Throw Out Your Dead

Monty Python's humorous treatment of the Black Plague aside, I am somewhat puzzled by the administration's position on closing the border to prevent further influx of this new swine flu.

A little bit of background on me, I studied microbiology for two years before deciding that I wanted nothing to do with the medical profession and switched to electronics. Cold heartless conservative that I am, after participating in a work-study program with a major metropolitan hospital I decided that I didn't want to deal with sick people and preferred to work on cold heartless electronic equipment, which at least...did not whine and complain as much. All jesting aside, I really decided I did not like the cold heartless treatment patients received in the management of the modern medical profession, aside from the minor discovery that generally the sick and dying usually complained the least, and those who really had nothing wrong with them were a major pain in the ass.

That said, I fail to understand the administrations position of closing the border would be the equivalent of closing the barn door after the cows got out (cute analogy Mr. President). Having a rudimentary knowledge of vector transmission (at least what I can remember after 25 years)... I fail to understand how limiting the number of sick people who can infect others allowed into the country can be viewed as a bad thing. Given that the appearance of the virus in the United States does not appear to have the severity of the virus present in Mexico (for yet to be established reasons), and that currently there are only a small number of identified infected persons in the US, does allowing possibly infected people unrestricted access to the US make sense?

Sure, they are performing checks at the border... but not on everyone, and by whom? I am relatively sure that all the border posts are not being manned by MDs, so what? They are checking people that appear sick to a border patrol agent? Nothing against border patrol agents, I am sure that despite their limited numbers they are highly qualified in keeping people out of the country who don't belong here, when they are in the position to intervene. The overly simplistic explanations offered by the administration don't quite meet my standards of scientific reasoning, and no additional explanation appears to be forthcoming.

Nor do I believe that the administration could effectively close the border, barring the deployment of large numbers of National Guard personnel, even if they wanted to. I mean, we can't keep illegal workers out, what makes us think we could keep "illegal infecteds" out? I just don't like the patronizing and child-like explanations offered by the administration. Trust the government? What are you nuts?

On top of that, I keep hearing on TV and the radio that "Now is not the time to panic". Am I to believe that sometime in the future I shall tune in to a soothing voice telling me to "PANIC"? When is the time to panic? Is this defined in some government brochure I have overlooked? Is there some statistical basis for panic? Okay.... 7352 people have died..... PANIC!!!!

I don't believe that it is time to panic, in fact the thought of panic hasn't even crossed my mind yet... but is it too much to ask to be treated as a rational and intelligent citizen? Instead of being treated like it is way to far beyond me to even understand this situation... now be a good boy, put away your blocks, and go wash your hands before nap time.

Seriously, it's the flu... sure it killed millions in 1917-1918, but hey... we didn't have antibiotics and antivirals readily available at the time. My personal reaction is one of a slightly raised eyebrow... of cold scientific detachment, hmmm that's interesting, perhaps we should keep an eye on this. Since I am not advocating panic and I haven't heard anyone else either advocating or actually panicking, why does the government feel it necessary to keep telling us not to panic.

But then what do I know? I didn't panic over the millennium bug either.

It seems, when it really comes down to it, not closing the border is a socio-economic political decision, not a medical or scientific one... and I can respect that, just don't patronize me with cute sayings about barns, cows, and stuff. Or, simply admit, as is commonly known, we don't have a snowballs chance in hell of effectively closing the border... now that's an analogy I can respect, it's simple, straight forward, to the point, and accurately captures the real situation.

I see two alternatives in the administrations current approach... and I will grant that President Obama is an intelligent and well-educated man, but he is either talking down to us, or repeating the statements of other, more specialized professionals, who are talking down to him.

Neither explanation appeals to me.


Cheers!

~Finntann~

The Specter of Betrayal

Senator Arlen Specter has thumbed his nose (and that was the politest of the allegories I was considering) at Pennsylvania Republicans, and presto-chango has announced he is now a Democrat. "I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate." A curious position for a man, repeatedly elected to the US Senate by the Pennsylvania Republican electorate, it is in essence an admission that…well I have screwed you over royally and have no chance at reelection as your representative…so f-off. When reporters inquired as to what he had to say to those fine upstanding people who elected him his flippant reply was "I don't have to say anything to them. They've said it to me."

Well Mr. Specter what you have said to us is that like most politicians your constituents mean very little to you… what means the most to you is staying in office, by hook or by crook. If as you say, your principles have diverged from those of your former party, you ought to do the honorable thing and resign, instead of thumbing your nose at the constituents who elected you, as a Republican I might add. But resigning would not be politically expedient would it? So what did the Democrats offer you? An unopposed run in 2010? Big Daddy-O on the campaign trail for you? As a voting Pennsylvania Republican (at the time of your election), you disgust me.

On a lighter note, I am no longer a voting Pennsylvania Republican; having decided on the occasion of my retirement from the military that it was in my best interest not to return to what has become the Communistwealth of Pennsylvania. I decided that I did not want to live in either Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, nor living somewhere else in the state, support them. Having settled in a distinctly more conservative state, I welcome your defection and say good riddance, now all we have to do is get rid of the rest of the RINOs and return our party to its conservative base. Like you, Mr. Specter, I am seriously disenchanted with the Republican Party, though apparently for diametrically opposed reasons. If anything Mr. Specter, I will be leaving the party not because it is too conservative for my tastes, but because there is apparently little difference between the parties, except “in name only”.

I urge all conservatives to actively voice their principles in regards to party platform; to return to a small constitutional federal government. To those in our party who have abandoned principle to gleefully partake of the current orgy of socialist spending, federal bribery, pork, expansion, and dominance I quote Ronald Reagan “In this present crisis government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem”. The party has lost its way; however it has lost its way under the guidance and leadership of the likes of you, Mr. Specter, and for that, I thank you for leaving.

~Finntann~

The White House Press Corps: From attack dog to lap dog in 100 days.
See Richard Benedetto's critique at Politico.

White House Reporters Earn Scarlet Letter

Robert Gibbs gave White House reporters a "strong A" Friday for their work over the first 100 days of the new administration.
-- Michael Calderone, Politico.com

Note to press: Getting an 'A' from the White House means you're not doing your job.

In other headlines:

Bad students give high praise to easy teachers
Dirty players love blind referees
Crooks give "strong A" to incompetent cops

This should be a mark of shame for the self-appointed non-partisan watchdogs supposedly keeping government honest. Instead, they provide fawning coverage that would embarrass Mussolini. Gibbs' praise has branded White House reporters as the supplicant toadies they are. Jake Tapper excepted.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21695.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/

The News Media is Torturing Us

The "Torture Memos" have the unhinged Bush haters ululating with excitement.

Here's a simple question for those screaming "torture!" What is the definition of torture? Not your definition, but the only one that counts in this discussion, the legal One. Here is one definition from the US Code:

Section 2340A of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits torture committed by public officials under color of law against persons within the public official's custody or control. Torture is defined to include acts specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. (It does not include such pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions.) The statute applies only to acts of torture committed outside the United States. There is Federal extraterritorial jurisdiction over such acts whenever the perpetrator is a national of the United States or the alleged offender is found within the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or the alleged offender.

You can read the International Committee of the Red Cross's broader definition here .

The screaming hordes spilling ink and infesting our radios and TV sets have so misused and sensationalized this word, but no one has started by defining it. Such blather is unproductive and unworthy of your attention. These sensationalists also risk falling prey to the logical fallacy of equivocation, where the meaning of a word, especially an emotional one like torture, is shifted to fit the arguer's agenda.

This tower of babble has various agendas: The lefties use it to further castigate and discredit the Bush "regime," and the good folks at FOX, CNN, et al are milking it to rake in the advertising dollars by keeping you agitated and tuned in. Getting at the truth has nothing to do with it.

How can the critics be so sure we tortured when they can't even honestly define it?

DOJ Manual
ICRC
HuffPo
Wikipedia - Equivocation

Overheard at the White House...

"You what? I didn't authorize ATTACKS on the pirates! I ordered A TAX on them!"

-- Props to papa Silverfiddle

Holiday Destination: Afghanistan!

That's right. Cathedral mountains, crystal blue lakes, 5000 years of history... Afghanistan has it all.

I've spend some time there, and I always thought it would be a great tourist location if it weren't for people trying to kill you.

Seriously, Breitbart reports that Afghanistan has established its first national park, and there is talk of attracting tourists to the relatively peaceful Bamiyan Province.

The Mote and the Beam

The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday. -Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

Mr. Nowak is an appointee of the United Nations Human Rights Council, composed of some of the worlds most esteemed defenders of Human Rights. Below is a list of esteemed members of the committee (approximately 33%) whose human rights records are rated as poor (or as otherwise noted) in the 2008 Report on Human Rights Practices by the US State Department:

Angola
Cameroon
Djibouti
Egypt
Gabon
Nigeria
Zambia
Bangladesh (Serious Concern)
China
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia (Significant Problems)
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovenia (Serious Concern)
Cuba

The UNHRC has become nothing more than a political hatchet, specifically condemning Israel 15 times while ignoring blatant abuses elsewhere. This "focus" has been condemned by the EU, US, Canada, and even the UN Secretary General.

Multiple Human Rights organizations have condemned the council as being controlled by Middle East and African nations supported by Russia, China, Cuba, and North Korea, all who protect each other from criticism.

When the International Humanist and Ethicist Union brought up the Sharia practice of stoning adulterers and the practice of forced marriages of teen age girls, the council announced it was not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth. Meanwhile the 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Council are lobbying the UN to make anti-blasphemy resolution 62/154 binding on members.

The US had rightly withdrawn from participation in this joke, however as of March 31st the Obama administration has announced that it will reverse the previous position and join the UNHRC.

So, to Mr. Nowak I say, whatever the eventual decision of the United States regarding "harsh interrogation tactics" and whether to prosecute or not, or in the case of prosecution, whatever the outcome... given that it is the business of we the people of this free and independent republic, and given that being a special rapporteur on torture to the UNHRC is the equivalent of being Dr. Joseph Mengele's medical ethicist... you can shove your calls for prosecution up your flaccid euro ass, and if you don't like it... do something about it... oh wait! I forgot! The UN is incapable of doing anything!

I don't normally go about quoting scripture, but this is the first thing that popped into my mind upon hearing of Mr. Nowak's calls, and it just seems so apropos:

How canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me cast out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

I know they mean well, but sometimes these people really piss me off.

3000 Words

Rage Against the Right

I don't understand the liberal hatred and derision of the tea parties. Aren't they the ones who insisted that dissent is patriotic?

Aren't they the ones who, after an eight year diaper rash temper tantrum, finally got their way at the polls? Why is the left so angry?

Dana Milbank at WaPo, no conservative, concludes that "But now, even under Obama, the anger on the left is, if anything, more personal and vitriolic than on the right." He cites some reader comments:

But many focused on a frustration on the left caused by Obama's centrism -- his opposition to prosecuting those involved with torture, for example. "I am angry because the whole Republican party has not been rounded up and thrown into a black site," one wrote. A reader in Evanston, Ill., took a similar view, that true believers on the left don't want "b.s. rhetoric about looking forward."

They won't be happy until Bush administration officials, including King George himself, are frog marched off to be publicly guillotined and the grubby conservative royalists are cowering silently in cellars and garrets across the countryside, stripped of their guns and bibles.

Byron York gives us his take:

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

York also points to the need to demonize an opponent whose argument you cannot refute:

Again, the tea parties could represent a threat. What if the protesters weren't racists, weren't violent, weren't mentally defective? What if their point was legitimate, or even partly legitimate? Those are questions better batted down than answered.

A Jack Nicholson would say, "They can't HANDLE the truth!"

You can see pictures from the tax day rallies at Creative Flashes. You can read the crabby leftist reaction at the Huffpo here and here.

Washington Examiner
Creative Flashes
HuffPo
WaPo

Free Speech is for Queers

Speaking Truth to Power? No, not the Hollywood leftards. Miss California Carrie Prejean, who had the temerity to say on national TV that she believes gay marriage is wrong.

Oh, how the left mewled on about how Bushitler and VP Dick "Torquemada" Cheney "chilled" our freedoms during their 8 year reign of terror:

Tim Robbins warned, "A chill wind is blowing in this nation" - just as he and his common-law wife, Susan Sarandon, joined hundreds of thousands of Americans in free and open expressions of coordinated public dissent against the United States' participation in the war on terrorism.

Ms. Prejean spoke her mind at the Miss USA Pageant, based on her faith, and got called a "dumb bitch" by self-described media queen Perez Hilton. She should have told Perez to shove it, but he's probably already had that done to him in every way imaginable. She now faces the tyranny of the masses, earning scorn from the glitterati and the millions of brainless sycophant that worship at its altar. Don't waste time looking for her in any Pepsi commercials, or chatting with Tyra Banks about superstar beau Michael Phelps.

Back to Mr. Robbins and his saggy squeeze Thelma. Despite right-wing oppression, they walk free today, as do Leni Riefenstahl Award winner Michael Moore, foreign policy expert Sean Pinhead and the Hollywood cast of thousands who treated us to one long anti-everything whine for the last eight years.

Meanwhile, the Mormon church is verbally and physically attacked for it's stance against gay marriage, anyone who dares criticize President Obama is branded a racist by washed up comediennes, and conservatives, including war veterans, are painted as enemies of the state by High Kommissar Janet Napolitano and her underlings over at the Bureau of Propaganda.

There's a chill wind blowing, but it's blowing in from the left.

Breitbart - Question Democratic Authority?
Daily Mail - Miss California

Hugo's Book Club

At the Summit of the Americas, Hugo Chavez gave President Obama a book written by a US-hating Marxist. It has shot to #2 on Amazon.

From the LA Times:

According to reports, the Chavez-Obama exchange, the book offered by the Venezuelan leader was in Spanish, a language the U.S. president does not read. Why Chavez didn't give him an English version is anyone's guess.

Maybe because the little tinpot dictator is too stupid to realize we speak English up here...

Forget that crap sandwich between two covers that dictator Hugo Chavez pressed into the accepting hands of President Obama. It's nothing but a leftist, anti-US screed that blames us for every ill ever visited upon Latin America, from cholera to national insolvency. You could fill a library with such books. Hating America isn't just a cottage industry in Latin America, it is a major going concern on the continent, second only to oil and mineral exploitation.

My favorite book of this genre was one about how Uncle Sam crushed Panama under his cruel, hob-nail boots for 100 years. The author paints Panama as a slave colony under our rule. It was a best seller in South American capitals like Buenos Aires, Montevideo, and Caracas. It did terrible in Panama, because the subjects of the book saw it for the farce that it was. Even Panamanian leftists wouldn't defend the book; doing so would have made them even more of a laughing stock than they already were in that relatively conservative country.

Anyone who had ever lived in Panama, one of the few countries in the region where you can drink the tap water, knew the book was BS. Those Latinos who had never lived there eagerly lapped it up, such is their simmering resentment of our country. Anything to avoid blaming themselves.

Here are a few recommendations from Silverfiddle to counter such socialist propaganda:

Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot. Aptly named antidote to the leftist claptrap written about our neighbors to the south. From Amazon's review: "Three Latin American writers, all ex-leftists, attack misconceptions about Latin America and ingrained sentiments of victimization and anti-Americanism among its people."

My favorite, The Penguin History of Latin America. No, it wasn't written by penguins, nor is it about those cute flightless neighbors to the south of South America. Written by University of Edinburgh Professor Edwin Williamson, it is an incisive overview of 500 years of Latin America history. It weighs in at a little over 600 highly readable pages, with each chapter devoted to a different subject or historical era, and is laid out mostly in chronological order.

A final word of advice: Don't read anything written in the US by any Latin American Studies professors, Chicano Studies doctoral candidates, or any other so-called Latin American experts from the world of academe. The closest most of these people have gotten to their area of "expertise" is eating a chalupa at Taco Bell.

LA Times: Chavez Gift to Obama
Amazon: Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot
Amazon: The Penguin History of Latin America

I'm a Democrat...

Courtesy of my ol' Air Force buddy OD. We fought the war on drugs with radios and rum. South America may never be the same...

I'm a Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I'm a Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I'm a Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm a Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I'm a Democrat because I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing now that we've elected Obama President and there's no more GWOT.

I'm a Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm a Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies, so long as we keep all death row inmates and al Qaeda terrorists alive.

I'm a Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as our wise lawmakers and bureaucrats see fit.

I'm a Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to reinterpret the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own."

Uncertainty Causes Instability

Government tinkering creates uncertainty, which in turn causes market instability. We saw it in the 1930's and we see it today

Louis R. Woodhill explains how government's failure to maintain the dollar's value has contributed to our present financial panic:

Capitalism and the free market can only do their job if the government supplies constant, reliable units of measure. This is why Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States says: “The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. The Framers seemed to understand that the dollar is a unit of measure, just like the foot, the pound, and the second.

In April, 2001, the price of gold was $255/oz. In March, 2008, it peaked at $1011/oz. The dollar, which is our unit of market value, had lost about 75% of its real value in seven years. (Today the gold price is around $950/oz.)

What does the free market do in the face of an unstable unit of measure? It tries to cope.

The classic way for a private entity to protect itself from inflation is to buy real assets with borrowed money. This is what drove the recent housing and commodities booms. For a long time, it made perfect economic sense to build houses (real assets) at a frantic pace and finance them with borrowed money. Between at least 2004 and 2007, anyone who didn’t borrow to buy real assets was a sucker—they were allowing themselves to be victimized by inflation while others profited from it.

Bill Frezza explains how capricious government standards fosters uncertainty, turning a recession into a depression:

Knowing the odds and payouts, as well as your own preference for a jackpot over pocket change, would you wager $5 on twenty-seven red at the roulette table? Enough people do to support a multi-billion dollar industry. OK, do you think anyone would play if the house was allowed to change the odds and payouts as well as any other rules of the game after each bet is placed?

That is the difference between risk and uncertainty.

Red and Blue tribal pundits agree that economic recovery can only occur if private capital returns to the market. That’s swell, at least they agree on something. So why is our brain trust in Washington doing every conceivable thing to maximize uncertainty, which only keeps us hiding in our caves hoarding gold?

Frezza has a point. Uncertainty is the reason why developing markets are starved for capital, forcing the third-world to entice investors with high returns: It is a dangerous place to invest. Capricious governments, crooked politicians and rotten legal systems chase capital to the stable markets of Europe, North America and developed parts of Asia.

Government policy schizophrenia has scared investors away. We're all sitting on our money because we don't know what will happen next. Frezza has a solution:

Do you want to get the country moving again instead of wallowing? Then consider this proposal, similar in spirit to the decision to declare a date-certain for our military withdrawal from Iraq.

Give us a date-certain when the Congressional circus and its media handmaidens will turn off the uncertainty machine so we can get back to work under whatever set of rules, subsidies, taxes, bailouts, and regulations they choose to saddle us with. Then freeze the plan and shut up.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/03/sorry_but_capitalism_did_not_f.html
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/03/how_to_turn_a_recession_into_a.html

What's a Dollar Worth?

If you're struggling to understand how the dollar is valued and what role debt plays in its price, read this excellent article by Desmond Lachman. In it, he explains why the dollar is weakening, but nonetheless is still the global currency of preference. He also neatly explains why the Chinese have us over a barrel.

http://american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/q-a-how-to-think-about-the-u-s-dollar

The Dangers of Ignorance

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the boards regarding Fascism and Socialism with allegations flying both ways. Liberals call conservatives fascist, conservatives call liberals fascist and socialist... the problem is people bandy these terms about without knowing a certain part of their body from a hole in the ground, as illustrated by this recent post I saw:

"Fascist, socialist, fascist, socialist. Which is it? Can’t you people make up your minds? Do none of you realize that fascism and socialism aren’t the same thing? That they are in fact opposites. Right wingers are the fascists, not left wingers. I guess you people would know that if you didn’t use Fox News as the History Channel."

The History Channel... now that's funny! Obviously something the poster stumbled across while switching between American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. Let's take a look at this argument from a historical perspective.

What are these political ideologies? Setting aside the historical nationalistic and racial overtones:

Fascism: Centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Now, are these mutually exclusive? If one is going to control the production and distribution of goods, one must by necessity be dictatorial, one must control. If one is going to do this via the federal government then one is accomplishing this via a centralized government. If the government is controlling production and distribution then it is by definition severe economic regimentation, whereas if the government is "redistributing" wealth, one must regiment society between the 'haves' from whom money is taken, to the 'have-nots' to whom money is given.

A simple look at these ideologies both on paper and in history illustrates that they fit nicely together, after all the classical fascist state, Nazi Germany, was run by the Nazis. Perhaps many forget where the term Nazi came from, it is not a German word for dictator or fascist, it derives from Nationalsozialistiche, or the National Socialist German Workers Party. To say that Fascism and Socialism are opposites is to completely and utterly ignore both fascist and socialist states in a historical perspective.

To call a conservative a fascist is complete and utter idiocy... how do you call someone who opposes a centralized autocratic government, economic control, and social regimentation a fascist?

I won't call Democrats fascist, at least not yet... although the DHS report is indicative of perhaps a mild case of fascist paranoia, but they are meandering down the road of socialism in the sense of centralized government control of the means of production and distribution and towards social regimentation via the means of redistribution of wealth.

People enjoy tossing these terms around because they are politically charged and powerful labels that are used to discredit one's opposition... a means of "forcible suppression of the opposition". One does not need to shoot the opposition if one can discredit them. The scariest part of this is that in the past election, the results were something like 53%-46%, nothing approaching a landslide, yet that 46% of the population is suddenly painted as the "fringe" by major media outlets.

Conservatives who believe in immigration control, smaller government, less spending, lower taxes for all (not just 95% of us), the constitution, the 2nd amendment, the 10th amendment, who oppose the stimulus, socialized medicine, bank nationalization, and corporate nationalization are suddenly find themselves labeled by government and media as "Radical Right-Wingers" seen by their government as a potential anti-government terroristic threat.

My how far we've come in four months.

~Finntann~

Teabagging

Well it’s preferable to all the planned government tax based sodomy… taxomy?

As they say, power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Despite years of “protest is patriotic” the largest American media outlets have given up any pretense of objectivity and have engaged in an all out assault on anyone who dares disagree with their socialist agenda.

“Teabagging”, look it up on Urban Dictionary if you are unsure of it’s meaning.
So would MSNBC refer to Sam Adams as a “Tea-bagging founding father”?

From grass-roots to “Astroturf”, in attempts to discredit the tea party participants, the movement in general has been characterized as Astroturf, not a grass-roots movement but a product of Fox News and undoubtedly the “vast right wing conspiracy”.

“Anti-government”, so whereas Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink were great patriotic protesters, anyone who opposes the liberal policies of the Obama administration are “anti-government”… well at least is goes along with the Department of Homeland Security’s assessment.

“Anti-CNN”, all I can say about that comment is I’m still ROFLMAO

A woman in Afghanistan protesting gets front page coverage, yet Americans protesting get relegated to page A14 of the New York Times.

The highlight of biased media coverage was the Susan Roesgen “interview” in Chicago of protesters there. Asking a participant why he was there, she kept interrupting him with DNC talking points.

“Do you realize that you are eligible for a $400 tax credit”? What the hell is that? A bribe? Here… shut up…. Take your $400 and go home like a good little lemming. We know what’s best for you after all you silly fool!

“Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of the stimulus? That’s $50 billion for this state sir.” And precisely where did the $50 billion come from Susan? Did it reign down on his holiness Obama like manna from heaven? No! It came out of the poor man’s pocket, my pocket, your pocket.

Back to the news desk “That is the prime example of what we are following across the country there Susan pointed out everything plain and clear of what she’s dealing with”. Perhaps the good Ms Roesgen would be better suited with a job in Beirut, Kabul, or the West Bank since what with all the crazy radical right-wing terrorists here it’s just so darn dangerous.

Meanwhile the corporate CNN response is: “She was doing her job and called it like she saw it”. Since when was a reporter’s job being a mouthpiece for a political party and spouting platform talking points like she’s running for office?

Given her previous reporting history it’s blatantly obvious that she has a serious problem with anyone comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler, but that comparisons of Bush to Hitler, well they were just okay!

~Finntann~

Credit Crisis Explained

Here's a quick, easy way to understand the credit crisis, courtesy of Jonathan Jarvis. It is accurate and entertaining:

Crisis of Credit Visualized

Here's why he did it:
The goal of giving form to a complex situation like the credit crisis is to quickly supply the essence of the situation to those unfamiliar and uninitiated. This project was completed as part of my thesis work in the Media Design Program, a graduate studio at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California. For more on my broader thesis work exploring the use of new media to make sense of a increasingly complex world, visit my website here. or email me at: jonathan.jarvis@gmail.com

Congressman Bennie G. Thompson: A Good Democrat

Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, is Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, and he is not happy with the DHS manifesto that smears everyone from pro-lifers to war veterans as potential neo-nazis. He scolds High Kommissar Janet Napolitano in a letter to her department:

This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans-including war veterans.

Unfortunately, this report appears to have blurred the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. I am disappointed and surprised that the Department would allow this report to be disseminated to its state, local and tribal partners in its present form.

He closes by asking for a detailed report on just what kind of activities her department has planned in the next few months.

Rep.Thomson is one of the more liberal members of Congress, but as a civil rights champion, he has taken a principled stand by recognizing this for the irresponsible propaganda that it is. In the spirit of Voltaire, I'm sure he agrees with very little the conservative agenda, but he is defending our right to voice it. For, if one group is silenced and threatened for activities that are legal, then we are all in danger of being silenced. God bless him.

http://benniethompson.house.gov/
http://homeland.house.gov/press/index.asp?ID=443
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennie_Thompson

Enemies of the State

Who's the real enemy? Ordinary citizens who insist on adherence to The Constitution as our founders envisioned, or zealous ideologues who abuse the frightening power of the federal government to criminalize the political opposition?

Homeland Security apparatchiks, at the behest of their Grand Poobah Janet Napolitano, have written a sly little document that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. It's presumed focus is right wing extremism (a small but real threat). Fine. The problem is that it conflates this serious issue with ordinary heartland conservatism, subtly painting with the same horrible brush ordinary freedom loving, gun toting, bible thumping conservatives who chafe at big government encroachment.

I still can't decide: Is this is a propaganda broadside ala The Protocols of Zion, meant to rouse fear and hatred against those dangerous right-wingers (They're all nazis, you know)? Or is it just kook bait? If it's the latter, I bit.

Here is what these bed-wetting leftists consider a threat to this country:

- "Hoarding ammo and weapons" in the expectation that sales may be banned (A legal act)
- "Antagonism toward the new presidential administration" (If this were against the law, our jails would be full of rabid reporters and poop throwing leftist monkey protesters)
- "Opposition to illegal immigration" (opposition to an illegal activity is subversive???)
- "Opposition to expanded social programs for minorities" (Of course, we hate minorities. Our opposition has nothing to do with too much government spending)
- "Opposition to gun control" (Support for the constitution is now dangerous)
- "Perception that illegal immigrants are taking American jobs by working for lower wages" (Now where would anyone get that idea???)

Here is the most vile piece of propaganda:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

See how this works? Take a true statement that accurately describes dangerous right wing extremism, then slip in belief in states' rights, anti-immigration and anti-abortion. Congratulations, you've just declared half the population a danger to the nation.

It points an accusing finger at war veterans

Most sickening is her targeting of "disgruntled returning war veterans." Maybe they're disgruntled with politicians waving surrender flags and a press that hates America and revels in her every mistake. She invokes Timothy McVeigh, a Gulf War veteran, more than once in the report. To suggest that people who have fought for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan are potential racist insurrectionists is beyond repugnant.

Perhaps 2 million citizens have cycled through the military since 1995, and one of them, McVeigh, was a racist terrorist who committed a horrible act. By Napolitano's logic, all mothers should be closely monitored because during that same time period we had a case of a mother drowning her children in a bathtub, and another who locked her kids in the truck of her car and drove it into a lake.

It's no wonder Governor Rick Perry has announced his support for Texas House Concurrent Resolution 50:

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Governor Perry's concerns are real and Janet Napolitano's paranoid political manifesto shows why: It is grotesque overreach when a petty bureaucrat can use the power of the Federal government to demagogue political enemies.

Worldnet Daily has a link to the report here. I encourage you to download the ten page report and read it. It should be printed out on toilet paper and distributed to all freedom loving citizens.

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/print/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21243.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94803

Shooting Rats in a Barrel

We should assist the country of Somalia as long as it doesn't deter us from swiftly killing any pirates foolish enough to attack our interests. And please, no more land invasions

The successful outcome of the Maersk situation (Three scumbags reunited with their father in hell, one captured, all hostages safe) is due entirely to the US military, especially the Navy SEALs.

Having said that, I do think President Obama earns at least some praise for effective use of our military. If for no other reason than if this situation had gone the other way, he sure as hell would have caught blame. God forbid we turn back the clock to Somalia 1992, where Clinton Administration policies, not military failure, led to that sickening event known colloquially as Black Hawk Down.

The fact that these sea-borne criminals are the spawn of a failed state explains their actions, but does not excuse them

According to Breitbart, Defense Secretary Gates had this to say about the root cause of Somali piracy:

"There is no purely military solution to" piracy in the region, he added.

"As long as you've got this incredible number of poor people and the risks are relatively small, there's really no way in my view to control it unless you get something on land that begins to change the equation for these kids."

I agree, as long as addressing root causes does not hinder the cause of snuffing these sewer rats every time they pop their stinking heads up. I'm all for increasing the risk side of the risk/reward equation.

John Keegan, in the Daily Telegraph, sums it up best:

So our campaign must be ruthless and pitiless: pirate ships must be sunk on sight and the crews left to swim to safety, if it can be reached.

Many would complain about such tactics but, in my opinion, pirates have no rights – indeed, it will be vital to exclude human rights lawyers from the anti-piracy campaign. To bring any captives to Europe or America for trial would probably be to grant them their dearest wish, which is to secure entry to a new life in the First World.

Armed escorts have been suggested. You can't protect them all! Cowering critics shout. No need to. Our US Navy only needs to protect US flagged carriers. The rest of the world can get Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen to sing "we are the world." We'll see how that works out for them as their insurance rates go sky high because settlement claims have become de facto Gulf of Aden toll payments for cowards too scared to fight back.

Let the UN do-gooders try to fix Somalia, and let our military continue their target practice out on the high seas.

Bloomberg
Breitbart
Daily Telegraph

Obama Adopts the Soros Doctrine

American Exceptionalism is out--Soros-style internationalism is in. God help us

Kyle-Anne Shiver has written an insightful summary of Obama's internationalist foreign policy. She says everything I believe, but in a much better way than I ever could.

The Soros Doctrine boils down to a short list of simple tenets:

• President Bush's reaction to 9/11 was an extreme over-reaction. The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been counterproductive in the world scheme of things, causing far more harm than help.
• The Global War on Terror was ill-conceived, ill-fought and ought to be dismantled, the sooner the better for international relations.
• The desire to spread American democracy to other regions is based on a false set of documents, namely the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Soros' belief that there is no such thing as a universal truth, that all things are relative and all moral systems are essentially equivalent leads him to conclude that our founding documents are fundamentally flawed in that they claim to rest upon "self-evident truths."

This is an interesting piece not easily summed up in a blog like this. Read the entire article here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_soros_doctrine_in_obama_fo.html

Thank God For Navy Seals

The US Navy, despite our dithering government, has shown the world how its done, just like the brave crew of the Maersk Alabama showed the world how brave men stand up against criminal cockroaches.

(CNN) -- The American cargo ship captain held hostage by pirates jumped overboard Sunday from the lifeboat where he was being held, and U.S. Navy SEALs shot and killed three of his four captors, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the situation.

Our president, after five days of mulling and pondering, finally unleashed the power of the US Navy, then had this to say:

Obama praised the captain for his bravery and courage. The president also said the United States needs help from other countries to deal with the threat of piracy and to hold pirates accountable.

No we don't. We don't need "the world's" help, unless it is to cry and apologize when we blow these sub-human predators to hell where they belong. No, all we nee need is to unleash the awesome might of the US military and the rest will fall into place.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97H45GO1&show_article=1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/12/somalia.pirates/index.html

How to end Piracy

Happy Easter!

Appeasement on the High Seas

So now we're back to psychoanalyzing global criminals, trying to figure out what the aim of the Somali pirates is.

Their aim is to extort money from international shipping companies. There! And I'm not even a foreign policy expert.

The White House and Foggy Bottom are also wringing their hands over what to do. Here's an easy answer: Bomb their little dhows to flinders. Send in SEAL teams to free the hostages and execute the pirates on the spot. As UltimaRatioReg says in a reader post at the USNI blog post, How to Beat the Somali Pirates,

A few YouTube videos of pirate vessels (with pirates in them) being shot to pieces or of captured pirates swinging from the gibbet would raise the risk side of the risk/reward equation significantly.

I agree. Bombing the rotting port cities by the sea that harbor these miscreants also comes to mind. This is a business for them, complete with offices, financiers, negotiators and spokesmen. Time to take the whole rotten operation out.

I know, this is easy for me to say because I have no relatives held hostage over there. But if we do this one time, and let them know we'll do the same thing again, with no potential for gaining a ransom, the kidnapping will stop because the financial gain is gone from their criminal enterprise.

We need to send a message: Touch an American flagged tanker, or an American crew member on a ship flying any flag, and we will kill you and break your stuff.

Of course, this is not nuanced enough for our enlightened government that is straining to be liked again by global tyrants and the international weak sisters who enable them.

As another poster at the UNSI blog mentioned, "John Paul Jones would not have put up with this shit." Indeed, he and President Thomas Jefferson knew how to defeat enemies on the high seas. Contrast Jefferson's strong action against the Barbary Coast Pirates with the current weak-kneed response of today. Even France is taking stronger action than we are.

The Obama administration needs to learn what Jefferson and Jones knew instinctively:
Whatever you tolerate, you get more of.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041003734_2.html?hpid=topnews
http://blog.usni.org/?p=2125

4th and 99

The dollar is falling, the debt is ballooning, the Taliban is resurgent, China, Russia and African Pirates are testing us at every turn. The pot-bellied pig of North Korea is launching missiles. These are times that try men's souls, as Thomas Paine would say.

So what is the Senate up to? AP reports that it is "reviewing how college football picks its number 1 team."

Our nation's #1 standing in the world is in danger, but as long as we know who the #1 college football team is we'll all be OK! Maybe next they can get to the bottom of other burning questions like whether American Idol is rigged or what the true sum of global livestock flatulence is.

Bread and Circuses...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00

Spreadin' It Around

I didn't vote for President Obama, but I hoped for the best when he was elected. I thought, maybe he would usher in a new era of good feelings, or perhaps emulate President Eisenhower and place himself above partisan politics. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his reckless spending is too much to bear. Is he trying to dig a hole to China?

Does this administration and its confreres in congress not notice or not care about the unsustainable debt they are creating?

What's the endgame?

I keep wondering what the Democratic end game is, and I think it is this: Once the budget is passed, they will come back and say they are forced to raise taxes. The President and Democratic Congressmen will invoke paygo to get the blue dogs on board and their line will go something like this:

"The American people want all these programs, and they must be paid for. Anything less would be irresponsible."

The NeoComms don't want to destroy capitalism like the old fashioned communists did--They want to chain it to the mill wheel and milk it for all its worth. I know, it's a mixed metaphor, but coherence counts for very little these days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/politics/03budget.html?ref=politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/budget_debate_shows_washington.html
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/03/a_dose_of_fiscal_reality_for_obama/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/obamas_ultimate_agenda.html

Truth Commission

I initially recoiled at the idea of establishing a "truth commission" to investigate supposed crimes of the Bush administration. It lumps this president and his team in the same category as dictators and military regimes. This categorization is only at home in the fevered imaginings of Bush Derangement Syndrome patients.

This article by Stuart Taylor has made me reconsider. We know that Abu Graib style abuses have happened. Were these rogue operations, or were they authorized, tacitly or otherwise, by government officials? Did torture happen? To what extent? What did we do wrong? What did we do right? As a society that upholds high democratic ideals, we have a responsibility to ourselves and the world to get to the bottom of whatever happened, document it, and report the results for all the world to see.

We need to get the facts out in the open, if for no other reason than to knock down the nuttiest speculations and to exonerate anyone who may have been unfairly smeared.

...the U.S. needs to take serious steps to show reasonable critics at home and abroad that we are not going to sweep the evidence of Bush administration torture under the rug. This is not necessarily to suggest that Bush, his appointees, or other U.S. officials should be prosecuted. Most or all would have a valid defense of good-faith reliance on then-authoritative -- although erroneous and now-repudiated -- legal advice from the Justice Department.

Who could conduct such an investigation and prevent it from becoming a political circus? Only a respected Republican of "unquestioned stature" who is...

"known for courage and for independence from both Bush and Obama -- and for personal knowledge of the horrors of torture. His name John McCain."

I still hate the idea of all this, but the Bush administration's failure to construct a coherent legal framework to deal with jihadis scooped up from GWOT battlefields has led us here. Iron clad proof would not pacify the Bush haters, but a thorough review would at least establish a record of findings that reasonable people could analyze, debate, and learn from.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090404_6094.php

It's Out of Our Hands

Do the disappearing 401Ks discredit personal retirement accounts?

Mark Steyn reports that the two big accomplishments of the G20 Summit were to close global tax loopholes and to impose impose European-style regulation on the global economy. This will spread sclerotic, European-style (non) growth across the globe, guaranteeing inadequate returns on private retirement fund in perpetuity.

He then wrote about why so many people have become investors:

Let it be said that in recent years in America, the United Kingdom, and certain other countries the “financial sector” grew too big. In The Atlantic, Simon Johnson points out that, between 1973 and 1985, it was responsible for about 16 percent of U.S. corporate profits. By this decade, it was up to 41 percent.

That’s higher than healthy, but it wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near that high if government didn’t annex so much of your wealth — through everything from income tax to small-business regulation — that it’s become increasingly difficult to improve your lot by working hard, making stuff, and selling it. Instead, in order to fund a more comfortable retirement and much else, large numbers of people became “investors” — albeit not as the term is traditionally understood:

Instead, you work for some company and they put some money on your behalf in some sort of account that somebody on the 12th floor pools together with all the others and gives to somebody else in New York to disperse among various corporations hither and yon. You’ve no idea what you’re “investing” in, but it keeps going up, so why do you care?

Yes! I thought. I heard some guy on the radio talking about how 401K's have turned into 1K's, leaving many boomers with a quarter of what they expected for retirement. "That's a real kick in the pants," I thought impassively. I'm still to far away from retirement to be worrying over this stuff.

Mark provides the answer to the man who rightly laments over the sorrowful state of so many nest eggs: Confiscatory government policies drove us to this point.

Our Grandparents Knew Better

How did my grandparents, who were not rich at all, end up with money in the bank when they hit their 60's? Working class people didn't have exotic financial instruments that earned 15% per year back then. Ordinary people stuck their money in a bank or in US Savings Bonds, and earned 3.5% interest per annum.

According to Dinkytown's Saving Calculator, here's how Grandma and Grandpa ended up with a little over $100,000 at age 60: By putting $100 per month in a bank account over 40 years accruing 3.5% interest. $50 per month over the same period yields just over $50,000. They also may have bought a piece of property along the way.

Steyn's argument in a nutshell is that when government takes less from you, you are better able to care for yourself, and in turn you don't need the government as much. Yes, people were not rampant consumers back then, and there weren't so many McMansions and electronic goodies to temp them, but who's putting a gun to your head now?

Our grandparents understood the value of frugality, and government understood its limits, but that's all out the window now.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNlZjcxOGZmMjA0YjU2OTE5ZjJmN2FkNmYyYzI3MjQ=&w=MQ==

Should Michael Vick be allowed to play NFL football again? Read on...

Slouching Towards Socialism, European Style

Europe is not the Liberal Democratic paradise we imagine it to be. Two articles explain why. Both have human nature at their root

European free speech has been devoured by fear of angry Muslims. Initiative? Quashed by statist policies. Freedom of mobility? It's trapped in a 600 square foot apartment the average European family lives in. Even if the occupants could escape, the lawnmower with doors they call a car is either upside down burning or it's tank is empty because petrol is four times as expensive as in the States.

Charles Murray identifies the factors that separate us from the Europeans:

First, the problem with the European model, namely: It drains too much of the life from life.

To become a source of deep satisfaction, a human activity has to meet some stringent requirements. It has to have been important (we don’t get deep satisfaction from trivial things). You have to have put a lot of effort into it (hence the cliché “nothing worth having comes easily”). And you have to have been responsible for the consequences.

When government does everything, it robs humans of the happiness derived from a sense of satisfaction with the fruits of their own efforts.

If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith.

...the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that’s what’s wrong with the European model. It doesn’t do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.

Think about it: Government has replaced fathers with monthly checks and social workers. It's policies discourage parents from picking up hammers and paint to repair the neighborhood school and instead conditions them to look to Washington. President Obama mentioned this in his speech to Congress, with the First Lady hugging the little girl from South Carolina who went straight to Washington because her school needed some work.

Government largess has crowded out or co-opted faith-based charities. It has forced churches to water down their faith if they want to collect government money and avoid government censure. Public moralities like environmentalism and political correctness trump private conscience.

Euro-Socialism: High Taxes, Cramped Quarters, and Crappy Service

Michael Totten, indy war correspondent extraordinaire, writes about possibly the worst battle he's ever been involved in: The Alitalia baggage handler's strike in Italy. This is a long but highly entertaining read. Those who have actually lived in socialized Western Europe will be nodding their heads and grinning ruefully as the memories come flooding back.

This is also instructive for Americans cherishing the thought of 100% unionization, free health care for all, and guaranteed job security only European style soft socialism can provide. An up front encounter with the real Europe will disabuse any normal person from fantasies they may have entertained. Just like a person or a family, a society can appear serene on the surface, but when adversity strikes, the true colors fly.

Totten and the other stranded passengers were alternately shouted at, ignored and lied to by cowardly workers who knew they were getting paid regardless of what happened. The moral of the story is that people who are guaranteed a job tend to do it half-assed, and those given no responsibility for the success of their company will shamelessly avoid seizing it when the company's reputation is at stake.

Anybody who wants to see this go on in the United States is crazy.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/03/the-worst-airli.php
http://american.com/archive/2009/march-2009/the-europe-syndrome-and-the-challenge-to-american-exceptionalism

The TARP Trap

TARP is a trap, built by a private entity (The Federal Reserve), implemented by President Bush's Dirty Hank Gang, and now used by Obama administration tax cheats to control the banking industry. It's all about the power, according to Stuart Varney at WSJ Online.

He actually says it more tastefully than I do, but not by much:

The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

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

Varney tells a story of a big bank, which shall be left nameless to protect the innocent and guilty, that wants to give the TARP money back but can't because the government won't allow it.

But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

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

Uncle Sam, why do you have such a big TARP? All the better to smother you with, my dear.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

American Messiah

America Needs a Political Messiah

Barack Obama may command the oceans to recede and inspire unquestioning fanaticism in his disciples, but he is no messiah.

We need a real political messiah, whose zeal for the founding fathers' house consumes him.

We need a messiah who will make a whip of cords and drive the moneychangers from the US Capitol, which they have turned into a "den of robbers."

We need a messiah who will call the politicians what they are: A brood of vipers, hypocrites! who bind up laws to burden good citizens, while they exempt themselves.

These political pharisees strain out a gnat when circumscribing citizens' rights, but swallow the camel for personal and partisan political gain and the millions that it brings them.

Their cup is clean on the outside, but on the inside it is full of greed and self-indulgence.

Our government institutions are "beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean." This leads We The People to view those in power with suspicion: "In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

Yes, we need a messiah, but President Obama ain't it.

Matthew 23
John 2

Why is Europe, that Social-Democratic Valhalla, suffering even worse financial and social ructions than the wild west US?

Hollywood Stooges

So Hollywood is going to make a three stooges movie

Jim Carrey will shave his head and gain 50 pounds to play Curly. I'm having a hard time envisioning this, but Carrey is such a great comic actor I'm sure he'll have us rolling in the aisles.

In a stroke of genius, Sean Penn will play Larry. Penn has been a stooge his whole life, so he's a natural. I couldn't help recalling how the Stooges lampooned Hitler back in their heyday. I can't imagine Penn poking fun at terrorists, his hero Chavez, or the wonderful (we have no gays in Iran) President Ahmadinejad.

Finally, Benicio Del Toro will play Moe. Now that I'm looking, the facial resemblance is remarkable. This also works out well. I don't know if Del Toro is a stooge, but he just got done playing one in the 127 hour hagiography celebrating the life of campesino killer Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

This effort can only disrespect the memory of the real stooges, who in real life were not. I'm skipping it.

http://www.variety.com/VR1118001643.html

Somebody had to say it...

Charles Krauthammer on Fox News:

Europe has been sucking on America's tit for 60 years, parasitically.

It's paraphrase. See the video here.

Memo To The President:

Americans Do Not Bow Down Before Royalty

* I got kicked off of Democratic Underground for saying this in a forum. People using the F-word and slobbering out nasty comments against Presidents Reagan and Bush is highly encouraged, but intelligent discussion is not.

This just reinforces the idea that the hard left is very illiberal and living in an impenetrable fantasy Obamabubble.

Reminds me of when I got kicked off of another lefty site, Kooks and Cryers. Read my post about this wonderful experience here: Banned from a left wing kook site

You can get up off your knees now

Is it just me? Or did anyone else think our President came off as overly conciliatory?

The really scary part is the French coming into these negotiations with "non-negotiable" take-aways...and walking away saying "We would never have hoped to get so much"! It leaves one with somewhat of an uneasy feeling. Kind of like buying a car when the salesman immediately agrees to your offer and your left wondering "could I have gotten a better deal"?

I am also left wondering how our esteemed leader is going to reconcile "setting guidelines to cap bankers pay", one of the highlights of the G20 release, with the American Constitution. It is one thing to propose salary limitations on companies that accept government bailout money (as a condition of the bailout), and quite another to propose limiting the salaries of all, or any employees of a private institution.

One of the reporters called on in the press conference was Justin Webb, BBC's North American Editor, who is someone who's blog I follow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/

Mr. Webb asked a very astute question:

In the spirit of openness with which you say you're going to run your administration, could you give us an insight into an area or areas where you came to London wanting something and didn't get it, where you compromised, where you gave something away to achieve the wider breakthrough agreement?

To which President Obama basically replied "no":

"I'd rather not specify what those precise items would be, because this is a collective document."

Also of note is Obama's failure to mention the above G20 citation regarding "capping bankers pay".

Well, as time goes by we shall learn more of the details of the G20 agreements, although for the time we shall have to content ourselves with press conferences. An on that subject it is interesting to compare the press conferences of various leaders:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKL267850520090402

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijp8uvmxCWmwPCjKiYpnb704-kiAD97AL5P80


If anyone has links to transcripts of either Sarkozy or Merkel's post summit press conferences or releases, please feel free to post them in comments.

Cheers!

~Finntann~