had to discuss the Weiner scandal. This is where the gamble backfired, for CNN. Pols like Spitzer and Weiner are electable because they appeal to liberal voters, but their trademark is slandering conservatives as "rich white men" who hate children, the elderly, all other races, the environment, women, the disabled, the poor, and the "middle class," among others. This plays in places like NYC, where liberal interests are entrenched.

On a national stage, though, pols like these don't fare as well, whether in politics, or media. There's a reason I never watched Spitzer on CNN: I watched all of his press conferences as AG and Governor, and I already knew he was a "blow-hard," who overstated every action he took. (The Sheriff of Wall St? - NOT!) Weiner was following "the pattern" for ambitious NY Dems like Spitzer, and his own mentor, Sen, Charles Schumer. In fact, the Weiner scandal took Schumer down a bit, keeping him from any public microphone for several weeks (That's like not having Twitter or FB, for my tech-addict friends...it hurts your "standing" in the community).

Though Spitzer didn't warrant a show on CNN so soon after his disgrace in the first place, Weiner's scandal definitely factored into Spitzer's booting. Weiner has even less chance of re-emerging in the public eye, though I'm sure he'll try, just as Spitzer will. These kind of liberal hacks can't help themselves. Maybe Al Gore and Keith Olbermann will offer them a "Weiner-Spitzer" show on the web? Stranger things have happened, and they'd probably get real media coverage, for a day...

Previous related post: Why Weiner Must Go, But Not Silently!

Latest Obamacare "Glitch" Is Another Example of Liberal Audacity

2011-07-02T13:50:00.001-04:00

Nancy Pelosi famously said that we have to pass Obamacare, to find out what's in it. Well, they did pass it, and we're still not done finding out what's in this law. The latest "glitch" is a provision that expands Medicaid coverage to retired people who are considered "middle class." From AP:

"Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps."

I found the food stamp comparison interesting, because many middle class people already qualify for food stamps, in this economy. They used to have ads touting "you may not know you qualify for food stamps." I can imagine an ad, after Obama's re-election, saying the same thing to people who didn't know they qualified for Medicaid under Obamacare. By then, it would be too late to oppose, because they kept it "under the radar" long enough...

AP's story explains that this was a "anomaly" that really bothered the administration, but it seems more like a "hand in the cookie jar" moment. Someone wrote this legislation, and that person(s?) is acting out the liberal agenda of expanding dependency on government assistance. Since it became public knowledge, this "glitch" in Obamacare's effect on Medicaid will get "fixed." Color me skeptical: I think the Obamacare will be overturned entirely before this "glitch" is acted on.

Obama had 2 years of complete Dem control of all three branches of government. He came into office after a financial crisis that rivaled the crash that preceded the Great Depression. He spent a few months dealing with it, pasing two liberal "stimulus" laws that helped few that weren't employed by, or dependent on the government. He abruptly moved on to expanding government dependence by "mandating" individuals to buy health insurance.

Obamacare was a costly political move, that only a progressive liberal would make. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, in the independent voter's mind. If the economy was in a crisis when Obama took office, why did he spend all that political capital passing Obamacare, but settle for less than liberal economists wanted from his economic "stimulus" packages?

American liberals are trying to expand what the government "gives out," but they are hitting the wall of what taxpayers can provide. It seems that at the same time several government entitlement programs are projected to bankrupt the economy, Obama has thrust a new bureaucratic monstrosity on us. I don't think Obamacare will stand, but as long as it does, it will be hanging around the Dems' necks, and twisting the liberal media into knots, as we keep finding out "what's in it."

Why Wiener Must Go, But Not Silently

2011-06-10T22:26:00.002-04:00

OK, so Rep. Anthony Weiner has 'fessed up about his "online" fetish, after lying in the national spotlight for a week. He says he's not resigning, and I'm not sure whether to believe him. At best, he's lost his ability to be the TV "face" of the House Dems. At worst, his House ethics investigation will weigh down the national ticket next year, as Charlie Rangel's did in 2010. While Rangel won re-election with 80% in his Harlem district, Weiner's district went 39% GOP last year. In other words, his campaign for re-election will not weather this scandal as well as Rep. Rangel's.

He better forget about becoming Mayor Weiner, as well, with that photo of his weiner out there (Sorry, it was obligatory). As Chris Cuomo reports from ABC:

"On May 18, Broussard received an image from the RockOh77 account that shows a man's erect penis. Two days later, she received a shot of a bare-chested man sitting at an office desk. The man in the photo shares facial features with Weiner, and personal photographs in the background resemble his known aquaintances."

I felt sorry for him, briefly, at his press conference. I admired his straightforward admission of guilt, and eventual apologies to the people who were harmed by his lies. Unfortunately, I still don't know if he's telling the whole truth. I mean, c'mon, has anyone looked into whether he's actually met any of these women? Color me skeptical, recalling Lanny Davis' "limited, modified hangout" theory of scandal containment. Maybe Clinton called him and told him to "say there's only six." There's usually "more" there, in a story like this, and Rep. Wiener's demeanor at the press conference didn't change my opinion.

As a Republican, I hope his exit is noisy, and lasts as long as possible. As a person, I hope he resigns by the end of the week, for his family's sake. There is talk about eliminating his district, in the census-driven downsizing of NY's congressional delegation. Such a move would be a state decision, bringing Gov. Cuomo and the corrupt state legislature into the process. It could happen, but it seems too simple a resolution for NY's political bureaucracy. Having a congressional district on the B'klyn-Queens border become absorbed by the surrounding districts is a "big" thing, with alot of political "juice" at stake. Would Dems, controlling both the statehouse and the assembly, dissolve a long-time Dem held seat over a sex scandal? I don't know.

Sen. Schumer seems to be "circling the wagons" around Rep. Weiner, who is his protoge, first as a former staffer, then winning Schumer's former congressional seat. It also comes the day after NJ Sen. Frank "the lout" Lautenberg criticized Weiner for not showing up at the "Celebrate Israel" parade in NYC. Whatever happens now, expect lots of scrutiny. So far, ABC seems to have thorough reportage, though we'll have to see how far they follow it up, if the political barriers go up.

In any case, I see Rep. Weiner's political "shelf life" as severely limited, whether he chooses to fight or quit. Perhaps he can join Client # 9 on CNN, and call it "Weiner-Spitzer." I bet they'd beat O'Reilly, for a day or two. The unfortunate fact is that Anthony Weiner has been a loudmouth Democratic spokesman, and now he's been muzzled. What will the Dems do? What will the media do? Whatever happens, don't expect silence...from the "new media," if the MSM "clams up" on this story. The only way to end it is Weiner's leaving office, because neither the Dems nor the media are cutting him any slack. They don't want him hanging around their necks after the 2010 fiasco.

The countdown has begun...tick, tock....

Did "Mediscare" Decide the NY 26 Special Election? "Only In New York, Kiddies." (Apologies and Love to Cyndi Adams)

2011-06-05T00:52:00.001-04:00

The DNC is making a big mistake, reading too much into the victory of (D) Kathy Hochul over (R) Jane Corwin. The campaign was successful, but it's no indicator of a "national trend." In fact, if there's any "trend," it might be to the special congressional election in NY23, back in '09, which the Democrat candidate (Dede Scozzafava) also won in a "traditional" GOP district. They boasted about that win, and then came 2010, and the GOP "Wave." What the national parties underestimate is the depth of voter apathy and political indifference throughout NY's electorate. Most of the people who vote are being paid off, one way or another, by the corrupt progressive bureaucracy.

Imagine you're a Republican who voted for the idiot that caused this special election. You were part of that national GOP "wave," and now this guy's made you look a bad judge of character. You don't trust the NYS GOP to put up a "conservative" candidate, and Ms. Corwin lived up (down?) to expectations, withering under an ad campaign against the Ryan budget. In fact, the ad was classic "Mediscare," an almost comical representation of Rep. Ryan (perhaps?) dumping an old lady off a cliff from her wheelchair. Watching this, you're disgusted with both parties, as usual, and decide not to vote.

That's anecdotal, but there were other factors in the NY26 race, as in the '09 23rd special election. In '09, the Tea Party candidate was so popular, the GOP candidate dropped out of the race, and endorsed the Democrat, who won. This time, the "Tea Party" candidate was a rich Dem who spent over $2 Mil to see how much of the "dumbass" vote he could get. He got more than the margin of Ms. Hochul's victory, which means it could've gone either way, if he hadn't entered the race and spent his money so liberally.

Imagine you're a "Tea Party" conservative, and you hate the NYS GOP. You are sick of the bipartisan political corruption that permeates our state. Either you don't vote, or you do what you did in the last election. You vote for the rich "Tea Party" phony, to send a message to the GOP. NY's 26th district is in the Buffalo area, which was Paladino's political base, so it's not surprising that the fake "Tea Party" candidate got 9% of the vote.

Nonetheless, the Dems and their loyal media supporters wasted no time touting this as "the model" for their national 2012 campaign. Most of the nation is not like NYS, and when someone on TV says "a solid GOP district," one has to look at the quality of the NYS GOP. Personally, I'm happy to see my own Sen. Schumer pushing this "Mediscare" tactic. It shows that he's as clueless about the rest of the nation as they are about NYS.

There's a pattern here, but if the Dems want to repeat it, they can only blame themselves. While it's true that Medicare has been one of the "third rails" of politics, it's not the sole reason Jane Corwin lost in NY 26. She lost because she didn't bat the "Mediscare" ad right out of the ballpark, and move the debate to the cost of Obamacare, and the various ineffective "stimulus" plans. Why allow a proposed budget plan to be demonized more than the train wreck Obama has brought upon our economy? Gas prices are up, housing prices are down, and we'll have another year of this "recovery" before the 2012 elections. It's no wonder the Dems are grasping at the same old scare tactics. It's all they can do, trying to distract voters from economic reality. It may work in a NY special election, but it won't work in a national election.

NOTE: I edited these two paragraphs out, but they're worth adding on this post:

Jane Corwin was no Dede Scozzafava, but she didn't forcefully stand up to the critics of the Ryan budget. She could have pointed out that there is no Democratic proposal for Medicare reform, and that Obamacare will do more damage to Medicare than the Dems say Ryan's budget will. It's not a hard argument to make, but I didn't hear it. I have a feeling that most successful GOP candidates in 2012 will be on top of this message, if the Dems try to use it as a "wedge" issue.

This special election showed why NY is considered a "solid blue" state. GOP candidates seen to reflexively flinch at the classic "scare tactics" that Dems use, and a real conservative (Tea Party) candidate, as Ms. Scozzafava's opponent was, got backbit by the state party. It's almost a "no-win" situation, where the GOP is just as bad as the Dems, policy-wise. I have to note that Doug Hoffman, the real conservative in the NY 23 special election, lost the GOP primary in 2010. He then took the Conservative Party nod, only to drop out of the race in less than 2 weeks, according to Wikipedia (link). He was still on the ballot, though, and became the spoiler, taking over 9,500 votes, when the Dem won by less than 4,000 votes.

Anemic GDP Statistics: This Is "Recovery?"

2011-05-07T01:54:00.000-04:00

John Crudele has a scathing column in Tuesdays NY Post, which has information not widely reported. "The government said the GDP in the first quarter grew at an "annualized" rate of 1.8 percent. That means you have to divide the 1.8 percent annualized rate by four quarters to see how much the economy really grew in the first three months of the year. The answer? A puny 0.45 percent."

He goes further:

"The problem is, the economy wasn't just slow in the first quarter. The last three months of 2010 were worse if you know how to read the figures.

Here's what you have to understand for any of this to make sense. The GDP numbers reported by theCommerce Department are derived after inflation is deducted from overall output. So, that 1.8 percent annualized first quarter growth was what was left after inflation of 1.9 percent was removed. (Yes, inflation is probably worse than 1.9 percent but that's for another column.)

The much better 3.1 percent annualized growth in the last quarter of 2010 was, at best, a fluke and, at worst, a hoax.

The Commerce Department was only able to come up with the 3.1 percent growth because it claimed there was virtually no inflation in the last three months of 2010. If inflation back then had been reported at 1.9 percent (just like the first quarter) economic growth would have dropped from an annualized 3.1 percent to just 1.2 percent."

Crudele is pessimistic, but my only complaint is that he wrote "virtually no inflation," instead of providing a figure. As a regular reader of Mr. Crudele, I didn't check his numbers, but if they stand, it's bad news for President Obama, more than for the GOP. The economy will be the determining issue in the 2012 elections, and a sitting president gets the responsibility for it, period.

Government stats are revised, as later data come in, but they are also adjusted in ways that are often flawed, before being released. Crudele examines the bureaucratic rules of the "stats" game, with a critical eye. He also informs us that Yanks-Red Sox tickets are selling cheap, in the first half of this column. What can I say? Even Crudele put this story in the second half of his column, and he's in the Post's business pages.

I think this is an "under the radar" story that will be a part of the campaign of whoever runs against Obama. It's not widely reported now because of other events in the news, perhaps, but I doubt many media outlets will continue mentioning this after the "death of Osama Bin Laden" stops dominating the headlines.

There's a long time until next year's elections, and plenty of time for the economic and political situation to change. Still, if you look at the real numbers, on the ground, everything is costing more, and neither the job creation, or the economy as a whole is keeping up with inflation. $4.00 a gallon for gas slows down the economy, however they figure it in the Consumer Price Index. We had a name for this in the '70's: Stagflation. Soon we'll revisit "the misery index," perhaps. If the media treated Obama as they did Carter, we would've, already.

TRUMP CARD?

2011-04-30T04:25:00.000-04:00

Donald Trump is the official "vulgarian" candidate of this election cycle. That he is running as a Republican has some thinking he's a Democrat "plant," which is as good a conspiracy theory as any other, I guess. The President released his real birth certificate to placate Trump's campaign, after the "birther" issue was considered both "fringe" and "dead" by many, myself included.

Here's what I think is in Trump's mind. Reagan had Carter's people "salivating" for him to be the nominee, as Obama's do now for Trump. Trump sees his high negative numbers as similar to Reagan's, and his opponent is close to Jimmy Carter status, economically. After successfully exploiting the "birther" issue, he will feel emboldened.

Reagan was a governor, though, as well as a celeb, and Trump has no government executive experience. This is a real problem, because as a celebrity businessman, he's seen fit to drop "F-bombs" in speeches, something that a presidential candidate has never done before, on purpose. Where Reagan spoke softly and with respect, Trump was loud and vulgar.

I also have to note that both have been tagged as "racist," though I can't find any justification for it, other than the fact that they're Republican. Trump would've saved himself the accusation if he had said "golf course" instead of "basketball court." Of course, he doesn't want to disparage golf courses, because he owns so many of them. This is an example of political stupidity, not racism.

If "the Donald" enters the GOP primary, he will bring out the best in the field to challenge him. If he wins the GOP nod, I'm writing in "Snooki" on my ballot. LOL! Seriously, though, I'd probably vote for him, over Obama, I'm ashamed to say. How much worse can it get? That's his TRUMP CARD.

The Obama (Non) Doctrine: Is It A Good or Bad Policy?

2011-04-10T17:11:00.001-04:00

The radical upheaval in the Middle East is the greatest challenge the Obama administration has faced, both politically and from an international security standpoint. Their responses in each situation have been both criticized and supported in a bipartisan manner, with strange bedfellows on each side. Behind all of that noise, everyone is looking for a "doctrine" that underlies all of his actions. Some have said there is no doctrine, and I agree. This may be a good thing, or not, but here are the pro's and cons:

Pro: Let's face it, every president muddles through international crises blind, regarding long-term consequences. Following a doctrine that can be read in a sound bite is not responsible foreign policy. The O.A. is taking each situation individually, and not using any "doctrine" to determine our involvement. Libya is an example of the US "limiting" our responsibility in a UN/Nato action. Maybe the President is right to balance all the variables, and choose a course that is different than the historic "military intervention?" This way, we don't make an ongoing committment that we can't fulfill, and don't promise similar support for every "uprising" in the region.

Con: There has to be a coherent and principled doctrine that underlies a nation's foreign policy. The Obama administration's lack of any such overarching policy is distressing to say the least. SecDef Clinton dragged him into action in Libya, and he's been trying to pass it off ever since it started. There actually is a pattern, if not a "doctrine:" Spend as much time as you like analyzing a "crisis," from every angle (national security, economic, geopolitical, partisan political, etc...) before doing anything overt. This often ends up as "doing nothing" (see Syria, Iran). It's also a lame excuse to fall back on when dodging questions about "friendly" autocratic leaders (see Saudi Arabia, Bahrain).

What are your pro's and con's of this administration's ME policy? Is there an "Obama Doctrine," or not, and is it a good or bad thing, either way?

Chavez Says Capitalism Killed Life On Mars!

2011-03-28T00:05:00.003-04:00

El Loco, just being who he is...it's hard to take him seriously, which is one of his most scary traits. Still, "Capitalism may have wiped out life on Mars?" Genius!

CARACAS (Reuters) - Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on the planet Mars, Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday.

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

...World Water Day? How appropriate!

Puerto Rican Delegate Spends More Than Pelosi

2011-03-28T00:01:00.000-04:00

One has to have sympathy for the Puerto Rican representative in Congress. With no voting rights, he likely thinks deserves to spend more money than Nancy Pelosi. According to the AP, "Pierluisi's spokeswoman said Tuesday that the costs reflect that the Pierluisi represents nearly 4 million constituents in the U.S. territory, several times more than are found in any U.S. congressional district." I wonder where he stands on Puerto Rican statehood? Probably against it, because that would diminish his personal power, though it would increase the people of Puerto Rico's power on US policy. Another corruptocrat, milking the "status quo."

Libya, Hillary, and Obama: Living History, Pt. II

2011-03-26T05:54:00.003-04:00

If the Politico is to be believed, Secretary of State Clinton is "whimsically looking forward" to leaving public life, and writing another book, among other things. She is also portrayed as pushing hard for a "no-fly zone" in Libya, against the administration's "insiders." I don't know how she'll recount this period in her book, but right now the reality is unflattering for her boss. Her statement, "I’m not here forever" was called "Shermanesque" by the Politico, but what does it mean?

It looks like she's accepting "has-been" status, but that doesn't fit the mold of a person with such a great drive to "change the world." One of the great things about American politics is the resurgence of a candidate that was thought "politically dead." Has her "hawkish" position on Libya been political, or principled? I assume the former, and am interested in how this situation is unfolding.

President Obama has been non-committal, by all accounts, notwithstanding his "tightening the noose" statement, which was bizzarely in contradiction to the reality reported on the ground at the time. Secretary Clinton has existing relationships with many foreign leaders, and may have convinced them (or vice-versa) to lead Obama into committing to use force to help the Libyan rebellion.

The Daily thinks it's too little, too late, and it's driving Clinton "over the edge": "Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya." She made an appearance in Tunisia, as well, promising jobs, and more: "So we want to know what Tunisia wants. We don't want to come in and say here's what the United States believes... Then we want to work on plans... a plan for health, we want to help do what we can to have a plan for jobs," she said. Will she visit Libya before she leaves office? Only if Khadafy and his family are gone.

Will they meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein, or Mubarak and Ben-Ali (& families)? Saddam's legal proceedings were turned over to "national" authorities, and he was executed. Will the no-fly zone be enough to get Daffy to take the "international" legal process? Who knows? The "no boots on the ground" policy suggests we wouldn't mind a Caucescu-type end to this dictator.

Sec. Clinton again shows why she would've been a better president than Obama. First, it was the health care debate. She had been through it before, and could've used the lessons of her husband's compromise on Welfare reform to do something that might have worked, instead of the divisive Obamacare law. Her foreign policy experience and instincts in a "crisis" are better-honed than the President's, beyond a doubt. Her biggest problem is if Obama's been too "centrist" for the "left-wing base," what chance does she have in a rerun of the last Democratic primary race? It's no wonder she's looking forward to "retirement" from public life, but one more "war" could put Obama in LBJ territory, with that same "left-wing" base that she is too "centrist" for.

I actually wrote this last week, but I think it stands up as commentary of an ongoing situation. She also has a new interview on ABC, with Diane Sawyer. She addresses a few issues mentioned here, so I'll post an update sooner or later. Basically lots of backtracking from the stories referenced here.

Senate to hold hearings on Muslim Women's' rights...NOT

2011-03-26T05:44:00.000-04:00

Senate to hold hearings on Muslims' rights

When I saw the headline, I thought this might be an actual hearing about whether Muslims in America were having their civil rights violated, but then I remembered the Dems still control the Senate. Where are the female Senate Democrats, looking into the treatment of Muslim women in this country? Senator Durbin, while trying to counter Rep. King's House hearings, has instead shown the same blindness to women's rights as he has on addressing the "extremist" issue in the Muslim community.

What Do Progressives Say About Detroit?

2011-03-26T05:35:00.003-04:00

The population of Detroit has fallen back 100 years.

I feel bad for the people who can't leave Detroit. I almost put this in with my "funny stuff" posts, but if it's a joke, it's on too big a scale to be funny. What is the problem here? A city that got fat off of one industry grew a government that got fat off of that industry. Progressive politics reigned, but the city didn't progress, in the real world. It didn't happen all at once, but the bailouts of GM and Chrysler exposed Detroit as a "basket case" of a city. There was no natural disaster in Detroit. This city's disaster was man-made by politicians, industry leaders, and unions who stood for a "status quo" that peaked over half a century ago.

UK Unions Protest Tax Increases, Unlike Wisconsin Unions

2011-03-26T05:24:00.001-04:00

Now the Brits have to show American unions that they know how to do a proper protest? They plan "to protest at deep government spending cuts and tax rises." Well, their cousins in the US unions can't agree with that second part, because most US union members work in the public sector. I also liked the Brit union leader's response to the public threats of violence and vandalism by supporters: "If protests simply lead to a great public debate about police tactics for example, that doesn't seem to me to have advanced the real cause that matters." Way to preemptively deflect blame for your supporters' actions. Wisconsin union leaders could learn something from this guy.

Violence warning as unions plan mass march

NO SYMPATHY FOR PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS, HERE...

2011-03-01T03:59:00.006-05:00

These guys have got some gaul, OOPS! -I mean gall. Much like the French, and other European mobs (as in Greece), who think that the democratic process involves "revolution," the union thugs in Wisconsin have decided to take up residence in the State Capitol, as their Senate toadies hide in another state.

This would be a bad joke, if most Americans weren't paying into the public sector unions' coffers, only to get endless budget deficits in return. Most of us private sector, non-union workers don't have anything close to what we provide for them. The political power of public sector unions has corrupted the entire political system as much, if not more than "big business" money has.

This is why it's so important that the union stranglehold on Wisconsin is broken. As a NY'er, I can only dream of freedom from this yoke. Gov. Cuomo is not going to touch that issue, but is probably hoping that the events in Wisconsin will give him leverage to get the fiscal concessions here. I'll take whatever he can get, if he really tries. GO, CUOMO!!

Random Thoughts on Revolutions, Egypt, Iran, and the U.S.A.

2011-02-15T06:03:00.001-05:00

One thing about revolutions, they sometimes come in pairs. How often have "democratic" revolutions turned ugly, within a few weeks, months, or years? This is a hopeful moment, but there may come a time when the military will act against the people. That seems a long way off, if it ever happens. Some say that the military's restraint was because "we (the U.S.A.) own Egypt's military," based on our financial support. We "own" them only as far as our next check clears, and let's remember that they were Soviet clients before they were ours. In the future, they may find China willing to sponsor them, for control of the Suez canal, with less concern for how they treat their citizens. For now, America's investment in Egypt's military seems to be paying off, when they refused to back an unpopular president against the people. You have to be blind not to see another shoe, ready to drop, sooner or later, though...

Q: How widely will this "democratic revolution" spread through the Islamic Middle East? A: It's only going to spread in "tolerant" US-backed regimes, such as Jordan and Yemen, if the Media follows the script. Others will repress it, as Syria and Iran (which justified banning the protests as an anti-Valentine's day edict!) have done "pre-emptively," by arresting or detaining all known opposition leaders. Authoritarian states that are not "US allies" are much better at this kind of repression than our "authoritarian allies" are, for some reason...

Egypt's "regime change" came after the Obama Administration cut levels of funding for Egyptian "opposition groups" established under Pres. Bush, and returned "approval" of the list of eligible "opposition" groups to the Mubarak regime. Maybe we should follow a similar policy with all of our "authoritarian" allies. Is the President on to something, or is he just the political beneficiary of world events? Can he take credit for a "fixing" a situation that our nation supported for decades, including his explicit support for the dictator Mubarak? Possibly, if things don't take a turn for the worse...

　

I can't help projecting Mubarak's deposing to Nixon's experience. They both had thousands of protesters screaming for their resignation, and were totally oblivious to the depth of the situation. Very different situations, but both men were overthrown by public opinion, ultimately. The differences are important, as well. We ban our military from acting on American soil, by law, and our Constitution is designed to protect us from government abuse of power. I hope that Egypt will conceive a new constitution with this in mind, and the military will support it. I'm still waiting in vain for our own US government to stay within it's constitutional limits, so I can't really throw stones at Egypt...until/unless the military goes against the people.

Back in the days of the USSR, conservatives like Reagan argued that people behind the "iron curtain" wanted to be free. Others said that these people never had a tradition of "freedom," and that they wouldn't be able to exercise "democracy" correctly, or some such nonsense. I know that the threat we face now is at least as big and bad as Communism or Fascism was, in the "Islamist" ideology. If Egypt is on the forefront of becoming an "enlightened Western democracy," it still has a long way to go. It's not about giving "power to the people," if the people don't believe in equal rights for all. That may be a concept that even the Egyptian military can't stomach, if it is considered "blasphemous" to "decent" Egyptians...

Iran and Egypt: Obama's Different Responses

2011-01-29T07:17:00.004-05:00

If I was an Iranian dissident, I'd be pissed off right now. President Obama sided with the opposition to a "friendly" dictator in Egypt much more than he supported the opposition to Ahmedinejad, when a similar uprising occurred in Iran, a while back. This is not criticizing Obama's stance on Egypt: it's OK, for now. I'm criticizing his response to the Iranian uprising.

OBAMA Claims "Sputnik Moment" Too Soon

2011-01-28T07:44:00.006-05:00

Our real "Sputnik moment" will be when China puts a man on the moon, which might happen on Obama's watch, if he's a two-termer. He's just "softening us up," by using that phrase now, in another context.

Nothing says "rising world power" better than doing something neither of the "old "world powers can do, today. Meanwhile, President Obama has expanded NASA's mission to "acknowledging Muslim contributions to science," as he cuts their funding. This time, the "Sputnik moment" is quite forseeable, even from as distant a planet as LEAVWORLD.

Why I Support Andrew Cuomo, and All Conservative NY'ers Should

2011-01-08T01:07:00.003-05:00

I support Andrew Cuomo. There, I said it. I'm not putting aside my mistrust of an Albany "insider" (read as "liberal"), but I like the game he's talking. His plan to merge the banking and insurance regulatory bureaucracies, along with the much smaller consumer protection division is "outside the box" thinking, for a new Governor. He's also correctly stated that spending has to be cut, rather than raising taxes, to balance the budget. This will cause quite a squeal from the public sector unions, which brings me to the point of this post: If Gov. Andrew Cuomo is really going to take on the public sector unions, and the corrupt bureaucuracy, he's going to need some help. I stand behind my Governor on these and other issues, regardless of what party he belongs to. He talks the talk, let's see if he can walk the walk, as Gov. Christie has, across the river.

As this Newsday article points out, he is socially liberal. This is not a problem in NY, where conservatives are mostly of the libertarian stripe. I believe that if a liberal Democrat NY Governor is embracing fiscally conservative principles, conservative libertarians have to speak out in support of him.

I remember giving Eliot Spitzer the benefit of the doubt, and saw Pa-TAX-i as a "knight in shining armor," for his first few years. I've been suckered by all kinds of politicians, so I retain my pre-election skepticism about Gov. Cuomo. The Senate GOP majority seems to be willing to work with him, which could be a good or bad sign. I may be a Republican, but I don't trust or like the NYS GOP any more than the left wing "insider" political machine. They all play ball together, with the public's tax money and safety at stake.

Gov. Cuomo is asking the people to support him, in this fight against oppressive levels of taxation and regulation, and bureaucratic corruption. Fool me thrice, if it's to be, but I want to be among the first conservatives to stand behind a Democratic governor of NYS.

UPDATE: A reminder of why I'm skeptical: Today's "Inside Albany" column from Fred U. Dicker:

Andy short on specifics of $$ cuts

“Bipartisan Compromise” Gets Attacked From Both Sides: Where Are The Moderates?

2010-12-09T05:54:00.001-05:00

President Obama has agreed to extend all of the current tax rates for two years, in a “grand compromise” with the GOP. The deal includes extending unemployment benefits another thirteen months, which the Dems have been pushing for. There are several more provisions that are popular with one side or the other, but that’s not the aspect of this deal that I want to focus on. The reaction to it, by partisan pols and media people, is worth examining.

Rush Limbaugh thinks the GOP could’ve gotten more, that they have much more leverage than they realize, but won’t use it because of past experiences (link). He also notes that “Republicans do not run the House; they don’t run the Senate; they don’t run the White House, so in that limited context it’s a good deal.” (link) As the “biggest dog on the (conservative) block,” he is “barking” against “the deal,” which is to be expected. Still, as a regular Rush listener, I didn’t hear real outrage from him.

Meanwhile, the left is apoplectic, and it may be more than just “barking.” Katerina vanden Heuvel’s column (link) sums it up: “Obama: On the way to a failed presidency?” She borders on becoming a “birther,” according to James Taranto of the WSJ (link), with this line: “This daunting project is not a matter of ambition or appetite–or even unconscious Kenyan socialism.” I think Taranto’s just poking fun, but Obama’s accomplishments have emboldened the left to push for more than he can deliver. There is open rumbling about a 2012 primary challenge from the left, but seriously, anyone further left than Obama would be unelectable.

It’s expected for the furthest right and left people to criticize any compromise, but what does one make of the President’s statement, calling the GOP “hostage takers?” When James Rosen of FOX News asserted, on the O’Reilly Factor, that Obama’s formulation of that statement might embolden terrorists, he was laughed off the air by Bill O. Still, the choice of words by our President was far from “bipartisan,” to say the least.

Granted, Obama called his own left-wing critics “sanctimonious,” but when he himself is using such extreme rhetoric, he can’t be surprised when CNN’s liberal commentator James Carville says he “capitulated.” In the same segment, conservative Tony Blankley seemed to defend Obama, while acknowledging that neither side got everything they wanted. Perhaps the similar response from several prominent conservatives adds to the perception that the President “got rolled,” or that this is a bad deal for the Dems.

One Dem who supports the deal is Sen. Joe Leiberman, though he’s actually an Independent that caucuses with them, after his own split with some on the far-left of his lifelong party. Leading the Dem opposition are Sen. Mary Landrieu in the Senate, and Rep. Bernie Sanders in the House. I know Sanders calls himself a Socialist, but he’s also an Independent that caucuses with the Dems. On the GOP side, Sen. Jim DeMint is leading the opposition, and in the House, Rep. Michelle Bachman is the “point person.” Both are favored by the “Tea Party” movement, which is calling for fiscal discipline.

All of these opponents seem to be acting out of principle, whether from the right or left. The difference is that the left is whining harder, and exposing themselves as “out of touch” with the reality of public opinion. A perfect example is the lib who wrote this on the Huffington Post:

“Yet, what you told us last night is that you couldn’t imagine the average American family getting by on $3000 a year less than it currently has.

Mr. President, if you had asked the American people (instead of deciding this question for us), I think you would have found almost unanimous agreement that it was worth spending $3000 over the 12 months of 2011 – $250 per month – to break the backs of those who were trying to blackmail you… those who were holding our future – as well as yours – hostage.”

(Hat tip to Mr. Taranto for the link) What all of this points to is a problem that’s been developing for years: Where are the moderate Democrats? Judging the reactions from both sides, the GOP is looking like the centrist, moderate party. I think the President is seeing this, which is why he took the deal. He is obviously a far-leftist, but now that he’s “hit the wall” of public opinion, he’s probably more interested in holding on to the parts of his “progressive” agenda already passed, than pushing his whole party back into the minority in 2012.

POLITICAL COLORS

2010-11-20T12:27:00.000-05:00

Once upon a time “Leftists” were labeled as “Reds,” as in Communist. Now, the “Right-wing” of America is labeled “Red” and the Commies have gone “Green.” It’s interesting that the Dems have chosen “Blue” as their color, because when combined with “Yellow” (as in journalism), it makes “Green,” as well.

Corrupt "Working Families Party" Hollywood Dupes

2010-10-30T19:32:00.005-04:00

Andrew Cuomo accepted the endorsement of the Working Families Party, which is a thoroughly corrupt appendage of New York State's corrupt liberal kleptocracy. They are wholly owned by ACORN and the public sector unions, and exist solely to advance a "big government" agenda.

Cuomo made a speech, saying that the WFP would have to conform to "his" agenda, if he was to accept their endorsement. They gave him their ticket, but who do they answer to if they lied? Nobody. It's a "wink and nod," folks! Cuomo doesn't expect them to support lower taxes, or spending restraint.

Whether Cuomo sides with their agenda or not is not important. I can't vote for him because he acceded to running on their party line. I will never vote for any candidate on the WFP line, whichever other "major" party cross-endorses them. I have shunned GOP candidates on this basis as well.

The name "Working Families Party" suggests that they represent, and advocate policies that will help "working families." Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than detailing the corruption and job-killing policies they promote, I'd like to expose how they use "well-intentioned" Hollywood liberals to promote their destructive agenda.

First, watch this video of Matt Damon supporting the WFP. He makes a promise that if the WFP gets over 200,000 votes, he will make another video, wearing a NY Yankees cap. As Damon is a famous Boston Red Sox fan, this is baseball "treason." What motivates him to this end? He says that the WFP is fighting for lower Metrocard prices, and better health care, among other things. Noble goals, but there's one problem: The WFP's union founders are the reason that the MTA and NY's healthcare system are reaching into working families' pockets for more money!

He instructs us to "vote for the candidate you want, but vote for them on the (WFP) line." This is so that the party gets enough votes to be guaranteed a spot on the next election cycle's ballot. This enables them to force the state Dems to the left, and become more involved on the national front. Damon mentions the that "they're the ones who helped push Democrats to pass meaningful health care reform." How's that working out for "working families?"

If Damon takes a "light and funny" approach to his pitch, Cynthia Nixon's WFP video ("Miranda" from "Sex in the City") comes off as an earnest, if somewhat scripted appeal. I had to laugh at this line: "They look at the records of all of the candidates running for office, and support the ones who will do the most to improve our lives." As any "politically aware" NY'er knows, all you had to do to get the WFP endorsement is pay the right people. It used to be the WFP's "private" political consulting firm, Data and Field Services, until that was exposed.

Ms. Nixon compares the WFP to Tiffany and Niagara Falls, as the premier political party in the state, if not the world. She mentions Andrew Cuomo and Eric Schneiderman by name, which is interesting. Cuomo is a lock to be the next Governor, but even the liberal Ed Koch has endorsed Schneiderman's opponent, Staten Island DA Dan Donovan. State Sen. Schneiderman is a symbol of Albany corruption, which is why he's a perfect fit with the WFP.

As a former "upper west side liberal," I understand their mindset. It's just a shame that they are either dupes themselves, or duping numerous "knee jerk" liberals to continue voting for parties that are crushing real working families. The data is out there, and it's blatantly obvious: the liberal agenda is driving New York, California, and several other states into bankruptcy. The cost of living in "liberalworld" is much higher than in the rest of the nation. The WFP is in the camp of those who are making the problem worse.

We're seeing a national reaction to the WFP's, and other radical-left groups' increased influence since President Obama took office. It's called the "Tea Party" movement, and though it's not a political party, it is definitely a political force. Corrupt interests have, and will continue to try to use it, as they have the WFP, but at this point, the Tea Party seems more honest about their goals: fiscal responsibility (controls on government spending; ending bailouts), enforcing constitutional limits on government's power (repealing or otherwise defeating Obamacare, as one example), enforcing existing laws eqally across the board, whether on immigration or financial contracts, and most importantly, knowing what's actually in a piece of legislation before voting on it, so there's no excuse for lying to constituents.

Individuals who identify with the Tea Party are skeptical, even of candidates they support. We want all politicians to know that they are on "lifetime probation," and will not settle for less than a full hearing of, and fight for these principles. We may not have many "celebrity videos," but we've got Chuck Norriss and Ray Stevens on our side. We'll see how this plays out in NYS, but I'm not holding my breath.

NY STATE NEEDS A REVOLUTION: LEAVWORLD'S 2010 ENDORSEMENTS!

2010-10-18T06:49:00.014-04:00

New York State government has long been known as "dysfunctional," with "corrupt" being a quick second thought. For a long time, people have lost faith in the electoral process, and given in to the left-wing coalition that has a big "ground game." This year is somewhat different. The right-leaning Tea Party movement has become an effective, and organized counter-movement, in most of the nation. As a "Tea Party" proponent, I have to say that we have a long way to go, in NYS.

Let's start with the race for governor, between Carl Paladino, Andrew Cuomo, and several others. My problem with Cuomo is that I already gave the last Democrat "reformer" the benefit of the doubt, and he was thrown out of office! I have serious doubts that Cuomo will do anything to change the "status quo" in Albany. As much as I can't vote for "more of the same," I can't vote for "Archie Bunker" (Carl Paladino), either. Or I can, but I won't give him LEAVWORLD's endorsement! It would be a "protest" vote, because everyone knows that Cuomo will be the next governor.

LEAVWORLD endorses Charles Barron for governor, on the Freedom Party line. I've heard that White people aren't allowed in that party, so I thought they deserved a "token nod," to get that message out there. NY is very tolerant of intolerance. I chose him over Howie Hawkins, Jimmy McMillan, Warren Redlich, and the lovely Kristin M. Davis, who allegedly provided Gov. Spitzer with concubines...

As opposed to the "Goofiness/loudness" of the gubenatorial race, the two senate contests have been "low key," to a degree. Sen. Schumer faces no threat from the valiant Jay Townsend . Sen. Kirstin Gillebrand is in a closer race with Joe DioGuardi. LEAVWORLD endorses both of the challengers, and encourages others to vote for them! OUT WITH THE BUMS!!!

There are two other "statewide" positions on the ballot, this year. The State "Comptroller" and "Attorney General" races are even more important, with the certianty of a Cuomo governorship. Incumbent Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is under investigation, and was hand-picked by the (corrupt) State Assembly, not elected to his office. LEAVWORLD endorses Harry Wilson for NYS Comptroller. We need someone who knows what he's doing, not an Assembly political crony!

I'm scared. Really, I'm scared that Eric Schneiderman may become NYS Attorney General. He beat out the "moderate" Dem candidate, which happened to be LEAVWORLD's local (Nassau County) District Attorney, Kathleen Rice. It matters when the statewide Dems nominate extreme lefties. Fair-minded independents and open-minded conservatives who have been alienated from participating in the political process have to rejoin it! LEAVWORLD endorses Staten Island DA Dan Donovan for NYS Attorney General, enthusiastically! We need a competent person as the AG, not a left-wing ideologue.

Finally, my "local" congressional representative is up for a vote this year, as well. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy votes in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi, and a lot of people in NY's 4th CD are up in arms about this. I'm reminded of when she took the seat from some "invisible" GOP guy, many years ago. He thought Long Island was a GOP "stronghold," and wouldn't respond to his constituents. Rep. McCarthy finds herself in a similar situation, as a multi-term incumbent with a bad record.

LEAVWORLD endorses Francis X. Becker for congress. I'll trade seniority on committees for a legislator that listens to all of his constituents, not just "contributors." There are alot of us that are "coming back" to, or "just entering" political activity. Many of us are motivated by the failure, in the real world, of our president's version of "change," as enacted by a congressional majority of his own party. Nothing's changed for the average person since Bush's "great crash." Obama, and the Dems say "We're doing much better than we would have been, without the stimulus..." How does that sound? Not good, which is why we need to fire the inept people representing us at all levels of government.

Election day is aproaching, and LEAVWORLD endorses all free market conservatives, with one exception: Charles "anybody but a whitey" Barron, who narrowly beat out Carl "Archie Bunker" Paladino for LEAVWORLD's endorsement (no money was exchanged, I personally assure you). I predict Paladino will get more votes than Barron, LEAVWORLD's endorsement notwithstanding. Perhaps Andrew Cuomo will be the "knight in shining armor" that this state needs, after all...riiight.

Look up the candidates LEAVWORLD has endorsed here. They're not "perfect" candidates. I urge you to vote for them because they are "better" representatives than the ones we have in office. If I can grab the theme that my "Tea Party" Friends profess, "bring in the new!" How far this message will reach in New York State, I can't predict, other than to say it won't be enough to elect "Archie Bunker" (Paladino). I hope to see Jay Townsend, Joe DioGuardi, Harry Wilson, Dan Donovan, and Francis Becker get elected.

Those who do get elected, whether I supported them or not, will be critically analyzed by me, and those "rabble rousing" Tea Party "activists," God bless 'em! I think they'll "keep the heat up" for some time to come, regardless of the political framework. Count me as a supporter of the Tea Party principles!

Why Raise My Bosses' Taxes, Mr. President?

2010-10-03T02:32:00.002-04:00

As the Congress puts off a decision on extending the current tax rates, I have a few thoughts for them. The debate seems to be centered around the divide between taxpayers who make more than X ("the rich"), and people who make less than X ("the rest of us taxpayers"). Obama and Pelosi want to allow tax rates to go up for "the rich," but leave the rates at the current ("cut") levels for "the rest of us taxpayers." The GOP, and a growing number of Democrats want to continue the current tax rates ("Bush tax cuts") for both groups.

Keeping the current tax rates in place is projected to "cost," over the next 10 years, $700 billion for the "rich," and around $3 trillion for "the rest of us taxpayers." Doing nothing means everyone's tax rate will increase on Jan. 1st, so the political pressure is as high as it's ever been. Those are the parameters of the debate so far, but I'd like to personalize this, a little.

The owners of the business I work for belong to the group labeled "rich," and I am one of "the rest of us." I have seen the slowdown in our business, and understood the commensurate drops in bonus pay and raises. I've also been well-rewarded in good times, after previous recessions. Raising taxes on "them" will definitely have a bad impact on me, because I work for "them." It's common sense, but I don't think that our President understands this. His argument plays on "class envy," hoping that "the rest of us taxpayers" will team up with "non-taxpayers" to "screw the rich." It's an old strategy, and not working anymore, at least for me.

I don't hate rich people. In fact, I hope to be one, when I grow up. All kidding aside, many people do "hate the rich," and don't think they deserve the wealth they have. These people are easily used by left-wing politicians. The claim that taxing the rich at a higher rate is "fair" may sound good, but it flies in the face of the definition of the word. In any case, "the rich" are already paying a higher tax rate than "the rest of us." Obama proposes to "let it increase," while my taxes will stay the same. Somehow, I don't think this is going to lead to an "increase" in my salary, for at least the next two years.

Okay, now a little more about the policy and politics. The projected "costs" of these tax rates are phony, because the economy is not static. The CBO has to project these numbers with a "static" model, and they are rarely right. They tend to underestimate the cost of new programs, and "invent" costs of tax cuts. I often wonder if they ever projected a loss in revenue when a tax was increased? Never happened, and a dynamic private economy is anathema to the crowd in the White House. They are siding with Pelosi on this "tax the rich" idea, and trying to claim the Republicans are holding "the rest of us" "hostage" over it. That's a big 180, since his party controlls both houses of Congress.

It's Speaker Pelosi who won't let a bill to continue all current tax rates for the next two years, much less keep them indefinitely. Politically, she's playing to her "left wing" base, but the price is being paid by "the rest of us taxpayers." Even the ones she wants to "cut taxes" (ie:keep them the same) for, as noted above. This pot is going to boil over before election day. Whose "narrative" will resonate, in the polls? Will Pelosi "cave," and will the President sign a bill keeping the "tax cuts for the rich?" Or will (GOP Minority Leader) Boehner, and (GOP Senate Minority Leader) McConnell "cave" first, and hope to not harm the economy too much?

Not much chance of the latter happening, of course. Regardless of how this is portrayed in the media, there are more Dems that are willing to go with the GOP than vice-versa, and "the taxpayers" are voting this year in numbers that rival the "non-taxpayers," who are an organized "staple" Democratic voting block. These taxpayers come from all income ranges, and they are not as organized as the Democrats (or Republicans) "volunteer machines." Still, between all of these "disaffected" GOP and independent voters who have just returned to political activity, and the ones who just started "tuning in" over the last few years, the GOP will get the benefit at the polls, this November. There is no political reason to keep the GOP from "sticking to their guns," on this issue.

PS: If it seems "altruistic" of Pelosi to support raising her own taxes, is it "altrustic" that I want to keep her tax rate the same? I think the money is best kept in private hands, rather than the government's. Over the next 10 years, that 3.7 Trillion dollars in private hands will generate multiples of that amount in tax revenue. This is where her argument falls apart, and all that's left is "the rich should pay more." Here's some more "altruism": I'd even support a "fair/flat tax," which might increase my own tax rate, but make it easier for me to earn a higher wage. (But that's for another column.)

Dumb and Dumber: Lazio vs. Paladino in NYS GOP Primary

2010-09-02T07:06:00.003-04:00

Here in New York, everyone knows that Andrew Cuomo will be the next governor. The anti-Democrat backlash sweeping the nation will not signifigantly affect the gubenatorial race, though it may well impact most other contests. I came to this conclusion after repeatedly viewing the latest commercials for Cuomo's two GOP challengers, who face a Sep. 14th primary. Rick Lazio, failed senatorial opponent of H.R. Clinton, and Carl Paladino, successful "upstate" businessman. The guy I liked, "converted" Democratic Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, failed to get the party's support at their convention. Paladino forced the primary, getting on the ballot through petitions. He gets credit for giving me a choice, even if it's not the one I wanted.

Let's get to the commercials. Rick Lazio's spot attacks Cuomo, equating him with the corrupt Albany establishment, presenting himself as someone who "will" clean it up. Pretty straightforward campaign stuff. What struck me was his "tagline," at the end of the spot. "Rick Lazio. He's one of us." My first thought was "one of who?" Americans? All of us are that. "Whites, or Italian?" Both Palladino and Cuomo are the same. "Republicans?" Dumb idea, in a majority Democrat state. Maybe "conservative," which would include a small part of the state's Democrats, but I realized my initial thoughts were beside the point. This was a primary commercial, and the party is backing Lazio. One thing that didn't enter my mind when I heard the tagline was "Tea Party," but that's probably who he thought this would appeal to.

Being a spot before a primary, it won't be on much longer. These commercials are on television for all voters to see, however. The slogan "he's one of us" might rate highly among bad gangster movie fans, but it's a political loser, at least in NY State. Of course, most party hacks in NYS probably aspire to be gangsters, so this is not a surprise. These guys obviously don't know anything about projecting an "inclusive" image, and not alienating voters. Lazio needs better ad men, beyond a doubt. He hasn't articulated one of NY's pressing problems directly, and said what he's going to do about it, as governor. That's what defines a "weak candidate." He doesn't rise to Chris Christie's kneecaps in stature.

Carl Paladino has bought more commercial spots than Lazio, so I almost always see one back to back with a Lazio spot. Mr. Paladino, while bolder in his presentation, has an even dumber ad, which also attacks Andrew Cuomo. His subject is the "ground zero mosque," and why AG Cuomo is not investigating the group behind it. Of course, there is no probable cause for such an investigation yet, so this is unfair. Paladino steps across a line, with his declaration that if elected governor, he would use "eminent domain" to turn the proposed Mosque/cultural center into a war memorial. I oppose the Mosque, but I oppose Paladino's remedy. In fact, I'm fairly sure he's the example that everyone around the world is referring to, whenever they talk about "political demagoguery" of this issue.

Paladino has also used the "Tea Party" label, in many of his previous commercials. I haven't heard much "buzz" from my "tea party" brethen in NY (all 2 of them) about him. We're all wondering if he's just trying to "buy" the governorship, to bring his own band of cronies into Albany? As a big businessman from Buffalo, he must be familiar with the state's regulatory and tax policies. He may just try to benefit himself, or he may try to benefit the people of the state (or both), I don't know. He does talk as if he can "take on the special interests," but I'd like to know about his relationships with the unions have been, in his businesses.

He needs a new political team, if he thinks he can ride either the Tea Party or the Mosque to the governor's seat. I don't think that most of the "tea party" people in NY appreciate his adoption of their name. He also ought to know that "eminent domain" is an issue that evokes opposition within those same people. This is what was "dumber" than Lazio's spot, but not by much. As for us "tea party" people, how do we stop the media from associating the "Tea Party" with "using State power to deny religious freedom?" We can't, thanks to Carl, but I'm doing my best.

So these are my choices, on Sep. 14th. "Dumb and Dumber." This primary is such a joke that I may vote for Paladino, if I don't write in Steve Levy. The disillusionment with the state GOP establishment continues. There is just not any incentive for "doing the right thing" government, in our state. It needs new blood, and a new attitude. Look across the river, ladies and gentlemen! Neither of these candidates are in the same mold as NJ Governor Chris Christie, when that is exactly what we need. Andrew Couomo has made noises echoing New Jersey's govenor, but still hasn't ruled out running on the corrupt "Working Families Party" (in NY politics, the more wholesome the name sounds, the more corrupt it is - link) line, and he'll probably accept the "Independence Party" nomination, just to help them stay on the ballot. These are both subsidiary liberal Parties, the WFP funded by unions (and ACORN, or whatever it's called now), and the IP funded by other liberal groups, and of course Mayor Bloomberg. Basically, the fix is in.

Still, I see this as an aberration from many other races, even statewide ones. Schumer is as invulnerable as Cuomo, but Senator Gillebrand should be vulnerable, unless Cuomo and Schumer have large "coat-tails." She is a flip-flopping disgrace, and probably will motivate some independents, as well as GOP voters to go to the polls, this year. State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli joins her in "appointed incumbency," but he hasn't been as blatant a failure. It remains to be seen how broadly the "voter backlash" will affect New York, but I'm not letting my displeasure with the "top of the ticket" keep me from voting against the candidates I oppose on Sep. 14th, or on Nov. 2nd. I just wish that Lazio and Paladino would give me a reason to vote for them, instead of holding my nose and voting for the "less politically dumb" of the two. Neither has a chance against Cuomo, but I'll be following it, with a critical eye.

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2010-08-28T06:33:00.002-04:00

I was watching a political show with a liberal friend recently, when someone on the TV used the talking point that Republicans want to abolish the federal Department of Education. She hadn't been paying attention, perhaps, because when I commented in supporting that idea, she said "they already did that!" When I asked "who did it?" she said "Bloomberg." Then I got it. She was referring to Mayor Bloomberg's takover of the powers of the NYC Board of Education. The record of improvement since then is well known, which was my final comment on the subject, in that conversation.

Abolishing the federal Department of Education is only possible by creating a new, smaller bureacracy, to handle funding to the states on an equal "per capita" basis. That said, the case for abolishment is fairly straightforward: Public schools have declined steadily since the creation of the DoE. It is a failed experiment of national bureacracy that's having an extremely damaging effect on more than one generation of our youth. I've seen the college kids who can't read, write, or do basic math, in the real world, and it's sad. Of course, there would have to be serious education "reform," but the states would handle that on their own.

If there is a "string attached" to federal funding, it should be based on student performance. Maybe the bureacrats can translate some tests from any number of foreign nations that actually expect their students to be able to read, write, and do math. This might be necessary, because states like mine (NY) already do crazy things with the "testing" and "scoring" methods, to boost funding. The problem in NYS is being addressed, to some degree, and all schools took a cut in their percentages of students' proficiency ratings.

That's the point. While state education systems can be corrupted, it's easier to reform them than it is a corrupted national bureaucracy, which is what the DoE is. If it's looked at objectively, it's been a huge failure. Attempts to "reform" it, or make it more "accountable" have only bloated the bureacracy further (see Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind" law, which Bush supposedly "underfunded").

Even with an intelligent man at the helm in Arne Duncan, the Administration had to "bribe" states to increase the "caps" on charter schools, among other reforms. In NYS, they're already bitching that they still could have won the 700 mil with a lower cap ("They" being the "educrat-union political establishment"). This is beyond disgraceful, when charter schools have to have lotteries to accept a small percentage of students who apply.

Some think it has something to do with a "liberal" conspiracy to destroy America. I don't think so, but this is diminishing our nation, beyond a doubt. It's not really about "liberals," though many of the "educrats" are that. It's about power, and holding on to it. I think the "liberal" agenda has become secondary to "I'll contribute to politician X, and I'll keep my program, school district, or job." Again, this is the nature of political bureacracy, but abolishing the federal DofE would remove a layer of bureacracy that has plagued this nation far too long.

Cities, even ones as big and liberal as NYC, have been trying to improve their education systems, under onerous state and federal regulation. As noted above, NY State is "facing the music" about this now. What happened to letting the states compete for having the best education system in the country, and letting others emulate them? That seems to have been the idea behind Sec. Duncan's "Race to the Top" program, and why it seemed like a breath of fresh air, at first. In context, it's a sad commentary on how low our educational/political establishment has fallen; that it takes a blatant bribe to do something that helps educate our children. I have no problem with any politician that advocates abolishing the Department of Education, though that position has been labeled "extreme."

...or we could try "reforming" it, yet again...*sigh*

Will Obama Have A "Beer Summit" With Spain?

2010-08-06T05:49:00.000-04:00

The Obama administration lifted a warning that "'racist prejudices could lead to the arrest of Afro-Americans who travel to Spain," just as first lady Michelle Obama landed there for vacation, according to the UK's DailyMail. (link) The article continues, "Mrs Obama's trip now risks being overshadowed by a row about institutionalised racism." No, I don't think it will, in the US media. This isn't a story that Obama wants to see, and the obsequious media will accomodate him. However, this story deserves to be heard, because it gives an insight into the politics, as well as the nature and universality of racism.

It's worth looking back at the Administration's intervention in the arrest of Pres. Obama's friend, Professor Gates, which culminated in the famous "beer summit." It seemed as if the administration was forced to deal with that story, because the "victim" was a friend of the president. Still, his handling of the situation was "ham-handed," at best. This is what the current flap with Spain smacks of, as well.

Because of what is now called an "isolated incident," a warning was posted on the US State Department's website, warning African Americans that travelling to Spain could result in being arrested "for no apparent reason." This was posted "alongside information about ETA and Islamist terrorist attacks in the country." That might be worse than saying the Cambridge Police Department "acted stupidly," but really, what's the difference? The two African American government employees arrested in Spain last year had enough clout to get a warning posted on the State Dept. website, and now it's been taken down, for political considerations. Why the warning wasn't lifted on the day the trip was planned just puts a cherry tomato on top of the "ham-handed" sandwich this has turned out to be.

Racism is universal, and practiced by people of every race. It becomes "intitutional" when people of good will look the other way. Here in NYC, a Mexican kid got beaten to death in what's being charged as a hate crime, and the first kid that was arrested was an African immigrant. Spanish racists don't like Mexicans any more than American (or transplanted African) racists do, either, for that matter. It all gets very complicated, but it comes down to "racists of any race hate people of other races." I also know people of many "races" that just don't like people of another nationality, or religion, or sexual orientation. This is a common human condition, and not a result of American politics or capitalism, as many learned people profess. Americans just talk about it more openly than people is many nations do, and it's hugely politicized.

It's important to distinguish "prejudice" from "racism." It is similar to the difference between "don't like" and "hate." A police officer may "prejudge" a person of another race as "guilty of something," but that doesn't rise to the level of racism. A professional cop adheres to the laws, and doesn't arrest someone without evidence of a crime. Police are trained to treat everyone as a suspect, when investigating a situation. That, in itself, creates the impression of "racism" that is often complained about by many racial groups. Trust me, as a White male, I've had my share of bad experiences with the police, as noted in a previous column (link).

A racist cop, who hates people of other races, will create false evidence aginst someone, and abuse their power over them, every time they encounter someone of another race. Police departments become aware of this behavior, and the good ones act to stop it. I don't know how widespread this behavior is in Spanish police departments, but it's a sure bet that these "isolated incidents" won't stop after the First Lady's trip. They won't stop here in the US, or anywhere in the world, for that matter.

This brings us back to the way the Administration handled this situation. Should the warning have been on the State Dept. website, in the first place? Regardless of that, why did the First Lady have to vacation abroad? And why Spain? Here's an interesting thought or two about that. It's no secret that the President doesn't like Britain very much. Britain and Spain don't like each other much either, and Spain hasn't been liking the US much, in recent years. It fits into the President's pattern of "treating your enemies better than your friends" foreign policy, as well.

Perhaps it was an unintentional snub, and Michelle chose Spain because it's more beautiful, this time of year. Also, Spain's "green economy" (you know, the one Obama wants us to emulate) is in the crapper, and he might want to boost the tourism business there. I bet alot of people in the Gulf region wish his wife vacationed at one or more of their beautiful cities.

It's not a "big" story, so the lib media will feel justified burying it. Still, I think it serves as a perfect picture of how the Administration keeps shooting itself in the foot politically. I can't believe that somebody in his camp doesn't "get it," and see that the American people are watching all of this, and are not happy. This story is one of many "bricks in the wall" of growing opposition to our President. I feel bad for him, because he's got disillusionment from his left-wing base, and is losing independents to the fiscal conservatives. He's a lonely guy, on his 49th birthday, though the "moderates" are still with him. Of course, trying to be a "moderate" president is what got him in this situation, in the first place. You can't please everybody, as president, but you can pick and choose your battles wisely. That's a skill Pres. Obama hasn't shown so far, and will need, if the GOP makes signifigant gains in this year's elections.

RULE AND REVOLUTION: Where Are We Now?

2010-07-20T04:47:00.002-04:00

I caught the last hour of Rush today, and listened to him talk about this article from The American Spectator. It's worth sharing, though I haven't finished reading it yet.

America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution, by Angelo M. Codevilla

Westboro Baptist Cult Targets Adam Lambert, Among Other Patriots

2010-07-07T13:21:00.001-04:00

Here's a good reason to like, and support Adam Lambert: He's a target of the infamous Westboro Baptist "Church." They were at it again, recently, at his "Glam Nation Tour" date in North Carolina, after protesting him during the "American Idol" tour last year (LINK). Mr. Lambert has not responded, though he came out and waved to his fans, as the protesters were haranguing them with blowhorns. In fact, he's been nothing but graceful in response to criticism from all corners. (LINK)

He shouldn't bother responding, as this group is so far on the fringe, they don't represent Baptists, or Christians of any stripe. Lambert joins US servicemen who've given their lives in combat, as well as the Amish victims of a gruesome Pa. massacre, as targets of this "cult." I've written about them before (LINK), and when I found out that they were the group protesting Adam Lambert, I had to weigh in on the subject. Here's an excerpt from my previous column about them: "This 'church,' which basically consists of one extended family, preaches hateful rhetoric that is beyond repeating here, except to say that we're ALL going to hell, in their book. They have made a name for themselves by the most vile protests at funerals of Iraq veterans, and are represented by the ACLU in defense of this 'freedom of speech.'"

I want everyone to remember, whenever you hear a report about Adam Lambert being protested by "Christian groups," that the news outlet reporting this is not telling the whole story, if they don't mention the hateful nature of this group. I would also suggest everyone take a listen to Adam's debut CD, "For Your Entertainment," and buy a few extra copies to give to your friends! There's a reason he's become a target, and it's not just about the so-called "controversy" over his American Music Awards performance. He's a great artist, and a supremely talented entertainer. He has the potential for a long and influential career, and that naturally brings out the worst, in some hateful people.

Obama: "You Can Keep Your Insurance...NOT!"

2010-07-06T13:53:00.000-04:00

Aetna insurance co. sent a out a letter, which included the following excerpts: "We are changing our health benefits plan designs to comply with new federal laws...This will affect you because your employer currently offers one or more of the benefits plan designs we will no longer be offering. We will offer new plan designs to replace the old ones. Your employer may buy any plan design that we still offer, and we will tell your employer which plan design is most like your current Aetna plan."

The President said that we would be able to keep our current insurance plans. This was widely suspected to be untrue, and now I can personally confirm it. Now, we'll have to see if the new plans are better, or if many employers choose to buy one of the new plans. Here's the rub: While Aetna is forced to change the plans they offer, small businesses have no obligation to offer health insurance at all. Right now, the critics of Obamacare have been proven correct, on at least one point. Will millions of small business employees lose their insurance? We'll see, but the signs aren't encouraging. I'll follow up on this, as I get more first-hand information.

Tavis Smiley Asks Ayaan Hirsi Ali About Christian Terrorists

2010-07-06T02:28:00.002-04:00

NOTE: This was originally posted on Gather.com on May 28th. I'm just crossposting it here, now that I've replaced my old PC, which couldn't sign on to Blogger.

I watch Tavis Smiley almost every night, and am a fan, though I disagree with his political views completely. One of the reasons I am such a fan is because he gives a great insight into himself in every interview. He asks questions that his viewers want the answers to, and usually manages his time well. I also love to disagree with the premises of his questions, and occasionally write about it. Agree or disagree, ya gotta love a person who makes you think!

Tavis had an interesting exchange with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on his PBS program Tuesday night. They were discussing Islamist terrorism, and she mentioned the Fort Hood shooting and the Times Square bombing. Tavis replied that Christians in America kill people every day, citing Columbine and "post office" shootings, asking why she doesn't hold Christianity accountable in the same way. I'll look for a transcript, but that was the gist of it. I had to make a quick note for myself, when she didn't get a chance to answer that question fully, and also to pose some questions of my own to Tavis.

The obvious answer is that few mass shootings are actually motivated by Christianity, though the shooters may be Christians. Besides the rash of "post office" shootings in decades past, college campuses have been frequent targets, as well as some shopping malls. No Christian group claimed credit for any of these. Then there's Columbine, where, as Tavis should know, the killers targeted Christians. It's doubtful that any of the people involved in the various "mass shootings" over the last few decades could all be tied together in any way, including religious belief, other than one group, who all followed the same radical version of Islam.

Yes, there are dangerous groups in our country, most of which are secular left wing groups like ALF and ELF, as well as the radical Anarchists, Socialists, Comminists/Marxists who vandalize every WTO meeting or GOP convention. Some other, much smaller groups follow a corrupt version of Christianity. The difference is that 99.99...% of American Christians oppose them (even in the GOP), and would gladly help apprehend any person they knew was going to do something crazy. The better point to make is that perhaps most Muslims don't know people involved in Islamist terrorism, which would be similar for Christians not knowing "Christian terrorists," accepting Tavis' definition of that as mass murderers who are Christians.

In fact, though he mentioned that Ms. Ali is an Atheist, he neglected the role of Atheism in so many Americam mass-murders, including Columbine. I would refer Tavis to the book "She Said Yes," by the parents of a girl killed at Columbine. One of the killers put a gun to her head and asked her if she believed in God, and shot her when she said yes. I'll put her up as a Christian martyr against every suicide bomber ever, and she wins every time. She was killed by an Atheist, not an Islamist or Christian terrorist, Tavis. Sometimes murder and suicide is it's own end, regardless of how a person rationalizes it within their own beliefs. Right now, the Atheists aren't a global terrorist threat, and neither are Christians.

No Christian elected leader in the world is calling for the Ten Commandments to become law, in any country, while Sharia is enforced to various degrees in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other nations around the globe. In the US, Christians fight in the court system to preserve our national Christian historical heritage, trying just to allow images of the Ten Commandments on "government" property. There really is no political comparison to be made between Christianity, which has lost power to secular politics in the west, and Islam, which still thrives politically in much of the world. That's where the terrorism component comes in.

There is a common thread to the mass-murderers that have been Muslims. Many of them have been to the Waziristan region of Pakistan, or been in contact with people who have been there. That's Al Quaeda's training ground/headquarters, where 9/11 was plotted. If all of the domestic "Christian" mass murderers had spent time at some similarly remote "religious retreat" in the US, I think it would have been noted by our domestic media, if not our domestic law enforcement. Yet here we are, almost ten years after 9/11, and Tavis Smiley is asking a target of Islamist terrorism why she doesn't equate Islam with Christianity, regarding terrorism.

To Ms. Ali's credit, she pointed out to Tavis that a recent South Park episode offended Christian and Bhuddists much worse than Muslims, but only recieved threats over the "non-displaying" of Muhammed's image. That she didn't have time for a deeper rebuttal of his question is one of the reasons I wrote this column. Faisal Shazaad's bomb in Times Square was parked very close to Comedy Central's headquarters.Let's see how soon they "joke" about Mohammed again, Tavis.

This time, I think he wandered into fantasyland, with the broad assertion he made about killings being done "every day" in the name of Christianity. If anything, many mass shootings by Muslims slip under the media's radar, and have for years. Besides the "honor killings," which get prosecuted under criminal law, there are the occasional larger incidents: the shootings on the observation deck of the Empire State Building by a "radicalized" Muslim; the murder of Jewish children in a van on 59th St. Bridge by a "radicalized" Muslim, the El Al (Israeli) airline counter shooting in Los Angeles by a "radicalized" Muslim. All of these were handled in the criminal courts, as well. Is there a signifigant enough legal record of "radicalized" Muslims committing mass murders to justify calling it a "pattern?"

Let's not forget the DC snipers, and how everyone was shocked that it wasn't some bitter White guys, because that was the "profile" for such a killer, previously. Even after the Times Square bombing, the media ran video of some White guy changing his shirt, and Mayor Bloomberg said it was probably a "heath care opponent." One liberal columnist admitted thinking "please, don't let it be a Muslim." Tavis' "moral equivalence" is of a piece with this theme, seeking to minimize, if not dismiss the influence of Islamist fanaticism in these murders.

I had a personal experience with a Christian who terrorized my family, as a child, at the same time I was attending a Catholic school. You can read about it here, but suffice to say that when a Christian says "the Lord told me to kill you," that's not the same Lord I worship, and that person isn't being a Christian. This is probably how many Muslims feel about terrorism, and that may have been the angle that Tavis was trying to come from with his question. My speculation notwithstanding, I would really like to know exactly what he meant in the premise of the question he asked Ms. Ali.

Chavez Seizes Oil Rigs: What Else Is New?

2010-07-06T02:05:00.000-04:00

The Venezuelan state-run oil company has seized some more oil rigs owned by a US company (see story HERE). Apparently, Chavez & Co. don't want to pay these companies for their services, and when the owners stop production, the rigs get "nationalized." How much longer, until no company from any nation will operate in Venezuela?

There's a lesson here for more than just oil companies. All the US corporations that own "carbon credits" in Brazil, and other countries in that region, are at risk. Chavez is becoming an influencial force, with several other nations in the region following his lead. Don't be surprised if all those billions of dollars worth of "carbon credits" simply evaporate, if the political winds change. There is already a "grass roots" political movement to "take back" the rain forests in Brazil. The situation could escalate, as Chavez keeps getting away with this treatment of foreign investors.

PS: On a personal note, I've finally replaced my old, infected PC! I'm looking forward to getting back to writing on Blogger much more often! I really missed it, over the last few months, though I was able to do some posting. SEE YOU SOON!

Why Nobody Trusts The News

2010-05-23T19:42:00.000-04:00

I just saw an ABC news report saying that Arizona threatened to cut off electricity to Los Angeles, if they decide to boycott Arizona. Though this is a common headline in many recent stories from many news outlets, it's not true. There was a letter written from an Arizona official to the L.A. officials, which basically asked them if their boycott would include the purchase of electricity from Arizona. The Arizona official who wrote the letter appeared on Greta Van Susteren's program, and stated that he did not have the authority to "cut off" electricity to L.A. Case closed on the phony hype from ABC and others. Update: I just saw another ABC news report, which said Arizona "all but" threatened to cut off L.A.'s electricity. Better, but still wrong.

The PBS Newshour's Margaret Warner reported on the Arizona law, saying "it makes it a crime to be in Arizona without proper documentation." It "directs state and local police to enforce it, stopping people and checking documents, if necessary." While the first statement is true, the "stopping people" part of the second statement is a misrepresentation of what's in the law. Police have no right to stop anyone solely on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant. They do, however, have an absolute right to check documentation of anyone they stop for suspicion of criminal activity. They've always had that power, regardless of the suspect's citizenship. Why did Ms. Warner describe the law inaccurately? I don't know, but it's being done by many others, including the president, so maybe she's just jumping on the bandwagon," as so many in the media do.

I'd like to note that Glenn Beck read the entire law on his radio show, which gives him and his listeners more credibility than the president, AG Holder, DHS chief Napolitano, or the reporters who have mischaracterized the Arizona law in the media, but haven't read the law themselves. Living in America today is like living in the old USSR, in one respect: nobody with half a brain trusts the news, or the government. People like Beck, Rush, and Fox News are to us what "Radio Free Europe" was to the people behind the "Iron Curtain."

The American Power Act Is Green Imperialism, and Carbon Credits Are A SCAM!

2010-05-23T19:40:00.000-04:00

Last week's Frontline/World program on PBS had an interesting story on carbon credits (The Carbon Hunters). It opened with a local Brazilian measuring the circumference of a tree in the rain forest, and estimating the amount of carbon in it. He priced it at one dollar's worth, and said that the carbon in the tree belonged to General Motors. Though this sounded like another typical "corporate bashing" story, I ended up watching it, to see how much they "bashed" the "green" business (The Nature Conservancy, who declined to speak to Frontline) that sell the carbon credits to GM, and other companies. They did, but more importantly, they showed exactly what carbon credits do to indigenous people in Brazil. Basically, it's wiping them out, by not letting them plant in the forest, or to harvest trees for repairing their homes. The money they get from the program isn't enough to replace what they've given up. There is money to hire security (a real life "green police") to enforce the rules, and the local government is in on the racket, too.

There is local political opposition to this carbon scheme, though, which is where the story gets interesting, to me. What happens if the Brazilian government decides that carbon credit "rights" are no longer valid? Well, that probably won't happen right away. First, they're going to raise the price of the carbon, as high as the market will allow. This is what "green" investors are speculating on, and why they're pushing it politically. Even if the whole "carbon causes global warming" theory is correct, this is a scam! It's setting up a global financial market on one of the most common elements on earth, driving the price to an incredible and artificial high. The Frontline piece says that there is already 300 billion dollars invested in carbon credits. Call it the "CO2 bubble," and we had better burst it before it gets any bigger.

The Frontline segment excused the political "greens" for introducing "carbon trading" as "a way to get business on board," but I got a definite tone of criticism toward them, which is unusal for anything on PBS. Still, they relly didn't touch the larger part of the story, as in how the new "American Power Act" (that's the official name of the "Cap and Trade" bill) will not only codify this scam in our laws, but back it with our tax dollars. There's the rub. "Man-made global warming" is a political movement throughout the "developed" world, seeking to keep the "undeveloped" world...well, "undeveloped." It's goal may be the opposite of the previous generation of "imperialism," but that makes it even more pernicious. Corporations and governments are conspiring to deprive people of their freedom, and President Obama is on the wrong side, again.

It doesn't have to be this way. Don't vote for anyone who supports The American Power Act, and make your voice heard to legislators. This is an election year, and as campaign season starts, candidates will be listening. There are many grounds to oppose this bill on, but the top one is the "imperialism" charge, in my book. Is this the image of America we endorse? Saving the rainforest is a noble thing, but must we "force" it on the people who actually live there? The second biggest reason is the potential financial disaster it could cause. Do we need another 2-3 trillion dollar market (as carbon is estimated to become in a decade), based on a dubious premise? Even if one believes man made carbon emissions contribute to global warming, exactly how does preserving trees in the Brazilian rainforest "cut" America's carbon emissions? It doesn't. Carbon "credits" are a scam, being sold by the President, and everyone who supports him on this issue. Read or watch the Frontline piece, and decide for yourself.

The Difference Between Al Queda and the Taliban; New York Shrugs, Bloomberg Bames It On Health Care Opponent; Adam Lambert's Sells Out Times Square!

2010-05-07T04:46:00.002-04:00

Next month, I'm going to spend ten hours in visual range of the spot of the attempted terrorist attack in Times Square. I'll be waiting in line for the best "general admission" floor spot to see Adam Lambert at the Nokia Theater. It's strange, but I'm almost relieved that this happened now, before the night of Lambert's show. It wasn't too long ago that a very suspicious van was deserted in Times Square for three days, before it was given similar treatment. That one was just an abandoned vehicle, but this more recent one was an actual "bomb," of some kind. That's the point that makes most NY'ers go "hmmmm." What kind of bomb was it? Well, it brings to mind the old "Batman" TV show, with Adam West. He always got caught by the villain, and was subjected to some complex mechanism to kill him. However, the villain always left before Batman was killed, and Bats would always escape. This device seemed needlessly complex, and far less than foolproof, much like the "plot devices" from the Batman show. What's more, he obtained "non-explosive" fertilizer, which was put in a trunk, next to truly explosive materials. This shows him to be stupider than Batman's average villain, if that's possible.

The Taliban in Pakistan have claimed responsibility for him, and his "attack," but they might want to think twice about that. If this is the quality of their terrorists, compared to Al Queda, then they may want to stay more "focused" in their own country, because their boy, Faisal Shahazad, didn't want to give his life up attacking this country. Al Queda is known for suicide attacks, but it seems the Taliban recruits less "passionate" followers. Not that it couldn't have killed hundreds of people, had the "bomb" gone off, but the thousands of New Yorkers peipherally affected by this probably thought it was just "another crazy day in midtown," until they got home and saw the news unfolding. This is the New York way. Notice that most interviews on TV were of a tourists, and not local people.

Also interesting were the media reports about the "white man, in his 40's," who changed his shirt on the street, or Mayor Bloomberg's comment that it might be a radical "health care opponent," but since both of those terms describe me, I knew they were off-base. We have a local (and still at large) "bicycle bomber" terrorist, here in NYC, who blew up a small bomb at the USMC recruiting station at Times Square, and is suspected of bomb attacks at the Mexican and Brittish embassies, but none of his bombs have injured anyone, so he's not taken too seriously, by the public. By trying to fit this bombing attempt into that category, the media and Bloomie encouraged a collective "shrug" from native NY'ers.

So was this was another Islamist attack against freedom of expression, or retaliation for our "drone" campaign against the Taliban leadership? Was it directed against Comedy Central's "South Park," whose headquarters are feet from where the car bomb was parked, or against Obama's war policy? Who cares? Not this NY'er. In this case, I support both South Park's freedom of expression, and Obama's attacks on the Taliban leadership, and I'll still be going to Times Square next month, to see Adam Lambert. That's how we fight terrorism here; we go about our business and recreational activities, and let our government kill the bastards who want to "blow up the spot." It looks like the "Glamberts," as my girlfriend and her fellow Lambert fans call themselves, have more courage than the cowardly Taliban car-bomber Faisal Shahazad.

ARIZONA, TAKE OFF YOUR RAINBOW SHADES

2010-05-07T04:42:00.002-04:00

As a private citizen, I've hung out with illegal aliens many times. Often, I was violating a law or two myself. I've worked with, and perhaps hired illegal aliens, though I don't think I ever worked for one (but it's possible). I would only call a local cop on an illegal alien in a situation where I would call a local cop on anybody. When I was on guard duty at Camp Pendleton, CA, in '84, we occasionally saw illegals travelling through the base, and we reported them, most of the time. Of course, that was a different time, when I could spend a night walking the streets of Tijuana alone, smoking Mexican Marlboros, without getting killed or kidnapped. It's a different time, now, and I doubt I'll ever vist TJ again.

I'd like to make a comparison between the new Arizona state law, and the federal law that already exists, and my attitude, as a private citizen. The state law basically codifies the federal immigration law for enforcement by state and local authorities, and also codifies restrictions against racial profiling, contrary to what it's opponents claim. They typically use a ridiculous hypothetical situation, such as "a man takes his granddaughter out for an ice cream, and a cop asks him for his papers." I look to my personal experience with illegal aliens, for a closer analogy: cops will only ask about citizenship papers from people they've been either "called" about, or people they directly see violate a law.

There are several points that this law can be reasonably debated about: loopholes, constitutionality, and unintended consequences. The first loophole that comes to mind is that anyone can accuse someone that they know is illegal with any kind of crime, and get them jailed, and deported. What a thing to hold over someone's head! Actually, this is already being done to millions of illegals, with the threat of reporting them to ICE (formerly the INS). Unfortunately, the federal agency rarely responds to individual complaints, opting to produce "mass arrests" at large corporations, for some reason, so it's really an empty threat. What will happen when some "old-timer" in Arizona calls the local cops on "a bunch of illegals, harassing" him in front of the Home Depot? We'll see.

There is also a question of it's constitutionality. There is an overlap in many areas of the justice system, between local, state, and federal law enforcement, and the judicial system. Indeed, they often fight each other for jurisdiction. This looks like a classic case of a state asserting it's power, because of a vacuum of federal power on this issue. Under current federal law, an ICE agent can ask any legal resident alien for their papers at any time, without the restrictions that the state law puts on local officials. Is it constitutional? Can a state make a law regarding immigration status? It seems they have, already, in the widely-accepted laws giving "in-state" tuition to "undocumented" students, at many state universities. There are also states that have cities that feel free to reject federal immigration laws, the so-called "sanctuary cities," with no judicial interference. Is a state allowed to create a "parallel" law to federal immigration law, and enforce it? I'm no constitutional scholar, but I can't wait to see what legal points decide this.

There have already been many unintended consequences, even before the law takes effect. ARIZONA has become a dirty word, to the point where the "Arizona Iced Tea" company had to release a public statement that they're really based in Long Island (as am I). This is what's known as a "media backlash," which will last as long as it can be stretched out. It's following the same route as the demonization of the Tea Party people. By the end of the Summer, it will be apparent that AZ is doing the right thing, and whether the SCOTUS upholds or overturns the law, it will happen after this year's elections, putting the issue squarely into the '12 presidential election debate.

Notice the difference in the protesters from the "Tea Parties," and the "anti-Arizona" protesters. The Tea Party group is protesting against government's intrusive/abusive use of taxing, spending, and bureaucratic power over every citizen's life. This group has been portrayed as a radical fringe, with anything from racist to fascist beliefs, often in the guise of "bitter old white people (mostly men)." The group protesting the Arizona law is protesting against government's potential intrusive/abusive use of police or bureaucratic power against citizens of a certain ethnicity. I use the word "potential" advisedly, because the law is not in effect yet, while the laws that the Tea Party people oppose have been the law of the land for years, and apply to all citizens, plus illegals that try to comply with most of our laws. Anti-Arizona protesters have been portrayed as crusaders for social justice, without regard to the hateful rhetoric and violence at their rallies.

The kicker is that the "anti-Arizona" protesters are calling the law "racist" and "fascist," which are the same terms that are used to describe the Tea Party people. Now, as a Tea Party person, myself, I know that immigration law is not one of the core issues of the Tea Party movement. If anything, this shows that often, the opposition to both of these movements (tea party and anti-illegal immigration) just drag up the same slanderous "talking points" toward their opponents. I hope some of them read this column, and learn a little about giving credit to the substance of opposing views, even when you bash the opposition.

Though "comprehensive immigration reform" is on the "front burner" right now, I doubt it will go anywhere, this year. Arizona's law seems to be a "galvanizing" political event, but it actually is a counter to any federal action, while the pols wait to see how the judiciary sorts this out. Obama is not the only one playing chess, in this situation. Perhaps Arizona's government stepped onto the middle of the board to prevent a really bad move by the forces of "amnesty" from the OA. Meanwhile, the war in Mexico is brewing on our border, and it can't be hidden much longer.

Tea Parties, Reagan, Bush, Perot, Clinton, Bush, and Why the Center is Against Obama

2010-05-07T04:37:00.001-04:00

If President Obama has half a brain in his head, he'll become an actual "moderate." Let's look at where the actual center of American politics resides, on domestic issues. Reagan famously won over Democrats, which Bush (42) lost to Perot, when he ran against Clinton, in '92. Clinton had a change of heart, approving conservative domestic policies like "welfare reform," before his re-election in '96. It's worth noting that the GOP took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years in '94.

I suggest that the "tea party" movement is a manifestation of this same "center-right-libertarian" movement that has influenced America's politics over the last 20 years. These people aren't "worked up" about abortion, or gay marriage. They are more concerned with the government keeping American business "uncompetitive" in the world market, and keeping Americans from being gainfully employed. It's already out in the open: NY Dems have already shut down the conversion of an old Bronx armory into a mall, because they wanted "living wage" guarantees (an abstract number, sometimes equated to union wages) for every emloyee of every business that rented space in the proposed mall. Some legislators suggested the city should "make up the difference" with tax money! These are politicians that represent President Obama's view on the economy, and government's role in it.

That idea is the opposite of what will foster economic competition. One thing that this idea does not take into account is that lower wage jobs serve a function in any economy. People with no skills or work experience aren't worth paying wages that experienced workers make. The "living wage" argument supposes that anyone with an entry level job is supporting a family, when most entry level jobs go to teen, or adult children of people making a "living wage," who are still supporting those children. Why don't we make the minimum wage 15, or 20 dollars an hour? Figure it out.

There is a shortage of jobs in the USA. That means that people will work harder to find work, and employers will be able to pay less, to get qualified workers. No government regulation can change that for the better, though it can screw things up exponentially, with bad legislation. This is what I worry about, with President Obama. He has a real problem between his base, and the majority of Americans, who side with the "tea party" people more often than not. Better ideas come from people who own, manage, and work for actual businesses, in the real world, not "academics" or "politicians." Besides not listening to the "tea party" people, he made fun of them, which made him look pretty petty.

Perot warned us about "the big 'sucking' sound" that would come if either Clinton or GHW Bush won the election, in '92, because both of them were pro-NAFTA. That sound came and went, without much notice, until now. The policy is not wrong, but it will be painful, at times. I'll quote Walter E. Williams: "If they shoot a hole in their side of the boat, do we have to shoot one in our side, too?" Protectionism will not re-industrialize America. We should ratify the pending trade treaties with Columbia, South Korea, and any other nation that wants to buy American products.

There are many concepts that are "off" of this administrations "radar," which ought to be "on it." Common sense reforms, like switching "defined benefit" federal retirement programs to "defined contribution," and allow employees to contribute as much as they want. Obama's also not touching Social Security, better known as the greatest "Ponzi" scheme the Feds have ever pulled on us, because it's so disgraceful. At least Bush tried to fix it, as noted in my "right of center" LEAVWORLD: GRAFFITI POLITTI blog. I'd rather have an account of my own, than a statement telling me what the government "promises, but not guarantees" for me, in the future.

In conclusion, here's how we can trace the political "center" of US politics, over the last 30 years: Reagan "took back" the "center" that had drifted to Carter, Bush (42) lost them to Clinton, with help from Perot. Bush (43) didn't exactly win them back, but "the center" still liked the GOP more than Gore. For the record, the budget surpluses would have ended in 2001 whether Gore or Bush won the election. I was also one of those who said to myself "thank God Al Gore isn't the president" on 9/11." Bush held his "center-right" coalition together until he got re-elected, when it all fell apart. The economic conservatives broke from the defense hawks, and the social conservatives, who each had their own gripes with "their" party in charge of both executive and legislative branches of government.

In '06, the Dems took control of the congress, and the Bush Administration "circled the wagons" around Iraq. Senator Obama, newly elected, was a rising star, though no-one thought he was ready to be president. He represented "the future" of the Democratic party, while Hillary represented the "now" opposition to Bush. They agreed on increasing the federal budget, and didn't bother to act on the Bush administration's warnings of the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which presaged the "mortgage crisis." Bush lost all credibility with fiscal conservatives when he passed the TARP bill, and then tapped it to bail out GM, all the while not acting against Fannie/Freddie. This is when the "center" said "what do we have to lose, voting for Obama, instead of McCain?"

McCain had no chance, and was successfully painted as a continuation of Bush's fiscal policies. Obama won the center, in '08, but many of those voters who supported him are attending "tea parties" now. There are alot of issues that occupy voters, and they seem to rotate in precedence, on a political level. I like our president, because he is going to give us, as a nation, a real idealogical test,in a different way than Bush did. Where is "the center" of this country? We're gonna find out. Call it "triangulation."

More NY Times Sniping at the Tea Party Falls Flat

2010-05-07T04:35:00.000-04:00

Hat tip to James Taranto's "Best of the Web Today" column, for the following tidbit from Ms. Collins, at the NY Times. Taranto makes it part of a larger point, but I'd like to take another look at this excerpt. If I accept that 47% of American households pay no income tax, how does that relate to 45% of Tea Party supporters making less than $50,000? If she assumes that all the people paying no income tax "make less" than 50K, she knows nothing about the tax code. Plenty of people who make more than 50K pay no tax, if they have enough "deductions." As someone who makes less than 50K, but still pays income tax, I have to question her assumptions, when my own experience refutes them, as well. (link)

According to one much, much-quoted study by the Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of American households didn't have to pay one cent of income tax for 2009. . . .

According to the Gallup polls, 45 percent of Tea Party supporters have incomes under $50,000. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, Tea Party activists are virtually the only segment of the population in which a majority feels its tax burden is unfair. Clearly, these are not the kind of folks who would cancel their anti-tax rallies just on account of not being taxed.

My questions about her assumptions were multiplied by the next paragraphs:

"We're here to take our country back," said a former Missouri House speaker at a Tea Party rally at the State Capitol, where nobody appeared to be grateful for the good news about the bottom 47 percent at all.

Let us stop for a minute and consider this "take our country back" mantra. Some people believe it is the cry of angry white men who don't like seeing a lot of blacks, women and gay people in positions of power. I prefer a less depressing explanation, which is that all this yearning for the golden days of yore has less to do with Washington than with the fact that so many of the Tea Partyists appear to be in late middle age. I think they just want to go back to the country that existed when they were 28 and looked really good in tight-fitting jeans. Which is no longer the case.

Ms. Collins sets up the "'take our country back' mantra" as something that "some people" believe is bigoted, but not her. She thinks the "tea party" people want to recapture the world of their youth, though 28 is a rather specific age to mention. Maybe I'm in "early middle age," so I'd like the world to be as it was when I was 18, or even 13. Again, this is so far off-base, it is absurd. "Taking back our country" is a political phrase, which is often, if not always used by the party in the minority. I'm surprised she didn't use the common liberal refrain of "turning back the clock," but she clearly characterized her opinion in those terms. My guess is that she's saving that "tidbit" for after election day.

"Taking back our country" means something, and it's actually bipartisan, though "politics" are deeply involved. Both parties are complicit in the excesses, but there are other influences at work. Any source of "political power" becomes a money tree, whether from individual, corporate, or politial sources. The "Tea Party" movement is political chaos, at the moment, and that's a good thing. It gives individuals exposure to many other people who share similar concerns, and any differences they may have. The issues that have consensus among the various groups will be on the national political map, beyond a doubt. The party that embraces that consensus will be a political winner. I see that consensus as this: "It is beyond a doubt that limiting government power and spending will benefit the country. We want our representatives to not only say this, but do it."

There's something else about the "when they were 28 and looked really good in tight-fitting jeans" comment. What if I said that about some aging "baby boomer" liberal? Or if I said "in baggie hippie jeans?" Again, it doesn't matter which style of dress she's referring to, it's the condescending assumption that these people want to "relive" some kind of past glory. I can assure her that everyone there remembers those days as politically and culturally tumultuous. What was different then was that the tax code was simpler, and the government less intrusive in our lives, though some people complained about that, even back then.

Competing political groups create more political "customers," or people who pay attention to politics, and policy. I'm not worried about too much free speech, or political advertising, so if some of these "tea party" organizations are "owned" by GOP, Democrat, union, corporate or "non-profit" interests, it makes no difference to me. It's the people who actually vote, and they are more attuned to political BS than they have been in a long time. They want to know what a candidate will stand for, as well as stand against, and they will expect them to stand for it, regardless of the politics. Kind of the opposite of what Rep. Stupak did, on health care.

People like Ms. Collins may try to interject race, gender, and sexual orientation into the "tea party" movement's "raison d'etre," or maybe she just hated "the country that existed when they (tea party people) were 28." Either way, she does more to expose her own prejudice against Americans who disagree with her politics than convince anyone that the "Tea Party" movement is racist.

Political Pitfalls of Hating the "Tea Party" Movement

2010-04-11T03:09:00.002-04:00

Why do all these people have to be hatin' on the "Tea Party" people? Rep. Steve Cohen, among others, brand us as racists. Now, I've never been to a "tea party" rally, though I've wanted to check one out. I'm one of them because for years I've advocated the same principles they espouse, and am happy to see people rallying to something I agree with. I don't know how Rep. Cohen equates "limiting government spending and taxes" with "racism," but he's in a seat that is supposed to be "reserved" for a Black candidate, according to a supporter of his African-American primary opponent. This being his second time through that wringer, he's obviously grasping at a political straw, by bashing the "tea partiers" as racists.

The real problem I have is with the media coverage of the protests, and the movement in general. Like any "movement," it's more about ideas that people share, and agree on, than the differences between them. Media outlets that allow the race card to be played against the "tea party" supporters on their programs, unchallenged, are not giving an analysis of what is bringing these people together, or what they're protesting for. "Limiting government's power, to comply with the Constitution; cutting government spending; balancing our total national debt, and putting all of it "on the books." Is that too difficult for them to report? I suspect that the "cutting government spending" part is considered "racist" by the media, for the usual reasons...(social justice, etc.)

Unfortunately for both the left-wing media, and the progressive Democrats, it looks like most people agree with the "tea partiers." The venom directed at them from both the media and politicians is backfiring, primarily because most people don't trust the MSM on politics. If I can coin a phrase, "Some bad press is good press." This was/is a real "grass roots" movement, although it's going through the turmoil of political popularity/infamy. There are many "tea party" groups, at many different levels of organization, across the nation. Some may be frauds or fronts, but it's a fact that this is a more valuable "demographic" than most media or political strategists realized, when they alienated them.

I expect to see alot more "tea parties" this Summer, but wonder how the media coverage will slant. Pres. Obama is on shaky ground with the media already, over a number of other issues. I'd be pleasantly surprised to see a change to objective reporting of "my political community's" complaints against President Obama and Congress, on CNN, (ms)NBC, ABC, CBS, theNY Times, WaPost, etc...but I don't expect that to happen. Still, they're being stung by their blatant slander of a large group of Americans, so they may need to "kiss some ass." Actually, they better, if they want to survive as media outlets. (Barring a government takeover)

A final note: Remember how the details of the TARP and Stimulus bills "dribbed and drabbed" out over the Spring and Summer, and dragged Dem's poularity downward, as they were trying to pass health care? Think of the "dribs and drabs" that have already started to come out of the health care bill. Besides not covering children's "pre-existing conditions" immediately as promised, Congress is holding hearings on why so many large companies are anticipating losses on their balance sheets, since it's passage. I don't think the surface has been scratched, yet, when it comes to unknown parts of this law. That reminds me of another "tea party" principle that I forgot to mention: "Let us read the bills before you pass them." It could be the final nail in the Dem's political coffin.

God Bless Joe Biden, For Motivating the Opposition

2010-04-04T21:49:00.000-04:00

If we didn't know already, Vice President Joe Biden reminded us that passing health care reform is a "BIG (F-bomb)-ING DEAL!" Thanks, Joe! Of course, he used the profanity in praise of Obama, so it's not like when Cheney said "go (f-bomb) yourself" to some Democrat Senator. Personally, I find both comments unremarkable, but for the fact that they've been remarked about.

I could rightly argue that Cheney was somewhat more discreet, only being on the Senate floor. Also, let's be honest; Biden is a serial offender, when it comes to sticking his foot in his mouth, surpassing even Pres. Bush's famed malapropisms.

For some reason, this endears Joe to most people. I have to admit, I like the guy, though I consider him an old-school "hack" politician, who rode Obama's coattails. He's got to be enjoying this, or he wouldn't have made that comment, at such an inappropriate moment.

So God Bless Joe, for giving us a peek at the "hack" mentality of shoving through unpopular legislation. It sounded as if Biden thinks this is like making the playoffs, to use a sports analogy. Now, they can build on this momentum, to win further victories, over public opposition. I feel bad for him, if that's what he thinks.

He was right, though. This was a "big deal," to paraphrase him. It's a big deal to the people who opposed it all along, and the people who want to repeal it now. We're going to replay your comment, and it will keep us motivated for a long time.

Joe Biden is priceless, for both political and comedic entertainment. Sometimes he helps his own party, but more often he helps the comedy writers, and the GOP. Ya gotta love him!

NYS GOP Backs Levy, Conservatives Back Lazio...What Will Happen?

2010-04-04T21:44:00.001-04:00

The NYS Conservative party appears to be supporting Rick Lazio, over newly-minted Republican Steve Levy, the formerly Democratic Suffolk County Executive. The Conservatives endorsed him in his '07 re-election campaign, but he ran unopposed. Why was that? It looks as if he was fighting against the "tax and spend" mentality that most elected officials and bureaucrats have, and it was politically popular. That's why he might be a tougher opponent for Cuomo than Lazio, in the general election.

I want to share some excerpts from some recent columns, and use them in support of Levy's candidacy:

(link) The rallying cry in NYS is "stop the spending," and people are looking for candidates whose record reflects that. They are tired of having the party "anoint" candidates that they have to hold their nose while voting for...I think the GOP senators are scared, because he may represent the exact threat they fear the most: the voice of voters from both parties, who are saying "the party is over! STOP THE SPENDING!"

(link) If there was ever a state that needed a "political insurrection" by the taxpaying people, it is New York. "Governor" Cuomo (this is 99.9% certain to happen) will not fix the system; he is part of it, and has been for years. NYS needs a governor like Chris Christie of New Jersey, someone who will take the bull by the horns, and challenge the entrenched liberal interests.

(link) Meanwhile, the GOP has a revolution within it's ranks. The fiscal conservatives are taking precedence over the social conservatives...Socially liberal, or "Rockerfeller" Republicans have usually been fiscally liberal, as well. That has changed...The GOP, as the minority, stands to benefit, whether it's "divided" or not. They are better positioned to adopt the "tea party" principles, in any case.

There's more to this story. Those same Republicans from the NYS Senate, most of whom opposed Levy? Well, they unanimously supported a bill that "busts the cap" on property tax rates. This is a clear dividing line between "politicians" and "constituents." Let's see if Levy is on the constituents' side of the line, on this and other "pocketbook" issues.

I'm leaning toward supporting Levy, because Andrew Cuomo is not an "agent of change." Much like Spitzer, he has been a "do-little" Attorney General, who reeks of empty promises of "reform." His latest crusade is against excessive overtime by public employees in the last three years before retirement, to "pad" their pensions. He's quoted as saying"how long has this gone on?" ...rhetorically, and answering "Decades. Decades." So where was he when this scandal started? Well, his father was governor of NYS, decades ago, and he probably knew about it back then. That's why it's almost comical to see him, as AG, just now launch this investigation.

Even shooting these fish in a barrel, I can guarantee that Cuomo will miss, and nothing will change, regarding public sector overtime abuse, if he becomes governor. He'll prove as effective as Spitzer was at "cleaning up Wall Street." What I know of Levy's record compares favorably with Cuomo's. Levy also seems to see the bigger picture of how the system is geared to increase public spending, and is looking for a way to break that cycle.

It's interesting that Levy has a record of butting heads with "public sector" unions, most publicly the Suffolk County police union. I hope he "butts heads" with the state troopers just as much, after their role in several recent gubenatorial scandals. They are just one of many entrenched interests that any "reform-minded" governor will have to fight. Plus, as an "underdog," I naturally want him to win, and continue his anti-spending crusade. Can he do it? We'll see.

Millions Lose Insurance: "No One Saw It Coming"

2010-04-04T21:42:00.000-04:00

If the fine or tax is less than the cost of health insurance, millions of people will be dumped from, or drop their "current" insurance, in the coming months. This will not be due to "some government bureaucrat," but Democrats in the US Congress, if they pass health care reform this Sunday night. This follows a pattern of passing the toughest votes on weekends and holidays. "It's 10 PM, do you know how you're representative is going to vote?" I know my rep, Carolyn McCarthy, will vote for it, because she's part of the Dem leadership.

What legislators don't account for, when they pass regulatory laws, is the anti-regulatory nature of private individuals, and most businesses. That's why only a few are talking about this (well, there's Rush, Hannity, Beck, and a few others, but "no one" listens to them...), and the MSM will try to say "no one saw this coming," when it happens. It will happen over this Summer, leading up to the elections.

What is likely to happen, if the Senate bill passes, is the fight for the House rvision bill, which must pass the Senate. The GOP is going to try to use this process to strip out certain parts of the law, or at least stretch out the process, to allow time for everyone to examine what the Dems passed into the law already. If the Dems are attempting a "fix," then there is something wrong with the law as passed. This will be politically exploited, beyond a doubt.

There is a chance that I'm wrong about employers dropping insurance, but I think that other parts of this law will have similar "unintended" consequences, any one of which will damage our overall economy. It's going to be a tough Summer for Democrats, whether this gets passed or not. That political reality is why I think it will pass tonight. They've been herded to the ledge, and there's nowhere to go, but off...

OBAMA Interview on FNC, Part One: Slaughter's "Deem as Passed" Rule OK

2010-03-20T14:21:00.000-04:00

President Obama showed "masterful political skill" as he danced around Brett Baier's "deem as passed rule" question on FNC's Special Report Wednesday. He said he supported it, without actually saying it. Mr. Baier did a good job getting that much out of him, though it is actually a view expressed almost every night on Special Report (and other FNC shows) by AB Stoddard, one of the frequent panelists on Mr. Baier's show. It boils down to this: the vote on the rule is politically the same as a vote on the whole health care bill.

It sounds like a good point, but how many Dems who previously voted "no" will try to run on that vote in November, instead of this "rule" vote, whether it passes or fails? Technically, they will be telling the truth. They voted "no" to Obamacare. When they are confronted with their "rule" vote, they will explain, as Pelosi is currently fond of doing, that the GOP has used this gimmick hundreds of times. They'll also use Obama's current talking point of "process" over "substance," saying this was a "procedural" vote, as if it wasn't critical to passing the bill. I can hear them now: "When it came to the substance of the bill, I voted against it." See the Kerry precedent: "I was for the war, before I was against it." Don't think it won't happen.

The rule change has to come from the Rules Committee, headed by Rep. Louise Slaughter of NY. So the President is on the record as supporting the "Slaughter House Deem as Passed" Rule. Sounds scary to me, but it maybe the President won some converts after this interview...or not. This is just an analysis of Baier's first question, and Pres. Obama's response. Here's a link to FNC's "rush" transcript. Look at the transcript, to see how long and evasive his responses were, to put this in context. If you saw the interview, you know that Baier was trying to be probing, and stick to getting answers to his questions, but was hitting a wall. Still, he scored by getting the President to tacitly admit he supported the congressional process.

There are a few things that I have to take issue with, in the President's meandering response:

"You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they've got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have."

No, sir, right now, we don't have anything from you, other than vague outlines, which change on a daily basis.

"We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars."

No, we don't. Some very smart people think it may increase the deficit by that amount, at least. With the precedent of multi-trillion deficits in existing health care programs, how do you expect us to believe this?

(In response to Baier's interjection of some emailed questions) "I've got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven't we done something to make sure that I, a small business person, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don't have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent?"

This was the second time he seemingly "said" that under Obamacare, all Americans would get the same "deal," or "kind of pool" that "members of Congress" get. He didn't actually say all Americans would be able to afford the same health care options as Congress. He certainly didn't promise anything, because he doesn't have an actual bill that can be read, and translated into normal language, as noted above. He seemed to have "skirted Demon Pass," while "throwing some smoke bombs," to use colorful metaphors.

The President continued this pattern, through most of the interview. I missed the last segment, and haven't read the transcript yet. I'll get to the rest of the questions this weekend, since there won't be any vote in Congress. The President promised it would be online for 72 hours before the vote, so it can't happen until Monday. Wait, he said that on all of the other "votes" since he's been in office, and not one of them were even available online (or offline-neither House nor Senate knew what the bills said) when they were voted on. Damn! I almost believed him...not! Fool me twice, and I'm the fool!

Well done, Brett! You made news with an incisive interview! I look forward to weighing in on the rest, because it gets alot more interesting. You've got alot of statements by the President that are blatant BS, and I'm surely just one of many people pointing it out. Think of this as what I was yelling at the TV during this part of the interview!

GOP "Backroom" Support For Lazio Over "Turncoat" Dem Levy In Gubenatorial Primary

2010-03-20T14:17:00.001-04:00

According to the NY Post, there was a "secret" vote by NY's GOP senators last week, "to put party Chairman Ed Cox on notice that they want former US Rep. Rick Lazio - and not a turncoat Democrat - as their candidate for governor." That "turncoat Democrat" is Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, who is looking at running on the GOP ticket. This all seems like a flashback to the 23rd CD race, where a bunch of county chairmen "selected" a bad candidate, who ended up dropping out, and endorsing the Democrat, rather than the Conservative challenger. Now, Rick Lazio is no Dede Scozzafava, and I don't think Levy will run on the Conservative line, if Lazio gets the nod, without a primary.

What concerns me is whether they will support a fair primary, or try to keep Levy off the ballot. These guys may be in the minority statewide, but they hold alot of power in the state party. NY State has a large emerging "grass roots" conservative movement, though it's not as "activist" as in some of the other parts of the nation. Most of us are working so hard just to get by, we don't have the time to attend rallies, and few of us have ever talked to any elected or party official. We know that most of these people are corrupt blowhards.Still, they have records to run on, and more people than ever are able to find those records, in the information age.

This is where the new "grass roots" movemet comes in. People are becoming more politically active online, as in the real world. Many conservative voters who had "given up" on voting are being brought back in by the wave of people who are "newly" active in politics. The rallying cry in NYS is "stop the spending," and people are looking for candidates whose record reflects that. They are tired of having the party "anoint" candidates that they have to hold their nose while voting for.

I voted for Lazio, when he lost to Hillary. Unfortunately, other than remembering that he had a decent voting record, I don't remember much about him. I loved it when he approached her, with a pledge to sign, at the debate, but can't remember what the "pledge" was about (probably about not raising taxes, or something like that). He was roundly condemned for that, but my point is that he just wasn't very impressive. He might have great ideas, but will he have what it takes to be the voice of fiscal sanity in Albany?

Levy, I don't know as much about, other than he's drawn fire over illegal immigration issues, in the past. He also is having a showdown with the Suffolk County Legislature over hiring new police, who are paid the highest salary in the world, apparently (sarcasm, there. They're highly compensated, compared to Nassau County and NYC). He wants to fund 70, the legislature wants 200. That's two things I like about him, but I have to look into the rest of his record as S. C. Executive. If he runs in the primary, I'll be sure to write about it. He seems more willing to "go against the grain," which is what our state needs right now.

Thanks to the Post, we know that the "long knives" are out for Levy, already. Of course, he's dealt with plenty of that from his own party, in the past, and he is still a sitting county executive. I think the GOP senators are scared, because he may represent the exact threat they fear the most: the voice of voters from both parties, who are saying "the party is over! STOP THE SPENDING!"

NYS is in bad shape, and there is a huge public spending machine in place, now fully owned by the Democrats. The GOP ran themselves out of power by being part of it, and disaffecting so many voters. Now that a natural constituency is emerging around the "tea party" movement, they need to listen to the people, and at least allow them to have a choice of candidates for governor.

Update: Levy has switched to the GOP, and entered the race. I also read that he was endorsed by the Conservative Party in his last race for county executive. I like this guy!

Gov. Paterson Exposes NYS Corruption: He's Just a Symptom

2010-03-13T03:03:00.000-05:00

New York State is again in the corruption spotlight, wresting the dishonor back from Blago's Illiois. "The Accidental Governor," David Paterson, is not going to finish his term, I can confidently predict. There is a deeper story here than Gov. Paterson's downfall. The systemic political corruption in our state touches every politician and bureacrat in a leadership position, at every level of government. It deeply infects NYC, most counties, and permeates Albany. And yes, it's bipartisan. Still, examining Paterson reveals an insight into the mindset of our elected representatives, here in NYS.

The NY State Police have a recurring role in our political scandals, going back to Gov. Pataki, at least. They seem to have a political function, beyond the power of their union in Democratic Albany. Of course, with so many other powerful interests being catered to, they are relatively "behind the scenes," except when it comes to gubenatorial scandals. While Spitzer was found to have used them to spy on a political rival, Paterson allegedly used them to improperly pressure a woman to drop harassment charges against a senior advisor. Spitzer was taken down by a different scandal, but Paterson's actions re-open an examination of political corruption and influence in statewide law enforcement. This is just the tip of the iceberg, regarding NYS/City/local corruption.

Governor Paterson is a product of a corrupt system. His father was a contemporary of Charles Rangel, David Dinkins, and other "old school" African American leaders, who gained power as Democrats starting in the '60's. Unfortunately, the system they inherited was already corrupt, and they did little better than their predecessors at improving their constituents' day to day life, or opportunities for a better one. They played the system, as most previous pols have, as a "me and my friends benefit" game, combined with a "pay to play" mindset toward constituents.

Paterson's short record in office shows numerous examples of these types of behaviors. His inability to control taxes and spending wouldn't be so flagrant, had he not talked so strongly about doing it. He has the propensity to do the exact opposite of what he says publicly. His process for filling Sen. Clinton's vacant seat was as convoluted, and probably corrupt, as the one in Illinois, which has Gov. Blago facing criminal charges. More recently, his role in selecting a developer to expand the Aqueduct race track to include slot machines is under investigation, as well as his attendance at game one of last year's World Series. Before you laugh, he may have committed perjury covering up how he got the tickets!

The latest news comes from the second "summit" of African American NY "leaders," who came out of the meeting at Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, supporting Paterson remaining in office. Unfortunately, at least three of this "leadership" group are under investigation, as well. Their support plays against Paterson, and reflects badly on the whole NY Democratic "establishment," not to mention themselves. As one Harlem resident said about Rep. Charles Rangel, one of the members of the group who is under multiple investigations, "get your hand out of the cookie jar!"

The list of officials indicted, or under investigation in NY seems to grow every day. Gov. Paterson is only a symptom of this corruption, with his "accidental" rise to power. He's obviously been incompetent, throughout his political career. He's the son of Basil Paterson, who used his political power to get his son a career in politics. This is the same type of "old boy" network that minority leaders fought against, until they got power. It really is an institutionally corrupt political system, but that doesn't exonerate the players, it only explains why honest people don't get into NY politics.

Meanwhile, NY State is falling apart, financially. There is no "opposition" to the political corruption, even from the NYS GOP. They give "lip service" to tax and spending restraint, but often "go with the flow" when budget time comes up. Pataki started out doing the right thing, but quickly became tainted with the "tax and spend/pay to play" culture. By the end of his time in office, he was under investigation for many things, including a "sweetheart" sale of riverfront state owned land to a politically connected developer. His early tax-cutting reputation was in shreds, after the way he screwed middle class NYers. (Note that no-one took him seriously as a presidential candidate, or as a candidate against Sen. Gillebrand. He's not viable, thanks to his time in the sewer of the NYS Governorship.)

Spitzer was another "to the rescue" type, coming from the Left. He was going to "clean up" NYS government, the way he cleaned up Wall Street. We all know now how little he actually "cleaned up" Wall Street, and his contribution to NYS politics is becoming a legacy of corruption, thanks to David Patetrson. If there was ever a state that needed a "political insurrection" by the taxpaying people, it is New York. "Governor" Cuomo (this is 99.9% certain to happen) will not fix the system; he is part of it, and has been for years. NYS needs a governor like Chris Christie of New Jersey, someone who will take the bull by the horns, and challenge the entrenched liberal interests.

As for Paterson, he will be OK, in the aftermath of this. The past few weeks have probably been the worst of his life, and it will only get worse until he resigns. NY Democrats should be thinking along the same lines as I am about my NY Republican party: We need some new blood, and new leadership. This goes for all factions of both parties, whether in Harlem, Nassau County, Albany, or anywhere in the state. Let's learn from Paterson, and all of our fooolish elected officials' mistakes, and get serious about fixing our economic and political bases. That's what it will take to emerge from the current malaise infecting us.

Bunning Demonized for Emforcing "Pay-Go" Rule

2010-03-13T02:57:00.000-05:00

This WSJ article about Sen. Jim Bunning's thwarting of the unemployment benefit extension is instructive, in that it doesn't once mention the "pay-go" rule, signed by Pres. Obama just weeks ago. The President went on youtube to announce it's passage, explaining that no new spending could go forward, without an offsetting cut in spending elsewhere. Why does no-one seem willing to enforce this law, except one retiring GOP Senator?

It's almost comical, how Sen. Bunning is being attacked by the people who support the law he's basing his objection on. Just weeks ago, they all lined up to claim the mantle of "fiscal responsibility." Now, all that's gone "out the window," apparently. The media are not doing their job, either, if the WSJ article is any indication of the broader coverage of this story.

The Battle Within the GOP

2010-02-26T05:51:00.000-05:00

There is an interesting battle raging within the Republican party. It's pretty simple; it comes down to whether voters will come out for GOP candidates this time. Bush lost the fiscal conservatives, but kept the defense "hawks," for a time. It wasn't enough, and the voters gave the Dems a chance in '06 and '08. The economy started tanking shortly after they got a congressional majority, and national security was an afterthought, if not a political liabilty for the GOP.

The GOP was called a "rump," or "regional" party, that would stay out of power for at least forty years. David Brooks, and others said that the Republicans have to be more "moderate," or more "willing to compromise." This is not what happened. Voters asserted themselves, and candidates who said "no" to the "big government" agenda won.

So far, it's benefitted the GOP, but this movement is larger than either party. One thing that Pres. Obama has done is to unite independent opposition to his agenda. The "independent" voter, who was willing to give him a chance a year ago, is not so enthusiastic any more.

Meanwhile, the GOP has a revolution within it's ranks. The fiscal conservatives are taking precedence over the social conservatives, and it looks like it's going to stay that way. Issues like "gay marriage" and "abortion" are on the back burner, in current electoral politics. People want the economy to recover, before we resume arguing about those issues.

This is a long, ongoing battle, with many facets. Socially liberal, or "Rockerfeller" Republicans have usually been fiscally liberal, as well. That has changed. The "neo-cons" are an example of voters who are hawks on defense, conservative on the deficit, and libertarian on social ssues. Think of it this way: we want our "liberal" culture to influence otrher nations, such as Iran or China. We can't promote human rights abroad, and bash gays domestically.

Ultimately, the battle within the GOP will make it stronger. As much as the major media will try to discredit them, it looks as if the "tea party" movement will be a thorn in the side of both parties, this year. The GOP, as the minority, stands to benefit, whether it's "divided" or not. They are better positioned to adopt the "tea party" principles, in any case.

Some think that the real "big division" is within the Democrat caucus. They have found a way to stop "health care reform" so many times, when they had the numbers do it. What they were fighting about was the will of the "constituents" vs. the will of the Dem leadership, and the voters won. The Obama administration hasn't helped, by proposing terrorist trials in the civillian court system, something else that voters overwhelmingly oppose.

I relish the division in both parties, because it means that ideas are competing, in a political context. It's often ugly, but it's neccessary for any political system to thrive, rather than just survive. Let there be division within the GOP, and the Dems' ranks. Through this turmoil, the "will of the people" will guide us, for better or worse, in this election year.

Passing Rants As If They Were Gas!

2010-02-19T09:50:00.007-05:00

I had to post a bunch of passing rants, this week.

If the scientists now admit that "climate change" science isn't settled, "man-made global warming" theories should be pulled from primary school cirricula; secondary schools must present both sides of the issue with equal scientific weight; and university grants must be equal for scientists who are skeptical of this theory. Anything less is a political perversion of science education.

Why did the President say that the stimulus (Recovery Act) bill he signed last year made "a second depression no longer a possibility?" It looks as if he's confusing it with the TARP "bank bailout," which he "inherited" half of from Pres. Bush, and adopted the claim of avoiding a depression. However, the President is not trying to sell us another TARP bill, yet. Right now, he's trying to sell us another "stimulus" bill, under the banner of "job creation." I don't know if he thinks we're all dumbasses, or just that enough of us are, for him to get away with this. Does anyone know what would've happened if TARP had not passed? Does anyone think a economic depression is now "not a possiblity?"

Mayor Bloomberg calls his closing of Broadway in Times and Herald Squares a "success," because traffic times are somewhat shorter, though not as much as projected. The real reason traffic times are down is that we're in a recession, and there are thousands fewer vehicles on the streets than before he implemented his "green" vision on an unwilling city. Bus and subway ridership are down, as well as vehicle traffic. How exactly does he see this as a "success," when it's a failure in the eyes of the people and businesses most directly impacted by it? When will Bloomie's ultra-rich peer group start congregating, and spending money there? NEVER.

New York State needs a Chris Christie. Andrew Cuomo is not the answer to NY's corruption/fiscal crisis. Giuliani stepped off, so we need a "no name" challenger, preferably from the "tea party" movement. Following Christie's lead, a conservative can win, even in NY, this year. Even over a Cuomo.

Caterpillar is a big company that Obama claimed would start rehiring workers last year, if the stimulus bill was passed. They distanced themselves from that, shortly before it was passed. Now, they've dropped out, along with BP and Conoco, of a group promoting "cap and trade." They were upset that Pres. Obama used them politically on the stimulus bill, and felt that their association (money) this time was being used to "pass anything," instead of influencing what was actually passed. This is a big problem: politicians take the payoff, and don't deliver. Government is like the biggest form of the Mafia; they can say "so what you gonna do?" -and nobody does anything...until they do something.

Even conservative groups are caught up in the fiscal corruption of "pay to play." Some time ago, I read a column about a dispute between UPS and FedEx, with government regulation square in the middle of it. Yesterday, I read that a conservative group asked FedEx for two or three million dollars to support their side, through their members. This is as disgusting as anything that sickened me of "organized" liberals. I've never taken a dime from any organization for my support, and I like to say whatever I think, without worrying who I might offend.

NY CORRUPTION deserves a whole post of it's own, but let's start with this: it's the only state in the nation that allows elected officials to create "non- profit" corporations, or have family members do so. They are allowed to steer hundreds of thousands of tax dollars into these "non-profits," which often do nothing but re-route the money back to the political benefactor. One simple "reform" could change this: Ban elected representatives from having any ownership, or connection to any non-profit group. The reaction to this proposal would identify more corrupt NYS pols than the state could prosecute, but the voters might "pick up the slack" at that point.

Some slick Bronx politician wants to freeze rents of "rent-controlled" apartments for the next ten years. Can anyone tell me why this is such a bad idea? Here's a hint: this bill has no chance of passing, and the sponsor is complicit in voiding the Bronx Armory mall-conversion project, killing thousands of jobs over "prevailing wage" requirements. He doesn't want his constituents to have jobs, and he wants to force their landlords to lose money on their property for another decade. He must be slick, to screw everybody so badly, and keep getting elected!

An Obama supporter kills three people over a bad "tenure" hearing. A Democrat Congressman resigns, not wishing to discuss his role as the prosecutor who cleared her of shooting her brother three times as "an accident." Is she as crazy as the IRS plane bomber? I don't know. Who will get more coverage, from a political angle? Probably the airplane guy, but I'd like to know more about the "progressive liberal" terrorist, if they're both "lone wolves." We need to understand how to stop acts like these, regardless of where the idea comes from.

These are a few of my opinions to chew on, and you can decide for yourself if I've got a point, or not. What do you think? (Keep it to yerself, OR DON'T, thanx)

Will Obama Become a Cliche?

2010-02-08T05:32:00.010-05:00

From GITMO to "health care reform," our president has painted himself into a corner, repeatedly. This image was from an unrelated project about CLICHES, and it happened to fit.

Pick your favorite issue, and tell us how he's done this, on it! Let's see, he's committed to another "stimulus" bill, which is opposed by a majority of independent voters. He's promised to move the 9/11 terrorist trials out of NYC, but insists that they still be tried in federal criminal courts, while guaranteeing a guilty verdict. Sheesh! Talk about bad ideas!

How about that "open, transparent" government? Brian Lamb from CSPAN cornered him on that one, showing the falseness of his rhetoric. Yes, our president has "painted himself into a corner" in more ways than I can count! Help me out, here!

O'Reilly and Obama vs. Stossel and the First Amendment

2010-02-03T03:58:00.000-05:00

Bill O'Reilly had John Stossel on last night, to talk about the recent SCOTUS ruling which overturned parts of McCain Feingold, and a 63 year old law. They showed a clip of Obama scolding the SCOTUS at the State of the Union show, and then O'Reilly came out in defense of Obama's position, while Stossel defended the First Amendment. It was a great segment, but Bill O was wrong on the facts of the ruling. He had to admit that Obama was wring on the facts in the SOU speech, but stuck to his guns, saying he had problems with the decision.

The real problem is that there are any limitations on political speech at all. Let's say Citgo, owned by Hugo Chavez, wants to spend $20 million on ads to elect a socialist to the US Senate. Let's say that it will now be able to do this, through it's US subsidiary (which is not certain). Every ad they put on TV has to say "paid for by Citgo." Even large corporations like to keep their political dealings separate from their public image. Citgo USA does not want to be connected with Hugo Chavez. It's bad for business, and I guarantee the political response ads would hurt Citgo, in the pocket.

There's also the fact that the current campaign regulations overwhelmingly favor incumbent politicians, or "deep pocketed" outsiders. The system of regulation on political speech is corrupt, already. Unions and corporations already spend exorbitant amounts of money on "issue ads," without mentioning a particular candidate. It seems like the law is preventing straightforward communication. Why can't they say "we support President Obama, because he bailed us (and you, our customers and employees) out?" We have commercials for cheesy credit card "debt rescue" companies using Obama's name, but a corporation can't run a political ad?

O'Reilly seemed under the impression that corporations and unions can now "give" unlimited funds to a candidate. It did no such thing, as Stossel pointed out more than once. Any corporation, union, or citizen can now buy TV ads favoring or opposing a particular candidate, without co-ordinating with either side in the campaign, right up to election day. The "co-ordination ban" part of this law was left intact by this ruling, though it's had a spotty record of enforcement. That issue wasn't addressed at all in this ruling.

Let's remember what the case was about. A corporation produced an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, and was barred from advertising it on TV for thirty days before any primary election. The reasoning behind that decision was that the movie was an anti-Hillary "advertisement" itself, so the TV commercials for the movie were "anti-Hillary" advertising. Incredibly, one of the lawyers supporting the ban admitted that it would also have applied to a TV commercial for an "anti-Hillary" book, which may have been a turning point in the trial. In any case, this is a victory for free speech, regardless of O'Reilly's concerns.

Election law, like most other areas of the law, is too convoluted for many lawyers to understand, much less an average Joe or Jane who wants to run for office. This ruling clears up a few of the peripheral cobwebs, but one can only hope that the fools in Washington won't try to "fix" it, because we all know what that will do: keep the fools in Washington.

Supreme Court overturns campaign finance law - azcentral.com

The State of the Union Under Obama and the Democrats: Partisanly Gloomy

2010-01-31T22:44:00.002-05:00

What a crazy political week! First, Pelosi bashes Obama over the "spending freeze" before the State of the Union Show, then Obama slaps the Supreme Court to their faces at the Show! Let the Dems bash each other, and the Supreme Court, and see how that goes over with the public. Bashing the GOP is not helping, either. They stated their positions credibly at the Baltimore debate, and the President looked weak at times. If Obama, Pelosi and Reid are trying to sell "bipartisanship," nobody's buying it, especially independents. People who are sick of "party loyalty" creating "bad government" vote on the policies, not the politics.

It's ironic then, that the President is trying to use party loyalty to pass legislation that is turning policy-minded independent voters against his party. It's political suicide, but "they've got Me," the President told retiring Dem Congressman Marion Berry, regarding his legislative agenda's political prospects. Let's face the facts here: "Cap and Trade" is dead. Health Care is as good as dead, but will become a "zombie" issue for the Dems this year. It won't die, and it will hurt them, including Obama, politically.

Something else that independent voters don't like are all of the bailouts, and especially the "stimulus" package. It is beyond belief that this president would ask for a second "stimulus" bill, when the opposition wants to put the unspent part of the first one back into the treasury. The idea is to call the second stimulus a "jobs" bill, which had Speaker Pelosi in total "clapping seal" mode at the show. She was totally "Planet Pelosi," as out of touch with Earth as ever! With so much of the first stimulus unspent, this "jobs" bill is superfluous, and politically risky. It will expose the Dems further on deficit spending, and expanding the public sector at the expense of the private sector workforce.

Wanna know what's really crazy? The OA's policy on homeland security, and being at war with terrorist groups. They get credit for the ramping up of drone strikes, but they screwed up the security review, and didn't fix the combat engagement policy in Afghanistan. Add to that the intel failures leading up to Ft. Hood and the failed Christmas bomber, and "presto!" More political resistance from within the party. Subsequently, the 9/11 plotters will not be tried in NYC. Anyone want to take bets on when GITMO closes? Overall, a huge political negative for the Obama Administration, that they have time to fix this year. Moving the trial out of Manhattan is a tiny step in the right direction, but they need to reform the whole national defense policy, for more than just political reasons.

The President did something unprecedented, in this State of the Union Show: He verbally browbeat the United States Supreme Court members who accepted his invitation to be honored guests. He had them at a disadvantage, and bullied them in front of the world. If this is how Obama treats "guests," he has no honor in the "independent" world. This is crazy on so many levels, I'd have to write a whole post to analyze it. I appreciated Justice Alito's viceral reaction, and wasn't surprised that it got more media coverage than the president's remarks, initially. Fortunately, people started to realize that Alito's mouthing "not true" had much more recent precedent (Rep. Joe Wilson) than Obama's attack, which, if it has a precedent, it's so negative that no media outlet wants to dig it up. This one should stick in the craw of liberals, conservatives, and independents, alike.

All of these are real issues, as well as political ones. It would be nice to fashion a compromise on health care that includes tort reform, interstate competition, as well as pre-existing conditions, portability, and expanded access for the poor. I'd like to see us find a responsible way to cut the deficit, and grow the economy. Both of these look like "long shots" right now, and it's not because of the GOP saying "no." It's the Obama administration, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid who are refusing to accept any "free market" solutions.

Think about this: some Dems were ready to give up the "public option" for extra Medicare funding for their states, but none of them could be "bought off" to accept tort reform? How hard was the leadership trying to "reach out to the other side?" Nothing positive will get done under this president until the GOP controls at least one house of congress. I predict the people will make that move in this year's elections, if the Dems "double down" to the left. The other possibility is an explosive split within the Democratic Party, pitting "rank and file" representatives and senators against the "leadership." Either way, it's a gloomy outlook on the Democrats' political horizon...

...also see Whither Obama's Agenda?

Does Scott Brown's Election Seal Health Care Reform's Defeat?

2010-01-21T03:58:00.001-05:00

Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts ran on a promise of being the forty-first vote to kill the partisan "health care reform" bill, ironically named after the late Senator Kennedy. Independent voters rallied to give him a huge victory in Tuesday's special election. While the vote margin wasn't "huge," the victory itself was. That much is beyond debate, though there will be much finger-pointing on how and why it happened. More on that later.

Looking forward, what impact will this have on the health care reform legislation, which is currently in conference? Many are talking about different "gimmicks" that the majority can use to push it through before Brown is seated in the Senate. Some are suggesting using the "reconcilliation" process, which only requires fifty-one votes. None of these will work, for a number of reasons.

First, there are no grounds to delay seating Brown. If the vote were closer, a recount would be understandable. However, Coakley has conceded, and the margin was signifigant enough to preclude any such shenanigans, at least from Massachusetts officials. In the Senate, several prominent Democrats have said moving forward before Brown is seated would be inappropriate.

Second, the House will not accept the Senate version of the bill. This was already evident, before Brown's election. Speaker Pelosi got the House version passed with a small margin, and had to accept the Stupak "anti-abortion funding" amendment, which is not in the Senate bill. All of this adds up to little chance for her to "twist arms" any harder, for a bill that many liberal House members don't like, either.

Third, almost every time the majority has tried to rush this bill through, they have failed to meet their deadline. Both houses passed their respective bills on late night weekend votes, over the holiday season. Considering they wanted to get to that point before the August recess, they couldn't brag about getting it done by the end of the year. Even if Coakley had won, this wouldn't have been ready for the President to sign for weeks, if not months. There were still many sticking points between the two bills, as noted above.

Finally, there are the national implications of Brown's victory. When the Massachusetts senate seat occupied by Ted Kennedy for over forty years is taken by a Republican, there's more than local politics at play. Democrats in both the House and Senate have to be looking over their shoulders, even in solidly "blue" states like New York and California. Suddenly, those screaming people at last Summer's "town hall" meetings and "tea parties" don't seem like the butt of a joke, anymore.

Whatever the fate of this health care reform bill, there is an undeniable political wave, moving throughout the nation. Call it "populism," "anti-incumbent backlash," or whatever, it's currently aimed squarely at the Democrats. Remember, they've held the House majority since 2006, and the Senate for almost as long. So when they say the anger is about "the last eight years," they were deeply involved in the latter half of that period.

There's a lesson here for Republicans, as well. These independents were the same people who withdrew support for the GOP, starting in 2006. They are not going to support any pol who gives "lip service" to tax and spending cuts, but doesn't back it up with actual votes. The GOP may ride this wave back into the majority this year, but it could turn around just as quickly. The "tea party" people will be watching, and holding their feet to the fire, which is the way it should be.

Health Care Reform Should Die In Conference: Better Chance Next Year

2010-01-14T04:09:00.001-05:00

Reconciling the House and Senate reform bills is not going smoothly. There are numerous issues that can't be agreed on, from union opposition to the so-called "cadillac" tax, to abortion funding colliding with the House's "Stupak amendment." Conventional wisdom says that the final bill will be closer to the Senate version, which barely got a filibuster-proof sixty votes. Not so, according to Rep. Charles ("what taxes?") Rangel, who is demanding the final bill be closer to the House version, where it passed with a three vote margin.

Meanwhile, former supporters are jumping ship left and right. New York Governor Paterson (D), and California Governor Schwartznegger (R) both have come out against the bill, saying it piles unfunded mandated on their states. One wonders what took them so long to realize this, after the same thing happened with the stimulus bill. That bill extended unemployment benefits, but only funded the first year's worth, leaving the states to pick up the tab in the future.

Also worth noting is that the bill doesn't contain any of the "big fixes" that the Dems wanted. There's no "public option," and it will leave millions without health care coverage. With public opinion turning strongly against the bill, why are so many Dems willing to suffer the political price for it's passage?

I've heard President Clinton, among others, claim that failure to pass this bill is the greater political danger. Baloney. As was the case during Clinton's first term, the political writing is on the wall for the Democrats, regardless of how they vote on the health care bill. Blaming GOP "obstructionism" will ring hollow, considering the size of the Dem's majority. This bill will pass or fail on their heads, alone.

It didn't have to be this way. Had Obama, Reid, and Pelosi designed a truly bipartisan bill, they could have split the Republican votes, and given the bill a better chance of passage. Instead of saying Republicans have "no ideas," they should have included tort reform, and allowed interstate competition. Both of these ideas have wide Republican support.

Instead, they've painted themselves into a corner, with nobody to blame but themselves. The bill is now yet another unbelievably expensive "crap sandwich," following the pattern of the "bailout" and "stimulus" bills. The difference is that this bill will have a direct impact on more Americans than any of the previous ones, and the public anger over them is still growing. Do they really want to force this on the public, in an election year?

There is an opportunity for Democrats here, as well. Those who really want to "reform" health care, and insurance in a beneficial way can listen to their constituents, who are saying "no, thanks" to this bill. They can run on a platform of "doing it right" in the next session of Congress. Promise to focus on cutting the costs of health care, instead of promising to pay for everyone.

There are reasonable compromises that can be made, on both sides. At this point, it's going to take a "profile in courage" for any Democrat to stand up and kill the current bill. With so many of them already seeing the "graffiti politti" and retiring, I have to think that some of them want to stick around, and be part of the solution, rather than compounding the problem. Let's hope they're listening.

Adam Lambert's A Patriot, Bill O'Reilly's A Pinhead

2009-12-15T03:02:00.005-05:00

As a fan of Bill O'Reilly's, I'm not shy about "letting him have it," when I disagree with him. In that spirit, I sent him the following email:

Bill, you're a pinhead for calling Adam Lambert "this gay guy." There's much more to him, so stop defining him by one "over the top" performance. The fascinating thing about "this guy" is the thousands of older women who turn into screaming "teeny-boppers" when they see him perform! I think Ms. Walters is secretly a "Glambert," as they call themselves.

I kept it pithy, and tried to avoid bloviating, as any fan of "the Factor" knows to do, when emailing the show. However, I've been wanting to write about Adam for some time, well before the current AMA "controversy." O'Reilly's disparaging comments about him, while interviewing Barbara Walters last Wednesday night, seems to have given me the final bit of motivation I needed to actually write this. It's also a good starting point, given Bill's misinformed attitude, and how influential he is.

I am not, and have never been a fan of "American Idol." I enjoy watching the early "tryouts," for the mostly awful performances, on occasion, but I never tuned in to watch a specific performer, after they "get to Hollywood." Not to take anything from the talented people who have been on the show, but it all seemed a bit generic, to my taste. Most of what I know about them, and the show, comes from Page Six of the NY Post.

That all changed with a guy named Adam Lambert, and his version of Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire." My GF saw it, and showed it to me on "Youtube," and I was blown away. After that, I started watching his performances almost every week, leading up to his second place finish in the season finale. There was already some controversy around him at this point, because he was clearly the best performer, yet he didn't win. Not being an "Idol" fan myself, I'll take Simon Cowell's word that Adam is the closest thing to what the show has searched for, in it's entire history.

Adam was bigger than "Idol," and Simon knew it. He was also that most unusual of "phenomenons," one who genuinely cared about the fans who gave him that status. My GF joined Adam's "official" fan site, and became one of his legions of "Glamberts." I saw, firsthand, the effect he has on these fans, and it's a good thing. He encouraged them to give to charity, and they responded overwhelmingly. He selected a long list of specific arts classes and programs that were in need of funding, from across the nation. It ranged from basic art supplies for an elementary school, to synthisizers for HS music classes, among other things. Every project was fully funded by people donating as "fans of Adam Lambert," and it was the most money ever raised from an "AI" contestant ($250,000 and counting: you can still donate at this link).

That's the first reason why I call Adam Lambert a patriot, which brings me back to Bill O'Reilly. The title of this column is a play on the title of one of his regular segments, "Pinheads and Patriots," where he basically cites a daily example of each. Often, he commends people as patriots for using their fame for charitable causes. Perhaps Adam wasn't on O'Reilly's "radar" yet, but he was on mine, and much of America's.

This brings me to the second reason I consider Adam a patriot: He's a true American success story. He's "put in his dues" for years, trying to get "the big break," if you'll pardon the cliches. No one should judge his entire career by his performance on the American Music Awards. It was not his best vocal performance, and I'll take his word that the "risque" elements were a "spur of the moment" idea. Both seem attributable to the anxiety and excitement of his first "post-Idol" national TV apperance. I've seen him perform, and know that his talent will overcome any adversity caused by the AMA show.

He's also a class act. My GF follows all things Adam, so I hear all about him, all the time. I've also watched most of his interviews, and I've never heard the man put down any of his multiple critics. He also goes out of his way to be accessible to his fans, both at live shows, and online. These are among the reasons that his fan support runs so deep, and I'm proud to include myself in that group. He's an all-around "patriot," in my book.

I'm also a huge fan of O'Reilly's, which is why I got so ticked off at his comments about Adam. I'll cite three comments he made: "That gay guy," "He trades on that," and the third was a reference to "send(ing) him to Iran." Bill, you have to know you came off like a pinhead with those first two, in the interview with Ms. Walters. You didn't give Ms. Walters a chance to say anything interesting about him, by setting up a stereotypical "straw man" for her to fight. Low blow, sir.

I think it was at the end of a story about Iran, when Bill made a quip that (I'm paraphrasing) "We should send that guy (Adam, who was discussed earlier) to Iran." O'Reilly gets a "double pinhead" for this one, because I had to do a theoretical psychoanalysis of him, to try to make it sound not offensive to the fans on Adam's official website (link):

Right now, Iran is having a liberal revolution, and people are dying in the streets for much lesser "offenses" than being homosexual. I suspect that, like most things American, Adam probably has a huge "underground" following in that nation. O'Reilly, for all of his apparent coarseness, is a pretty smart guy, so I think he knows this.

Adam symbolizes "gay culture" to O'Reilly, though that is a misinformed view. To his eye, our culture already accepts gays, while Pres. Ahmedinejad claims "there are no homosexuals" in Iran. In that context, I can see why he would want to "send" Adam to Iran. Perhaps such an "in your face" display, as in the AMA performance, is what Iran's gay population needs to rally around, to finally be heard.

You see, most of them interpreted what Bill said as wanting Adam put to death. That's not an unreasonable interpretation, either. I know, it was an off-the-cuff remark, but what were you thinking, Mr. O'Reilly? You frequently call Ann Coulter a "bomb thrower" on your show, and you make quips like this? Luckily, Adam doesn't exactly "trade on" his sexual orientation, having declined offers to become a gay spokesman. This gets back to the "class" factor. Adam didn't try to use the "gay outrage" card against O'Reilly. In fact, he hasn't even mentioned it, even when he was on "the View" (from what I hear: I haven't seen it yet).

Bill O'Reilly is known for his abrasive style, and his pomposity. I like that about him, esecially when I agree with him! Of course, when I can expose his "abrasive pomposity" as ill-considered, I'm gonna take a shot at him over it. When he unfairly attacks someone else that I am fan of, he gets both barrels. (Note: This column is "both barrels" of the "shot." I'm writing, here, not plotting!) I hope Mr. O'Reilly has had time to do more research on Mr. Lambert, and treat him in a truly "No-Spin" way.

Until then, everybody should listen to Adam Lambert's debut disc! Go beyond the controversy, and listen to him yourself. A good place to start is the Adam Official website. I also have to give a "shout out" to the fans there, who were a big help for me to discuss these issues with. They're a great community, supporting a great artist!

Swiss Culture War: Ban On Minarets

2009-12-01T03:07:00.000-05:00

Well, this is an interesting story. The Swiss people, the ones who reflexively think of Americans as "bigots" or "racists," have just voted to ban "minarets" from being constructed on Mosques in Switzerland. Quel surprise! The polls said it only had 37% support, but it appears that people lied to the pollsters.

We've been here before, and to see Switzerland going through this is dismaying. In a free society, any religion can build any place of worship they like, subject to secular/cultural legal codes. The cultural aspect is the most chafing, because people are attached to the architecture of their habitat. Some may see minarets as a physical threat to that part of their culture.

Here in the US, there is no law against minarets. Muslims are free to build Mosques in any way they want, and they have. They have also adapted other buildings to this use, as all religions have done in this country. I understand that the Swiss don't have as diverse a population as the US, but their government acts as if it is the "perfectly secular state."

That's why this "news flash" is important. The opposition isn't from zealous Christians, but from gay activists, atheists, and women's rights advocates. The Swiss are re-learning that they still need the support of the people, which they don't have. The EU is going to step in and "fix" this, supposedly.

They're in for a rough ride. Whether the EU bureaucrats prevail, reversing the minaret ban, or not, this is part of a larger cultural wave throughout Europe. If we are free, we have to assert freedom for all who live under our laws. Let Muslims build mosques, but forbid sharia law, except where it comports with Western civil and criminal law.

I disagree with Switzerland's ban on minarets, but understand why they voted for it. There are larger issues at work here, and the Swiss people are "sending a message," politically. Was it "bigoted," "racist," or "anti-Islamic?" Or was it "pro-secular Swiss?" The answer lies in the cultural realm. Gay, atheist, and women's rights advocates are in confrontation with Islamic culture. This is just the latest front in that confrontation.

Would Switzerland allow a Christian group to build several huge new churches, in the style of St. Peter's Bascilica in Rome? Probably not, and not just because there is no demand for it. Europe sees such displays of religious-inspired architecture as a relic of the past. They associate it with corruption and oppression, which is precisely why they voted against the minarets.

Here is the reporting I found on this:

Swiss Ban Mosque Minarets in Surprise Vote - ABC News

Swiss Approve Constitutional Ban on Mosque Minarets ...

Swiss voters back minaret ban: report Reuters

Speaking Truth To Power: Global Warming Science Fraud Exposed

2009-11-30T02:43:00.000-05:00

Did anyone else hear about the scientists caught planting Bobcat/Lynx fur, to fudge results determining it's range area? I doubt it, but it happened, a few years back. They said they were actually "testing" the lab that they sent the fur to, because "biologists were skeptical that the lab would produce accurate results; they were suspicious of test results, ironically enough, because another lab had found more lynx than the biologists thought was likely." Really. A similar problem is happening in the global warming community. Apparently, the evidence has indicated that temperatures aren't predictable by any of the "global warming" models. Perhaps they were doing an "unauthorized" data entry to check that other "scientists" weren't cheating on their results.

"What is he talking about?" you might ask. I'm referring to the recently leaked emails between researchers from the University Of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, working with the UN IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). It seems that someone allegedly hacked into the university's system, and stole a huge amount of data, including emails that expose fraudulent reporting of climate records. The scientists involved have admitted they wrote the emails: one of them seeks to redefine the meaning of the word "trick" for his actions. He may be from England, but he definitely went to the "Bill Clinton" school of legal defense.

So now there's evidence of fraud in the science behind global warming theories. How is any rational person going to accept all of the "cures" that the government wants to thrust on taxpayers, at considerable expense? It's interesting that some scientists complained of "political" interference over global warming, when Bush was in office. Could it have been that the Bush Administration was suspicious of the scientists' objectivity? If so, it appears to be justified. This is why the "lame stream media" are ignoring this story. "Objective" reporting is shunned, in favor of "ideological" reporting, and story selection.

Furthering that goal, the one major cable news network (FOX) that has run this story is called "biased," in the face of plain facts. It's almost funny, that the "LSM" want the public to get important news from another outlet. Did they learn nothing from the ACORN corruption story, which keeps expanding? Al Gore's movie was just the tip of the iceberg, regarding the global warming science fraud. These emails show how widespread it is, in the scientific community. Perhaps we can let some unbiased scientists examine this theory.

The opposition is led by Rush Limbaugh: "Do you know that the Fox News Channel is the only television outlet to report on ClimateGate? The rest of the media is totally ignoring it. The Washington Post is actually attacking the "deniers." This whole hoax has been fully exposed. These people were hiding data. They were hiding data from a Freedom of Information request. There are e-mails from the guy that ran the place, this university in England, to all of his contributors and all the members of his committee: "Don't release any information. I'll delete it rather than release it, if I have to." They made up numbers. They totally ignored numbers that disproved global cooling. This is a giant, giant, giant scam. It deserves a huge investigation. And Obama, if he was worth his salt, would be the first one demanding it because this has been allowed to hijack an international agenda that is oriented toward further fleecing of the United States. That's all it is."

Meanwhile, our president is going to Copenhagen to assert that the US is "committed" to action on climate change. He's talking out of his ass, and everyone in the world knows it. It's unfortunate, but he has to say these things for posterity, in case he actually gets his "cap and tax" policy through the congress. That's not gonna happen, at least in an election year. This story is a huge "nail in that coffin," so to speak. A president who says he will "rely on science" for policy decisions will be undermined when the scientists lie.

Here's an excerpt from Politico.com: "I think we go into Copenhagen with a very, very strong hand," said one of the officials. "We have done I think more than anyone could have expected us to do in a short time."

The targets, said Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey will demonstrate U.S. leadership on the climate issue and encourage other nations to make firm commitments.

"The Obama administration will be able to say to the world we are no longer going to preach temperance from a bar stool. We are now ready to begin to make a commitment," he told POLITICO.

I also liked this quote, from a supporter of "climate-change" legislation, regarding the Copenhagen meeting: "They're looking for that assurance from the president himself that this is going to get done," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists. I'm always concerned about groups with the word "concerned" in their names, but it looks like they're "looking for love in all the wrong places," if they think the President's "assurance" means anything. His word is as good as dirt, starting with his promise of closing GITMO, continuing with his promise to end "don't ask, don't tell," and his repeated blown deadlines on passing health care reform, or making a decision on troop committments in Afghanistan.

These are just the top few of a long list. It looks as if President Obama IS preaching temperance from a bar stool. If anything, his actions have harmed the nation. "9/11" trials in NYC? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING, SIR! Promoting a highly divisive (and expensive) "health care" program, in the deepest recession since the early '80's, while we're in a two-front war? Now, you want us to pay for another liberal scam? I don't think so.

The public is solidly against higher energy taxes, which is what "cap and trade" promises to do. Now that there is evidence of it being based on fraudulent science, public opposition in the US will increase, regardless of media attempts to "shovel it under the rug." Energy conservation should be a high priority, but it will be driven by economics, not government regulation. If China and India won't restrict their economic growth for the global warming theory, don't expect the US to.

Ad Wars: Take A Page From Bush's Social Security Opponents

2009-11-12T03:11:00.001-05:00

Some enterprising GOP media type ought to resurrect those commercials against Bush's Social Security reform. If you don't remember, they had a construction crew showing up at a woman's house, saying they were there to fix the sink. As she protests, they start tearing her house down, with big machines. All that has to be done is switch the tagline to "health care reform."

Since "Harry and Louise" have "switched sides," in ads supporting the current health care bill, why can't it's opponents steal an idea from the people who opposed Bush's Soc Sec reforms? All's fair in the political ad wars, and in this case, the message fits perfectly. Maybe they can add a guy giving the woman the bill, at the end. Just a quick thought...

Scozzafava Drops Out of NY 23 Congressional Race, Boosting Hoffman

2009-11-01T02:35:00.005-05:00

UPDATED 11/01: "Republican Endorses Democrat in NY 's 23rd CD Race"

It looks like Dede Scozzafava took LEAVWORLD's advice, and dropped out of the special election in NY's 23rd Congressional District. She did the right thing, and deserves credit for doing so. I'm sure it was political pressure that did it, and not anything I wrote. Palin was the first "big name" to endorse the Conservative candidate, Hoffman, and several high-level GOP pols followed her lead. Now, it's a two-way race, with liberal against conservative policies. I can already hear the libs citing this as "the triumph of the Neanderthals" if Hoffman wins. Nothing could br further from the truth. Conservatives are often thoughtful, and principled. The problem all along is that the GOP has drifted away from conservative principles, though the drift could be described as "thoughtful."

It looks as if the "tea party" movement has some legs. What does one call the new generation of conservatives? "Neo-neo conservatives?"Maybe "the Sleeping Conservative Giant That Pres. Obama Woke Up? Whatever it is, it's not really new. It's people getting involved in politics, and it can go in either political direction. I predicted the NYS GOP losses of '06 in a four-part series of columns, before the election. (link) I feel a similar vibe now, and the pendulum is swinging in the other direction.

Let's go at it, toe to toe, and see who wins. Obama has held fundraisers for the Democrat, and the Conservative candidate "matched up" better against him than the Republican did. It's definitely an interesting election, with both national and local political implications. Stay tuned!

PS: All things considered, Hoffman should run again, next year. I suspect he would win a GOP primary.

Double Jeopardy In Jeopardy: Obama Signs Hate Crime Expansion

2009-10-29T02:29:00.000-04:00

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU:

by Hans Bader

Today, President Obama signed into law a bill that will dramatically expand the federal hate crimes law, enabling prosecutors to bring federal charges against people who were previously found innocent of hate crimes in state court. The hate-crimes provisions were added to a defense appropriations bill, which the President signed in a White House signing ceremony this afternoon at around 2:30 p.m.

The new law dramatically expands the reach of the existing federal hate-crimes law that was already on the books, by getting rid of the requirement that a hate crime affect federally-protected activities to be prosecuted in federal court. It also adds sexual orientation, gender, disability, and transgender characteristics to a law that was originally designed to protect racial minorities.

The hate-crimes bill was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for allowing the reprosecution in federal court of people found innocent in state court. The Commission called the new law a “menace to civil liberties” because it is an end-run around constitutional guarantees against double-jeopardy.

As explained earlier, the bill’s sponsors seek to use it to reprosecute people in federal court who have already been found innocent of hate crimes in state court, taking advantage of the “dual sovereignty” loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff and Wendy Kaminer thus object to the bill on double-jeopardy grounds. Backers of the bill, like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Commissioner Michael Yaki, supported the bill partly as a way of prosecuting all over again people who were either found not guilty, or who were convicted only of ordinary crimes, while being acquitted of hate-crimes (like the teenagers acquitted of hate crimes in the Shenandoah incident, and the California case of Joseph Silva and George Silva).

Such re-prosecutions can be an enormous waste of money, and grossly unfair to the people who are reprosecuted, driving them into bankruptcy to pay lawyers to represent them all over again when they have already been found innocent in state court after an expensive trial. When the government re-prosecutes someone, it gains an enormous tactical advantage over the defendant from using the prior prosecution as a test-run, even if the defendant is innocent — making a guilty verdict possible even if the defendant is in fact innocent.

The bill also raises serious constitutional federalism issues under the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision.

Passage of the bill was aided by lousy reporting, in which some journalists, like Reuters, depicted the bill as simply a harmless measure to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics covered by the federal hate-crimes law, ignoring its many other, far more important (and dangerous) changes to federal hate-crimes law.

Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.
But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

As law professor Gail Heriot notes, “Some have even called for federal prosecution of the Duke University lacrosse team members–despite strong evidence of their innocence.” Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded (and DNA evidence showed), and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

The Obama administration has long supported the hate-crimes bill, which it used as a wedge issue in the 2008 election.

As law professors like Jonathan Turley and Eugene Volokh have noted, the Obama administration recently urged restrictions on hate speech at the United Nations, joining in calls to treat such speech, protected by the First Amendment under Supreme Court rulings, as a human-rights violation in violation of international human-rights treaties. In the U.S., college hate-speech codes have been used to discipline students for criticizing affirmative action, discussing the racial implications of the death penalty, and calling homosexuality immoral. In Canada and Britain, hate speech laws have been used to punish religious criticism of Scientology and homosexuality.

NYS GOP Runs "WFP" Candidate in Congressional "Special Election," Snubbing Conservative Hoffman

2009-10-23T05:25:00.004-04:00

Newt Gingrich should know better (link), but it's not surprising that some national and NY State Republicans have chosen Dede Scozzafava as the GOP candidate in NY's 23rd Congressional District, forcing a three-way race with a strong showing from the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. Ms.Scozzafava is an embarassment. She supports "card check" legislation, and was endorsed by the Working Families Party, the political arm of ACORN. Maybe this election could be decided by who can go out and get the most people to sign cards, instead of voting.

Interestingly enough, ACORN's political partner, the Service Employees International Union, has endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens. While it looks like the lefties are "hedging their bets," there's also this Politico story (link): "'Chairman Steele hasn’t put up a cent, not even the obligatory $5,000,' said a New York-based GOP operative. 'There’s been no support from the RNC. Democrats are going all out for this race. Everyone’s in the same direction.' ...So far, the National Republican Congressional Committee has been Scozzafava’s only lifeline, spending $355,000 for ads on her behalf." I'm on Steele's side on this one.

Obama held a fundraiser for Owens in NYC (link), and "The Club for Growth has spent $146,000 with its own anti-Scozzafava ads — and has committed an additional $100,000 to the race," according to the Politico story. So she's being outspent from both the left and the right...this is a bad thing? It looks like the NYS GOP, and the NRCC are learning an age-old lesson of politics: when your party is a zombie-like mirror of the other party, your party is already dead. People are being driven to the right, as shown by Hoffman's numbers. Scozzafava should drop out, and endorse the election of a Conservative to Congress from the 23rd District of New York!

Barring that, the Democrat will probably win. I don't live in that district, so I don't have a vote. As a NY'er, though, I have an interest in my state's congressional delegation, as a whole. That's why I'm hoping against the odds that Doug Hoffman wins this special election. Even if he doesn't win, but beats Scozzofava, the NYS GOP leadership needs to step aside for some new blood. We just need at least 50 more "Hoffmans" to step up to the plate of NY politics.

There is a signifigant conservative presence in NY, both the city and the state. These are known as "disaffected voters," who don't bother voting, when there are no candidates that have conservative principles. Notice that Peter King remains in office because of his conservative voting record, and I'd like to see Mr. Hoffman become his peer.

PS: Since the first draft of this column, Sarah Palin has endorsed Hoffman. This race will be talked about alot before election day, and I'm just catching up. Here are some additional links:

Michelle Malkin on Scozzafava

Glenn Beck interviews Hoffman transcript

DougHoffmanforcongress.com

Rahm Emmanuel: The Most Dangerous Man In America?

2009-10-23T04:51:00.003-04:00

This guy's going to destroy Obama's presidency, and tear our nation apart. Where is TIME magazine on this story?

Why the White House Will Lose It's "War on Fox News"

2009-10-15T05:39:00.003-04:00

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said this on CNN: "If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN. I mean, the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it's not ideological. I mean, obviously there are many commentators who are conservative, liberal centrist, and everybody understands that. What I think is fair to say about Fox and certainly the way we view it is really that it is more a wing of the Republican Party."

Wow. I was a FNC viewer in the fall election, and I remember it a bit differently. McCain was routinely criticized, especially his actions during the financial collapse. Obama was covered as the untested "phenomenon." Of course he received a higher level of scrutiny, on Fox, at least. He was much more of an unknown. He was heavily criticized by Sean Hannity, but got a fair interview from Bill O'Reilly. The biggest threats to America FNC reported on were the global financial crisis, Al Queda, Iran, and North Korea. ACORN turned out to be a bigger scandal than FNC was reporting at the time, so maybe Ms. Dunn shouldn't have brought them up in her statement.

Speaking of which, wasn't much of the rest of the "elite" media getting spoofed for being "in Obama's pocket" on all the comedy shows? What if we "flip" Director Dunn's statement: "If you were a MSNBC viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and biggest threats facing America were a guy named Rush Limbaugh and something called FOX NEWS. I mean, the reality of it is that MSNBC often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Democratic Party. And it's not ideological. I mean, obviously there are many commentators who are liberal, conservative centrist, and everybody understands that. What I think is fair to say about MSNBC and certainly the way we view it is really that it is more a wing of the Democratic Party." Wow, again. If I was president, I would sooner hire Dennis Miller as my White House Spokesman than let any of my staff say that (whether I believed it or not)!

It looks to me as if the WH is "projecting" their relationship with MSNBC onto Fox News. If I remember correctly, Pres. Bush had a few "problems" with FNC during his WH tenure. When FNC, or even Limbaugh would criticize the administration, they sent out people to respond. They also sent people to MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the major news outlets, on a regular basis. This administration's "boycotting" of FNC is a bad move, politically. If this kind of statement is what they're putting out to the rest of the media, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

This is part of a bigger picture, of course. There is revived talk about restricting speech on talk radio, and the internet. At this point, I'm starting to see a pattern to this administration: lot's of talk, and no action. I doubt they'll have the ability to stay off of Fox News Channel until the end of the year (as they've advised FNC), much less bring back the "fairness doctrine." FNC is not going to stop covering the news, whether the Obama Administration gives them any interviews or not. There are too many "big news" things on the OA's plate for them to deal with the whole "free/critical speech" issue. As it is, it looks like they're farming it out to people who think nothing of insulting millions of people, in an official capacity. Many FNC viewers happen to be some of the same people who are protesting in opposition to his health care initiative, which makes the statement seem even more political.

All administrations take media criticism, and they usually have to respond to it, sooner or later. Eventually, others in the media will ask the questions being asked now on FNC, as happened during the campaign. Remember that? George Stephanopoulos got criticized for asking Obama a question about Bill Ayres. It was said that he got the question from Sean Hannity, and maybe he did. So? It was a legitimate question, to such an "unknown" candidate. The media "backlash" to the question is more telling than Obama's actual response to the question. These media people know how to stick to the script: Demonize Fox, Rush, Hannity, Beck, and all of the people that listen to them.

I'm OK with that. As a conservative, I'm proud to be "demonized" for who I listen to (and used to it). MSNBC and CNN are FNC's competitors, and they're getting their clock's cleaned in the ratings, so it's understandable. Watching the administration "echo" these criticisms is fine, too. They're not exactly "making friends and gaining influence" with this tactic, while the "opposition" is gaining exposure, and growing. It's taking more "political capital" for the OA to get anything done, every passing day, and the days turn to weeks, then months. Let's see how long until an administration official shows up on Fox again. My money's on "before the new year."

Pakistan Orders Major Offensive: Will Obama Match it on the Afghan Side?

2009-10-06T06:09:00.003-04:00

Something has been bothering me about our situation in Afghanistan. It seems that Pakistan is actually engaging Al Queda and the Taliban, and we're debating a "surge" in troops on the Afghan side of the border. It's a very complicated situation, but in simple terms, here's what it looks like: Pakistan is actually "stepping up to the plate" in this front of the war, and perhaps driving some of the foreign fighters back into Waziristan.(link)

Pakistan has largely beaten back a Taliban insurgency in the northwestern Swat Valley in recent months and intelligence officials say the country is preparing a major offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban in South Waziristan. The military has been blockading the region and seeking to encourage other tribes to rise up against Hakimullah.

So what's happening on the Afghan side of the Waziristan border? (link)

"I don't foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling," Jones said. "The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

In fact, Jones numbers may be correct, but he doesn't mention the numbers of Al Quaeda across the Waziristan border who do have the "ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." Osama escaped from Afghanistan into Pakistan after the battle of Tora Bora, according to many accounts (JF Kerry's, among other notables). Waziristan is the area he actually escaped to (link), and the Pakistani military is finally moving in that direction. This should be encouraging to the US, but our current administration is waffling on "stepping it up" on the Afghan side of the border.

Then there's this, also from the second link:

Administration officials have tried, instead, to focus some of the debate on Pakistan, noting that Islamabad has stepped up its campaign against militants along the border. Those efforts, said Jones, could provide a key shift in the war.

"We hope that will lead to a campaign against all insurgents on that side of the border, and if that happens, that's a strategic shift that will spill over into Afghanistan," he said.

Being a layman, I don't have all the intel that the policy makers have. Still, it looks as if it's been "spilling over" into Afghanistan since Pakistan started their campaign. US casualties have been increasing for months. I remember something Obama said during the campaign, about chasing down Osama across the border, if need be. This looks like the best chance he'll get to fulfill that declaration, and for some reason now our strategy needs "reassessment?"

Maybe it does. The Taliban and Al Queda seem to be quite comfortable operating in Afghanistan to a degree not seen in years. Something has to change there, and soon. Karzai's election was as fraudulent as Ahmedinejad's, though without the ensuing violence. That's the political part of the equation, and it will factor into the military equation. President Obama is between "a rock and a hard place" on this one. He should authorize more troops, and change the "strategy" simultaneously.

Clamp the vise on both North and South Waziristan, in cooperation with Pakistan. This is the "dead-ender's" last refuge, and the suspected location of Osama. I don't understand how this could be a partisan issue, since the president campaigned on it. However, the liberal congressional caucus is "showing their power" by introducing a bill to defund any "surge" in Afghanistan troop levels. LOL-That won't go anywhere, yet, but Pres. Obama's waffling isn't reassuring, either. Let's see some action, Mr. President.

Is PBS' "Newshour" Becoming MSNBC? Gwen Ifill Cites "Tea Baggers"

2009-09-17T03:22:00.001-04:00

The "Newshour" program on PBS had a segment on race in the debate about Pres. Obama's "health care reform" (link to transcript). It's worth a look, but one comment by the moderator, Gwen Ifill, prompted me to send them the following response:

IFILL: "So whether it's Jeremiah Wright or Henry Louis Gates, Jr., or what Jimmy Carter said about this, the Tea Baggers or whoever, it's always going to be with us?"

I found myself outraged at Ms. Ifill, during the round table about race in the health care debate, when she used the words "tea baggers" to describe the "tea party" movement. In what was otherwise a reasoned debate about the language used, and it's effect on people of African heritage, she chose to use a derogatory term for another group of Americans. "Tea Party" protesters come in all colors and political stripes, but from what I've seen, they're mostly Caucasian conservatives. After I stopped yelling at my TV, I had to appreciate the irony. Apparently, it's all in the "ear of the listener," whether something is offensive or not. I'm sure Ms. Ifill wasn't intending to offend anyone, but perhaps she needs to be "educated" about different sensibilities than her own. "Teabagging" is a slang reference to a sex act, and a "teabagger" is a person who performs that act. I expect that kind of crude reference on MSNBC, but not on the NEWSHOUR.

I have been a viewer since it was the half-hour "Report," back in the seventies. I am also an admirer of Ms. Ifill's, which is why I am writing this note to her. I hope she understands that my feelings are just as valid as hers, and everyone else's. I'm no fan of political correctness, but in a debate about sensitivity to language, her choice of words was a glaring example of insensitivity to people who are part of the "Tea Party" movement. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts.

I don't really think that the Newshour is slipping to the shoddy level of journalism practiced on MSNBC, but it's a "slippery slope," as they say. Once this kind of slur is considered "acceptable," who knows what will be next. PBS does broadcast Bill Moyers, who is barely a notch above MSNBC on the "partisan" scale. I'd hate to see the Newshour slide any further down that path than they already have. It seems a small thing, but perhaps I haven't been pointing out examples like this often enough, because I do like the show, and have been such a long time viewer.

You're back on my "radar," Newshour, and I intend to hold your feet to the fire.

PS: I thought I'd share this excerpt from James Taranto's "Best of the Web Today" column, to further instruct Ms. Ifill:

De-Klein and Fall

We can't swear that anyone has paid attention to Time magazine's Joe Klein since the Clinton years, but we had a laugh at this item of his on the opposition to ObamaCare and other big-government proposals:

My sense of the teabaggers is more complicated: they are primarily
working-class, largely rural and elderly white people. They are freaked by the
economy. They are also freaked by the government spending--TARP, the stimulus
package etc.--that was necessary to avoid a financial collapse. (I'm not sure
Keynes is taught in very many American high schools.) But most of all, they are
freaked by an amorphous feeling that they America they imagined they were living
in--Sarah Palin's fantasy America--is a different place now, changing for the
worse, overrun by furriners of all sorts: Latinos, South Asians, East Asians,
homosexuals...to say nothing of liberated, uppity blacks.

He imagines that critics of President Obama are not only racist but, to use that ugly bit of academic jargon, homophobic--and he makes this assertion in the same breath as he derides them with the antigay slur "teabaggers."

Oh well, Klein is in his seventh decade. Maybe he's just too much of a fuddy-duddy to be up on gay slang.

Dem's Fightin' Words: Obama's Fight is Within the Democrat Party

2009-09-15T05:56:00.001-04:00

I don't know how long I've been saying this, but it's been a while. Pres. Obama is not really fighting with the GOP over the health care bill, he's fighting with the "Blue Dog" Democrats, and using the GOP as a "straw man." His true problem is that he's energized a whole new bunch of opposition "community organizers," and he doesn't know how to deal with it. He seems passive-agressive, claiming to want to listen to "other ideas," then attacking those with other ideas. This is what political infighting looks like, in the Obama Administration.

If it were just the conservative GOP he was fighting with, there would be no "reaching out." It would be like one big party, as the MSM cheered on, and laughed at the "partisan" opposition, who had no power. If this was is a "mainstream" Democrat bill, most liberal Republicans would support it, as well. The fact that even Sen. Snowe is reserving judgement says volumes.

It looks as if the problem is with the same people who defected from the GOP over the past four years, and their reasons are the same: too much government spending, and intrusion into the "free" economy. These people were fed up with Pres. Bush, for the same reasons they dislike Pres. Obama now. I'm sure the lefties were happy to count the poll numbers as support for their agenda, but it wasn't. It was a "they're all the same" mentality, reasoning that Pres. Obama would have to be fiscally conservative, in the economic circumstances he was elected under.

Well, he has not fulfilled those expectations. In fact, he's multiplied the deficit to the point where blaming it on Bush wears thin. This has caused the rise of the "tea party" movement, which crosses party lines, and definitely includes many formerly left-leaning independents. Candidate Obama sold himself as all things to all people, an alot of them bought it. He is now displeasing his left wing, as well as "swing voters," or independents. He has put conservatives squarely in "the opposition," and tried to dismiss them.

Unfortunately, many Democrats and independents are asking the same questions that the conservatives are, and they want answers before the bill is passed, this time. Every major bill that's been passed under the Obama administration, and some that predate it, has come under criticism for legislators not knowing exactly what was in the bill they voted on, much less the public. Most of the "tea party" people just want a little transparency in their government, and they certainly aren't getting the level of it that Obama promised.

This is a battle royale within the Democratic party, but the party leaders seem to think that they work in a vacuum. While Obama talks to Pelosi and Reid, none of them can tell the American people what will be in this bill. Sen. Max Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, says "President Obama and I are on the same page," whatever that means. His constituents won't be satisfied with that, I can assure you.

"Community organizing" is a two-way street. It looks to me as if the shoe is on the other foot, now that we have a truly "liberal" president, and liberals have become "the man" that citizens protest against. As the agenda unfolds, look for Obama's approval to decrease. Pres. Bush poked his base in the eye on several issues, both before and after 9/11. Pres. Obama seems to be doing something similar, but he's not getting credit from the people he's trying to "kiss up" to.

Bush held the independents long enough to get re-elected. Will Obama fare as well? He may have smaller majorities in Congress, after the '10 elections. Bold liberal programs may not be helpful to staying in power, but they're what's on the table. Let's see what happens. How committed is our president to the "left-wing" agenda, and what about the rest of his Democratic Party?

"Racial Profiling" and the President

2009-07-24T13:49:00.000-04:00

In 1987, I had recently moved into a run-down apartment building in Freeport, NY. I was starting a new job, which was walking distance from my apt. On my first day of work, I walked home during my lunch hour. On my way back to work, less than half a block from my building, three police cars converged on me. An officer got out of his car, drew his gun, an yelled "freeze!"

Of course, I froze. The other officers came up to me, asked for my ID, and frisked me. Apparently, my building was a known drug spot, and these officers thought I went there to buy drugs. After explaining my situation, and proving that I didn't have any drugs, they let me go. I was rattled, but went back to work for the rest of the day. I mention this now because of the current debate about "racial profiling."

Was I "racially profiled," because I was a White guy walking in a largely minority area? Or was it, as the police said, because I was leaving a "known drug location?" I'll never know, and I don't really care. I'm certain that such "profiling" exists, and indeed it is often justified, when race is one component of a larger profile.

Here are two more recent examples: Twice, police have stopped me while riding my bicycle, for no apparent reason. The first time was in the middle of winter, and I was wearing a ski mask, riding through tony North Woodmere after midnight. I lived in N. Woodmere, and had my ID to prove it. The second time was right here in Lynbrook, on the route I take to work every day. This cop knew me, from my job, and explained that they were looking for "a guy on a bicycle with a backpack," which fit me exactly. As I was getting ready to show him the contents of my backpack, he got a call, saying they had caught the suspect, literally around the corner.

The suspect in the second incident was a dark-skinned Latino, who also was riding a bicycle with a backpack. This is an example of race being one factor in a "profile," and how police use that information. Sometimes profiles are inaccurate, and a good officer knows this. Witnesses get details wrong, and clothing can be changed, or backpacks discarded. Skin color is not so easy to change, or conceal, which means it is will continue to be used when making a description of a suspect, or a "profile" of a potential suspect. Unfortunately, this also means that some will continue to use race as a means to divide us, when it comes to law enforcement.

Police are human. There are good cops, and bad cops. I have no brief for officers that break the law, or actually violate people's civil rights. I find those who falsely accuse police of this behavior just as contemptible. This brings me to mention President Obama, who brought up "racial profiling" in response to a question about Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates' encounter with Sgt. James Crowley, of the Cambridge P.D. While the president didn't directly accuse Sgt. Crowley of it, he strongly implied it. Why even bring it up?

Does the President of the United States want to stoke the flames of racial animus? I don't think so. I think it was more a a "reflex" for him, because this is part of the liberal "profile" in law enforcement situations like this. Liberals' "knee-jerk" reaction to these situations is that somehow the person was "targeted" because of their race. As the facts have come out, it is apparent that was not the case, regarding Sgt. Crowley's actions. The President owes Sgt. Crowley, and the Cambridge P.D. an apology.

"SELLING A DREAM," or Real Reform?

2009-07-23T07:28:00.000-04:00

President Obama did well in his latest national "prime time" press conference, according to Charles Krauthammer. Of course, that opinion was based on a comparison to a "Snake Oil" salesman, so it might not count as praise. I have to admit that, on some level, the president's "pitch" sounded good to me, as well. Then I thought of an old friend, who used the phrase "sellin' you a dream" often, when talking about politics, business, or any similar subject. I think this is a prime example of politicians' "selling a dream."

"97 or 98 percent of people will be covered" is not possible, for many reasons, and the president knows it. For him to say that without challenge, or follow-up shows what a friendly environment he was in. Also, minutes after he singled out a Republican strategist and a Republican Senator for attacking him, he claimed not to be attacking them back, politically. Is this really the "new" politics he championed? And again, not one press person called him on the obvious discrepancy from reality.

More interesting was how he "pitched" it. It sounded so reasonable. He had the answer to everyone's problem with the health-care system, even those who don't don't have a problem with their own health care insurance coverage. Of course, he's "selling a dream" to as many people as he can, to get this new "entitlement" passed into law. Make the taxpayers think it's "revenue neutral," then raise the taxes to pay for the inevitable "crisis." That is the history of "new" government programs.

There is a snag in the plan. Since we have seen several "crisis" bills passed into law recently, starting under the "hated" President Bush, the "crisis/immediate action" mantra is wearing thin. The House leadership had to "twist arms" to get "cap and trade" through, and the Senate left them "high and dry" on it, by not acting on it. The Dems that got hell from their constituents about that don't want to repeat that mistake with health care. I hope all of our representatives have a grasp on the text of whatever they vote on, but I'm doubtful. Few of them know what the bailouts or stimulus packages contained, to this day!

Luckily, there are more people interested in politics than ever, which means more voices being heard. Challenges to a president with the "MSM" on his side are heard by more of the public than ever before, which is a good thing. For the record, I support reform of the health-care system. I just think Pres. Obama is "selling us a dream," which will turn out to be a nightmare, if it follows the pattern of the other monstrosies he got passed. I opposed the bailouts under Bush, and preferred my "stimulus" money in one check, instead of weekly increments in my paycheck. That just showed me how small a tax break it was.

PS: Some real "reform" might be ending employer-paid health insurance. It's a relic from WWII, when government "capped" wages. That's just the "acorn" of a huge tree of bureaucracy that's grown from it, but it's as good a place as any to start. I also wonder what a "federal tax holiday" for six months would do for the private sector economy. Now that's a dream I'd like to sell, if you want radical ideas!

CAN WE TAKE A PAGE FROM HONDURAS, AND CALL IN THE MILITARY TO THROW OUT THE NYS SENATE, THE GOV, and MAYOR BLOOMIE?

2009-07-18T21:55:00.000-04:00

My heart is with the Honduran people, who overwhelmingly know that what happened to Zelaya was the right thing to do. (All of those who are outraged at this "coup," just imagine it was Pres. Bush being taken out of the White House.) I only wish we had some similar mechanism to remove the NYS Senate (I'd throw in the Assembly, as well.) from power. ALL of these clowns should go! The other two branches, as well as the Assembly are against them, yet they insist on creating a real statewide crisis over who will be in power in the Senate. Gov. Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg haven't distinguished themselves, either.

The NYS Senate isn't the only story that reminds me of Honduras. I think Zelaya got the idea from Bloomberg, who rewrote the NYC charter to get a third term; or maybe they both took the idea from the socialist game plan, as did Chavez. Term limits are a good thing, for no other reson than politicians hate them. Bloomy's been able to buy an attempt at a third term, and no-one wants to run against him, much less remove him by force. Still, I can't help but include him as an anti-liberty "authoritarian" political leader.

I think Zelaya's not as rich as Bloomberg, but he's got powerful friends, in the "international community." They're going to put "pressure" on the Honduran polity, and we'll find out how "representative" they are of their population. Meanwhile, NYC and state residents have less "representation" than the people of Honduras. I'm not kidding. Most NYS residents would support the NYS National Guard coming into the Senate and removing all of these clowns who call themselves legislators, or at least the ones under criminal indictment, like Sen. Hiram Monserrate.

Governor Paterson has brought NYS to another level of dysfunction. He came into office on the heels of a governor who used the State Police as his personal "political dirty tricks" squad, and isn't up to the job of "cleaning house." AG Andrew Cuomo is a much-favored challenger in the primary, because he has taken on a small part of the statewide political corruption. If he had any brains, he would've used the State Police to bust all of the corrupt politicians he could. If only. Fortunately, we won't need the State Police to throw Paterson out; he knows where the door is.

Before we judge the actions of the military in Honduras, we need to acknowledge that they were being directed by civillians. What legal authority did the Army obey, and the President disobey? The Supreme Court, and the legislature, as well as the Honduran Constitution. Here in NYS, we need to "blow up the political machines," with the force of our speech. One voice saying these things sounds like nothing. Thousands of voices saying the same thing is a political force.

We can learn something from their experience, my friends! "THROW THE BUMS OUT OF OFFICE, IN NY STATE!" In both parties!

Insh'Allah, Iran Will Be Free: I AM AN IRANIAN!

2009-06-18T05:11:00.000-04:00

When I think back to just after 9/11, two images stand out in my memory of world reaction. First, I remember the Palestinian woman giving out candy in celebration of the atrocity. The other image I remember was of the Iranian people holding candlelight vigils in honor of the victims. Neither image was widely publicized in the US media, but I remember the rage, and awe that they inspired in me. I mention them today, as a preface to my analysis/opinion of current Middle Eastern events.

The brutal Iranian Mullahs accuse the US of "intolerable" interference in their election, the day after Pres. Obama said that he didn't want to be accused of interfering. Meanwhile, their Hamas puppets are allied with Al Queda in Palestinian Gaza. (link-Worldfocus.org) Can we all get on the same page, now? I understand the President is trying to "extend an open hand" to the Mullahs, but they have clearly slapped it away. This isn't about international politics; it's about freedom vs. oppression, or more basically, right vs. wrong.

Too many in the free world are afraid to pass such judgements, and therein lies our greatest flaw. It is not "biased" to call the Iranian leadership part of an "Axis of Evil," as Pres. Bush labeled them, if it is the truth. The Khomenist regime has shown itself to be as much to it's own citizens, and they are fighting back, with dignity and passion. The familiar cry "Allahu Akhbar," long associated with terrorist suicide bombers, takes on a new meaning when it is shouted across Iran from rooftops all through the night. God IS great, and there shouldn't be any stigma attached to shouting it out loud.

What's happening in Iran is a revolution, beyond a doubt. It should be embraced by all freedom-loving people in the world, especially those in the greater Middle East, where freedom carries a high price. It has been reported that some of the high-level Mullahs are supporting the protesters, as are as some of the Revolutionary Guard commanders, who are refusing to shoot the non-violent protesters. The government-supported militias have been the main force behind the crackdown, but they are creating more opposition to the Ahmedinejad supporters in the government.

Iran is a complex nation, with a population that is much more politically sophisticated than most Western people realize. Thanks to modern technology, we are getting a glimpse of this. The protesters are from all groups and classes of Iranians, and it's the recognition of this fact that has caused the Grand Ayatollah to order a "partial recount." This is an unprecedented action in a theocracy that calls election results "ordained by God." In this case, it seems more clear every day that the election results were "ordained by men," and the protesters are the ones "ordained by God."

I make no predictions of how this will all turn out, and indeed Henry Kissinger said he thinks Ahmedinejad's forces will triumph, on Greta Van Susteren's show Wed. night. However, John Bolton makes a case that Mousavi has, and would continue to support terrorism abroad and nuclear weapons, were he to assume Iran's presidency. (link-Fox News.com) Both of these men know far more than I do about Iran, so I defer to their judgements on these things. I can only speak my own opinion, and my heart is with those people in the streets, as their hearts were with us after 9/11. As JFK once said about the people of Berlin, I say today "I am an Iranian."

Group Identity Politics: A Shield and a Weapon

2009-05-29T05:59:00.000-04:00

The appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is being hailed as a "political masterstroke" by many pundits, but the fact is that the Senate Republicans couldn't block her (technically, they could, today, but the vote is not today), if they wanted to. So what was considered so politically terrific about it? Her "compelling" life story is the conventional narrative. However, that doesn't quite wash, because many Republican Supreme Court appointees have had compelling life stories, but it didn't stop the media and Democrats from critcizing them. White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs gave us an idea of what the real political masterstroke was, when he said this:

"I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." (link)

That's when the latent political strategy behind this appointment became visible. By appointing a Latino woman, her judicial philosophy cannot be challenged, because that philosophy is tied into her "identity" as a member of both of those groups. That is, they will characterize any attack on her judicial philosophy as an attack on her race or gender.

This is another of my problems with liberals...group identity politics. Whether race, gender, or sexual orientation, some "groups" are just "supposed" to be liberal. It's used as both a weapon and a shield, politically. In this case, the Obama administration is using it as both. Since she is a "safe" appointment numerically, why not try to alienate the GOP from women and minorities, while they're at it?

There is much more going on with her appointment, but "identity politics" were blatantly on display.in that White House statement. Was it necessary to play that card? Or are her statements of judicial philosophy just a minor distraction, hyped by right-wing zealots like me? In my zealous opinion, she has made some praiseworthy rulings in her time on the bench, and is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. However, political ideology has been established as a further criteria by none other than my own Sen. Schumer, back in 2001:

"It's the dirty little secret of judicial nominations," Schumer said. "Ideology plays a big role, but it's below the radar screen. All I want is for us to be upfront about it. This doesn't mean a nominee's views on issues like abortion should be the sole determinant in voting for or against - it shouldn't - but since it's one of the questions we all talk about behind the scenes, we should expose our thinking so everyone sees it. What I want is honesty." (link)

Now, Republicans "oppose her at their peril," (link) Schumer says about Sotomayor, echoing the White House line. Let's be honest. Liberals are trying to use "group identity politics" as a shield against scrutinizing her ideology, and as a weapon against any Republicans who dare to try it. This will be an interesting political confrontation, and it's only just beginning.

Is Speaker Pelosi "Detached" From Reality?

2009-05-15T03:21:00.001-04:00

I'm sorry to say it, but there seems to be a problem with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaker Pelosi has a serious credibility problem, which has been exposed by the recent "torture briefing" scandal. Her public appearances have had a bizarre quality to them, as if she were on a bad SNL skit. I'm no psychiatrist, but if she's not conciously lying, she's mentally "detached" from reality. By this, I mean she didn't hear what she didn't want to hear. Lots of people do this, or just "misremember" things.

Perhaps it could be dismissed so easily, if she had not accused the intelligence community briefers of "misleading" her. Now, that will have to be investigated, because lying to Congress is a criminal offense. Her comparison of it to the intelligence on Iraq doesn't hold up, either: a briefing about our actions on captives is much different than one about a potential foe's strength and strategy. She's grasping at straws, and it's getting worse.

The facts of this are going to have to come out, unless the President intervenes for Speaker Pelosi. Will he risk the political capital to do this? I doubt it. The whole "torture prosecution" idea has blown up in the Dem's faces, and now the Speaker is caught in the middle of it. She is now shining "a bad light" on her party, instead of it's intended target, the GOP. I suspect Obama to "stay above" this battle, leaving the Speaker to hang in the wind.

I don't know any of the "crucial" facts yet, so this is my personal perspective, from the facts I do know, and Speaker Pelosi's incredible public performances. If I'm right, the Dem's have two choices: get her out as soon as possible, to save their losses in the 2010 midterm election, or blame her for the inevitable losses they will have, and oust her afterwards. The Dems may retain a majority, but Pelosi's speakership, which started in the last two years of the Bush administration, will be a major drag on their tickets, nationwide.

She's "circling the wagons," right now, but this is not going away any time soon. We will see what she was "briefed" on during the Bush administration, if the Congress investigates them for "torture" memos. A cynical Dem might say "take them both down," but I suspect the party will try to "move on," perhaps without Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Whither Obama's Agenda?

2009-05-06T01:56:00.000-04:00

Democrats in Congress refused to fund the President's proposed shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay prison. There is good reason for this: it's a bad idea, with no plan for where to relocate the detainees. Now that the Dems are on track to have a 60-vote majority in the Senate, look for more opposition to other promises that Obama made during the campaign.

I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but politically, it's realistic. Democrats are responsible for the direction our country goes, and will be held accountable, just as the GOP was over six of the last eight years. What Congressman wants to be blamed for bringing terrorists into our country, possibly to be set free on our streets?

Other Obama initiatives are likely to face a similar fate. "Cap and trade" is almost certainly doomed to failure in the Congress, and his health care initiative also faces an uphill battle. These political battles will be waged on the Democrat side of the Congress, with Republicans united in opposition.

It will be interesting to see how these play out, and whether Dems who oppose them will be "demonized" by the media, as the GOP routinely has been, thus far. Newly minted Democrat Sen. Specter has opposed Obama in two votes already, without much media attention. They weren't crucial votes, unlike some of the larger issues looming on the horizon.

Americans are focused on politics more than they have been in a long time, and they are worried. Issues like "cap and trade" relate directly to how much money they spend on their basic energy needs. Health care is something that most people want everyone to have access to, but nobody wants to foot the bill for. The American people are stretched to their limit, and it's doubtful that President Obama's further huge, costly initiatives will find much popular support, even from his own party.

MEDIA WARS: NEWS CORP. VS. GE & THE NY TIMES

2009-04-23T05:13:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting development in the "culture war" that's been raging in the media for the last few decades. It seems as if the liberal side is losing public support faster than ever before. The NY Times is threatening to shut down the Boston Globe, and may bite the dust itself by the end of the year. It's not surprising that they have reached out to a failing cable channeL/website, MSNBC.com, to share their content.

What's happening here is that News Corp is kicking their butts, soundly. The NY Post, a lowly "tabloid" paper, is weathering the winds of cultural (and financial) change much better than the NY Times, and the Fox News channel routinely dominates in the ratings over MSNBC's "prime time" lineup. In fact, Fox's top host, Bill O'Reilly, has been directly taking on the General Electric and NBC leadership.

O'Reilly's latest stunt was to send the intrepid producer Jesse Waters into a GE shareholders' meeting (link), to ask them about bias at MSNBC. Meanwhile, Sen. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way) is requesting Senate hearings "to address the woes of the nation's print media." (link) The Boston Globe is his hometown paper, after all.

If the NY Times survives, it will have to adapt to the "real" times. "Hiding" news articles for political reasons, as they did with the "tea party" story, doesn't attract new readers. For a paper with declining readership, that should be priority number one. MSNBC seems to be following another tactic, with not much better results.

With Keith Olbermann as their "anti-O'Reilly," they think that there is as large a "radical left wing" crowd as what they perceive as Fox's "radical right wing" viewers, compounding it with the "adorable" Rachel Maddow vs. Sean Hannity. The only problem with this is that while Hannity is a partisan, he was paired with liberal Alan Colmes for more than a decade. O'Reilly is an independent, with traditional conservative values. All he has in common with Olbermann is the tendency to be a pompous blowhard (a trait I share with both of them, to some degree). Fox is watched by people of all political persuasions, because they do strive to be "fair and balanced."

I don't want to see the NY Times, the Boston Globe, or MSNBC go under. I want to see them become better media outlets. My hometown paper is the NY Post, which is full of crappy gossip and "tabloid" stories, but also manages to report, and analyze much of the local, national, and world news accurately. The Times is an old "institution," but so was the Post, once and now again (it was founded by Alexander Hamilton, originally). Perhaps the Times has to go out of business, before it can come back to being a relevant newspaper for us "worldly" NY'ers, who also care about NY..

As for MSNBC, I'd like to renew my offer of services as on-air talent (link). I have a great speaking voice, and would love to work with Rachel Maddow. I could represent the guy who throws stuff at the TV whenever he listens to her, but I'd do it in an entertaining, even classy way. Hey, what've they got to lose?

OBAMA "OUTSOURCES" CHRYSLER TO ITALY: GOVERNMENT BY "FIAT"

2009-04-01T05:12:00.000-04:00

Wasn't this the exact the kind of thing that Obama was railing against in his campaign? Chrysler has a month to complete the sale of their company to Fiat, an Italian car company. I've never been to Italy, but I know something about their cars, and roads, from friends. If President Obama thinks that Chrysler is going to actually sell anything like the cars driven in Europe, he's got another thing comin'. Fiat tried to crack the American market, but they're not "popular" cars here. Branding them "Chrysler" won't change that.

Of course, Fiat may not look to change the models that sell well. Once they take ownership of the company, the government will have somewhat less leverage to pressure them. They will probably end up lobbying to keep the CAFE standards where they are. It's still a free market, and people will determine what sells, not the government. I'm sure the Fiat executives will try to earn a profit on their investment.

On an economic level, this is what must happen, for the company to survive. I can't say if it will work out well or not for the economy, but I find it ironic that Pres. Obama is forcing the sale. He backed Bush's original auto bailout, which turned out to be the wrong move. Now, it's going to take another $6 billion tax dollars to complete the sale. He seems to be facing the reality that he really had no clue why companies and jobs were "going overseas."

There are many problems in our nation, among them the loss of manufacturing jobs to other nations. The fact is that the US is a recipient of thousands of "outsourced" jobs from other countries, many of which are car companies. Fiat's actually "outsourcing," by expanding into the US labor market. I'm sure Italians are saying "we can build Chryslers here!"

I'll admit that I only have 1-1/2 years of experience (more than Obama) at owning a business, and the biggest thing I learned was how not to run a business. While Chrysler will be Fiat's business now, President Obama is now effectively the President of GM, as well. Will his "vision" of the company become "reality," if they don't come up with a plan in 60 days? I hope he has a steeper learning curve than I did. I lost $60,000 owning my nightclub. Owning GM could lose the taxpayers $60 billion, easily. Geithner and the "Auto Brain Trust" better come up with something soon, and sell it to Obama. He's the one who's gonna have to sell it to you and me.

This isn't the biggest thing on his plate, either, which is why I worry about the "big picture." He's got the seemingly incompetent Geithner at Treasury, and Holder as the second coming of Ramsey Clark as AG. Hillary is staking out her policy positions from the State Department, and Sebilius is the newest addition to the list of nominees that can't understand the tax code. These are just a fraction of his challenges.

One can call this "baptism by fire," if you like religious references to our president. What I find interesting is how fast he is to use the power of government radically, and "use the crisis" to advance a bad policy choice. I suppose I feel much as the liberals felt when Bush invaded Iraq, and "restricted civil liberties." While I agreed with those policies, I was disappointed with Bush myself, when he started the "bailout" madness. I was against it then, and still am now.

Government by fiat doesn't work (pun intended). Nixon tried wage and price controls, and it nearly destroyed our economy. This is where President Obama dares to tread, and the result will be the same. Meanwhile, Ford has worked out a way not to take any government money, and stay solvent. While Bush gave the initial bailout to GM, Obama doesn't want it to fail on his watch. Will his "deadline" for GM stand? I have my doubts.

I give the president credit for the deadlines, though the Chrysler-Fiat deal may now be on more favorable terms for Fiat. Then, it may be a good thing, if it saves us from pumping more than another $6 billion tax dollars into a slumping company. GM will be the test of how much this administration wants to control the private sector. Stay tuned, eh?

PS: Read this, from the WSJ OP-ED page! The Obama Autoworks: At GM and Chrysler, politics is now Job One.

HATE IS WRONG! (WAIT, EVEN AGAINST CONGRESS?)

2009-03-26T07:27:00.003-04:00

Charles Grassley suggested that AIG execs commit suicide, and then Rep. Barney Frank wanted to publicize their names and addresses. It's time for a revolution in this nation, and I'm not scared to say it! Hating people isn't the same as opposing their ideas, or philosophy. I posted this radical image to show the base hatred in our politics today. Why did I want to put Barney and Chris' heads on spikes? They're not Osama and Sadam (who they replaced, from my original drawing). I'm mad as hell at these guys, and I have no other way to communicate it.

I wonder if this is what drove the Bush and Clinton-haters, and how common it must be among us to hate this way. Luckily, I'm just examining it, with an eye towards avoiding the "hate" trap. It is almost funny, if it weren't such a serious subject.

The Tax Cut That Wasn't

2009-03-25T14:42:00.001-04:00

President Obama lied to the American people when he said "95% of working Americans are going to get a tax cut." What he's done is lower the amount that the government witholds from working people's paychecks. In my case, this has resulted in $10.00 more per week in my take-home pay. What he hasn't done is cut the actual tax rate, which means that my "rebate" will be that much less, when I file my 2009 taxes. Now, I should be glad about this, because I always thought that it wasn't fair that I got no interest on the excess taxes that were witheld from my paychecks. However, I got used to getting my little $600.00 check (or direct deposit, for the last few years) every February or March.

While I agree that it's a good idea in principle, it is not, and never will be a tax cut. For the President to call it that is the most insulting type of fabrication. He assumes that by the time people realize that they didn't really get a tax cut next year, they'll have forgotten his promise, or he'll be able to argue that he couldn't do it "because of the crisis I inherited" in the first months of his term. Slimy doesn't begin to describe this tactic, and I've had to struggle to find any reporting on it. The media have focused exclusively on when the president will "end the Bush tax cuts" on the rich.

Let's look at that one, too. "End the tax cuts." The "cuts" are actually the rates that have been in effect for the last several years. With the possible exception of the "death tax," they weren't scheduled to get any lower before expiring in 2010, so why are the Dems and the media calling them "cuts?" Because they are both complicit in this slimy deception, and they think the American public is dumb enough to fall for it.

People are waking up to this BS, however. I've previously written about his "instant" tax-increase on smokers (link), which disproportionately hurts poor and middle class people. Now, he thinks that leaving the Bush tax rates in place qualifies as a "tax cut" for the lower 95% of "working Americans?" Not in the real world, Mr. President. Not in the real world. The media and the Congress may be playing along, but the people are speaking out against this outrage.

The nationwide tax protests haven't gotten much media coverage, either, but don't think that will stop us. While I'm not affiliated in any way officially with them, my heart is at every "Tea Party" protest (link). I know what they stand for, and stand with them. This is a middle class movement, because it's the middle class who are taking the brunt of Obama's actions, so far. Make no mistake: If Obama accomplishes the rest of his "agenda," there won't be a middle class anymore.

His proposed "cap and tax (er, trade)" energy plan will double, or triple electricity costs. He wants to expand health care coverage to "everyone," before fixing the massive waste and corruption in the current health care system. His trade policies are already poised to cost thousands of Americans their jobs, as nations retaliate against his "unilateral" abrogation of treaty obligations. These policies will hurt the middle class, not just the rich. Americans will not stand for it, and some of the politicians in Congress may be starting to get it.

I don't think they can get by with "dog and pony" shows like the AIG hearings for the next year and a half, until the mid-term elections. It's becoming more apparent every day that the questioners are the ones who need to start giving the American people some answers. They can start by admitting that they aren't "cutting" anyone's taxes.

Passing Thoughts on AIG Bonuses, Pelosi, and Deregulation

2009-03-19T12:47:00.000-04:00

One thing about the AIG bonuses. They're only .01% of the money that AIG got from the government. I would take the feigned outrage about the bonuses in congress more seriously if they all hadn't used a similar excuse to support the "earmarks" in the budget they passed two weeks ago.

Speaker Pelosi was caught on tape calling illegal immigrants "patriotic," and stating that raids to enforce immigration law were "un-American." Maybe she's really the Speaker of the Mexican legislature?

The "deregulation" canard must end. US businesses are heavily regulated, at the federal and state level. Don't believe it? Try starting a business without filing any papers with the government. You can't.

"YOU'RE DOING A HECK OF A JOB, TIMMY!"

2009-03-19T05:04:00.001-04:00

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is a shining example of the dirty relationship between the regulators and the regulated. When the president came out and defended him publicly, I heard the bell tolling in the distance. He could be the first Obama appointee to be hypovehiculated (thrown under the bus) after Senate confirmation. As the previous "bailouts" and other deals are examined, it seems that Sec. Geithner was deeply involved, as head of the NY Federal Reserve during the Bush administration.

An excerpt from Newt Gingrich's latest dispatch explains it best: (link)

As Americans' level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we're in.

But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he "inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history."

The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn't inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies - he helped create it.

Even before he was Treasury Secretary - when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve - Geithner was so deeply involved in the government's bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post's headline from September 19, 2008:

"In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three".

The first meeting of the first bailout - of Bear Stearns - was held in Geithner's office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held - where else? In Geithner's New York Fed office.

Besides being parodied on SNL, he is rapidly becoming an embarassment for the Obama administration. This AIG "bonus" scandal is erupting all around him. He supposedly found out about these bonuses in the last few weeks, but they were disclosed in public filings late last year. Did he, or his staff review all of the public information about the company they were bailing out? Apparently not, if he didn't know about the bonuses until last week.

As for the aforementioned "dirty relationship," read this article from Conde Nast's Portfolio.com, dated June '08. "The Man Who Saved (or Got Suckered by) Wall Street," by Gary Weiss. I won't excerpt it here because of the length, but it shows the incestuous relationship between government and the financial institutions it regulates, specifically involving Mr. Geithner. (link)

When President Bush said "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" after Katrina, he was lambasted by everyone. Has President Obama already put himself in a similar position with Sec. Geithner? Only time will tell, but I'd save any new dollars with his signature on them. They'll be collector's items someday.

AG: WE'LL ONLY "TORTURE" TROOPS, NOT TERRORISTS

2009-03-04T06:33:00.000-05:00

It's official: Attorney General Eric Holder has "ruled out the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique for terrorism suspects yesterday, calling it a form of torture that the Obama administration could never condone," according to this Reuters story in the NY Post (link). He is quoted: "Waterboarding is torture. My Justice Department will not justify it, will not rationalize it and will not condone it."

That sounds fine and upstanding, but why doesn't he take exception to waterboarding being practiced on our own troops, for training purposes? As I watched a Fox News report on this story, they had video of one of their reporters being waterboarded. Why is that not a crime, but waterboarding terrorists is? I get it; "voluntary" submission to "torture" is legal, and doing it to someone against their will is a crime. Still, isn't that "justifying" torture, something the AG said his Justice Department would never do?

There's also a slight "conflict of interest" for AG Holder, according to Gordon Cucullu, writing in the NY Post OP-ED section (link):

Holder's previous job, after all, was as a senior partner with Covington and Burling - a white-shoe DC law firm that devotes considerable pro bono time to defending the Gitmo detainees. The job paid $2 million a year, and he expects to collect a like amount this year as part of his separation package.

As a senior partner, he undoubtedly had significant input on what kind of charity cases his firm picked up. He surely knew that dozens of lawyers from from his firm were among the 500-plus civilian lawyers representing the 244 or so remaining detainees (on top of military-court-appointed defenders).

Even now, his Covington colleagues continue to allege rampant torture at Gitmo. They're fighting hard to have detainees tried through the US court system - essentially given the same rights as US citizens.

Basically, Holder is in a position to help his former employer by declaring waterboarding to be "torture," under official DoJ guidelines. The bigger question is why do we train our troops to endure this, if we really think our enemies will follow our "guidelines" for interrogation? The fact is that our enemies, and many of our allies use worse methods than "waterboarding" in interrogation.

There is no defense of the argument that this will keep our captured troops from being tortured. It won't. Some will argue that "we're better than that," and we are, by outlawing these methods of interrogation on regular POW's. Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. If we practice this act on our own people regularly (though voluntarily), why should it be banned for enemies who have no regard for "human rights" at all?

A final thought: Ask the next person who says "America is better than that" to define how, and why. Ask them what it is that makes us superior to our enemies, or whether we are "superior" to any nation at all, whether friend or foe. You may find that people like Eric Holder don't actually believe we are "better" than any other nation, regarding human rights, or by any other measure. Their attempts to "correct" our perceived flaws are little more than posturing for their fellow "social justice" advocates. Will the Obama administration end the "torturing" of our troops, in the name of "social justice?" Somehow, I don't think so.

A "Card Check" Compromise I Would Support!

2009-02-26T03:32:00.004-05:00

Congress is debating the union "card check" bill, which will allow a union to represent employees of a business if over half of them "sign a card" affirming they want it. The current law is a voting system, with a "secret ballot," just like government elections. There are many reasons to oppose "card check," on a bi-partisan basis. Liberals such as George McGovern to conservatives like Rush limbaugh have denounced it, but I think I've found a suitable compromise:

Make "card check" a two-way street. Allow half of the people in a company to sign a card saying that they don't want to be in the union anymore, and the union has to get out. This way, when people aren't getting any real benefit from, or maybe even being held back by the union, they have a way out. It's all about fairness to the worker, in the end.

I'll point out one of my own experiences, back in the '80's. I got an easy job, and quickly became better at it than people who had been there for many years. Being in a union, my boss could only give me raises when the union allowed it, so my proficiency was not rewarded. Of course, it also bred resentment in some of my co-workers, who were either slacking off, or barely up to the job. I got flack for picking up someone else's slack from my supervisor, who was also in the union.

The job didn't pay much, and the biggest benefit was $1 glasses, if you went to the union clinic in Jamaica, Queens. Still, I was a year or so out of the USMC, and was "gung ho" about doing a good job. I started getting harassed by my supervisor, until I finally quit. However, the manager demoted my supervisor, after I left, to the joy of most of my former co-workers.

Here's the kicker: After I quit, I got a letter from the union, threatening legal action if I used any of their "benefits" effective on the date that I quit, and demanding the return of their union card. I had thrown it out already, so I wrote them back a letter telling them what they could do with their "benefits." They didn't protect me from the harassment, and I never used a dime of their benefits in my year and a half at the company, so why would I want to now?

That's only one of my encounters with unions. There's also that time that they spiked my tires, when I was a "scab" 411 operator for AT&T (another job I excelled at, for a few weeks), but that's another story. Why not let workers decide if their union is really representing their, or someone else's interest? Shouldn't it be as easy to get rid of a union, as to join one? It seems like something most people would agree is a "fair" compromise.

Of course, if this were in the bill, some would say "your employer can pressure you to sign a card at any time," and they would be right. So can your co-workers. It's a bad idea, and if the current bill gets out of the House, it probably will be killed in the Senate. I've been wrong before, though (on campaign finance reform, for instance), so I hope someone in the Congress will take up my suggestion before this bad idea becomes reality.

OBAMA'S "20 LEGS"

2009-02-22T05:42:00.004-05:00

First, they called it a "three-legged stool," when it was just TARP, the auto bailout, and the stimulus package. Now, it's "four legs to hold up the table," with the new mortgage deal. How long until it takes "at least 20 legs for the millipede to walk?"

I'm only half-joking. Expect more "crap sandwiches" to be forced down our throats, with the media wind at Obama's back, as they try to sell it. I think that the American public is gagging, already.

Pres. Obama has serious deficiencies in domestic and foreign affairs, as well as on the economy. He better get with it, or he'll be a one-term president. It doesn't look like he's getting any help from the markets, but what do they know? Something he doesn't, apparently.

The Obama administration can belittle guys like Rick Santelli, Rush Limbaugh, and even Joe the Plumber. But all of the lofty pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about "hope and change" crumbles, when it meets the reality of "what are you going to do, Pres. Obama?"

We're waiting, and not patiently.

NIGHTLINE'S Terry "Moron" Only Half-Witted, but Totally Tilting to the Left..

2009-02-12T04:18:00.000-05:00

"There are no stupid questions" is an old adage I remember from my youth. It's good advice for children, but the anchor of ABC's NIGHTLINE program should be held to a somewhat higher standard. Terry Moran recently interviewed Pres. Obama, and asked the following questions:

Why not just nationalize the banks?

and:

-why shouldn't you just fire the executives who wrecked these banks in the first place and tanked the world's financial system in the process?

Let's look at these questions, one at a time. Does Terry Moran think that nationalizing the US banking system is a viable option, if even possible? This nation is the heart of capitalism. He might as well have asked "Why not just kill all the capitalists?" The second question is even stupider, because the banks are not "nationalized," so the president has no power to fire any CEO's, even if they took "bailout" money. Mr. "Moron" may think Obama can do these things, but he can't.

I'm sorry to say it, but this level of ignorance is rather common among network news people. That's among the reasons they're losing viewers to other news sources. In Moran's defense, he did get at least one point right, when he said: The Republican argument is that you and Nancy Pelosi are using the need for a stimulus bill as an excuse to jack up spending under a traditional liberal Democratic agenda. That's why he gets credited as a "half-wit," instead of "witless."

Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh, and Newsbusters' blogger Scott Whitlock for the transcript. (link)

TWO "TAXING (AND SPENDING)" WEEKS FOR PRES. OBAMA

2009-02-06T01:16:00.000-05:00

I tried to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, in the time between the election and his taking office, that he wouldn't govern as a typical "tax and spend" liberal. After two weeks in office, he has just raised my taxes by over $200 a year, ostensibly to "give health care" to children of people that may make more than I do.

Is this his idea of "personal responsibility?" I've never depended on the government for my health care (save for during my military service), and I've been responsible enough not to father any children, because I've never been married. Why does being a smoker make me responsible for children's health care? Even under the twisted logic of "we're all responsible" for providing it, then why am I "more" so?

On top of this, President Obama is pushing hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending, most of which is of dubious "stimulative" value. Anticipation of this was among the reasons I didn't vote for him, and he has confirmed my worst expectations, so far. It only took him two weeks to start picking my pocket, and I'm one of those lower middle class people that he promised to "help." I can't wait to see how he "helps" get our nation out of this recession.

The "honeymoon" is over. I have to oppose his "tax and spend" policies as vocally as I can. If America is to succeed, our president may have to fail.

ACORN, La Raza, NACA, LCCR All To Get "Stimulus" Money: Tip of the Iceberg?

2009-02-03T06:38:00.003-05:00

There is a reason that so many politicians of both parties are saying "we have to pass the stimulus bill now." They don't want you to know what's in there. Meanwhile, details are coming out about where some of the last "bailout" bill money went. Specifically, that Bank of America is directing two million dollars to ACORN and the National Council of La Raza, as "charity." Michelle Malkin has a long list of ACORN and NCLR branches that the bank is "spreading the wealth around" to. The bank states "Economic emergency: For efforts to prevent foreclosures and educate people about finances and purchasing homes: $2,000,000 to Acorn Housing Corporation (Chicago, Illinois), in it's "charitable" donation announcement.

This brings us back to the bill that is in the Senate now. Any legislation that is being openly "rushed" through the legislative process is suspect, and it doesn't help if the minority party is united against it, coming out of the House. It turns out that there's plenty to oppose in this bill, including ninety million set aside for the "Leadership Conference on Civil Rights" and a group called the "National Association of Area Agencies on Aging." This "earmark" is taken out of the larger two hundred million dollars earmarked for the "digital to analog converter program." This money will presumably be used to teach poor and old people how to adapt their TV's for the coming "digital conversion."

It sounds like you could buy a "digital ready" TV for every poor and old person in the US, for that kind of money (BTW, there are new TV's that wtill receive digital broadcast signals, if you search). No, I don't think this money is being "earmarked" to help the poor or the aging get TV. I tend to agree with Erick Erickson's take, on the Red State blog:

Here's where it gets funny. Each group is now only getting about $2 million.

The Senate believes it needs to give $90 million more - and only these organizations will be able to get their hands on the money. Only these two groups - one group that helps senior citizens and one group whose members were Democrat foot soldiers in 2008 and, with the "administrative costs" they'll be able to take in overhead, will be well funded for coming elections.

It gets worse: Ms. Malkin also illuminate's "the 'Community Development Fund' in the House version of the stimulus bill. Some $4.19 billion would be 'used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes.' The legislation changes the way the fund would be disbursed and loosens lobbying restrictions." Now wait a minute. This money is going to be used for already forclosed homes? ACORN seems to be "playing both sides of the fence," and profiting in both positions.

They get millions to "counsel" people how to avoid forclosure, but get billions to "redevelop" foreclosed properties. Follow the money, and see where thie "stimulus" is for groups like ACORN. They have no interest in keeping people in their homes. They profit from "disenfranchised" minorities, to justify their political racket. How much are they going to rake out of this, and how many people will they actually help?

El Rushbo labeled this bill "porkulus"; it's also been called the "spendulus" bill, and the "Generational Theft" bill, by other luminaries. This post highlights a tiny fraction of the whole bill, and will no doubt be dismissed as such, by it's proponents. I say let's start looking at the details of this huge cluster of law that our legislators are writing, one line at a time. To paraphrase The Who, "(DON'T) GET FOOLED AGAIN! This can't be done "quickly," which casts a cloud over the "rush it through" crowd. Call me a skeptic, but I bet the whole thing's filled with similar pork.

I wonder what Treasury Secretary Geithner thinks about this bill; he hasn't said a word. That's funny, because I thought his input was so "important" to the process, that we had to overlook his tax problems. The primary drivers behind this bill seem to be liberal congressional interests, with Obama giving "lip service" to the GOP, while "dissing" the conservative rank and file. It's interesting political theater, but there is too much at stake to dismiss it as such. Does the Senate GOP really believe that payoffs to liberal interest groups are going to help the economy in any way, or is that something that they are willing to continue caving in on?

Will the Senate fully debate this bill? Minority Leader O'Connell is equivocating, judging by this excerpt from Ms. Malkin:

"Our goal is not to kill it," McConnell said. "Our goal is to make it
better." The GOP, he insisted, "has an open mind." And: "Nobody that I know of
is trying to keep a package from passing."

That sounds alot like playing "prevent" defense in Football: All you "prevent" is your own victory, with that strategy. A "victory" for the nation will be achieved when most people can make an honest buck again, without some "government stimulus" being involved.

RUSSIA AND CHINA SLAM U.S. AT DAVOS W.E.F: NO RESPONSE FROM SEC. GEITHNER

2009-01-30T06:32:00.002-05:00

Last week, controversial US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner repeated Pres. Obama's campaign assertion that China is manipulating it's currency (which it is, but that's not the point). On Wednesday, China's Premier Wen Jiabao fired back, and Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin piled on, for good measure, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Here are some excerpts from the WSJ's coverage: (link)

Speaking on the opening day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, they both urged more international cooperation to escape the downturn. They also talked up the abilities of their own economies to ride out the recession. Mr. Wen said he was "confident" China would hit its 8% growth target for this year even though that was "a tall order." (See text PDF)

The Russian and Chinese leaders also called for cooperation with U.S. President Barack Obama, but it was a chilly reception for the new administration that reflected growing anger in economies that are now getting hit hard by a financial crisis that began with subprime mortgages sold in the U.S.

Mr. Putin was characteristically blunt. He called for the development of multiple, regional reserve currencies in addition to the dollar. "Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy," Mr. Putin said. (See full text)

The Russian leader mocked U.S. businessmen who he said had boasted at last year's Davos meeting of the U.S. economy's fundamental strength and "cloudless" prospects. "Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist," he said.

Earlier, Mr. Wen called for an expansion of regulatory "coverage of the international financial system, with particular emphasis on strengthening the supervision on major reserve currencies."

While Mr. Wen never named the U.S., his critique of its failings was as sweeping as Mr. Putin's. The financial crisis, he said, was "attributable to inappropriate macroeconomic policies of some economies and their unsustainable model of development characterized by prolonged low savings and high consumption; excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit" -- and other excesses.

"The entire economic growth system, where one regional center prints money without respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods ... has suffered a major setback," Mr. Putin said.

(In response to Secretary Geithner), The Chinese premier gently, but firmly warned that if Washington and Beijing chose confrontation, both would be losers.

But the different tones of the two speeches, and the fact that Mr. Wen didn't call for replacing the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency but regulating it, reflect crucial differences in the important emerging economies.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Treasury Department declined to comment on the remarks in the speeches. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

...The rapid collapse of oil and commodities prices has hit Russia hard on top of the ripples of the financial crisis. The government now forecasts the economy will shrink for the first time in a decade this year, after growing 6% last year.

"In a very real sense Russia has been kicked to the margins, while China has become pivotal to any resolution of the financial crisis," says Bob Lo, Director of the Russia and China programs at the Center for European Reform in London.

...Russia also has negligible trade with the U.S., while Chinese exports are heavily dependent on U.S. consumers and Beijing holds $2 trillion in U.S. debt, prompting a much more cautious approach towards Washington and the dollar in Beijing.

The net effect of falling oil prices and the downturn, however, has been to make Russia more vulnerable and the Kremlin weaker, analysts say. Russian officials have begun to send out more conciliatory signals to the new U.S. administration.

"We wish the new team success," Mr Putin said Wednesday, calling on it to cooperate.

China, too, is suffering from the downturn. Many independent economists, including economists at the International Monetary Fund, question whether Beijing will be able to meet its 8% growth target this year.

...Some economists believe China could grow by as little as 5% this year, too little to provide jobs for the graduates flooding into the labor market from Chinese universities and schools each year and a further drag on the global economy.

Less noticed in Mr. Geithner's repetition of Mr. Obama's campaign-trail assertion that China "manipulates" its currency last week was his argument that the long U.S.-Chinese dispute over currency didn't matter as much as getting China to do more to boost its economic growth.

"Given the crisis the immediate focus needs to be on the broader issue of stabilizing domestic demand in China and the U.S.," Mr. Geithner said in his written response to questions during his Senate confirmation process. "A further slowdown in China would lead to a substantial fall in world growth (and demand for U.S. exports) and delay recovery from the crisis."

The US's dependency on China has come back to bite us in the ass. I am not an economist, but I commented somewhere that China's growth rate was unsustainable, at least a year ago. China sees it as our fault, for not buying enough of their products. What has happened is a global "shrinking" of the money supply, as the value of real estate plummets, worldwide. There are other factors than these, but it explains why Pres. Obama is encouraging "printing more money."

Maybe it also explains why NY Governor David Patterson was scheduled to attend this forum, until "domestic economic matters" took precedence (he was "shamed" out of attending by the NY Post). Obama doesn't need to hear this crap, but Geithner's comment was ill-timed. The fact is that China has as much responsibility for "buying into" capitalism as the US has for buying all those cheap Chinese products.

As for Russia, I would be more sympathetic to their plight if Putin didn't kill his political opponents, and journalists who are critical of their government. In a sign that "change" is coming to Russia, three Bolshevik protesters invaded an office of Putin's party: (link)

Two members of the banned National Bolshevik Party handcuffed themselves to a radiator while another set off fireworks, closing a United Russia office in Russia's second city for 30 minutes, a party official said.

The protesters demanded the government stop spending billions of dollars to bail out "banks and oligarchs" and instead freeze tariffs for electricity and public transport, National Bolshevik official Andrei Dmitriyev said.

...Police detained all three protesters.

OUCH! I hope they're not "mistreated," under Bolshevik standards. It's interesting that so many Americans also want fewer bailouts, and lower taxes. Maybe we should go protest in political offices, but without the fireworks, or we might get treated like the Bolsheviks. But I digress...

Secretary Geithner's comment about China wasn't wrong, and perhaps Russia and China would've blasted us anyway. The point is that he has become the "point man" of an aspect of US policy that is coming under harsh criticism by world leaders, in his first week in office. Don't feel sorry for him, though. As head of the NY Fed, he was probably more informed about the policies in effect before this recession than he was about how to use Turbotax.

"HOPE AND CHANGE!"

HOUSE STIMULUS BILL PASSED, OVER "BI-PARTISAN" OPPOSITION: WILL OBAMA "PUT LIPSTICK ON THIS PIG?"

2009-01-29T04:18:00.001-05:00

Watch the reporting of the House vote on the "stimulus" package, in the coming days. There will be much talk of Republican "partisanship," and how they're being "divisive" by their opposition. Little mention will be made of the eleven Democrats who sided with the GOP, making the opposition "bi-partisan." I hope the Senate, and Pres. Obama are paying attention, because there will be a signifigant backlash if this "package" doesn't undergo some serious revision before being forced on the country.

The president's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, has close ties to Speaker Pelosi. He's expressed a desire to exploit a "crisis," or at least not "waste" one. Emmanuel's former colleagues in the House are using the cover of "stimulus" to shovel taxpayer dollars into a variety of wasteful, and often failing government programs. "Stimulating the economy" has become the "lipstick on the pig," as much as it was when Obama said it about the Bush economy, which was not known for it's spending restraint.

In the Senate, expectations are not high for the GOP opposition, but the House vote showed a more unified front than was expected. The Senate has a different process, and may come up with a very different bill. The problem is that the proposed bill is so huge, it has precious pork for every state. I look forward to seeing how my new junior senator from NY, Kirsten Gillebrand votes. Talk about being "thrown into the fire!" She can expect an email from this constituent.

The political situation here is interesting. Is the House plan the one Pres Obama favors? Why were the Republicans so unified, after meeting with the president days before the vote? What will the Senate pass, and how will it come out of the "conference" committee? I'll say this much: I haven't heard a "veto" threat yet, though public opinion is turning against the House version, as more details come out. Obama probably will be as compliant with the Democrat majority in Congress as Bush was with his party in control, so it's up to the Senate to at least mitigate this madness.

As for the media, they're feeding the "crisis" line, instead of putting this recession into context. This puts pressure for the rapid passage of the "stimulus," without thorough scrutinization. They also will continue to cast GOP opposition as "divisive," but they really can't call it "partisan" anymore, can they?

SMOKE MORE CIGARETTES FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH!

2009-01-23T01:33:00.000-05:00

From The Tax Foundation:

The House of Representatives yesterday voted 289-139 to pass a 156% increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes (taking it from 39 cents per pack to $1.00, not counting state taxes which average over $1 a pack). The estimated $33 billion tax hike (over 4-1/2 years) would be earmarked to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). The bill is almost identical to a previous version that was vetoed in the summer of 2007, and it will soon go to the Senate.

Now, we all know that paying taxes is patriotic, and we all want to fund children's health care. This one is a no-brainer! START SMOKING, AMERICA! "The children are depending on you." If you still don't want to smoke, maybe you can buy cigs to give to poor people at election time, then bus them to the polls.

The Tax Foundation has a non-sarcastic criticism of this bill, which is worth a read. (link)

U. of Colorado at Boulder "Visiting Chair in Conservative Thought" Doesn't Have to Be a Conservative!

2009-01-15T05:47:00.002-05:00

I have to give some credit to the University of Colorado at Boulder. In 2007, they fired Ward Churchill, and now they want to create a Visiting Chair in Conservative Thought and Policy. Unfortunately, their motives are so transparent that they're being criticized by liberals and conservatives alike. Here are excerpts from the two places I saw this story today:

Brett Baier's Special Report: the Political Grapevine

The University of Colorado - which has a very liberal reputation - is still looking for a conservative professor to counterbalance the campus' leftist slant. A local TV station reports the university has raised only $575,000 of the $9 million needed to fund a "visiting chair in conservative thought and policy." The effort is taking hits from both sides. One Republican on the regents board says the professor would be a token.

The president of the school's College Democrats, Jesse Jensen, says, "The entire concept... politicizes academics in a way that is contrary to the university's mission... by endowing a chair in one specific political ideology, we are not promoting intellectual diversity."

But Ken Bickers, a political science professor, says, "I think the idea behind this chair is that this university has lots and lots of liberals and not a lot of conservatives."

The kicker was this one, which I actually read earlier in the day, from the NY Post's "Weird But True" section:

The University of Colorado in Boulder is trying to tip the scales back to "fair and balanced" by creating an endowment for a Visiting Chair in Conservative Thought and Policy.

The effort has raised more than a few wails of complaint from the liberal student body.

A school spokesman says the professor does not necessarily have to be a conservative.

"We have French teachers who aren't from France," he said.

There you have it, in a nutshell. The liberal administrators at Boulder see conservatism as something akin to a foreign language, or culture, that can be analyzed and taught by a sufficiently "open minded" liberal professor. It looks like there are no takers from the liberal ranks, either, at this point. Perhaps the spokesman was just "floating a trial balloon," to see how it goes over. So far, not so good.

Ward Churchill took his obsession with the plight of "Native Americans" (formerly known as "American Indians") to extremes that disgraced the UCB. Now, they're just making fools of themselves, which is why no-one wants to take this job. Maybe Prof. Churchill can come back, and share his insights into "conservative media attacks." Probably not.

Conservatives on college campuses are definitely an "oppressed minority," but they should have no interest in submitting to the "diversity spoils" system, which they have railed against for so long. Conversely, I can see this as using liberal policies against the liberal establishment, which might let conservative professors "come out of the closet," and encourage liberal students to take conservative opinions seriously. (Hope and change, folks!)

Stories like this remind me that conservatism still has some influence in America, even as liberals occupy all three the three most powerful positions in the US government (or will, next week). I look forward to being the "opposition" again. Of course, we've had a Democrat majority in Congress since '06, so I've had some practice. I take comfort knowing that somewhere, some liberal in Colorado is blaming all this all on Pres. Bush and Fox News.

TAX & SPEND: A Tale of a City, Two States, and a Nation

2008-12-22T04:37:00.000-05:00

I can see the darkness at the end of the tunnel. As a conservative, living just outside NYC, I am dismayed at the spread of "tax & spend" liberalism across the "heartland" of the nation. Here's a quick primer, for those who don't get it: The two states with the highest tax rates (NY and California) also have the highest budget deficits. NYC's Mayor Bloomberg has declared it a "luxury" city, as if there were no place for "commoners," and NYS' Gov. Paterson has said that NY'ers can avoid his new proposed taxes by "not buying those things." Way to encourage economic prosperity, idiots! Gov. Schwartznegger's attempt to spin his "green" economic plan as "kicking ass" is true, in one way: it's kicking the average working joe or jane's ass!

What we have here is a "perfect storm" of foolish liberal policies. Both of these governors are coming, "hat in hand," to the federal government for a hand out, when the federal deficit is at record levels. Bush will rebuff them this year, but he's not the target of their current lobbying. We have the most liberal Democrat ever elected coming into the White House, and he has said he's going to "spread the money around." Roll the dice, and place your bets on who wins the lion's share of the pot!

I have faith that we will endure, through whatever tough times are ahead. I have seen the failure of similar policies before, and read about even earlier failures of these policies. The fact that Obama, Arnold, Paterson and Bloomie have all compromised to some degree with conservative opponents is what sustains my faith. I just worry that when Obama is in office, and working together with them, that they may exclude the conservative point of view.

Time will tell, and the liberal media is sure making a point right now of ending Obama's "honeymoon" before he takes office. Will this prod him into a "more liberal" policy, both economic and regarding national security? Or will it make him think "screw it, the libs are going to hate me, no matter what I do," and turn to a more moderate policy on these issues? He's screwed, either way. President-elect Obama is stepping into the deepest "doo-doo" that any president in my lifetime has had to step into, arguably.

"Tax and spend" may well become the policy of the day, but even a productive nation such as ours has limits on how far that policy can go. The economic crisis won't be solved by this classic liberal policy combination, and the nation won't keep a leader in office who can't find a way to turn the economy around. Obama has one term to fix this, and fairly or not, that's what he'll be judged on.

Bloomberg is history, even after changing the law to let him run for a third term. His plans to squeeze more money out of average NYC residents and homeowners will not be forgotten by next year's election. The same goes for Gov. Paterson, who bizzarely claimed "we'll take over Saturday Night Live" at a political rally. See, they weren't making fun of his blindness on that infamous SNL show. They were making fun of how politically clueless this guy is. Our economy is going to hell in a handbasket, and he's raising taxes on "regular" soft drinks, and "music downloads"...and BEER! (Harumph!)

California is it's own separate tax hell, but I've read enough to sympathize with them. Governator Arnold wants to be president, and maybe he should be allowed to, under the principle of "failing upward." He couldn't be any worse than Paterson or Bloomberg. He could be worse than Obama, if he tries really hard (as he's doing now, as Governor). I pray for my friends and family in that beautiful state, and hope the rest of you pray for me!

I predict higher taxes, and higher government spending for the forseeable future, on the federal level. While higher spending is nothing new, raising the tax rates is in direct contradiction to the president-elect's promise to cut taxes for 95% of working people. Obama's pre-election "tax calculator" said I would save $500 next year. I'll believe it when I see it, thanks.

Here are some recent headlines, with links:

Business As Usual

Gov's Tax & Spend Shocker

Paterson Punts

Paterson dishes up the same old me$$

Postponing Reality Dr. Thomas Sowell

Counterfeiting versus monetary policy Dr. Walter E. Williams

It's no time to panic Jonah Goldberg

Dollar to donuts - Ben slashes rates to near zero: greenback slammed