Archive for April, 2009

Obama: Don’t Forget To Prosecute Nancy Pelosi For Waterboarding

April 25, 2009

The Obama administration completely reversed itself within the span of a day over its decision to throw the Bush administration officials to the dogs over their decisions in trying to keep this country safe following 9/11.

He went from:

April 20: (AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

To:

April 21: President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted.

And that is clearly the result of George Soros, Moveon.org, and the radical left.

Which fully qualifies this as a political witch hunt.  Obama had previously indicated he wanted to “look forward rather than backward.”  His mind was changed for him by leftwing ideologues.

The left have always been cowards who said one thing when it was convenient or expedient, only to denounce the very positions they once held the moment it became convenient or expedient to do so.  For instance, prominent Democrats fell all over themselves to appear tough on Iraq, on Saddam Hussein, and on their demand that the United States eliminate the WMD threat his regime posed.  Fortunately, a number of these statements have been preserved and collected (see Snopes.com; Truthorfiction.com; and Freedomagenda.com for a few examples).  And then THESE VERY SAME DEMOCRATS proceeded to attack President Bush for making the very same statements and pursuing the very same policies they themselves had made and demanded.  They claimed that Bush was a liar when THEY themselves were the liars.  And the mainstream media allowed them to get away with their cowardice, betrayal, and hypocrisy.

And now they are at it again.

Nancy Pelosi says she was never informed about the harsh interrogation techniques that she and her fellow Democrats are now demonizing:

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using “enhanced” interrogation techniques

“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, we’re not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used,” she told reporters today.

The problem is that she is a flat-out liar.  From a 2007 Washington post story entitled, “Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say“:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

And, just as before, Democrats changed their spots the moment it became convenient for them to do so:

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 — by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding — did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey’s confirmation hearings for attorney general.

And Nancy Pelosi is a leader in the field of supporting something until she opposed it.  Following 9/11, there was a real fear that we would be hit again, and thousands – perhaps millions – more Americans could die.  Democrats like Nancy Pelosi supported these necessary measures.  And now she’s demagoguing the people who put the protective measures she supported in place.

Let me provide a few specific examples, using the examples of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi – who have placed themselves at the forefront of the attempt to demonize the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Hillary Clinton: who mockingly said that she didn’t find Dick Cheney “a reliable source of information,” and who “came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar” in saying that accepting General David Petraeus’ report required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisers plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America’s resolve and commitment.  Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.  And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard.  You are either with America in our time of need or you are not. — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate, September 12, 2001

“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.  Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, September 13, 2001

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton was for that war before she was against it.

Nancy Pelosi:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.  Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.  There’s no question about that.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on “Meet The Press”
November 17, 2002

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  …  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777

Allow me to introduce one more official, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for the sake of displaying naked Democratic chutzpah:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  It has refused to take those steps.  That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

Now I believe myself … that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” — Sen. Harry Reid, April 18, 2007

And, of course, the surge strategy was the VERY THING that brought us success in Iraq.

Harry Reid was in favor of winning that war before he was in favor of surrendering.  And then he blamed Bush.

Cowards.

Hypocrites.

Demoagogues.

Incoming President Eisenhower didn’t prosecute FDR officials for war crimes.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for interring Japanese-Americans in camps.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for firebombing Dresden.  Nor did he prosecute Truman for firebombing Tokyo or for dropping two atomic bombs on civilian-populated targets.

Nixon didn’t prosecute Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs or for his role in getting the United States into Vietnam.  Nor did he prosecute Lyndon Baines Johnson for his own massive role in perpetuating the Vietnam War.

Right now Obama has released more photographs of events that occurred at Abu Ghraib to further incriminate and attack Bush.  But Bush is no more responsible for Abu Ghraib than Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the Mai Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968.

President George W. Bush – whose administration is now being criminalized for being Republican – did not criminally prosecute Bill Clinton or Clinton officials for their massive expansion of the “extraordinary rendition” program.  If Democrats want to prosecute people for writing memos, how about prosecuting the people who wrote this one?  And let’s not forget that Bill Clinton should likewise be prosecuted for his decision to launch missiles at what turned out to be an aspirin factory while attempting to distract the country in “wag the dog” manner during the growing Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This is a naked political hit job.  And prosecuting the opposition power after an election – besides having never before been done in American history – will guarantee that this country ends up as just another banana republic.

If anyone is going to prosecute any Bush Administration officials for crimes, just make sure that Bill Clinton and his officials along with Nancy Pelosi are standing in the dock with them.

The last thing that needs to be said is this: If Barack Obama goes ahead with this political attack, and prosecutes Bush officials while ignoring the CIA personnel who actually COMMITTED the acts of (so-called) “torture,” then let him also write a letter of apology to every SS Nazi who was prosecuted for HIS role in war crimes in spite of the fact that “they were just following orders.”  Let him state that the Nuremburg defense is alive and well under his administration.  And let him categorically state that he will allow millions of Americans to die in a terrorist attack rather than cause a single terrorist any physical discomfort.

Obama Imposes Suicide-Pact Bankruptcy On Chrysler

April 24, 2009

The government is preparing the way for a “Dr. Kevorkian”-style bankruptcy for Chrysler.  A couple of paragraphs from the New York Times story should suffice:

U.S. Is Said to Push Chrysler to Prepare for Chapter 11

DETROIT — The Treasury Department is directing Chrysler to prepare a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing that could come as soon as next week, people with direct knowledge of the action said Thursday.

The Treasury has an agreement in principle with the United Automobile Workers union, whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected as a condition of the bankruptcy filing, said these people, who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

You know, I’m old enough to remember a time way, way back when businesses were actually allowed to attend to their own financial affairs.

And they’ve got a guy who was either too dishonest or too stupid to pay his own tax bill organizing the thing: “Turbo Tax Tim” Geithner.

That’s bad enough, but then the snowball starts rolling straight to hell.

The government isn’t making its arrangements with Chrysler; it is rather making them with the United Auto Workers, and then imposing the conditions onto Chrysler.

This is tantamount to saying that Chrysler will never come out of bankruptcy, given the fact that the company needs to be able to escape its legacy costs if it is to ever have any chance of ever being viable.

Would Italian Fiat want this gold-plated turd?  Not very likely.  The Obama administration’s kissy-kiss with the UAW on a bankruptcy deal (and who ever would have seen THAT coming) is frankly akin to a bridal consultant pushing a bride-to-be to gain 500 pounds and have her face chewed off by a deranged chimpanzee in order to prepare her for her nuptials.  The bridal consultant, the chimp, and the bride; the Obama administration, the UAW, and the company: neither situation is going to end well.

Realize this: Obams imposing a suicide pack onto Chrysler.  There is no way the company will be able to attract private investment as long as the unions get to dictate terms.  And realize this: the green cars that the Obama administration wants to impose on the American auto industry aren’t profitable.  Which is why no American money wants anything to do with Barack Hussein’s GM or Chrysler (and very soon Ford).  That leaves us hoping that some foreign country’s investors are more stupid than ours are.

This is nothing less than a suicide pact.  There’s a spaceship hidden behind big labor’s version of the Hale-Bopp comet, and the Obama administration wants Chrysler and GM to prepare to board.

The NY Times article continues:

The only major question that remains unresolved is what happens to Chrysler’s lenders, who hold $6.9 billion in company debt. The government’s most recent offer, presented Wednesday, would give the company’s lenders about 22 cents on the dollar, or $1.5 billion, and a 5 percent equity stake in a reorganized Chrysler. Earlier this week, a steering committee of the lenders proposed that they receive 65 cents on the dollar, or $4.5 billion, and a 40 percent equity stake.

If no agreement is reached between the government and Chrysler’s lenders, a nasty legal fight could emerge in bankruptcy. The creditors’ claims are backed by most of the company’s collateral, including plants, brands and equipment, and the senior lenders will argue that they have first claim on those assets — even over and above the government’s debt….

Some analysts questioned whether the Treasury’s steps to prepare a bankruptcy case were an effort to put more pressure on lenders, with which it has exchanged proposals meant to reduce Chrysler’s debt. Chrysler faces an April 30 deadline from the Treasury, while G.M. faces a June 1 deadline in its own efforts to draft a new restructuring plan.

Let me put the first sentence of the last paragraph another way: “Some analysts questioned whether the father-in-law’s steps to prepare a shotgun wedding was an effort to put more pressure on the boyfriend…

This is an administration that is clearly hungry for power, and which clearly intends to use that power for political purposes.  Why won’t they allow banks to repay bailout money?  They want to be able to control the banks, and thereby control the banks lending policies.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stuart Varney puts it:

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now.

Obama is paying unions back for supporting his presidency by putting the UAW at the head of the line in bankruptcy negotiations.  It is nothing short of political patronage.  Do you seriously think there’s even a chance that he won’t similarly use his power over the banking industry to impose liberal policies and reward liberal constituents?

Obama shares a number of the underlying characteristics that would tend to define one as a fascist, as Jonah Goldberg saw at least as far back as February of 2008.  But we’re not talking about mere “underlying characteristics” or tendencies anymore.  We’re talking about overt fascism.  Sheldon Richman defined fascism as follows:

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”–that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

What the hell else are you going to call what Obama is doing but fascism?

Fascism came out of the political left; and liberals are leading us right back into a fascist hell all over again.

Which leads to the last observation: the suicide-pact that the Obama adminstration is forcing onto Chrysler is a microcosm for the suicide-pact that our society and our country are going to experience.  This government takeover of the American way of life won’t just result in a fascistic redefinition of America.  The federal government and federal reserve have committed over $12.8 TRILLION so far in bailouts and stimulus.  And we’re nowhere near done with this madness, because our leaders believe they can sepnd their way out of debt.  Massive inflation – and a death spiral – will necessarily follow.

Great Depression Redux: How Hoover x FDR = Obama

April 23, 2009

History is often like a demonic-deja-vu-all-over-again merry-go-round, with various ignorant or naive fools taking various nations on the same awful rides again and again. The same folly can bring down a thousand different generations, but there will always be someone who will float to the surface to bring that tally to one thousand and one.

Barack Obama is promising a “new” New Deal. And we are about to go on a ride we will deeply regret – like a motion sickness-prone grandmother finding herself on some colossal gravity-defying roller coaster.

Like the grandma and the roller coaster, we should have known better before we climbed aboard.

Here’s the current story, in the words of Stuart Varney of The Wall Street Journal:

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn’t much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street’s black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ’em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration’s thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash — which was often forced on them in the first place — the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That’s what’s happening right now….

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now.

To summarize, the banks can’t repay their government loan money for one very obvious reason: the government wants to maintain its control over the banks. And why does the government want to maintain its control? Because it wants to impose a political ideology onto the banks and force them into policies that either favor a liberal agenda or liberal constituencies.

Wow. Does that sound like anything that ever happened before?

Yep. In the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s.

There have been three credible causes cited to explain how Americans slid into the worst economic crisis ever: 1) The financial and social catastrophe that resulted from World War I, which among other things had the result of spiraling the US national debt from $1.3 billion to $24 billion in just three years; 2) The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was passed during 1929-30, that instituted the highest tariff ever in US history and created a trade war among our trading partners; 3) The incredibly poor performance of our Federal Reserve, which had been created in 1923 to prevent a depression by regulating interest rates and lending money to banks.

Dr. Burton Folsom, Jr. discussed Herbert Hoover’s role in causing the Great Depression:

Furthermore, Hoover’s response to the Great Depression was thoroughly repudiated. First, he supported and signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which, as we have seen, was one of the [three] causes of the Great Depression. Roosevelt, by contrast, attacked that tariff repeatedly in his campaign and on that point his economic understanding was better than Hoover’s. Second, Hoover endorsed the Federal Farm Board, which placed the government perversely into the farm business. The Farm Board wasted $500 million subsidizing the price of wheat and cotton, and then dumped the surplus on an supersaturated world market. Third, Hoover supported the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), which spent over $1.5 billion on loans (or gifts) to failing banks and industries. But which of the many troubled banks and industries would win the government’s help? Inevitably, the decisions were political, and those who were close to the Hoover administration were often first in line for taxpayer dollars.

This last point needs emphasis: When Hoover used $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to pick winners and losers of special government loans, the process was quickly and inevitably politicized. Those with the right political connections found themselves at the head of the line. For example, the treasurer of the Republican National Committee received a loan of $14 million for his bank in Cleveland. In one of the worst cases, Charles Dawes, the head of the RFC (and a former Republican vice president) resigned from the RFC just in time to win a $90 million loan for his Chicago bank. Hoover’s administration, therefore, was so mired in questionable economic decisions that it had no credible offensive against Roosevelt (page 39, New Deal or Raw Deal?).

Mind you, FDR certainly isn’t off the hook on matters economic: his own theory for the cause of the Great Depression – underconsumption – has been roundly dismissed. MIT economist Peter Temin stated, “The concept of underconsumption has been abandoned in modern discussions of macroeconomics.” And as a result, FDR’s solutions to a phantom problem would be utterly doomed to fail. FDR’s policies actually prolonged the Great Depression by seven years.

Lee E. Ohanian, the vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics, said:

Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump. We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

Fellow UCLA professor of economics Harold L. Cole said:

“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

So much for Obama’s “It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.” hypothesis. Rather, it is Reagan, who said, “Government is not the solution to our problems; government IS the problem,” who had it right.

Barack Obama seems to be the worst possible combination of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt.

In short, you want to talk about a current administration starting a fatal trade war? Try this headline: “US-EU trade war looms as Barack Obama bill urges ‘buy American.’” Or this one: “Obama’s ‘Trade War’: No Truck with Mexico.”

You want to talk about the government becoming “perversely” involved in industries that it has no business interfering in? Do I even need to say anything after Obama has already effectively nationalized both the banking and the auto industries, and is presently seeking to nationalize our enormous health care industry as well? If Obama can fire the CEO of General Motors, he can frankly potentially fire anybody. And this is a president who won’t allow banks to repay their bailouts because he wants to maintain control and power over them. If that isn’t “perverse involvement,” then nothing is.

But, like Burton Folsom, it is the issue of creating government loans and bailouts that will clearly become politicized that I would like to dwell on.

We don’t see anything like the political patronage system such that existed during the Hoover administration under the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, do we?

Headline from April 21 AFP: “Fraud probes dog US bank bailout.” To the tune of 20 criminal investigations so far. The article points out, “Republicans said the Barofsky report vindicated their complaints about the TARP, passed under the previous administration of George W. Bush.” You might remember that Republicans were utterly shut out of the TARP legislation by Democrats. And you may remember House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demonizing Republicans in a hard core partisan attack just before they voted against the bill in large numbers. And from that point on, its been entirely Democrats, entirely to blame.

Which probably led to this brilliant conclusion: Headline from April 21 Evening Standard: “US bank bailout is ‘vulnerable to fraud’.”

Headline from the April 21 Washington Times: “EXCLUSIVE: Senator’s husband’s firm cashes in on crisis: Feinstein sought $25 billion for agency that awarded contract to spouse.”

Headline from the March 12 New York Times: “Congresswoman [Maxine Waters], Tied to Bank, Helped Seek Funds.

Headline from the March 17 Washington Post: “Research Center’s Role Faces Scrutiny: Advice From Murtha Allies Guided Funding Requests, Documents Show.” And in addition, “Murtha’s Defense Earmarks Draw Questions” [from the FBI].

Headline from the February 13 LA Times: “Investigation looks into political pressure on bailout distribution: A special inspector at the Treasury Department is auditing the Troubled Asset Relief Program after reports that members of Congress exerted pressure and that banks actively lobbied for the money.”

Please don’t think I can’t continue.

Do you think Democrats will deal with their corrupt members? They wouldn’t even deal with a guy who was filmed taking $100,000 in bribe money in an FBI corruption sting, and then caught with $90,000 of it in his freezer. Nancy Pelosi made a show of scolding him, then appointed him to the Homeland Security Panel. He finally lost his seat in an election, never having been taken to task by Democrts in power.

And don’t think it won’t get worse – much worse than it has ever been – whether under Herbert Hoover or anyone else.

The Second Scariest Number You’ll Hear Today
By Elana Schor – March 31, 2009, 3:34PM

Bloomberg reported a frightening fact this morning: The U.S. government has committed nearly as much to bailing out financial firms — $12.8 trillion, when you total up guarantees and loans given by the Treasury, Fed, and FDIC — as the nation’s entire $14.2 trillion domestic product.

But that’s not the only eye-popping bailout number that was released today. In a Senate Finance Committee hearing today, panel chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) noted that the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) has put taxpayers on the book for at least $2.9 trillion. That number is almost equal to the U.S. government’s total spending during the 2008 fiscal year, which you can find in Table 5 of this document.

Baucus described the bailout as a shadow U.S. budget “dedicated solely to saving the financial system, and that is truly surreal.”

Few Americans have any idea whatsoever the sheer extent of rampant and insane spending and “investments” the Obama administration has pursued. The most massive government spending in the history of human civilization is going to result in the most massive abuse, waste, political patronage, and corruption in the history of the world.

It has often been pointed out that Herbert Hoover was a Republican. And, technically speaking, he was. But he was a progressive who believed “that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem,” who came to power during a heavily progressive era.

Is Obama going to be an FDR?

You be the judge:

But realize that “being FDR” means fundamentally misunderstanding what actually created the bad economy, and therefore fundamentally misunderstanding what needs to be done in order to get the economy back on track.

I would submit to the reader that Obama needs to be the next Reagan, rather than the next FDR. A few paragraphs from a previous article:

So here’s the question that every single American should deeply care about: does Obama believe that it is the government which creates and sustains economic growth, or does he believe that it is the private sector that produces economic growth and creates the jobs that come with it? Is he FDR, or is he Ronald Reagan?

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan DID have a solution, and the result was the Reagan Revolution.

Unemployment had risen to 11%. More businesses failed than at any time since World War II. The picture of the economy was grim, indeed.

And then the Reagan policies – ridiculed by the very same liberal economic theorists whose policies created the inflation to begin with – began to work. And the result – from such terrible beginnings – was the 2nd largest peacetime expansion in American history. And now – to prove that there really is nothing new under the sun, liberal economic theorists are STILL ridiculing Reagan’s successful policy over twenty years after its success changed America.

The argument that we need either massive government spending as a bulwark against a depression during periods of grave economic distress presents a false dilemma. Reagan proved that positively, and FDR – who substantially prolonged the Great Depression with failed policies (and see here or here for more) – proved it negatively.

Many liberals stubbornly cling to the thesis that FDR’s policies brought America out of the Great Depression. And they can cite a boatload of leftist historians who have come to precisely that conclusion.

But I would submit that anyone taking that position must refute Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s VERY OWN TREASURY SECRETARY.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 9, 1939

The unemployment rate for April of 1939 – the full month before Morgenthau spoke these words before the House Ways and Means Committee – was at 20.7% And while other nations had similarly gone through severe economic depressions during the 1930s, they recovered in less than half the time of the U.S. under FDR. “In most countries of the world recovery from the Great Depression began between late 1931 and early 1933.” But the American depression dragged on and on.

Let me again cite Burton Folsom:

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover. Fully 17.3 percent of Americans, or 9,480,000, remained unemployed in 1939, up from 16.3 percent, or 8,020,000 in 1931. On the positive side, 1939 was better than 1932 and 1933, when the Great Depression was at its nadir, but 1939 was still worse than 1931, which at that time was almost the worst unemployment year in U.S. history. No depression, or recession, had ever lasted even half this long” – (page 2, New Deal or Raw Deal?)

After eight years in office, FDR and his policies had succeeded in RAISING the unemployment rate. And even his very own Treasury Secretary openly acknowledged that the policies that he and FDR had pursued had failed.

So if you’re a liberal wanting to sustain FDR as the hero of the Great Depression, don’t try to refute me. Don’t try to refute Burton Folsom. Don’t try to refute UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. Refute Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR’s closest friends and Secretary of the Treasury throughout the Roosevelt administration. And explain why this man – who would have known more than anyone – was somehow completely wrong when he said his administration had completely failed.

Barack Obama – in refusing to learn the lessons of history and avoid the pitfalls of the past – is about to take us on the Great Depression merry-go-round all over again.

CIA memos: Clinton Attacks Cheney Rather Than Reveal Truth

April 22, 2009

Having studied my fair share of philosophy, I recognize the genetic fallacy when I hear it. And I heard it today from the mouth of Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Let’s not talk about a legitimate issue; let’s instead demonize the person who is raising the legitimate issue while ignoring the issue itself. Hillary Clinton engaged in a textbook example of playing the politics of personal destruction – and distraction – rather than reveal the truth.

SecState Hillary Clinton doesn’t find Cheney a “reliable source of information”

It’s testy in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing today.

SecState HRC is testifying in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee and it seems she got into a bit of a heated exchange with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher — or he did with her — over the release of the interrogation memos.

Rohrabacher asks Secretary Clinton whether she agrees with former Veep Cheney’s suggestion that all memos on enhanced interrogation be released.

Secretary Clinton’s response? “It won’t surprise you that I don’t consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information…”

Rohrabacher bites back: “Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question. … Dick Cheney has asked that specific documents be declassified. … I didn’t ask you what your opinion is of Dick Cheney and if you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?”

Secretary Clinton: “I think we should get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it’s in the best interest of our country and that is what the president believes and that is why he’s taken the actions he’s taken.”

Youtube video.

Well, that’s okay, I suppose. Dick Cheney just joined war hero and savior of the American effort in Iraq General David Petraeus in lacking credibility as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned.

WASHINGTONSenator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

There’s Youtube video for that, too.

Personally, I think that places Dick Cheney in far better company than the heroine of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, a bunch of other assorted “-gates” and the wicked witch who blamed her husband getting blow jobs in the Oval Office on “a vast rightwing conspiracy.” And it was such a perfectly-executed conspiracy that those dreadful rightwingers were able to plant Bill Clinton’s own semen on Monica Lewinsky’s dress.

But that’s okay: her boss Obama is now going after all of those rightwing conspirators who believe horrible things such as: the right to exercise free speech; the right to peaceably assemble; the 14th Amendment’s restriction of the federal government encroaching on the rights of the states and the people; the right of an innocent baby to live; the right to think that the United States should protect America for its own citizens; the right of our heroic combat veterans not to be regarded as dangerous terrorist threats when they return home; etc.

I want you to understand something: THESE are the people saying former` Vice President Dick Cheney isn’t “reliable”:

From April 20: (AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

From April 21: President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted.

THESE are the people saying former Vice President Dick Cheney isn’t “reliable”:

JENNIFER LOVEN, AP: The $100 million target figure that the president talked about today with the Cabinet, can you explain why so small? I know he talked about—you know, you add up 100 million and 100 million, and eventually, you get somewhere, but it would take an awfully long time to add up hundred million (inaudible) in the deficit. Why not target a bigger number?

GIBBS: (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars…

LOVEN: The deficit’s very large. It’s not a joke.

GIBBS: No, I’m…

LOVEN: The deficit’s giant. $100 million really is only a step.

GIBBS: But no joke.

LOVEN: You sound like you’re joking about it, but it’s not funny.

GIBBS: I’m not making jokes about it. I’m being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I’m from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

LOVEN: The point is it’s not a very big portion of the deficit.

TAPPER: You were talking about an appropriations bill a few weeks ago about $8 billion being minuscule—$8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that that…

GIBBS: Well, in terms of—in…

TAPPER: …$100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small?

To quote a blogger:

Of course, $100 million is a lot of money where anyone is from. But in Washington DC, where Obama has expanded government spending by gargantuan amounts, it’s 0.0029% of the budget. Or 0.00076% of what Obama spent on the “economic stimulus” spending spree

These are people who justify whatever the hell they want as “reliable information.” The same people who justify trivializing $8 BILLION in pork because that $8 billion makes them look bad almost immediately thereafter justify claiming that $100 million in budget cuts is a huge figure because they think that .0029% of the budget they say they’ll trim makes them look good. The people who claim Cheney lacks credibility massively lack so much of a shred of it themselves.

For the Obama administration, credibility means doublespeak. Openness means releasing only those documents that hurt the political opposition. Accountability means personally attacking anyone who raises a legitimate point.

So the administration that promised openness and accountability is now releasing only the documents that make the Bush administration and the United States of America look bad, but refuse to release the information that reveals how necessary and useful the actions that Bush took to protect this country. The administration that promised unparalleled bipartisanship is now pursuing the greatest political witch-hunt in American history and essentially transforming this country into a banana republic where the winners of the next election criminalize the previous administration. And personally attack anyone who confronts them for doing it while avoiding the main issue.

The facts are obvious to anyone who will consider them (or allow them to be released): the “harsh” interrogations worked. The Bush Administration officials were called upon to make extraordinary decisions in the heat of battle with thousands of dead Americans and many thousands or tens of thousands more feared to come. And they acted to protect the country.

So let’s have a communist show trial, forbid the accused from presenting any exculpatory or mitigating evidence in their own defense, and put them in prison. That’s the documented historical way of the left, after all.

That’s the new America under Barack Hussein.

One day a Republican administration will be back in power – and they’ll be mad as hell over the shocking perversions of justice that are going on right now. That administration will find its legal precedent to prosecute from what is going on right now. And the president and the administration that engaged in politically-motivated prosecutions is going to become the next victim of the next wave of politically-motivated prosecutions.

Note to the soon-to-be-prosecuted Bush officials: demand a change of venue out of Washington D.C., or you will be convicted of the crime of being a Republican just like Scooter Libby.

CIA Memos: Obama Releases What Makes Us Look Bad, Conceals What Makes Us Look Good

April 22, 2009

President Obama released legal memos revealing our interrogation methods of terrorists, essentially referring to the Bush years following 9/11 as a “dark and painful chapter in our history.”

Thus we found out that:

Prisoners could be kept awake for more than a week. They could be stripped of their clothes, fed nothing but liquid and thrown against a wall 30 consecutive times.

In one case, the CIA was told it could prey on one prisoner’s fear of insects by stuffing him into a box with a bug. When all else failed, the CIA could turn to what a Justice Department memo described as “the most traumatic” interrogation technique of all, waterboarding.

What Obama refused to allow the American people to learn was that these things worked and kept us safe.

Cheney Calls For More CIA Reports To Be Declassified
Mon Apr 20 2009 16:20:53 ET

In a two part interview airing tonight and tomorrow night on FOX News Channel’s Hannity (9-10PM ET), former Vice President Dick Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administration’s interrogation tactics:

CHENEY: “One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven’t announced this up until now, I haven’t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

In short, Obama wanted to release only the stuff that made America and the Bush administration look bad. He DID NOT want to release the stuff that made America and the Bush administration look good. And that should really bother you.

Mind you, we shouldn’t have released ANYTHING.

WASHINGTON – Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records.

Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to detail internal government discussions.

The Obama mentality seems to be that the terrorists aren’t our enemy; George Bush is the real enemy, and anything that discredits him – even if it provides aid to terrorists and allows them to be more successful in the future even as our own ability to stop them is undermined – is worth pursuing.

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden – a career intelligence professional unlike the career political hack Obama appointed to head the CIA – offered the following in an op-ed entitled, “The President Ties His Own Hands On Terror“:

[On the impact of the CIA as an institution]: “The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.”….

[On the ability of the terrorists to resist American interrogations in the future]: “[P]ublic disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.”….

[On the morale and effectiveness of our CIA officers in the future]: “The effect of this disclosure on the morale and effectiveness of many in the intelligence community is not hard to predict. Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable.”…

The money quote of the Hayden piece has got to be this:

“fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those [harsh] interrogations.”

In short:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A former head of the US Central Intelligence Agency insisted Sunday that harsh interrogation techniques widely condemned as torture had succeeded in battling Al-Qaeda and saving American lives, something he characterized as “an inconvenient truth.”

Michael Hayden, who was replaced as CIA chief earlier this year by President Barack Obama, assailed Obama’s decision last week to release “Top Secret” memos detailing the interrogation techniques as “really dangerous” for US intelligence efforts.

We had darned good reason for waterboarding terrorists such as Abu Zubaydah. Our guys washed the defiance right out of those murderers’ hair.

I demand that Barack Hussein address the nation and assure us that the comfort of a terrorist is more important to him than an American city, and that he would rather that ten million Americans perish in a terrorist attack than that one terrorist with “ticking time bomb” knowledge be waterboarded. Let’s lay it on the line. Let’s allow the American people to decide, “Our lives and the lives of our families aren’t worth the ‘torturing’ of a terrorist. The president is right.” Or NOT.

But that won’t be the kind of honesty we’ll get. We won’t get any real honesty at all. Rather, in the guise of “openness,” and “transparency,” Obama will only let us have enough information to lead us to a false conclusion that America and George Bush really were evil.

Finally, if we are attacked again, I further demand that Barack Hussein be impeached and removed from office for refusing to uphold his sworn Constitutional duty to defend and protect America. I demand that he be held personally responsible for his dismantling of our intelligence capability. And I demand that he – rather than the officials who tried to protect us following the worst attack in American history – be criminally prosecuted for depraved indifference by abandoning measures that successfully protected the citizens of this country in favor of political ideology.

The Vicious Intolerance Of ‘Liberal Tolerance’ (Updated)

April 20, 2009

The heroes of the modern day liberal mindset: Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann, and Perez Hilton. In the name of tolerance, they are as intolerant as the universe is big.

Remember how liberals fallaciously attributed a quote to Thomas Jefferson that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to provide themselves a slick teflon media cover for attacking our troops and the war they were trying to win? Mark Steyn revealed the liberal deception and the media propaganda on that issue in his piece, “America’s hardboiled newsmen can’t get enough of the Thomas Jefferbunk.” Somehow all those “wise seekers of truth” that ostensibly fill the ranks of the media weren’t able to uncover the blatant historical falsehood that one liberal after another cited. “Truth” only matters when it hurts Republicans.

Democrats got us into World War I, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into World War II, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Korea, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Vietnam, and Republicans supported them. It is long-standing tradition to support a nation and its leaders in time of war. And, so, yeah, Republicans were rather bitter when Democrats – given that 29 of 50 Democrat Senators voted FOR the Iraq War; and given the many statements they had made in support of the need to confront and remove Saddam Hussein (see also here and here) – literally proclaimed defeat, pronounced our innocent soldiers as war criminals and cold-blooded murderers, and labeled Bush a liar and a war criminal.

“Highest form of patriotism”? Is THAT what the “highest form of patriotism” looks like? Do ya think? If Abraham Lincoln (a Republican, by the way) had been president instead of Bush, he would have thrown these rat bastards in jail for their vile undermining of a war while our troops were fighting and dying to win it.

Republicans expected bi-partisanship and support in dealing with a threat that both Republicans and Democrats had repeatedly recognized after the worst terrorist attack in history; what they got was unrelenting political backstabbing and demonization. And all in the name of “patriotism.” And how DARE we question them?

Well, liberals NEW butchery of history and truth is, “Dissent WAS the highest form of patriotism.” Now it’s suddenly become the lowest form of treason.

Rather than going to the lowest low of attempting to undermine a commander-in-chief and a military in time of war – a war which they had demonstrably supported when it suited them – conservatives today are decrying the fact that we are spending ourselves into a future financial catastrophe that will dwarf anything we’ve ever seen unless we STOP.

WASHINGTONThe federal government and the Federal Reserve have committed $12.8 trillion in spending so far to bailouts and “stimulus” packages – an amount nearly equal to the value of everything produced in the U.S. in 2008.

That’s the report from Bloomberg News about efforts to reduce the economic drag of a debt-based recession – the worst financial crisis to hit the U.S. since the Great Depression.

The numbers are growing so fast, it’s tough for most Americans to grasp.

Were the Tea Parties a politically-motivated hatchet job, as liberals and their lackeys in the media kept reporting? In a word, no. The liberals making this claim offered two contradictory straw men. They claimed that 1) the Tea Parties were a Republican- and Fox News-organized event even as 2) they refused to listen to the statements of those whom they claimed were behind the event.

As an example, when demonstrators confronted CNN’s Susan Roesgen for her biased reporting and presentation of the Chicago Tea Party event as an attempt to attack Barack Obama, a woman pointed just a couple of feet away and asked, “Did you look at his sign?”

republicans-suck-too1

You can see the woman’s finger pointing at the sign (at 4:02 into the video), and the head in the bottom right of the frame is Susan Roesgen’s. And even when she was FORCED to look at the sign, Roesgen didn’t acknowledge it; it simply didn’t conform to the liberal narrative, and therefore had to be ignored.

Another video from the Greenville Tea Party shows Tea Party protestors roundly booing Republican Congressman Gresham Barrett, who had voted for the first stimulus under George Bush. A comment left on the video by “Liberty4Ever” summed it up:

I guess Barrett didn’t get the message that the TEA Parties are non-partisan events, and weasels who vote for wasteful Big Government “stimulus” and socialist bailouts. He probably knows not to speak at another of these events. There will probably be tar and feathers waiting for him!

So the unrelenting portrayal by the liberal media machine that these were “rightwing” or “conservative” or “Republican” or “Fox News” events is simply propaganda and demagoguery out to marginalize a massive outpouring of popular – and bipartisan – sentiment.

And they weren’t merely mischaracterizing the Tea Parties and disingenuously creating a straw man in an attempt to marginalize them. They were downright hateful and evil.

Failed AirAmerica radio host Janeane Garofalo was allowed to appear on MSNBC‘s Countdown and say:

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

It would have been bad enough if Garofalo were just some blogger spewing her hate; but she is high-profile member of the liberal establishment in good standing appearing on a major news program to offer her commentary. And just what could she have said about the Tea Party participants that could have been any more hateful?

Keith Olbermann was merely one among many “journalists” who repeatedly characterized the Tea Party participants with the crudest sexual innuendo and insults. He said, “Well, the teabagging is all over, except for the cleanup. And that will be my last intentional double entendre on this one at least until the end of this segment.” But then – vicious liar that he is – Olbermann couldn’t help himself, and said, “Congratulations, Pensacola teabaggers. You got spunked. And despite the hatred on display, a few of you actually violated the penal code. But teabagging is now petered out, taint what it used to be.”

After all the crude, vicious, and hateful sexual innuendo, Olbermann actually had the gall to say of the Tea Party protesters, “And then there were the protest messages, seething with hate.

“Seething with hate” means no riots. “Seething with hate” means no violence. “Seething with hate” means one or two demonstrators got tickets for jaywalking. Gregg Gutfeld had a humorous piece featuring hateful video from LEFTIST protesters, and said, “Oh, sorry. Wrong tape.” He pointed out:

Yep, those look like real extremists. Actually, they look like people who own riding mowers.

Fact is, I could find only one arrest among the hundreds of demonstrations that took place across the country. Sure, I didn’t look too hard — but still: Why is that not the story of the day?

I mean, not one person threw a chair through a store window. But that’s probably because that person owns the chair or the store or it could be a chair store.

I’ll tell you why the nonviolence wasn’t the story of the day: because it doesn’t conform to the liberal narrative. “Seething with hate” works better for them. Whether it’s true or not frankly doesn’t matter in this “brave new journalism.”

The hatred, anger, fear, and paranoia on the left is obvious: How DARE these people exercise their right to free speech and peaceful assembly to protest the bloated government socialism that we liberals love so much. Why aren’t our SS troops not doing something to STOP them!?!? You have to wonder how their heads don’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions: On the one hand they trivialize the Tea Parties as being no big deal, while on the other hand they use the most over-the-top and hateful language imaginable to describe them; on the one hand they call conservatives the haters, while on the other hand they can’t help but reveal that it is THEY who are the real haters.

The only people truly “seething with hate” are liberals like Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There’s your hate. And all offered from the perspective of “tolerant” liberals loathing the “intolerance” of conservatives.

And, of course, liberals like Perez Hilton. Let’s watch the videos of Hilton and Miss California and decide who is tolerant, and who is a vicious hater.

Poor girl. She might as well have been a Jew with Adolf Hitler or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the panel.

Miss California presented herself well, and gave voice to a position on gay marriage that was proven to be the one held by the majority of voters in her state. But the left could care less about the will of the people or tolerance or anything but their agenda; which is why they embarked on a hateful campaign to punish the people who didn’t agree with them in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote.

“Tolerance” for a liberal means crushing, punishing, or intimidating all opposition by any means available. When every voice but their own are silenced, there is “tolerance.”

Let’s just be clear on which side is truly “seething with hate.”

If you really want to find out what “seething with hate” really looks like, why not reflect on the words of Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual guide for 23 years?

Update April 22:

It occurred to me to wonder how – for all of her racist invective against conservatives – Janeane Garofalo felt about conservative blacks.  It didn’t take long to find out:

Youtube link (accessed here).

Garofalo attacks Michael Steele as a black man for being a conservative.  It is a racist attack if there ever was one.  Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee – a powerful and prestigious position – but as far as Garofalo is concerned, she needs to put that negro in his place.  And as this psychotic gargoyle is spewing this poison, who’s sitting with her but Keith Olbermann?

If Condoleezza Rice were president, does anyone seriously think this unhinged witch would have supported her?  And precisly how does Janeane Garofalo feel toward our only black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas?  Oh, yeah, that’s right: he’s a stupid negro with Stockholm Syndrome, kissing the feet of his massahs.

How dare this racist bigot call me or anyone else a “racist”?

And let me also say a little more about Carrie Prejean, Miss California and the hate that she encountered.

On yesterday’s “Bill O’Reilly” program, Wayne Besen, a founder of a gay rights group and author of a book entitled, “Anything but Straight,” was on the program, and said of Miss California, Carrie Prejean:

WAYNE BESEN, FOUNDER OF GAY RIGHTS GROUP, TRUTH WINS OUT: I think it is fair. When she made those comments, she entered the political arena. And she’s entitled to make those comments. and I applaud her for having the courage to do so. However, when you do that, people are going to be offended. She said no offense, I was offended. Millions of other people were offended.

No!  NOT, you bigot!

Gay activist Perez Hilton asked the following question, which as a contestant Miss California had absolutely no choice but to answer:

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

And Carrie Prejean’s answer was as tolerant as one could ever hope for:

Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

States have a right to choose, and Prejean is grateful for that.  But since she was asked, “Do you think every state should follow suit?  Why or why not?”  Prejean answered the QUESTION.

And homosexual activists such as Perez Hilton and Wayne Besen, who are Big Brother Stalinists, then proceed to punish and attack her for giving her thoughts on a question that they themselves had demanded she answer, and then attack her for having “entered the political arena” when the only thing she had entered was a beauty pageant.  THEY WERE THE ONES WHO DRAGGED THE POLITICAL ARENA INTO THE EVENT, AND THEN ATTACKED HER MERELY FOR EXPRESSING HER PERSONAL VIEW.

Perez Hilton went all over the internet spewing the message:

PEREZ HILTON, MISS USA JUDGE: Let me explain to you, she lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she is a dumb bitch, okay?

These people would punish the majority of Americans (and the majority of the Californians Miss California was representing) merely for having a viewpoint even as they try to use the courts to impose their lifestyle by the judicial fiat of black robed masters.

These people are the haters.  And we need to expose them for what they truly are.

Obama’s Disgrace America Tour Off To Great Start

April 19, 2009

Let’s reflect on the past few weeks.

First Obama treats the Prime Minister of Britain – America’s closest historic ally – like dirt and then has his State Department announce that “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

But that’s okay; he’s balancing that despicable treatment by doling out more of the same shoddy treatment to the 2nd greatest ally of the United States, Israel.

Apparently, Obama seeks to appease the countries who despise us by turning his back on the countries who have loved us.

Then he goes on his “Apologize for being an American” tour during the G-20 summit. He didn’t get any meaningful commitments from anybody to give us any kind of meaningful help in our “good war” in Afghanistan, and he got absolutely nobody to follow his “let’s all keep on recklessly spending” stimulus plan. But he gave up American economic sovereignty by ceding control over to an international body anyway. At least Judas got 20 pieces of silver for his betrayal; Obama got nothing for his.

During that tour, Obama had the gall to apologize to Franceto FRANCE! – for American arrogance. That pretty much proves that Obama believes America is the most arrogant country in the history of the world.

And he bowed down before the king of Saudi Arabia before lying about the fact that he had bowed. The first American president to break with the tradition that American presidents do not bow down to kings. The tradition of “sic semper tyrannis” is officially over.

Then – after bowing down before a Muslim king – Obama went to Turkey to renounce American Christianity, and all the founding history that went with it.

With his genuflection to serve as a capstone foreign policy moment for American submission, Obama then journeyed to Mexico to tell them to blame America for all their problems, and repeats the already utterly disproven demagoguery that “More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States” to support his thesis. Pretty smart, this: he gets to demonize America for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels and at the same time he gets to undermine the 2nd Amendment.

And then we went to the Americas Conference to appear as the “poor ignoramus” that Hugo Chavez said he was a few weeks earlier:

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

“He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Geez. I never would have believed Hugo Chavez would ever be right about anything. Hugo Chavez should look in a mirror, of course, but he’s absolutely spot-on in his assessment of Obama.

The governments of the United States and Venezuela finally agree upon something; and Obama and Chavez subsequently shook on it to confirm the fact: Barack Obama IS a poor ignoramus.

Well, at least he didn’t bow down before him, although some have suggested that perhaps if Obama bows down before the Ayatollah of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea perhaps they’d abandon their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Why nuke us if we’re already subservient?

And then Chavez took another photo op moment to present Obama with a book that presents the Marxist-socialist thesis that America is the source of evil that is responsible for all of Latin America’s problems. Chavez DID say the poor ignoramus needed to read up on his Marxist fabrication of history, after all.

Sad thing is I bet Obama reads every page of the book Chavez gave him. And believes it.

After listening to a deranged speech in which Daniel Ortega demonized and blamed the United States for every problem in Latin America (having clearly read Obama’s new book), Obama’s response was as telling as it was depressing:

“I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

It’s NOT about YOU, dammit! This guy just pissed all over your country – the country that you took an oath to DEFEND, by the way – and all you care about is whether he blamed YOU the way you’ve blamed George Bush 5,000 times?  STAND UP FOR AMERICA! Tell the world we’re NOT the hateful country that sleazeballs such as Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Ortega claim.  But, no; you’ve done even more blaming of America than Ortega during the last several weeks.

Very recently, Obama continued the disgrace America tour by releasing CIA memos so he could refer to “the dark and painful chapter in our history.” Yet another attempt to rub our nose in our morbid and completely illegitimate desire to protect ourselves from the lethal hatred of terrorists. CIA officials are supposed to be thankful that Obama did not reward them for their efforts to protect the country by having them criminally prosecuted. It was apparently vitally important that our terrorist enemies be made to realize that they no longer have absolutely anything whatsoever to fear from being captured by American forces. All they have to do is lawyer up while enjoying three hots and a cot while they destroy our country just like the ACLU does – from within – by using our own institutions against us.

The disgrace America tour goes on and on under Barrack Hussein. Let’s not forget the sermons from Obama’s spiritual leader for 23 years: this IS “God damn America,” after all.

I end by reflecting on the words of Mark Levin from Liberty And Tyranny, page 18:

For the Statist, the international community and international organizations serve as useful sources for importing disaffection with the civil society. The Statist urges Americans to view themselves with through the lenses of those who resent and even hate them. He needs Americans to become less confident, to doubt their institutions, and to accept the status assigned to them by outsiders – as isolationists, invaders, occupiers, oppressors, and exploiters. The Statist wants Americans to see themselves as backward, foolishly holding to their quaint notions of individual liberty, private property, family, and faith, long diminished or jettisoned in other countries. They need to listen to the voices of condemnation from world capitals and self-appointed global watchdogs hostile to America’s superior standard of living. America is said to be out of step and regressive, justifying the surrendering of its sovereignty through treaties and other arrangements that benefit the greater “humanity.” And it would not hurt if America admitted its past transgressions, made reparations, and accepted its fate as just another aging nation – one among many.

CNN’s Susan Roesgen Coverage Of Tea Party: An Object Lesson In Bias

April 17, 2009

Newsbusters was all over CNN’s FoxNews-bashing, Tea-Party-bashing, ordinary-American bashing “reporter” Susan Roesgen.

First, the video of her “reporting” – which was in the form of Roesgen attempting to undermine and refute the thousands of tea partiers rather than simply reporting on the event:

For all of her bashing of FoxNews as some “rightwing conservative” (and therefore presumably illegitimate) entity, Susan Roesgen had personally TWICE applied with Fox.  Maybe her issues with Fox are more psychological and personal than journalistic?

Now for some of the Newsbusters piece:

CNN’s Fox-Bashing/Fox-Job Applying Roesgen ‘Tak(ing) a Break’

CNN’s Susan Roesgen has had a rough week, what with all the ordinary American/First Amendment practitioners bashing she so passionately and obnoxiously delivered in her TEA Party reporting.

Perhaps it was the sniping at the place she twice applied in 2005 – Rupert Murdoch’s House of Ratings, otherwise known as Fox News – that put her over the edge.

Or whether or not her email box was so overwhelmed with what was undoubtedly an endless stream of love letters and fan mail that it caused a server meltdown.

Whatever it was, CNN has announced that Miss Roesgen’s “tak(ing) a break.”

Two days after Susan Roesgen‘s much talked-about Chicago Tea Party live shots, we are learning more about what happened off-camera.

Sources close to the situation tell TVNewser as Roesgen was reporting her 2pmET live shot for CNN, she heard shouts from the crowd including “Damn CNN” and “Shut up, bitch.”

As we now know, Roesgen wrapped up the live shot, saying “I think you get the general tenor of this,” that it was “not really family viewing” from an “Anti-CNN” crowd.

Our source says Roesgen received an avalanche of email messages, some supportive, and some “vitriolic with crude insults.”

“Not family viewing?”  Okay, perhaps not.  We are certainly not a fan of the venal tongue, in private conversation or on the air.

But come, Miss Roesgen, have you watched your CNN colleague Anderson “Vanderbilt” Cooper lately?  He of the “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging” wild pitch on Tuesday?  THAT’s family viewing?

For all of liberals or Susan Roesgen’s “righteous indignation” regarding any harassment (I went to four youtube videos with the title, “CNN reporter gets harassed at Chicago tea party,” and none even contained any actual footage of the event) she was clearly so confrontational and so adversarial at this event that she literally welcomed the anger of the crowd.  They knew that she wasn’t there to report on the event, but to attack it.  And all the while on the evening coverage tea party attenders are referred to in a blatantly sexually-suggestive slur.

She is confronted in other Chicago tea party footage shortly after the posted video segment by other tea party attenders who point out that she is handpicking people with the most controversial signs – which did NOT represent the spirit of the event – and then getting in their faces to obtain an emotional reaction so she could claim it “wasn’t for family viewing.”  This amounts to my going to a liberal event and throwing feces at people and then claiming that “the liberals at the event stink.”

In the video cited above, Susan Reosgen was asked, “Did you look at THAT sign?” and pointed right next to Roesgen’s.   The sign said, “Republicans suck too!”  And of course she didn’t pay attention to it; it didn’t conform to her ideological leftwing narrative which portrayed this as a conservative hate-attack against Obama and Democrats.  In the background you can hear the participants chanting of Roesgen, “You spin!  You spin!  You spin!”

The same Susan Roesgen displays her kinder, gentler, supportive side when she interviews leftist demonstrators.  Which was precisely how she should have interviewed the tea party demonstrators if she was honest and objective.  Another youtube clip accessed via Beltsay Blips shows Susan Roesgen merely calmly reporting on a person wearing a Bush mask with devil horns while carrying a wad of cash at a leftist event, versus her opinionated confrontation of a man who had a sign at the tea party decrying Obama government fascism.  She asks, “Do you realize how offensive that is?”  Because while graphically representing Bush as the devil incarnate is apparently fine, holding a sign calling her Messiah a fascist is just way over the line.

The funny thing is that, all the while “journalists” such as Susan Roesgen or Anderson Cooper claim that the tea parties were a ginned-up event created by FoxNews, they somehow manage to completely ignore the description of what the event is about from the very people they claim are behind the event.

Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and just about everyone else who have reported or discussed the tea parties on FoxNews have claimed that the parties are NOT about political parties, and NOT about the current taxation climate; but rather about uncontrolled government spending that will necessarily result in higher taxes and a diminished American way of life in the near future and in the futures of their children.  They literally create and report as news mutually contradictory straw men.

Susan Roesgen is a disgrace to journalism, and so is CNN for airing that piece.  Unfortunately, such leftist ideological propaganda attacks now characterize the news media.  Journalism is dead; long live propaganda.

Let me finish with Anderson Cooper – clearly a much bigger fish than Susan Roesgen.  Cooper – in the guise of a journalist – said, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging on the air on CNN (link; youtube).

I didn’t know what “teabagging” was (beyond dunking a tea bag into a cup of hot water).  I had to google it.  Here’s what I found.  Now I understand the “hard to talk” part.  Thanks for the incredibly crude mental image, Anderson.  The world now knows where your mind – and your objectivity and integrity –  is.

To direct such a crude sexually suggestive reference to people merely for showing up at a legitimate public protest event has to be some kind of nadir for naked bias, rampant leftist ideology, and the worst kind of propaganda.

No free society can survive such propaganda.  It is little wonder we are descending into fascism.

Let’s Make The Mainstream Media Propaganda OFFICIAL

April 16, 2009

Obama has appointed another far leftist radical to join the ranks of such as committed socialist Carol Browner (Global Warming czar) and committed globalist Harold Koh (State Department’s legal adviser).  Now it’s Rosa Brooks, the far-left columnist for the Los Angeles Times who has said:

“George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn’t be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.”

This is a committed globalist – which by definition means she calls for a diminution of American power and the American Constitution – who has served on the incredibly radical George Soros organization.

I hope none of you leftists mind if Ann Coulter goes to work in the next Republican administration.  Maybe in some powerful capacity where she can just run hog wild all over you.

In her last column – published AFTER she became an official member of the Obama administration – Rosa Brooks offered her vision for state-owned media:

Influential Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks has hung up her journalistic hat and joined the Obama administration, but not before penning a public proposal calling for some radical ideas to help bail out the failing news industry.

Brooks, who has taken up a post as an adviser at the Pentagon, advocated upping “direct government support for public media” and creating licenses to govern news operations.

“Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off,” she wrote in her parting column on April 9.

Brooks said this would help rescue the industry from a “death spiral” and left the government unaccountable to the journalists who must keep it honest. “[I] can’t imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed,” she wrote.

But critics say her proposal would spell an end to the independent media and make journalists reliant lapdogs.

“The day that the government gets involved in the news media you see the end of the democratic process, because an independent news media is absolutely essential to the success of a democracy,” said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group.

Bozell said licensing journalists would violate American traditions and was a form of “intellectual prostitution.”

“Since when did our Founding Fathers envision that … you could exercise your right to freedom of speech provided you had a license from the federal government? This is the kind of stuff you have revolutions about,” he told FOXNews.com.

Attempts to reach Brooks by phone and e-mail were unsuccessful. A columnist for four years at the Times, Brooks this week joined the office of the undersecretary of Defense for policy, the principal adviser to the Pentagon’s top brass. She retains her post as a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and during the Clinton administration served as a senior adviser to the State Department….

It is unclear whether the Obama administration is considering such assistance. A spokesman for Obama did not respond to questions about Brooks’ statements, which were published after her appointment to the Pentagon.

Some in the government are already looking to assist the industry. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed legislation in March that would allow newspapers to operate as tax-exempt nonprofits as long as they don’t endorse political candidates. The move was heralded as a positive step toward finding a fix but condemned by critics for potentially making newspapers beholden to the government.

Some scribes are already closely bound to Washington. As jobs are axed and papers felled across the country, many journalists have sought work elsewhere. A number have gone to work for the Obama administration, including Chicago Tribune correspondent Jill Zuckman; Time magazine’s Washington bureau chief, Jay Carney; former L.A. Times reporter Peter Gosselin; and Warren Bass, once the Washington Post’s deputy editor.

Brooks is not the first journalist to support a broadsheet bailout, but she is the first member of the administration to publicly declare her support for the move, which appears to be gaining momentum.

We need a Ministry of Propaganda to go along with everything else this administration is doing.

Contrast what Obama’s new pick for his administration is calling for in relation to another liberal demand.  The last third of one of my articles provides quote after quote from prominent Democrats calling for the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.  Most Americans recognize how fascist such a liberal attack on free speech would be, but Democrats will not be stopped: the outgoing FCC commissioner recently warned of a new “back-door” implementation of the Fairness Doctrine.  And let’s not forget the central fact: the Fairness Doctrine – by any liberal euphemism – is a blatant attempt to muzzle the only media outlet in which conservatives truly have a substantial voice.

While these verminous hypocrites want to legislate highly successful talk-radio out of existence simply because they don’t like the message of the most successful talk radio hosts, they want to fund failed liberal media because they need to subsidize the leftist message coming out of the liberal-dominated mainstream media.

Fox News is doing fine.  More than fine:

FOX RATINGS SURGE ON PROTEST COVERAGE
8-11 PM ET

FOXNEWS 3,390,000
MSNBC 1,210,000
CNN 1,070,000
CNN HEADLINE 909,000

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,980,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000
COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,292,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000
CNN COOPER 1,021,000

The Wall Street Journal doesn’t have any financial worries.  It’s the uberliberal New York Times, Boston Globe, San Fransisco Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Rocky Mountain News (Denver), and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that are all failing.  And fail these dishonest, corrupt, biased, propaganda rags should.

I’ve written about the fact that study after study has demonstrated that the media is dominated by liberalism.  I’ve written about this in numerous articles, but one paragraph from a previous article should suffice to demonstrate that fact:

The media has been so blatantly biased throughout its election coverage that it is completely accurate to say that we are now in a propaganda state.  There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased.  Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.  The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats and their ideology.  Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded democracy, because no free society can survive such a climate of propaganda.

The bias, the ideology masquerading as news, the dishonesty and corruption of the media, is rampant.  And more and more Americans simply no longer trust them.

I would love to subscribe to my local newspaper.  I’d love to have the coupons and the local news coverage.  But the local paper is more likely to offend me than it is to inform me.  The moderate competitor from immediately outside the area stopped delivering to my neighborhood.  So now I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.  It isn’t delivered to my area either, and I like a hard-copy newspaper; so I have to wait at my mailbox for the darn thing and read it the day after the fact.  But it’s either that or no paper at all.

I don’t need a “vast rightwing conspiracy” newspaper; just don’t give me “General Betray Us.”  But that’s just too damn much to expect from way too many newspapers and periodicals these days.

There just aren’t enough people left who trust these bird-cage liners to make them profitable.

The tea parties are a great example of this.  Hundreds of thousands of people showed up to some 750 events across the nation.  As Channel 2 local news reported, There were thousands on hand for that event at noon. And that was in a small city.  And there was still another event scheduled for the evening that was expected to be even better attended.  And horns were honking so loud from passing motorists who couldn’t attend (but wished they could have) that you couldn’t hear yourself think.  Yet how does the mainstream media handle this major news event? They mock it and seek to undermine it even as they refuse to actually report it.  They are disenfranchising their readership to their own extinction.

But rather than begin to correct the far-left ideology-as-news and supply the market with fair and objective news sources, far-leftwingers such as Rosa Brooks – who is now part of the Obama administration – say that Nazi Germany’s Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and the Soviet TASS were sound government-business relationships.

I keep calling these people fascists.  And they keep saying, “We’re not quite fascist yet; but we’re working toward it as hard as we can.”

Re: $250 Stimulus Payment For Service-Connected Veterans

April 15, 2009

This post is intended purely as a service to veterans, rather than as a commentary.

There will be a $250 stimulus payment made to all VA service-connected veterans beginning in June, 2009.  According to the VA representative, ALL veterans receiving disability compensation – regardless of their rating (although I’m not certain if this applies to 0% ratings) will be eligible for this automatic payment.

Veterans receiving disability benefits do not need to file a tax return to receive the payment, as they had to in order to qualify for the $300 stimulus payment last year.  This years’ payment will be handled automatically through the VA payment system to all eligible veterans rather than the Treasury.

For more information, call the VA 1-800-827-1000 and press “0” to get to a live representative.

Now for my comment: Personally, I am opposed to these “stimulus” payments.  I would vote against them if I could.  However, since they are already being paid, and since so many others are receiving the payments, I want my little slice of the pie, too.

If we’re going to bankrupt our country, veterans might as well get their money, too.  Frankly, we deserve it more than anyone else, anyway.