Monday, November 28, 2011
Barney's Going Bye-bye!
After 16 terms in the House of Representatives, Barney Frank (D-MA) is not standing for re-election. Hoo-raw!
Not that my opinion matters all that much, but I think Mr. Frank and his co-conspirator former Sen. Chris Dodd are the two individuals most to blame for the housing meltdown in 2008 and the subsequent spiral into worldwide recession, the effects of which are still being felt here and abroad, as well as the additional regulatory burden that has done so much to retard the recovery.
I have no idea what the underlying reasons might be for Mr. Frank's retirement at this time, but whatever they are, his departure is good news for the Republic.
Now the good people of Massachusetts have an opportunity to move toward redemption by electing someone in Mr. Frank's place who won't lie, browbeat, intimidate and pontificate, and who might actually have some appreciation for the laws of economics.
(0) comments
Not that my opinion matters all that much, but I think Mr. Frank and his co-conspirator former Sen. Chris Dodd are the two individuals most to blame for the housing meltdown in 2008 and the subsequent spiral into worldwide recession, the effects of which are still being felt here and abroad, as well as the additional regulatory burden that has done so much to retard the recovery.
I have no idea what the underlying reasons might be for Mr. Frank's retirement at this time, but whatever they are, his departure is good news for the Republic.
Now the good people of Massachusetts have an opportunity to move toward redemption by electing someone in Mr. Frank's place who won't lie, browbeat, intimidate and pontificate, and who might actually have some appreciation for the laws of economics.
Labels: Barney Frank, Congress, Democrats, politicians, politics, Progressivisim
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
The Debt "Deal" II
So, all over the media yesterday and this morning are comments, headlines and assertions that the "Tea Party won", that it "permanently changed the conversation" and that "from now on there'll never be an increase in the debt limit that doesn't involve deficit reduction".
OK, so how come it doesn't feel like the powers of light won?
How come both Obama and Chuckie Schumer both stated yesterday that now we've put the debt limit fight behind us, we can get back to the business of "investing" in new infrastructure, training, education, etc. ad nauseam. Doesn't sound like the conversation changed much to me.
(0) comments
OK, so how come it doesn't feel like the powers of light won?
How come both Obama and Chuckie Schumer both stated yesterday that now we've put the debt limit fight behind us, we can get back to the business of "investing" in new infrastructure, training, education, etc. ad nauseam. Doesn't sound like the conversation changed much to me.
Labels: Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Federal budget, government, Obama, Tea Party
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Budget Battles
In the face of all kinds of forecasts that predict fiscal disaster for the United States if current spending levels are allowed to continue, the Democrats in Congress, especially the Pelosi-Reid bloc, together with the President, are adamantly opposing any serious spending cuts. Apparently they believe that they can raise taxes to balance the budget, but at the rate we're borrowing, it will be impossible to balance the budget by raising taxes, because unless something is done, spending will exceed the GDP before too long.
This leads me to the regrettable conclusion that Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their followers either have the goal of bringing this country down, or they are imbeciles. I don't think they're imbeciles. Historically, when democracies have self-destructed they are inevitably replaced by dictatorships, going all the way back to ancient Rome. This sequence of events typically occurs during a crisis, and it appears that the aforementioned Democrats have created and are bent on perpetuating a fiscal crisis of epic proportions. This cannot be allowed to continue because it constitutes an existential threat to the United States of America that is at least the equal of anything that the Axis powers of WWII or the Soviet Union could have mounted.
Wake up! In the words of Thomas Paine, "These are times that try mens souls ...." Americans of all political persuasions need to acquaint themselves with the facts--ALL the facts, not just the ones they want to hear, then think hard about what future they wish for the United States and vote accordingly.
(0) comments
This leads me to the regrettable conclusion that Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their followers either have the goal of bringing this country down, or they are imbeciles. I don't think they're imbeciles. Historically, when democracies have self-destructed they are inevitably replaced by dictatorships, going all the way back to ancient Rome. This sequence of events typically occurs during a crisis, and it appears that the aforementioned Democrats have created and are bent on perpetuating a fiscal crisis of epic proportions. This cannot be allowed to continue because it constitutes an existential threat to the United States of America that is at least the equal of anything that the Axis powers of WWII or the Soviet Union could have mounted.
Wake up! In the words of Thomas Paine, "These are times that try mens souls ...." Americans of all political persuasions need to acquaint themselves with the facts--ALL the facts, not just the ones they want to hear, then think hard about what future they wish for the United States and vote accordingly.
Labels: Congress, Constitution, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Economy, Federal budget, Financial crisis, History, Obama, Pelosi, politics, Reid, Republicans
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Obama In Libya
First, I hope the current campaign in Libya succeeds in getting Kadafi (spelled phonetically because the "preferred" spelling seems to change by the hour) to go away. Preferably at room temperature in a box, to an underground destination. I bow to no one in my dislike and disgust at the man and all he stands for. In retrospect I think we probably should have declared war against Libya as soon as we discovered it was behind the Lockerbie bombing of PanAm 103, which at the latest would be 24 February 2011, when resigned justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil revealed that Muamar Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. Certainly that constituted an act of war by Kadafi under age-old principles of international law, and unlike al Qaeda, the Kadafi regime is a nation-state and precisely identifiable.
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
(0) comments
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
Labels: Congress, Debt, defense, Democrats, dictators, Kadafi, Libya, Obama, Terrorism, United Nations
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Throw the President Under The Bus
Let's face it, friends, we've elected as our President a narcissistic incompetent boob who makes Hamlet look decisive, and who's giving socialism a bad name. The man couldn't lead himself into a mens room, and his foreign policy consists of emboldening our enemies while simultaneously alienating our allies. He has made himself a national liability, and as Glenn Reynolds has repeatedly said, a reprise of the Carter years is now the best case scenario for the Obama administration.
If the Democrats in Congress are smart, they'll throw him under the bus and start working with the Repubs to solve the budget, debt and policy problems that are rapidly heading toward becoming an existential threat to our Republic. (Not that I have any hope for the likes of Reid and Pelosi.) This process has to be bipartisan, because if it's not, neither side will have the political courage to push what needs to be done to bring spending under control and allow the economy to reenergize itself. A cheap way to start would be to kill Cap 'n' Tax once and for all, get rid of Elizabeth Warren and her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and generally get out of the business of regulating everything at the Federal level. States need to have more power to manage their own affairs, because most of them are on the verge of going broke.
In order to have a zero-debt national budget, spending would have to be cut by at least 30 percent, and if you believe the Wikipedia article, more like 40 percent in FY 2012. That's on the order of a $1.5 trillion reduction in spending, yet Congress is wasting time and perfectly good oxygen arguing over whether to cut $6 billion (Dems) or $60 billion (Repubs) from spending in the current fiscal year. Let's use $50 billion as a compromise--let's see, that's 5 followed by 10 zeros divided by 15 followed by 11 zeros--canceling zeros ... 5 over 150 equals 3 and 1/3 percent, or .0333 of what needs to be cut in order to stop the national debt from growing. And Harry Reid and his buddies talk about "draconian" cuts proposed by the Repubs. Idiots! We need to get rid of whole departments!
Not that there's a shortage of idiocy floating around. The MSM won't report this because they're ideologically in bed with the Reids and Pelosis of the world, so voters, who have a vague idea that we have too much debt and are adding to it at the rate of some $4 billion a day, still don't grasp either the magnitude of the problem or how close we are to crashing. I know austerity is painful, but not as painful as a total fiscal collapse of the country.
All I can say is that our political class better start growing some cojones or we'll all be dumpster diving for dinner before we know it, because the crash will make the Great Depression seem like a kindergarten picnic.
(0) comments
If the Democrats in Congress are smart, they'll throw him under the bus and start working with the Repubs to solve the budget, debt and policy problems that are rapidly heading toward becoming an existential threat to our Republic. (Not that I have any hope for the likes of Reid and Pelosi.) This process has to be bipartisan, because if it's not, neither side will have the political courage to push what needs to be done to bring spending under control and allow the economy to reenergize itself. A cheap way to start would be to kill Cap 'n' Tax once and for all, get rid of Elizabeth Warren and her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and generally get out of the business of regulating everything at the Federal level. States need to have more power to manage their own affairs, because most of them are on the verge of going broke.
In order to have a zero-debt national budget, spending would have to be cut by at least 30 percent, and if you believe the Wikipedia article, more like 40 percent in FY 2012. That's on the order of a $1.5 trillion reduction in spending, yet Congress is wasting time and perfectly good oxygen arguing over whether to cut $6 billion (Dems) or $60 billion (Repubs) from spending in the current fiscal year. Let's use $50 billion as a compromise--let's see, that's 5 followed by 10 zeros divided by 15 followed by 11 zeros--canceling zeros ... 5 over 150 equals 3 and 1/3 percent, or .0333 of what needs to be cut in order to stop the national debt from growing. And Harry Reid and his buddies talk about "draconian" cuts proposed by the Repubs. Idiots! We need to get rid of whole departments!
Not that there's a shortage of idiocy floating around. The MSM won't report this because they're ideologically in bed with the Reids and Pelosis of the world, so voters, who have a vague idea that we have too much debt and are adding to it at the rate of some $4 billion a day, still don't grasp either the magnitude of the problem or how close we are to crashing. I know austerity is painful, but not as painful as a total fiscal collapse of the country.
All I can say is that our political class better start growing some cojones or we'll all be dumpster diving for dinner before we know it, because the crash will make the Great Depression seem like a kindergarten picnic.
Labels: Congress, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Federal budget, government, Media inanity, Obama, Pelosi, politicians, politics, Reid, Republicans
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Civility, Violent and Eliminationalist Rhetoric
The next time some dumbass lefty tries to tell you that the Tea Party engages in uncivil and violence-promoting rhetoric and the Left does not, answer with one word: Madison. OK, so the Wisconsin GOP made the video--do you really think the whole thing was CGI? Hmmmm?
(0) comments
Labels: Democrats, Financial Reform, government, Political correctness, politicians, politics, the Left
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Charlie Rangel's Sentence
As everyone who reads should know, Charlie Rangel, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been convicted by the House Ethics Committee on eleven counts of ethics rules violations. Sentencing is to be announced today.
If I were meting out the sentence, I would strip Rangel of all seniority and all the perks that go with it--i.e., he would be treated like a newly-elected freshman. I would also permanently ban him from any leadership position, including but not limited to chairmanship of any committee or subcommittee.
I realize this is harsh, but the fact is that Rangel used his position of power and influence to insulate himself from the rules that everyone else has to follow, and in so doing violated the public trust. As a committee chairman, he owed allegiance not only to his home district, but to the country at large, because his use of power affected the country at large.
With great power comes great responsibilty. When one abuses great power, one must pay a great penalty.
(0) comments
If I were meting out the sentence, I would strip Rangel of all seniority and all the perks that go with it--i.e., he would be treated like a newly-elected freshman. I would also permanently ban him from any leadership position, including but not limited to chairmanship of any committee or subcommittee.
I realize this is harsh, but the fact is that Rangel used his position of power and influence to insulate himself from the rules that everyone else has to follow, and in so doing violated the public trust. As a committee chairman, he owed allegiance not only to his home district, but to the country at large, because his use of power affected the country at large.
With great power comes great responsibilty. When one abuses great power, one must pay a great penalty.
Labels: Congress, Corruption, Democrats, politicians, Rangel
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Suspicions Confirmed
For quite some time now, I have noted that the Democrats and Republicans have different definitions for the same terms. For example, to a Dem, "special interests" is more or less synonymous with "greedy corporations" and "Wall Street bankers" and "the rich", while to a Repub, the term means something like "big labor" and "welfare rights organizations" and "illegal immigration proponents."
The word "compromise" likewise has different meanings. Webster's first definition is "a settlement of differences by mutual adjustment or modification of opposing claims, principles, demands, etc.; agreement by mutual concession." By and large that's pretty much what a Repub means when he uses the word. It's my perception, however, that when a Dem calls for "compromise," what he really means is "you do it my way."
And so we come to an article in The Hill (online edition, 6 Nov 2010), headlined, "Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts."
Well, there you go.
(0) comments
The word "compromise" likewise has different meanings. Webster's first definition is "a settlement of differences by mutual adjustment or modification of opposing claims, principles, demands, etc.; agreement by mutual concession." By and large that's pretty much what a Repub means when he uses the word. It's my perception, however, that when a Dem calls for "compromise," what he really means is "you do it my way."
And so we come to an article in The Hill (online edition, 6 Nov 2010), headlined, "Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts."
Well, there you go.
Labels: Democrats, Humor, Obama, politicians, Republicans
Friday, November 05, 2010
Chris Matthews and Barney Frank
Is it just me, or are Chris Matthews and Barney Frank extraordinarily similar in both substance and style?
They're both lefties, they're both condescending, bombastic and arrogant, they both interrupt as soon as they hear something they don't like ... what's the dif?
So is Matthews a sock puppet of Frank's, or vice versa?
(0) comments
They're both lefties, they're both condescending, bombastic and arrogant, they both interrupt as soon as they hear something they don't like ... what's the dif?
So is Matthews a sock puppet of Frank's, or vice versa?
Labels: Democrats, media bias, politicians, the Left
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Day!
First of all, GO VOTE! if you haven't already.
Second, I'm looking forward to a very interesting evening of return-watching. Might even be more entertaining than Jon Stewart's rally last weekend. All the pundits have been exhibiting a herd mentality in stating that "the folks" won't be voting for Republicans, but rather they'll be voting against Democrats. Some Dem pundits are spinning it a bit differently, saying the voters are revolting "against Washington," but I don't buy that because there are too many open seats that are going to the Repubs.
I generally agree with the pundits that the voters are down on the Dems, and that the Repubs better respond to the public mood or there'll be hell to pay in two years. It would not surprise me to see a center-right third party emerge if the Repubs don't toe the mark. A centrist third party would be a natural home for both the disenfranchised Dems who can't abide the Obama-Pelosi style statism and those Repubs who aren't big on social issues but want a return to fiscal responsibility and a coherent set of policies, both domestic and international.
(0) comments
Second, I'm looking forward to a very interesting evening of return-watching. Might even be more entertaining than Jon Stewart's rally last weekend. All the pundits have been exhibiting a herd mentality in stating that "the folks" won't be voting for Republicans, but rather they'll be voting against Democrats. Some Dem pundits are spinning it a bit differently, saying the voters are revolting "against Washington," but I don't buy that because there are too many open seats that are going to the Repubs.
I generally agree with the pundits that the voters are down on the Dems, and that the Repubs better respond to the public mood or there'll be hell to pay in two years. It would not surprise me to see a center-right third party emerge if the Repubs don't toe the mark. A centrist third party would be a natural home for both the disenfranchised Dems who can't abide the Obama-Pelosi style statism and those Repubs who aren't big on social issues but want a return to fiscal responsibility and a coherent set of policies, both domestic and international.
Labels: Democrats, Election, politicians, politics, Republicans
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Recovery Summer?
The image to the left (click to enlarge), which appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, 31 August as part of this story (might be behind a subscription firewall), is definitely worth a thousand words.
I'm no economist, but what these graphs say to me is, the recovery is anemic and might be headed for a "double dip", the stimulus didn't work, and the Administration and its allies in Congress have both made the recession worse and are killing economic recovery as a result of excessive and irresponsible debt and tax measures.
We MUST get rid of those people in November. If we don't, look at the videos of recent events in Greece--that's what our cities will look like in another year.
Labels: Congress, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Economics, Economy, government, Obama, Recession, Recovery, Stimulus, Tax policy
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Obama's Speeches
I watched the signing of the Finance Reform bill a little while ago. Sad.
What's sadder (because I weep for my country that it has chosen Mr. Obama to be President), is that every time I hear Obama speak, I am reminded of the old joke about the Three Big Lies.
For those of you who were born yesterday, the Three Big Lies are:
(0) comments
What's sadder (because I weep for my country that it has chosen Mr. Obama to be President), is that every time I hear Obama speak, I am reminded of the old joke about the Three Big Lies.
For those of you who were born yesterday, the Three Big Lies are:
"This won't hurt a bit."How much damage can this guy, along with his allies Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Dems in Congress, do before he's turned out of office? I don't want to find out, because I suspect that it will involve our Constitution being rendered a dead letter.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
"Of course I'll respect you in the morning." (or some variation on that theme)
Labels: Constitution, Democrats, Financial Reform, government, Humor, Obama, Pelosi, Reid
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Sestak's Job Offer
At this point only those directly involved know exactly what was said to Joe Sestak (D-PA) about the good things he would experience if he dropped out of the Democrat primary race for PA senator. I find it interesting, however, that the person allegedly dispatched to talk to Sestak was former Pres. Bill Clinton. I can't think of anyone who has a better and clearer track record of being able to dance around answers to potentially embarrassing questions or, for that matter to abjectly lie to the public..
I think the only hope we have of ever finding out who said what to whom and at whose bidding is to put Sestak, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and perhaps Obama under oath and ask them the kinds of questions a good prosecutor would ask on cross-examination. It would be interesting to see who "takes the fifth" and with respect to what questions. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen unless and until the Repubs take the House and Senate, and hold hearings on the matter, and maybe not even then, because I suspect the Dems have a closet full of dirty laundry about some high-ranking Repubs that they would publicly air in that event.
That said, the episode reeks of the Chicago way brought to Washington by Obama and his cohorts, and it should cause some political fallout.
(0) comments
I think the only hope we have of ever finding out who said what to whom and at whose bidding is to put Sestak, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and perhaps Obama under oath and ask them the kinds of questions a good prosecutor would ask on cross-examination. It would be interesting to see who "takes the fifth" and with respect to what questions. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen unless and until the Repubs take the House and Senate, and hold hearings on the matter, and maybe not even then, because I suspect the Dems have a closet full of dirty laundry about some high-ranking Repubs that they would publicly air in that event.
That said, the episode reeks of the Chicago way brought to Washington by Obama and his cohorts, and it should cause some political fallout.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Chicago, Corruption, Democrats, Obama, politics, Rahm Emanuel
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
FI #3
No sooner do I click the "publsh post" button than I see this.
Here's the gist:
(0) comments
Here's the gist:
The U.S. vice president, opening his address in Belgium, argued that Brussels -- considering its rich history and abundance of international institutions -- could well be the "capital of the free world."He suggested that Washington, D.C., his home, is undeserving of that title -- notwithstanding its wealth of global organizations and the countless international summits that take place there.
"As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C. as the 'capital of the free world,'" Biden said. "But it seems to me that in this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title."
Good ol' Joe. He's always lurking among the top 10 candidates for FI awards, and will probably eventually be given an FI Lifetime Achievement award. I gotta say that the much-maligned Dan Quayle isn't even on the same planet as Biden when it comes to gaffes.
Query: When, oh when, will our government officials start representing the interests of the United States of America? (When there's a new administration. -- Ed.)
Labels: Democrats, diplomacy, Joe Biden
FI Award #2
FI Award* number two goes to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), former US Navy Admiral and contender for the Senate seat to be vacated by "true blue" Arlen Specter at the end of the current term, for his stellar performance on Meet the Press" last Sunday.
Several months ago, Sestak revealed that someone in the Obama White House had offered him a job, intimating the offer was conditional on Sestak withdrawing from the Dem. primary against the aforementioned exemplar of honorable behavior, Sen. Specter. When asked for clarification, Sestak has consistently stonewalled. Any politician worth his stripes would have realized that it is now time to shut up, but on Sunday, Sestak brought the old news back to the front burner by repeating his claim before stonewalling again. But don't rely on that right wing tool Fox News--the LA Times has a lot to say about it as well (in an unexpectedly snarky piece), and even presents a transcript of the conversation. That Sestak permitted this issue to bubble up again suggests that he just might not be ready for prime time, and that's why he's FI #2.
The White House, of course, has joined Sestak in the "see no evil, hear no evil" club (too late for "speak no evil"). According to WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's answer to "Baghdad Bob," "[L]awyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened." Hmmm. Fox, meet henhouse.
By the way, it is a crime under 18 USC Sec. 600 for a government official to offer a job to a candidate to induce that candidate to withdraw from an election. Here's the entire text of that law:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is trying to get to the bottom of this, but I don't expect he'll get anywhere unless some "deep throat" comes forward, or unless the White House offers up some lamb for sacrifice.
Hope and Change!
* For explanation of the FI Award, go here.
(0) comments
Several months ago, Sestak revealed that someone in the Obama White House had offered him a job, intimating the offer was conditional on Sestak withdrawing from the Dem. primary against the aforementioned exemplar of honorable behavior, Sen. Specter. When asked for clarification, Sestak has consistently stonewalled. Any politician worth his stripes would have realized that it is now time to shut up, but on Sunday, Sestak brought the old news back to the front burner by repeating his claim before stonewalling again. But don't rely on that right wing tool Fox News--the LA Times has a lot to say about it as well (in an unexpectedly snarky piece), and even presents a transcript of the conversation. That Sestak permitted this issue to bubble up again suggests that he just might not be ready for prime time, and that's why he's FI #2.
The White House, of course, has joined Sestak in the "see no evil, hear no evil" club (too late for "speak no evil"). According to WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's answer to "Baghdad Bob," "[L]awyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened." Hmmm. Fox, meet henhouse.
By the way, it is a crime under 18 USC Sec. 600 for a government official to offer a job to a candidate to induce that candidate to withdraw from an election. Here's the entire text of that law:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is trying to get to the bottom of this, but I don't expect he'll get anywhere unless some "deep throat" comes forward, or unless the White House offers up some lamb for sacrifice.
Hope and Change!
* For explanation of the FI Award, go here.
Labels: Democrats, Election, government, politics
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
An Observation
As the political season heats up, I find myself more and more muttering "F---ing idiot!" under my breath.
Case in point: Connecticut's AG and Dem Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal.
Maybe I'll make the "FI award" a regular thing on this blog. We're certainly in a target-rich environment.
(0) comments
Case in point: Connecticut's AG and Dem Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal.
Maybe I'll make the "FI award" a regular thing on this blog. We're certainly in a target-rich environment.
Labels: Democrats, Election, politics
Sunday, March 21, 2010
They Voted, and So Will I
There is no such thing as a "moderate Democrat" or a "blue dog Democrat." If there ever was, they are no longer.
When it came down to defending the rights of the unborn, Rep. Stupak (or is it Stupid?), who prominently claimed to be a champion of the anti-abortion side, prostituted himself for a purported promise by Barack Obama that he would issue an executive order banning the use of federal funds for abortions (at least, that's how I understand it). If so, that's bullshit and Mr. Stupid knows it. A presidential order cannot prevail against the clear language of a statute duly enacted. It's a fraud, and Stupid should be ashamed to have such round heels. He showed what he's made of (as well as his so-called pro life colleagues on the Democrat side) and it doesn't compare well with Lyndon Johnson's "bucket of warm spit".
It's a sad day for the Republic, and unless something drastic happens, this country will repeat the sad history of the Soviet Union because of these idiots. Thanks a lot for ruining the lives of my kids and grandkids, you sorry collection of pond scum!
I have voted for Dems in the past on occasion, but I will not vote for another Democrat unless and until all those currently living have died and been replaced by people of honor. Since I am in my mid-60s, that means I never will again. I can and do respect people who disagree with me if they are honest and hold their beliefs in good faith, but I don't think the current crop of Dems are either honest or possess good faith. May they all be cursed with failure in everything they do and may they rot in Hell for eternity when they die.
(0) comments
When it came down to defending the rights of the unborn, Rep. Stupak (or is it Stupid?), who prominently claimed to be a champion of the anti-abortion side, prostituted himself for a purported promise by Barack Obama that he would issue an executive order banning the use of federal funds for abortions (at least, that's how I understand it). If so, that's bullshit and Mr. Stupid knows it. A presidential order cannot prevail against the clear language of a statute duly enacted. It's a fraud, and Stupid should be ashamed to have such round heels. He showed what he's made of (as well as his so-called pro life colleagues on the Democrat side) and it doesn't compare well with Lyndon Johnson's "bucket of warm spit".
It's a sad day for the Republic, and unless something drastic happens, this country will repeat the sad history of the Soviet Union because of these idiots. Thanks a lot for ruining the lives of my kids and grandkids, you sorry collection of pond scum!
I have voted for Dems in the past on occasion, but I will not vote for another Democrat unless and until all those currently living have died and been replaced by people of honor. Since I am in my mid-60s, that means I never will again. I can and do respect people who disagree with me if they are honest and hold their beliefs in good faith, but I don't think the current crop of Dems are either honest or possess good faith. May they all be cursed with failure in everything they do and may they rot in Hell for eternity when they die.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, Health Care, Obama, politics
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Slaughter Solution = No Solution
So Nancy Pelosi, apparently lacking enough votes to pass the bogus Obamacare bill in connection with the reconciliation scheme, is now trying to give her reluctant (i.e., cowardly) charges the ability to "pass" the bill without the "up or down vote" that Pres. Obama recently called for. I guess the plan is for the Dem congress members to go home over break and claim with a straight face that they "didn't vote for Obamacare." Not only is this an unconstitutional abomination, it shows how stupid the Dem leadership is if they think the folks back in the hinterlands are not wise to the game.
(0) comments
The Founders were men of honor and courage, unlike many of the current political class. Having lived under the tyranny of George III, the drafters of the Constitution did their best to make it tyrant proof. Unfortunately, when two or all three branches are controlled by dishonorable cowards, there is no such thing as "tyrant proof."
If Obamacare becomes law, whether via the "Slaughter solution" or otherwise, our only chance of salvation will lie with the Supreme Court, and I would not put it past this bunch to emasculate that body somehow, or at least those Justices who believe that the words in the Constitution actually mean something concrete per se, as opposed to being "guidelines" which cast "penumbras" from which rights "emanate."
I continue to be astounded at the degree to which Obama, Pelosi and Reid (Oh, my!) seem to be using the nation portrayed in "Atlas Shrugged" as a template for their plans for our country. They deserve every bit of the infamy that their activity will engender. It's a shame that our laws provide no way of getting rid of them before the next election cycle, because the amount of damage they can do in the next couple of years will be flabbergasting.
Labels: Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Health Care, Obama, Pelosi, politics, Reid
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Joe Izuzu and Weasels
A couple days ago I was watching Mr. Obama expound on the necessity for the Senate to pass the abomination known as health care reform. He went on and on about how the bill would lower costs and improve health care for all Americans. Just then it hit me--Barack Obama is Joe Isuzu!
I mean, just think about it. He said he didn't want to take over the banking industry and here he is setting salary caps and doing other things that have the banks scrambling to get out from under TARP.
He said he had no interest in running the auto companies, and here we have GM and Chrysler as subsidiaries of the US Treasury.
He said Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war, and here we are, with Obama following essentially the Bush plan for Iraq (which I happen to think is a good thing, but that's not the point); and in Afghanistan he announced a strategy back in what, February? He appointed his hand-picked general, an expert in counterinsurgency, and told him to go slay the dragon. Five or six months later the general came back to him and said he needed 40,000 additional troops to carry out the mission. Obama then took 3 months to re-evaluate the mission, and then gave the hand-picked general three quarters of what he asked for, while throwing in a bonus for the enemy by setting a withdrawal "guideline." It's a testimony to Gen. McChrystal's patriotism and professionalism that he didn't resign.
It seems every time Obama says he has no interest in doing something, it turns out that is exactly what he does. So far he hasn't channeled Flip Wilson's "The devil made me do it!" but I'm waiting.
What a concept--Joe Isuzu combined with Flip Wilson. Except I don't think Obama is or will be all that funny.
As for the weasels, just look at the Dems in Congress. Both houses. Especially Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. "Whore" is too good a word. The behavior of Harry Reid and his minions is nothing short of shameful. Their arrogance and stupidity in ignoring both their Republican colleagues and the clear desire of the American people in passing their versions of Obamacare is breathtaking. If either version (or some cobbled-together "compromise") gets signed into law, they'll be taking more than breath. Hold on to your wallets. What will be the effect of all the tax increases, on top of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, on the so-called economic recovery? I'm seeing a double-dip recession, with the second "dip" looking more like a bathtub.
I'm hoping I'm wrong and that the American people and economy will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the current recession. If they do, it will happen in spite of the efforts of Obama and his fellow travelers.
(0) comments
I mean, just think about it. He said he didn't want to take over the banking industry and here he is setting salary caps and doing other things that have the banks scrambling to get out from under TARP.
He said he had no interest in running the auto companies, and here we have GM and Chrysler as subsidiaries of the US Treasury.
He said Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war, and here we are, with Obama following essentially the Bush plan for Iraq (which I happen to think is a good thing, but that's not the point); and in Afghanistan he announced a strategy back in what, February? He appointed his hand-picked general, an expert in counterinsurgency, and told him to go slay the dragon. Five or six months later the general came back to him and said he needed 40,000 additional troops to carry out the mission. Obama then took 3 months to re-evaluate the mission, and then gave the hand-picked general three quarters of what he asked for, while throwing in a bonus for the enemy by setting a withdrawal "guideline." It's a testimony to Gen. McChrystal's patriotism and professionalism that he didn't resign.
It seems every time Obama says he has no interest in doing something, it turns out that is exactly what he does. So far he hasn't channeled Flip Wilson's "The devil made me do it!" but I'm waiting.
What a concept--Joe Isuzu combined with Flip Wilson. Except I don't think Obama is or will be all that funny.
As for the weasels, just look at the Dems in Congress. Both houses. Especially Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. "Whore" is too good a word. The behavior of Harry Reid and his minions is nothing short of shameful. Their arrogance and stupidity in ignoring both their Republican colleagues and the clear desire of the American people in passing their versions of Obamacare is breathtaking. If either version (or some cobbled-together "compromise") gets signed into law, they'll be taking more than breath. Hold on to your wallets. What will be the effect of all the tax increases, on top of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, on the so-called economic recovery? I'm seeing a double-dip recession, with the second "dip" looking more like a bathtub.
I'm hoping I'm wrong and that the American people and economy will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the current recession. If they do, it will happen in spite of the efforts of Obama and his fellow travelers.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, Economics, Economy, government, Health Care, Obama, politics, Tax policy
Monday, October 19, 2009
The United States of Emasculation
I have reluctantly come to the opinion that the United States is deeply engaged in, to put it in most vulgar terms, cutting its own balls off.
This process began, at the latest, during the Clinton administration (remember the "peace dividend"?) and continued at a diminished rate during the Bush administration, but in the past the instrument used might be likened to a political scalpel, whereas now the Obama administration favors a chainsaw.
Let's look at the record. In a little under 10 months the Obama administration, with its allies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, has enacted legislation and adopted policies that has tripled or quadrupled (depending on whom you believe) the deficit for FY 2009 and which has given rise to a projected annual deficit of $1 trillion(!) for each year of the coming decade. That means the national debt will increase by $10 trillion over that period (the annual deficit being the amount that must be borrowed in order to pay for government programs that cannot be paid for using tax revenues). And this doesn't count whatever the health care "reform" now going through the Congressional sausage factory will cost.
At some point, either taxes will have to be raised to confiscatory rates to pay the interest on the accumulated debt (not to mention the principal) or the debt will be monetized, which will result in extreme inflation. I won't go into the decrease in the confidence in the dollar in international markets, which will have its own unpleasant effects on both the US economy and US stature among the nations of the world.
Politically, Mr. Obama has to all reports gained immense popularity in other countries as a result of his globe-trotting campaign of apology for America's success over the last 200 years, and especially since the end of WWII. Unfortunately, none of this is reflected in improved relationships with other nations. Rather, it has given rise to fear among our allies and contempt among our enemies.
Our allies fear that the US will abdicate its role as defender of freedom (the US military being the only one that can stand up to Russia;s and China's) and that they will finally either have to take responsibility for their own defense or kowtow to the likes of Russia and China now, and perhaps Iran and Venezuela later. The willingness, and maybe even ability of the US to maintain the strongest military in the world is now in question for the first time since 1950.
Our enemies now believe that the United States is unwilling to do what it takes to deter them from acting to the detriment of the United States and its allies. For example, Obama canceled the ABM installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, but has received no quid pro quo from Russia in terms of the Iranian nuclear program nor anywhere else. Russia is embarked on a program to make Western Europe dependent on Russian natural gas, which will give it immence leverage over our NATO allies. Even Iran itself seems convinced that the Obama administration has no stomach for military intervention and so is willingly engaging in useless negotiations to keep us busy while it continues its enrichment and weapons programs, including both bomb manufacture and delivery systems.
I could go on and on with examples of how the Obama administration is seemingly embarked on a program to sap the economic, military and diplomatic strength of the United States. The result is not going to be pretty, either in terms of our standard of living or our security.
Realizing that Mr. Obama will not be running in next year's Congressional elections, I believe that the only thing that will rescue the United States from a very bleak future is to unseat the enablers in Congress who are either actively pursuing or going along with Obama's programs. This includes Republicans as well as the perhaps more obvious Democrats. But if Obama's supporters lose their majorities, then a lot of the damage might be aborted before the programs take root and begin to grow.
The problem is, as Glenn Reynolds has pointed out many times, our present political class is the worst in our nation's history. I personally suspect that a majority of them would have been bunko artists, but they're too incompetent to make it in the marketplace, so they ran for elective office instead, where they commit a form of bunko every day and it's legal. The honorable members of Congress are in the minority, and in my observation it's difficult to attract people who both have talent and honor to run for office.
To quote C3PO, "We're doomed!" Where are Luke Skywalker, Obi-wan, Yoda and Han Solo when we need them?
(0) comments
This process began, at the latest, during the Clinton administration (remember the "peace dividend"?) and continued at a diminished rate during the Bush administration, but in the past the instrument used might be likened to a political scalpel, whereas now the Obama administration favors a chainsaw.
Let's look at the record. In a little under 10 months the Obama administration, with its allies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, has enacted legislation and adopted policies that has tripled or quadrupled (depending on whom you believe) the deficit for FY 2009 and which has given rise to a projected annual deficit of $1 trillion(!) for each year of the coming decade. That means the national debt will increase by $10 trillion over that period (the annual deficit being the amount that must be borrowed in order to pay for government programs that cannot be paid for using tax revenues). And this doesn't count whatever the health care "reform" now going through the Congressional sausage factory will cost.
At some point, either taxes will have to be raised to confiscatory rates to pay the interest on the accumulated debt (not to mention the principal) or the debt will be monetized, which will result in extreme inflation. I won't go into the decrease in the confidence in the dollar in international markets, which will have its own unpleasant effects on both the US economy and US stature among the nations of the world.
Politically, Mr. Obama has to all reports gained immense popularity in other countries as a result of his globe-trotting campaign of apology for America's success over the last 200 years, and especially since the end of WWII. Unfortunately, none of this is reflected in improved relationships with other nations. Rather, it has given rise to fear among our allies and contempt among our enemies.
Our allies fear that the US will abdicate its role as defender of freedom (the US military being the only one that can stand up to Russia;s and China's) and that they will finally either have to take responsibility for their own defense or kowtow to the likes of Russia and China now, and perhaps Iran and Venezuela later. The willingness, and maybe even ability of the US to maintain the strongest military in the world is now in question for the first time since 1950.
Our enemies now believe that the United States is unwilling to do what it takes to deter them from acting to the detriment of the United States and its allies. For example, Obama canceled the ABM installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, but has received no quid pro quo from Russia in terms of the Iranian nuclear program nor anywhere else. Russia is embarked on a program to make Western Europe dependent on Russian natural gas, which will give it immence leverage over our NATO allies. Even Iran itself seems convinced that the Obama administration has no stomach for military intervention and so is willingly engaging in useless negotiations to keep us busy while it continues its enrichment and weapons programs, including both bomb manufacture and delivery systems.
I could go on and on with examples of how the Obama administration is seemingly embarked on a program to sap the economic, military and diplomatic strength of the United States. The result is not going to be pretty, either in terms of our standard of living or our security.
Realizing that Mr. Obama will not be running in next year's Congressional elections, I believe that the only thing that will rescue the United States from a very bleak future is to unseat the enablers in Congress who are either actively pursuing or going along with Obama's programs. This includes Republicans as well as the perhaps more obvious Democrats. But if Obama's supporters lose their majorities, then a lot of the damage might be aborted before the programs take root and begin to grow.
The problem is, as Glenn Reynolds has pointed out many times, our present political class is the worst in our nation's history. I personally suspect that a majority of them would have been bunko artists, but they're too incompetent to make it in the marketplace, so they ran for elective office instead, where they commit a form of bunko every day and it's legal. The honorable members of Congress are in the minority, and in my observation it's difficult to attract people who both have talent and honor to run for office.
To quote C3PO, "We're doomed!" Where are Luke Skywalker, Obi-wan, Yoda and Han Solo when we need them?
Labels: Congress, Democrats, diplomacy, Economics, Finance, government, Obama, politics
