Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Drilling: Democrat Deception and Republican Betrayal

I did not even mention, in the previous entry, the third major betrayal by the Republican Party of conservatives and the public at large (which wants to support Republicans on the issue):  DRILLING.
House Democrats passed the most cynical, lying bill in the history of this coutnry on drilling.  A Democrat, tom Udall, is running one of the most deceptive ads in the history of American politics baded on that deception.
LUdall is a candidate for Senator in New Mexico.  I live in El Paso, which is vritually part ol New Mexido.  That means El Paso TV reaces into New Mexico.  Thus, I see Udall's ads. They are a total fraud.  He purports to favor an "all of the above" approach, including "limited" offshore drilling. It is a total fraud,as was the Pelosi House bill.
Democrats purported to allow "some" offshore drelling.  However, they provided no revenue sharing for states, but states sill had to give permission.  There is no incentive for a state to do so.  Even more telling, a state on either side of a state that wants to approve drilling has a veto over the drilling, if within a certain distance (a hundred miles, I think).  This means New Jersey could veto Virginia drilling.  Finally, drilling would only be allowed outside of 50 miles.  The bill was a total fraud, and intended to allow no drilling.  Democrats were forced to allow the drilling ban to expire without conditions, because they dared not have a vote, but they count on lawsuits to hold it up for the indefinite future, until Democrats take power after th elections, and in the meantime Democrats are using the fraudulent campaign assertions of people like Udall (who also favors making oil "price gouging" a Federal crime, meaning giving extortion power to the Federal government.
But how can REpublicans take advantage of that fraud?  McCain fails to support drilling in ANWR  And McCin refuses to aggressively go after Democrats.  The "issue" just "slides" away, by default. There is just no clarity in the Republican position, and too much lip service to "alternative energy".  Again, Republicans betray conservatives by adopting the sham "global warming" rhetoric, and not making the drilling issue clear against deceiving Democrats.
Even on the bailout, it is primarily a problem created by a Democrat policy of promoting housing for every American.  But simpy Republicans (McCain again) are unwilling to assert a consistent "blame" message.
Republilcans are just unable to carry the conservative message, partly because they don't really believe it. 
Thus, you have consistent Democrat deception and Republican betrayal.  The public is on the Repubican/conservative side.  It again does not matter, because there is no clarity. 
It is sad, but true.  Republicans deserve to lose this election.  And the public deserves what they will get, when they get the Democrats who are flouting the public will on every important issue there is. 

Stock Market Sanity; Limbaugh and Hannity Fantisies; Lefitst Insanity; and Republican Betrayal

This disgraceful Communist abailout bill, it is now rumeored, iwill be "saved" by a "temporary" increase in the DDIC insurance for individual deposits from $100,000.00 to $250,000.)0.  that was proposed by those reviled Housse Republicans, but rejected by Democrat negotiators.  Now it is supported by everyone.   It is a mere fig leaf, since it is rare for depositors with more than $100,000 to lose all of the excess under present law.  Ways are foundt o limit the damage. 
More undamentally, this has nothing to do with the overall bailout bill.  It should be done anyway.  The $1000,000 limit of FDIC insurance has existed forever--from way back before the savings and loan debacle in the 1980's.   It is past due for an increase.  In fact, anyone who even utters the word "temprorary" shoud simply be taken out and shot  That does not include Secretary Paulson, who we have already established should be hanged (shooting being too good for him--see entries in this blog over the past week).
The stock market was already down on Monday before the bailout vote failure.  The reaction after that vote was fiction.  The reaction (recovery) today was fiction.  The net result is that the "market" ended today about where it was on Monday before the bailout vote shock. 
The dirty little secret is that Wall Street "wants" this bailout just to bail out Wall Street.  Wall Street knows perfectly well that it may not work.  Leftists know perfectly well that it probably won't work.  By "won't work", I mean that the bailout will not make any permanent difference--on Wall Street or main street.  It may bail out a few firms on Wall Street, but basically the same firms may fail and the same damage may be done to the American economy.  Printing money never works, in the end.  It did not, in fact, work in the Great Depression, where World War II eventually "bailed" us out. 
All that is being accomplished here is establishment of the idea that the government must "save" the economy, not matter what.  Democrats on Wall Street want that principle established.  Establishment Republicans on Wall Street want that principle established.  The establishment traitors among "conservatives" and Republicans want that principle established.  It is a principle that will doom us.
Is there any logical reason that we should "ball out" Wall Street with the 700 billion, instead of simply paying off every mortgage in the country under $75,0000 (as Whizbang.com suggest you can do, using government statistics)?  Of course not.  This is a Wall Street bailout by people (Paulson, et. al.) who are Wall STreet people.  There is no reason to believe it is a better "bail out" plan than bailing out taxpayers directly.  You could even do so ont he condition that taxpayers pay the money back, in higher taxes, later on.
This bailout plan has no principle behind it, other than big government.  There is no reason to believe the people behind it will make it work any better than they made the system work before admitting complet faliure (without saying so, and demanding taxpayer money to cover up their own failure).
What about conservative fantasies (Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others) of elminating the corporate tax and the capital gains tax?  Well, they are just fantasies, aren't they?  And they are stupid.
How can I say that?  Don't I support almost every tax decrease?  Yes, I do.  However, a rational tax slystem aims to keep people from manipulating it.  It is too easy for people to incorporate, and manipulate the corporate form to evade tax.  That is especially true if you eliminate the capital gains tax.  Yes, I am calling Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity stupid.  Or, perhaps they are fully aware of what they are doing, but are selling snake oil like so many leftists. 
What happens if you eliminate both the corporate tax and the capital gains tax?   Everyone (with any brains) incorporates, and tries to turn ordinary income into capital gains.  That encouragement of form manipulation for tax advantage is stupid.  It is further a fantasy that is not going to happen.
I favor returning to the simple Reagan system of two tax rates:  15% and 28%.  Corporate tax rates should be set at the top individual rate of 28%.  Capital gains rates should be left where they are.  Then we should leave the tax code pretty much alone.  The constant uncertainty creates as much problem as anything else--including these constant "teporary" provisions.
So what shouold be done, if the conservative "solutions" are absurd fantasies and the leftist, Bush/Obama/McCain "solutions" Communist takeovers of the entire economy?   Should we do nothing? 
The stock market action today indicates that would be far from the worst alternative.  The markets would probably muddle through, if they are convinced that is what they have to deal with.
But we can do things.  We can eliminate "mark to market" accounting, in favor of some sort o rational system.  The Fed can increase liquidity, as it is already doing.  We can handle each individual failure as it occurs.  We can phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  We cam issue secured loans, if necessary (if Congressional approval is required, we can give that approval)P.  There are any number of things we can do with out the taxpayer, Communist "solution", which will fail in the end.
Nope.  I don't accept the conservatives who adopt the idea that we must "do something" (which conservatives already advocate), any more than I accept the idea that we must "do something" (as a government matter of central planning).  The "market" is not that fragile, as today proved.   We don't really have that much urgency to do much of anything, and we can do many things besides conservative fantasies (erroneous conservative fantasies) or leftist big government control. 
The first thing we could do is stop talking "doomsday", and acknowledge that we could do nothing other than let the Fed continue to head individual failures.  We can do more than that, but it requires no "grandiose" "solution".  This acceptance of the idea that something "big" has to be done is the worst part of the present "crisis". 
Apocalyptic rhetoric is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I can't tell you how badly I think of President Bush.  I think more badly of him than I have ever felt in the past 8 years.  He is a total loss--reduced to nothing more than scare talk to scare us into what he has decided should be done. 
Further, I think as badly of the Republican "establishment" as I have ever thought--worse, in fac.  Mitch mcConnell and the Senate Rep[ublicans are total coward.  McCain is hopeless.  AS I have said, I never expect to call myself a Republican the rest of my entrie lifetime.  I do not expect to support the Reblican Party the rest of my lifetime  I may never vote for any Republican the rest of my lifetime.  From immigration to Communism, the Republicans have done their best to betray conservatives (along with the conservative "establishment). I hold grudges.  I will not forgive.
The only possible except to my private war against the Republican Party is if the House Republicans hold firm on principle.  The leadership already sold out.  The individuals are under enormous pressure to sell out.  If they do, I wash my hands of the party forever (except for any revolutionary ready to take over the party for conservatives. 
As far as I am concerned, we are at a crossroads.  The Republican Party is in the final battle for its soul.  If it sells out the final time, bowing to the (admittedly heavy) pressure on House Republicans, then I give up on Republicans as well.  If Republicans iwll not make a stand now, when the public is ready to be on their side, then they never will 
It is in anticipation of this final surrender that I declared:  I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN.  Based on past experience, I expect that still represents my personal stand.   Nope.  I am certainly not a ?Democrat.  I am a conservative.   I will not vote for Democrats.  But neither will I vote for sell out Republicans.  That now includes all of them, except the House Republicans.  And I expect, as I have expected (pleasantly surprised by Monday's vote) to see those Republicans cave to pressure. 
It is ad when the public seems willng to stand up for free market principles, but our politicians are not.  I will never forgive the Republican Party for that, if it is the end result.  As I have noted, that will meant that the Republican Party will have failed to take advantage of public sentiment on the two major domestic issues of our time:  illgeal immigration and this economic "crisis"  A party that fails that badly does not deserve my surrport.  It deserves no one' support, and I am confident it will not get that support in this election.
Can I yet be surprised by House Republicans again?  Maybe.  I just don't expect it.  That way I won't be disappointed (the advantage of pessimism).  The advantage of talking down the economy, as President Bush and leftists are now doing is, of course, thet you cause your own prophecy to come true. 
I expect all of us to be right.  I expect Repubilcans to cave, and I expect the economy to fail (with a "bailout").  Even if it does not fail immediately, the eventual central planning failure will be truly spectacular

Politico.com: Evil Liars

I have told you before, with concrete examples:  The people at Politico.com are evil, letis liars.  They became part of the campaign to destroy Sarah Palin, and they have now become part of the comapaign to destroy House Republicans.

Thsi campaign, by the way, tells me one thing, and this is a message to House Republicans:  if you give in here, you are giving up on your principles because of a coordinated campaign against you by leftists, the leftist media, and the establishment.  In other words, you will be letting yourself be destroyed if you give in.  You need to stand frim.  You have the pubic on your side.  If you fail to stand firm, you will have no one on your side.   The "establishment" is yet again trying to assert that there "will be a deal by Friday".  You can't let them get away with that.  If I were you, I would not let there be any deal by Friday.  I certainly would not give into a Democratic deal by Friday.  This is not really a digression, because it explains what Politico.com is doing, as it explained what they did when they joined the campaign of personal destruction against Sarah Palin.

Present Politico.com headline:  Rush Mocks House GOP."

I have listened to Rush all morning (while doing other things, as I do fairly often).  I can tell you absollutely:  Politico.com LIES (all caps again necessary).  Further, it is a lie that fits with the rest of their material today.  They are "all in" against the House Republicans.  I went to the website (which I am boycotting) just to confirm the lie, having heard Rush correctly brand it a lie.

Rush has spent all morning (morning in El Paso) PRAISING (all caps again appropriate).  the House Republicans as strongly as Rush can praise peole. 

Yep.  In passing, Rush criticized the House GOP "leaders" somewhat.   And Rush said that the House GOP had better reasons than Nancy pelosi's speech to vote against this bailout bill, and that they were courageous for voting their principles.   Politico.com LIES.  You can't try to twist single sentences out of context, in the course of several hours of PRAISE for the House GOP, and claim to be honest.  Politico.com, you are not honest.  You are evil liars.

I have said this before Rush (who basically said it today).  I say it today.  I will say it after Rush.  These are dishonest people, and I have no respect for them.

You should pay no attention to Politico.com.


P.S.  See my earlier entry about National Review.  Rush says he did mock conservatives who are criticizing/mocking House Republicans, and he did.  Some of those conservatives are at National Review, where they mocked House Republicans in "The Corner" blog.

Jack Cafferty and CNN (the Liar Nework): Evil Shills for Obama

Remember Jack Cafferty? He is the CNN (the "liar" network) guy who has proven, along with all of CNN, that he takes instructions from the Obama campaign.
See my entry of about two weeks ago, when Cafferty suddenly suggested that race was the biggest issue in this election, but a hidden issue (implying that racism against Obama was the only reason he was not doing better).
At the same time (no coincidence), Obama surrogates all over the place started suggesting that racism was behind Democrats saying they would not vote for Obama.  Kathleen Sebelius (Democratic governor of Kansas and Obama surrogate) went out and said essentially the same thing.  There as an ABC News/Yahoo poll, hyped all over the media, suggesting that at least 1/3 of Democrats have "problems" with Obama's race.  It was all a deliberate, Obama instigated campaign to intimidate people into voting for Obama because of his race.
What is Cafferty dong now?  He is using that meaningless National Review article (see previous entry) as an excuse to run a poll asking:  "Do you think Sarah Palin should be dropped from the McCain ticket."
Has there been any such CNN poll about the numerous gaffes Biden has made (much worse than anything Palikn has said), and the pervasive internet rumor that Biden would be dropped from the ticket in favor of Hillary Clinton (a rumor that always made more sense than the Palin absurdity, because Hillary Clinton is there in the wings)?  Don't be silly.  If Biden's gaffes are mentioned at all on CNN, they are as an unneeded "distraction" irrelevant to the Presidential race.
Nope. CNN and Cafferty are evil, lying shills for Obama.  See multiple entries over the past month

National Review Online and Sarah Palin: Joining the Leftist "Politics of Personal Destruction"

National Review Online is beginning to do disturbing things.
It is National Review Online (National Review is the conservative magazine founded by William Buckley to be the intellectual forum for the modern conservative movement) has begun to do things that accomplish nothing but give ammunition to the left.
National Review Online just published an article by a virtually unknown columnist suggesting that Sarah Palin step down as McCain's VP candidate.  As I said in an earlier blog entry, this National Review article had no purpose. 
No, at a time when the evil, lying people at CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, are engaged in a campaign to personally destroy Sarah Palin, and have been from the time McCain selected her.  Now that does not mean conservatives should fail to criticize Sarah Palin on issues. I have done so myself. But what is going to happen when a leading conservative magazine appears to call for Sarah Palin to step down?
Right.  The mainstream media is going to pick it up and urn with it, as if it were the Sermon on the Mount  This the same mainstream media that would not quote National Review on anything that did not fit the mainstream media agenda, and the same mainstream media that regards National Review as an unreliable source on almost any thing else, including conservatism.  However, it was totally predictable that the mainstream media would treat this National Review article as a recognition by conservatives that Sarah Palin is a failure.  Conservatives in general (for examle, me) have come to no such conclusion. 
Nope.  It was obvious how the mainstream media was going to use the National Review Online article.  And it was irresponsible to print an article they could, and would, use in that unfair way.  Now National Review had to know they would receive this kind of attention.  Was that the very agenda behind the article.  If not, what agenda was there?  There had to be one.  There was really no excuse for this particular article.  As I previously said, for Palin to leave the ticket merely guarantees McCain's defeat.  There is no Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings, as there is for Barack "World" Obama (if he finally gets sick and tired ob Biden's "worse than Palin ever thought of" gaffes.  McCain loses if Palin leaves the ticket.  That comes as close to an absolute fact as there is. 
Some of you may read this and say:  "Hey.  How can you condemn National Review, when you say worse things about Republicans every day."
While that criticism of me has a certain limited validity, it misses the point.  I am not saying that National Review should not criticize Republicans on issues.  I am saying that National Review has no business making the attack on a specific Republican personal, when it knows the attack will aid the leftist personal attacks.  Nope again.  I do not consider it a substantive article to suggest that Palin "step down"  That is a personal attack masquerading as "analysis".   I would have had no problem with an article analyzing Palin's performance as unsatisfactory (although I question such an article that fails to note the total verbal incompetence of Joe Biden).  The "sensational" request for Palin to step down is just that:  an attempt to use a sensational assertion to gain attention.
I would not run many--even most--of my entries in National Review, as I have written them  That is not because I think the substance of what I have written is unfit for National Review.  It is because I slam McCain, and other Republicans and conservatives, in deliberately colorful terms.  If I were regularly going to be picked up by CNN, I would not put things exactly this way (while saying the same things).  And even with my lack of restraint, I have never called for dropping Mccain or Palin as candidates.  I would never do so, because there is no purpose to it.  When I say the charge against me might have some validity, I mean that leftists on the blog can pick up some things in this blog out of context, and allege that they represent credible conservative attacks on other conservatives and/or Republicans.  I recognize that problem, and I think leftists are more uniform in their "talking" points because leftists do operate that way.  They support other leftists, and condemn Republicans/conservatives, no matter what.  The only exception is that the really far, totally kook left (usually anti-war) willsometimes attack everyone that does not agree with them  But most Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Chris Dodd/Barney Frank leftists don't care about consistency or the "truth".  They join attacks on conservatives, and defense of leftists, at all costs.  Most conservatives think more independently than that.  And it is helping leftist Democrats with their present Big Lie strategy.
So this blog can be used by leftists, if they really thought I had enough conservative "cred" to make it worth their while (which I don't).  If I did have that "cred", I would moderate the language slightly (without changing the substance). 
But the point remains.  Even I would never have an entry asking Palin to step down, although I am perfectly capable of saying I endorse Bob Barr (as I do; he is right, by the way, on this bailout bill)  At the same time, I make it clear that is not a matter of endorsing Obama, or suggesting that McCain step down. 
For some time, I have not thought that National Review has really been much of a "leader" of conservative thought  I do think they stood by conservatives against the threat of McCain better than rush Limaugh (who stood on the sidelines until it was too late).  Natiional Review endorsed Romney before Iowa--time enough to stop McCain if other conservatives had joined in.  Byron York is consistently an outstanding writer and thinker.  But National Reivew just no longer seems to have a coherent voice, and does things--like the Palin article--for which there is no excuse.
That is why I do not fully endorse National Review Online, althogh it is often worth looking at.  They probably reciprocate.  They probably don't endorse me.
P.S.  You may see from the above that I worry some about the difference between the left and the right at the present time.  The left is totally focused on destroying the right.  The right (at least some of us) are willing to criticize our "allies" when we think it is appropriate.  Is the left approach to way to power?  Might be.  I worry about it.  But it is not healthy.  Instead of "my country right or wrong", leftists believe:  "leftist Democrats, right or wrong, so long as they don't suport Repubicans like Joe LIeberman".  If we end up with two sides with taht attitude, where both sides care little about real principle but only about power, then we are really in trouble  The problem is that I also think we are in trouble if people like McCain prevail, who seem to fave few domestic principles otehr than a desire to be "bipartisan" and get things done.  And the peoole for whom I hve the comst contempt are those, like CNN, MSNBC and the mainstream media following leftist instructions, who are willing to tryy to personally destroy people at any cost.  That is why I am so disppointed in National Review lending itself to the attempt to persoanlly destroy Sarah Palin.      

Illegal Immigration and the Housing/Mortgage/Credit Crisis

I had an entry a day or two ago about Tom Tancredo (retiring from Congress, but the Congressman from Colorado who tried to make illegal immigration a front burner issue--in which he was frustrated by the 'establishment" I referenced in yesterday's blog entry).
Tancredo's assertion, which has been supported by a number of reports although it is difficult to measure the extent of the portion of the overall problem it may involve, is that illegal immigration is a significant part of the housing crisis.   The point is that a number of these "activists" have helped illegal immigrants get house loans they could not afford.  Then, when the illegal immigrant loses his job, is deported, or just can't afford the house, the house goes into foreclosure because the illegal immigrant walks away  For example, if you are an illegal immigrant, and you owe more on a house than it can now be sold for, or you decide you need to return to your own country, what are you going to do?  There is no question.  You are going to walk away from the house.
I suspect that illegal immigrants are only a minor part of the housing "bubble"  However, they are symptomatic of the "cnetral planning" policy pushed by the Federal Government, and supported by activists like in ACORN, that every American should won a home--whether they could afford a home or not.
There is no question that Tancredo is right that illegal immigrants (who should never have gotten house loans in the first place) have been involved in the foreclosure problem.  For example, part of the "news" this week in El Paso was a story about one example of an illegal immigrant with a job being deported, and therefore "forced" to let his house go into foreclosure.
Now read the above paragraph, and ask yourself where the story came from?  Did it come from people like Tom Tancredo, who oppose illegal immigration?  Not on your life.  It came from "activists" trying to show how horrible it is that we are now sporadically actually enforcing the immigration laws. 
These are the same kind of "activists" who got us into the housing "crisis" by pushing financial institutions to loan to any number of people (illegal immigrants, minorities, poor people, etc.) who could not afford a house.  These are the leftist Democrats who pushedthe expansion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  These are the people, like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, who opposed more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac, and opposed investigation of Democrat Franklin Raines, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing their "mission" of providing "affordable" (turned out to be not affordable) housing. 
These are the people who now are interested i simply giving the unqualified borrowers the houses, once it is shown they can't afford them.  To be plain:  The way these activists have operated is to pressure lenders into making unsound loans, and then to attack the lenders for doing what the activists virtually forced them to do.
Now it turned out the lenders liked it, in the end, because there was the false appearance that they were making money  Democrat Frenklin Raines got 90 million dollars out of Fannie Mae, based on inflated loans and accounting that would eventually bring down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (forcing the recent taxpayer bailout of those Democrat dominated and protected entities).  Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson (another Democrat who was CEO of Fannie Mae) are cronies and advisors of Barack "World" Obama, who was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past eight years (when Obama has only been n the Senate for 3).  Chris Dodd, the ranking Democrat on the Senate banking committee considering legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the top recipient of money  He also got a sweetheart loan fro Countrywide Mortgage, as did Jim Johnson (forcing him to resign from the committee chosen by Obama to "vet" his VP nominees).   I am not exaggerating when I say that Fainnie Mae and Freddie Mac were "Democratic" organizations.  Most of the people in them, including the leaders at the time this mortgage problem was brewing, were Democrats.
The accounting problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac first surfaced in 2004 and 2005.  That is when John McCain and the Republicans tried to pass a bill providing more "oversight" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd--along with Obama--saw no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They opposed further regulation of those entities  Yes, Obama is a liar when he blames the present crisis on Republican deregulation.  Democrats protected Franklin Raines (althogh he was forced to resign with his 90 million), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 
For Democrats (politician kind), it was all about protecting Democrats and "affordable housing".  So nothing was done about Fannie Mae in 2005, or after Democrats took control of Congress.  We had time then.  By this summer, we had no more time, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went under--threatening to bring down other financial institutions with them  Worse, the culture of easy mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had created is the real cause of our present "crisis".  Everyone--especially Democrats--thought it was "easy money", since house prices were always going to go up.
As always (with both central planners and people who think that they "can't lose"), these people were wrong.  The housing "bubble" burst.  The illegal immigration part of this is probably small, but it illustrates the larger reasons (nothing to do with "deregulation") that we got to where we are.

Mark Cuban: Leftist Loon

Mark Cuban is a "self-made" billionaire leftist, and certified loon.  He was known to be erratic in the sports world, as owner of the Dallas Mavericks (NBA team) and would be owner of other sports teams.
Then he proved he was a leftist political loon by financing the Brian DePalma movie, "Redacted".  That movie was a direct attack on U.S. troops in Iraq.  Yes, the movie was anti-war.  But it was a lot more than anti the Iraq War.  It slandered U.S. troops in Iraq, and, in effect, labeled the typical U.S. soldier in Iraq as a monster rapist and killer.  The movie was a disgrace.  Mark Cuban is a disgraceful loon. 
Bill O'Reilly correctly so labeled Cuban in connection with "Redacted".  Yet, now Cuban is all over the cable TV networks (and maybe regular networks, for all I know), including Fox News (part of the mainstream media problem, and not part of the solution).  Mark Cuban is being treated as an "expert" on finace, just because he is a billionaire.  That is like treating Bill Gates as an "expert" on overall finance, just because Microsoft made him a billionaire.  Okay, maybe the mainstream media would be glad to so treat Bill Gates, but Gates is ot willng to expose himself as a loon like Cuban--assuming expertise in areas in which he does not have expertise.
Mark Cuban's "one issue" campaign recently has been to have every "transaction" of this new government bailout entity (which, luckily, is still not authorized) be posted on the internet.  I saw Cuban on CNBC, and he virtually seemed to be suggestion that every Wall Street transaction should be on the internet, to be second guessed and criticized by members of the public.   The loons at CNBC actually took him seriously, which means you can't take CNBC seriously. 
Nope.  The idea that every transactions should be shown in "real time" on the internet is the idea of a loon.  Business can't be done that way.  Yes, stock trades are shown in (almost) real time, but not really.  You don't see the identity of people involved in stock trades, and stock trades are not complicated transactions.  The reporting of stock trades is only of the informatiion necessary to estabhish the "market" price.   It would paralyze business to have every business transactionshown on the internet.  Further, the second guessing circus of having a "cottage industry" of people second guessing government bailout transactions would turn the whole thing into a circus.  It is well known that the internet is already a circus of false political rumors. 
There actually is a case for more "transparency" in certain kinds of financial transaction, such as credit trades.  But the last thing we need is for the details of every trade, or every bank transaction with the Fed discount window to be dispplayed in real time on the internet.  There is a difference between making information available to people who need it, and turning the whole thing into a Roman cirucus.
Mark Cuban does not recognize the difference, because he is a self-promoting loon.

Hank Paulson: "Never Ask a Barber Whether You Need a Haricut" (Cowboy Wisdom)

I got this bit of "cowboy wisdom" from a radio commercial for an antibiotic (animal antibiotic, I think, although it is not imortnat):  "Never ask a barber whether you need a haircut!"  (There were other gems, like:  "Never drink downstream from the herd.")
To listen to the mainstream media (more irrelevant and totally worthless every day), they have never heard things like this.  From the beginning we have been "asking" Hank Paulson whether we need a Wall Street bailout.
Hank Paulson is a Wall Street guy.  He was CEO of Goldman Sachs for some 10 years (right in the middle of all of that "greed and corruption"--up to his eyeballs in it, in fact) before becoming Secretary of the Treasury in 2006.  He did nothing in the two years he has been Secretary of the Treasury except arrange Wall Street bailouts.  See the previous entry as to how Goldman Sachs was the primary beneficiary of the AIG bailout, and the only private party allowed at a meeting concerning that bailout.
Nope.  We have asked a barber whether we needed a haircut, at the very time this particular barber (Paulson) should have been fired.
As I have stated, the only reason the mainstream media and Democrats have not crucified Paulson before now is that Pualson is essentially a Democrat (in philosophy, for sure, as was known before these bailouts), trying to protect his Democrat friends (John Corzine, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, is now the Democratic governor of New Jersey)--proposing a basically leftist Democratic bill to bail out Wall Street with socialism.  Why should Democrat politicians and the mainstream media want to criticize hiem?
It is all unbelievable.  As I have said before, it is like Dick Cheyney proposing to bail out Halliburton (although Cheyney really had less involvement with Hallibruton than Paulson had with Goldman Sachs and Wall Street).
There is no excuse for listening to Paulson on bailing out Wall Street.  He should have been fired.  He still should be fired.
P.S.  You may have noticed that AOL has reset the counter again as to "hits" on  this blog.  They do that peridocially, for no apparent reason.  A more paranoid person would suspect a conspiracy, and that Hank Paulson is involved. Luckily, I am not paranoid.  Nor do I care about the counter.  One reson I am not paranoid about it is that the real count does not show a large number of "readers" of this blog.  Some YouTube videos evidently get more than a million "hits".  This blog, despite providing more useful information than most of those YouTube videos, has not received as many as 100,000 "hits" in its entire existence.   Maybe AOL is trying to do me a service.  Since they keep resetting the counter, I could claim a million hits myself.  Who would know?  Okay, anyone who has seen this blog before would know, and the daily "hits" would give you a clue.  Still, maybe AOL (which I have advised everyone to leave, while I remain as a mole until the bitter end) was trying to help me (lol).  NAH!!!!

Monday, September 29, 2008

Hank Paulson: Corrupt Conflict of Ineterest in Wall Street Bailouts

Never doubt me.  This blog even anticipates, and gets confirmed by, the New York Times.  How many conservatives can say that.
What have I been saying since this Paulson bailout bill first surfaced?  I have been telling you that Paulson (Treasury Secretary since 2006, after beind CEO of Goldman Sachs) is a massive failure with a massive conflict of interest, since he is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs (the Wall Street frim that stands to benefi--perhaps benefit most--from a Wall Street bailout.  I told you that Paulson is a corrupt failure, who should have been fired.   He should still be fired. Yes, this has been confirmed by the New York Times.
Remember the AIG bailout that occurred right before the larger Paulson bailout/extortion/panic plan was revealed?  It turns out that there was a meeting at the New York Federal Reserve over that bailout (85 billion dollar loan, if you recall).  There was only one private firm who had a representative at that meeting:  Goldman Sachs, Paulson's firm.
Paulson was a prime player in bailing out AIG.  But was it AIG Paulson was interested in bailing out, or was it Goldman Sachs?  It turns out that Goldman Sachs had a 20 billion dollar monetary exposure to AIG.  In other words, if AIG went under, it would potentially cost Goldman Sachs 20 billion dollars.
So when Paulson described the bailout as "necessary" to protect the financial system, he was talking about his old firm, Goldman Sachs (the only private firm invited to that meeting on AIG).  Can you get any more corrupt than that.  Yet, I told you about the Paulson conflict of interest without even knowing specifically about the AIG conflict of interest. 
I also told you why Paulson escaped the Democratic criticism his conflict of interest would ordinarily have provoked.  As I told you, Paulson is basically a Democrat--certainly philosophically--and comes from a firm with substantial connections in the Democratic Party.  This includes the present Democratic governor of New Jersey, who preceded Paulson as CEO of Goldman Sachs.  Democrats were not interested in savaging one of their own, especially when he had proposed a massive increase in government power of the type beloved by Democrats.  Further, he was proposing to bail out all of those Democratson Wall Street, and in big business with taxpayer money.  Those are Paulson's friends.  The New York Times story shows that Paulson protects his friends.  The lack of vicious Democratic criticism shows that Democrats reciprocate the favor.  Paulson is similar to Mike Bloomberg of New York City:  a leftist sailing under Republican colors.
I told you all of this before the New York Times article.  The New York Times article does indicate that leftists may be about to throw Paulson under the bus--having got all of the use out of him they can.
It remains that I was correct.  Paulson is a corrupt failure, and he should be, and have been, fired rather than put in charge of "bailing out his friends on Wall Street.
P.S.  Yes, I know many Republicans have friends on Wall Street too.  See my earlier entry today on how so many of our "establishments" think the same, and are similarly contemptuous of ordinary people.  I suggested they all be sent to Australia, since we probably can't shoot them.  I would prefer to hang Paulson, but bow to humanitarian objections in merely demanding that he be fired in humiliation and disgrace.  Then maybe he and Goldman Sachs should be sued.  You might remember that Warren Buffet, another billionaire Democrat, put 5 billion dollars into Goldman Sachs shortly after Paulson helped out Goldman Sachs (by bailing out AIG)--the weekend after this bailout plan was revealed.

Obama (Bushite) Running for Bush's Thrid Term

See my earlier entry today.  But I left out another example of how Barack "World" Obama is clearly a Bushite, running for Bush's third term.

Obama has supported giving 50 billion dollars per year to fight against world poverty, through a program adminstered by the U.N.  You will remember that Preisdent Bush has pledged many billions of taxpayer dollars to Africa and Mexico.  I am pretty sure Bush would go for the entire Obama proposal, if he thought he could get away with it.  His rhetoric on Africa and Mexico certainly indicates he would.

P.S. Obama has changed his tune on NAFTA--saying his promise to "renegotiate" it was something he said in the heat of the campaign, but did not really mean.

Wall STreet Bailout and Immigration: Establishment vs. Public (Exile the Answer?)

The Wall Street (mainly Democratic) establishment is for this bailout bill.  They were probably for the establishment, mainly Democratic, bill to legalize illegal immigration (McCain-Kennedy, with Obama as a silent partner wanting even more open borders and welcoming of illegal immigrants).  But we don't know that for sure, since the greedy Wall STreet establishment had no direct interest in the immigration bill.
The Bush Administration is for the Wall Street bailout bill (immediately endorsing every change Democrats wanted to make, in Bush's first speech after Congress started "debating" the bill (with House Republicans deliberately shut out).   The Bush Administration was for the immigration bill, including any changes the Democrats wanted to make.  You can't get any more "establishment" than that.
The Democrat establishment is for the Wall Street bailout bill.  In fact, most Democrats are.  The Deomcratic establishment was for the "Bush" immigration bill.  In fact, most Democrats were.  Democrats have obviously turned "Bushite", and Bush has turned Democrat (or always was).  See previous entry.
The Republican establishment is for the Wall Street bailout, although the vast majority of Republicans oppose it.  The Republican establishment was for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, even though the vast majority of Republicans opposed it. 
The conservative establishment is for the Wall Street bailout bill, even though almost all conservative citizens are against it (on my side--with even my left leaning, feminist younger daughter being on my side--hick graduate of the University School of Law--this May--that she is, and hick new employee of a big law firm in that hick town of New York City).  The conservative establishment (Fred Barnes, etc., this means you) was foor the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.  Almost all conservatives were against it.  Rush Limbaugh spoke for conservatives in both cases.  If you have guessed, maybe because I have told you, that I have no more respect for the conservative "establishment" than I have for the Republican "establishment", you are absolutely, 100$ right. 
The big business establishment (mostly Democratic) is for the Wall Street bailout bill.  The big business establishment was for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill (cheap labor, you know, and a weapon against American workers). 
Big Labor is ? (I am not sure, but they are sure not vocally against it, so I have to assume they are for it) the Wall Street bailout bill.  Big Labor (amazing betrayal, but it is true) was for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.
The public is solidly, even overwhelmingly, against the Wall Street bailout bill.  The public was solidly, even overwhelmingly, against the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill (with Obam as that silent partner, along with most Democrat politicians.  When I referred to "most Democrats above, I meant Democrat politicians rather than Democrat rank an file). 
Conclusion:  We should take every member of the "establishment" in this country out and shoot them. Then we should start over with a new "establishment" "educated" by this treatment of the previous establishment.  There is no more sure indication that a bill should be defeated than that every establishment we have in this country is for it.   The only tw bills I have seen, of any importance, where this is true are the Wall Street bailout bill and the immigration bill. They also happen to be the two worst bills I have seen in my lifetime.  
Okay.  Let us stipulate that we can't shoot them (since most of the American people, other than hard core leftists like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack "World" Obama, are nicer than I am).  However, surely we can exile them somewhere.  Are Elba and St. Helena still available (where Napoleon was exiled)?  Is Australia still taking undesirables, or would it mean war to try to send them there?  How about outer space?  Surely we can send them somewhere.  We, the people, just can't take these arrogant, supercilious, ignorant, stupid morons any further.  For our sanity, they have to go (yes, Fred Barnes, that still means you, and the "conservatives" like you). 
If I start f fund to exile these people, do I have your support?  No, I don't think we have to impeach President Bush to exile him.  It will just be like he is on a long vacation somewhere.  Obama and McCain would have to go, but we need two new candidates anyway.  Palin might qualify to stay (might, if McAin has not corrupted her), but Biden would also have to go.  The whole Senate would have to go, of course. Good Riddance.  All you would have left of Republican lawmakers are in the House of Representatives.  The mainstream media would all have to go, including Fox News.  Good riddance again.  Almost all of Wall Street and big business would have to go.  No one would miss them.  Leftists (of the Obama, Pelosi and REid type) would generally have to go, as they have become part of the establishment.  Again, no one would miss them. 
Trust me. It would be a much better country.  Plus the rest of us might have a chance of remaining sane. 

Obama Is a Bushite, Running for Bush's Third Term

Obama is definitely a Bushite, along with most Democrats.
How else can you interpret it?  Remember the fight over the terrible Bush Administration bill? Obama stood aside, as he tried to keep a low profile on the issue, but voted for most of the partisan Democratic attempts to make the bill worse.  Then he let Harry Reid speak for him (Obama still keeping a low profile) about Harry Reid delivering the Democratic votes for the Bush Administration, while Bush failed to deliver Republicans.
The same thing happened on this Wall Street bailout bill.  President Bush delivered a bill to Congress.  Democrats gave partisan input, but supported the Bush concept (and could work with Bush to get a bill they liked).  Obama mostly stood aside again, but encouraged Democrat partisanship against Republicans, in support of the Bush Administration concept, as Bush was willing to modify it.  Again, the bill failed because the American people and Republicans did not like it.  Again, Democrats claimed to have delivered the Democrat votes (although 94 voted against it).  Again, Democrats claimed that Bush failed to deliver the Republicans.
Conclusion.  President Bush is now a Democrat.  Obama, and most other Democrats, are now Bushites. President Bush obviously can't be a Republican, because most Republicans no longer agree with him.  He won't even negotiate with true Repubicans.  He prefers to negotiate with Bushites like Obama and the Democrats.

Wall Street Bailout Failure: Blackmail and Extortion by Wall Street and Leftist Democrats

Yes, on CNBC yo can see the blackmail going on here. 
One Wall Street leftist came on and said that it is better for the U.S. taxpayer to be buying American companies than Saudi Arabia (direct socialistic advocacy), and then went on to say that he advocated direct government investment in the stock market (even more direct socialist advocacy).
There is even speculation on CNBC that the stock market is being driving down this afternoon to blackmail Repulbicans (by scaring them) into changing their vote.  See my previous entry, where I referred to Barney Frank's invitation to Wall Street to engange in such blackmail.
Blackmail and extortion is what is gong on now, and from the beginning of the Democratic attempt to do this "bailout" package as a Federal power grab--Paulson being basically a Democrat, as I said, and the Democrats in Congress trying to take the concept and run with it.
And CNBC is still there trying to call people opposing this as ignorant hicks, and being responsible for job loss and economic decline.
BLACKMAIN AND EXTORTIOIN.  That is what has been going on here from the beginning.  What these people (Wall Street leftists and other leftists) should ask themselves is whether they are willing to drive us into an economic decline in pursuit of their socialist "solutions", or whether they are willing to look for real solutions in the free market. 
Of course, Democrats control the House.  94 Democrats voted against this bill.   Democrats did not have to bring the bill to a failing vote.  This is a Democratic failure in response to a declaration of free market principle by House Republicans.
DENIAL.  Wall Street people are STILL saying a bill "will happen".  That is what leftist and Wall Street (obviously the same thing in this situation) have been saying for almost two weeks.  How much does it take to bring reality to these people?

Wall Street Democrats Lose. How Influential Is This Blog

It is now conclusively establihed that Wall Street does not believe in free market economics.
It is now conclusively established that Wall Street fat cats are Democratic.
Yes, I looked at CNBC, and "Wall Street" was visibly depressed and shocked that the Wall Street bailout bill did not pass.  You might say that is understandable, but they were also more than willing, even anxious to blame it on the House Republicans.   "Right wing" Republicans is what I heard them referred to as.  Being on the side of free market principles--not to mention most of the American people--is now "right wing"  Failing to be on the side of Wall Street is now "right wing".  This shows the fundamental dishonesty, and lack of intellectual principle and depth, on both the left and Wall Street (to the extent they are not the same).
No, I am not ignoring that the Republican "establishement" joined the leftist and Wall Street establishments here.  they have proven for some time that they have no principle left.   Why do you think former Republicans like me pay no attention to them anymore.  Hank Paulson, for example, is nominally a "Republican" (in the Bloomberg mold), but is really a Democrat at heart (coming from the Democratic culture at Goldman Sachs, where Democratic Gov. John Corzine of New Jersey was the former CEO).
The mainstream media, of course, is part of the leftist establishment--being similar to Wall Street in that regard.  They are ready and willing to dump on the Republicans in the House, which shows that they have totally lost ouch with the American people. 
As I have said, in repeated entries, this government bailout, by means of giving power and money to the same people that failed, was not the only approach to this problem  It is just the only approach by people who are central planners to start with (as much of Wall Street now seems to be).  The government "solution" is the only "solution" these people see.  No others occur to them.  And by "government solution" here, I mean always more taxpayer money and always more Federal Government power over all of our lives.
They have tried blackmail and extortion.  It has not worked.  They are doubling down.  I heard a statement byBarney Frank (who did as mauch as any single individual to get us in this mess by blocking reforms at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) saying that Democrats would wait to see the reaction of the markets before trying to do anything more with this bill.  In other words, Barney Frank was sending a clear message to the markets to be as negative as possible, to convince those obstructive Republicans to give up their principles.
Yes, the mainstream media is trying to help Wall Street, and Barney Frank, out by callng the Republicans "obstructive" and "ideological".  Was it not Nancy Pelosi who called opponents of this disgraceful bailout bill "unpatriotic". Has not very Democrat who has spoken done so in the most partisan of terms--blaming the whole thing on Republicans when Democrats are more at fault (certainly equally).  Where was the media talking about Democrats being "partisan", and endangering any "bipartisan" spirit every time they opened their mouths.  It is again clear that "bipartisan" means, to Democrats and the media, agreeing with the Democrats--even when the Democrats are placing the entire blame for everything on you.
Nope.  This bill should have gone done to defeat.  A stake needs to be driven thorough its heart, and an entirely new approach (a more free market approach) tried.  It is revealing how hard Paulson and the Democrats have in sticking to the Big Government, taxpayer funded, approach--even in the face of massive public opposition.  That indicates to me that these people are hopeless central planners (leftist Democrats) at heart--including most of Wall Street (where Paulson is from).
You may well ask yourself:  Just how influential is "The Maverick Conservative"?  Threats and blackmail from the President, Paulson, Democrats, and the Republican leadership all failed, including threats from Wall Street.  My threat (see earlier today) has so far succeeded, with the defeat of this bill.

Paulson and Bernanke: Worst Failures in the History of World Finance?

Are Secretary of Treasury Paulson and Fed Chief Bernanke the worst failures in the history of finance?  The case can be made for that.
First, look how bad Paulson has been.  First, he was CEO of Golman Sachs--the largest and strongest of teh investment bankers.  Paulson built Goldman Sachs as part of the problem.  That is, if Wall Street was greedy, Goldman Sachs was greedy.  If Wall Street took too much risk, Goldaman Sachs took too much risk.  The firm was in danger of failing,. and forced to change its entire structure to that of a bank.  This meant raising capital, including from Warren Buffet, at the expense of the stock price.  In other words, and this seems to be unrecognized, Paulson failed at Godlman Sachs.  He helped create a major part of the financial problem that he then was forced to deal with (badly) as Treasury Secretary.  That is one of the greatest conflict of interest, and arguably one of the worst stupidities (putting Paulson in charge of solving the disaster he helped create) in history.  Why would anyone assume Paulson knew what to do, when he did not know what to do at Goldman Sachs or even have any concept of the problems building when he came to the Treasury more than 2 years ago?
Yes, Paulson became Secretary of the Treasury more than two years ago--more than enough time to address the problems brewing, but Paulson appeared to have no concept of those brewing problems.  The housing "bubble" was absolutely obvious by then  Paulson sounded no warning.  He came from Goldman Sachs, and should have known more than any other person about the risky things Wall Street was doing with mortgage securities and leverage.  He didn't.  He didn't even sound any big warnings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Whatever you think of President Bush, he brought in what he thought was a Wall Street expert, and financial expert, upon whom the President could rely.  But Paulson was clueless--as clueless as any man has ever been.
Pauslson (and Bernanke, in as Fed Chief by now) did effectively nothing to save the free market system. By 2007 (early, really, in 2007), the situation was deteriorating in housing--obvious to almost anyone  Paulson and Bernanke did little.  They did little to the very point of crisis. Even when Bear Stearns went under, they did little, and advised little.  Short selling?  No advised changes in rules.  Speculation and computer trading?  No advised changes in rules.  Warnings to Wall Streets and banks that they needed to delverage?  None (certainly none before Bear Staearns).  The Fed regulated banks like IndyMac, Washington Mutual, and Wachovia.  All have failed this year, despite being among the most heavily regulated companies in the coutnry.  Despite warnings of the housing "bubble", the Fed took no aggressive action to examine bank practices to nsure they were sound. Nero (Paulson and Bernanke) fiddled, as Rome (the U.S. financial system) burned.  Needless to say, Democrats in Congress were doing nothing either, other than to defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and accept campaign contributions from both those entities and Wall Street. Barack "World" Obama was the second biggest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees (these were Democratic institutions), and from Lehman Brother.  This is a digression from Paulson and Bernanke, but not really.  Most of Wall Street, including really Paulson, was, and is, Democratic.  Sure, Democrats were talking about bailing out homeowners, once it was already too late, but they never talked about the housing "bubble", Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the danger our financial system was facing.  Neither did Paulson and Bernanke. 
What did Paulson and Bernanke do when faced with the fact that they had utterly failed to properly anticipate, evaluate, and address the developing financial "crisis" over the past 2 years (adequate time for most people who are not Cooper Inidians--see Mark Twain and last week's entry)?  They panicked.
Yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have had Paulson and Bernanke in mind when he said:  "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."  Did Bernanke and Paulson look to the fundamental strengths of the economy, and try to figure out how to use them-while reassuring people that the overall economy was not that bad, if we could get past the temporary credit problems?  Did they say it war ridiculous and counterproductive to talk of another Great Depression?  Nope.  Did they attempt to see if emergency liquidity measures and systemic changes they had failed to make over the past two years would stem panic?  Nope.  They panicked.  They tried to scare everyone, seemingly because they had panicked themselves.  Paulson, of course, as part of Wall Street had already showed he was part of the Wall Street mentality that caused this kind of short term panic.
What was the result of Bernanke and Paulson trying to panic everyone, in an attempt to get the taxpayers to hand over 700 billion dollars to Paulson to spend how he wants--an attempt that seems to have been largely successful, although a disaster?  (Most of the taxpayer "protections" in the bailout bill can be waived, or pretty much ignored, by Paulson).  The result of scare tactics and panic, plus talk of financial collapse and a Great Depression, was predictable.  It was what the media appeared to want, with its own constant scare talk, but the result was predictable disaster.  The credit markets remained frozen.  The economy was paralyzed, and essentailly on hold, waiting for the Federal Government to rise to the rescue.  Remember, that was some 11 days ago.  In other words, Paulson and Berananke accomplished what al-Qaida accomplished on 9/11, but without violence.  Paulson and Bernanke paralyzed the economy, and effectively stopped business and finance cold. And the disastrous bailout, if passed, will still not go into effect until no sooner than the end of next week.  Even then, the bill is so complicated (with all of those "face saving" measures trying to conceal the Communistic "bailout") that it will be tricky to put it into effect.  It is all a case of "too llittle, too late", after Pauslon and Bernanke failed, and then compounded their failure with panic.
So what is the Fed doing today?  It is injecting billions (hundreds of billions?) of taxpayer (ultimately) dollars into the financial system to provide "liquidity".  It is providing Citicorp with the backing to buy Wachovia assets (taking warrants--all without the bailout), and putting the taxpayer on the line in backing.  The Fed has had to bail out Washington Mutual, and will have to bail out others.  In other words, the taxpayer may well by on the hook for 700 billion dollars before the bailout (for which Paulson and Bernanke panicked the financial system and the whole economy) even goes into effect.  In fact, the financial markets tanked early today. 
Bernanke and Paulson, instead of creating panic in trying to setting a precedent for total Federal control of the economy and destruction of the free market system, would have been better advised to have spent the past 11 days trying to work out government assisted free market solutions.  They would have been better advised to reassure people, while doing that, instead of panicking them.  Instead, the Fed is having to commit hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars anyway, and the "bailout" is looking totally irrelevant, and a likely failure.
But even if the bailout fails, or is exposed as virtually useless (or even counterproductive), what precedent has been set?  Right  The precedent set is that the Federal Government should now use taxpayer money to bail out/control the economy, and everyone in it.  In the end, it is probably that precedent, adopting the discredited, Communistic, idea of central plainning solutions to all problems, which will destroy us.
Do you wonder why I say that Paulson and Bernanke may be the worst failures in the entire history of world finance--implementing a leftist Democrat philosophy to which wimpy Republicans have signed on (abandoning conservatives, as is their recent policy)? 
Nope.  You should vote against any politician who votes for this bailout plan--not only in this election, but for the rest you your, and their, lives. 
Sad reality:  Your vote may give you, and will definitely give me, some satisfaction every time you make it over the rest of your life.  However, it will not change the magnitude, and permanent effect, of the mistakes that have been made--mistakes that may fairly be said to represent the downfall of our free market system for the foreseeable future. 
Paulson and Bernanke are responsible, more than any other persons, for this disaster,  Their names should go down in infamy for all time. 

European Free Market Proponents; American Socialists

Just when did Britain and Europe become more free market oriented than the United States?  I don't know, but it has happened.
Yes, on CNBC this morning they (representing Wall Street and political establishment in the U.S.) were mourning how officials in other countries are not panicking like we are, and don't seem to recognize the "systemic" risk.  In other words, Britain and European officials are handling the failure of financial instititutions as individual failures, rather than trying to "bail out" the entire financial establishment.  The fools!!!!!!!
I am, of course, referring to the "establishment" here as the "fools", and not the authorities in Britain and Europe.
While we have been concentrating on this stupid "central planning", massive government bailout, those Europeans so beloved of Barack "World" Obama have been figuring out how to let individual companies fail.
IT is sad when Europeans understand more about free markets, and how not to panic, than we do.  Really sad.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Issues: What Sinkin' Issues?

Read my previous entry.

First, ask yourself whether thaat entry was too harsh.  You may well conclude it is, because you are not thinking aoubt this clearly.

Then ask yourself whether the "politics of personal destruction" is an evil corruption of our politics.  Everyone, including Barack "Wrold" Obama, says it is.  Obama has, in effect, said that CNN, the despicable AP, and the rest are evil for engagning in that kind o fcampaign against Sarah Palin.

Now ask yourself what these attacks on Sarah Palin, including these ridiculous attacks on her "record" as mayor of a small town in Alaska, have to do with the "issues" in this campaign.  Yet, the mainstream media is constantly regretting how little attention the important "issues" get.  Anyone is that much a sanctimonious hypocrite, as CNN, the AP, an the rest of the marinstream media are, has indeed descended into the realm of super-evil.  I am not exaggerating, even if it sounds "harsh" to you.

Now what would the despicable AP say, if confronted with this entry?  You know what they would say (if you could get them to even acknowledge the issue).  They would say that that it is because Sarah Palin has set herself up as a "reforemer", and hyped her "record", as such, that such minute, hypercritical examination of that claim is indicated.  (Read th efirst sentence of the AP article quoted in my previous entry, if you think I am puttin gwords in the mouth of the despicable AP).

Uh-huh (sarcasm).   Do you need any more evidence as to what evil, lying, despicable sacks of sanctimonious, hypocritical manure these mainstream media people are?

Have they forgotten good old Barack "World" Obama?  He portrayed himself mre of an agend of change, "above politics", than Sarah Palin ever did.  And it was untrue, as the record shows.  He was a cynical politician in his relationship with Tony Resco.  He was a canycial politician in his relationship with Reverend Wright.  He was a cynical politician in his relationship with William Ayers.  He was a cynical politiician in his entire career in Chicago politics.  The evil peple in the mainstream media have been unintrested in that contradiction between reocrd and word.  That is because that is not the reason behind the campaign of personal destruction against Sarah Palin.  It is the excuse.

Then there is the claim that Obama is a "post-racial" candidate trying to unite the races.  That was in direct contradiction to Obama's upport, for 20 years, of anti-American, racial hate monter, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  You remember him?   He was the perosn who said the U.S. government ("white Europeans") invented the AIDS virus as a means of genocide against people of color.  He is the person who said that the US, government was providing drugs to African-Americans as a means of putting black men in jail.  He was the one who said (in a speech to the NAACP in Dtroit with which Obama and other lefttists were perfectly happy) that Africian-Americans and "white Europeans" think and learn "differently".  He is the person who blamed the United States for BOTH Pearl Harbor and 9/11, and every act of terror in the world in between (basically calling the U.S. the worst terrorist nation n the World since the beginning of World War II.  The mainstream media was uninterested in the contradiction between Obama's words and his support of Reverend Wright.

Nope.  There is no question here.  This is the evil of the "politics of personal destruction" that the maintream media is pursuing so pervasively.  The "excuses" are mere rationalizatioina.

Q.E.D.  I am not too harsh.  These (mainstream media) are evil people engaging in pervasive eivl.


Sarah Palin Took Home a Paperclip for Personal Use, While Mayor in Alaska

Yes, the mainstream media campaing of personal destruction against Sarah Palin continues.  These are evil people.  Yes, I am talking about the people at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC< CBS, The New York Times, and all of the rest.  I expect to meet them all in Hell some day (assuming Hell exists, which I have noted before is the main attraction the Christian religion has for me, since I have never been much attracted by Heaven).  They have gone beyond politics.  They have gone beyond advocacy.  They have descended so far into actual evil that there is nothing they can ever do to redeem themselves. As I have stated, they have become the primary agents of the dirty "politics of personal destruction" in this coutnry--now acting openly as agents of the Obama campaign.  They are making charges no political campaign could get away with, in aid of evil tactics no political campaign could get away with.  However, since they are part of the Obama campaign, the Obama campaign should be blamed for these disgraceful tactics in which they are complicit.  Here is the latest exmple, from the "Anti-American, Despicable, Associated Press" (which I am sure will be picked up, or has already been picked up, by the evil CNN and the rest, probably even including Fox News):
 "Though Sarah Palin depicts herself as a pit bull fighting good-old-boy politics, in her years as mayor she and her friends received special benefits more typical of small-town politics as usual, an Associated Press investigation shows."
Nope.  As I suggest in the heading, the "accusations" are little more than stealing a paperclip.  The Obama campaign could never directly get away with making accusations so weak (because Obama has done so many things so much worse).  By getting the mainstream media to do their dirty work, with the lying assertion of "objective" "investigation", however, the Obama campaign is able to let the mainstream media keep up such a drumbeat of criticism as to invoke the "where there is smoke, there is fire" approach of the "politics of personal destruction".  There is a movie title I like (movie itself not great):  "God Forgives; I Don't".  I don't suspect you ever thought I would, but the mainstream media is deluded if they think people like me will ever forgive thme for there descent into evil.  We won't I won't. 
Yes, I regard both John McCain and Sarah Palin as wimps if they ever give another interview to a mainstream media reporter before election day.  They should take on the media directly.  Palin did so in her convention speech, and then she and McCain have acted as if they do care what these evil people think ever since.  The only exception I would make is Fox News, even though I consider Fox as part of the problem and not part of the solution.  The difference is that Fox News may get much of its "news" from the despicable AP, but does not generally have an active agenda of destroying Sarah Palin.  Therefore, she can use them to attack the rest.
Could Obama survive this drumbeat of "investigation" by the mainstream media.  You will remember that Obama also "claimed" to be above ordinary politcs, and proves he is not every single day.  Of course Obama could not survive this kind of hypercritical "srutiny".  His sweetheart real estate "deal" with Tony Resco alone is worse than anything Palin is accused of doing as mayor.  (Read this sentence and laugh:  How much could Palin have possibly done as mayor of a small town, when she was re-elected by massive majorities and received massive votes from the town in her later political races?  Paper clips about cover it.).
I have asked multiple times before how anyone who has not evil can work for the despicable AP in any capcity (useless to ask how they sleep at night, since evil people don't care about the evil they do).  I answer myself again:  If you work for the AP you are an evil person, because you are knowingly complicit with evil. That applies to CNN, MSNBC, and the rest, as well.
See my entries yesterday as to how Joe Biden (legitimately, in his case, as he has shown himself unfit to be Vice President) could not survive the type of critical scrutiny of every word, and standards of perfection required in that scrutiny, applied to Palin by the mainstream media.  Obama himself could not survive this kind of hypercritical scrutiny of his past (or maybe even present).  Nope.  These evil people in the mainstream media are merely sanctimonious hypocrites who should be ignored by any thinking being (I am willing to provisionally include dolphins, whales, and apes in the group of beings who should have contempt for these people).
Palin is blessed in her enemies. I hope she again starts calling them out.
P.S.  Brett J. Blackledge is an evil, despicable person.  That is the AP "writer" responsible for the above story, although the description--unfortunately--applies to everyone who works for the AP, as stated above.

Harry Reid and "Moderates"

I saw Harry Reid on one of the CSpan channels last night (I don't know how I see these things, either, since I never watch CSpan).  In 30 seconds he managed to explain completely what is wrong with the Democratic Party these days (plus, to a large degree, what is wrong iwth the Republican Party and the way the country is trending).

Reid said that there is only one "moderate" Republican left in the U.S. Senate (he was referring to Olympia Snow).  Translation (for you intellect challenged people out there):  "There is only one Republican in the U.S. Senate who consistently agrees with me and my left wing Democratic colleagures.". 

In other words, for Harry Reid (This also applies to the maintream media.), the far left "philosophy" is now the "moderate" position in America.  That fully explains why "bipartisan", for leftist Democrats, means agreeing with them.

Yet, see my entries over the past few days.  Republicans are unable to stand up for conservative principles, even against these hyper-partisan people of the far left who have takien over the Democratic Party. 

That means that Republicans have lost their way--have lost their soul.  Thus, the country seems dooomed to be turned over to the "tender mercies" of the far let.  And they have no "mercy", because they think their far left positions are "moderate".  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have "approval ratings" of about 10%, and yet Republicans are unable to stand up agaisnt them these days with any consistnet approach of their own.

Too bad.  At a time when conservatives shoudl be winning by default, the Republican Party has abandoned conservatives--letting Harry Reid get away with calling the conserative Senators who caved to every Big Government addition to the Coummunist Wall Street bailout as being part of the "far right".

As I have said in this blog, conservatives are now exiled to the wilderness, like the Jews in ancient history, and it is unforeseeable when we will be able to return.

House Republicans, Wall Street Bailouts, the Republican Party and Me: "I Am NOT a Republican"

I am proven right, as usual.  Predictably (as I predicted, anyway), House Republicans have failed to change the "debate" on the Wall Street bailout (receiving no support from "leading" Republicans), and will only achieve "face saving" changes in the disgraceful Wall Street bailout bill.  Oh, some of the more obvious Democratic partisan provisions will be deleted, but the basic concept that this kind of massive Federal intervention is indicated whenever we have a "crisis" remains. 
Taxpayers will still be on the hook.  It is not a matter of whether the taxpayers will, or will not, ultimately receive "reimubuersement".  It is a matter of massive taxpayer funds being used to bail out Wall Street, and a matter of setting the precedent that we (this country's people as a whole) now believe in cntral planning instead of in a free market of diverse decision makers.  As my (somewhat leftist) younger duaghter says, the "Communist" "solution" has prevailed.
This has happened even though most of the country was on the conservative side in this, as exhibited by my younger daughter and her report of sentiment in leftist New York City.  Conservatives (or, rather, Republicans acting--unfortunately--as "representatives" of conservatives) have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory  You say that the defeat would be "worse" if the economy collapse?  I say you are wrong  It could not be worse, and the economy may collapse anyway--leading merely to demands for more Federal action and taxpayer bailouts.  Central planning always fails in the end,a and it will fail in the end this time as well.
Remember John Kennedy, I think it was, standing next to the Berlin Wall and saying (basically):  "I am a Berliner."  Well, I am proudly up against the wall of Republican cowardice, as a conservative, and I proudly say:  "I am not a Republican".  And I never will be again, unless there is a conservative revolution completely taking over the Republican Party as Reagan once led.

Sarah Palin and McCan's slide: "It's the Economy, Stupid"

The mainstream media has been out to destroy Sarah Palin from the moment she was named the VP nominee by John McCain.  In the process, the minstream media has driven the final nail in its own coffin, whether it realizes it or not.  Now both the mainstream media, and some supposed McCain supporters, are trying to suggest that McCain's recent slide in the polls proves that Palin is an embarrassment.  Is it possible for people to get any more stupid than these people? I don't think so.
Has anyone really paid any attention to Palin in the last week, other than the mainstream media with its agenda that will not quit (the agenda to destroy her)?  Nope.  This economic mess, and the disgraceful grab for Federal power disguised as a Wall Street bailout (bad enough as that is, in itself), has consumed everyone.  O one paid attention to the Couric interview, or anything else Palin said or did. Oh, you can say a little bloom is off her rose, but even that has little to do with what she said or did, and nothing to do with the Mccain slide.
As to the McCain "slide", that is a matter of polls, which the mainstream media is gloating over.  As I have told you in the past, whether I "like" the result of an individual poll or not (an area where I differ from Rush Limbaugh, and where I am correct--as usual), polls are meaningless (not to mention evil things).  You should not pay attention to them (exactly what is the mainstream media saying either you or candidates should do because of a poll, and does not the very question indicate why polls are evil things with which you should not cooperate).
Nevertheless, the mainstream media is obsessed with polls (the only way they know how to cover an election, other than advocacy for their own agenda).  Too many others are, as well.  Those people have tended to "blame" Palin for McCain's recent "slide"--including some supposed McCain/Palin supporters with an agenda of their own.  Hogwash.
When the economy turned even more sour than it was, with this "crisis", McCain was going to suffer--especially if he failed to react in a way that indicated he was on top of the situation.
Despite an ineffectual response by Obama to the economic crisis, including endorsing the Bush Wall Street bailout that the public hates (Obama now clearly running for Bush's third term), McCain failed to take advantage.
What did McCain do?  He flailed around, proving to everyone what everyone already knew (but which is fatal when the economy comes front and center): Proving that McCain has no consistent philosophy--not core principles and "values"--when it comes to economic matters.  McCain is strong on certain kinds of spending, but does not really oppose Big Government.  McCain will say he likes free markets, but consistently uses rhetoric that suggests government should control free markets.  McCain just has no consistent message, as distinguished from Obama's consistent. leftist message of more regulation and Federal Government control and intervention).  That all became more than obvious as McCain tried, and failed, to put out a message on the recent economic criis.
First, McCain tried to be against government bailouts.  He opposed a bailout of AIG, and then reversed himself as soon as Paulson and Bernanke said we could not afford it. His reaction to the bigger, socialistic bailout of all of Wall Street was tepid from the beginning (as was Obama's, but Obama was always going to come down on the partisan, leftist side in the end).  McCain was talking about the "corruption of Wall Street (hardly free market rhetoric), and yet supporting a bailout.  When House Republicans, albeit in more of a show than anything else--partially because of lack of support from people like McCain, tried to stand up for conservative principles, McCain bailed (as he always has with conservatives).
Then McCain failed to take his own advice, and mine (failing to take mine is always fatal).  In the most recent debate, McCain correctly criticized Obama's proposed "policy" of threats (Presidential and public) to Pakistan.  McCain correctly said that the problem with such threats is that you have no options when your bluff is called.  "Invading" Pakistan is hardly a good option.
What did McCain do when democrats became increasingly partisan on what was a Democratic Paulson bailout bill to start with?  He did not react by calling the Democrats on their partisanship.  He did not push back hard on the Dmeocratic attempt to "blame" what was mainly a Democratic/government created housing "bubble" on "deregulation" (a Democrat Big Lie).  McCain did nothing to counter the Democrats, even though Obama was doing and saying little himself.  McCain let Democrats totally control the "debate" (as did Republicans in the Senate and, of course, President Bush).  Republicans, including McCain, were on the right side of public opinion by merely upholding those conservative principles that McCain was advocating when he opposed (initially) the bailout of AIG.  The cowards blew it.  They, except for the House Republicans who really could not get their message out, ceded the battlefield to the Democrats.
Realizing what was happening, McCain decided on that grandstand play of "suspending" his campaign and returning to Washington   Problem:  McCain had no real "plan" of his own in mind, and little influence with House Republicans (other than the ability to make them invisible by failing to support them).  McCain evidently expected to arrive at Washington and claim credit for a deal--any deal, with no McCain economic philosophy behind whatever deal would finally result.  McCain also requested taht Obama "postpone" the debate, and even suggested holding the debate in place of the VP debate (a mistake so obvious that a 5th grader would not make it--Is McCain smarter than a 5th grader?--since it suggested no confidence in Palin, whose own confidence seems to be eroding some in the face of lack of confidence from McCain people).
I said in my entry at the time ("McCain:  Statesman or idiot") that McCain could only get away with this if he had the courage to follow through.   He had to come to Washington with something in mind, and he had to follow through on his cancellation of the debate.  Otherwise, he would be revealed as someone pulling a stunt, with no real concept of what needed to be done.  It was like Pakistan.  When Obama refused to cancel/postpone the debate, what was McCain to do.  He had to follow through on the "threat", or the threat would be revealed for the empty gesture it was.  McCain blinked.  Obama did not.  Worse, McCain let Obama dominate the "news" cycle over the next few days before the debate.  McCain failed to attack the obvious partisanship of the Democrats.  He failed to support the House Republicans.  He revealed himself as being basically and completely unable to control or influence what was happening.  McCain did not insist on being part of the negotiations, because he did not want to be aligned with the House Repubicans.  He went down to Mississippi with his tail between his legs.  That was exactly what I advised him, correctly, that he could not afford to do once he made such a big deal of how important in was for him to be in Washington rather than debating.  Now, as with the bailout bill itself, I hink the public would have been with McCain on the lack of importance of the debate.  These debates are not important, and McCain could have challenged Obama's failure to appear with McCain in that series of town hall meetings proposed by McCain.  But McCain caved, as I had said he could not afford to do, once he took his stand.
Meanwhile, Obama is still on the wrong side of the bailout, with the economic crisis rendering his whole economic "plan" of taxes and spending completely insane.  But now is McCain to take advantage of it, with no consistent position of his own.  McCain may manage to lose this election to an empty chair (the mere words of Obama, which the Amemrican people mostly no longer believe).
Nope.  Palin has nothing to do with this.  If you assume that she has not been as much of a positive factor this last week as she could have been, that--maybe--cost McCain one tenth of a single percentage point in support.  Nor is it a matter of having the "advice" of, say, Romney.  If McCain wanted Romney's advice, he could get it (whether Romney is VP nominee or not).  This is all McCain's baby (not Palin's), and he blew it.  McCain has been unable to develop a consistent position on the economy, even with the public ready to embrace the conservative idea that it is essential to allow free market failure for the "rich" as well as the poor.
This lack of a coherent, consistent position may be fatal to McCain, and he has only himself to blame (cetainly not Palin).  No sane person could have expected Sarah Palin to win the election for McCain on the economy.  Now I have confidence that Obama can still lose this election.  I have no confidence that McCain has what it takes to win the election.  He certainly has not shown it this last week, and that explains the "slide" in McCain's support. 

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Sarah Palin adn Dumb Conservatives

See previous entries today about how Joe Biden is doing considerably worse than Sarah Palin.  That is not opinion.  That is objective fact. 
Now it is true that the mainstream media has had its long knives out for Sarah Palin from the begining--magnifying every mistake she makes--often magnifying mere awkwardness which is not really a mistake at all.  Meanwhile, Democrats and their sycophants in the mainstream media have pretty much glossed over te much worse mistakes of the supposedly more "experienced" Joe Biden.  There is just no excuse for saying "When the stock market crashed, FDR got on television and reassured the American people."  No man who says that is qualified to even be a U.S. Senator.  See my entries today.
Yes, there have been all of those internet rumors that there was a secret plan in the works to replace Biden with Hillary Clinton.  That "plan" is plausible because Hillary Clinton was who Obama should have chosen, and would add so much to his ticket.
In contrast, McCain did not have any choices that were going to obviously add to his ticket. Democrats were prepared to run against Romney.  Even though I favored Romeny for President, I am not sure he would have been a better VP chocie than Palin--however anyone may be disappointed in her "performance".  Her "failures " in responding to Katie Couric, for example, were failures of evasion.  What regulations has McCain supported in the U.S. Senate?  Give me a break  No human being alive could have answered a question like that, and Palin's only failure is to not assertively and confidently say something like that, or evade so skillfully that it is not obvious she avoided the question.  Hardly important, either way, as to what kind of VP she would make.
Now those pervasive rumors about Biden did not make major headlines.  But a single, or a few, "conservatives, come out and say that Palin should step down,. and the mainstream media makes that major headlines (predictably).  Who knows.  The evil, lying, leftist sycophants in the mainstream media may discover that I have withdrawn my support of McCain, and make that a major headline.  Several Clinton backers have thrown their support to McCain without making major mainstream media headlines. 
Nope. This is not about reality.  This is about the "long knives" of the mainstream media, and some conservatives with some kind of agenda, even if the agenda is only to enhance their own "reputation" and income.  Let me assure you that their reputation with me is gone for good. 
Why do I say that?  I say that because it is STUPID (all caps necessary again) to believe that McCain can drop Palin.  If he drops Palin, he loses.  And anyone suggesting he drop Palin knows that they will get mainstream media coverage. Therefore, that can be the only purpose of them saying something stupid like "Palin should step aside, or be pushed". 
McCain has no good options, if Palin is forced out.  He loses.  That simple.  He loses.  So what purpose is there in suggesting that Palin should go, other than to aggrandize the person asserting that?  None. 
Nope.  As I say, I am pulling the gloves off in this blog.  I have no problem with anyone who has "constructive" suggestions for Palin, or with anyone who is doing analysis that suggests Palin is failing to help McCain after the initial bump.  But calls for her to go would be like me calling for the impeachment of President Bush (instead of noting he should just shut up).  It has no function, and just exposes the writer as being one dumb conservative.
If McCain had a Hillary Clinton in the wings, it might almost make sense.  As it is, it makes no sense at all, even as speculation.  Therefore, I repeat:  Someone calling for this has a personal agenda of some kind, and has no interest at all in actually getting McCain elected (as I don't, of course, which would mean that if I suggested Palin depart it would be to advance an agenda other than the election of McCain). 

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama Are UNPATRITOTIC. Do Republicans Have any Cojones?

I have told you that leftist Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the most dishonest, sanctiomonious hypocrites who ever lived--worse, by far, than even the fictional Elmer Gantry.
What has been one of the leftist Democrat mantras since 9/11?  Right.  How dare you call us "unpatriotic", when we love our country just as much as you do.  They have said this over and over again, even though--for the most part--no one was calling them "unpatriotic".  They have screamed about this, even at the mere implication that they might be "unpatritotic".  In other words, they have been the one using the word "unpatriotic" and "patriotism" in a cynical "attack is the best defense" attempt to deflect legitimate criticism of them. 
Now leftist Democrats are doing what most conservatives and Republicans never did:  accusing their political opponents of being unpatriotic in contexts where the word has never been used before.  For example, Joe Biden said that it was "patritotic" that the "rich" pay higher taxes--directly implying that it is "unpatriotic" to be against the rich paying highrer taxes (especially if you are rich, which I am not).
Now Nancy Peolosi has come out today and accused people who oppose this Big Government Wall Street bailout, and the Democratic partisan version of it, as "unpatriotic". 
First, the question now is whether Republicans have any cojones (look it up online if you are not familiar with the word, in common use here on the border--El Paso being where I live).  I have already said taht I will not call myself a Republican the ret of my life.  If Republicans let Democrats pass this Wall Street, Big Government, central planning bailout, after this kind of insult, I make this solemn pledge:  I will never vote for a Republican again the rest of my life. 
I am tired of it.  Where is the Republican outrage.  That traitor, Nancy Pelosi, just called me (naming, of course, House Republicans) unpatriotic.  Where is the boycott of "talks" on this terrible bill (which should not pass anyway, as a Big Government, central planning, "bailout" bill). 
I repeat the question:  Do Republicans have any cojones, or are they all (the politician kind) wimps unable to stand up to leftists.  We already know John McCain is that, in politics (however brave he may be in the real world).
I have had it.  I do not believe in turning the other cheek.  Therefore, I specifically state:
1.  Harry Reid, who gave aid and comfort to al-Qaida by declaring the war in Iraq "lost", is unpatriotic.
2.  Nancy Pelosi, who has done nothing but give aid and comfort to our enemies for 2 years, and before, is unpatriotic.
3.  Barack "World" Obama, who helped MoveOn.org. trash General Petraeus, and supported Reverend Wright for 20 years in his hatred of the United States, including blaming 9/11 on this country, is unpatriotic.
I will go further.  All three of the above have the blood of American soldiers on their hands.  Let me assure you I have much more justification for my charge than Nancy Pelosi has for hers.  See the hundreds of entries in the archives of this blog (not previously using the word, "unpatriotic", but that is about to change).
I have never used the word "unpatriotic" before, because the word has no ojective. meaning.  However, I have never been this angry (and I hold grudges).  The word will now appear regularly in this blog.  I will call a spade a spade (if you think I have been doing so already, you ain't seen nothing yet). 
I will call traitors "traitors" from now on, and unpatriotic leftists "unpatritic".
Further, I will--even more than I already have--call Republican cowards "cowards".  A coward dies a thousand deaths, but a brave man dies but once.  I expect Republicans to "figuratively" die many more than a thousand deaths in this blog, from now on.  For the most part, I think they are cowards, and I will now regularly say so.  Mitch McCaonnell, for example, Senate minority leader, is a political coward.
Stay tuned.  The gloves are off for this blog--as to both leftists and Republicans