Friday, December 16, 2011
The so called equal protection clause did not exist in the US Constitution until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868; the 14th amendment was “reconstruction amendment” designed to address issues the borne out of the civil war. The wording was as follows;
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In essence the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment gave teeth to the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. At the end of the end of the civil war, the southern states continued to use states rights to continue Jim Crow laws the oppressed blacks. Contrary to popular understandings, the Constitutional rights and protections were meant only to constrain the federal government; the states were empowered to make up any type of government they wanted, using what ever laws they wanted, as long as they acquiesced to the federal government the enumerated powers in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment changed that, saying that the states were also bound to the Constitutional rights and protections. In other words, the equal protection clause guaranteed that no matter which state one was in, they would have the same (or equal) civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Chief Justice Melville Fuller commented on the 14th Amendment said, By the Fourteenth Amendment the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.
The consequences of the 14th Amendment extended much further than protecting the civil rights of slaves. Many have commented on the convoluted wording of the Bill of Rights. As i said before, the Constitutional rights and protections were meant only to constrain the federal government; it was the states that had the rights and protections not individuals. . Our founders believed that the states were free to have any government they desired as long as they aquisteted to the federal government it's enumerated powers (a list of enumerated powers are found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution). Our founding fathers further believed that if any of these governments became too tyrannical, the citizens could simply move to another state. In actuality, many of the states simply adopted most the rights and protections from the Federal Constitution to their State Constitutions, however with the State Courts having jurisdiction. However, the Federal Court started to incrementally incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states. As an example, prior to the 14th Amendment, the states were free to adopt gun control of any kind, including banning them altogether; the reason for the wording of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the Federal Government from disarming state militias. When the Federal Court turned their attention to the second Amendment they determined, the states had to adhere to the rights to bear arms to their citizenry originally written to protect the rights of the states. Where the states had been permitted to strict gun control, the Federal Court is now slowly stripping away this authority. Whether this will continue is unknown as the court was heavily divided on the issue and a change of courts makeup could easily lead to a reverse decision.
The second part is Progressive; progressive means proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments. Progressives believe that the US Constitution is conceptually flawed, because it does not give the government the responsibility to redistribute wealth and thereby fund the mandate that all citizens will at least have an acceptable minimum standard of living; in other wards it is not a socialist document (Progressives have been incrementally introducing this and other socialists concepts since the time of FDR) .
The best example of SP in government is Cass Sunstein, President Obama's Czar of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that “people” (not him of course) as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to “nudge” them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as“ education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness..”; yes happiness, government knows better than you, what direction you need to be nudged to be happy. Sunstien also believes there are problems with the concept of freedom of speech. Sunstien believes that citizens with mutual interests, should not exchange ideas as “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another.” Sunstien basically believes that the government needs to control the information you hear and that he “doubt(s) whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals”.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
B of A, hit by a credit downgrade last month, has moved derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a subsidiary flush with insured deposits, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
However, this is completely illegal.
Keeping such deals separate from FDIC-insured savings has been a cornerstone of U.S. regulation for decades, including last year’s Dodd-Frank overhaul of Wall Street regulation.
But, to no ones surprise, the Federal reserve is all in favor of this,
The Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. disagree over the transfers, which are being requested by counterparties, said the people, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The Fed has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company, while the FDIC, which would have to pay off depositors in the event of a bank failure, is objecting.
The issue here is the Fed is a private organization who's board members include those that run B of A and Merrill Lynch! In a blog called Seeking Alpha Avery Goodman explains,
The Federal Reserve is an institution largely controlled by those who are probably the counter-parties to the Merrill Lynch derivatives. No doubt, its approval of the transaction, in spite of the prohibitions of section 23A arise out of a claim that Merrill is not a "bank" as defined under the Act, and, therefore, not an affiliate.
And while this transfer is obviously illegal,
Congress has given ultimate power to the Federal Reserve to ignore its own enabling Act legislation...The FDIC opposed the move, but there is nothing the FDIC can do, except file a petition for a writ of mandamus in court, against the Federal Reserve, seeking a declaration that the approval was illegal. But, the FDIC would lose, because Congress has given the Federal Reserve Board ultimate power to do whatever it wishes.
So there is no stopping this form of thievery unless we abolish or severely restrict the Federal Reserve. This has got to stop!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Mitt is the real flip-flopper
Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, has the audacity to say fellow Republican Rick Perry has flip-flopped on Social Security. Romney will probably win the Republican presidential nomination, but in order to do so, he's lost most of his principles. Mitt has shamelessly renounced his former positions on abortion, gay rights and immigration, making himself indistinguishable from the tea party crowd. Now Mr. Romney is telling us how he will tackle spending and debt. He will abolish Obama's health program on his first day in office by executive order leaving 40 million Americans in a lurch and once again uninsured. Mitt Romney, as president, will eliminate subsidies for Amtrak, leaving millions of rail passengers stranded. Mitt will enact deep reductions in the subsidies for the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And this man wants to be president.
Ron Lowe, Santa Cruz
My Response: I'm no great fan of Mitt Romney, but Ron Lowes letter is typical of the left espousing that if the Federal Government doesn't pay for it, it will never be funded. First of all California pays $90 million a year subsidizing Amtrak. Perhaps the Federal Government can take less from the states and let them use their money as they want to. Ron Lowes Health Insurance rant is a total fallacy. First, even if you want ObamaCare it has yet to be implemented, so those 40 million people don't have any insurance yet to be "lurched" away. Further there have never been 40 million people in the US without health insurance. This again is where the left likes to create numbers to suit their argument. The real number of American citizens that are uninsured is 10-12 million. Yes that's a lot of people, but you don't have to re-create government to insure them. The real issue are the illegal aliens that account for about 10 million more uninsured. But when discussing the drain illegal aliens have on the US economy, the left will claim there are only 10 million, but when they estimate those uninsured, it grows to 30 million.
As far as defunding NPR and the NEA, this is the price they pay for ignoring their mandate to be politically neutral and propagandizing for the left.
Then from under a rock comes the typical blame bush diatribe.
Ca pays more into fed than it receives. The states that receive more than they send to the fed are red states. I am not a fan of illegals being here. Radical right starting wars for PNAC agenda, spending trillions, loaning 14 trillion to foreign banks, death of literally thousands of American soldiers, and running deficits to subsidies family friends needs to be balanced by centrists. The centrists you call lefties, are more conservative than republicans of 20 years ago. Romney s staff is largely radical extremist members of the PNAC authors. Look at what destruction that has done to America. History is false promises like the GOPs unfulfilled Contract with America are just hot air talking points. How about you pay your debts to America for previous fabrications before you get any seats anywhere.
International studies on productivity showed the most productive countries spent less on health care by providing universal coverage. If a job made you crazy hateful of fellow human beings, you could change jobs. Doing something enjoyed raises productivity. Californians spend billions more on health care annually because costs of uninsured is passed onto ratepayers. You would save money by providing universal coverage. So some uninsured patient does not go untreated for TB, and you interact with them making you sick. Deep subject.
My response: Kris Miller If you paid attention you would know that the Bush TARP money was only $700 billion of which only $432 billion was disbursed and all but $19 billion has been returned with interest. It was the Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke under the Obama administration that opened the flood gates of $1.2 trillion to investment bankers all over the world, mainly through AIG. At the Tim Geithner, was transitioning from the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank to President Obama's Treasury Secretary; Giethner tried to insulate himself by saying he was in limbo at the time (between jobs) and was not involved or aware of the trillion dollars that was distributed by AIG, but emails from lawyers at the New York Fed at the time, instructed AIG not to discuss how the funds were distributed. When congress wanted to know exactly were the money went, Bernanke told our elected officials he did have to tell them how the funds were distributed, so wasn't going to tell them. Further, no party is immune from war causalities; the Democrats overwhelmingly endorsed the invasion of Iraq, and over a thousand US soldiers have died in Afghanistan since Obama became commander and chief.
What history tells us is the method of implementing socialism is to promise much more than any country can ever deliver and then "reluctantly" impose austerity measures. This is the same for socialized medicine. The US has the most advanced medical care in the world, but when the WHO rates medical care they rate all those with socialized medical care over the US; regardless of the true care delivered and the other systems that ranks the US poor such as Infant mortality are equally as flawed. Socialized medicine is now bankrupting every first world country where it exists;. In the US medical procedures such as MRI's and surgeries are determined by the patient's needs, in countries such as Canada and Britain they ration these medical and surgical procedures; in Britain they have NICE to determine if you will live long enough to justify the expense of any medical procedures.
You also seem to have quite a problem with history, such as the GOPs Contract with America; every aspect of the contract was approved by the House and forwarded to the Senate and President Clinton, where it died. I also will take you to task on the false belief that somehow the country has moved extremely to the right. The reality is the US has been moving left for decades and the recent Tea Party movement of putting the people back in charge of the government and following the Constitution (of all things) has caused a re-aliment to the center, reveling the media and educators as the progressive ideologues that they are.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Here's the rub. There is a minimum charge for the 6 month no payment no interest on the first charge or later Special financing; usually include a $99-199 minimum. I added another purchase to the account of $40 and I am now paying a minimum payment of $35 @ month and being charged 20% interest (well that's if the balance goes over a month, otherwise you still get charged a minimum $2 interest). If you read the fine print, it is what you agreed to. However their advertisements are a bit misleading. Take a look at this
..up to 6 months to pay.
With so much advertising about the 6 month no payment no interest, there is very little info that this is a promotional offer; after your first purchase, additional charges using Bill Me Later® may be at 20% interest credit card. While ebay/PayPal promotes Bill Me Later® as Secure, fast, easy...checkout is a breeze, anyone that uses PayPal should know thay you can attach a credit card and purchase items through the credit card at what could be a much lower interest rate than 20%. Further, Bill Me Later® is definitely set up to be computer paid. Bill Me Later® does not mail it's statements, but a link is sent by email where the account holder has to log in to see their statement; for some this will mean it will be easily forgotten. There have also been numerous anecdotal complaints that mailed payments have disappeared or applied weeks after the payment was mailed, incurring a late charge (I saw nothing to substantiate this, and it may just be the realization that they have been bumped to 20% interest, but it is included just so users of Bill Me Later® pay attention to the billing.
So, if Bill Me Later® a scam? No, but it can just be misleading and like anything else you need to read the fine print before you use the service.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
It’s almost amusing watching the “high tech lynching” of Herman Cain start; almost. There is still the issue of a bunch of white folks questioning the blackness of a Presidential candidate. The MSNBC Martin Bashir's (a person of Arabic heritages) show had on a Democrat strategist and MSNBC analyst named Karen Finney; who is also a white woman. Coming out of this woman’s mouth was some of the most vile and racists remarks I have heard in a long time. One exchange went like this.
"One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy," Finney said. "I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place. I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me."
"Thank you for spelling that out," Bashir responded.
What is most telling is this exchange is the charge that Cain does not know his place, which the Liberals believe is with the Democrat Party. It has been said in Conservative corners, the Liberals tolerate blacks and they endure conservatives; but they cannot abide a successful, independent-minded black who dares to step out of line and reject the enslavement of the Plantation Party. There is no class of people more openly loathed by the Democrat Party than a black conservative.
We have seen it before and it will only get worse if Cain remains the GOP candidate to beat. Further the Democrat Party and the Liberal Press will also continue to make the racism charge against Conservatives simply because they disagree with President Obama's policies, while their racism is in the open and determined by the content of their character.
Well what did I saw? The Democrats have always portrayed successful blacks as having uncontrolled sexual impulses; the attacks on Clarence Thomas where a travesty. Now we have the Politico reporting that Herman Cain sexually harassed two women employees 15 years ago. The complaints were described as overtly sexual but suggestive behavior, that made them angry. As is typical in the business world, CEO's know you can't prove a negative. Even though the investigation showed that Cain had done nothing wrong, the women were most likely dispensed of with a pay off, as the Cain would certainly not want them around after such an incident.
In a follow-up comment one of the writers of the Politico story seems to mock himself with innuendo:
Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, who co-wrote their article on Herman Cain, told MSNBC this morning that he just isn't "going to get into the details" of what Cain allegedly said, did or "gestured." Martin cites an incident that may or may not have happened where Cain may or may not have invited a woman up to his hotel room. Cain's chief of staff said this morning that these charges are questionable at best. Relevant transcript below:
Politico's Jonathan Martin: "And also, what actually happened to these women as well, we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures. "These women felt uncomfortable, and they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain's on the road … We're just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what's in the story.
It should be noted that when more brazen reports were made about candidate Bill Clinton, where numerous women actually reported they had been raped by the future President, the Democratic machine tracked down these women and did all it could to discredit and besmirch the women. That is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals; Conservatives believe in human decency.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
I write this as a response to the question, In what way am I (conservative) (liberal)?
I still think it's interesting how we use the term Liberal in the US. In England, Liberal is defined as a love of liberty and is based on the dictates of John Locke, Edmund Burke and the US Constitution. And what we call the Liberal party in the US is the Labor Party. Using these labels I think better describes the views of those in the US and explains that there is a difference between Conservatism and Constitutionalists. The Conservative party is represented by the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. The Liberal Party (sometimes called Liberal Conservatism) is based on limited government, self governance and economic individualism. The Labor Party is center left democratic socialist party, that believes in typical socialists policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers, the welfare state, publicly-funded healthcare and education. In the US, there has always been such a stigma attached to socialism, that socialists have had to re-name themselves and finally settled on Liberal.
The following are more letters to the editor and responses in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. The first is my response to Amy Goodman’s Liberal rant warning President Obama that if he doesn’t pay attention the Occupy Wall Street group, horrors of horrors, we will return to the policies of the Bush era.
My response printed 10/18/2011: It shouldn't surprise me but it still does. Amy Goodman's article "A new Bush Era or push era," has facts that seems to have been simply been made up in the mind of another liberal. First the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations simply shows that in any big city you can get 1,000-2,000 mush-brained college students to demonstrate against "The Man;" is anyone really surprised by that? But the liberals have had movement envy, ever since the tea party movement took hold of America. Goodman also states that the arrests of 700 demonstrators in New York was "one of the largest mass arrests in U.S. history."
I'm sorry but the statement is laughable. The arrest of 700 people is not a pimple on the butt of an elephant when it comes to mass arrests in the U.S., such as in the race riots across the U.S. in 1965/68: New York, 3,776 arrested; Detroit, 7,200 arrested; Watts 3,438 arrested; and let's not forget the Rodney King riots, 1992, L.A., 11,000 arrested. So I guess you can't blame President Obama for saying whatever sounds good and making up the facts as he goes along; after all, he's a liberal and it's in his blood.
This was printed on the same day
What Occupy Wall Street really wants
Anyone who can't understand what the protesters want changed simply has a different set of values from the rest of us. For example, OWS supporters want a change in the tax code that would help reduce inequality. Conservatives think the income gap is just fine. OWS wants workers to be able to join unions and bargain collectively. Conservatives think union busting is a necessary part of running a business. OWS wants single family foreclosures stopped and worked out so families will not be thrown out. Conservatives think most of those people shouldn't have a house in the first place. OWS wants a return to one man, one vote, everyone with a right to vote, government, not one sold to the highest bidder. Conservatives think our plutocracy is the natural result of creative capitalism. And we could go on. The place from which conservatives view society is so far removed from reality, it's no wonder they have no sense of what should be changed to allow average Americans to live more productive and secure lives. OWS simply wants conservatives to get informed, become aware, quit turning their heads.
Howard F. Sosbee, Scotts Valley
My Response: Howard Sosbee is half right; Conservatives want the tax code simplified, while it still allows 47% who don’t pay any Fed taxes at all. Conservatives simply don’t want it mandatory to join unions and that workers simply have the right to work. The foreclosure debacle is the result of social engineering by Democrats, directing banks to sell mortgages to people that obviously could not afford them. Obama’s reaction was to make it more profitable to banks to foreclose on a house than restructure the loan. The plutocracy is the result of the best government money can buy; lets not forget Obama received more contributions from the fat cat bankers and Wall Street investors for the 2008 election than any other candidate in history; and he’s trying to up that record for the 2012 election. Conservatives know that no matter how compassionate and fair radical redistribution of wealth and socialism look; it always ends very badly. Take a good look at what’s going on in Europe right now.
This was an earlier piece my one of Santa Cruz liberal letter writers; printed 10/13/2011.
Give America a good laugh, Perry
What does Republican presidential wannabe Rick Perry mean when he says President Obama's administration is socialist? The tea party has been using socialist as a derogatory and defamatory catchword since they began their claptrap three years ago. I've never heard any of these populist insurgents say exactly what they mean when they denigrate the president by calling him a socialist. Now, Republican front-runner Rick Perry has latched on to socialist and is parroting the same corny lines as his tea party friends. I know perfectly well what socialist means, and it is not in the context that Perry and the tea party use it. Tell us, Mr. Perry, explain to us, what you mean by the word "socialist" as you relate it to President Obama and his administration. America needs a good laugh.
Ron Lowe, Santa Cruz
My response: Ron Lowe asks a good question; how is President Obama a Socialists. Technically he is a Fascist (or Corporatist), which is a form of socialism (adapted by the German Nazi party but not defined by it). Unlike classic socialism however, fascism allows for the ownership of property, but controls business and the means of production through a corporate structure and regulation. Further like all socialism, the rights of individuals is sacrificed for the rights of the many; referred to as collectivism. ObamaCare is classic socialism; where individual medical plans are done away with, instead you have the creation of one size fits all health plans using government panels to determine the quality of care allowed. President Obama has imposed some 75 major regulations that have cost business and the American people over $40 billion. More troubling is President Obama’s Rule by Regulation where he bye passes congress to implement policies, that constitutionally only the legislature is empowered to do. With fascism expect a government restructuring where labor unions will become an arm of the government and Presidential Czars will control every aspect of your life from what you eat, to how much profit businesses can make. That Mr Lowe is how the President is a socialist.
Monday, September 26, 2011
More letters to the editor. The last, Obama Promotes Class Warfare, was published in the Sentential on 9.24.2011
The Rich Have Piles of Money
The left likes to blame the consolidation of wealth, or the rich sitting on piles of money for this recession. In a way that is true, but it’s not like you think. First, the rich do not like to sit on piles of money; they want to use their money to make more money. In the 1999 the rich were in a quandary; they had piles of money, but because Greenspan was holding interest rates so low, there was no place to invest it. Then came the American Dream Commitment Act, a progressive attempt at social engineering, which increased mortgages at such a rate, that mortgage securities became the investment dejour. Since the sub-prime meltdown, the economy continues to languish, because unlike other burst bubbles, the middle class took a direct hit. The one place where the middle class invests large sums of money and uses the equity to make other large purchases and drives a large part of the economy, has collapsed. So yes, the rich are sitting on large piles of money, because again, there is no place to invest and the current Administration continues to create more and more regulation and law, associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform bills.
These articles on Climate Change are becoming long in the tooth (SC Sentential 9/25) . Never mind that Charles Hanley quotes some studies that have already been proven wrong, but he makes the statement that “The bases of anthropogenic- manmade global warming- has been clear for more than century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) traps heat.” This statement is the fraudulent basis for manmade global warming and has never, ever been proven. What has been known for more than a century is the reverse, that when world temperatures rise, the oceans emit a higher level of carbon dioxide; in other words heat increases CO2; not the other way around). The reason this has been turned around is that the only basis for CO2 trapping heat is in computer models, fudged to prove man made global warming exists and if it CO2 does not trap heat, then man made warming does not exist. And what is the answer to man made global warming? Why it’s a fascist world government with global re-distribution of wealth; seems a little harsh for a fudged computer model.
Obama Promotes Class Warfare
In President Obama’s recent speech schilling for his new American Jobs Act, he continually spoke of the rich paying their fair share. Parroting Warren Buffet, the President said a secretary should not have to pay a higher tax rate than her millionaire/billionaire boss. The problem with this statement is it is not true. In an AP article in the Sentinel by Stephen Ohlemacher he states what other fact checkers have confirmed that, “On the average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or poor…They pay at a higher rate ..and contribute a much larger share of overall taxes.” In 2008, Charlie Gibson questioned Candidate Obama about his desire to raise the capital gains tax. When Gibson reminded him the lower Capital Gains rates have proven in increase tax revenues, Obama replied, “What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” So we can see now that “the rich paying their fair share,” is simply code by the President for his promoting class warfare; jobs and the deficit be damned.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
1. A reactive government led by a charismatic leader who has the final say so on everything (this could also be a committee). This would allow the government to address the serious problems facing the country such as global warming and unemployment; when a problem crops up the government reacts with a solution that is immediately put into place. This does not do away with congress, but it delegates our representatives to an advisory role.
2. A fair redistribution of wealth; fascism believes in hegemony over big business and the treatment of workers. In trade with big business for reactively removing the impediments to production, the government would dictate a livable wage for all workers and a cap on profits. Labor unions would be incorporated into the government, as it would be government’s job to settle all worker disputes.
3. Care of the collective. The US Constitution is based on individual rights over the rights of the collective. Fascism would allow the government to care for the collective in more equal manner. A singlepayer high quality health plan will be a available (and mandatory) for all citizens. Since a living wage would also be mandatory, poverty as we no it would disappear.
4. On a conservative note, a fascist state would have secure borders and strictly enforced laws. There would be no question as to liberal interpretation of the Constitution or liberal judges, as the leadership of the country would be the sole arbitrator of what is right and what is acceptable. Unlike the Communist concept of, “to each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”, the fascist motto starts out the same, “to each according to their ability,” recognizing that everyone has abilities that would benefit the state and collective, the second half of the motto is, “to each according to their contribution.” In other words, fascism recognizes that ability does not necessary equate to action. In order to be supported by the state, you would need to contribute.
So fascism seems to have something for everyone. The only caveat is the end of individual rights in the name of benefiting the collective. This however this already exists in almost all governmental programs, for almost by definition government support programs paid through the distribution of wealth, support the collective not the individual. Even, so called ObamaCare, would be facilitated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has the final say so on approving medical procedures. While this approval system is advertised to “ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best,” it is in actuality a ration system, designed to lower medical costs and favors the collective or the needs of the individual.
In a recent exchange on Fox news stemming from the Hoffa comments about taking the SOB Tea Party "out", Robert Beckel was enraged that someone would call President Obama a socialist; an insult he called disgraceful and disgusting Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling Get in Heated Argument Over Hoffa Comments. Righfully Eric Bolling asked Beckel if he even knew what socialism was, to which Beckel blew up and the show took an unscheduled cut to a commercial. What is obvious from this exchange is the continuing intellectual dishonesty of the left. Beckel rightfully knows that President Obama leans toward socialism, however to allow that to be even discussed is simply to damaging to the left, so like fascism, any discussion of the President moving the country toward socialism is now labeled a pejorative by the left, so the issue can not even be discussed.
The reason the secular progressives must be intellectually dishonest, is because they know the citizenry is by definition ignorant and would never accept the principals of socialism/fascism. However, secular progressives know that socialism is what’s best for the ignorant collective, even if they don’t know what’s best for them. Therefore they must convince the citizenry that they are not socialist/fascists as the incrementally move the country in that direction. ObamaCare is a major step forward, for designed into ObamaCare is the next all encompassing government program that forces the entire population to view themselves as a collective under the care of the government.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Obama “I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations,” he said.
Insider: “The White House made offers during the negotiations,” “and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down.”
Obama:“You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they've been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues.”
Insider:“The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” our insider said. Bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase. (Boehner: Obama moved the goalpost).
Obama“We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”
Insider: “Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to ‘go big.’ But their actions never matched their rhetoric.”
Exasperated, Boehner finally said , "Listen, we've put plan after plan on the table. You know the House passed its budget. We had our plan out there. The House passed the 'Cut, Cap and Balance'. Never once did the president ever come to the table with a plan." Then he said to the Obama, " As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign"
Again, one of the column supports of socialism is always promise more than you can deliver; the socialist will look compassionate and the conservative will appear heartless. The lies will continue until, like Greece, a country you will be so deep in the hole there is no realistic way out, outside of begging other countries for help.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
One has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for John Boehner as he stated negotiating with the President is like trying to nail down Jell-O. Never has this country ever had a President who's word means so little; it’s as if every statement by the President has a 12 hour expiration date. The President has claimed he will not engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Republicans in the most derogatory terms. The President has said that not keeping the Bush tax cuts would slow the recovery and now wants to wipe out the same tax cuts even though the recovery has stalled. Obama claims the deficit is a threat to national security, but wants to increase it by $10 trillion. The President said he will balance the budget including cuts in entitlements, but has never purposed any changes to Social Security or Medicare.Trying to get the President to commit to anything concrete only results in nails covered with green slime.
In response to Brad Goodwin's letter, one has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for President Obama since negotiating with John Boehner is like talking to a rock. Never has this country ever had a speaker whose position was dictated by a pledge to a private citizen Grover Norquist. Boehner has claimed he won't engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Democrats in the most derogatory terms. The speaker has said he wants to create jobs, but has yet to offer a jobs bill. The speaker has said the deficit is a threat to national security, yet offers no solution other than cutting spending. When offered a chance to negotiate cuts to entitlements along with revenue increases, Boehner refused. Trying to get Boehner to commit to anything is like talking to a rock.
Beisners response just didn't work. He tried to use my letter as a template, but he could not address the point that the Democrats have no plan, no budget and the President won't hold himself to anything he agreed to the day before. He then tried to make it a negative that Boehner is holding fast to his principals like a rock.
One has to just shake their head and smile that Beisner is so oblivious of his own ignorance. First Boehner has never claimed to be non-partisan; he revels in his partisanship. Second, as a rock at least you know what he stands for, unlike Obama who stands only for Obama and the way the winds blow (do away with polling data and the President would be rendered mute). I, like Beisner judge politicians by the company and ideology they keep; Boehner listens to the like of Grover Norquists and the ideology of Ronald Reagen; Obama carries out the dictates of George Soros and Andy Stern; you make the call here. Poor Mr Beisner has also not yet figured out that there is no such thing as a jobs bill, government can not create jobs. However, every bill that keeps taxes low, reduces regulations and fees, shrinks government and/or creates a stable environment so small business does not have to face the uncertainty that the Democrats have created, will grow jobs; a jobs bill simply anything that gets government off the backs of employers. Further it has been said over and over, but Beisner does not get it; we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If the Democrats got their way and the Bush tax cuts were reduced to the Clinton levels, it would raise about $800 billion in ten years; the deficit is scheduled to increase by $10 trillion during the same time period; even a California High School graduate could do this math. Finally, as Democrats always do, he continually contradicts himself, sense all Democrat arguments are nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. In one sentence Beisner complains Boehner is holding steadfast to his positions (i.e. a rock) and the next he said Beisner won't commit to anything. What really stands out with Beisner reply to my article however, has nothing to do with Boehner or the Republican party. It is the fact that Beisner didn't dispute one point that I made in my earlier article. Even Beisner knows that he would look even more foolish trying to defend Obama and the fact that his word means nothing and there is no sincerity or honesty in anything; ANYTHING the president says.
I'll leave you with this. Which negotiator would you rather have on your side? Someone that is compared by his opponent as a rock, or someone that is compared by his opponents as Jello?
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
A look at pseudosciences
There are pseudosciences from eugenics to Karl Marx's inevitability of communism, Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW and even Keynesian Economics. All of these pseudosciences have one thing in common -- they do not contain a method for proving them wrong. "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs". Research methods One of the basic truisms of science is that a theory is not scientific unless it passes scrutiny, but the proponents of these pseudosciences simply claim the science is settled. Eugenics says the superior races must reduce the number of useless eaters; Marx said all human endeavors must lead to a dictatorship and collectivism; AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide; and Keynesian economics believes in government-controlled economies, which fail only due to a lack of enough stimulus. So perhaps Marx was right, a least to the point that governments will use so-called settled science to control its citizenry and redistribute wealth for the purposes of social engineering.
Brad Goodwin, Santa Cruz
scienceguy5: And with one swipe of the pen, Brad Goodwin has provided himself with an untestable psuedo-argument that allows him to use his own version of psuedo-science to gainsay anything he doesn't want to believe. Theories don't always have a built in mechanism that will allow them to be "proven" absolutely right or wrong. What scientists do is build a theory on empirical evidence. As long as the evidence supports the theory, the theory stands. When the theory can't incorporate new evidence, or new evidence flat out contradicts the theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned. That's how science works. Communism a science? Where did you come up with that? Eugenics was pure political racism, not a product of science. Economics a science? Not likely ... but I'd take a version of Keynesian over the trickle down, which has been proven BY THE EVIDENCE to NOT work (otherwise we would have been flying high after Bush, who oversaw a shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest which paled even Reagan's!). Asimov said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That says more about the observer than the technology. You've now added the corollary, "Anything I don't understand is a psuedo-science"
My reply: scienceguy5, you miss the whole point. No these are not sciences, but they are presented as science by government for the purposes of tyranny.. You apparently are not a student of history, or you would know that Communism and Eugenics were presented as social sciences at the time (making it the darling, even today, of progressive thought). I am also amused by your argument that if I say something you don't agree with then I am ignorant of the subject; this is always the rational of the left. BTW, I did not mention Keynesian economics in relation to supply side economics; I am simply of the FA Hayek thought that any attempt by the government to improve (ie control) the free market (other than reasonable regulations) will result in inevitable serfdom.
kitty-kitty46: No Brad, I don't think he missed the point. Lots of ideas are promulgated as "science" that are not. You were probably right about governments using pseudoscience to control the population, but that is hardly the realm of any particular type of government, or of governments alone. Denying that Marijuana has any legitimate medical uses based on "scientific" research, teaching "creationism" as science, or other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others. This is certainly not just a tactic of the left. Understanding complex issues is not easy, and belief is too often a substitute for critical thought.
My reply: kitty-kitty46, you say that scienceguy5 didn't miss the point, them you go on to agree with me. Yes, the marijuana laws (and drug laws in general) are ludicrous and undermining the security of our country. I will leave the government vs religion for another day. And it really doesn't matter if there are "other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others." It only matters if it is done by government, because government has the ability to forcefully control lives; it's called tyranny..
Steven Hauskins: Sorry Brad, when you make statements like this:
"AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide;"
You really don't understand what climate scientists are saying.
There is much evidence in support that human activity adds to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and that in turn causes more heat to be trapped.
Do you think human activity has caused other issues in the earth's environment? Say air pollution, ground water pollution, ocean pollution. Poisons like DDT in the food chain I suppose just got their naturally. We also have the ability to turn the entire Earth into a radioactive ghost land. Humans have a vast ability to change the world physically, with that comes a great responsibility.
As to keynesian economics and eugenics those are not hard sciences.
jaj48: The global warmers have it backwards. The heat precedes the CO2.When Greenland was Florida east,the suv was unknown.
My reply: I will agree that scientists do not say all climate change is caused by AGW, but they believe it is significant enough that we need a fascists world government to stop the damage caused by man. I thoroughly believe that man is poisoning the earth, a fact that has been relegated to the back seat because of all the attention and money being thrown at AGW. My point is it doesn't matter if Keynesian economics and eugenics are not hard sciences,if government funds them and forces the concepts as settled sciences they result in tyranny; that is why I called them pseudosciences. Further, the concept that CO2 traps heat continues to be unprovable, based solely on proxy science with very questionable research data. as jaj48 said, it is reproducible that as the ocean warms it releases CO2, but it in not reproducible that increased CO2 traps and warms the ocean. Al Gore has been called on this so many times, that he now refuses to debate the issue anymore.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Ms Costa, while listening to you on KSCO with Alfred Adask and you had a discussion on sovereignty. You remarked that that there are many you do not want to make independent decisions and that large centrally run companies are more efficient then small independent (or sovereign) businesses. While I don’t disagree with your premise, I do wonder if you have considered the unintended consequences of such efficiency. F A Hayek, describes this well in “The Road to Serfdom;”
“We must here return for a moment to the position which proceeds the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure, which makes action for action’s sake the goal.”
I would also put to you that it is government itself and not just complexity that is the driving behind the seeming inability to address today’s problems and is exacerbated by the concept of never let a crisis go to waste; the crisis becomes a vehicle, not a problem to be solved. By it’s very nature a government progressing toward planned efficiency offers much more than it can ever deliver. Any Constitution Convention, which you referred to, would no doubt end personal freedom as we know it today in the name of a perceived moral change, as President Obama once said “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."
Our Constitution is not a living document, it is a legal document meant to design a representative government while simultaneously protecting the people from government tyranny. F A Hayek also commented on the fact that those that seek public office are generally the least desirable people we would want in positions of power. It is the inefficiency and built in protections that protect our personal freedoms and protects us from fascism. I would like to qualify this by saying I am not exercising the Godwin principle nor am I referencing National Socialism. Fascism is an umbrella form of government unique to every country were it has been embraced; the President has certainly praised the Chinese fascist model, and in the US it seems to be forming around the redistribution of wealth, Cass Sunstein’s “Nudge” theory and the “infallibility of government” argument. I also believe that socialism as a governmental premise does not really exist and that most the time when people reference socialism, what they really mean is fascism.
As we reexamine the concept of never let a crisis go to waste we are also faced with fascism as the answer to every crisis or example of success. As I previously noted the "infallibility of government” argument is the product of fascism and this includes the right of government to ignore the law for the betterment of the whole. One sees this more with President Obama Administration than any other president since FDR. Obama re-defines the Libyan war as a military kinetic action in order to evade the need for Congressional approval, the TSA has been granted previously unheard of powers over person privacy at the Presidents whim and President Obama has declared his right to assassinate any American, anywhere in the world for purposes known only to him. Eastern Islam has long had a connection to fascism, which continues in it’s campaign to instill Sharia law. In an era of economic meltdowns, the threat of global warming, and terrorism, the progressive movement continues to promote the fascists model, calling it a compassionate government.
Ms Costa replied with the following.
Thanks for writing. I am not a political scientist so I look at things from a different perspective that you propose. I am a sociobiologist and as such I view the root of our problems as having more to do with hardwired evolutionary imperatives than politics, It seems to me that almost every threat we now face has become so overwhelmingly complex there are no longer any simple answers. . . we have met our match and we are now succumbing to complexity which exceeds our biological capabilities. .. if you would allow me to, it would be my privilege to send you a copy of my book. . .I would be interested to hear what you think. ..if you are interested email me your address. ..
I took her up on her offer and will follow-up.
Monday, May 30, 2011
5/7 It’s is truly interesting how the Obama Administration has embraced practically every facet of the Bush Administration and yet continues to blame his policies for our economic conundrums. Case and point is a job counting gimmick called the Birth-Death adjustment. This was a phantom job producing adjustment scorned by the Democrats under Bush and now embraced by the Obama Administration. The B-D adjustment is supposed to take into account business start-ups and those that close down. Unfortunately, the B-D adjustment is notoriously inaccurate in a recession, as new business starts are optimistically guessed upon and those that die are poorly counted. As an example, in the April 2011 job numbers, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 244,000 new jobs, of which 175,000 were made up using the B-D adjustment. This is one reason the BLS can claim job growth yet the unemployment percentage continues to increase; they are phantom jobs with phantom paychecks.
5/12 There seems to be little doubt what President Obama wants the American people to concentrate on. The whole Birther conspiracy has seemed propagated from the White House ever since Obama was elected. How else can you explain the Presidents lack of response until recently and the release of a document that was obviously designed to look other than authentic? Next we have the assassination of Osama bin Laden. While both the CIA (probably at the direction of Bush 43) and British MI5 had placed bin Laden on the back burner, while Obama instructed Leon Panetta and the CIA to find and kill him. Surely a worthy endeavor, but the mystery around the identification, including the burial at sea and the public conundrum to not show his face, leads one to believe that these decisions were made for the sole purpose of, like the Birther conspiracy, to keep the public distracted.
5/28 I’m sure Micheal Bihn was quite serious with his letter that the presence of Ring-Necked Doves in Santa Cruz was the result of global warming. Unfortunately there are a few problems with this logic. First, even those that profess the theory of global warming admit there has been no appreciable warming in the last 10 years. Second, Ring-Necked Doves are not indigenous to California, not even the United States; they are native to Africa. You see these are the doves most used for weddings and other similar celebrations. While Bihn is correct that some feral flocks have been spotted in some warm area of the country including Florida and Southern California, they are not a migratory bird and prefer very warm weather similar to their native Africa. Most Ring-Neck Doves show up after they have been released during a wedding and get lost. Thus many of these released birds die or are killed in a relatively short time by predators; so enjoy them while they last.
5/29 If one were to listen to Paul Krugman and David Brooks, one would think that a single House election in New York (26th Assembly district) is a death knell for Paul Ryan and his Medicare reform bill. What is only casually mentioned is there was a third party candidate Jack Davis that split the Republican vote. Now if this election was a referendum on the Ryan plan, then one would think Davis was opposed to the Ryan plan, but this where the issue becomes convoluted. Indeed Davis was opposed to the Ryan plan, but the Democrats spent millions in ads criticizing him for backing it. So one has to ask, were those who voted for Davis, voting for the Davis that backed the Ryan plan or the Davis that opposed it. Either way, it is difficult to determine exactly why anyone voted for Davis or what if anything this election meant in regards to Medicare reform.
5/29 On it’s face John Beisner’s complaint that Republicans prefer to let suspected terrorists buy guns seems legitimate, since they killed a bill in the Senate that would have prohibited anyone on the Terrorists Watch List from buying a firearm. However, if you look a little deeper you will understand. You see the Terrorists Watch List has quickly become an arbitrary list that contains the name of over 1 million Americans. Many of these names have been placed on the list simply because certain Intelligence officers have a quota that they must add a certain amount of names a month. The list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. Further, if you have been placed on the list, there is no mechanism to have it removed or even explain why it was placed there in the first place. If we have learned anything it’s usually an overreaching government that places your name on an involuntary list.
Based on your graph of Union membership, it appears unions have been on a slow downward trend since the 1950 (certainly before union labor went overseas). Lets not forget that up until this year the US was the largest industrial producer in the world and is still a close second to China (BTW the size of the middle class in China is 15% of the population or 197 million workers; in the US it's 91%. So there is still a lot off have-not cheap labor in China). The slow decline of unions in the private sector was the eventual result of "employee centered management" (ECM). When employees were viewed as replaceable cogs, unions had social value. However once the advantages of ECM become apparent (pioneered by Henry Ford) private sector unions became redundant and a huge impediment, managing to keep a hold through political contributions and graft. Seeing the writing on the wall, unions migrated to the public sector, were the concept of labor and management is often blurred and there is also a lack of traditional adversarial relationships. Collective bargaining in the public sector has been disastrous to State and local governments (it does not exist for federal employees) and while there will be a lot of kicking and screaming, the days of unions in the public sector are numbered.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Now if this election was a referendum on the Ryan plan, then one would think Davis was opposed to the Ryan plan, but this where the issue becomes convoluted. Indeed Davis said he is opposed to the Ryan plan, but Hochul and the Democrats have spent millions in ads criticizing him for backing it; a tactic obviously designed to keep the conservative Democrats in her court. So one has to ask, were those who voted for Davis, voting for the Davis that backed the Ryan plan or the Davis that opposed it. Either way, it is difficult to determine exactly why anyone voted for Davis. But and if you add the Republican and Tea Party votes, we find that conservatives won the election 52%/ 47%. So at best, Davis confused the electorate, and at worse, he was a Democrat in Tea Party clothing hoping to spit the Republican vote.
So no, Kathy Hochul is not Scott Brown, but John Davis does resemble Ross Perot.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
It doubt there has ever been a Presidency like Obama’s that has tied itself so closely to another; that being Bush 43. In fact one could say it is a self-inflicted wound that has caused the Obama legacy to be forever in the shadow of Bush 43. Certainly this was not the intention of the Obama administration, but with it’s endless “blame Bush” diatribes, yet the continued comparisons, Obama seems to be less his own president, but a liberal response to Bush 43. One has to wonder how the American left feels when every time the President states a controversial policy, be justifies it by saying that it was no different than what Bush espoused; wasn’t Obama supposed to be different? What really exposes this conundrum is this occurs even when it is not true! The most recent example is Obama and the liberal press, saying that his peace plan for Israel to return to the 1967 borders. The reality was Bush said the opposite, calling the idea “unrealistic”. In the final analysis, the Obama presidency may appear as nothing more than a footnote to that of George W Bush.
Friday, May 6, 2011
From the TV show "The View", "President Bush tried, President Clinton tried, but Barack Obama was the one who had the courage and the guts and the coolness (in ordering the assassination of terrorist Osama bin Laden)”. While one might agree that Clinton did not order the death of Osama bin Laden, it might be noted that bin Laden was no more than an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing at the time. Since we are talking political courage here and not the kind that involves personnel safety (that courage is left to the Navy SEALS), then few would classify Bush’s failure to eliminate bin Laden as one of a lack of political courage. There is no one that presumes Bush would not have benefited politically by bin Laden’s assassination, so the only political courage shown was that of President Obama; the political courage of the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, who has previously claimed sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, escalated one war, started another and authorized the killing of 3 pirates. So how does the recent assassination of a high value terrorist’s leader equate to political courage? Your guess is as good as mine.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
5/4 In the iconic 60’s spy comedy “Get Smart”, Maxwell Smart often ended episodes with “if only he could have used his evil genius for niceness,” which seems to be David Brooks view of Osama Bin Laden in his Op-Ed piece “What Drives History;” it’s a belief system as farcical now as it was then. It is the typical absurdity of the left, always presenting form over function. From Brooks, “Bin Laden was a gentle and soft with a flaccid handshake, yet his soldiers…(said) meeting him was a deeply spiritual experience…(he had an) ability to avoid giving offense and forgive transgressions.” Brooks ends his piece wishing there was a “democratic Bin Laden…with the ability to frame narratives and propel actions- for good not evil.” Interesting that Brooks should frame Bin Laden's strengths this way, as the left always seems to frame their historical failures, not as failed policies, but the same inability to "frame narratives and propel action," by those espousing the left's agenda." So no, we don’t need a tyrant mitigated toward democracy; we need another Thomas Jefferson or James Madison and who showed an unmitigated hatred toward tyranny.
4/20 President Obama is very good at selling himself; that is why he is always in candidate mode. He believes it doesn’t matter what you say or promise as a candidate as long as you get elected; but that doesn’t fend well with the electorate after he was elected; especially as Obama continues to state policies he has no intention on following through with. Of course this is always done for the greater good; here the greater good is redistribution of wealth. When Obama talks about deficit reduction he might as well be talking about the rings around Saturn, as it simply has no place in his reality. The President does not care about world peace, or corporate greed, or fat cat bankers, or foreclosures, or green energy, or deficits or debt; all he cares about is the re-distribution of wealth. When you understand this, all he does suddenly makes sense.
4/12 The progressives seem to be falling all over themselves trying to convince the American citizenry that the Republicans actually following through with their campaign promises is a bad thing. The liberal media is portraying the GOP as regretting its association with the Tea Party, when it was the Tea Party that ushered in the largest number of Republicans in over 60 years. The Democrat demagoguery is based, as always that America needs to abandon its belief in individual liberty and allow government to control ones life through entitlements and the re-distribution of wealth. Democrats promise more than they can ever delivers, decry fiscal responsibility as draconian, and will eventually offer socialism as their end game to solve the problems they brought on themselves. What has become obvious is that President Obama and the Democrats will say or do anything to forward their agenda, without any consideration for the truth; like the scorpion that killed the frog, it is who they are.
4/12 Pollsters continue to manipulate their polling results by either basing the poll on non-reflective demographics and/or asking poll questions in a manner that will result in a requisite result. The purpose seems to be to sustain the slipping support for President Obama and the progressive agenda in general. It is almost laughable to believe that the Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country after the last election. But Democrats cannot accept the wholesale rejection of the President and their policies because it means their belief system based on a total lack of fiscal responsibility, has failed. If one looks at past Republican Presidents, it was not policy that the citizenry rejected, it was fiscal irresponsibility. The American people are begging for a government that is willing to make the hard decisions. It is always political cowardice that leads to political failure, regardless what the liberal press wants us to believe.
4/12 It appears that the Democrats really don’t get it. They seem to be salivating, believing that any party stupid enough to try and reform Medicare will be an easy target for their demagoguery. What they seem to completely forget is this is exactly why the citizenry demonstrated a wholesale rejection of the Democrat juggernaut. The first big lie from the Democrats is the promise of entitlements that simply cannot be sustained. This lasts just long enough for the citizenry to feel entitled and for the Democrats to demagogue anyone that wants fiscal responsibility. This is always based on cuts in entitlements that should be reserved for a minority truly in need, but has been given to everyone, so any cuts in entitlements always effects the truly needy. This needs to change, but can not be accomplished by the Democrats that believes all problems can be solved by an ever increasing government and spending money we do not have.
3/31 The Democrats refused to submit a 2010 budget saying “It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit-reduction plan.” Well the commission submitted it’s plan and we still have no budget, only a “continuing resolution.” To understand this, a continuing resolution is like the Democrats saying, “We don’t need to budget our expenditures as long as he can keep getting increases on our credit card limit.” The Republicans are saying; no, just like any one else, we have to live within our means. Here the Democrats have scoffed saying the idea of a balanced budget is madness and too extreme to consider. It’s Keynesian economics at it’s best, “As long as you can borrow money you’re not broke.” In 2010 the Democrats had one Constitutional responsibility; pass a budget. They didn’t, so we now have to deal with continuing resolutions. Who’s fault is that?
3/18 Charles Krauthammer has publish two articles trying to explain there are no saved Social Security funds and as of now, Social Security is being paid for with borrowed deficit funds; still there are those that refuse to admit the money is gone. All one has to do is realize that when the government sells a bond, it is borrowing money; in this case from itself. Further the government has no mechanism for saving money; it simply takes in taxpayer money, sells bonds to borrow money and then spends the money. No matter how valuable these bonds appear to be they still need to be paid off by the government; and the government doesn't have the money! The harshest reality is every politician that says the money exists is lying and politically posturing so to criticize anyone that would actually try to fix the problem. This is cowardice and these are the bums we need to throw out.
Monday, April 11, 2011
When it comes to Medicare, President Obama first double counted a $500 billion cut in Medicare that would fund Obamacare and sustain Medicare by the same amount; then his own Debt Reduction Committee recommended a 70 percent cut in benefits and 30 percent increase in revenues.
The first big lie from Socialism is the promises of entitlements that it simply cannot be sustained. This lasts just long enough for the citizenry to feel entitled and for the Socialists to demagogue anyone that wants fiscal responsibility. The demagoguery is always based on cuts in entitlements that should be reserved for the minority truly in need, but has been given to everyone, so any cuts in entitlements always effects the truly needy. President Obama has also exposed the American people to the end game of Socialism, which is referred to as the infallibility of government. This refers to when government programs continually fail, promises are all broken and government officials continually lie to the citizenry, but the press and the citizenry itself prefer to believe in an alternate reality, where all government programs succeed and all promises are kept. The point being that socialism cannot exists when it is scrutinized; it has to be blindly accepted.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The humanitarian label was used to describe the so-called, NFZ (No Fly Zone); the idea that Libyan military aircraft was bombing and strafing civilians (aka anti-government forces). The NFZ, is to simply stop Libya from using aircraft against the rebel forces. The positive side of a NFZ is keeping Libyan aircraft on the ground is easily accomplished. While Libya has a rather formidable looking airforce on paper, reality is a different story. Yes, Libya has some 200 military aircraft including 23 Mig-21s,109 Mig-23s and 38 SU-22s, the truth is we don't know how many are actually airworthy. It may not be common knowledge, it it takes more more maintenance to fly these jets than actual flight time. We do know it was the SU-22s Gadiffi was used to bomb the protesters, resulting in one crew intentionally crashing the plane and the civilian rebels have claimed to also shot down a number of them (as I said these civilians mean business). The fact is that coalition forces were acting beyond a NFZ almost from the beginning. After taking out command and control, radar installations and anti-aircraft batteries, they started hunting for Libyan army forces; bombing troops, armament, or anything else that looks like a military target. Further, The Saudis have been arming the rebels for months in anticipation of this uprising and the US is publicly weighing the option of openly arming the rebels against Libya. This of course has led to much more collateral damage than just a NFZ and has led to dissension within the coalition, especially amongst the Arab League, where chief Amr Moussa on Sunday condemned what he called the "bombardment of civilians."
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates replied to ABC’s Jake Tapper, “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said. And of course President Obama did not notify Congress; from ABC NEWS
During his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007, Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any -- any -- use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”
When Secretary of State Clinton asked in regards to Libya, “Why not got to Congress?” she replied, “Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.” “I think that this had a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.
Clinton's response seemed especially dishonest as #1 the US had a much larger coalition under Bush in Iraq and one of the main criticism of Obama's foray into Lybia is a seemingly total lack of definition, beyond pulling out and handing over control to Canada and NATO, allowing Obama to be lead but not be in charge; something which seems to define the Obama presidency. Further, the idea that there was not time to inform Congress is absurd in the fact that Obama stated the “When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” as far back as Feb 26.
So here are the lies. This military action is humanitarian; no we have taken sides in a civil war and are bombing and invading Libya. There will be no boots on the ground; no, we already have coalition special forces working with the rebels on the ground. From The Nation“We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces.” he said, “We protect civilians.” But he followed that immediately by noting that since the opposition, even armed, are civilians, the United States will protect them, too.” Does that include sharing military intelligence? “I’m not going to talk about sharing intelligence with the Libyan opposition.”
Here is where we have an obvious dis-connect. The Obama Administration denies using coalition war planes as air support for the rebels, and British officials say "the UK force is under very clear directions not to get drawn into close combat operations with regime forces unless their own lives are threatened or in extreme circumstances in which Gaddafi forces are killing unarmed civilians" and senior official said, "Our aim is maintain a low profile, and simply deliver information and facilitate the situation for other agencies to splash (destroy) the targets." So we are meant to believe that even though the British Commandos and Rebels have the same military goals and the coalition is supplying close air support for the British Commandos on the ground, they are not for the rebels, even though the two are fighting side by side. Further the Obama Administration fudges when asked if the British Commandos and Rebels are sharing military intelligence, as if it were possible for them not to.
In the final analysis, I will leave you with another exchange that demonstrates the absurdity of the so called Humanitarian rational for the attacks on Libya; again from the UK Daily Mail,
“Q: If opposition forces are trying to take back a city that Gadhafi holds, couldn't you argue that they would be attacking civilians; and therefore, would they be targeted as well?
“GENERAL HAM: Again, I'm not crazy about...answering the hypothetical questions. We would have to look at that situation as it was unfolding. We do have a mission to protect civilians. And we would have to make an assessment as that unfolded as to what our actions might be, consistent with 1973 and consistent with our mission.”
The UK writer editorializes with, "It stretches credulity, of course, to imagine that the United States would bomb the opposition if it tried to capture a city."
So no one has been able to explain how defining all those opposed to the Gaddifi regime as civilian victims, regardless of their level of armament and how the US and NATO are simply taking sides in a civil war to remove Gaddifi from power. If not humanitarian reasons then why did President Obama involve the US? Here one has to turn to conjecture. Libya only supplies .63% of US oil, however 85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe. So it appears this is another blood for oil battle, but this time Obama is demonstrating his willingness to engage in European discretionary battles outside the national interests of the United States; bypassing congress in the process. Further, while the uprisings in Libya and other Arabic nations have been titled Democratic, there is a lot of evidence that the uprising also have an Islamic Sharia bent. It is no secret that the Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized political party in the region and it is likely the Democratic uprising will result in a "vote once" for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law. If this materializes it would result in accolades for President Obama from from the Arabic nations; something the President has been openly pursuing to the detriment of the United States previous allies such as Britain and Israel.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
We are also faced with a CBS/ NY Times poll that shows that Wisconsin voters have reversed their backing of Gov Walker to stand up to the unions to reduce the state deficits. The poll results showed those opposed to Walker 56% to 37% in favor. In a March 1, 2011 article, also in the Nation Review Jim Gerargy Dissecting These New Wisconson Polls points out the again the demographics were manipulated for a desired result. In the last general-population survey, Wisconsin showed a 36% / 35% split between Republicans and Democrats, however the poll used a 26% Republican/ 36% Democrat split. Next, 20% of the poll’s respondents claim to come from union households. “However, only 11.9% of American workers belong to a union, according to a report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month and noted by none other than the Times itself.”
One reason that opinion polls have become nothing more than left leaning propaganda is that unlike an exit poll or other election poll, there is no defining way to determine the accuracy. Opinion polls used to be of value to the democratic process, but now it has become part and parcel of the ongoing erosion and creditability of the press. Who would have guessed that the American press, rather than being a stand-in for the public at large to guarantee the government and other public institutions fulfill their duties, is now damaging our democracy in ways none could have foreseen. Who would believe that the press in a country where a free press is guaranteed by it’s constitution, would self censor and reduce itself to stumping for a political party and trying to manufacture public opinion? In essence the American press has voluntarily become a tool of fascism, prior to a totalitarian government even taking power. One has to wonder how much more compliant the press will be if ever actually faced with the dictates of a fascist government.