So I saw the Executive Branch tax returns today and a few interesting things popped out at me. Now I’m a humanities guy, so if I’ve misapplied or misinterpreted these numbers, please let me know…

I’m the guy who tends to vacillate between the confident smiles when I consider of the historical writing on the wall (Democrats WILL overreach, which guarantees their power will ebb swiftly) and knee-buckling fear of potential irreversibilities (entitlements can NEVER be undone! EVAH!).

Stepping back to examine life’s broader perspective convinces me further that fear and panic are weak and fleeting emotions in the calm, steady face of those forces greater than current political realities and their attendant implications. When Faith, Hope, and Love remain, even if everything else in a man is defeated, his condition can be bettered.

My faith is not in our legislators, my FAITH is in Americans. A national collective reaction to George W. Bush led us to take a flyer in November. We gambled on the rhetoric of hope and change. It was a calculated risk, but it was NOT a declaration of permanent political intent. Painful as it is, Obama will be my generation’s (30 somethings) teachable moment, just as Jimmy Carter was to my parents. But we will pick up, dust off, and move forward. I take comfort that President Obama is as different from Candidate Obama as North is from South. My comfort comes from the assurance that American’s don’t like to look like victims of slickery and bait-n-switch. Faith assures me that regardless of the legislative freak show he foists on the people, nothing is irreversible in America. I don’t believe Americans will accept that we can’t do whatever the hell we want. After all, we were created free!!

I also cling to a deeply embedded hope that things aren’t what they seem. At the San Antonio Tea party,16,000 of my closest friends and I found that hope does not disappoint. My time as a hippie, on the road with the beautiful people, following a band qualifies me to say that the Glen-Beck-loving, Ted-Nugent-cheering throng in San Antonio understood that we were a part of something bigger than all of us, and that participation was as satisfying as show I went to… better smelling too! I don’t believe even Fox news (much less those others) can adequately capture or convey the steady quiet beat of the American heart for freedom. The shrill, parroting voices of our media culture never hear, and will never drown out the steady persistent whisper of freedom loving Americans.

My hope is rooted in the fact that those men who identified the divine gifts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the philosophical cornerstone of this nation, handed down far more than a quill scratched parchment… they handed us a heritage, a stewardship, a deep-seated legacy of personal and national freedom. It is the ideas and ideals that this great American experiment is built upon that give me hope. That principled hope fosters an active belief that a nation of men who have never known anything but liberty will eventually tire of experimenting with the freedom-pinching philosophical remnants and philosophies that are once again fashionable in far away and out of touch places like Washington D.C. I hope in the knowledge that those most committed to living free are least committed to public quibbles over new-again civic philosophies slipping in and out of academic vogue. No matter how badly Obama and friends wish it: we are not Europeans, and as a national demographic (I love what I’m about to write) we’re closer to George W. Bush than to Barack H. Obama.

Finally, I love this country, and I am not alone. Some of our global neighbors (probably far fewer than we might have been led to believe) undoubtedly “dislike” us and are offended by us. It’s a dark facet of human nature to revile what we don’t understand. They derisively mock us as imperialists cowboys, and they aggressively import our culture every day. They call us aggressors and tyrants because they don’t understand our ready willingness to defend the principles that have made us great, even at the cost of our own sons and daughters. Because we are free, and only because we are free, can we bear the weight of their insults and disrespect as the price of global leadership. To whom much is given, much is required.

Historically, If anything were permanent, eternal, and timeless, it should have been colonial Britain at the twilight of the 18th century. Yet, the greatest imperialist force since Alexander the Great was tossed aside by a poorly assembled group of committed idealists. Those patriots bent the curve of history toward freedom, and they stand today as a faithful cloud of witnesses, urging us on, encouraging us to embrace the concept that only one thing is Eternal: the Creator who endows us daily with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Legislation can be overturned… maybe not easily, but it can be done.

I love that Glen Beck used “Common Sense” as the title for his latest treatise. Thomas Paine’s inspired patriotism calls us forward to take hold of our inheritance in “The Crisis.” Paine challenged weary revolutionaries, and calls to us today when he says, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country… Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness will never pass from the American consciousness. Even if it seems they have been beaten into dormancy like a rolly-poley protectively curled, and even if this current administration were to become a force of tyrannical oppression, Faith, Hope, and Love will remain and have their way.

We are Americans. That is enough.

I forget where I first encountered the theoretical proposition of a free market solution to federalism, but the e-mail forward I encountered below runs along those lines.

The idea is intriguing: an amicable separation, giving the left half (literally) of the country free reign to implement and practice whatever “progressive” ideological programs and ideals, while the right half of the country is free to practice their limited government, fiscally conservative ideology, ultimately letting the fruit speak for itself.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists
and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950′s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but we can surely come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You’ll be free to build a military and police force however you choose. We’ll be happy to consult, for a nominal fee, which you’ll surely be able to afford, considering the aforementioned taxes.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). Also, please take Joy Behar and Whoopi. Since I can’t imagine even you guys wanting Susan and Tim Sarandon, we’ll happily buy them a first class plane ticket to somewhere else. You’re welcome.

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can populate your social welfare programs with the homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal immigrants. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll cling to our guns and our religion and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll continue to be guided by our Judeo-Christian values, while welcoming all who differ to practice freely, just so long as there is no mistake about our religious historical roots. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.

You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Sincerely,
J J. W
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

The hardest part would be the land divide. But again, I don’t see why the prospect of such free political reign would be anathema to anyone.

I would also stipulate a 5 year window for reevaluation at the end of 25 years. During that window, the two sides can discuss and evaluate the fruit of their labors and join forces again. However, based on the results of our quarter century experiment, certain programs and projects will be forever declared ineffective, stupid, and socially harmful. If both sides wish to continue on, just as they are, they are free to do so.

The questions to you, dear reader, are whether this is a fair and just division of assets? Why would the left support such a move, or why not? Would the right support such a move, or why not?

*crossposted with updates at realityunwound

When you think financial system, what do you think of? Wikipedia says “the financial system is a set of complex and closely interconnected financial institutions, markets, instruments, services, practices, and transactions.”

Close your eyes for just a second and imagine the American financial system: the never ending network of overlapping and interlocking relationships and connections. Mind boggling, isn’t it?

Now, conceptualize “financial regulations.” Wikipedia says regulations “are a form of regulation or supervision, which subjects financial institutions to certain requirements, restrictions and guidelines, aiming to maintain the integrity of the financial system. This may be handled by either a government or non-government organization.” Regulations then, manage the relationships that make up the financial system in America. That sounds like a BIG, BIG deal, wouldn’t you say, managing all of those relationships? I wonder what kind of super computer they got to process all those transactions and all that information.

Wait, it’s just people? It’s not some super-computer recording transactions and predicting trends? Advocating regulations is advocating that PEOPLE, make the calls that manipulate the American Financial system for the good of the nation as a whole? That doesn’t make sense. It must be a pretty other worldly group of regulators then.

It’s not. It’s guys like Timmy Geithner who forgot to pay major chunks of his taxes because he (allegedly) couldn’t figure out Turbo Tax. He’s the one who is going to lead the charge to interpret all the data from these millions of inputs and keep this boat afloat?

To be fair to Timy, the regulator in chief and primary advocate for financial regulation at this moment is President Barack Obama. Howver, with two wars, an economy continuing to crumble under the increasing weight of his fiscal policy, you’d think he’d have plenty of other things to think about without trying to micro-manage the entire network of financial relationship in the whole country.

John Stossel’s opion piece in defense of a free market response to the financial hole that Obama keeps digging us deeper into is a welcome evaluation of the whole messy situation. Stossel quotes

F.A. Hayek [who] said… “[W]ith essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones.” So when regulators set out to redesign an economy, they display not wisdom but a “pretence of knowledge.”

To be fair, President Obama may be the most intellectual President to occupy the Oval Office. Knowledge without wisdom, however, is dangerous like a Narc-anon convention at Neverland Ranch. While President Obama has paraded his bookish intellect to anyone who would listen, he has also, at every conceivable turn, flaunted his glaring lack of wisdom. This gaping lack is never more evident than his brain bending hubris which causes him to imagine that he can actually regulate the financial system, with a team of carefully selected minions, of course. The President says,

“[W]e will … coordinate and share information, to identify gaps in regulation, … solve problems in oversight before they can become crises … that will allow us to protect the economy.” [Stossel's emphasis ]

Imagine “Turbo Tax” Timmy, Larry Summers, and their choice of financial wizard women and men, sitting in a room out there, protecting the economy. How do you do that? In Obama-land, you arbitrarily tell some people they can only earn so much money. You then create stress tests to tell you which banks need more government money (which we don’t really have anyway) but usually just end up causing stress.

I don’t blame them for not getting it right though, these regulators are just regular, plain ol’ people. People with lots of degrees and plenty of experience to be sure, but they also have a history of making mistakes. Stossel says,

Regulators are human beings with the same shortcomings as everyone else. Even if we assume they have the best motives, on what basis do we believe they could possibly know what they need to know to manage a financial industry that is complex beyond conception – and changing every day in response to new conditions?

That seems like the most straight ahead, intuitive reality in the world: the financial industry is complex beyond comprehension, and changing every day. What to do then? Are we stuck? No. Stossel makes the free market point:

Contrary to the foes of free markets, the choice is not between regulated and unregulated markets. As the French economist Frederic Bastiat long ago pointed out, the free market is regulated by its own logic. If we have simple, easily understood rules against fraud, then people acting in their self-interest, without privileges or bailouts, generate market forces that create order and make our lives better. The key is market discipline, which government reduces whenever it intervenes.

The market isn’t perfect, but either are the current eco-goons. The difference is that the market, if left alone, will correct itself. Inserting heady guessers who imagine they are smarter than the system invariably leads to actions that prolong the problem and keep the market corrections from working.

Those who say that there are companies too big to fail have the burden of proof, and they have failed to make their case. Despite their stimulations, bailouts, and prognostications about upturns and upswings, the economy isn’t recovering. Obama’s intellect has become a hindrance to recovery, because he has supreme confidence in his intellect alone, so he reacts rather than responding based on principles. He believes he and his people can read and fix the market if only they have the right regulators and regulations in place. That’s where he and Bush make the same mistake: adding more government to fix the market problems. I leave you with Stossel’s conclusion:

Obama says the free market is “not a free license to ignore the consequences of our actions.” He’s right but doesn’t understand why. A genuine free market allows risk takers to fail and suffer “the consequences.” Only government can grant “license” to ignore consequences. Government caused the financial morass by doing just that – pushing banks to weaken mortgage lending standards, pressuring Freddie and Fannie to buy up dodgy mortgages and sell them as safe securities, bailing out big banks when they got into trouble and insuring bank deposits – thereby encouraging us not to care if banks are reckless. Government failed, not the market. Obama’s answer? Just like George W. Bush’s: more government. Give me a break.

Case-in-point update: Joe Biden today said that they misread how bad the economy was. Again, of course you did, that’s not your fault. The economy is a difficult thing to read, even if you’re The One. It would just be nice if they would give up on the idea that they’ve got all the answers, quit tinkering and let it work itself out.

Remember during the campaign where Barack Obama got great mileage out of John McCain’s proposition to tax employer health care benefits? With mock horror and a plea to good ol’ American values, he said McCain’s plan was “so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values.”

Guy Benson in yesterday’s National Review Online (“Obama is a big fat liar, illustrated”) quotes Jim Geraghty‘s story, “Barack Obama is a big fat liar.” Both are great reads, but one of the great quotes is,

Back in March, White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that “most firmly should remain on the table,” and some congressional Democrats told the Washington Post that White House officials said Obama would accept such a tax “as long as he didn’t have to propose it himself.” [emphasis mine]

That’s authentic leadership, that’s being the first one on the field and the last one off for the troops. Oh wait, no it’s not. It’s sleazy. If it was a ridiculous option when McCain proposed it, then it should be a ridiculous idea now. If it’s not a ridiculous idea now, then he should propose it. Otherwise, he’s self promoting.

This is why I don’t trust Barack Obama. He’s slimy. He says what is politically expedient, and doesn’t mind turning away from those statements the next day. Worse still, he will pawn off the hard work to someone else, and stand use it when it serves his ultimate purpose and then distance himself when it doesn’t.

If Obama wanted to tax health care benefits, it wouldn’t surprise me. I expect him to tax everything he can see to pay for his harmful ideas. I could tolerate that (I wouldn’t like it, but I would understand) because I believe that elections have consequences, and he won the election (as Ed Koch said, “the people must be punished“). I just don’t believe it’s too much to ask that he stand up and take the lead and not pass the buck to some underling. If he changed his mind, stand up and tell me why, but take the heat.

Early in his administration I blasted him for his lack of hope & change. This is most definitely change. We’ve changed from a leader who faced seeming global criticism by himself and didn’t back down. To a politician who hides behind the polls and pundits and passes off the tough decisions as someone else. Now, we can only hope for a greater change in 2012.

See the Obama/McCain ads at the bottom of this National Review article.

crossposted with updates at realityunwound

The American Medical Association is publicly coming out against the governments “public health care option.” The public health care option would be a government created, government controlled health insurance company that would “compete” with the 1,300 health care insurance companies to provide health care for those in America without it.

A few problems with that (I’ll first summarize what Karl Rove said in today’s Wall Street Journal):

1. It’s unnecessary – 1300 companies is enough. 100 of those companies competed (one of which wasn’t the government) & shaved 41% off the Congressional Budget Offices projected cost for the Medicare drug benefit. Fair & Free competition serves everyone.
2. It will undercut private insurance and cost you and I more. Rove states, “Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.” Governments pass on the difference to private companies, with each family left to “pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else’s health care as a result.” Many doctors limit the number of medicare patients they take because they can only be forced to do so much charity.
3. A Government Option will cripple the private industry – The government already operates at nearly 20 to 30 percent lower than private companies can which would force most Americans onto the government option as businesses look to save costs and remove the headaches. Eventually, there will be no other option.
4. The Government Option is WAY expensive – A major reason Medicare & medicaid (a prototype of the government health care system) are in such trouble is because they cost significantly more than originally expected. Any guesses why? There is no competition to force them to keep the price down. The same will happen to health insurance, but it has to be paid for somewhere. That remainder will come due every April 15th.
5. Government will decide what care you get – “If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you’ll change to another company.”

Rove’s points are a great synopsis of the problems with public health care. It’s also a big reason why 250,000 doctors are speaking out against a government run health care option. They know the implications, they know what will happen to health care.

Much of this is predicated on what I believe is a false pretense. The rhetoric is that these millions of Americans are walking around without health care, and I would challenge that assumption.

First, many of those millions of “uninsured” are employable people who are inbetween jobs. Those people had insurance 6 months ago, and they’ll have insurance 6 months from now. They are an interim demographic that is an easy way to pad the numbers. The 9.4% unemployment number is a revolving figure. Many of them were recently, and soon will be on the private insurance rolls again.

Second, there are approximately 22 million illegial immigrants in the United States right now, some portion of which are no doubt counted among the uninsured.

Third, among those uninsured are an increasing percentage who CHOOSE not to be insured. That’s not a problem that will be fixed by a government run option. The National Center for Policy Analysis cites the following:

• From 1993 to 2000 the number of uninsured people in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased by 63 percent and the number in households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $75,000 increased by 48.2 percent.
• the number of uninsured people in households with incomes under $25,000 fell by 25 percent.
• Almost one-third of the uninsured now live in households with annual incomes above $50,000

Finally, being turned down for medical care is a mythical event. Any person can walk into any emergency room in this country and they will be treated by the same doctor as any you or I would be treated by.

So the question is, what do we do about it? Well, it begins by returning to a Free Market Solution to the health care issue, one that gives doctors the right to deal with patients, and patients the right to control a portion of their own health care.

Health care is a sticky situation, a mess that we made over a long period of time and we won’t be able to unmake for a long period of time. What it requires is an eye toward the long term benefit of the majority of Americans, which can only be built on tried & true principles. Nowhere in the world has a socialized medical system provided the level of care that the American system has. It is broken, and in need of repair, but it is not worth throwing to the dogs, er, government.

Ladies & Gentlemen, the conservative choice for America…

John Bolton

Mr. Bolton’s greatest drawback at this point appears to be his unfortunate facial hair and hair cut, but President Clinton has established precedent to fix that problem, so that shouldn’t be an issue.

Bolton grabbed my early favor with quotes like this in todays Washington Times…

Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.

The political winds will have to blow strong for John Bolton, but with the way President Obama is weakening America every day and winking at despots like Kim Jong-Il, Hugo Chavez & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a strong Foreign policy President may be the ranking priority in a few short years.

Overseas “apology tours,” public displays of empathy and inviting the likes of Iran to Fourth of July receptions at our embassies will not alter these underlying realities. Nor will reducing national-security budgets on such key items as missile defense and advanced weapons systems (while dramatically increasing unnecessary and inevitably inflationary domestic spending) make our adversaries more amenable to sweet reason. Sadly, such gratuitous indications of self-doubt and weakness only encourage the very adversaries whose favor we are currying.

Crossposted at realityunwound

It didn’t have to be this way. If liberals in congress and the media had only acted like grown ups instead of losing their minds about “torture”, we could have avoided this whole messy thing. Instead, as soon as they took power they started calling for President Bush’s head on a platter over the torture issue. With no small amount of moral superiority I heard, time and again, how the Democrats allowed us to be proud to be American’s, and proud of our President again. Taking on the tenor of a moral crusade, torture became the cause du jour for those perched on the left. It seemed that the torture issue was a picture of everything that was wrong with the Bush administration: he was mean, hateful, self-interested,dumb, and unenlightened. The cry went out for America to return to the place of moral leadership in the world again. Thank God that the Democrats, those watchdogs of civil liberties, were once again at the helm.

Certainly if they had known about something so ugly as TORTURE, they would have vociferously objected.

As of May 9, the Times Online reported that Nancy Pelosi, then House Minority Leader denied being briefed on torture, saying,

Nancy Pelosi is still insisting that she knew nothing about the CIA’s use of waterboarding, despite the release of intelligence documents showing that she had been briefed by the Bush Administration on details of its harsh interrogation programme. 

Torture is a brutal, sub-human practice and if it had gone on, surely the Speaker of the House would have stood up and decried the practice. The Wall Street Journal on April 22, 2009 reported on Pelosi’s desire for a “Truth Commission to investigate the interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush administration.” As it turns out, she could have just browsed the notes from her briefing on September 4, 2002.

What to do now?

The left has taken a very public and outspoken stance against what they call torture, and what others are calling “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” or “EIT’s”. Setting aside the fact that the techniques worked, we’re still faced with the situation of what to do now that Speaker Pelosi was clearly briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques which places here diametrically in opposition to where her very own party has placed themselves.

Well, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who said in 2004, “I think there are very few people… in America who would say that torture should never ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.” That doesn’t sound like the current line from the left.

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) seemed to backtrack when she said, “I think it’s a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that,I don’t want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.” That’s pretty much the point that we’ve been making all along. Now that Speaker Pelosi is implicated, that argument carries weight with the left.

Nancy Pelosi’s argument has been decidedly less nuanced, if not more difficult to follow & pin down. Glenn Thrush reported at Politico on May 8 that Pelosi admitted she was breifed, but not about Waterboarding. Then she went one step further and claimed that the CIA misled her.

It’s still no fault of hers, however. That should be clearly stipulated. At this point in the dog-and-pony show, I’m not surprised at the mid course rhetoric correction and passing of the buck. It’s become a party wide mantra. Before every press conference or any news that could slightly be tinged negative, we’re reminded that the problem was inherited from the Bush administration. There’s no personal responsibility whatsoever. Pelosi lies, repeatedly, on camera, and doesn’t think twice about it. She stammers like the chess team captain proposing to the prom queen, but she pins it on someone else.

Interestingly enough, that seems to be the underlying policy principle on the left. If you are poor, it’s not your fault, it’s because Warren Buffet makes too much money. If you kill five fellow soldiers in Iraq, it’s because the military is hard on people. If you can’t pay for yourself, someone else should be made to pay for you. It’s a life philosophy that doesn’t work. If you do not take responsibility for your self, someone else can not be made to take responsibility for you.

This is also the danger in big government programs, from a nationalized government health care option, to a nationalized banking industry, to Government Motors and her soon to be associates. Government officials are people, as prone to and likely to abuse their power as any. This is not exclusively a problem on the left. The right would get us into the same issues, it just seems that those on the right are more aware of their propensity, so they hold to a small government philosophy.

The problem with government isn’t in the theoretical. It’s in the practical. On paper, communism is a beautiful system, ensuring that everyone receives equally. The unfortunate reality is that there are no perfect people to administer such a system. Nancy Pelosi lies to us, on television, without batting an eye. What makes anyone think she would be more honest or forthright when it comes to administering any government program?

Nancy Pelosi’s recent problems illustrate the reason that government isn’t the solution to our problems, government is the problem. At play in every step and decision on this way was gaining or keeping political power. When she was briefed in 2002, she was interested in preserving power for herself (and protecting the United States, undoubtedly). When she stood with Democrats against President Bush on torture, there were political implications. When she blames the CIA, she is undoubtedly trying to position for political power. Who can fault her? She’s in a powerful position, and she likes it. Anyone would. There are benefits to a system like that. At the end of the day, however, they are just not ultimately beneficial for the general population of Americans.

So here’s to Pelosi’s call for a Truth Commission. I just wonder if she’ll be one of the ones being investigated.

Crossposted with updates at realityunwound

Yesterday at American Thinker, I ran into an open letter from a recovering liberal, making amends for his past. It’s an interesting continuation of my previous post, concerning tone in the political debate as it regards liberals & conservatives. My basic contention is that, generally speaking, the left is either unwilling or incapable of engaging in a civilized, point for point debate on the issues, with a few exceptions I’m sure. 

I’m not talking about snark. Snark is an acceptable tone of response, if not an occasionally irritating one. I’m talking about responses to arguments that don’t deal with issues, facts, or points at all but immediately degenerate to vile ad hominem attacks. Take some of the responses to my Monday post that I didn’t put in the comments section, but rather relegated to the spam folder. Here are a few snippets from bobxxxx:

“Creation Matters” can be translated to “MAGIC Matters”. You, sir, really are nuts if you think anyone is going to be impressed by your ignorant Liars-For-Magic.

It would appear that bob disagrees with me, but he doesn’t further the debate, he’s simply rudely dismissive. In another well thought out and constructed comment, he says:

Speaking of morons, the author of this article is an idiot and a liar. There are exactly zero competent biologists who doubt the truth of evolution. All the evidence supports it. Only Liars for Jeebus have a problem with evolution because they’re cowards who are terrified of reality.

Now, that’s scientific evidence that’s difficult to argue with! Again, he hasn’t engaged in the conversation, he has angrily dodged the conversation and attempted to marginalize anyone who would think differently from him, with more personal attacks. Here’s my favorite:

I have a suggestion for creationists who like to complain about name calling. If you don’t like being called a drooling idiot, why don’t you god-soaked hicks grow up and educate yourselves. Every educated person knows the basic facts of evolution are the strongest facts of science. Religious alternatives are childish fantasies and anyone who believes these insane creation myths deserves to be ridiculed. Also, anyone who tries to rename their childish belief in magic to “intelligent design” is a bloody liar who wants to destroy America’s science education. They deserve nothing but contempt. So creationists, just stop being so dishonest, and stop being so hopelessly stupid, and us educated people might stop laughing at you.

If bobxxxx is an educated person, he has failed to let any of that education leak into his posts or his thoughts, and has instead failed to achieve even the lowest level of conversation. I wish bobxxxx were the exception. Unfortunately, he’s not.

Which brings me back to the letter at American Thinker. Robin, the author, after apologizing to many of those impacted by her years of liberalism begins to delve into why she would switch sides:

In February of 2008, I saw a new client, a bright and sensitive young woman who came in looking like she just escaped a war zone. In some ways she had; she had innocently shared with others at her job that she voted for Hillary rather than Obama. Immediately she was being targeted for abuse that put her in fear for not only her job, but her life.

So it is not enough to be a liberal, you must be the RIGHT KIND of liberal. You didn’t hear about supports of Romney being targeted for attack by Huckabee supporters, we played the game, voted in the primaries, and then wished we had voted for someone different (McCain snark). Robin goes on:

Things went from bad to worse when Sarah Palin entered the scene. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, there was no debasement of her character, no sexual threats. But with Palin, a full scale “wilding” ensued that chillingly reminded me of the random sexual attacks on women by gangs of men in New York. She was called every vile name in the book by both male and female liberals.

This, to me, was the great question of the campaign. Where were the feminists in support of a woman rising to the top? Light bulbs should go on, radical leftist feminism isn’t about advancement of women, it’s about destruction of the system. Sarah Palin was a threat, despite her gender, so she was fair game. The mask came off, and I hope people noticed.

Actress Sandra Bernhardt hoped a gang of black males would rape her.

Remember that? What would the response have been had Dennis Miller hoped that Michelle Obama would suffer the same fate by a gang of skin heads?

The final straw for me was when a close friend flew into a rage at me when she learned I wasn’t supporting Obama. The political became personal when she began impugning my character. Worse yet, she tried to intimidate me into changing my mind by threatening to dump me.

President Obama ran on promises to change the tone in Washington. To a degree I don’t hold him responsible. These closed-minded biggots aren’t marching at his orders, they are slaves to their own smallishness. They are afraid of ideas, and they are aware of their inability to hold an adult conversation, so they revert to interrupting, fillibustering, and attacking any person who would differ or disagree with them.

On the other hand, President Obama and his administration hasn’t been above reproach. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can’t help but be insulting, arrogant, and repeatedly going back to bashing those who have gone before before answering serious questions about the current administration. President Obama himself has taken personal shots at Rush Limbaugh. Whether he likes or agrees with Rush (and no one would mistake that he does), the President has set the tone of discourse in this country.

Regardless of the substance of the debate, there is little hope for reconciliation in America unless we can begin to communicate. My invitation to those on the left is to engage with facts rather than attacks. Debate the veracity and merit of the issues and policy, not people.

I am proud to be a conservative, mostly because I believe conservative ideals put for the best hope for America to thrive again, politically and socially. See, no matter how much you think such and such a program will be nicer and kinder to people… it will only be as kind as the people who administer it. So far, from what I’ve see on the left, there’s not much hope for change in the current administration.

Crossposted with updates at realityunwound

Promoted from the diaries by Neil

Believe it or not, Salon.com has given a conservative the opportunity to fill their space. This weeks question in “Ask a Wingnut” gets to an important topic, one with implications far beyond the scope of the actual words.

Read More →

It seems like it’s been 100 mph every day since January. The inauguration of The One, followed closely by the Tax Cheating cabinet debacle. Then we had President Obama reneging on his promise not to appoint lobbyists. Then there was the whole Porkulus fiasco followed immediately by President Obama promising to cut federal spending. By mid-February the Tea Party movement had been ideologically launched by Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange. The RINO’s on the hill got caught with their hand in the ear mark cookie jar in early march, followed by an over-bloated Omnibus Spending bill, the AIG bonus scandal, the Obama’s extended protocol faux pas tour, the largest cigarette tax increase in history, the overwhelmingly successful Tax Day Tea Party movement, the Swine Flu scare, the defection of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter for purely personal political reasons, and finally the ratcheting up of the impending nationalized/socialized health care program. That’s not even taking into account his promise to open talks with Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, his chummy pal around with Hugo Chavez, the Department of Homeland Security right wing radical memo’s, the President of the United States firing the President of a publicly held company, and the Secretary of State giving her Russian counterpart a button that says, “overcharge”. Whew. What a long strange 100 days it’s been!

I’ve considered the Obama administration’s first 100 days, and it seems that for all the impending disaster, the sky still has not fallen. Things aren’t necessarily great: unemployment is way too high, the auto industry is in big trouble (and right where they should have been 6 months ago), but still things are going forward. Talk of bankruptcy hasn’t caused the implosion of the industry. We were warned for a week that Swine Flu was going to be the next global pandemic, wiping out millions. Fear spread like, well, like a flu bug in a closed room full of 4th graders, but here we are and the Swine Flu has fizzled out and become nothing more than a mild seasonal flu (although the WHO, enjoying their time in the press, warns us that we still aren’t out of the woods, we now have to watch out for mutation, so don’t get rid of your face masks yet).

I guess there are two ways you can look at it. The first way is that we’ve got a masterful administration at the helm, guiding America to safety and prosperity after 8 years of failed programs and what apparently was anarchy in the street in other places under the Bush regime (although my life has been pretty good, but I don’t buy more than I can afford or spend more than I make, so you can’t really go by me). In this scenario President Obama and his bumbling band of Pranksters (Biden, Geithner, Chu, Napolitano, Clinton, Emmanuel et al) have masterfully navigated the country through scary waters, and we are now safely pulling up on the shores of prosperity again, thanks to Dear Leader’s cunning, insight, and rock hard abs.

On the other hand, maybe things weren’t as bad as they let on. Not that unemployment isn’t high. It is, and it’s a tragedy that demands motion. But it’s absolutely possible to take something that is real and needs addressing, and use that to build a dire case around to promote an agenda. It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog. Joe Biden promised during the campaign that we would face a generated crisis. How fortuitous that the bumbler from Delaware would be so prescient.

I’m not buying. I think so far this year we’ve seen an economic downturn that resulted in a lot of lost jobs. I think the administration along with the media sold it as “the worst crisis in a generation.” I think we saw the flu, and we have it a letter and a number and talked about pandemic. Smoke, mirrors, bells, & whistles. What better opportunity than a global flu outbreak to make people start thinking about the quality of their health care, and how it would be so much better if Uncle Sam took care of it all for us? Why is bankruptcy all of a sudden alright at this point in time, but 6 months ago it would have sent the world into a panic? How are the union’s faring in all of this? Certainly they’re doing their fair share to help ease the burdens on these struggling companies… then again, maybe not.

I’ve said it before, fear is a powerful motivator. If you can make someone afraid, you can get them to do almost anything. It’s irrational, and it makes you blind to reality. Things in America have been better. Things in America have most certainly been worse. I’m not buying the pictures I see on television. I still believe America is the “greatest nation on God’s green earth,” as Michael Medved says. I don’t believe that we need more government, deep intervention, or many of the plans that are rolling down the pike from Washington.

Thank God for slow news weeks. I’m reminded that the difficult times I face, in the grand sceme of things make me proud to be an American, and there’s no where else in the world I would rather be.

Crossposted with updates at realityunwound

When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1979, he was running at the tail end of the big government, big spending, high tax, energy shortage years of the Carter administration (sound familiar?). One of Reagan’s principles was the “Big Tent” of conservatism, with room enough for all of us.

One misconception about the Big Tent is that we will change to fit you, no matter what you believe or stand for. That misconception fueled much hand wringing from moderate Republicans when Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania defected from the Republican party this week. Voices like Lindsey Graham, and Olympia Snowe pouted to the media that the party has become too ideologically narrow, too regional, too out of touch.

The reality of Reagan’s big tent, is that it wasn’t built by compromising principles and giving everyone whatever they wanted. That’s liberalism. Reagan’s tent was built because he was a gifted leader, and was able to prove once and for all that conservative principles truly work. Reagan’s conservatism laid the foundation for the last 25 years of prosperity in America. The slow drift from those principles by 2 Bushes and a Clinton have led us to the place where we are flirting with a European Socialist Democracy.

Jim DeMint is a Republican Senator from South Carolina Republican, a staunch conservative voice, and a rising voice of leadership in the Wilderness years of American Republicanism. His excellent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal addresses what a big tent can look like in today’s political landscape.

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party… must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions…

DeMint’s Big Tent has room for New England Moderates, Western Moderates, and Southern Moderates, as well as traditional conservative fundamentalists. Jim DeMint just might be the voice of one, calling in the wilderness.

Crossposted with updates at Realityunwound

It seems that all the world quakes in fear over the impending doom whose name is Swine Flu. Here in San Antonio, the Centers for Disease Control are closing school districts for two weeks, calling churches and closing them, and there’s a general sense that the sky just might be falling.

From the AP, the Director General of the World Health Organization warns that this flu has pandemic potential, and countries from Russia to Taiwan are preparing to quarantine people with flu-like symptoms. Changi International Airport in Singapore began using thermal scanners on all passengers arriving from the United States to detect the earliest signs of flu.

The European Union urged Europeans to postpone all non-essential travel to the United States, although the same article mentions that a case has turned up in Spain. The flu scare has even hit the markets as the Dow opened up the day below 8000 on fears that the virus could slow economic recovery, especially the travel industry.

At home, the Obama administration declared a public health emergency, although Homeland Security Secretary Janet “Little Napoleon” Napolitano assured Americans that it sounds worse than it really is (really? What could be worse than “pandemic” and “public health emergency”?), stating, “I wish we could call it a “declaration of emergency preparedness” I wonder why they can’t.

The interesting thing is that preparations to treat the flu in the United States include releasing new stockpiles of Tamiflu & Relenza, which are common place flu fighting drugs. Of the 80 or so reported cases in the U. S., none so far have been fatal. Could the huge danger in Mexico be more related to the living conditions and lack of access to good medicine and clean water, etc?

It’s also worth noting that there are 20 vacancies in Obama’s Department of Health & Human Services, including the Secretary. Obama also hasn’t appointed a Surgeon General or head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his choice to run the Food & Drug Administration is still awaiting confirmation. So it would seem that, at this point, the Obama administration would be poorly prepared to handle such a serious, medical event with the potential to impact the entire globe.

It’s precisely at this point in the process, not yet 100 days into the Obamistration, that I have to admit my fear weariness. First, the economy was on its last legs and apart from drastic governmental intervention the whole thing could collapse. Then, the earth is heating up and the oceans near their boiling points because of man made climate change. Doom and gloom hover forever on the horizon, always waiting to pounce on the poor, fragile planet and its human inhabitants.

Those fear issues are easy strings to pull, because they are so closely linked with extremely political moves by this administration. When the economy suddenly doesn’t collapse, then it’s because of noble & drastic action taken by the President in the face of a unified conservative opposition. When the oceans suddenly don’t boil, then the now unpopular cap-n-trade tax will all be worth it, won’t it?

But what if global warming and the severity of the economic crisis were greatly exaggerated? What if things aren’t as bad as they may have been come across? We’ll never know, and the truth is that I’m jaded by the Administrations repeated mantra to “never let a crisis go to waste.” When those in power seem like opportunists, and crisis after crisis seems to fit in line with their expansionist agenda, it just makes me wonder.

I don’t doubt that there’s flu out there, there’s been flu every year and will be flu every year. I just wonder if this “pandemic” is going to be another close call, narrowly averted by the timely intervention of a quick thinking (although poorly staffed) administration. I wonder if this “crisis” may be just the thing we all need to remind us how much better it would all be if we “had access to the same kind of health care that our Senators & Congressmen had,” even if we can’t pay for it. I wonder if we the people can be moved, by fear, to accept any protection or safeguard that comes down the pike, even if it’s a poorly thought out, exceedingly expensive, and repeatedly proved failure like European and Canadian brand of socialized medicine.

We’ll see what opportunity this crisis presents, and how best not to waste it.

crossposted at realityunwound

When a pro-choice politician with scientific credibility among his tribe suddenly finds solidarity with the enemy camp, different ears perk up. It’s as if Newt Gingrich suddenly endorsed increasing capital-gains taxes. Or if Sarah Palin issued a moratorium on wolf hunting.

When the “pro-choice politician with scientific credibility among his tribe” is Al Gore, the man who would be Chad, it’s even more scratch inducing.

The issue at stake is embryonic stem cell research, and Algore has agreed to join a $20 million venture to research adult stem cells.

“I just think it’s a very important breakthrough that is filled with promise and hope,” said Gore, a partner in the venture-capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which is backing the research.

Awhile back, I touched on embryonic stem cell research when President Obama lifted the ban on funding for new lines. My basic premise, specifically applied, was that if embryonic stem cell research were such a viable option, then the private sector would be all over it. My contention then (and now) is that embryonic stem cell is less about scientific medical research, and more about influencing the way society at large views the embryo. If it is alright to slaughter an embryo in a dish for scientific research, then why isn’t it OK to kill an embryo in utero? If it’s a lump of tissue in a dish (which it isn’t) then it’s a lump of tissue in utero. Embryonic Stem Cell research is a politically expedient way to shape the terms of life favorably, with the hope of long term impact in the pro-abortion debate.

But I digress from the point… the market will seek out profit, especially in medicine with large profit potential, and if embryonic stem cell research has potential for success, private capital will find its way. As the author of the article points out:

“Obviously, Gore isn’t intending to lose money on this proposition. He clearly sees the enormous potential, not just for healing and research, but for the financial gains that could result when the right thing collides with the true thing… Their research will focus on cures for Parkinson’s spinal muscular atrophy and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease). In Gore’s words: “The trans-Pacific collaboration is likely to dramatically accelerate the drug-discovery process.”

An ardent pro-abortion advocate with significant political clout has thrown his scientific weight and his dollar bills into the adult stem-cell camp. A few more quotes in the article about adult & embryonic stem cells…

Dr. Ian Wilmut who cloned Dolly the sheep abandoned his license to attempt human cloning, saying that the researchers “…may have achieved what no politician could: an end to the embryonic stem-cell debate.”

Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of the National Institutes of Health under the first President Bush, wrote in U.S. News & World Report that these recent developments “reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells… are obsolete.”

Perhaps embryonic stem cell research isn’t as much a scientific issue as it is a political issue. Perhaps the debate is less about finding cures for adults, and more about framing the conversation about abortion more favorably. Whatever the case, they say that even blind hogs find acorns every now and then.

crossposted at realityunwound

President Barack Obama has refused to receive repayment of TARP funds from several banks. Stuart Varney at WSJ reports,

Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn’t much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street’s black hole… The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.

The bank bailout was a sketchy deal anyway. Several banks who didn’t want the funds were forced to take them by then President Bush to avoid runs on the banks that really needed them by fear-filled Americans. That’s a silly little game, since we ended up knowing which banks didn’t need them or want them (Wells Fargo). Today, we see a great model of fiscal responsibility in the age of corporate greed. We see financial institutions that didn’t want money in the first place, proving that in spite of it all, they can STILL be financially responsible and fiscally solvent. What a great role model for the rest of the companies who took TARP funds.

The unwanted, unnecessary TARP funds had a big impact on Wells Fargo. They agreed to suspend executive bonuses after receiving this letter from Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA, uber-liberal, and the ugliest man in government). Wells Fargo is just one example of a bank that didn’t want the money, but was forced to take it, in the name of fairness justice diplomacy strategery or some other vague national value. I don’t think Wells Fargo was one of the banks trying to return the money, I use them only as an example of the absurdity of Bush’s whole banking bailout issue, and the implications it’s NOW having under a liberal government.

So why wouldn’t President Obama want the money back? It’s only $340 Million, but what a great opportunity to say, “it’s working! Look everybody, the banks are doing alright!” Why not herald these banks as beacons of light, signalling the end of the darkness? Mr. Varney has an idea:

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

Government control of the banks: telling them who can make what, who can take what vacations, how they can get there and what they can spend their money on. Government control of the auto industry: firing and appointing chief executives, mandating when and under what terms “bankruptcy” will enter the picture, dictating mergers with foreign auto makers. Government control of the health industry (pending): mandating centralization of all our medical records in a, yep, government database, mandating health insurance for everyone under a certain age to a certain level.

I thought socialism was where the government owned and controlled the means of production and industry. Something else must be happening here, because all I hear from people on the left and especially the administration is derisive laughter and mocking, elitist scorn whenever the question is put to them. President Obama himself denies the claim, stutteringly so, but a denial none the less.

Crossposted at realityunwound

The President of the United States, leader (or, as Debra Messing would say, “ruler”) of the free world wrapped up an out of the country excursion, taking the Magical Traveling Gaffe Machine on the road. When he wasn’t giving the Queen of England a pre-loaded iPod and Michelle wasn’t knocking Prince Phillip out of the way to get next to her, he was doing this to the King of Saudi Arabia:

What is that our leader is doing? Well, it seems he’s bowing to the King. Only it’s not Japan, it’s Saudi Arabia. You notice none of the other people are bowing to the King, that’s because the only people who bow to the King of Saudi Arabia are his SUBJECTS!! So our President, King Barry, has made himself the fetching boy for Saudi Arabia.

I understand being new and learning on the job, but who does this guy have advising him? Isn’t there any one in the United States of America who has any idea about protocol for these things? Could nobody in the world tell him that giving the Prime Minister a DVD collection is a bad idea? No one knew that American DVD’s don’t work in the UK? Should I assume that no one in the country speaks Russian when his first choice for chief diplomat gives the Russian Foreign minister a red “reset” button that says “overcharge”?

This is getting to be the status quo with the administration. The One who was welcomed by the masses in Germany and all around the world are starting to see the truth, our President has no idea what he’s doing, and he’s either not smart enough or not humble enough to find someone who DOES know.

Every time President Bush stubbed his toe or stumbled on a word, it made international headlines. The One hasn’t quit bumbling since he took office. He can’t find the door to his office, he apparently can’t discern how tall the opening of a helicopter is, and now he’s prostrating himself before the King of Saudi Arabia.

Atleast these gaffes aren’t costing us trillions of dollars… yet

crossposted at realityunwound.com

I don’t think I could tell you a single movie she’s been in, but she talks straight to Fox news about the leftist culture and cries of racism for anyone who disagrees with President Obama. My favorite comments, however, may be from the likes of Mandy Moore & Debra Messing at the bottom. Mandy Moore quips,

“The sort of criticism over the last couple of weeks is a bit unfounded, he’s been in office for barely any time and I think he inherited a lot on his plate and he’s doing a pretty remarkable job, I think it’s cool that he went on Leno and I watched the ’60 minutes’ interview as well last week. The guy is just so articulate and he is so well versed in something that is so new to him and I think he has a good team around him. It sounds cliché, but he makes me feel proud to be an American.”

He’s articulate, alright. He says pretty words, and that’s the most important thing in the universe for a President. As long as he looks pretty and talks pretty, his ideas can suck and be destructive. Angie Harmon thinks McCain/Palin would have done a better job because of experience, principles & fortitude. Mandy Moore thinks Obama is doing a great job, admittedly despite his job performance (he did inhert a lot), because he goes on 60 Minutes, Jay Leno, and is articulate. There’s a role model for you (side note: I saw her new husband Ryan Adams a few weeks ago, and it was a truly tremendous show. She gets bonus points for that. But not many). Equally vapid were Debra Messing’s reason’s why our new President was exceeding her wildest expectations:

“He is thoughtful and considerate and he gets all the information before he speaks which I think is a wonderful quality for the ruler of the free world to have,”

Apparently it’s a more important quality than being able to pick qualified & honest cabinet members, relate well with other leaders within the global community, or tell the truth. An entertainment culture can’t help but pick the prettiest from the field, and then point to things like articulation and “getting all the information” as being teh most important qualities. How about the quality of being right? How about the quality of being experienced, or doing what you said? Is that as important as looking good in Hawaii or on Leno (where he insulted special olympians, albeit not mean spiritedly. How’s that for unscripted articulation, Mandy Moore?) I look at the same things and wonder how, if he did have all the information, he could choose the path that he’s choosing. I’m grateful to Angie Harmon for being heard, and I wish there were more, or that more like her would step out.

Reconciliation reduces the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the 100-seat Senate to a simple majority rather than the 60 required to overcome resistance to major bills. The tactic also limits debate to no more than 20 hours and imposes restrictions on amendments.

Bloomberg’s assessment of the “Reconciliation” tactic seems prett slippery in the context of a freely chosen representative legislature. See, from what I can tell, Senators & Representatives are freely elected by U.S. citizens so their voices are heard and their will known. Understandably, getting 60 people to agree on anything is a difficult proposition, especially in politics. I also believe that not every single issue ought to need 60%. Some measures are minor and should be passed with a simple majority, even a 50% plus one vote. On issues impacting a majority of voters, however, the 60% rule is good business from keeping a narrow minority from getting steamrolled.

“Reconciliation’ is a way of making those issues that require 60% into issues that only need 50%. Again, this is to keep minor issues from being sticking points for a stubborn minority. Any government or administration that was truly interested in the will of the people would choose this tactic carefully.

The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president’s agenda… to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

President Obama doesn’t seem to care whether you or I or anyone else would support these issues. He and his cadre of radical legislators (Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, et. al.) think they know best and they will ram through as much stupid-minded legislation as they can get. Cap & Trade would effectively tax coal energy production out of existence. How would that effect you and I? Remember $4/gallon gasoline? That is how any coal heating would become.

What’s most frustrating is that I remember how President Bush was castigated for being an idealogue. In 2000 people were worried that he was going to be a religious crusader. Now, President Obama has become exactly what was railed against, and this story barely makes mention. President Obama is a radical practitioner of the mythical secularist religion of climate change and green earth governing nanny states. He pursues his agenda with religious fury, and his conquest can’t be subject to things like “what the people want.” He can’t be bothered by whether the people who will have to pay for this ridiculous, unpopular, unproven, even mythical (in the case of climate change) legislation are in favor of it.

Glenn Beck would point to the day on the horizon where we’re just told what is going to happen, and because the government is paying for our band-aids, we don’t say anything? Take a stand. Make a noise. Let’s go.

Call the White House at 202-456-111, e-mail and snail mail the president here. Tell him that RECONCILIATION will bring anything but, to America

The Washington Post reports outrage on both sides of the aisle at failing insurance giant AIG’s payment of nearly $165 million in bonuses. Leading the charge of indignation is none other than His Highness, King Barry the Hopeful One.

King Barry’s anger is pretty hollow, however, since AIG would be contractually obligated to pay these ridiculous bonuses to these failing giants. We all know how dedicated he is to the rule of law (see: people who blew up innocent American’s must be released from Gitmo & are hereby called Unicorns of Happiness rather than “enemy combatants”). Since no one thought to renegotiate the contracts before we handed a failing, fiscally irresponsible company billions of tax payers dollars, AIG is legally bound to honor them. It’s a similar situation as that in the still failing auto industry bailouts late last year. After taking billions of dollars, GM is back, asking for more than they got last time. You can throw money at companies of all stripe, but unless you fix the problem (in the Auto situation a major problem was the exorbitant UAW contracts that weren’t renegotiated, in AIG’s case, the bonuses are such a negligible part of the whole need, that the outrage is mostly symbolic. Not misguided, just not amounting to much that would make a real difference).

What chaps my chorizo most is that George Bush and Hank Paulson, Secretary of Economic Destruction and Chaos were the masterminds of this. AIG is firmly on Dubya’s tally board. We were told they were “too big to fail,” and it turns out that they’re still failing. AIG is just the latest indication that bailouts don’t work. Here’s what I learn from this.

1. Government intervention kills the free-market – if AIG hadn’t received billions of OUR money, this would simply be another story in missing the point. We would be mocking their foolishnes, guffawing as they fiddle while Rome burns, then we would watch the competition swoop in and fill the gap left by the defunct entity. As it stands now, however, my kids and grandkids who aren’t even born yet have a tax payers stake in a failing corporation. If we don’t let the weak or foolish ones die off, the very fabric of our economy is weakened, as it is right now. Rather than already beginning the recoverp process from AIG’s failure, we’re still on the wrong side of it .
2. The government is incapable or unwilling – The government won’t handle this because their greatest value is political expediency. Government doesn’t have the chutzpah to make the hard decisions that will make this work, because they aren’t motivated by profit, but by position. They think in terms of election cycles. What we need is a few greedy players who sustained this crisis by making good decisions who will make the hard decisions and bring fresh capital. As it stands now, AIG (Fanny & Freddie too) will forever be government entities at best. If this were private capital that swooped in and “bailed out” AIG (buy buying out AIG), I guarantee those execs wouldn’t be getting bonuses, they’d be getting new jobs.
3. King Barry is all locked up, and change is coming – he’s stuck. He needs to inject more capital to keep the mess afloat, but he can’t do it because he’s burned political capital. His anger and that of those closest to him (Geithner, in particular) will only fuel the fire. He pins the problem on Bush, and rightly so, and then turns around and does similar (although not exactly the same) things by propping up companies that shouldn’t be propped up (i.e. He practically begged G.W. Bush to bailout the Auto Industry, and if Dubya had listened to me, he’d have let Barry do it himself.)

President George W. Bush refuses to comment on the fledgling Presidency of Barack H. Obama, saying that the President, “deserves my silence.” Bush’s comments contrast sharply with his former Vice President Dick Cheney, who tells anyone who will listen that the country is less safe because of the decisions President Obama and his administration (i.e. Eric Holder) have made.

I agree with Vice President Cheney’s perspective, and I bet President Bush does as well. However, rather than simply lambasting Obama, Bush continually remains above the fray, demonstrating the dignity of the office. A lesser man would be scrambling to reclaim his legacy by nit-picking and being very public & vocal (case in point).

George Bush made bad decisions, and financially did some things that I sure wish he hadn’t done. However, I can’t even begin to fathom the weight of the decisions he faced. He faced those decisions, and the backlash they created, with quiet dignity. He never stopped acting like a President. He was a lousy public speaker. He made goofy faces. Buthe carried himself with a humble, self-deprecating composure, and he never let himself be drawn into the fray, or stooped to criticize or even defend himself. Compare that with the megalomania of the current administration, which regularly picks on, and vilifies a radio entertainer and barely tolerates even a hint of criticism from the media. Remember seals for the office of the President Elect, messianic symbols and a week long campaign photo-op tour through Europe for the purpose of…? I find myself longing for a man who acts Presidential.

In November, I had little hope for President Bush’s legacy. As time goes on, and he continues to publicly portray the class & character that he embodied throughout his administration, I believe history will smile on him moreso than either the man before him, and quite possibly the man after him.