Obama borrowing FDR words? What's new? It's OK to borrow words if you have no clue of what to say without teleprompter. What American people need is a strong, bi-partisan & decisive leadership from our elected prez. So far, prez Obama is weak (nobody afraid of him internationally & domestically with his lip service), partisan (relying heavily from the democrat to pass his socialist agenda) & divisive (look at how he treats banks, auto bailout CEO's & how flipflop on CIA torture.
Having said that, I am afraid we are in for along 1300 days & counting.
Q. How does the junior senator from Illinois with a ZERO record of political accomplishments - Never chaired or co-chaired a congressional committee, Never sponsored or co-sponsored a single piece of legislation, become president of the United States?
A. He was CREATED, MARKETED and SOLD to the American people by the MEDIA! America, we've been scammed Big Time!
Don’t just take my word for it. Check out the FACTS for yourself at the independent, bi-partisan, and highly respected Pew Research Center.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
And this is the president that says he wants to be bipartisan?
Obama put two Republicans in his Cabinet, but when Republicans pushed for more tax cuts in the stimulus package, Obama replied, "I won. So, I think on that one, I trump you."
This was a quote from a new article on Yahoo titled obamas first 100 days.
Bipartisan ?? NOT ! He is arrogant and narcissistic, with a possible messiah complex. He doesn't give a crap what Republicans think or want. By and large they have been shut out from having any say in Congress. Rules have been changed so that very little of what we propose ever even makes it to the floor let alone get approved.
Some might say this is all a good thing because we have run this country into the ground. You couldn't be more wrong. The Republican party is by no means perfect and I have had my issues with them over the past few years and recently too as well, but folks need to wake up and place the majority (not all) of the blame where it really belongs- with CLINTON. He started most (though not all) of this nonsense. Bush tried to fix it, but constantly running into one road block after another via the completely (FOX the exception) biased media plus the Hollywood elite, and last but not least the Democrats, particularly the liberals, doing everything they could do to knock him down and obstruct his efforts to fix things.
The sad thing is because most people have bought into the lies and half truths put out there by said biased media, we now have a one party ruling system. They could care less by and large what's really right for this country, they just want to keep their power and us under their thumb. The worse this country is, the more they can control and the more power they will have. People have been conditioned now to think that we need to let the goverment control things because we are helpless little sheep who need to be taken care and provided for, in every way from cradle to grave.
So Obama bipartisan. NO WAY ! and anyone that thinks so, needs to get a clue and wake up.
This was a quote from a new article on Yahoo titled obamas first 100 days.
Bipartisan ?? NOT ! He is arrogant and narcissistic, with a possible messiah complex. He doesn't give a crap what Republicans think or want. By and large they have been shut out from having any say in Congress. Rules have been changed so that very little of what we propose ever even makes it to the floor let alone get approved.
Some might say this is all a good thing because we have run this country into the ground. You couldn't be more wrong. The Republican party is by no means perfect and I have had my issues with them over the past few years and recently too as well, but folks need to wake up and place the majority (not all) of the blame where it really belongs- with CLINTON. He started most (though not all) of this nonsense. Bush tried to fix it, but constantly running into one road block after another via the completely (FOX the exception) biased media plus the Hollywood elite, and last but not least the Democrats, particularly the liberals, doing everything they could do to knock him down and obstruct his efforts to fix things.
The sad thing is because most people have bought into the lies and half truths put out there by said biased media, we now have a one party ruling system. They could care less by and large what's really right for this country, they just want to keep their power and us under their thumb. The worse this country is, the more they can control and the more power they will have. People have been conditioned now to think that we need to let the goverment control things because we are helpless little sheep who need to be taken care and provided for, in every way from cradle to grave.
So Obama bipartisan. NO WAY ! and anyone that thinks so, needs to get a clue and wake up.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Two cents worth regarding "Enhanced Torture"
I am so outraged, yet again, at Obama and the far left. They, through their ignorance of the world, have basically handcuffed the inviduals that keep us safe from the terrorists by getting them to tell us what they know. What the heck are they supposed to do now huh? I mean seriously folks, causing them to loose sleep is NOT torture people! So if they can't even do modest things like that, what do they do? Yell at them? Smack their hand? Oh I know! We yell at them to coroperate and if they don't, then we release them into our country, give them a check and tell them to behave and not kill us. I am sure they will be so grateful they will be angels. RIGHT !! NOT!!! Just a word of advice folks until Barry gets out of office, stay out of tall buildings.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Article worth noting about the enviromentalist wackos and capitalism. Well worth reading
Save Capitalism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
The Environment: Wednesday's airwaves, print media, cable news shows and Webosphere will be filled with nonsense about the scourge of capitalism, corporations and humanity. All of it will ignore the real truth.
Buried beneath all the badgering and fear-mongering about lavish Western lifestyles is a reality that the stuck-on-green left won't talk about and the average American isn't aware of: The world, especially in developed nations, is a cleaner — and greener — place than it was when the environmental movement began.
Every year Steven Hayward, a scholar at the Pacific Research Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, compiles his Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. And every year, his findings contradict the alarmists' warnings that the world is on the edge of environmental cataclysm.
From evidence "that tropical rain forests may now be expanding faster than they are being cut down" to the improving health of U.S. ocean fisheries to better outdoor air quality in American cities with the worst air pollution, Hayward shows there's more to be optimistic about than there is to be troubled about.
The Environmental Protection Agency has also published its own Report on the environment. Last year's report, the most recent, indicates outdoor air quality has improved, there's been a net gain in wetland acreage, public-source drinking-water problems are uncommon and forest land is expanding after declining for a century.
Americans are actually generating no more trash per-capita than they were in 1990, our production of hazardous waste has fallen from 36 million tons in 1999 to 28 million tons in 2005, and lead levels in our blood have shown "a steady decline since the 1980s."
And then there's carbon dioxide. We are pumping out more than ever. But there's no evidence, only speculation, that this weak greenhouse gas is having any effect on the environment.
"Overall, the health of the U.S. population has continued to improve," the EPA says. "Mortality rates continue to decline, and life expectancy continues to increase."
We're not saying the Earth, or even any part of it, is environmentally pristine. It's not, it never has been and never will be. Yet there's actually more positive news to celebrate than there are problems.
Of the estimated 1 billion people who will observe Earth Day worldwide this year, few will know about the progress that has been made. Fewer still will know how it was made. The media, uninterested in looking at the real story, will simply credit the environmental movement for the improvements.
We won't discount the movement's contribution. Four decades ago, it helped show the world the value of global stewardship. But that movement is no longer interested in a cleaner world.
Filled with extremists and anti-capitalist crusaders, its primary goals have changed. Topping the agenda of today's environmentalist groups is the pulling down of market economies, the raising up of central planning for egalitarian goals, forced lifestyle changes and the vilification — in hopes of the elimination — of signs of wealth.
None of these advance the planet's environmental health. But capitalism has. Through wealth generated by the free market, we have enough resources to move beyond the subsistence economies that damage the environment, enough disposable income to fund clean-up programs, enough wealth to scrub and polish industry.
Only in advanced economies can the technology needed to recycle hazardous waste or to replace dirty coal-fired power plants with cleaner gas or nuclear plants be developed. That technology cannot be produced in centrally planned economies where the profit motive is squelched and lives are marshalled by the state.
There's nothing wrong with setting aside a day to honor the Earth. In fairness, though, it should be complemented by Capitalism Day. It's important that the world be reminded of what has driven the environmental improvements since Earth Day began in 1970
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
The Environment: Wednesday's airwaves, print media, cable news shows and Webosphere will be filled with nonsense about the scourge of capitalism, corporations and humanity. All of it will ignore the real truth.
Buried beneath all the badgering and fear-mongering about lavish Western lifestyles is a reality that the stuck-on-green left won't talk about and the average American isn't aware of: The world, especially in developed nations, is a cleaner — and greener — place than it was when the environmental movement began.
Every year Steven Hayward, a scholar at the Pacific Research Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, compiles his Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. And every year, his findings contradict the alarmists' warnings that the world is on the edge of environmental cataclysm.
From evidence "that tropical rain forests may now be expanding faster than they are being cut down" to the improving health of U.S. ocean fisheries to better outdoor air quality in American cities with the worst air pollution, Hayward shows there's more to be optimistic about than there is to be troubled about.
The Environmental Protection Agency has also published its own Report on the environment. Last year's report, the most recent, indicates outdoor air quality has improved, there's been a net gain in wetland acreage, public-source drinking-water problems are uncommon and forest land is expanding after declining for a century.
Americans are actually generating no more trash per-capita than they were in 1990, our production of hazardous waste has fallen from 36 million tons in 1999 to 28 million tons in 2005, and lead levels in our blood have shown "a steady decline since the 1980s."
And then there's carbon dioxide. We are pumping out more than ever. But there's no evidence, only speculation, that this weak greenhouse gas is having any effect on the environment.
"Overall, the health of the U.S. population has continued to improve," the EPA says. "Mortality rates continue to decline, and life expectancy continues to increase."
We're not saying the Earth, or even any part of it, is environmentally pristine. It's not, it never has been and never will be. Yet there's actually more positive news to celebrate than there are problems.
Of the estimated 1 billion people who will observe Earth Day worldwide this year, few will know about the progress that has been made. Fewer still will know how it was made. The media, uninterested in looking at the real story, will simply credit the environmental movement for the improvements.
We won't discount the movement's contribution. Four decades ago, it helped show the world the value of global stewardship. But that movement is no longer interested in a cleaner world.
Filled with extremists and anti-capitalist crusaders, its primary goals have changed. Topping the agenda of today's environmentalist groups is the pulling down of market economies, the raising up of central planning for egalitarian goals, forced lifestyle changes and the vilification — in hopes of the elimination — of signs of wealth.
None of these advance the planet's environmental health. But capitalism has. Through wealth generated by the free market, we have enough resources to move beyond the subsistence economies that damage the environment, enough disposable income to fund clean-up programs, enough wealth to scrub and polish industry.
Only in advanced economies can the technology needed to recycle hazardous waste or to replace dirty coal-fired power plants with cleaner gas or nuclear plants be developed. That technology cannot be produced in centrally planned economies where the profit motive is squelched and lives are marshalled by the state.
There's nothing wrong with setting aside a day to honor the Earth. In fairness, though, it should be complemented by Capitalism Day. It's important that the world be reminded of what has driven the environmental improvements since Earth Day began in 1970
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Article I came across regarding Obama apologizing for us
Arrogant Americans, Mr. President?
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 4/14/2009 7:50:00 AM (AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION)
As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger. No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he's been out of the U.S. Navy, that's still an intimidating sight. As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, "We saved that continent twice...how dare my president apologize for this country's arrogance." My grandpa is right. Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.
Barack Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle. But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it. Neither is excusable.
Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy, where the sand is still stained with 65-year-old blood of "arrogant Americans."
Indeed, columnist Mark Whittington observes, "One should remind Mr. Obama and the Europeans how America has 'shown arrogance' by saving Europe from itself innumerable times in the 20th Century. World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the wars in the Balkans were largely resolved by American blood, treasure, and leadership." But all that appears lost on the president's seemingly insatiable quest to mend fences he imagines have been tarnished by the bullish George W. Bush.
If Obama wishes to continue trampling the presidential tradition of showing class to former office holders and publicly trash Bush for his own personal gain, so be it. But all Americans should make clear that no man--even if he is the president --will tarnish the legacy of those Americans who have gone before us. Ours is not a history of arrogance. It is a history of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor.
When abusive monarchs repressed the masses, Americans resisted and overthrew them. When misguided policies led to the unjust oppression of fellow citizens, Americans rebelled and overturned them. When millions of impoverished and destitute wretches sought a new beginning, Americans threw open the door and welcomed them. When imperial dictators were on the march, Americans surrendered their lives to stop them. When communist thugs threatened world peace, Americans bled to defeat them. When an entire continent was overwhelmed with famine and hunger, Americans gave of themselves to sustain it. When terrorist madmen killed the innocent and subjugated millions, Americans led the fight to topple them.
This is the legacy that generations of Americans have left. If President Obama seeks stronger relations with the world community, perhaps he should begin by reminding them of these very truths, rather than condemning his own countrymen on foreign shores.
This "obsessive need to put down his own country," has caused blogger James Lewis to call President Obama a "stunningly ignorant man" who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao's purges.
Unfortunately, I can no longer bring myself to give Mr. Obama that benefit of the doubt. Not after looking at the pain in my grandpa's eyes...a man who still carries shrapnel in his body from his service to this country.
As a student and teacher of history, I recognize that America has made mistakes...plenty of them, in fact. But one of the great things about our people has been their courage and humility in admitting and correcting those mistakes. God willing, they will prove that willingness again in four years and correct the mistake that is the presidency of Barack Obama.
WELL SAID my friend, end of story.
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 4/14/2009 7:50:00 AM (AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION)
As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger. No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he's been out of the U.S. Navy, that's still an intimidating sight. As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, "We saved that continent twice...how dare my president apologize for this country's arrogance." My grandpa is right. Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.
Barack Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle. But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it. Neither is excusable.
Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy, where the sand is still stained with 65-year-old blood of "arrogant Americans."
Indeed, columnist Mark Whittington observes, "One should remind Mr. Obama and the Europeans how America has 'shown arrogance' by saving Europe from itself innumerable times in the 20th Century. World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the wars in the Balkans were largely resolved by American blood, treasure, and leadership." But all that appears lost on the president's seemingly insatiable quest to mend fences he imagines have been tarnished by the bullish George W. Bush.
If Obama wishes to continue trampling the presidential tradition of showing class to former office holders and publicly trash Bush for his own personal gain, so be it. But all Americans should make clear that no man--even if he is the president --will tarnish the legacy of those Americans who have gone before us. Ours is not a history of arrogance. It is a history of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor.
When abusive monarchs repressed the masses, Americans resisted and overthrew them. When misguided policies led to the unjust oppression of fellow citizens, Americans rebelled and overturned them. When millions of impoverished and destitute wretches sought a new beginning, Americans threw open the door and welcomed them. When imperial dictators were on the march, Americans surrendered their lives to stop them. When communist thugs threatened world peace, Americans bled to defeat them. When an entire continent was overwhelmed with famine and hunger, Americans gave of themselves to sustain it. When terrorist madmen killed the innocent and subjugated millions, Americans led the fight to topple them.
This is the legacy that generations of Americans have left. If President Obama seeks stronger relations with the world community, perhaps he should begin by reminding them of these very truths, rather than condemning his own countrymen on foreign shores.
This "obsessive need to put down his own country," has caused blogger James Lewis to call President Obama a "stunningly ignorant man" who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao's purges.
Unfortunately, I can no longer bring myself to give Mr. Obama that benefit of the doubt. Not after looking at the pain in my grandpa's eyes...a man who still carries shrapnel in his body from his service to this country.
As a student and teacher of history, I recognize that America has made mistakes...plenty of them, in fact. But one of the great things about our people has been their courage and humility in admitting and correcting those mistakes. God willing, they will prove that willingness again in four years and correct the mistake that is the presidency of Barack Obama.
WELL SAID my friend, end of story.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
My two cents worth on the New Haven Firefighters lawsuit
You know sometimes it seems like the more things change the more they stay same. Black people had a real grievance until the last 20 years, they really did. I believe affirmative action was a real need at one point in our histories time, but now, it's just an excuse to get what you haven't earned. I think racism in ANY form is morally wrong. I am not talking about just a differing opinion mind you, but true discrimation against someone because they are different than you are-Gay,straight,black,Indian, and yes EVEN white. Yes I said it,even white. It's kind of like the table have flipped and to be honest cases like the firerighters in CT are something I am hearing more and more these days. Some folks might say well now you know it feels, true, but why should I have to pay the price for the sins of my forefathers, so to speak, thats not fair either. In this particual case it is just wrong to blame the white firefighters for something that is just not their fault. If you don't do the preparation and do the work for whatever test or exam it may be, then why should you get the job or the promotion? Hiring someone in this day and age just because they are black and NOT hiring someone just because they are white is DISCRIMINATION period.
I think it seems to me, that these firefighters have every reason to be upset. You should hire someone because they are qualified for the promotion or the job, END OF STORY. If it happens that less blacks end up for a set number of postions or less whites for that matter, then perhaps they need to look at whether there was adequate study prepatation going on and not neccarily immediately chalk it up to discrimination.
I am not saying it doesn't still exist, but I am sick to death of people in general making excuses based on their skin color or sex,or sexual preference. I didn't get this job cause I am (fill in the blank). How about you just weren't qualified? What a novel concept.
So my final thoughts on this are this. IF you want a level playing field, and aren't just looking for a handout,then I think Affirmative action should be abolished. It has outlived its justifiable purpose and is now doing much more harm than good. People who are qualifed for a job aren't getting them because they are the wrong race or sex. It's ridiculous and infuriating. Just hire someone based on their qualification and experience, and if applicable their tests scores. Whoever does best should get it, whether they be white, black, gay,straight, or from Mars for crying out loud.
Martin Luther King would be happy to see the progress we have made in making his dream come true, but I think he would be somewhat sad as well. He would be sad to see how there is still discrimination in all quarters, not just against blacks. We have all been victims of it at one time in our lives, white, black, gay, straight. How we handle that is up to us. We can have a chip on our shoulder or we can just work hard, play by the rules and do our best anyway.
And that's how I feel about it. You may hate it or may love it, but I hope it makes you think just a little beyond the knee-jerk reactions I see so much of these days, frankly I am just sick of all.
In the immortal words of Rodney King "Cant we all just get along?"
I think it seems to me, that these firefighters have every reason to be upset. You should hire someone because they are qualified for the promotion or the job, END OF STORY. If it happens that less blacks end up for a set number of postions or less whites for that matter, then perhaps they need to look at whether there was adequate study prepatation going on and not neccarily immediately chalk it up to discrimination.
I am not saying it doesn't still exist, but I am sick to death of people in general making excuses based on their skin color or sex,or sexual preference. I didn't get this job cause I am (fill in the blank). How about you just weren't qualified? What a novel concept.
So my final thoughts on this are this. IF you want a level playing field, and aren't just looking for a handout,then I think Affirmative action should be abolished. It has outlived its justifiable purpose and is now doing much more harm than good. People who are qualifed for a job aren't getting them because they are the wrong race or sex. It's ridiculous and infuriating. Just hire someone based on their qualification and experience, and if applicable their tests scores. Whoever does best should get it, whether they be white, black, gay,straight, or from Mars for crying out loud.
Martin Luther King would be happy to see the progress we have made in making his dream come true, but I think he would be somewhat sad as well. He would be sad to see how there is still discrimination in all quarters, not just against blacks. We have all been victims of it at one time in our lives, white, black, gay, straight. How we handle that is up to us. We can have a chip on our shoulder or we can just work hard, play by the rules and do our best anyway.
And that's how I feel about it. You may hate it or may love it, but I hope it makes you think just a little beyond the knee-jerk reactions I see so much of these days, frankly I am just sick of all.
In the immortal words of Rodney King "Cant we all just get along?"
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Article worth noting, with an accompying editorial cartoon
Probe Yourselves
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Finance: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants a broad "probe" of Wall Street, much like the 1932 Pecora Commission that led to sweeping bank reforms. Good idea. Let the probing begin — with Pelosi's Congress.
Named for its chief counsel, Ferdinand Pecora, the 1932 congressional commission dragged influential bankers and stockbrokers before its members for rough questioning — both of their business practices and private lives.
The Pecora Commission led directly to the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the creation of the Securities Exchange Commission in 1935 to oversee Wall Street.
Now Pelosi's calling for an encore. "People are very unhappy with these bailouts," she noted, especially the bonuses that went to executives. "Seventy five percent of the American people, at least, want an investigation of what happened on Wall Street."
No doubt, that's true. The problem is, what "happened on Wall Street" was a direct result of what happened on Capitol Hill. And we're not the only ones who believe that, by the way.
"Government policies, especially the Community Reinvestment Act, and the affordable housing mission that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling, are to blame for the financial crisis," wrote economist Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently.
"Regulators also deserve blame for lowering lending standards that then contributed to riskier homeownership and the housing bubble." Exactly correct.
As such, Pelosi's proposed Pecora-style commission will be little more than a fig leaf to cover Congress' own multitude of sins — letting its members, the true creators of this financial mess, bash business leaders as they pose as populist saviors of Main Street from Wall Street predators.
Why do this now? Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues are feeling the heat from Tea Party demonstrations and growing voter anger over the massive waste entailed in the $4 trillion (and rising) stimulus-bailout bonanza. Again, the Democrats created all this spending. Now, as it proves unpopular, they just walk away from it.
On NPR Thursday, a reporter confronted Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, with the fact that his $300 billion "Hope for Homeowners" program, passed with much fanfare last fall, had so far helped just one homeowner. One.
Frank's response: It was the fault of the "right." And Bush.
Truth is, Frank's party has been in charge since 2006. And during that time, Democrats have presided over one of the most disgraceful and least accomplished Congresses in history. This financial mess began on their watch, yet they pretend otherwise.
What better way to take the heat off yourself than by pointing accusing fingers at those most unlikable of people — Wall Street bankers? That's what the Pelosi-Pecora Commission will do.
It won't get to the bottom of our financial crisis; it will carefully select scapegoats to be ritually shamed by the liberal media, stripped of their wealth, and exiled. Then new rules will be imposed that will no doubt make things worse. And the cycle will begin again.
We're not saying Wall Street has no blame for the financial meltdown. But Wall Street didn't create the subprime mess. Congress, through repeated interventions in healthy markets, did. And when the whole thing failed, it was Congress' fault.
We'd be happy to support a 9/11-style commission to look into the causes of the financial meltdown. But only if Congress agrees to put itself in the dock. Anything less would be a sham.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Finance: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants a broad "probe" of Wall Street, much like the 1932 Pecora Commission that led to sweeping bank reforms. Good idea. Let the probing begin — with Pelosi's Congress.
Named for its chief counsel, Ferdinand Pecora, the 1932 congressional commission dragged influential bankers and stockbrokers before its members for rough questioning — both of their business practices and private lives.
The Pecora Commission led directly to the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the creation of the Securities Exchange Commission in 1935 to oversee Wall Street.
Now Pelosi's calling for an encore. "People are very unhappy with these bailouts," she noted, especially the bonuses that went to executives. "Seventy five percent of the American people, at least, want an investigation of what happened on Wall Street."
No doubt, that's true. The problem is, what "happened on Wall Street" was a direct result of what happened on Capitol Hill. And we're not the only ones who believe that, by the way.
"Government policies, especially the Community Reinvestment Act, and the affordable housing mission that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling, are to blame for the financial crisis," wrote economist Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently.
"Regulators also deserve blame for lowering lending standards that then contributed to riskier homeownership and the housing bubble." Exactly correct.
As such, Pelosi's proposed Pecora-style commission will be little more than a fig leaf to cover Congress' own multitude of sins — letting its members, the true creators of this financial mess, bash business leaders as they pose as populist saviors of Main Street from Wall Street predators.
Why do this now? Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues are feeling the heat from Tea Party demonstrations and growing voter anger over the massive waste entailed in the $4 trillion (and rising) stimulus-bailout bonanza. Again, the Democrats created all this spending. Now, as it proves unpopular, they just walk away from it.
On NPR Thursday, a reporter confronted Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, with the fact that his $300 billion "Hope for Homeowners" program, passed with much fanfare last fall, had so far helped just one homeowner. One.
Frank's response: It was the fault of the "right." And Bush.
Truth is, Frank's party has been in charge since 2006. And during that time, Democrats have presided over one of the most disgraceful and least accomplished Congresses in history. This financial mess began on their watch, yet they pretend otherwise.
What better way to take the heat off yourself than by pointing accusing fingers at those most unlikable of people — Wall Street bankers? That's what the Pelosi-Pecora Commission will do.
It won't get to the bottom of our financial crisis; it will carefully select scapegoats to be ritually shamed by the liberal media, stripped of their wealth, and exiled. Then new rules will be imposed that will no doubt make things worse. And the cycle will begin again.
We're not saying Wall Street has no blame for the financial meltdown. But Wall Street didn't create the subprime mess. Congress, through repeated interventions in healthy markets, did. And when the whole thing failed, it was Congress' fault.
We'd be happy to support a 9/11-style commission to look into the causes of the financial meltdown. But only if Congress agrees to put itself in the dock. Anything less would be a sham.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
This is why I will defend capitalism with every breath that is in my body, till I have none left.
[7] The definition of socialism, while seemingly a compromise between the twin extremes of capitalism and communism, is far closer to communism than it is to capitalism. Socialism is perhaps best described as Marxism in the conceptual phase. While socialists recoil from the totalitarian reality of communism, they are nevertheless convinced that everyone's needs can be met and everyone's potential fulfilled without the restriction of freedom.
[12] Although socialism is often defined by socialists as "real democracy," it is in fact mobocracy, or the tyranny of the many over the few. To see why, let us consider an example.
[13] Imagine that you are factory owner manufacturing cars. Under communism, your factory would be confiscated by the dictatorship of the proletariat and its production managed by a centralized bureaucracy. The difference between a communist and a socialist, however, is that the socialist does everything in half-measures. Under socialism, you may well be allowed to keep your factory on the conditions that you do not earn an "excessive" profit and that you provide well-paying, spiritually-fulfilling jobs to your employees, allowing each of them a vote in all of your decisions.
[14] Recall that "fairness" is crucial to the definition of socialism and note that this term is defined through a societal lens. From a socialist perspective, it is unfair that you own the factory in the first place and your authority over your employees is seen as "exploitation," regardless of how well you pay them or how kindly you treat them. Socialists are only willing to allow you to maintain ownership because they balk at the prospects of workers mortgaging their homes for working capital or a dictatorship of the proletariat assuming direct control of the factory.
[15] Imagine that you decide to manufacture a new type of car. To do so, you will have to get the approval of your employees, who have little incentive to give you their permission without receiving anything in return. Additionally, you will have to get the approval of "societal stakeholders," such as the people who live in the same city as your factory who feel that more car production may increase air pollution and decrease their quality of life. Finally, you will have to incorporate into your designs the "helpful suggestions" of government bureaucrats, who exist to promote the social good.
[16] Of course, if the car is manufactured and no one buys it, you will personally absorb all losses. Nor will you reap any substantial reward from its success. You are essentially expected to produce wealth for everyone's benefit except your own, and far from receiving any thanks, to endure abuse and scorn in return. Would you manufacture cars under these conditions?
[17] Not many people would, and therein lies the problem with the definition of socialism; it provides no incentive for production, and it sacrifices individual economic freedoms for a vaguely defined "social good." Economic freedom is little loved by most people when corporate interests are concerned, but the same restrictions imposed on wealthy factory owners affect the single mother running a small catering business out of her kitchen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[7] Why is capitalism an informal system? A crucial part of the definition of capitalism is the idea of laissez-faire, a French term which roughly translates into "allow to do" or "leave alone." Capitalism is an informal system in the sense that it does not seek to impose answers upon society to the three fundamental questions facing all economies: What should we produce? How should we produce? And, for whom should we produce?5
[8] Capitalism suggests that rather than these questions being answered by kings, governments, or even well-intentioned central planners on society's behalf, these questions should be answered by you and I and every other individual in a free market. In other words, capitalism is simply what occurs when we are all left to our own economic devices; as a system, capitalism is characterized by the absence of formal systems. As Adam Smith explained, "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord."6
[10] A more encyclopedic definition of capitalism would be of an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor. Capitalism is also the philosophy that the government's role in the economy should be strictly limited and that the forces of supply and demand in a free market, while imperfect, are the most efficient means of providing for the general well-being of humankind.
12] While profit is a word routinely pronounced with the negative emotion of a swear word in the modern political discourse, it is profit alone that provides incentive to undertake financial risk, such as the risk involved in starting a business.
[13] Incentive is the key word. Incentives matter so much that economists James Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee begin a marvelous little book with the declaration, "All of economics rests on one simple principle: that incentives matter. Altering incentives, the costs and benefits of making specific decisions, alters people's behaviour."10 Where profits are denied, entrepreneurship and innovation are stifled and all our lives are the worse for it. Beneath the definition of capitalism is the realization that we are never so efficient and effective as when we pursue our own reward.
[36] While conservatives differ with one another on many individual economic issues, most modern conservatives agree that a free market is the sole path to prosperity for humankind. The idea of action without action appeals to the average conservative who deeply believes that government should not meddle in the fiscal affairs of the individual beyond its function as regulator and referee. But conservatives are not utopians, and they hold little hope for a world in which everyone is perfectly happy and everyone's wants are perfectly met; rather, conservatives view our economic options as a set of imperfect choices and regard capitalism as the least evil among them.
(This is from the website as well. While I didn't come up with this diagram, I definitely think it is right on the money)
Elaboration of the Political Spectrum
[10] Everyone disagrees about what the political spectrum should look like. In my own view, if we were to contrast the right wing vs left wing division on a diagram, it would look roughly like this:
conservative-resources.com
[12] Although socialism is often defined by socialists as "real democracy," it is in fact mobocracy, or the tyranny of the many over the few. To see why, let us consider an example.
[13] Imagine that you are factory owner manufacturing cars. Under communism, your factory would be confiscated by the dictatorship of the proletariat and its production managed by a centralized bureaucracy. The difference between a communist and a socialist, however, is that the socialist does everything in half-measures. Under socialism, you may well be allowed to keep your factory on the conditions that you do not earn an "excessive" profit and that you provide well-paying, spiritually-fulfilling jobs to your employees, allowing each of them a vote in all of your decisions.
[14] Recall that "fairness" is crucial to the definition of socialism and note that this term is defined through a societal lens. From a socialist perspective, it is unfair that you own the factory in the first place and your authority over your employees is seen as "exploitation," regardless of how well you pay them or how kindly you treat them. Socialists are only willing to allow you to maintain ownership because they balk at the prospects of workers mortgaging their homes for working capital or a dictatorship of the proletariat assuming direct control of the factory.
[15] Imagine that you decide to manufacture a new type of car. To do so, you will have to get the approval of your employees, who have little incentive to give you their permission without receiving anything in return. Additionally, you will have to get the approval of "societal stakeholders," such as the people who live in the same city as your factory who feel that more car production may increase air pollution and decrease their quality of life. Finally, you will have to incorporate into your designs the "helpful suggestions" of government bureaucrats, who exist to promote the social good.
[16] Of course, if the car is manufactured and no one buys it, you will personally absorb all losses. Nor will you reap any substantial reward from its success. You are essentially expected to produce wealth for everyone's benefit except your own, and far from receiving any thanks, to endure abuse and scorn in return. Would you manufacture cars under these conditions?
[17] Not many people would, and therein lies the problem with the definition of socialism; it provides no incentive for production, and it sacrifices individual economic freedoms for a vaguely defined "social good." Economic freedom is little loved by most people when corporate interests are concerned, but the same restrictions imposed on wealthy factory owners affect the single mother running a small catering business out of her kitchen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[7] Why is capitalism an informal system? A crucial part of the definition of capitalism is the idea of laissez-faire, a French term which roughly translates into "allow to do" or "leave alone." Capitalism is an informal system in the sense that it does not seek to impose answers upon society to the three fundamental questions facing all economies: What should we produce? How should we produce? And, for whom should we produce?5
[8] Capitalism suggests that rather than these questions being answered by kings, governments, or even well-intentioned central planners on society's behalf, these questions should be answered by you and I and every other individual in a free market. In other words, capitalism is simply what occurs when we are all left to our own economic devices; as a system, capitalism is characterized by the absence of formal systems. As Adam Smith explained, "All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord."6
[10] A more encyclopedic definition of capitalism would be of an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor. Capitalism is also the philosophy that the government's role in the economy should be strictly limited and that the forces of supply and demand in a free market, while imperfect, are the most efficient means of providing for the general well-being of humankind.
12] While profit is a word routinely pronounced with the negative emotion of a swear word in the modern political discourse, it is profit alone that provides incentive to undertake financial risk, such as the risk involved in starting a business.
[13] Incentive is the key word. Incentives matter so much that economists James Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee begin a marvelous little book with the declaration, "All of economics rests on one simple principle: that incentives matter. Altering incentives, the costs and benefits of making specific decisions, alters people's behaviour."10 Where profits are denied, entrepreneurship and innovation are stifled and all our lives are the worse for it. Beneath the definition of capitalism is the realization that we are never so efficient and effective as when we pursue our own reward.
[36] While conservatives differ with one another on many individual economic issues, most modern conservatives agree that a free market is the sole path to prosperity for humankind. The idea of action without action appeals to the average conservative who deeply believes that government should not meddle in the fiscal affairs of the individual beyond its function as regulator and referee. But conservatives are not utopians, and they hold little hope for a world in which everyone is perfectly happy and everyone's wants are perfectly met; rather, conservatives view our economic options as a set of imperfect choices and regard capitalism as the least evil among them.
(This is from the website as well. While I didn't come up with this diagram, I definitely think it is right on the money)
Elaboration of the Political Spectrum
[10] Everyone disagrees about what the political spectrum should look like. In my own view, if we were to contrast the right wing vs left wing division on a diagram, it would look roughly like this:
conservative-resources.com
Monday, April 6, 2009
Is capitalism on its way out?
After an encounter I had today, I really have to wonder if this nation is really going to survive this socialist onslaught. I was waiting for my medication at my military medical facility, when I started talking with a seemingly nice black man (I despise using the words african american for a variety reasons. This is a whole other story, however lol)I am guessing he was retired miltary or he wouldnt have been there and I would say he was about my age maybe a bit older, but close. We got to talking politics, which is a dangerous thing these days. I digress, however. We talked about a number of things from the war (he clearly didnt support it, however was apalled at the funerals being protested at)I could let the war thing go, but he said something to me that was so shocking, I couldn't actually believe my ears when I first heard it. I was rendered speechless for a few secs and for anyone that knows me, thats saying a lot LOL. He said basically that maybe capitalisms days were over ( more or less) and perhaps it was time for it to go. I WAS LIKE WHAT????????? (kept that myself thru a lot of effort). I told him if he wanted the great experiment to be over and wanted socialism to go live in FRANCE. This is america, capitalism is what made this country great and it would work if gov would stop interfering so much, contantly trying to prop up things that are failing because they are corrupt and weak. I am so discouraged when I hear things like that. How the heck do we fight against that kind of thinking in our OWN COUTNRY for God's sake???
What really gets me are the number of OBAMA stickers I see on vehicles in the military facility where I live. It's something I cant' even wrap my head around. That anyone in the military, both retired and active duty would actually vote for that socialist idiot over a wonderful, intelligent navy POW man like McCain is just unfathomable to me. The only cuts this man is making anywhere in that bloated budget of his is to, you guessed it cut THE MILITARY. I DON'T GET IT! Somebody please explain this one to me would you?? I know folks were upset with BUSH and entralled with the idea of a black man in the white house, but seriously folks, you have to kidding me?? THIS GUY? We are all in so much danger with this nut running around EUROPE and the middle east apologizing for our "arrogence" that he is going to get us all KILLED !
Lord help us all,
and thats two cents worth of a rant for today lol.
What really gets me are the number of OBAMA stickers I see on vehicles in the military facility where I live. It's something I cant' even wrap my head around. That anyone in the military, both retired and active duty would actually vote for that socialist idiot over a wonderful, intelligent navy POW man like McCain is just unfathomable to me. The only cuts this man is making anywhere in that bloated budget of his is to, you guessed it cut THE MILITARY. I DON'T GET IT! Somebody please explain this one to me would you?? I know folks were upset with BUSH and entralled with the idea of a black man in the white house, but seriously folks, you have to kidding me?? THIS GUY? We are all in so much danger with this nut running around EUROPE and the middle east apologizing for our "arrogence" that he is going to get us all KILLED !
Lord help us all,
and thats two cents worth of a rant for today lol.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
new news regarding chris dodd
I just heard on Hannity that Chris Dodd took campaign contributions from AIG and Countrywide. WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED????? That out of touch hyprocrite need to go! End of story.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
This is a two cents worth by ann coulter
WHY IS RICK WAGONER FIRED AND NANCY PELOSI STILL WORKING?
About The Author:
Political analyst and attorney Ann Coulter is the author of “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” and other works.
By Ann Coulter Ann Coulter – Thu Apr 2, 6:26 pm ET
Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys.
It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money.
To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work."
Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing.
Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education?
How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia? What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America?
And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.
His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified.
Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend.
Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.
When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available.
In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools.
But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)
If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?
Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.
Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?
How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on.
Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?
Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out.
Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers
RIGHT ON ANN !!!!
About The Author:
Political analyst and attorney Ann Coulter is the author of “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” and other works.
By Ann Coulter Ann Coulter – Thu Apr 2, 6:26 pm ET
Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys.
It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money.
To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work."
Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing.
Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education?
How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia? What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America?
And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?
Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.
His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified.
Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)
The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend.
Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.
When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available.
In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools.
But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)
If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?
Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.
Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?
How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on.
Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?
Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out.
Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers
RIGHT ON ANN !!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
