Crony Capitalism

Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day | Washington Examiner

Last week, amid Washington's blizzards, Obama was asked about the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon and the $9 million bonus for Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

"I know both these guys; they are very savvy businessmen," he said. "I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth." So much for campaign-trail denunciations of "fat cat" bankers and bloated bonuses.

I'm sure they are, I just don't like the idea that now my tax dollars are helping them be "savvy". Probably the smartest thing they did was provide big campaign contributions to BO. 

Remember Dick Cheney and Haliburton? He was CEO, he left, he put all his stock in trust, the stock went down -- no matter, "Haliburton" became a chant for the left. They used to only like guys in office that have never held down a job (like BO), now they seem to be able to remain completely silent while the lobbiests roll up the dollars and the folks that BO bailed out roll in the dough and the praises.

Have politics completely replaces principles on the left?

Palm vs Prompter

'Palm-gate' proves centrists' Palin doubts - CNN.com

I understand that consistency is not an issue for the left -- so it is OK for them to be fine with BO using a teleprompter to say hello. Apparently though, the assumption is that even it is OK for them to have no consistency at all, they assume that moderates are OK as well with BO using a teleprompter to say hello, but are going to be turned off by Palin writing on her palm?

Oh wait, maybe it is the fact that she wrote on her palm, but made fun of BO for using a teleprompter? That must be it ... but BO made a HUGE deal about campaign finance, then bypassed the whole apparatus and raised over $500M for the presidential race alone. It must be that they assume that given the bias in the media, most independents were not aware of the BO hypocrisy, but will have the Palin version rubbed in their faces enough to be turned off by it.

Something like this must explain it. 

No Keynesian Free Lunch

FT.com / Comment / Opinion - A Greek crisis is coming to America

Ferguson is one of my favorite writers. Good column, especially liked this paragraph:

What we in the western world are about to learn is that there is no such thing as a Keynesian free lunch. Deficits did not “save” us half so much as monetary policy – zero interest rates plus quantitative easing – did. First, the impact of government spending (the hallowed “multiplier”) has been much less than the proponents of stimulus hoped. Second, there is a good deal of “leakage” from open economies in a globalised world. Last, crucially, explosions of public debt incur bills that fall due much sooner than we expect

DC Pushing 1898 Snow Record

Washington Builds a Mountain of Snow - WSJ.com

For Washington, the winter of 2010, which blanketed the capital with about 45 inches before Tuesday, seems likely to break the record 54.5 inches set a decade after record-keeping began in 1888. "I don't know any staff member that's been around that remembers snowfalls of this magnitude," Mr. Howland said.

While Katrina was widely touted in the MSM as "proof of global warming", DC (and many other places in the world) beaking 100 year records for snow and cold is nothing to be noticed.

The Dead for BO

One always thinks there is a limit, but then, there isn't!

Views of the Truth

Editorial - The Truth About the Deficit - NYTimes.com

Unsurprisingly, the NYTs has the (largely unstated) assumptions behind the linked column:

• Government takeover of medicine will save money.
  
• Taxation has no detrimental effects on economic growth -- taxes can be raised with impunity, and revenue will simply rise. There is no downside.
• The Republican led congress bore no responsibility for the budgets in the black, significant responsibility (along with Bush) for the budgets in the red from '01-'06, but when the Democrats took over congress in '07, they bore no responsibility. Here is their key quote ...
• HOW DID WE GET HERE? When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.By the time Mr. Bush left office in early 2009, the government had run big deficits for seven straight years, and the economy was on the brink of another Great Depression.
• Republican's must be inherently evil or incompetent, or both. Certainly the above (largely unstated) assumptions are true, and there is no reason discussing them as we face the deficit question.
  

Liberals vs Voters

RealClearPolitics - The Electorate vs. Obama's Agenda

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Good one by Charles, but it pretty much sums up the MSM / Democrat view of the US electorate.

Krugman Vs Krugman

Op-Ed Columnist - Fiscal Scare Tactics - NYTimes.com

Here is Krugman in 2005

And so it has turned out. President Bush has presided over the transformation of a budget surplus into a large deficit, which threatens the government's long-run solvency. The principal cause of that reversal was Mr. Bush's unprecedented decision to cut taxes, especially on the wealthiest Americans, while taking the nation into an expensive war.

Here is Krugman today:

Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe.

See, not to worry. Deficits in the low 100's of billions in a growing economy under a Republican president "threaten long-run solvency". Deficits in the trillions in a stagnant to falling economy under a Democrat are really no big deal at all. Simple.

No need to ask multiple economists to get multiple opinions with Krugman around, just switch parties and the whole world is different!

That Old BO Magic

AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: THAT OLD OBAMA MAGIC IS BACK

When she's good, she's very good ;-)

The Democrats have no natural majority because they have no fundamental principles -- at least none that they are willing to state out loud. They are like a drunken vagrant who emerges from the alley to cause havoc every few years. They are the perpetual toothache of American politics.

Worth a read. She has them pegged -- BO has taken the electorate 2 year reality check of the last 40 years after "unsafe selection" (casting ballots for Democrats) down to 10 months.

Assumed Incompetence?

Investors.com - Bare Warning

A chilling spectacle just took place before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Panel Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked, "What is the likelihood of another terrorist-attempted attack on the U.S. homeland in the next three to six months, high or low?"

And one by one, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller all agreed an attack was "certain."

Seems like that would get a little more notice from somebody? is everyone in the MSM so certain of the incompetence of the BO administration that they discount a 100% prediction of an attack by the heads of every one of our intelligence agencies?

Clear and Present Danger, NEA

This is copied off the NEA recommended reading web site. This is the same guy that did "Rules for Radicals". While in '07, Democrats were pretty much evenly split on 9-11 being an "inside job". A position that makes "birthers" seem downright rational. Our kids are being taught by a union that thinks this avowed radical, founder of the now known criminal organization ACORN,  is "Recommended Reading".Welcome to BO's America!

Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives. 

Given that the left thinks this is the right way to teach our children, can anyone doubt the need for defensive Assault Weapons? A few 45 round mags of .223 can provide an educational opportunity for even the most recalcitrant of radical groups on the difference between rhetoric and reality should they be bent  to "break some conservative necks".  We have been warned.

The  2nd Amendment  MUST be defended to the death  because Alinsky, ACORN, the NEA, and who knows what others have declared war on the Constitution and America as we know it.

Wake up people, radicalism has smelled a little blood in the water and they are ready to rumble!

Recommended Reading: Saul Alinsky, The American Organizer

Reveille for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)
Buy It
Rules for Radicals
by Saul Alinsky
Vintage; Reissue edition (October 23, 1989)
Buy It
An inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!
Saul Alinsky wrote the book on American radicalism - two books, in fact: a 1945 best-seller, "Reveille for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals" in 1971. The "Reveille" title page quotes Thomas Paine... "Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul."
Saul Alinsky, who was a labor and civil-rights activist from the 1910's until he died in 1972, has written here a guidebook for those who are out to change things. He sets down what the goal is: a society where people are free to live, and also aren't starving in the streets. A society where there is legal and economic justice. Then he sets out to say how to get there.
Alinsky spends a lot of time critiquing the idea that "The end does not justify the means." What end? What means? He feels that there are circumstances where one can and should use means that in other circumstances would be unethical. I am not sure I agree, but Alinsky certainly speaks with the voice of experience.
Alinsky's goal seems to be to encourage positive social change by equipping activists with a realistic view of the world, a kind of preemptive disillusionment. If a person already knows what evil the world is capable of, then perhaps the surprise factor can be eliminated, making the person a more effective activist. Alinsky further seems to be encouraging the budding activist not to worry to much about getting his or her hands dirty. It's all a part of the job, he seems to say.
Alinsky, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn't mince words...
"Liberals in their meetings utter bold words; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement 'which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.' They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.
"The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.
"Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.
"Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action - by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires ...

• "The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.
• "He curses a caste system which he recognizes despite all patriotic denials.
• "He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.
• "He will fight any concentration of power hostile to a broad, popular democracy, whether he finds it in financial circles or in politics.
• "The Radical recognizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of democracy. He firmly believes in that brave saying of a brave people, "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
• "The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.
• "That is the reason why Radicals, although frequently embarking upon revolutions, have rarely resorted to personal terrorism."

Alinsky practiced what he preached. He said, "Tactics means doing what you can with what you have ... tactics is the art of how to take and how to give."
He uses eyes, ears and nose for examples...
Eyes"If you have a vast organization, parade it before the enemy, openly show your power."
Ears
"If your organization is small, do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more that it does."
Nose
"If your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place."
Alinsky devised and proved thirteen tactical rules for use against opponents vastly superior in power and wealth.
   1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
   2. "Never go outside the experience of your people.
   3. "Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
   4. "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
   5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
   6. "A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
   7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
   8. "Keep the pressure on.
   9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
  10. "Major premise for tactics is development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.
  11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
  12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
  13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
"The real action is in the enemy's reaction. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. Tactics, like life, require that you move with the action."
Alinsky was hated and defamed by powerful enemies, proof that his tactics worked. His simple formula for success...
"Agitate + Aggravate + Educate + Organize"

Michele Bachmann Town Hall

Saw US Reps Michele Bachmann and Michael Burgess today at a fund raiser followed by a Town Hall, all for Allan Quist. Burgess is a Dr from TX and had a real handle on health care, Congress and a whole lot of everything. Michele is vivacious and obviously passionate about her family, MN, and the country. While a less organized speaker, she has "sizzle".

Interesting to note she has raised 5 kids of her own plus helped to care for 23 foster children. Had lunch with a banker at our table, and unlike what the MSM or BO might tell you, neither he nor Michelle displayed either horns nor a tail. The banker said that he disguised his tail as a belt ;-)

Conservative Inconsistency on Court

RealClearPolitics - Thin-Skinned Supreme Court

EJ thinks Republicans are being inconsistent by claiming that BO ought not to have made the statements that he made in his SOTU. Let me try to help:

1. It makes a difference where you raise your issue. Reagan wrote an article, Nixon made the court an issue in a campaign.  BO attacked the court when he was on the podium and they were sitting in front of him and prohibited from responding. That is the difference.
   
2. If you want to make statements against a co-equal branch of government, especially if you are a constitutional scholar, it might be nice to have some semblance correctness in what you say. 

• Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights declare any rights. They restrict the government's rights.
• Congress can't pass laws to circumvent Court rulings. To propose that shows a lack of understanding of the basic operation of the Constitution and Government which BO is pledged to defend, or something far more sinister. It is hard to believe that a Harvard Constitutional scholar
  
• The legislation this ruling was focused on is McCain / Feingold, passed in 2002, not "100 years ago".

Note, conservatives are NOT "always consistent", to be so is humanly impossible. To have a liberal like Dionne talk of the issue though is like having Slick Willie talk of martial fidelity!

Americans Get Stupid Again

Moody Blues - WSJ.com

If one listens to the left, the average intelligence and maturity of the American voter can swing quite wildly. Just a year ago, US voters had a ton of intelligence and maturity, but in barely a 12 month period, they have lost all semblance if intellectual capacity and has been reduced to a bunch of pouting and stomping 2-year olds, even in a formerly brilliant and wise blue state haven like Massachusetts.


Taranto does a good job of covering some specific examples of our leftward punditry heaping praise on the decision 14 months ago, and disdain on the blue state of MA voters now. Clearly "stopping an unpopular healthcare bill" is far more vacuous than "hope and change".

BO Picks Up Budget Hatchet

BO Ridicules McCain on budget freeze.

Be interesting to see if the MSM has any memory. BO thought McCain was completely wrong to call for a freeze. McCain has now supported the BO call for a freeze. BO said it was a "hatchet rather than a scalpel". Suppose it is racist to point out what he said in the past.

Didin't BO used to be some sort of a great leader and political genius?