Archive for October, 2009

Barack Obama’s Dithering Foreign Policy About To Give Iran Nukes

October 24, 2009

For the official record, it was not Dick Cheney who first accused Barack Obama of dithering over Afghanistan while our troops languished and died.  It was the Pentagon.  From September 22, 2009:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House.

From September 18, 2009:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

Obama has turned “dithering” into a weapon of mass destruction against American foreign policy.  Our allies are being forced to make increasingly tough decisions as to whether we really are the horse they should bet their lives on.  And our enemies are resurgent, believing that the president who has demonstrated a lack of resolve will withdraw if they can pile up a high enough body count.

On November 7 there will be another election in Afghanistan.  And there will not be anywhere near enough troops to provide adequate security.

There would have been, had Obama accepted his own handpicked general’s assessment.  But there won’t be.  It seems increasingly likely that the resurgent Taliban will be able to thwart the elections, creating an ongoing political instability which will cascade into a major failures against stability in Afghanistan.

But Obama is not just dithering in Afghanistan.  Rather, his entire foreign policy is based on dithering.

A nuclear-armed Iran capable of destroying Israel, capable of blockading the Strait of Hormuz and causing oil prices to quintuple, capable of launching a wave of global jihad such as the world has never seen, looms.

October 24, 2009
Barack Obama’s policy on brink of collapse as Tehran does last-minute nuclear stall

President Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran is close to collapse as Tehran backtracks on a crucial deal aimed at cutting its stockpiles of nuclear fuel
.

Iran agreed a deal “in principle” at talks in Geneva to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium overseas for reprocessing into nuclear fuel that could be used for a medical research reactor.

A deal outlining this was finalised in Vienna this week and a deadline of midnight tonight was set for the agreement to be sealed with Tehran.

The framework deal, along with an offer to allow international inspectors into its newly-revealed enrichment plant at Qom, was hailed as evidence that Iran was responding positively to the diplomatic track.

Today, however, with just hours until the deadline, Iran has turned the table on its foreign interlocutors with a rival proposal, demanding that it be allowed to buy higher enriched uranium directly from abroad. […]

The counter-proposal was outlined on Iranian state television today as the clock ticked down to the midnight deadline. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is waiting for a constructive and confidence-building response to the clear proposal of buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor,” state television quoted an unnamed source close to Iran’s negotiating team as saying. […]

Russia and China’s reluctance to consider new sanctions is forcing Washington to seek a coalition of willing allies to impose their own economic blockade on Iran if efforts to get UN sanctions fail.

Tehran’s latest move comes straight from a well-thumbed Iranian playbook and looks like yet another stalling tactic to test the West’s resolve and buy time to avert new sanctions
. But Western patience is growing thinner by the day, with diplomats warning that the apparent breakthrough in Geneva on October 1 may be less positive than it first seemed.

Anxiety is now growing about what will happen on Sunday when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrive in Iran to inspect the long-hidden nuclear plant at Qom.

“It’s like Groundhog Day,” a senior Western diplomat involved in the Iran negotiations said. “Except in Groundhog Day you wake up every day and everything’s the same. With this, you wake up every day and everything’s just a little bit worse.” […]

Britain, France and Israel believe that Iran has all the know-how it needs to build a bomb and that weaponisation studies have continued despite Tehran’s insistence that it halted them years ago.

The IAEA has called Western intelligence on weaponisation “compelling” and chided Iran for refusing to answer questions on the subject.  Iran remains in breach of five UN resolutions calling on it to halt enrichment until outstanding questions about a military dimension to the programme are resolved.

And Obama is displaying his steely resolve…

Western diplomats had initially said the international powers would not accept any attempt to drag out the negotiations beyond Friday.

However, the United States said that it was now prepared to wait for Iran’s reply.

… by showing even less resolve than France.  In answer to the question, “Why Is a World Leader Distancing Himself From President Obama?”:

One major sticking point has been President Obama’s softer stance on Iran, while President Sarkozy prefers a more hawkish approach. Sarkozy said last month: “I support America’s outstretched hand. But what has the international community gained from these offers of dialogue? Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.”

This on top of other remarks Sarkozy has made about Obama’s naivete and weakness:

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

Even pantywaist Europe is calling Obama a pantywaist.  And that is the definition of “pathetic.”

Our enemies have been smelling a weakling in the White House since Obama won the election.  Obama talked tough when he had to to win the election, but that tough talk was always a lie.

We are looking at exactly the same scenario regarding Iran as George Bush faced regarding Iraq; namely, veto-wielding permanent member UN nations that will thwart any meaningful or legitimate sanction that could truly stop the rogue nation’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.  This has been the case for years.  We cannot rely on international consensus as the basis for our security; it will let us down every single time.

Nor can we rely upon dialogue with evil tyrants to achieve our foreign policy objectives.  What I said a year ago last August in that regard is even more true now.  You simply cannot negotiate with an untrustworthy partner who does not want peace.

As far back as April of 2008 I pointed out that the election of a Democrat to the White House would guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran, concluding:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

And it’s actually even worse than I thought.  In Barack Obama, we have a president who has repeatedly demonstrated he is toothless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.  Subsequent to that piece, Obama reneged on a major missile defense deal with key Eastern European allies in order to appease a hostile Russia – who gave us nothing in exchange for our betrayal.  And if that wasn’t bad enough – we sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

Barack Obama will not go to war with Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.  And Iran knows that.  Iran also knows that their Russian and Chinese allies will prevent any sanction that could truly hurt them from passing the useless United Nations.

As a result of Obama’s dithering, the world’s worst terrorist state will soon have the bomb, and the ballistic missile capability to deliver that bomb.  And when they get it, the world will change in very scary ways.

Why Is American Unemployment Under Obama Rising Faster Than In Other Countries?

October 23, 2009

Even liberals have begun to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama has been a bust on creating jobs, as evidenced by a recent New York Times piece.  The Russian and formerly communist Pravda has likewise recently excoriated Obama as quintessentially bringing the “change” of economic destruction rather than job creation and prosperity.

Barack Obama and his team assessed the economic conditions, and proposed that the answer was his giant $3.27 trillion stimulus package.  The Obama administration claim was that unemployment – then at 7.2% – would be held under 8% if he got his stimulus.

Now it is at 9.8%, and is expected to continue to climb significantly higher.

Meanwhile other governments – who have in recent months elected conservatives – have turned their economies and their unemployment numbers around.

Meanwhile America, under the leadership of a wise and wonderful messiah who can do no wrong, has increasingly crawled into the toilet bowl.

Why?

John Lott  FOXNews.com    October 22, 2009
LOTT’S NUMBERS: Why Is Unemployment Rising Faster In the U.S. Than Other Countries?

Did all that stimulus money just lead to higher unemployment rates?

The Obama administration claims that it was their passage of massive government spending that saved the United States from another Great Depression.  Last week, Larry Summers, Obama’s top economic adviser, claimed that because of the stimulus:

“We have walked a substantial distance back from the economic abyss and are on the path toward economic recovery.  Most importantly, we have seen a substantial change in the trend of job loss.”

And Vice President Biden declared at the end of September:

“In my wildest dreams, I never thought it [the stimulus] would work this well.”

As President Obama and other Democrats have correctly pointed out many times, this has been a worldwide recession. But if Summers and Biden are right in their assessment of the stimulus measures, one would think that the U.S. economy should be recovering better the many other countries, countries not wise enough to follow Obama’s lead of an extraordinary $787 billion increase in government spending.  It is also particularly timely to evaluate the spending since Christina Romer, the chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, told Congress today that the stimulus had already had most of its impact on the economy.

Take Canada. Their stimulus package was nowhere as extensive as ours.  Their $22.7 billion in stimulus spending this year, and $17.2 billion next year, amounts to about 7.5 percent of their federal spending for their 2009 and 2010 budgets — not much more than a third of the per-capita stimulus spending in the United States.

Has Canadian unemployment climbed higher than than ours because of their relative inaction? Hardly. Last September, unemployment in both Canada and the U.S. stood at 6.2 percent. By January, when President Obama took office, the U.S. unemployment rate was 7.6 percent; Canada’s was at 7.2 percent.  But since then U.S. unemployment has gone up much faster. In September, the U.S. unemployment rate had soared to 9.8 percent, while the Canadian rate had only increased to 8.4 percent.

But it is not just Canada where the unemployed are faring betterOther countries, too, decided against a massive stimulus plan. In March, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel nodding in agreement at his side, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: “the problem is not about spending more.” Later that month, the president of the European Union, Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, castigated the Obama administration’s deficit spending and bank bailouts as “a road to hell.” The Washington Post wrote that there was a “fundamental divide that persists between the United States and many European countries over the best way to respond to the global financial crisis.”

The unemployment rate in the European Union was higher than in the United States to begin with even before the Obama administration’s spending. By January, the EU unemployment rate stood at 8.5 percent — almost a whole percentage point higher than ours.  So what has happened since the big U.S. stimulus spending spree was passed? We more than caught up with the EU’s high unemployment rate.  By August, the last month data is available for the EU, the U.S.’s unemployment rate slightly exceeded the EU’s — 9.7 versus 9.6 percent.

Germany has particularly been out front resisting the call for more public spending.  Yet, from January through September, the German unemployment rate only rose slightly, from 7.9 to 8.2 percent.

Data on unemployment rates from 27 countries from Japan and South Korea to Brazil and other South American countries to Europe shows that from January to August display the same consistent pattern.  Even in the EU it isn’t just a few countries that are driving the relatively small increase they have experienced.  The U.S. had a larger increase in unemployment than 22 countries — that is, 81 percent of the countries had a smaller increase in unemployment this year than the United States. Unemployment in some major countries such as Brazil and Russia has actually fallen since January (see Table here).  Other countries, from France to Mexico to Australia to Switzerland, have seen unemployment increase by only about half the amount of the U.S. rate. Indeed, the average increase in unemployment for the 27 countries is slightly less than half the US increase.

Table 1 can be seen here.

As Canada illustrates, it isn’t just countries that had higher unemployment rates before we passed our stimulus plan who have had smaller increases in unemployment this year. About half the countries had lower unemployment rates than the U.S. in January and half higher rates, but both groups of countries have seen much smaller increases in unemployment than the United States.

For thirteen countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development it is possible to use estimates of the size of different countries stimulus programs and compare it to the change in unemployment rates. Countries with larger stimulus spending tended to have bigger increases in unemployment.  Each one percentage point increase in a country’s GDP that is spent on a stimulus was associated with unemployment increasing by about a third of a percentage point.  The impact isn’t statistically significant, but any increase in unemployment hardly comforts nations that are piling up huge debts.

Figure 1 can be seen here.

So why would more stimulus increase unemployment? Spending almost a trillion dollars on various stimulus projects means moving a lot of resources from areas where the private sector would have spent it to the public sector thus eliminating the jobs many people currently have.

Jennifer Psaki, a White House spokesperson, declined numerous requests to answer any questions from Foxnews.com regarding the findings shown here.

The unemployment data from other countries raises serious questions about the large government-spending program, especially since the U.S. program that was primarily sold as a good way to create or save millions of jobs. With the Obama administration and Congress already talking about possibly providing another $200 billion to extend these government-spending programs, these data raise real questions about the efficacy of this spending.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a Foxnews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”

So it wasn’t just the Republicans (who voted against the porkulus and predicted it would utterly fail) who opposed Obama’s policies.  It was much of Europe.  The Europeans compared Obama’s “change” to “a road to hell.”  And they said, “the problem is not about spending more money” in direct contradiction to Obama’s fundamental economic philosophy.

And the Republicans and the Europeans were right, and Obama was wrong.

Now Obama seems to reasoning, “if your going to be wrong, be spectacularly wrong.  And don’t stop digging that hole deeper.”

But it’s not enough that Democrats are taking all the money out of the private sector and giving it to the government to dole out on useless pork projects; now they’re talking about encouraging the rich to shelter their money rather than invest it in future economic growth, too.

After offering the ridiculous argument that ending the Bush tax cuts wasn’t actually a tax increase because (after all) the Bush tax cuts were “controversial,” Pelosi continued to wax idiotic:

What about allowing those tax breaks to expire at a fragile time in an economic recovery, the speaker was asked.

“I don’t think many people here see, nor do the American people see those tax cuts at the high end as being job-creating,” she said. “They don’t… think that that’s part of the reason we’re in the fiscal, the budgetary situation that we’re in, because those tax cuts cost money. And… they were… a cost to our budget, without any commensurate impact on the economy for job creation. To return money to the treasury. So, nobody sees those as a job-creator.

The thing is that Pelosi and the Democrats are simply factually wrong.

From the New York Times, in an article entitled, “Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit” published July 13, 2005:

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion. […]

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

It’s amazing that mainstream media liberals always seem to see both successes for Republican policies and failures for Democrat policies as “unexpected.”

Pete Du Pont wrote in Opinion Journal that:

Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

Americans in high tax states are voting with their feet and leaving.  And the states with the highest income taxes such as New York, California, and Hawaii, are facing the biggest revenue shortfalls.

In spite of being warned that liberal class-warfare tax-the-rich-to-extinction policies would lead to Dodo-bird results, New York attacked the rich with a 31% income tax hike.  And all they have to show for their eat-the-rich tax policies is record revenue shortfalls.

Gary Alexander writes in an article entitled, “Texas is Winning the New Economic War Between the States“:

Don’t look now, but there’s a new War Between the States under way, and the south is winning. The most dramatic winner is Texas. The cover story of a recent (July 9) issue of The Economist compared California with Texas and implied that the Golden State is falling apart, while the Lone Star State is leading the nation out of the recession.  Then, in a mid-July issue of National Review, Kevin D. Williamson said the nation is “Going Alamo,” with new jobs and businesses tipping southward, draining California, the Midwest, and Northeast of their former economic glory.

One indicator of the trend, according to Williamson, is the cost of renting a U-Haul truck for a one-way move.  From Austin, Texas to San Francisco, California, the cost is $900, while a one-way rental from San Francisco to Austin is $3,000, due to the exodus of trucks from California.

All this makes sense.  We are a mobile nation.  People can move easily enough (especially if they rent), and capital can move even faster.  Capital, jobs, and businesses will go where they are most welcome, while capital leaves places where it is punished by higher taxes and over-regulation.

Since all 50 states have a common currency and no border guards or toll gates, relocation is purely an economic decision.  Capital says to governors: “Hurt me enough and I’ll divorce you.”

Texas is Now America’s #1 Economic Engine

When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi get their way and raise Americans’ taxes, instead of capital flowing to Texas, it will flow overseas, and into tax shelters.  And the money that would have been available to invest in job creation will never materialize.

Conclusion: Vote for fewer jobs and more taxes.  Vote Democrat.

Lying, Demagogic White House Finally Gets Its Media Smackdown

October 22, 2009

I like the title from Moe Lane best: “White House tries to muzzle media; draws back a bloody stump.”

But Allahpundit exposes the true deceit and hypocrisy of the White House that led to its bloody stump:

Decide for yourself what the most disgraceful aspect of this is. Was it the fact that Gibbs told Jake Tapper explicitly on Monday that the White House wouldn’t try to dictate to the press pool who should and shouldn’t be included — before doing precisely that? Was it Anita Dunn going out of her way to say she respects Major Garrett as a fair reporter — before the administration decided he didn’t deserve a crack here at Feinberg? Or was it the repeated insistence by Dunn and Axelrod that of course the administration will make its officials available to Fox — before pulling the plug today?

The other networks deserve the praise they’re getting for standing up to the Baby-in-Chief, but if they had acquiesced in this freezeout, a precedent would have been set that would have been eagerly used by future Republican presidents to close them off too.  And don’t think they weren’t all keenly aware of it.

Hot Air does a very good job of showing what Obama and his cockroaches are full of.

The video is a great watch for anyone who likes to see the good guys win and the bad guys lose:

[Youtube link]

The Hot Air piece exposes the pattern of constant lies coming out of this White House.  They are as dishonest as the sun is hot.

The White House’s petulant demagoguery of Fox News has been utterly great for Fox News as their ratings have gone through the roof.  They nearly outstrip all of their competitors combined.  Even liberals are acknowledging that Fox News has been “undamaged” by the demagogic White House campaign against them.

Meanwhile, only 43% of voters would be willing to re-elect this whiner-in-chief.  And he’s seen the fastest drop in the polls of any president in 50 years.

So you just keep demonizing Fox News, you demon.  I think it’s workin’ just great for ya.

So Much For Media Myth Of Obama Popularity: Worst Poll Ratings Plunge In 50 Years

October 22, 2009

Hey, Mr. Popular!  You suck!!!

It’s a little different for Obama than a few months ago, when he arrogantly and smugly told his pandering and propagandist press corps:

“Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.  Apologies to the Fox table.”

Well, Barry Hussein, fewer and fewer Americans think your doing anything other than a crappy job.  The most accurate pollster in the nation says that 52% of Americans disapprove of the job you’re doing, and your approval index is now at a very disapproving – 13.  And now we see that even the mainstream media that worshiped your wonderfulness is now getting angry over your fascist dictating to the free press to force a news organization to cover stories the way you want them to.

I’d like to give ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN the credit they deserve for finally standing up to Barack Obama’s abuse of power and abuse of a free press.

You’re going down, Barry.

And your drop is now historic:

Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years

The decline in Barack Obama’s popularity since July has been the steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more than 50 years.

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 7:38PM BST 22 Oct 2009

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November’s election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

“Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama’s prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: “I’m here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what’s right and who do what’s hard will be rewarded and not rejected.”

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama’s 2008 victory.

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.”

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Obama has been far more interested in trying to figure out creative ways to blame his predecessor for everything under the sun rather than manning up and actually dealing with the increasing crises he’s creating himself.

The man who campaigned as the “new politician” who would transcend petty political differences and rise above partisanship has swiftly degenerated into the most partisan demagogue this country may have ever seen.

The people are seeing you for the One Big Ass Mistake America that you truly are.

Pravda Takes A Look At The New Marxist America – And Laughs Hysterically

October 22, 2009

This piece that appeared in the Russian and formerly communist Pravda is worth a read:

The American Self Immolation, Truly a Sight to See

19.10.2009      Source: Pravda.Ru

As my readers know, I am a fan of economics and of history, as well as politics, a combination that forms some very interesting cycles to research, discuss and argue on. None is so interesting than the death of great nations, for here there is always the self destruction that comes before the final breakups and invasions. As they say: Rome did not fall to the barbarians, all they did was kick in the rotting gates.

It can be safely said, that the last time a great nation destroyed itself through its own hubris and economic folly was the early Soviet Union (though in the end the late Soviet Union still died by the economic hand). Now we get the opportunity to watch the Americans do the exact same thing to themselves. The most amazing thing of course, is that they are just repeating the failed mistakes of the past. One would expect their fellow travelers in suicide, the British, to have spoken up by now, but unfortunately for the British, their education system is now even more of a joke than that of the Americans.

While taking a small breather from mouthing the never ending propaganda of recovery, never mind that every real indicator is pointing to death and destruction, the American Marxists have noticed that the French and Germans are out of recession and that Russia and Italy are heading out at a good clip themselves. Of course these facts have been wrapped up into their mind boggling non stop chant of “recovery” and hope-change-zombification. What is ignored, of course, is that we and the other three great nations all cut our taxes, cut our spending, made life easy for small business…in other words: the exact opposite of the Anglo-Sphere.

That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies. Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear. How else does one power industry that makes human life better (unless of course its making the bombs that end that human life, but that’s a different topic). Never in history, with the exception of the Japanese self imposed isolation in the 1600s, did a government actively force its people away from economic activity and industry.

Even the Soviets never created such idiocy. The great famine of the late 1920s was caused by quite the opposite, as the Soviets collectivized farms to force peasants off of their land and into the big new factories. Of course this had disastrous results. So one must ask, are the powers that be in Washington and London degenerates or satanically evil? Where is the opposition? Where are the Republicans in America and Tories in England?

The unfortunate truth here is: the Republicans and Tories are the Mensheviks to the Democrat and Labour Bolsheviks. In other words, they are the slightly less radical fellow travellers who are to stupid to realize that once their usefulness is done, they will go the very camps they will help send the true opposition to. A more deserving lot was rarely born. Of course half of the useful idiots in the Bolshevik groupings will go to those very same camps.

One express idiocy of Cap and Trade in America will be the approximately additional $.19 per liter of gasoline, which is a rather very large increase in taxation, however indirectly. Of course this will not only hit the American working serfs in the pocket at fuel up, but will hit them in everything they buy and do, as America has almost no real rail to even partially off set the cost of transporting goods.

But how will this work itself out? Very simple and the chain of events has been worked out often enough.

First, the serfs will start to scream at the cost of fueling up and the cost of all their goods. The government, ever anxious not to take responsibility, will single out the petroleum factories and oil companies for gauging the people. They will make demands for them to cut prices, which of course means working for a loss. When plants start to close down or move overseas, they will be called racketeers and saboteurs. Their facilities will be nationalized so that the government can show them how to do things properly. Shortages will follow as will show trials and that’s as long as the USD holds up and foreign nations are still willing to sell oil and gasoline for other than gold, silver and other hard resources.

When food goes up, and it surely will, as the diesel the farmer uses goes up as well as his fertilizers, the government will scream that the farmers are hording, thus undermining the efforts of the enlightened. There will be confiscations of all feed crops while the farmers will get production quotas to meet or have their land nationalized again. Do not believe me? Look at the people running your governments and ask yourself: would they rather take some one’s land or admit that they screwed up and ruined everything? After a point, only the corporate farms will remain, food by oligarch, just a like the factory farms. There will be plenty of dissidents to work them.

This will of course spread from industry to industry and within a rather short order, you will be living the new fractional dream, that is a fraction of what you have now. But on the bright side, for once, your children, working for government/oligarch run joint ventures, will be able to compete adequately with the Chinese, to feed the demands of Europe and Latin America. But that will take at least a generation or two first along with a cultural revolution or two.

The article points out that European countries such as France, Germany, and Italy are exiting their recessions.  And its true.  They’ve pulled out of the downturn.

It’s also true that Europe rejected their failed liberal and socialist policies in a huge sweeping wave of conservatism to set up the above.

Where has our messiah led us?

Obama’s massive deficits – larger in just 9 months than George Bush accumulated his entire 8 years in office – dwarf anything seen since World War II.  That’s real bad, because during WWII, the United States had a manufacturing base that dwarfs what we have today, and it was Americans rather than Chinese who held that debt.  Furthermore, our WWII debt was temporary, and we quickly reduced it, whereas out current debt is skyrocketing faster and faster and faster, with no end in sight.  By 2019, we will be paying more than $800 billion a year just in interest payments.

Unemployment has increased from 7.4% to 9.8% under Obama.  And if we consider the U-6 rate measuring total unemployed as a percentage of the civilian labor force (which was how unemployment was calculated until the Clinton administration changed it in 1994), we’re actually at 17% unemployment.  And it isn’t over yet.  Respected analyst Meredith Whitney – who  nailed the prediction of the 2009 credit crash – sees unemployment rising to 13% (which would be 22.5% by the U-6 rate):

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

The United States is lagging behind other countries in high and rising unemployment.  Why is that?

Our dollar is in crisis.  Moody’s today warned that our AAA credit rating is in jeopardy unless we abandon massive deficit spending ways that Obama clearly has absolutely no intention of abandoning.  And many of the key countries on the planet are planning to cut the U.S. dollar out of the economic future, which will dramatically undermine U.S. influence and power.

As a result of the fact that Obama – in spite of all his massive spending – failed to deal with the mortgage crisis at the heart of the economic crash, we are about to see yet another huge wave of mortgage defaults.  And we’re just now truly beginning to see a horrifying emptying of our office space.

In spite of the media’s determination that everything is really getting better and better, we somehow just keep getting hit with “unexpected” bad economic news.  Go figure.

I suppose we can view the mainstream media propaganda as helpful: at least they’re supplying us with a blindfold while we hurtle headlong toward the cliffs.

Why Did Obama Pick A Manufacturing Czar Who Despises Capitalism?

October 21, 2009

Ron Bloom, the Obama administration’s manufacturing czar, speaking at the 6th Annual Distressed Investing Forum at the Union League Club in New York – Feb. 27-28, 2009:

Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money cause their convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that its an adults only no limit game. We kinda agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

[Youtube]

The Business Insider puts this communist’s role in the Obama administration this way: “His task will be to oversee the rebirth of American manufacturing.”  Who better for such a job than a guy who believes the free market capitalist system that made this country great is nonsense?

Rebirth into what?  Presumably, into something that Mao would get from the barrel of a gun.

Mind you, Mao died in the 1970s.  China floundered around economically.  And it turns out that it was China’s steps toward capitalism led to their economic power that they have today.  Even as the U.S. has increasingly retreated from the capitalism that made it the greatest economic and industrial power in the history of the world.

The English edition of the Russian and formerly communist Pravda has some interesting things to say about the direction of Barack Obama’s “change”:

It can be safely said, that the last time a great nation destroyed itself through its own hubris and economic folly was the early Soviet Union (though in the end the late Soviet Union still died by the economic hand). Now we get the opportunity to watch the Americans do the exact same thing to themselves. The most amazing thing of course, is that they are just repeating the failed mistakes of the past. One would expect their fellow travelers in suicide, the British, to have spoken up by now, but unfortunately for the British, their education system is now even more of a joke than that of the Americans.

While taking a small breather from mouthing the never ending propaganda of recovery, never mind that every real indicator is pointing to death and destruction, the American Marxists have noticed that the French and Germans are out of recession and that Russia and Italy are heading out at a good clip themselves. Of course these facts have been wrapped up into their mind boggling non stop chant of “recovery” and hope-change-zombification. What is ignored, of course, is that we and the other three great nations all cut our taxes, cut our spending, made life easy for small business…in other words: the exact opposite of the Anglo-Sphere.

That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies. Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear. How else does one power industry that makes human life better (unless of course its making the bombs that end that human life, but that’s a different topic). Never in history, with the exception of the Japanese self imposed isolation in the 1600s, did a government actively force its people away from economic activity and industry.

Even the Soviets never created such idiocy. The great famine of the late 1920s was caused by quite the opposite, as the Soviets collectivized farms to force peasants off of their land and into the big new factories. Of course this had disastrous results. So one must ask, are the powers that be in Washington and London degenerates or satanically evil? Where is the opposition? Where are the Republicans in America and Tories in England?

I don’t know about the Tories in England, but the Republicans have pretty much been shut out of everything.  And the political equivalent of monkeys randomly typing are running our government.  Such was the wisdom of the American electorate.

Obama has chosen to surround himself with a host of Marxists.  It doesn’t bode well for out country’s economic or social future.

AP Gives Yet Another Lesson On How To Slant A Story

October 20, 2009

The mainstream media never ceases to be able to slant stories to confirm their liberal ideological biases.  Here’s yet another example:

Ending death penalty could save US millions: study

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Even when executions are not carried out, the death penalty costs US states hundreds of millions of dollars a year, depleting budgets in the midst of economic crisis, a study released Tuesday found.

“It is doubtful in today’s economic climate that any legislature would introduce the death penalty if faced with the reality that each execution would cost taxpayers 25 million dollars, or that the state might spend more than 100 million dollars over several years and produce few or no executions,” argued Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center and the report’s author.

“Surely there are more pressing needs deserving funding,” he wrote, noting that execution was rated among the least effective crime deterrents.

In just one death penalty trial “the state may pay one million dollars more than for a non-death penalty trial. But only one in every three capital trials may result in a death sentence, so the true cost of that death sentence is three million dollars,” the study’s author said.

“Further down the road, only one in ten of the death sentences handed down may result in an execution. Hence, the cost to the state to reach that one execution is 30 million dollars,” Dieter added in the report entitled “Smart on Crime.”

That’s right.  Big government liberals really do want to prevent government spending.  So let’s end the death penalty, ban guns, and increase abortions.

Let’s never consider reducing the endless legal procedures that Democrats’ campaign contributors get rich performing.  Or reducing the liberal legal activist groups’ that fight to the last lawyer to prevent even the most heinous monster from being executed.

I’ve got some other ideas as to how to make the death penalty more cost effective:

Death-Penalty-Cartoon

You really COULD make the penalty a lot cheaper, you see.  I for one am willing to do so.

There’s another big problem with the death penalty:

Death-Penalty-Cartoons2

In today’s pathetic and perverted society,  a death sentence means a long and healthy life.  And most death row inmates die of old age.  We could change that, you know.

And if liberals REALLY want to reduce the massive government spending, here’s the best idea of all:

Obama_Keep-him-sedated

Obama Is To Lincoln What Mao Was To Mother Teresa

October 20, 2009

Liberals couldn’t resist from comparing Barack Obama to our arguably greatest president, Abraham Lincoln.  A couple of articles from US News & World Report and the LA Times should suffice to show such a comparison was diligently manufactured.

Is such a comparison valid?

Maybe not so much…

Obama-not-Lincoln

So I said to him, “Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain’t Abe Lincoln.”

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

……..Abraham Lincoln

When you think about liberals comparing Obama to Lincoln, it rather reminds of Obama’s White House Communications Director Anita Dunn comparing Mao Tse-Tung to Mother Teresa.  It’s not enough to point out that such fails as an “apples to oranges” comparison; it’s more like a “turds to oranges” comparison.

Barack Obama And The Audacity Of Unawareness

October 20, 2009

Got this in an email.  Liked it.  Thought I’d pass it on this way:

The Audacity of Unawareness


April 15th, 2009 5:03 pm Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed today that he was
unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best). but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?
This much we know:
– He was
unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
– He was
unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
– He was
unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
– He was
unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
– He was
unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .
– He was
unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill..
– He was
unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
– He was
unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
– He was
unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
– He was
unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
– He was
unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
– He was
unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
PLEASE,,, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy.
You have three years, nine-and-a-half
months to come up with an answer
.

[]

Ron Bloom: Yet Another Obama Handpicked Official A Communist Who Agrees With Mao

October 20, 2009

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”  Okay, Barry Hussein.  Sounds good to me:

  • No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God damn America!” –- Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years.
  • “And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most…” — Anita Dunn, Obama’s White House Communications Director.
  • [Van] Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”Van Jones, former Obama Green Jobs Czar.
  • In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.” — Mark Lloyd, Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar.
  • “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society…. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” — John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar
  • And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”Robert Reich, Obama economic adviser.
  • “When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.” –- Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s handpicked health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, and appointed by Obama to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research
  • “I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.” – Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar.
  • “I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’  He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’  High school sophomore, 15 years old.  I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”  [Audio is available here via Youtube, and the professor’s website contains a transcript of Jenning’s account with Brewster]. — Kevin Jennings, School Safety Czar.

So that’s who Barack Obama has surrounded himself with.  So by logical extension Barack Obama is nothing if not a Marxist death panelist radical whackjob.  And we can quote him to substantiate that:

No worries.  No brain, no pain.

Well, now we’ve got another self-identified communist in the person of Obama’s  Manufacturing Czar, and formerly Obama’s Car Czar.

Ron Bloom, Obama administration manufacturing czar, speaking at the 6th Annual Distressed Investing Forum at the Union League Club in New York – Feb. 27-28, 2009:

Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money cause their convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that its an adults only no limit game. We kinda agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

[Youtube]

The Business Insider puts this communist’s role in the Obama administration thus: “His task will be to oversee the rebirth of American manufacturing.”  Who better for such a job than a guy who believes the capitalist system that made this country great is nonsense?

Now we know what Obama meant when he said, “We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” on November 1, 2008.

I hope that you understood that Marxism was the “change you can believe in.”

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the uberliberal class of Democrats shrilly cry that “Roadblock Republicans Stand In the Way of Further Change!” On their view there is only one way – there way – and anyone who gets in their way is a roadblock in the path of their revolution and must be swept aside by any means necessary.

Someone else thought that, too:

  • “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself.  We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.  The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”
    Karl Marx
  • In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, a world of Communism.  We shall never turn off that road.”
    Mikhail Gorbachev
  • Beginning in 1917, communists swept all opposition aside in the name of “change,” and more than 100 million human beings brutally paid for that change with their lives during peacetime.  Mao boasted that he was willing to sacrifice 300 million of his people in order to preserve his power and his “revolution” (which of course is another word for “change”).

    Aside from the fact that Democrats’ claims that Republicans have not offered any solutions, but only stand in the way to prevent “change” are completely false and dishonest, please have the common sense to recognize that a lot of the “change” in the world has been anything but good.