Saturday, July 10, 2010

Zero Definitely Has an Exalted View of Himself

In this Charles Krauthammer article he makes some statements about how Zero always says "I, Me and My".  I have noticed this in the past and wondered if I was the only one.  His constant references to "My administration" did this or "My administration" did that are, in the least, self-aggrandizing.  There have been numerous references to Zero's narcissism from many authors.  Charles K does the best job of articulating the subject in this op-ed.  


A4 Driver

The selective modesty of Barack Obama




Friday, July 9, 2010

Remember NASA? It once represented to the world the apogee of American scientific and technological achievement. Here is President Obama's vision of NASA's mission, as explained by administrator Charles Bolden:

"One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering."

Apart from the psychobabble -- farcically turning a space-faring enterprise into a self-esteem enhancer -- what's the sentiment behind this charge? Sure America has put a man on the moon, led the information revolution, won more Nobel Prizes than any other nation by far -- but, on the other hand, a thousand years ago al-Khwarizmi gave us algebra.

Bolden seems quite intent on driving home this message of achievement equivalence -- lauding, for example, Russia's contribution to the space station. Russia? In the 1990s, the Russian space program fell apart, leaving the United States to pick up the slack and the tab for the missing Russian contributions to get the space station built.

For good measure, Bolden added that the United States cannot get to Mars without international assistance. Beside the fact that this is not true, contrast this with the elan and self-confidence of President John Kennedy's 1961 pledge that America would land on the moon within the decade.

There was no finer expression of belief in American exceptionalism than Kennedy's. Obama has a different take. As he said last year in France, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Which of course means: If we're all exceptional, no one is.

Take human rights. After Obama's April meeting with the president of Kazakhstan, Mike McFaul of the National Security Council reported that Obama actually explained to the leader of that thuggish kleptocracy that we, too, are working on perfecting our own democracy.

Nor is this the only example of an implied moral equivalence that diminishes and devalues America. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner reported that in discussions with China about human rights, the U.S. side brought up Arizona's immigration law -- "early and often." As if there is the remotest connection between that and the persecution of dissidents, jailing of opponents and suppression of religion routinely practiced by the Chinese dictatorship.

Nothing new here. In his major addresses, Obama's modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America's alleged failing -- from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11.

It's fine to recognize the achievements of others and be non-chauvinistic about one's country. But Obama's modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply.

It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America's sins and the world's to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the word "I."

Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to Cabinet members and other high government officials as "my" -- "my secretary of homeland security," "my national security team," "my ambassador." The more normal -- and respectful -- usage is to say "the," as in "the secretary of state." These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution -- not just the man who appointed them.

It's a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama's exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies -- both about himself.

Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence -- yet not of his own country's.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

It Took Congress Less Than 4 Months to Illegally Spend $1T

Remember all of the hype about Jim Bunning holding up the unemployment benefits back in February?  He was trying to make a point about the PAYGO system that became law on February 4th of this year.  The PAYGO system was a requirement for Congress to keep from spending any further money that it didn't have.  Well, as you can see in this May 27th article from The Foundry, it took less than four months for Congress to completely blow through a technically illegal spending of $1 trillion.  The arrogance is unbelievable.


A4 Driver

Morning Bell: This Congress Has No Shame

Posted May 27th, 2010 at 9:38am in Ongoing Priorities 

On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: “When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. … So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes.” That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.

And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama’s original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.” And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.

The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.

The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children’s credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress’ own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls.  Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.

And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the “doc fix.” This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama’s claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the “doc fix” over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare’s already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the “doc fix” charade “one of the worst pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen.” The House has cut this version of the “doc fix” down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.

Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.

Quick Hits:

Sunday, July 4, 2010

I Want This Young Man For President

I hope we will see this young man's name on the ballot as soon as he is eligible.  It is really refreshing to have some one state his case clearly and succinctly with facts instead of the normal mumbo-jumbo that comes out of the Beltway and the White House.


A4 Driver

Friday, July 2, 2010

He Really Believes That We Are Idiots

Allen Ahlert makes some excellent points in this column for the Jewish World Review.  The unending arrogance and we-know-better-and-more-than-you-possibly-could attitude is getting repetitious and old and the MSM just keeps going right along and doesn't challenge anything that comes out of Zero or his administration.  Things are not looking good.

A4 Driver

Jewish World Review June 30, 2010 / 18 Tamuz 5770
Calling YOUR Bluff, Mr. President
By Arnold Ahlert







http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "When I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I'm calling their bluff."--Barack Obama

Our pathological Liar-in-Chief is at it once again. The man who has given America a trillion dollar-plus deficit, the man who, with ample help from our Democratically-controlled Congress, literally quadrupled the worst excesses of a spendthrift Bush administration's worst year, is going to call someone else's bluff? Utterly amazing.

The above quote suggests one of two possibilities: we either have a Chief Executive who is literally unhinged--or one with such contempt for the average American's intelligence that he believes we can't discern the difference between what he says and what he actually does. The bet here is the latter, for the simplest of reasons: a groveling, see-no-evil media willing to compromise their last shred of integrity--even to the point of their own fiscal demise--to protect an ideological soulmate.

Here's what Americans need to know about so-called "difficult choices:" for the first time since modern-day budgeting began, the House of Representatives has refused to pass a budget resolution. Why? Because it's an election year, and the last thing these progressive hacks want Americans to know is exactly how monumentally irresponsible they actually are.

How irresponsible is that? Here's what we already know: we're $1.4 trillion in the hole just this year, without a budget resolution. Incredibly, Democrats are selling the excuse that they're waiting for the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make their recommendations before they get down to business.

The subterfuge here? The Commission isn't expected to issue a report before December--one month after the mid-term elections.

Like the president himself, Democrats in Congress have nothing but contempt for ordinary Americans. It is a contempt so ingrained that they're attempting to pass a financial "reform" bill that doesn't even address the key players--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--in the financial meltdown of 2008. Taxpayers have already shelled out $150 billion dollars to keep these mortgage guarantors afloat, and that may only be the tip of the proverbial iceberg. A worst case scenario--or, as the "experts" love to say, an "unexpected" development--could raise the final price tag on these two behemoths to a trillion dollars.

How in the world do you pass "comprehensive" financial reform without addressing this?

Everyone knows the answer to that one: the same way you pass a "comprehensive" healthcare bill without a single word about tort reform in 2700 pages of progressive garbage. That would be the same bill in which 58% of Americans have already "stepped up" to call your bluff, Mr. President.

How corrupt are modern-day Democrats? I doubt anyone would have believed that another one of them could top Nancy Pelosi's immortal statement about the health care bill, "we have to pass it, so you can see what's in it." But the soon-to-retire Chris "Countrywide" Dodd was up to the task. His take on financial reform?

"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works." Not so, Mr. Dodd. Maybe Americans don't how another 2000 page "comprehensive whatever" works, but a lot of us know how big-government socialism does: the national debt is exploding, unemployment remains steady at close to ten percent, and two of the chief perpetrators of the financial meltdown have their names attached to yet another attempted government shakedown of the private sector. The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill?

The only name missing is Bernie Madoff.

Once again, Americans wanted reform. Genuine reform. Once again, Democrats proved themselves utterly incapable of doing the right thing. Their "fix" for Wall Street, et al, is everything but.

Ironically, that would be the very same Wall Street which gave the lion's share of their political campaign contributions--nearly two-thirds of the $34.7 million donated by the entire securities and investment industry since Jan. 1, 2009, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics--to Democrats.

This reality is something that no doubt puzzles many Americans. Why would Wall Street and the banking industry give more money to a Democrat Party which regularly demonizes them, whose president referred to them as "fat cats," and who blames them for everything that went wrong in 2008?

For the same reason a Brooklyn pizzeria owner "donates" cash to a certain unsavory looking character who shows up every week: it's a protection racket. And it's done for exactly the same reason: the crony capitalist element on Wall Street wants protection from competition and their own irresponsible excess, aka "too big 
to fail."

It is absolutely critical that Americans understand what's really going on here. Progressive Democrats, the very same ones who forced the banks--and that is the correct term, forced--to make mortgages available to people who were manifestly unqualified to own a home, are the people telling America that capitalism itself is to blame for the ensuing debacle. Thus, America needs to be "rescued" by big-government Democrats.

But not until next year. This year? Duck and cover--and hope the rest of the "stimulus" package stimulates enough of the American parasite class to show up at the voting booth and minimize the damage to the Democrats' Congressional majority.

The bet here is most Americans have had enough. The bet here is that before the president calls our bluff "next year," we're going to call his in November. And I'm betting even more on the idea that it will be the least difficult choice the electorate has made in a long time.

Only the Kool-aid drinkers believe we can keep spending money we don't have, and after last week's G-20 economic summit, it's apparent that their ranks are shrinking: most of Europe, coming to grips with their own economic realities, essentially told Mr. Hope and Change to take his Keynesian, double-down-on-deficit-spending, economic model--and stick it where the sun don't shine.

Bluff already called, Mr. President.

Lastly, one more bluff that desperately needs calling: for years, liberals have told us that tax cuts caused the budget deficits we have today. That is an abject lie. The three presidents who engineered the largest modern-day tax cuts were JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush. In all three cases more money flowed into federal coffers than did prior to those cuts.

So why did deficits increase? Because government spending vastly overwhelmed increased revenues. Only leftists could fail to mention a "detail" like that, even as they demand Americans dig deeper into their pockets to pay for runaway government.

Shame on them.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR Contributor Arnold Ahlert's column, by clicking here.

Take Your Money and Run-----Overseas

Finally someone is telling it like it is---unfortunately it's in The American Thinker.  The MSM won't touch this with a 10 foot pole.  This article quickly articulates the fiscal threats that businesses and individuals face in the future and have faced for the past 18 months of Zero's incompetent fiscal leadership.  The reasons stated in the article are the very ones that have kept unemployment high and business investment at virtually zero.  When is this fiscal/jobs/energy/tax nightmare going to end?  It's all about public sector investment, not the growth of jobs through misguided expanded government and stimulus/porkulus spending.


A4 Driver

No One's Capital Is Safe in Obama's America

By Claude Sandroff
Obama's poorly coded message to investors is to take your money out of America and keep it out. Whether through excessive taxation, suffocating over-regulation, or thuggish confiscation, the lesson to be drawn by anyone with excess capital is to look for friendlier places to put it to work.

The list of friendlier places excludes North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran for the time being, but almost everywhere else qualifies. Russia's president spent several days in Silicon Valley recently looking for adventurous investors and came away with a $1B commitment from Cisco Systems. For Cisco, sitting on a cash hoard of $30B, with years of experience partnering with the burgeoning Russian venture capital industry, the decision was probably not a very tortured one. And what a perfect opportunity for Cisco's CEO John Chambers to keep his cash as far from Obama's collection agencies as possible. 

President Medvedev promises Cisco a capital gains tax rate of zero; President Obama promises to retire the evil George Bush capital gains rate of 15% and increase it to 20% in 2011. Cisco is merely telecasting to anyone who wants to tune in that Russia is taking advantage of Obama's lurch towards socialism (or worse). While Russia is portraying itself as a stable bastion for capitalists, America is increasingly seen as the land that mauled Chrysler and GM bondholders. While erstwhile command economies are liberalizing, America under Obama is nationalizing. The lesson is clear: Don't leave cash within the American financial system, earning minimal returns, with the fear that at any moment your assets can be confiscated or redistributed by a lawless and capricious federal government.

When will Obama decide that Cisco (or Wal-Mart, or Apple, or Google, or any other successful enterprise) is not paying its "fair share"? Aren't the profit margins earned by Cisco on its routers -- sometimes approaching 70% -- too rich, or even obscene? Aren't these gains, in essence, nothing but windfall profits resulting in the eventual gouging of the average American internet subscriber? Cisco might not drill in the Gulf of Mexico for its profits, but man-made disasters could await it too, in the form of arbitrary, BP-like shakedowns of its hard-earned wealth. Why risk shakedowns in gangland Obama when a much more competent criminal like Putin will guarantee your investments?

Cisco is not the only company sitting on a gigantic cash cushion. All told, the balance sheet cash for the non-financial segment of the S&P 500 totals around $1 trillion. Businesses sit on these huge asset cushions and accept earning virtually nothing in real terms because risks are too high to consider anything else. 

In 2011, one of the largest tax increases in American history goes into effect. Not only do capital gains rise, but so too does the payroll tax, the income tax, and the estate tax. And even then, businesses large and small, while in their final financial death throes, will have nothing to look forward to other than the doom of ObamaCare and the unknown costs that Obama will attempt to afflict via cap-and-trade and a European-style value-added tax.

Fears are also emerging about the eventual burden imposed on all of us by dozens of states virtually bankrupt, especially if the federal government structures bailouts for those states deemed too big to fail. Unfortunately, the biggest and most likely to fail -- California, New York, and Illinois -- are Democrat and union fortresses that Obama will not let topple.

These and many other states have already been thrown a life jacket during the last near-trillion dollar stimulus in the form of unemployment insurance and other transfer payments. But the effects of those financial stimulants are beginning to wear off, and the federal drug dealer has little inventory left -- except for massive money-printing.

Inflation is almost the last strategy left for the Federal Reserve, having driven short-term interest to zero and purchased all the treasuries, agency, and mortgage debt thrown its way.

Fears of excessive taxation and unpredictable costs are muting American entrepreneurial animal spirits. These fears are likely at the root of our persistently high unemployment. The issue too often is not lack of loan supply to launch a new enterprise, but a lack of demand for the loans to get started. Strangling business creation translates into no new job creation. If you launch a business today and organize as an S-Corporation, how can you be even reasonably sure will you take home enough in profits to justify the initial risk of the undertaking? And if you were successful enough to reach the revenue heights of $250K, Obama would target you as a capitalist predator and promote you to the highest tax bracket.

In contrast to Jefferson's goal of preserving "a model of government, securing to man his rights and the fruits of his labor, by an organization constantly subject to his own will," our current administration is brutally determined to transform government into an organ that redistributes those fruits to its cronies. The reaction of sane, rational Americans to these perverse incentives is not to create or hire or produce. Instead, existing businesses and potential founders of new ones are hunkering down, hoping to wake up from this national nightmare in 2010 and 2012 with some of their wealth still intact.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Kagan Was Chosen Because of Her Views on the Commerce Clause

This is an article from the 7/1/10 issue of The Foundry and expresses some concerns about how Kagan will uphold everything that comes out of the White House.  At the end of the article is a section called Quick Hits.  Why was Sen Kobluchar wasting everyone's time by talking about vampires and werewolves during a confirmation hearing?  And I find it reprehensible that the House Dems added funding for government union jobs onto the Afghanistan war funding bill.  I know it happens all of the time but it still pisses me off.  Sneak a little in here and a little in there and no one will notice.  Remember promises of transparency?  Why not a separate bill for the union jobs?  Because they knew it would be difficult to get it passed.  

"A million here, a million there, pretty soon we're talking serious money." -- Sen Everett Dirksen


"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking a trillion dollars."  --  A4 Driver

A4 Driver

Morning Bell: The Limitless Power of the Obama-Kagan Congress

Posted July 1st, 2010 at 9:23am in Rule of Law  
 
This Sunday, our nation will celebrate Independence Day, which commemorates the Continental Congress’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration preamble reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The fact that we as a nation came together every year to celebrate this document might lead many Americans to believe that a Supreme Court Justice should take the Declaration of Independence into account when they are interpreting the Constitution. Elena Kagan is not one of those Americans. Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) yesterday, Kagan admitted: “To be honest with you, I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution.”

And Kagan’s disturbing indifference to the existence of natural rights is just one of the many frightening revelations her confirmation hearing has produced. On Tuesday, Sen. Coburn pressed Kagan about the limits the Constitution places on Congress’ power to control what Americans do:
Coburn: If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day and I got it through Congress and that’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the Commerce Clause?
Kagan: Sounds like a dumb law
Coburn: Yeah, but I got one that’s real similar to it that I think is equally dumb. I’m not going to mention which it is.
Kagan: But I think that the question of whether it’s a dumb law is different from whether the question of whether it’s constitutional and I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.
The law Coburn was referring to, of course, was President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment: the Obamacare provision that forces all Americans to buy health insurance. But Jefferson and the other Constitution framers designed the document to protect our “unalienable Rights” by limiting the power of Congress. They designed an ingenious system of checks and balances that divides state and federal authority in the hope of preventing any one government from exerting too much control over a free people. Specifically, Article I allocates to Congress “[a]ll legislative powers herein granted,” and section 8 of Article I (referred to by Sen. Coburn above as the Commerce Clause), grants Congress the authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court has always understood that, taken together, these clauses put some legislative powers beyond Congress’ reach.

But Kagan has now testified that not only does she find the Founders’ concept of “unalienable Rights” irrelevant to Constitutional interpretation, but she also declined to say if the Constitution prevents Congress from telling Americans what to eat.  Her evasive non-response to Coburn’s Commerce Clause inquiry shows that she would indeed be a rubber-stamp for almost any part of the Obama agenda that Congress enacts. So if the Obama administration convinced Congress (and this is a total hypothetical) that the survival of a single car company, let’s say Chrysler, was absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation’s economy, and Congress then passed a law forcing all Americans to buy a Chrysler car, Kagan would find such a law, while perhaps “dumb,” perfectly constitutional. Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.

The leftist members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that the Obamacare individual mandate is extremely vulnerable to being struck down by the Supreme Court. That is why they have spent so much of the hearing trying to redefine what “judicial activism” is. As Heritage Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies Robert Alt will testify today, the Court is not committing “judicial activism” every time it finds that a law violates the Constitution. Judicial activism is not a function of outcomes, but one of interpretation. Instead, it occurs when a judge applies his or her own policy preferences to uphold, or strike down, a statute or other government action which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution.

Kagan came to the committee with one of the thinnest records of any Supreme Court nominee in recent history. What little has been learned about her views so far has been highly disturbing. Nothing in her testimony has demonstrated she has either the respect for our nation’s founding documents or the independence from this White House to apply the law as it is written, and dispense justice without regard to the parties before her.

Quick Hits:

Conn Carroll Author: Conn Carroll

He Is Afraid to Name the Enemies What They Are

The first time I heard terrorist attacks referred to as "man-made disasters' I thought it was a joke.  Who could seriously be so naive as to create a new politically correct term for murderous terrorist attacks?  Zero and his administration, that's who.  When will the idiots inside the Beltway realize that these knuckleheads want to slit our throats?  Period.


A4 Driver

Obama's Muslim Outreach Fails

By: Ronald Kessler

Of all President Obama’s policies, none is more misguided than using politically correct euphemisms to refer to radical Muslim terrorists. Can you imagine Winston Churchill referring to the Nazis as “violent extremists” or to the London Blitz as a “man-caused disaster”?

Now we know the result of that policy. Instead of improving America’s image in the minds of Muslims, Obama actually has made things worse. Since Obama became president, the popularity of the United States in Muslim countries has declined, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey.

In Egypt, only 17 percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable view of the United States. That is the lowest rating in the five years Egyptians have been polled. Last year, 27 percent said they had a favorable view.

The same trend was evident in other Muslim countries. In Turkey, the number of Muslims who had confidence in Obama slipped by 10 percent from 2009 to 2010. In Lebanon, the number also declined by 10 percent. In Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria, the decline ranged from 4 percent to 5 percent.

Along with tip-toeing around radical Muslim terrorists, Obama has proposed, as ways to signal that we are good guys, holding a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City and closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Those policy initiatives also have not worked. Instead, they threaten to put Americans at risk. Although calling radical Muslim terrorist acts “man-caused disasters” may be bizarre, it also signals to those fighting the war on terror that we really are not serious about taking on terrorism.

There is a right way to diminish recruitment of terrorists, and there is a wrong way. The wrong way is to compromise our security by proposing to try the architect of the 9/11 attack in New York. The wrong way is to release CIA interrogation memos that fuel recruitment of terrorists and undermine the morale of the CIA officers and FBI agents who are trying to protect us.

The wrong way is to close the prison camp at Guantánamo, where terrorists are housed safely away from the American population. The wrong way is to telegraph weakness by apologizing to the world for America’s imagined sins, as Obama routinely does when going overseas.

The right way is for the president to give the kind of speech Obama gave in Cairo. Obama pointed out that al-Qaida attacks actually kill more Muslims than non-Muslims and that Islam is a largely peaceful religion. In similar fashion, a week after 9/11, President Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington, where he said that the acts of violence against innocents at the World Trade Center violate the tenets of the Islamic faith.

But the majority of Obama’s efforts to reach out to the Muslim world have been not only ill-conceived but also, as it turns out, counterproductive. Muslims are no more impressed by a leader who is afraid to name the enemy than Americans are.

From the Nazis to al-Qaida, placating those who are intent on wiping us out has never worked and never will. As a Rolling Stone article based on interviews with Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his aides concludes, the real problem is the “wimps in the White House.”

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.


© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Interesting Comments on the McChrystal Episode

No postings for the past several days as I went to visit my Dad in California to help him celebrate his 90th birthday.

This is an interesting take on the McChrystal flap.  I have to agree with the author in that these folks all knew that the reporter for Rolling Stone would report everything that he heard.  I think that I can count on one hand the number of former/current military members that I know that think Zero and his staff are good for America.


A4 Driver

The General and the Community Organizer

by Paul R. Hollrah
June 24, 2010

Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystal's top aides.  The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was that they are all wrong… dead wrong.  What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.

The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute.  General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris.  The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded for days.

In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was "very aware" that his comments would find their way into print.  He said, "McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record."  Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, The Runaway General.

As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting.  Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was "a 10-minute photo op."  He went on to say, "Obama clearly didn't know anything about (McChrystal), who he was.  Here's the guy who's going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged.  The Boss was pretty disappointed."

As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent.  But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are. 

General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes.  To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots… graduates of West Point and other fine universities… who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country.  To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic… at the very least.  To think that men who are trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension. 

I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing. 

From the day that he became the handpicked "spear carrier" for Obama's unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McChrystal's life had been one of constant frustration.  After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested.  McChrystal could not have been happy about that.

The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties).  Obama's ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire.  One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire.  But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired.  Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening. 

Under Obama's politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.  McChrystal could not have been happy about that.

A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released.  A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans.  McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.

But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team.  It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy.  Would we be surprised to learn that the preponderance of these medals were awarded posthumously?  McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity. 

I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he'd had enough.  And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation.  It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him. 

They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform.  To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully. 
 
They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired.  Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story.  But they could not take a chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror.  They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.

During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices… both bad.  He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul.  Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.

In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge.  In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media.  He chose the latter of the two options. 

But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do.  They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services… from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.

That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted. 

From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man's man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a… community organizer.  Well done, General!  

Monday, June 21, 2010

What's Wrong With This Picture?

This is an article by Bob Livingston from Personal Liberty Digest.  He has included some pro and con response posts with editorial comments.  The Beltway Bozos just don't get it.  Why do we even have a Homeland Security Department other than to harass people at security checkpoints at airports?  YGBSM!.  Watch out for the illegals who have illegally crossed the border to illegally live in the US?  Thank God for people like Governor Jan Brewer for hanging in there and demanding action by the Feds.  BTW, how can Janet Nopalitano, after having just left the Arizona Governor's job, remain incredibly silent about this whole problem?  Unbelievable!!!!!

A4 Driver

 

Ceding Arizona To Mexico

June 21, 2010 by Bob Livingston
Ceding Arizona To Mexico
America is losing the battle along the border with Mexico—apparently without a fight. As proof, a swatch of Arizona 80 miles wide that runs from the Mexican border about three counties deep into the state (encompassing about 3,500 acres) has been ceded to Mexicans.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that armed paramilitary elements control a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and other parts of Arizona. But rather than try and reclaim it, signs have been posted marking the area as off limits to Americans.
It was closed in October 2006, due to human safety concerns, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The signs read: “Danger—Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended.” To see a clip of Babeu’s interview click here.

The squad-sized (in American military parlance a squad refers to two teams of four or five soldiers each) armed paramilitary elements Babeu referred to are drug smugglers and human traffickers out of Mexico. And violence there has increased the last fourth months.

He conceded that neither he nor other local sheriff’s departments and city police forces had the manpower to take the area back. It’s going to take the U.S. military, he said, and that’s why Babeu, his fellow law enforcement heads and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently asked Obama for 3,000 National Guard troops.

Obama responded by promising Arizona Governor Jan Brewer he’d get back to her. He hasn’t.

As I wrote last week in Breaking Their Oath, this is not the only place armed elements have crossed the Mexican border in the U.S. There have been many sightings reported—and several videos made to back them up—of either elements of the Mexican military or police forces crossing the border in force. There have also been shootouts with U.S. Border agents.

 Just recently a young smuggler was killed by U.S. Border agents and armed agents from Mexico fired on them as they investigated the scene of the shooting.

Breaking Their Oath demonstrated how Obama and the current Congress, as well as Presidents and Congresses past, have failed to live up to their oath of office and protect America from invasion.

The situation in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge demonstrates that the fascist elected elites are either feckless and weak or they have an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of our nation. It also demonstrates why Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was necessary.
  There were a lot of interesting comments to last week’s article. The vast majority agreed with Arizona’s soon-to-be-enacted immigration law which will make it a crime to be an illegal alien in the state.

Many were like this one from a person calling himself American Citizen who said,
“The only pertinent word about all of this is ‘illegal.’ They are criminals as soon as they step foot on our territory. Nationality means nothing here.”
Al Seiber is very familiar with what’s going on in Arizona. He has friends near the border. He posted,
“My friends live 1200′ from the border, out of Sierra Vista, Ariz. they told me they find more prayer mats then anything. I find lot’s of back packs, with tortillas and water bottles in them.”
Some commenters think the answer is a fence along the border: a fence that Washington obviously has no interest in completing. Typical of that line of thinking comes from someone calling himself bp who wrote,
“People are WALKING over the border with their backpacks long before they stand on the street corner for a day job! Fences, we need SERIOUS fences (like the ones we build around our prisons) and the kind of armored vehicles that the Mexican Polizia showed us last week (when one of their smugglers was killed on U.S. soil)! Who knew they had these?!”
Not all agree. A regular liberal commenter who calls himself Denniso had this to say:
“Bob Livingston says ‘we are being invaded and the gov’t is doing nothing to stop it’. Is that supposed to be a joke? I just drove along a part of the border and the highway was full of border patrol vehicles, driving back and forth. We have thousands more border patrol agents than we’ve ever had all along the border, at a cost of billions of dollars per year…what is that? doing nothing?
Come on Bob, don’t twist the facts just to stir up the hotheads in the country more than they already are. If thousands of agents swarming the border is doing nothing and building a ridiculous and multi billion $$ wall is nothing, then I wonder what it is you would consider doing something?”
No Denniso. Unfortunately it is no joke. Usually you provide coherent dissenting commentary. Not this time.
There are places—like the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding territory—where agents don’t go, but armed insurgents from across the border do. And ask the residents of some of the border towns about the armed Mexican helicopters—sometimes seen hovering over houses and shining spotlights at night as if searching for someone or something—and how they feel about what is being done to protect them.
Certainly more could be done by the Federal government if the fascist elites in power wanted something done. Big John in Virginia had a good suggestion. He wrote,
“Why do we have 37,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, but we can’t put enough on our borders to protect us? Let’s all go to Arizona for vacations this year. I am. I’ve always wanted to see the Grand Canyon!! Help make up for the boycotts. See ya there!!!”
Or, we could reduce the size of Empire America and just bring those troops home and put them along our border. But visiting Arizona is always a good idea.
And refuse2lose commented, sarcastically I suppose,
“I would like to challenge any person that is against the Arizona immigration bill to call your representatives in congress, also write a letter to Obama and tell them that the federal immigration law needs to be shredded and a new one needs to be written up. Because, in case you are like Obama, Holder and Napolitano who didn’t take time to read the bill but got on tv and condemned it, I have actually read the bill and it is EXACTLY like the federal bill. So if you are accusing Arizonians of being profilers then you are in fact accusing your liberal icons of profiling.”
The grammar’s not great, but you get the drift. Actually, letting your fascist elected representative know how you feel about the illegal immigration situation is not a bad idea. So we’ve come up with a way you can do that. First, you can go here and vote in our Immigration Reform Poll.
So far 97 percent of those who’ve voted believe America should follow Arizona’s lead when it comes to immigration reform. And a whopping 92 percent of respondents would like to see their state pass a similar immigration law.

After you’ve voted, send the link to your friends and family and ask them to vote as well. The results will be shared with major media outlets across the country, so the more votes cast the better.
You can also contact your Congressweasel (or Congressman if his or her name happens to be Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman or one or two others) and let him or her know how you feel. If you don’t know how to contact your Senator or Representative you can find him or her by going here.
As rob posted:
“’We the People’ need to start being seen in ‘GREATER’ numbers and heard from in masses. We need to see and hear from candidates where they stand on major issues and hold them accountable. Why is it we are not asking our candidates or elected officials outright on their stance with major issues as immigration. Quit hiding….. NOW is our opportunity to be heard….NOW is our opportunity to be seen…. November is coming soon…. don’t pass it up.”
Why indeed? What better way to know where they stand than by asking them yourself? We’ve done the hard part for you. You no longer have an excuse.

Friday, June 18, 2010

When Will This Stop? The Internet is Next

Do you think that there could be any more attacks on free speech?  Evidently we haven't seen the last of them. People were bitching about the Patriot Act.  If this goes down, the potential is far worse and you ain't seen nothing yet.  The potential to shut down blogs like this and conservative talk radio under the guise of national security is for real.  I am totally disgusted with the inside-the-beltway mentality.


A4 Driver

 

New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet








Government would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.



Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

What Does Your Financial Planner Think About This?

As you know by now I use the 10% rule---if I believe only 10% of what I learn and it's still bad, then it really must be bad.  Our pals in Zero's administration are literally going to try to tax us to death by simply waving a wand and, Voila!, all of the previous laws that you and your financial planner have been using for your retirement plans are, POOF, gone. Think about what is happening here.  VAT will be contemplated soon, nationalization of the auto industry, banks, mortgage industry, health care industry has occurred and now a nationalization of retirement accounts is being considered?  This is so out of control that it should be beyond belief but, unfortunately, it is reality in Zero's eyes.  This administration is walking on real thin ice and needs to sit still for a while before the ice cracks and----we all sink because they have put all of us in jeopardy with this idiotic taxing and spending.

A4 Driver 

Your Money or Your life
Big Media has been trying to keep this under wraps, but the U.S. government has been exploring options for seizing all the money in America's IRAs and 401(k)s...
In order to pay for its health care and other spending obligations (let's not forget Social Security), the Obama administration is now desperately trying to figure out the best way to force Americans to turn over their retirement nest-eggs in exchange for annuities that pay a government-guaranteed stream of income.
I'm not making this up (get more information here). One of the front-running proposals focuses on what's called "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" that:
                Pay you only an inflation-adjusted 3% on your money
                Strip you of all tax breaks on traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts
                Don't allow you early access to your money, except for disability
                Prohibit your voluntary opt-out — participation is mandatory
                Seize as much as half of your accrued assets upon your death

This last little bullet-point here is the one that's got me worried...
Think about it: If such a proposal passes (and with our government's mounting debt and drunken-sailor spending, it's only a matter of time), it means that the bean counters in charge of my health care will make more money the earlier I die after retirement.
The exact language of the Guaranteed Retirement Accounts proposal reads:
"Participants who die before retiring can bequeath half their account balances to heirs; those who die after retiring can bequeath half their final account balance minus benefits received..."
You see that? No matter what it says in any will of mine, the government will pocket fully half my money if I die before reaching benefits age...
But if I die, say, 20 years after my retirement, they'll only pocket half of what's left of my money after making two decades of annuity payments out if it.
In other words: The best-case scenario for THEIR bottom line would be if I kick the bucket the day I retire...
That way they get more money in their pockets, faster.
Now do you see what's got me worried here?
If this proposal becomes law, the people who are responsible for deciding whether or not my life is worth the cost of the health care I need are the SAME PEOPLE who stand to gain the most from my early demise...
The fiscally responsible elected officials of the benevolent U.S. government. 
Bottom line: I'm 41 right now. And call me paranoid, but I'm certain that by the time I reach retirement age, the bean counters in charge of rationing my health care will evaluate not only my prognosis, odds of survival, and expected post-care quality of life when I go in for treatment...
But also how much they can pocket by pulling the plug on me.
Jim Amrhein
Contributing Editor, Wealth Daily
P.S. I didn't have nearly enough space here to reveal everything I've found out about this coming War on American Retirement. You can find out more by clicking here...

And You Wonder Why Arizonans Are Fed Up With Federal Government Inaction?

2010 Threat Assessment by the Justice Department that includes some pretty disturbing info and stats for Arizona. 


A4 Driver

The violence associated with drug smuggling has spilled across the Mexican border to such an extent that last year there was a drug-related kidnapping every 33 hours in the city of Phoenix alone.

That’s one of the eye-opening disclosures from the National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, published by the National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the U.S. Justice Department.

“Although much of the violence attributed to conflict over control of smuggling routes has been confined to Mexico, some has occurred in the United States,” according to the Justice Department report, issued shortly before Arizona passed a tough new immigration law targeting illegal aliens in the state.

“Violence in the United States has been limited primarily to attacks against alien smuggling organization members and their families — some of whom have sought refuge from the violence in Mexico by moving to U.S. border communities such as Phoenix.

“For example, in recent years, kidnappings in Phoenix have numbered in the hundreds, with 260 in 2007, 299 in 2008, and 267 in 2009.”

The 267 kidnappings in Phoenix last year equal one kidnapping every 1.4 days, or every 33 hours.

The kidnapping victims often have a connection to drug trafficking activities or are innocent relatives of traffickers, the report states.

“An individual or individuals may be kidnapping because of a lost drug load or failure to pay a drug debt.

“The number of U.S kidnapping incidents is most likely underreported because many victims’ families are unwilling to report the crime for fear that the victim will be killed, the kidnappers will retaliate against the family, or law enforcement will discover the family’s drug trafficking activities or illegal alien status.”

Other disclosures of the threat assessment:
  • On average, three Border Patrol agents are assaulted each day at or near the Mexican border.
  • Last year, mid-level and retail drug distribution in the U.S. was dominated by more than 900,000 criminally active gang members, representing approximately 20,000 gangs in more than 2,500 cities.
  • In addition to vehicles, Mexico drug smugglers use “cross-border tunnels, subterranean passageways, and low-flying or ultralight aircraft to move drugs from Mexico into the United States.”
  • Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) smuggled tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. through the Southwest border into Mexico in 2009.
  • Mexican DTO members or associates acquire thousands of weapons each year in Arizona, California, and Texas and smuggle them into Mexico.
The outlook, according to the report: “Without a significant increase in drug interdictions, seizures, arrests, and investigations that apply sustained pressure on major DTOs, availability of most drugs will increase in 2010, primarily because drug production in Mexico is increasing.”

When Are People Going to Understand That the Government Does Not Create Jobs?

This is from the May 15th Agora Finanacial Daily Reckoning weekend recap.  Some of the comments are tongue in cheek but the point of US voters being afflicted with the Stockholm Syndrome is valid.  This is a great article.


A4 Driver

Reporting from Taipei, Taiwan...

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."

The Nazarene borrows from Aesop's fable, as relayed in the Gospel of Matthew (7:15-16)

It's a strange freedom indeed when the cost of attainment is freedom itself.

In a misguided effort to rescue the economy from the untold horrors of the "abyss," the prophets of modern central planning seek to transfer society's means of production from the most to the least productive class; from private fist to public mouth; from worker to moocher; host to parasite, as Mr. Bonner likes to say. In doing so, these charlatans shackle generation upon generation of those they affect to represent to a life of drudgery and servitude. A strange brand of freedom this is, indeed.

Who in their right mind would go in for this twisted arrangement? Many of whom do so voluntarily, no less! More on that in a second, but first, a brief recap of the vile trend afoot.

We got a whiff of it earlier this week, when the government posted what should have been widely viewed as another gross misallocation of (taxed/begged/borrowed/stolen) resources. For the 19th consecutive month, the national budget fell disastrously short of anything close to balanced. According to the Treasury Department's own figures (itself a highly suspect data origin) April's $82.7 billion deficit was almost four times the shortfall registered in the same month last year. Addison put it thus in Thursday's edition of The 5-Minute Forecast, "[T]his year, the bleeding is nearly four times as bad."

As you might expect, the official tally only tells part of the story. Sadly, it was the "best" part. Continued Addison, "That figure of $82.7 billion is merely the BS figure Treasury puts out there when it reports the deficit. The real tell is how much the national debt grew. And in April, that figure was twice the size of the 'official' monthly deficit - $175.6 billion.

"Don't look now," Addison went on, "but we're just a couple of weeks away from the national debt breaking $13 trillion. If you must know, the exact number this morning is $12,931,157,737,293.42."

The "official" monthly deficit figure was also more than double what a handful of Wall Street economists surveyed by the newswire Reuters had forecast, as if we needed any further evidence that these pillars of certainty were incapable of anything beyond extrapolating two dots on a graph into the future.

Historically, April tends to produce a modest surplus (or at least a mitigated deficit), thanks largely to the influx of tax receipts due around the 15th of that month. But despite the administration's assurances that the employment landscape is steadily improving, receipts were down more than $20 billion from the same month last year (2010: $245.27 billion; 2009 $266.21). Outlays, meanwhile, rose to a record level of $327.96 billion, up sharply from $218.75 billion in March and $287.11 billion in April 2009.

Rising from 9.7% to 9.9% last month, the unemployment situation is clearly NOT improving. The government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the number of long-term unemployed individuals (defined as those without work for at least 27 weeks) continued trending higher, reaching 6.7 million last month. 45.9% of all unemployed people in the US now fall into this category. Those sometimes referred to as "involuntary part-time workers" (workers whose hours had been cut, for example) still stands at 9.2 million. Again, not counted in the unemployment figure are another 2.4 million "marginally attached" workers, including 1.2 million "discouraged" workers who, for all intents and purposes, have simply given up looking for employment. That figure is up 457,000 from a year earlier. That a supposedly benevolent Big Brother can merely define these destitute individuals out of existence is nothing short of a disgrace of the highest order and should, at the very least, give some indication as to the real motivations of those supposedly acting as public "servants."

But isn't that just the point? To return to the question we posed earlier, who are those among us who still expect the government to fix all of our problems? Surely by now we must realize that state coddling is not the solution. Quite the opposite, in fact.

As the Big Brother in Chief himself rolled into Buffalo, NY, on Thursday afternoon to cheerlead his administration's "success" on the jobs front, he must have seen a giant billboard by the side of the road. The sign, erected by a group of unemployed locals, read: "Dear Mr. President, I need a freakin' job. Period. Sincerely, INAFJ.org."

What these unfortunate people don't seem to grasp is not that Mr. Obama doesn't want to give them a job (something that would surely help his southbound popularity rating come the next election)...but that he can't; not a productive one worth counting, anyway. The best he can promise is a job at the IRS, whereby employees police legalized theft from their fellow citizens, or a desk at the census bureau, whereby they sit around counting each other's fingers and toes for a few months. Far from helping improve the cancerous debt crisis spreading to the nation's vital organs, such phony make-work programs only exacerbate the dying patient's condition.

Contrary to popular belief, the achievement of the parasitic welfare state is not that it confers necessary services on the governed, or that it provides a magical safety net for the underprivileged and unwashed among its masses. Instead, like the wolf in Aesop's fable, its greatest accomplishment is one of cunning deception. To wit, the welfare state manages to convince - on a grand scale, no less - otherwise reasonable voters that it is not in the business of peddling unnecessary disservices at great taxpayer expense when that, in a nutshell, is its very essence of being. The fact that voters willingly support those who hold their prosperity and freedom hostage demonstrates a curious and alarming case of mass political Stockholm Syndrome, and on a national scale.

Beware these wolves, fellow reckoner. By their rotting fruit you will recognize them.