You gotta love Drudge. This headline, "GM: Government Motors", is the present main headline on Drudge. See previous two entries in this blog.
Note that President Obama has again confirmed himself as a blatant liar. "We don't seek to run GM". Uh-huh. What else do you call it when you fire the CEO and demand the compnay adopt a "restructuring plan" satisfactory to YOU? Nope. President Obama is a liar of the pathological kind (sort of like Billl Clinton), where words mean only exactly what he intends them to mean--no more and no less, and can mean different things at any time. Read "Alice in Wonderland". That might be the most appropriate description of the Age of Obama: "Barack in Wonderland". Or is it the rest of us who have been condemned to live in Barack's "Wonderland"?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
President Obama Fires GM CEO (Short Version)
GM's Wagoner pushed outChief executive of eight years reportedly asked to leave by Obama."
The above is the present headline on MarketWatch.com (in case you doubted my suggeston in the previous entry that President Obama basically "fired" the CEO of GM. Drudge is presently carrying virtually the identical sotry. While I am sure you will hear varying versions of this tomorrow, the above headline should scare you to death (even though I do think GM management incompetent, which is why GM should have been allowed to fail--at least in terms of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy).
It is the sheer, central planning arrogance of President Obama which should give you nightmares. For the long version, see the previous entry. For the short version, merely contemplate seriously the above and feel the chills run up and down your body.
The above is the present headline on MarketWatch.com (in case you doubted my suggeston in the previous entry that President Obama basically "fired" the CEO of GM. Drudge is presently carrying virtually the identical sotry. While I am sure you will hear varying versions of this tomorrow, the above headline should scare you to death (even though I do think GM management incompetent, which is why GM should have been allowed to fail--at least in terms of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy).
It is the sheer, central planning arrogance of President Obama which should give you nightmares. For the long version, see the previous entry. For the short version, merely contemplate seriously the above and feel the chills run up and down your body.
President Obama Fires GM CEO and Takes Over Management of GM (lol)--Arrogant Central Planning Personified. (Guests: Stupidest People on Earth)
The news tonight is that President Obama has fired the present CEO of General Motors (GM). You say that you did not know Obama had the authority to fire the CEO of a private company? Shows how much you know!!!!
This is arrogance on a major scale. Timothy Geitner, Obama, and the entire Federal Government (including Congress) are asserting the "right" (because of "taxpayer's money", as if that gave them the competence/ability to do it) to run all of these businesses down to the samllest detail (who is CEO, bonuses, salaries, "retreats", and product liine). Yes, this clearly applies to GM, AIG, the banks receiving bailouts, and many other entities (with Geitner seeking authority over many more--basically every big business in America). What you may not realize is that the Obama Administrations is seeking complete control over every aspect of your economic life, in a million different ways--killing off industries they don't liike and advancing industries (and products) they do like (as well as always advancing the interests of themselves and Big Government, which they perceive as the same thing).
You should ask yourselves: Have any of these people previously shown the ability to compete in a private economy by building, or even running, a successful private company producing either products or services which are used to enhance productivity (thus excluding lawyers, accountants--to a degree--and others not really contributing to productive goods and services). A trucking company--like that of my brother's which failed--provides a service. But it is a service what is part of the free market economy, where it is necessary to compete in the free market to survive. Lawyers, like myself, provide a service--a necessary one--but it is the kind of service that does not necessarily help business productivity or involve the kind of production and marketing of products and services involved in a manufacturing company, a software company, a trucking business, or even a bank. Now I think conservatives tend to underestimate the function of lawyers in a free market, but the point here is that merely training as a lawyer does not qualify you to run a non-law business (and often not a law business, where non-lawyer managers may make many of the business decisions). Even at that, President Obama has never managed even a law firm. Ditto, I think, for Timothy Geitner (who was one of the people getting us into this economic mess in the first place, as head of the New York Fed heavily involved with Henry Paulson and the initial Bush Administration panic).
The arrogance of these people should scare you to death. Central planning has never worked, in the history of the world, and cannot theoretically work (in the absence of God being in charge--unfortunately a comment that will only encourage Obama). Even if central planning the economy made any sense, and it does not, why would you ever believe that these particular people had the ability to take on the task--to the point of determining what kind of vehicles the auto companies should be producing and further determining every detail of the operations of our economy and the companies in it?
This is insane. I am getting more and more afraid that we are doomed. And this entry has not even yet mentioned the out of control spending (inefficient spending being one of the inevitable results of central planning and Big Government).
Yes, this is economic fascism, defined as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". Yes, as Hillary Clinton said in Mexico, the Obama Administration (Age of Obama) is looking for a "partnership" between Big Government and Big Business to run this country. However, this "push out" of the GM CEO shows again, as the AIG debacle has shown, that the dominant "partner" in such a fascist arrangement is always the government--or at least the people in power who control the government and end up controlling Big Business.
Now this blog has shown, in many blog entries since October, that Wall Street, and our financial system (especially the big financial companies), have become the Stupidest People on Earth--including Wall Street traders. Thus, I was reluctant to include banks and financial institutions in the "capitalist" corporations competing to provide productive goods and services in a free market. Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs, and he is the worst failure in the history of world finance. That is not a coincidence, as it is not a coincidence that Timothy Gieitner comes out of the same environment (but without even the experience of being a business CEO). These big financial institutions have long ago lost all moorings in a free market economy. You can even sympathize with Ron Paul's fixation--to the pint of almost a conspiracy theory--with the Federal Reserve as the source of all of our problems. These people, including the Fed, have become so addicted to computer games, and ridiculous central planning theories, that they no longer have any respect at all for the free market. That is both arrogant, and extremely dangerous.
Let us digress, although not really. Do you think GM can survive? Of course it can't. What makes you think President Obama, or someone chosen by Obama, Geitner, or whomever--under their supervision--can really run GM in such a way as to "save" it? If so, you are as nuts as these people about to lead us lemmings right over a cliff and into the sea. I say this as one who believes--correctly-that GM management may be the worst single management in the history of free markets. Doesn't matter. President Obama, or his designeee (under government supervision) is NOT going to be an improvement.
The stock market rose last week to ABOVE the levels (as far as the broader averages are concerned) to which the stock market sank last October (okay, not very far above). Ask yourrself another question, while still shuddering over asking yourself whether President Obama is "qualified" to run GM or any other company: Are the PROSPECTS (not the present level) of the economy BETTER now than they were in October? Who says? And to the extent anybody is saying so, is it not mere words not supported by concrete facts?
The point here is that the MAGNITUDE of the stock market rise over the past two weeks has been IRRATIONAL. There is no excuse for a 15% rise in the stock market at this time, THIS FAST. These are the Stupidest People on Earth.
There are too many disasters waiting out there. GM is going under (I virtually guarantee it, although the government may simply refuse to let it go under, at our expense). The government is doing its best to make sure AIG ultimately goes under (who, in his right mind, wants to work there, if he or she has any reasonable alternative). History give us no reason to believe that we can SPEND our way out of severe economic difficulties. Even in the Great Depression, government spending did not work. Now World War II worked, but that is a different matter.
The stock market should not be making these irrationally large up moves. Oh, you can argue it was low enough, and should be pretty much bumping along the bottom (instead of making big, irrational DOWN moves, absent more evidence). As I have said repeatedlyh, I do not say what DIRECTION the stock market should move. I simply say--correctly--that the MAGNITUDE of these moves--especially to the UPSIDE--is irrational. It conclusively proves that the people on Wall Street are the Stupidest People on Earth.
You want to know how STUPID the people on Wall Street are, including stock market traders? It is possible that the stock market will go up based on the "firing" of the GM CEO. That is because it will be hyped as a "positive" step showing Obama's determination to "save" GM. It will be further hyped as providing "change" in the abysmal leadership at GM. The reality, of course, is as stated above. GM has no chance, at least in part because of the regulation of the Federal Government--regulation that is getting wrose instead of better, as the automakers are instructed to make vehicles Americans do not want (and which they can't cost effectively make).
A final question to ask yourself: If GM management was so bad, as it was, then why are the taxpayers bailing the company out, even to the point of the President of the United States taking over the management of the company? There is no excuse for it. GM continues to LOSE several thousand dollars per car sold, and increasing the number of vehicles sold will not necessarily help. The bigger vehicles are actually the more profitable vehicles, and these are the very vehicles that the government is discouraging. Tax "credits" for people to buy GM "green" vehicles merely, of course, represent another kind of subsidy for the auto companies--albeit also a market distorting subsidy for car buyers.
Nope. To force the survival of GM, at any cost, and no matter how much it distorts the free makrket, is a terrible mistake. That mistake alone is bad enough to cause a rational stock market to go down, as it should because of the naked exposure that incompetents are now running economy, and every business in it (to the extent they can).
I cannot tell you how bad this situation is. If your reaction to Obama forcing out the CEO of GM is "good", then I am sorry for you. The management of GM should have gone down, in bankruptcy, as should the management of AIG. It is absurd to suggest that President Obama and his minions can do better, whoever, in doing something (running private businesses) that they have never done before.
This is so absurd as to suggest that President Obama knows exactly what he is doing: conducting a government takeover of our entire economy because he wants the government to run everything, with him and/or leftist Democrats in charge. You can't get any more arrogant and stupid than that, but I am afraid that is where we stand in the Age of Obama.
P.S.: If you think I adequately proofread the above, you are probably insane enough to believe that it is a positive development that Pressident Obama has openly taken over management of GM (despite there being no obvious qualifications of he or his minions to do so), or insane enough to believe that Obama and the Federal Government have not taken over management of GM. I did take a stab at "spell check". I would bet I missed several highlighted spelling errors/typos. As I have said before, pay me and I will do better. I do think the above contains some important stuff, even though it may be somewhat buried in verbosity and redundancy.
P.S. 2: I am perfectly aware that the "law" is supposed to be a "profession" rather than strictly a business. At least that is what I was taught when I went to law school. That idea has been exposed as something of a fiction used mainly for the benefit of lawyers, and against consumers of legal services. Nevertheless, I don't think training as a lawyer teaches you to be a manager in a business like GM, or even a manager of a McDonald's. Some lawyers have become excellent businessmen, but it is not because of their training as lawyers. Nor does practice as a lawyer substitute for management of a business that is not a "profession", although some lawyers are able to move from one slphere to the other. I am willing to state bluntly: Neither President Obama nor Timothy Geitner is qualified to manage a McDonald's--much less General Motors. What I think of the qualifications of most of Congress in that regard, or other Federal Bureaucrats--or Fed bureaucrats--cannot be printed.
This is arrogance on a major scale. Timothy Geitner, Obama, and the entire Federal Government (including Congress) are asserting the "right" (because of "taxpayer's money", as if that gave them the competence/ability to do it) to run all of these businesses down to the samllest detail (who is CEO, bonuses, salaries, "retreats", and product liine). Yes, this clearly applies to GM, AIG, the banks receiving bailouts, and many other entities (with Geitner seeking authority over many more--basically every big business in America). What you may not realize is that the Obama Administrations is seeking complete control over every aspect of your economic life, in a million different ways--killing off industries they don't liike and advancing industries (and products) they do like (as well as always advancing the interests of themselves and Big Government, which they perceive as the same thing).
You should ask yourselves: Have any of these people previously shown the ability to compete in a private economy by building, or even running, a successful private company producing either products or services which are used to enhance productivity (thus excluding lawyers, accountants--to a degree--and others not really contributing to productive goods and services). A trucking company--like that of my brother's which failed--provides a service. But it is a service what is part of the free market economy, where it is necessary to compete in the free market to survive. Lawyers, like myself, provide a service--a necessary one--but it is the kind of service that does not necessarily help business productivity or involve the kind of production and marketing of products and services involved in a manufacturing company, a software company, a trucking business, or even a bank. Now I think conservatives tend to underestimate the function of lawyers in a free market, but the point here is that merely training as a lawyer does not qualify you to run a non-law business (and often not a law business, where non-lawyer managers may make many of the business decisions). Even at that, President Obama has never managed even a law firm. Ditto, I think, for Timothy Geitner (who was one of the people getting us into this economic mess in the first place, as head of the New York Fed heavily involved with Henry Paulson and the initial Bush Administration panic).
The arrogance of these people should scare you to death. Central planning has never worked, in the history of the world, and cannot theoretically work (in the absence of God being in charge--unfortunately a comment that will only encourage Obama). Even if central planning the economy made any sense, and it does not, why would you ever believe that these particular people had the ability to take on the task--to the point of determining what kind of vehicles the auto companies should be producing and further determining every detail of the operations of our economy and the companies in it?
This is insane. I am getting more and more afraid that we are doomed. And this entry has not even yet mentioned the out of control spending (inefficient spending being one of the inevitable results of central planning and Big Government).
Yes, this is economic fascism, defined as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". Yes, as Hillary Clinton said in Mexico, the Obama Administration (Age of Obama) is looking for a "partnership" between Big Government and Big Business to run this country. However, this "push out" of the GM CEO shows again, as the AIG debacle has shown, that the dominant "partner" in such a fascist arrangement is always the government--or at least the people in power who control the government and end up controlling Big Business.
Now this blog has shown, in many blog entries since October, that Wall Street, and our financial system (especially the big financial companies), have become the Stupidest People on Earth--including Wall Street traders. Thus, I was reluctant to include banks and financial institutions in the "capitalist" corporations competing to provide productive goods and services in a free market. Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs, and he is the worst failure in the history of world finance. That is not a coincidence, as it is not a coincidence that Timothy Gieitner comes out of the same environment (but without even the experience of being a business CEO). These big financial institutions have long ago lost all moorings in a free market economy. You can even sympathize with Ron Paul's fixation--to the pint of almost a conspiracy theory--with the Federal Reserve as the source of all of our problems. These people, including the Fed, have become so addicted to computer games, and ridiculous central planning theories, that they no longer have any respect at all for the free market. That is both arrogant, and extremely dangerous.
Let us digress, although not really. Do you think GM can survive? Of course it can't. What makes you think President Obama, or someone chosen by Obama, Geitner, or whomever--under their supervision--can really run GM in such a way as to "save" it? If so, you are as nuts as these people about to lead us lemmings right over a cliff and into the sea. I say this as one who believes--correctly-that GM management may be the worst single management in the history of free markets. Doesn't matter. President Obama, or his designeee (under government supervision) is NOT going to be an improvement.
The stock market rose last week to ABOVE the levels (as far as the broader averages are concerned) to which the stock market sank last October (okay, not very far above). Ask yourrself another question, while still shuddering over asking yourself whether President Obama is "qualified" to run GM or any other company: Are the PROSPECTS (not the present level) of the economy BETTER now than they were in October? Who says? And to the extent anybody is saying so, is it not mere words not supported by concrete facts?
The point here is that the MAGNITUDE of the stock market rise over the past two weeks has been IRRATIONAL. There is no excuse for a 15% rise in the stock market at this time, THIS FAST. These are the Stupidest People on Earth.
There are too many disasters waiting out there. GM is going under (I virtually guarantee it, although the government may simply refuse to let it go under, at our expense). The government is doing its best to make sure AIG ultimately goes under (who, in his right mind, wants to work there, if he or she has any reasonable alternative). History give us no reason to believe that we can SPEND our way out of severe economic difficulties. Even in the Great Depression, government spending did not work. Now World War II worked, but that is a different matter.
The stock market should not be making these irrationally large up moves. Oh, you can argue it was low enough, and should be pretty much bumping along the bottom (instead of making big, irrational DOWN moves, absent more evidence). As I have said repeatedlyh, I do not say what DIRECTION the stock market should move. I simply say--correctly--that the MAGNITUDE of these moves--especially to the UPSIDE--is irrational. It conclusively proves that the people on Wall Street are the Stupidest People on Earth.
You want to know how STUPID the people on Wall Street are, including stock market traders? It is possible that the stock market will go up based on the "firing" of the GM CEO. That is because it will be hyped as a "positive" step showing Obama's determination to "save" GM. It will be further hyped as providing "change" in the abysmal leadership at GM. The reality, of course, is as stated above. GM has no chance, at least in part because of the regulation of the Federal Government--regulation that is getting wrose instead of better, as the automakers are instructed to make vehicles Americans do not want (and which they can't cost effectively make).
A final question to ask yourself: If GM management was so bad, as it was, then why are the taxpayers bailing the company out, even to the point of the President of the United States taking over the management of the company? There is no excuse for it. GM continues to LOSE several thousand dollars per car sold, and increasing the number of vehicles sold will not necessarily help. The bigger vehicles are actually the more profitable vehicles, and these are the very vehicles that the government is discouraging. Tax "credits" for people to buy GM "green" vehicles merely, of course, represent another kind of subsidy for the auto companies--albeit also a market distorting subsidy for car buyers.
Nope. To force the survival of GM, at any cost, and no matter how much it distorts the free makrket, is a terrible mistake. That mistake alone is bad enough to cause a rational stock market to go down, as it should because of the naked exposure that incompetents are now running economy, and every business in it (to the extent they can).
I cannot tell you how bad this situation is. If your reaction to Obama forcing out the CEO of GM is "good", then I am sorry for you. The management of GM should have gone down, in bankruptcy, as should the management of AIG. It is absurd to suggest that President Obama and his minions can do better, whoever, in doing something (running private businesses) that they have never done before.
This is so absurd as to suggest that President Obama knows exactly what he is doing: conducting a government takeover of our entire economy because he wants the government to run everything, with him and/or leftist Democrats in charge. You can't get any more arrogant and stupid than that, but I am afraid that is where we stand in the Age of Obama.
P.S.: If you think I adequately proofread the above, you are probably insane enough to believe that it is a positive development that Pressident Obama has openly taken over management of GM (despite there being no obvious qualifications of he or his minions to do so), or insane enough to believe that Obama and the Federal Government have not taken over management of GM. I did take a stab at "spell check". I would bet I missed several highlighted spelling errors/typos. As I have said before, pay me and I will do better. I do think the above contains some important stuff, even though it may be somewhat buried in verbosity and redundancy.
P.S. 2: I am perfectly aware that the "law" is supposed to be a "profession" rather than strictly a business. At least that is what I was taught when I went to law school. That idea has been exposed as something of a fiction used mainly for the benefit of lawyers, and against consumers of legal services. Nevertheless, I don't think training as a lawyer teaches you to be a manager in a business like GM, or even a manager of a McDonald's. Some lawyers have become excellent businessmen, but it is not because of their training as lawyers. Nor does practice as a lawyer substitute for management of a business that is not a "profession", although some lawyers are able to move from one slphere to the other. I am willing to state bluntly: Neither President Obama nor Timothy Geitner is qualified to manage a McDonald's--much less General Motors. What I think of the qualifications of most of Congress in that regard, or other Federal Bureaucrats--or Fed bureaucrats--cannot be printed.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Joe Biden's Daughter and Cocaine: Will Leftists and the Mainstream Media Prove Themselves To Be Evil Hypocrites Once More?
A present story linked, and headlined, on Drudge (from he New York Post) says that a "friend" of Joe Biden's daughter is "shopping" a video showing Biden's daughter using cocaine thie past month at a house party in Delavware.
Now I don't care if Joe Biden's daughter is using cocaine. I don't think it has anything to do with Biden's position as Vice President, or with Biden's qualificatioins/performance (Biden needing no "help" to show that he would be an absolute disaster as President). I think we have to get over this idea that the actions of every family member of public officials are "news" ABOUT THAT PUBLIC OFFICIAL. In other words, we have to get over the idea that attacking family members is a legitimate way to attack an elected politician, or that the actions of family members reflect upon that politician. This assumes, of course, that Joe Biden (or Democratic politicians/prosecutors/authorities at any level do not give favoritism to Biden's daughter in terms of investigating/prosecuting any criminal misconduct on her part. That possible favoritism is the only legitimate story--as if the mainstream media will really follow up that kind of story with regard to a Democrat (see below).
Nope. the actions of Biden's daughter do not reflect on Biden (no matter what talk radio hosts may say). However, this is another opportunity for leftists and the mainstream media (redundancy there) to show HYPOCRISY. They are, after all, the worst, most santimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth. And i can prove it.
Remember Bristol Palin? Remember the lying, hypocritical scumbags at CNN (Wolf Bliltzer and the rest--CNN being officially the Liar Network, as well as industrial strength hypocrites) who did their best to say that Bristol Palin's pregnancy reflected upon Sarah Palin, and made HER (lol) a hypocrite. Talk about calling the kettle black!!! And I am only using CNN as an example because I itemized, in this blog, the multiple crimes of CNN in this regard J(including Campbell Brown whose father is a convicted FELON--see Wikipedia). The entire mainstream media was willing to make an "issue" out of this family matter of Sarah Palin (where, of course, Bristol Palin had not even done anything illegal). Further, CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, FORCED this informatioin public because they were willing to investigate EVIL (groundless) rumors from leftist blogs that Sarah Palin's "special" baby was really Britol's--with some sort of giant cover up happening.
Therefore, what can you expect from the mainstream media on this one? If it were Sarah Palin, or Mitt Romney, you could expect some of the most sanctimonious horror and outrage ever put on television. Since it is Joe biden, you can expect an attack on the FRIEND (who is, admittedly, a sleazeballl, but so are the people who routinely "out" Republicans, including the truly despicable Lrrry Flynt, and the people spreading rumors about Sarah Palin).
Do yhou doubt me on this? Don't. Just watch and listen. And remember what happened when Sarah Palin's emails were hacked (illegal). That did not stop the mainstream media, INCLUDING FOX NEWS (part of the mainstream media problem, and not part of the solutioni) from concentrating much more on the question of whether Sarah Palin's hacked (and published) emails reflected badly on her (in desperation, even manufacturing a totally bogus "issue" about the Alaskan public information laws). For the mainstream media, and leftists, the illegal hacking of the emails was not important, if they could be used against Sarah Palin. Expect the exact opposite reaction here, where the leftist/mainstream media concentration will be on the "friend", while Joe Biden and his daughter get a complete pass. Expect the mainstream media to portray Joe Biden as the VICTIM here, along with his (criminal?) daughter (helping ruin Mexico by creating an illegal drug demand?).
Yes, I fully expect leftists and the mainstream media to again prove themselves the worst, most sanctimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs (this covers Neanderthal Man).
I am not such a hypocrite. As stated, I do not think the actions of Joe Biden's daughter, provided she does not get special treatment, reflect on Joe Biden. Nor do I think they are major "newsa'. But the sheer magnitude of leftist/mainstream media hypocrisy gripes me no end. Therefore, I understands those conservatives who do not believe in turning the other cheek. Neither do I. However, I believe (unlike leftists) that you should not betray prinicples you believe in for political advantage--the political benefit not outweighing the cost. Thus, I am unwilling to attack Joe Biden over this, but I am perfectly willing to attack leftists and the mainstream's media over there truly monumental hypocrisy--giving them no pass because everyone expects it. (See my entry entitled "Andrea Mitchell Is a Whore" for they way I call the mainstream media on their massive hypocrisies.)
You want more examples of the truly outrageous hypocrisy of leftists, beyond the evil liars at Politico.com trying to manufacture a bogus issue out of Sarah Palin's innocuous emails? Well, you only have to go to the archives of this blog, and of the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference).
Yep. I am talking about conservative Justice Scalia's adult (fortysometing) daughter, who was arrested for a DUI. What was her "crime", that made her national "news"? Only being Justice Scalia's daughter. It was one of those truly despicable stories that make the most of the people at the despicable AP deserving of capital punishment, and for which there is no defense. Yes, the mainstream media in general tried to play up this absolutely irrelevant (to any national "issue") story. I state bluntly: JOe Biden's daughter is MORE relevant, and her "crime" more serious, than Justice Scalia's unfortunate daughter living a quiet life in Minnesota (or some such place). But leftists and the mainstream media are despicable HYPOCRITES. Therefore, you can expect mentions of Joe Biden's daughter to be MUCH more sympathetic than mentions of Justice Scalia's daughter. Again, I fully expect the stories to concentrate on the evil of the "friend". In similar circumstances, however, the source of information on conservatives and/or Republicans is totally ignored, in favor of the HYPOCRISY of personal attacks on the conservative and/or Republican targeted--the "politics of personal destruction" that leftists and the mainstream media (again, that redundancy) believe in so strongly, so long as the target is a conservative and/or Republican.
Do you leftists realize what evil hypocrites you are? Do you people at CNN realize it? Do you people at MSNBC? Andrea Mitchell? You people at the despicable AP? All of the rest of you?
Well, you are evil hypocrites--the worst that have ever walked this Earth. This blog has proven it time and time again. Elmer Gantry (fictional though he was) was a saint in comparison.
Now I don't care if Joe Biden's daughter is using cocaine. I don't think it has anything to do with Biden's position as Vice President, or with Biden's qualificatioins/performance (Biden needing no "help" to show that he would be an absolute disaster as President). I think we have to get over this idea that the actions of every family member of public officials are "news" ABOUT THAT PUBLIC OFFICIAL. In other words, we have to get over the idea that attacking family members is a legitimate way to attack an elected politician, or that the actions of family members reflect upon that politician. This assumes, of course, that Joe Biden (or Democratic politicians/prosecutors/authorities at any level do not give favoritism to Biden's daughter in terms of investigating/prosecuting any criminal misconduct on her part. That possible favoritism is the only legitimate story--as if the mainstream media will really follow up that kind of story with regard to a Democrat (see below).
Nope. the actions of Biden's daughter do not reflect on Biden (no matter what talk radio hosts may say). However, this is another opportunity for leftists and the mainstream media (redundancy there) to show HYPOCRISY. They are, after all, the worst, most santimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth. And i can prove it.
Remember Bristol Palin? Remember the lying, hypocritical scumbags at CNN (Wolf Bliltzer and the rest--CNN being officially the Liar Network, as well as industrial strength hypocrites) who did their best to say that Bristol Palin's pregnancy reflected upon Sarah Palin, and made HER (lol) a hypocrite. Talk about calling the kettle black!!! And I am only using CNN as an example because I itemized, in this blog, the multiple crimes of CNN in this regard J(including Campbell Brown whose father is a convicted FELON--see Wikipedia). The entire mainstream media was willing to make an "issue" out of this family matter of Sarah Palin (where, of course, Bristol Palin had not even done anything illegal). Further, CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, FORCED this informatioin public because they were willing to investigate EVIL (groundless) rumors from leftist blogs that Sarah Palin's "special" baby was really Britol's--with some sort of giant cover up happening.
Therefore, what can you expect from the mainstream media on this one? If it were Sarah Palin, or Mitt Romney, you could expect some of the most sanctimonious horror and outrage ever put on television. Since it is Joe biden, you can expect an attack on the FRIEND (who is, admittedly, a sleazeballl, but so are the people who routinely "out" Republicans, including the truly despicable Lrrry Flynt, and the people spreading rumors about Sarah Palin).
Do yhou doubt me on this? Don't. Just watch and listen. And remember what happened when Sarah Palin's emails were hacked (illegal). That did not stop the mainstream media, INCLUDING FOX NEWS (part of the mainstream media problem, and not part of the solutioni) from concentrating much more on the question of whether Sarah Palin's hacked (and published) emails reflected badly on her (in desperation, even manufacturing a totally bogus "issue" about the Alaskan public information laws). For the mainstream media, and leftists, the illegal hacking of the emails was not important, if they could be used against Sarah Palin. Expect the exact opposite reaction here, where the leftist/mainstream media concentration will be on the "friend", while Joe Biden and his daughter get a complete pass. Expect the mainstream media to portray Joe Biden as the VICTIM here, along with his (criminal?) daughter (helping ruin Mexico by creating an illegal drug demand?).
Yes, I fully expect leftists and the mainstream media to again prove themselves the worst, most sanctimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs (this covers Neanderthal Man).
I am not such a hypocrite. As stated, I do not think the actions of Joe Biden's daughter, provided she does not get special treatment, reflect on Joe Biden. Nor do I think they are major "newsa'. But the sheer magnitude of leftist/mainstream media hypocrisy gripes me no end. Therefore, I understands those conservatives who do not believe in turning the other cheek. Neither do I. However, I believe (unlike leftists) that you should not betray prinicples you believe in for political advantage--the political benefit not outweighing the cost. Thus, I am unwilling to attack Joe Biden over this, but I am perfectly willing to attack leftists and the mainstream's media over there truly monumental hypocrisy--giving them no pass because everyone expects it. (See my entry entitled "Andrea Mitchell Is a Whore" for they way I call the mainstream media on their massive hypocrisies.)
You want more examples of the truly outrageous hypocrisy of leftists, beyond the evil liars at Politico.com trying to manufacture a bogus issue out of Sarah Palin's innocuous emails? Well, you only have to go to the archives of this blog, and of the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference).
Yep. I am talking about conservative Justice Scalia's adult (fortysometing) daughter, who was arrested for a DUI. What was her "crime", that made her national "news"? Only being Justice Scalia's daughter. It was one of those truly despicable stories that make the most of the people at the despicable AP deserving of capital punishment, and for which there is no defense. Yes, the mainstream media in general tried to play up this absolutely irrelevant (to any national "issue") story. I state bluntly: JOe Biden's daughter is MORE relevant, and her "crime" more serious, than Justice Scalia's unfortunate daughter living a quiet life in Minnesota (or some such place). But leftists and the mainstream media are despicable HYPOCRITES. Therefore, you can expect mentions of Joe Biden's daughter to be MUCH more sympathetic than mentions of Justice Scalia's daughter. Again, I fully expect the stories to concentrate on the evil of the "friend". In similar circumstances, however, the source of information on conservatives and/or Republicans is totally ignored, in favor of the HYPOCRISY of personal attacks on the conservative and/or Republican targeted--the "politics of personal destruction" that leftists and the mainstream media (again, that redundancy) believe in so strongly, so long as the target is a conservative and/or Republican.
Do you leftists realize what evil hypocrites you are? Do you people at CNN realize it? Do you people at MSNBC? Andrea Mitchell? You people at the despicable AP? All of the rest of you?
Well, you are evil hypocrites--the worst that have ever walked this Earth. This blog has proven it time and time again. Elmer Gantry (fictional though he was) was a saint in comparison.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hillary Clinton and Mexico: A "Model" for this Country?
Hillary Clinton went to Mexico, and seemingly said Mexico was a superior country to the United States. For the past two years, and more, this blog has shown you that Mexico is a FAILURE as a country. The blog entries have been generally under the headline: "Mexico, A Failed Country".
That did not stop Clinton from saying, in Mexico, that it was our fault that Mexico is now falling apart. That was just the beginning.
Yesterday, in Monterey (I believe), Hillary Clinton said that Mexico is a "model" for us in terms of the "partnership" in Mexico between the "public and private sectors". Mexico, of course, has always been a leftist/socialist country dominated by the government and run by a small oligrachy (not really changed that much by the loss of dominance of the PRI party, which used to run Mexico as a one party state). Further, corruption has always been a way of life in Mexico.
In short, there is a reason that most people in Mexico, including those fairly well off, want to live in the United States. It is no accident that the mayor of Juarez has a house in El Paso, Texas (where I live and am typig this). You will remember that the drug cartels, less than a month ago, caused the mayor to flee Juarez, and to have his family flee Juarez, after he was threatened by the drug cartels. They even threatened to behead him no matter where he fled, even if he fled to his house in El Paso,. This caused the news media here to ask the police (in El Paso) what they would do. They responded that they thought they could handle the drug cartels, and would protect any and all persons residing in El Paso--including the mayor of Juarez and his family, if that is where they moved. As it turned out, the mayor's family apparently--never can be sure about these things--did not flee to El Paso, but to the interior of Mexico.
Yes, Hillary Clinton, there probably is a "partnership" in Mexico between the "public and private sector"--between the corrupt officals and police and the drug cartels. Even ordinary private enterpire is, indeed, dominated by the "elite" that runs Mexico for the benefit of that elite. You can see why Hillary Clinton praises that system, since it is exactly what she and President Obama want for this country (a system which has left most of Mexico in abject poverty).
Hillary Clinton was not through. She went on to praise Mexico for its "green" efforts (part of that "partnership"), and suggesting that such efforts are a "model" for us. Again, this is probably true. Obama and Clinton DO want this country to be like Mexico, run by a leftist "elite" for the benefit of that elite--with everyone else poor. There is actually a relief effort here in El Paso to help homeless children living off of trash dumps IN MEXICO. Then there is the pollution drifting over from Juarez in winter, from the OPEN FIRES and other inefficient heating.
It is one of the most revealing things I have ever heard to hear these clips of Hillary Clinton holding up Mexico as a "model" for US. That FAILED country is indeed the model for what Obama and Clinton indeed to do to this country.
That did not stop Clinton from saying, in Mexico, that it was our fault that Mexico is now falling apart. That was just the beginning.
Yesterday, in Monterey (I believe), Hillary Clinton said that Mexico is a "model" for us in terms of the "partnership" in Mexico between the "public and private sectors". Mexico, of course, has always been a leftist/socialist country dominated by the government and run by a small oligrachy (not really changed that much by the loss of dominance of the PRI party, which used to run Mexico as a one party state). Further, corruption has always been a way of life in Mexico.
In short, there is a reason that most people in Mexico, including those fairly well off, want to live in the United States. It is no accident that the mayor of Juarez has a house in El Paso, Texas (where I live and am typig this). You will remember that the drug cartels, less than a month ago, caused the mayor to flee Juarez, and to have his family flee Juarez, after he was threatened by the drug cartels. They even threatened to behead him no matter where he fled, even if he fled to his house in El Paso,. This caused the news media here to ask the police (in El Paso) what they would do. They responded that they thought they could handle the drug cartels, and would protect any and all persons residing in El Paso--including the mayor of Juarez and his family, if that is where they moved. As it turned out, the mayor's family apparently--never can be sure about these things--did not flee to El Paso, but to the interior of Mexico.
Yes, Hillary Clinton, there probably is a "partnership" in Mexico between the "public and private sector"--between the corrupt officals and police and the drug cartels. Even ordinary private enterpire is, indeed, dominated by the "elite" that runs Mexico for the benefit of that elite. You can see why Hillary Clinton praises that system, since it is exactly what she and President Obama want for this country (a system which has left most of Mexico in abject poverty).
Hillary Clinton was not through. She went on to praise Mexico for its "green" efforts (part of that "partnership"), and suggesting that such efforts are a "model" for us. Again, this is probably true. Obama and Clinton DO want this country to be like Mexico, run by a leftist "elite" for the benefit of that elite--with everyone else poor. There is actually a relief effort here in El Paso to help homeless children living off of trash dumps IN MEXICO. Then there is the pollution drifting over from Juarez in winter, from the OPEN FIRES and other inefficient heating.
It is one of the most revealing things I have ever heard to hear these clips of Hillary Clinton holding up Mexico as a "model" for US. That FAILED country is indeed the model for what Obama and Clinton indeed to do to this country.
UN and "Global warming: Imposing a Leftist Agenda on the World
"A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body."
The above is from a present report on FoxNews.com, linked on Drudge.
Note how this again exposes the real "global warming" agenda (as this blog has correctly informed you). This again exposes the whole "global warming" "movement" as merely a tool to accomplish the leftist agenda for the world--to impose Marxism/Communism/fascism (economic kind)/socialism on the world in the tuise of "environmental policy" to solve an environmental "crisis". President Obama and the Democrats are USING "global warming" for the same purpose here in this country. And we deserve it, because we have voted for them to lead us down this path to economic dstructoni.
Nope. . Most of these people do not care much about the environment, except as a leftist "cause". They don't care whether "global warming" is "real" or not. They merely want an excuse to impose their leftist agenda, and they have gotten away (to a large degree) with using "global warming" as that excuse.
Oh, there are a few environmental fanatics out there who really believe this stuff, and even more DUPES who have bought the propaganda. You know these fanatics. They are the people who WANT a billion human beings to DIE to "save" the planet. They are nuts. So are the leftists attempting to USE "global warming" to impose their agenda, but in a more subtle way. The leftist agenda is nuts, because it will impose permanent poverty on the WORLD--killing millioins of people, or even that billion desired by the true environmental nuts, in the process (by starvation, poverty, etc.).
Yep. This blog has established, in multiple previous entries, that environmentalists--and leftists in general--have massive amounts of BLOOD on their hands, and thirst for more. They are worse than any vampires dreamed up by Bram Stoker, et. al.
This is terrible stuff, and it is the kind of stuff President Obama is trying to impose on this country (with "cap and trade" and forcing all of this "green" agenda down our throats, no matter what the cost).
P.S. If you think this is "biased" because it comes from Fox News, don't. Fox News has been part of the PROBLEM, and not part of the "solutiion". In general, Fox News has bught into the "global warming" fraud, including that pompous hypocrite, Bill O'Reilly. The best you can say about Fox News is that they will sometimes see the massive excesses, and report them, even while buyhing into the overall "global warming" propaganda. For the rest of the mainstream media, who support the leftists agenda in total, there is no such thing as an "excess".
P.S. 2: Nope. I will not use the deceptive, and totally political, term, "climate change." The whole, fraudulent "theory" of "greenhouse gas" induced "global warming" is based on the WARMING. Without the warming, there is no theory. There is no such thing as a general theory of "climate change", that explains the climate changes around the world. That is a FRAUD within a FRAUD (the orginal "theory" of man-mdade "global warming").
P.S. 3: Doug Stephan, if you think I just called you and John McCain homicidal maniacs with blood on your hands, along with other Republicans willing to allow this "global warming" fraud to be used as a tool to imose a leftist agenda of the world, you are absolutely right. For those of you who think this is too "harsh", you might consider exactly what the "global warming" idiots, including Doug Stephan, have said about "global warming" "skeptics" like me. They have accused us of wanting to destroy the whole world, besides being total idiots. The difference is that I am right, and Doug Stephan really IS a total, complete, utter idiot. Yes, so is John McCain, who now says we cannot "afford" Obama's "cap and trade" tax (as indeed we can't) during a recession, but was too busy supporting "global warming" as a cause during the campaign to bother making that case against Obama when it might have done some good. There is a reason I failed to support John McCain, and this should give you more than an inkling of that reason.
The above is from a present report on FoxNews.com, linked on Drudge.
Note how this again exposes the real "global warming" agenda (as this blog has correctly informed you). This again exposes the whole "global warming" "movement" as merely a tool to accomplish the leftist agenda for the world--to impose Marxism/Communism/fascism (economic kind)/socialism on the world in the tuise of "environmental policy" to solve an environmental "crisis". President Obama and the Democrats are USING "global warming" for the same purpose here in this country. And we deserve it, because we have voted for them to lead us down this path to economic dstructoni.
Nope. . Most of these people do not care much about the environment, except as a leftist "cause". They don't care whether "global warming" is "real" or not. They merely want an excuse to impose their leftist agenda, and they have gotten away (to a large degree) with using "global warming" as that excuse.
Oh, there are a few environmental fanatics out there who really believe this stuff, and even more DUPES who have bought the propaganda. You know these fanatics. They are the people who WANT a billion human beings to DIE to "save" the planet. They are nuts. So are the leftists attempting to USE "global warming" to impose their agenda, but in a more subtle way. The leftist agenda is nuts, because it will impose permanent poverty on the WORLD--killing millioins of people, or even that billion desired by the true environmental nuts, in the process (by starvation, poverty, etc.).
Yep. This blog has established, in multiple previous entries, that environmentalists--and leftists in general--have massive amounts of BLOOD on their hands, and thirst for more. They are worse than any vampires dreamed up by Bram Stoker, et. al.
This is terrible stuff, and it is the kind of stuff President Obama is trying to impose on this country (with "cap and trade" and forcing all of this "green" agenda down our throats, no matter what the cost).
P.S. If you think this is "biased" because it comes from Fox News, don't. Fox News has been part of the PROBLEM, and not part of the "solutiion". In general, Fox News has bught into the "global warming" fraud, including that pompous hypocrite, Bill O'Reilly. The best you can say about Fox News is that they will sometimes see the massive excesses, and report them, even while buyhing into the overall "global warming" propaganda. For the rest of the mainstream media, who support the leftists agenda in total, there is no such thing as an "excess".
P.S. 2: Nope. I will not use the deceptive, and totally political, term, "climate change." The whole, fraudulent "theory" of "greenhouse gas" induced "global warming" is based on the WARMING. Without the warming, there is no theory. There is no such thing as a general theory of "climate change", that explains the climate changes around the world. That is a FRAUD within a FRAUD (the orginal "theory" of man-mdade "global warming").
P.S. 3: Doug Stephan, if you think I just called you and John McCain homicidal maniacs with blood on your hands, along with other Republicans willing to allow this "global warming" fraud to be used as a tool to imose a leftist agenda of the world, you are absolutely right. For those of you who think this is too "harsh", you might consider exactly what the "global warming" idiots, including Doug Stephan, have said about "global warming" "skeptics" like me. They have accused us of wanting to destroy the whole world, besides being total idiots. The difference is that I am right, and Doug Stephan really IS a total, complete, utter idiot. Yes, so is John McCain, who now says we cannot "afford" Obama's "cap and trade" tax (as indeed we can't) during a recession, but was too busy supporting "global warming" as a cause during the campaign to bother making that case against Obama when it might have done some good. There is a reason I failed to support John McCain, and this should give you more than an inkling of that reason.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
CBS News: Brain Dead; Mexico: A Failed Country
CBS News sent a woman reporter/team down here to El Paso to "report" aboutt he situation in Juarez (across the Rio Grande from where this is being typed).
I happened to hear the CBS News RADIO (don't listen to CBS TV "news") reports from this reporter, and others, yesterday on the situation in Jurarez. CBS should be ashamed, but they have no shame.
First, you can review the archives of this blog (generally under the heading of: "Mexico, A Failed Country") to see that I have done MUCH (not even close) more "reporting on the situation in Juarez, in the past 2 YEARS, than CBS. CBS has pretty much ignored the developing crisis in Mexico--especially along the border--threatening to spill over into the United States. IN fact, although not so much in El Paso, there already has been substantial spill over into the U.S. (around the Phoenix area, for example). And the drug ccartels were threatening to attack the Juarez mayor and his family, AT HIS HOUSE IN EL PASO, when the cartels threatened the mayor--causing him to go "on the run" out of the city (although he and his family did not "run" to El Paso, at least according to reports). This was mere weeks ago.
You did not hear any of that from CBS News--at least in the national radio "news" I heard. Instead, the "reporter" down here reported on how the Mexican Army has sent troops to restore order in Juarez, and how that measure has apparently been a "success" at curbing the violence.
"Brain dead" is a kind phrase for that "report" from that female "reporter". The army was already in Juarez at the time the Juarez mayor fled the city--albeit that incident provoked the plan to have the Mexican army take over ALL police functions in Juarez from the defeated/corrupt Juarez police.
Well, were those additional measures a "success"? You be the judge. The big story in El Paso last week was that 9 people had been found in a mass grave in Juarez over the March 14 weekend--7 m4n and 2 women--murdered, with their hands tied behind their backs. That was only ten days ago.
Therefore, when the CBS 'reporter" said that the Mexican Army actions have been a "success", that is way too premature (from any perspective). It basically means that we have had maybe ONE weekend without a major atrocity of the drug cartels being discovered. Ask yourself whether CBS ever applied that measure of "successs" to Iraq. (lol).
This is "news" with an agenda. The consistent agenda of the mainstream news media has been to play down the expanding problems in Mexico. One "good" weekend in Juarez (assuming that their are no hidden graves just not yet fouond) does not change much. Only people as brain dead as the "reporter" sent down here by CBS could "report" otherwise.
I repeat what I have said for at least 2 years (with supporting evidence): Mexico is a failed country. The fact that the Mexican Army has had to take over POLICE functions in Juarez is evidence of that fact. The jury is still out on how "successful" this will be, in the long run.
I happened to hear the CBS News RADIO (don't listen to CBS TV "news") reports from this reporter, and others, yesterday on the situation in Jurarez. CBS should be ashamed, but they have no shame.
First, you can review the archives of this blog (generally under the heading of: "Mexico, A Failed Country") to see that I have done MUCH (not even close) more "reporting on the situation in Juarez, in the past 2 YEARS, than CBS. CBS has pretty much ignored the developing crisis in Mexico--especially along the border--threatening to spill over into the United States. IN fact, although not so much in El Paso, there already has been substantial spill over into the U.S. (around the Phoenix area, for example). And the drug ccartels were threatening to attack the Juarez mayor and his family, AT HIS HOUSE IN EL PASO, when the cartels threatened the mayor--causing him to go "on the run" out of the city (although he and his family did not "run" to El Paso, at least according to reports). This was mere weeks ago.
You did not hear any of that from CBS News--at least in the national radio "news" I heard. Instead, the "reporter" down here reported on how the Mexican Army has sent troops to restore order in Juarez, and how that measure has apparently been a "success" at curbing the violence.
"Brain dead" is a kind phrase for that "report" from that female "reporter". The army was already in Juarez at the time the Juarez mayor fled the city--albeit that incident provoked the plan to have the Mexican army take over ALL police functions in Juarez from the defeated/corrupt Juarez police.
Well, were those additional measures a "success"? You be the judge. The big story in El Paso last week was that 9 people had been found in a mass grave in Juarez over the March 14 weekend--7 m4n and 2 women--murdered, with their hands tied behind their backs. That was only ten days ago.
Therefore, when the CBS 'reporter" said that the Mexican Army actions have been a "success", that is way too premature (from any perspective). It basically means that we have had maybe ONE weekend without a major atrocity of the drug cartels being discovered. Ask yourself whether CBS ever applied that measure of "successs" to Iraq. (lol).
This is "news" with an agenda. The consistent agenda of the mainstream news media has been to play down the expanding problems in Mexico. One "good" weekend in Juarez (assuming that their are no hidden graves just not yet fouond) does not change much. Only people as brain dead as the "reporter" sent down here by CBS could "report" otherwise.
I repeat what I have said for at least 2 years (with supporting evidence): Mexico is a failed country. The fact that the Mexican Army has had to take over POLICE functions in Juarez is evidence of that fact. The jury is still out on how "successful" this will be, in the long run.
Tim Dorsey and Nuclear Jellyfish (Book Review)--Guest Appearance by Carl Hiaasen, Bad Novelist, and the State of Florida
Carl Hiaasen has become a bad novelist. He wrote a few very good, funny books set in (about?) Florida. Then he began believing his own press clippings. His recent books have mistaken mere weirdness, quirkiness, and a tenditious agenda (think David Kellyey here) for real humor and emotion. Hiaason's chracters were always quirky, but in his first few books you could believe in them as people. You no longer can. Hiaason is no longer worth reading. I no longer read his new book (whatever it may be at any particualr time).
James Hall, another Florida writer--although never really a comic novelist--has also become unreadable, after a few good books.
Is Tim Dorsey heading down the same road? Maybe so. Dorsey has written more than a few excellent comic novels of Florida. He has written one novel of Florida which I consider a great comic novel with real dept: Triggerfish Lane. However, most of his earlier novels were excellent, and screamingly funny (so long as you avoid the leftist diatribe known as Orange Crush). However, Dorsey has shown disturbing signs of heading down Hiaason's road to ruin. His recent novels have tended to mistake mere quirkiness and weirdness for a real plot and real humor. His previous book, The Atomic Lobster, while extremely funny in parts and with a semblance of an actual plot, lurched too far into the racuncy and weird, merely for the sake of being raunchy and weird. Worse, that book brought back the "ordinary" middle class family of Triggerfish Lane, and tended to undermine that previous book by revealing the family to not be "ordinary" at all.
I just finished Nuclear Jellyfish--the latest Dorsey book I have read. It is a bad book. It pains me to say this, because I consider Dorsey to be (or at least have been) the funniest comic novelist now writing.
"Nuclear Jellyfish" is a dull and tediious book, except for brief flashes of Dorsey at his comic best. The flashes of comic genius are now much too brief. The book is not worth reading (unless you are already a big fan of Dorsey, and can't miss any of his books). Rating (51 (out of 100, where 60 is generally the cut off rating for a book worth reading--rated this high only for those Dorsey flashes of comic genius).
Their are indications that Dorsey is becomings aware that his talent is now failing him. "Nuclear Jellyfish" concentrates solely on Serge A. Storms (Dorsey's serial killer anti-hero who kills only "jerks" who deserve it--which apparently includes most of the people of Florida).
"Nuclear Jellyfish" has no plot. Oh, the "official" plot is something about a gang robbing and murdering gem couriers (who are set up to be robbed). But the book is little more than a series of elaborate, "comic" murders of the "bad guys" by Serge. This is one of the indications that Dorsey is getting tired of his character, or at least that his invention is failing him. Most of the elaborate murders Serge commits in "Nuclear Jellyfish" are of mere GOONS (not presented as real people--even real "jerks"). This becomes merely tedious. Sure, a few (yep, there are that many) of the murders have a funny line or two, but overall they are tedious and repetitious. And Dorsey recognizes it. He even says so in the book itself (repeating the hubris of Stephen King in the really bad "Bag of Bones").
Moreover, the real plot of "Nuclear Jellyfish" is whether it is time for Serge A. Storms to end it all, because he is no longer a positive force "burning bright" (as in the famous poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay--spelling?). At one point in the book, Serge specifically talks about this "ratings" falling, and how it may be time for him to be cancelled. Is this a commentary on the sales of Dorsey books? It should be, because they deserve to be falling.
I will not tell you whether Serge actually commits suicide. If you are interested, you can read the book. The problem is that, by the end of the book, you will be rooting for Serge to end it all. I was.
Dorsey is right. Serge has outlived his usefulness as a character. In early books, he did not dominate the books (if he is even a major character at all). With "Nuclear Jellyfish", Dorsey has made it all about Serge, and he has nothing more to say using this cahracter. He is merely repeating himslelf, and trying to make up for it by being more and more quirky and raunchy. Too bad. Not funny.
Now there is a disturbing possibility here. It may not be Dorsey's fault. Maybe it is FLORIDA. Maybe there are no "normal" people left in Florida. Further, maybe Florida has become so toxic to normal human beings, that the writers who live there (or write like they live there) are unable to stay sane.
We already know we have lost California (which is why Dorsey's attempt to write about Calilfonia and Hollywood essentially failed, in "The Big Bamboo"). These Florida writers may be an indication that Florida is about to be lost to normal people with normal values.
What am I talking about. The Age of Obama indicates that most of the country may be becoming like Florida and California. Florida did vote for Obama, after almost voting for that eco-fraud, Al Gore.
Now I have depressed myself. And I no longer can look forward to the next Tim Dorsey book to bring me out of the depression with laughter. Things are getting really bad out here.
James Hall, another Florida writer--although never really a comic novelist--has also become unreadable, after a few good books.
Is Tim Dorsey heading down the same road? Maybe so. Dorsey has written more than a few excellent comic novels of Florida. He has written one novel of Florida which I consider a great comic novel with real dept: Triggerfish Lane. However, most of his earlier novels were excellent, and screamingly funny (so long as you avoid the leftist diatribe known as Orange Crush). However, Dorsey has shown disturbing signs of heading down Hiaason's road to ruin. His recent novels have tended to mistake mere quirkiness and weirdness for a real plot and real humor. His previous book, The Atomic Lobster, while extremely funny in parts and with a semblance of an actual plot, lurched too far into the racuncy and weird, merely for the sake of being raunchy and weird. Worse, that book brought back the "ordinary" middle class family of Triggerfish Lane, and tended to undermine that previous book by revealing the family to not be "ordinary" at all.
I just finished Nuclear Jellyfish--the latest Dorsey book I have read. It is a bad book. It pains me to say this, because I consider Dorsey to be (or at least have been) the funniest comic novelist now writing.
"Nuclear Jellyfish" is a dull and tediious book, except for brief flashes of Dorsey at his comic best. The flashes of comic genius are now much too brief. The book is not worth reading (unless you are already a big fan of Dorsey, and can't miss any of his books). Rating (51 (out of 100, where 60 is generally the cut off rating for a book worth reading--rated this high only for those Dorsey flashes of comic genius).
Their are indications that Dorsey is becomings aware that his talent is now failing him. "Nuclear Jellyfish" concentrates solely on Serge A. Storms (Dorsey's serial killer anti-hero who kills only "jerks" who deserve it--which apparently includes most of the people of Florida).
"Nuclear Jellyfish" has no plot. Oh, the "official" plot is something about a gang robbing and murdering gem couriers (who are set up to be robbed). But the book is little more than a series of elaborate, "comic" murders of the "bad guys" by Serge. This is one of the indications that Dorsey is getting tired of his character, or at least that his invention is failing him. Most of the elaborate murders Serge commits in "Nuclear Jellyfish" are of mere GOONS (not presented as real people--even real "jerks"). This becomes merely tedious. Sure, a few (yep, there are that many) of the murders have a funny line or two, but overall they are tedious and repetitious. And Dorsey recognizes it. He even says so in the book itself (repeating the hubris of Stephen King in the really bad "Bag of Bones").
Moreover, the real plot of "Nuclear Jellyfish" is whether it is time for Serge A. Storms to end it all, because he is no longer a positive force "burning bright" (as in the famous poem by Edna St. Vincent Millay--spelling?). At one point in the book, Serge specifically talks about this "ratings" falling, and how it may be time for him to be cancelled. Is this a commentary on the sales of Dorsey books? It should be, because they deserve to be falling.
I will not tell you whether Serge actually commits suicide. If you are interested, you can read the book. The problem is that, by the end of the book, you will be rooting for Serge to end it all. I was.
Dorsey is right. Serge has outlived his usefulness as a character. In early books, he did not dominate the books (if he is even a major character at all). With "Nuclear Jellyfish", Dorsey has made it all about Serge, and he has nothing more to say using this cahracter. He is merely repeating himslelf, and trying to make up for it by being more and more quirky and raunchy. Too bad. Not funny.
Now there is a disturbing possibility here. It may not be Dorsey's fault. Maybe it is FLORIDA. Maybe there are no "normal" people left in Florida. Further, maybe Florida has become so toxic to normal human beings, that the writers who live there (or write like they live there) are unable to stay sane.
We already know we have lost California (which is why Dorsey's attempt to write about Calilfonia and Hollywood essentially failed, in "The Big Bamboo"). These Florida writers may be an indication that Florida is about to be lost to normal people with normal values.
What am I talking about. The Age of Obama indicates that most of the country may be becoming like Florida and California. Florida did vote for Obama, after almost voting for that eco-fraud, Al Gore.
Now I have depressed myself. And I no longer can look forward to the next Tim Dorsey book to bring me out of the depression with laughter. Things are getting really bad out here.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Congress, President Obama, Eric Cantor, and Alex Rodriguez?: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points at YOU!!!!!
There was never any doubt about this week's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate. See last week's entry calling for a RECALL of every single member of Congress, including the 85 Republicans in the House, who voted for that Nazi bill to use the tax code as a personal weapon of Congress--asserting the "right" (unconstitutional--leftists not really believing in either the Constitution or freedom, except for leftists) to confiscate AIG bonuses by imposing a 90% tax (amounting to more than 100% for many of them--probably all of them--when you count all of the various taxes they pay).
This is perhaps the most EVIL bill ever to be proposed in the U.S. Congress. That is not only because the bill was a CYA (cover your ass) bill meant to COVER UP the vote by Congress to authorized the bonuses in the first place (part of the "stimulus" bill that no one in Congress read--as if that were an excuse!!!!). That aspect of the "tax weapon" bill made it truly an EVIL bill (Eric Cantor, this means YOU, as well as the leftist Democrats). But the bill was so bad because it set the precedent, even if it never becomes law, that Congress can use the Tax Code as a weapon to intimidate private citizens. This is the stuff of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and Orwell's "1984". "Big Brother" is not even an adequate term for how bad it is. It tells you how bad this bill is that it is only a subsidiary evil of the bill that it treats all money in the country as belonging to Cngress, which private citizens are allowed to keep only at the sufferance of Congress.
This bill is as bad as it gets, and I repeat my call for the RECALL of every member of the House who supported the bill, and every member of the Senate who has stated support for this concept (which would include Senator Charles Schumer and the rest.
Why is President Obama part of the group to get the Finger for this bill? I am not totally sure whether Obama supports this bill or not. That is part of the problem with Obama. Hes says different, and opposite, things every day--as if he does not remember what he said the day before. The truth is that he does not care what he said the day before.
It does not matter whether President Obama supports this particular bill. He LED the attempt to "demonize" AIG in a cynical attempt to deflect people away from the role his Administration played in the AIG bonuses. But it gets worse, as far as Obama is concerned. Over the weekend, he "doubled down" on the attacks on corporate America by suggesting that limiting executive compensation is now onw of his priorities. As usual with Obama, he suggested more than he probably will attempt--at least right now. He suggested that limits on executive compensation should go way beyond AIG, and perhaps beyond even banks receiving bailouts. The vagueness was intentional. Obama fully intended to give the idea that the compensation of every private executive in America should be limited. For that alone, Obama deserves the Finger. Thbis idea that the Federal Government should completely control our economy, and our very lives, is the great evil here. Obama is the leading exponent of that idea.
I threw in a ringer in the headline. Alex Rodriguez (New York Yankee third baseman) was NOT one of the ones at whom the Finger pointed. However, as this blog pointed out last week, Alex Rodriguez earns too much money. Why does he "deserve" to earn that much money? He has led NO team to a world series championship. More importantly, he CHEATED (even though it was legal at the time, as the AIG bonuses were legal, and specifically authorized by Congress and the Obama Administration). Alex Rodriguez took steroids, as did Barry Bonds and many of the other baseball players being paid so much. That set a terrible example for young people, and makes it unconscinable (using the AIG standard) to reward Alex Rodriguez with all of that money. WHY should not every baseball player who used steroids be taxed at the same 100% level proposed by Congress for AIG bonuses? Why should we not make an example of these people? Don't even get me started on Britney Spears or Michael Jackson. Why should people like that be allowed to earn so much money (even if they spend it all)? In fact, there is no one in Hollywood's, or the music industry, who I think "deserves" the money they make (okay, a Sodom and Gomorrah type search MIGHT turn up a few).
Nope. Once we go down the road of deciding who "deserves" to keep the money they receive, we will no longer be the United States of America. I wil go further. The mere fact that so many members of Congress felt that they could get away with this kind of unconstitutional, dictatorial actions and rhetoric indicates that we are already too far down this road. We are no longer the United States of America that used to exist. That is why I suggested a RECALL of Congress--to reclaim our country. It is beyond sad that we are now doing things we did not even do in the Great Depression--things which will eventually bring on the next Great Depression (or simply a Soviet style economic misery that lasts for decade after decade, with everyone being "poor" except for the few people favored by the central planners in charge).
The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate is the award, represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger, originated on the old "Laugh In" program. The Finger is given for conspicuous stupidity and/or evil that came to prominent light in the previous week. This blog has reincarnated the old Laugh In award, although no one connected with the old Laugh In is connected in any way with this reincarnation. The old Laugh In is merely the inspiration for this new version of the concept.
Award ceremony (as usual, entirely in the imagination, without even any graphics; which is why I suggest using the image of Dick Martin presenting the old Laugh In award solely as a visual aid to your imagination, even though Dick Martin has hacked into this blog complaining about the gratuitous use of his name--best not to thing about from where):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the Finger at the camera, and saying: Congress (you know who your are, and you are almost ALL of the members of Congress), President Obama, and Eric Cantor (redundancy, but worthy of it), this is for you. You deserve it. In fact, no one in the history of this country has deserved it more.
P.S.: I hope Eric Cantor runs for some national office some time. It goes without saying that I will vote against ANY Republican or Democrat who supported this disgraceful bill. However, it will give me special pleasure to vote against Eric Cantor. I would not vote for hiim for dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (the small town where I spent most of my childhood). I would not vote for any of these people for dogcatcher of Mt. Ida. Mt. Ida deserves better.
This is perhaps the most EVIL bill ever to be proposed in the U.S. Congress. That is not only because the bill was a CYA (cover your ass) bill meant to COVER UP the vote by Congress to authorized the bonuses in the first place (part of the "stimulus" bill that no one in Congress read--as if that were an excuse!!!!). That aspect of the "tax weapon" bill made it truly an EVIL bill (Eric Cantor, this means YOU, as well as the leftist Democrats). But the bill was so bad because it set the precedent, even if it never becomes law, that Congress can use the Tax Code as a weapon to intimidate private citizens. This is the stuff of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and Orwell's "1984". "Big Brother" is not even an adequate term for how bad it is. It tells you how bad this bill is that it is only a subsidiary evil of the bill that it treats all money in the country as belonging to Cngress, which private citizens are allowed to keep only at the sufferance of Congress.
This bill is as bad as it gets, and I repeat my call for the RECALL of every member of the House who supported the bill, and every member of the Senate who has stated support for this concept (which would include Senator Charles Schumer and the rest.
Why is President Obama part of the group to get the Finger for this bill? I am not totally sure whether Obama supports this bill or not. That is part of the problem with Obama. Hes says different, and opposite, things every day--as if he does not remember what he said the day before. The truth is that he does not care what he said the day before.
It does not matter whether President Obama supports this particular bill. He LED the attempt to "demonize" AIG in a cynical attempt to deflect people away from the role his Administration played in the AIG bonuses. But it gets worse, as far as Obama is concerned. Over the weekend, he "doubled down" on the attacks on corporate America by suggesting that limiting executive compensation is now onw of his priorities. As usual with Obama, he suggested more than he probably will attempt--at least right now. He suggested that limits on executive compensation should go way beyond AIG, and perhaps beyond even banks receiving bailouts. The vagueness was intentional. Obama fully intended to give the idea that the compensation of every private executive in America should be limited. For that alone, Obama deserves the Finger. Thbis idea that the Federal Government should completely control our economy, and our very lives, is the great evil here. Obama is the leading exponent of that idea.
I threw in a ringer in the headline. Alex Rodriguez (New York Yankee third baseman) was NOT one of the ones at whom the Finger pointed. However, as this blog pointed out last week, Alex Rodriguez earns too much money. Why does he "deserve" to earn that much money? He has led NO team to a world series championship. More importantly, he CHEATED (even though it was legal at the time, as the AIG bonuses were legal, and specifically authorized by Congress and the Obama Administration). Alex Rodriguez took steroids, as did Barry Bonds and many of the other baseball players being paid so much. That set a terrible example for young people, and makes it unconscinable (using the AIG standard) to reward Alex Rodriguez with all of that money. WHY should not every baseball player who used steroids be taxed at the same 100% level proposed by Congress for AIG bonuses? Why should we not make an example of these people? Don't even get me started on Britney Spears or Michael Jackson. Why should people like that be allowed to earn so much money (even if they spend it all)? In fact, there is no one in Hollywood's, or the music industry, who I think "deserves" the money they make (okay, a Sodom and Gomorrah type search MIGHT turn up a few).
Nope. Once we go down the road of deciding who "deserves" to keep the money they receive, we will no longer be the United States of America. I wil go further. The mere fact that so many members of Congress felt that they could get away with this kind of unconstitutional, dictatorial actions and rhetoric indicates that we are already too far down this road. We are no longer the United States of America that used to exist. That is why I suggested a RECALL of Congress--to reclaim our country. It is beyond sad that we are now doing things we did not even do in the Great Depression--things which will eventually bring on the next Great Depression (or simply a Soviet style economic misery that lasts for decade after decade, with everyone being "poor" except for the few people favored by the central planners in charge).
The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate is the award, represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger, originated on the old "Laugh In" program. The Finger is given for conspicuous stupidity and/or evil that came to prominent light in the previous week. This blog has reincarnated the old Laugh In award, although no one connected with the old Laugh In is connected in any way with this reincarnation. The old Laugh In is merely the inspiration for this new version of the concept.
Award ceremony (as usual, entirely in the imagination, without even any graphics; which is why I suggest using the image of Dick Martin presenting the old Laugh In award solely as a visual aid to your imagination, even though Dick Martin has hacked into this blog complaining about the gratuitous use of his name--best not to thing about from where):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the Finger at the camera, and saying: Congress (you know who your are, and you are almost ALL of the members of Congress), President Obama, and Eric Cantor (redundancy, but worthy of it), this is for you. You deserve it. In fact, no one in the history of this country has deserved it more.
P.S.: I hope Eric Cantor runs for some national office some time. It goes without saying that I will vote against ANY Republican or Democrat who supported this disgraceful bill. However, it will give me special pleasure to vote against Eric Cantor. I would not vote for hiim for dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (the small town where I spent most of my childhood). I would not vote for any of these people for dogcatcher of Mt. Ida. Mt. Ida deserves better.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Rush Limbaugh and the Stock Market
This is an area (the stock market) where I have clearly been right and Rush Limbaugh clearly has been wrong (or inteleectually dishonest--whichever view you choose to take). I have told you that the gyrations of the stock market don't mean much (since these are the Stupidest People on Earth--trading on computer programs and momentum).
Well, the stock market made one of those irratonally big swing moves today--but UP. This is merely the biggest up day in one of those rallies that we have had several times since October when Wall Street casino, short term traders feel they can HYPE some "news". Previous rallies have merely been trpas, as they were nothing more than fiction.
The stock market is now up to November levels (November 20--mayble a little ABOVE where the market closed that day).
Rush Limbaugh was not on the radio today. Question: When he comes back tomorrow, will he now say that Obama is now on the right track, since Wal Street is usddenly so "optimistic". Don't be silly. You know that Limbaugh is not going to praise Obama because the stock market is suddently going up. That merely illustrates the intellectual DISHONESTY of this conservative talk radio habit, over the past month, of blaming Obama for the stock market drops.
Nope. I do not think the stock market gyrations have anything to do with the prospects fro the economy, or with whether Obama is doing the "right thing". I praised Obama for sayihng essentially that--one of the few times I have praised Obama. Presidetn Obama was right. He has no business, as President, in catering to the stock market. In fact, the problem with his most recent economic "proposal" (see earlier entries today) is that it comes straight from those Stupid People on Wall Street.
Thje idea that the people on Wall Street accurately evaluate tell you when our economic policies are taking us in the right direction is STUPID. On this particular issue (almost the only one), President Obama was right, and Rush Limbaugh has been STUPID.
If you doubt this, see what Rush says about the stock market when he comes back tomorrow. What is funny is that if the stock market is down tomorrow, which will only be a reaction to the IRRATIONAL magnitude of the UP day today, Rush will probably mention that--without admitting that his talk about Wall Street traders being so smart has been proven WRONG.
Well, the stock market made one of those irratonally big swing moves today--but UP. This is merely the biggest up day in one of those rallies that we have had several times since October when Wall Street casino, short term traders feel they can HYPE some "news". Previous rallies have merely been trpas, as they were nothing more than fiction.
The stock market is now up to November levels (November 20--mayble a little ABOVE where the market closed that day).
Rush Limbaugh was not on the radio today. Question: When he comes back tomorrow, will he now say that Obama is now on the right track, since Wal Street is usddenly so "optimistic". Don't be silly. You know that Limbaugh is not going to praise Obama because the stock market is suddently going up. That merely illustrates the intellectual DISHONESTY of this conservative talk radio habit, over the past month, of blaming Obama for the stock market drops.
Nope. I do not think the stock market gyrations have anything to do with the prospects fro the economy, or with whether Obama is doing the "right thing". I praised Obama for sayihng essentially that--one of the few times I have praised Obama. Presidetn Obama was right. He has no business, as President, in catering to the stock market. In fact, the problem with his most recent economic "proposal" (see earlier entries today) is that it comes straight from those Stupid People on Wall Street.
Thje idea that the people on Wall Street accurately evaluate tell you when our economic policies are taking us in the right direction is STUPID. On this particular issue (almost the only one), President Obama was right, and Rush Limbaugh has been STUPID.
If you doubt this, see what Rush says about the stock market when he comes back tomorrow. What is funny is that if the stock market is down tomorrow, which will only be a reaction to the IRRATIONAL magnitude of the UP day today, Rush will probably mention that--without admitting that his talk about Wall Street traders being so smart has been proven WRONG.
Wall Street: The Stupidest People on Earth
Yes, today is absolutely prvoing that the traders on Wall Street really are the Stupidest People on Earth. See previous entry about this "new" proposal to spend taxpayer money for the "benefit" of Wall Street.
Again, my disclaimer: I am NOT telling you what direction the market should go--up or down. As I have said, I think Obama and the Democrats are in the process of destroying the economy of this company. But I am still basically fully invested in the stock market--although prepared to get out if these irrational rallies continue.
The problem is not he direction the stock market is moving today. The problem is the magnitude. The Dow is up more than 300 points today merely because President Obama has proposed the very same thing (with different bells and whistles) that Hentry Paulson and President Buish proposed back in October. I called the excessive Wall Street reaction thien (you will remember the stock market being up 1,000 points in a single day), and I was right. Now Wall Street (Stupidest People on Earth) are buying into the very same HYPE.
This kind of government "proposal" does not solve a SINGLE economic problem we have. It is irrational and stupid to trade stocks based on HYPE to the contrary. I would have no proble with the Dow being up 50 on some general optimism about the direction we are going (evwen if somewhat irrational optimism bbout the discredited idea that central planning is the way to run an economy). Once the Dow has gone up more that 150 points in a single day, however, anyone who continues to buy stocks that day is one of the Stupidest People on Earth--especially when the rise in the stock market is solely because of government STATEMENTS, rather than objective economic EVIDENCE.
The Standard and Poors 500 is now back to where it was in November, without developments in the economy to support that kind of quick rise. It is unhealthty, and merely indicates that the stock market casino is SICK--dominated by momentum traders who truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
P. S. Above not proofread, since it merely repeats what I have been saying since October--during both the Bush Administration and the Obama Adminstration--being right every time. My accuracy rating has risen to 99.5% based almost totally upohn being right about these Stupid People on Wall Street.
Again, my disclaimer: I am NOT telling you what direction the market should go--up or down. As I have said, I think Obama and the Democrats are in the process of destroying the economy of this company. But I am still basically fully invested in the stock market--although prepared to get out if these irrational rallies continue.
The problem is not he direction the stock market is moving today. The problem is the magnitude. The Dow is up more than 300 points today merely because President Obama has proposed the very same thing (with different bells and whistles) that Hentry Paulson and President Buish proposed back in October. I called the excessive Wall Street reaction thien (you will remember the stock market being up 1,000 points in a single day), and I was right. Now Wall Street (Stupidest People on Earth) are buying into the very same HYPE.
This kind of government "proposal" does not solve a SINGLE economic problem we have. It is irrational and stupid to trade stocks based on HYPE to the contrary. I would have no proble with the Dow being up 50 on some general optimism about the direction we are going (evwen if somewhat irrational optimism bbout the discredited idea that central planning is the way to run an economy). Once the Dow has gone up more that 150 points in a single day, however, anyone who continues to buy stocks that day is one of the Stupidest People on Earth--especially when the rise in the stock market is solely because of government STATEMENTS, rather than objective economic EVIDENCE.
The Standard and Poors 500 is now back to where it was in November, without developments in the economy to support that kind of quick rise. It is unhealthty, and merely indicates that the stock market casino is SICK--dominated by momentum traders who truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
P. S. Above not proofread, since it merely repeats what I have been saying since October--during both the Bush Administration and the Obama Adminstration--being right every time. My accuracy rating has risen to 99.5% based almost totally upohn being right about these Stupid People on Wall Street.
President Obama, Fascist: "Partnership" with Wall Street?
There is no longer any doubt. President Obama is an economic fascist (as well as probably a Communist--as these terms merge, with Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union having essentially the same system, except for slightly different veneers).
The terms again have to be defined. I am talking economic fascism. This is defined as a central planning partnership between Big Government and Big Business/Wall Street/Big Financial: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". Thus, we are not talking political "Hitlerism" or "Stalinism"--although the central planning aspect is so authoritarian as to encourage political authoritarianism, and there is evidence Obama would "lead" us in that direction. What else can you call it when Congress asserts the "right" to use the tax system to control the conduct of private individuals whose main criime has been to embarrass Congress and the Obama Administration (reference is to AIG bonuses). President Obama himself is attacking executive salaries in all of business, and has previously shown a tendency to try to intimidate political opponents (like Rush Limbaugh, or his radio stations, and talk radio).
The evidence that we are headed down the road of economic fascism is now conclusive. President Obama, in that "Sixty Minute" interview", proposed a new government entity constituting a direct partnership between private capital and Big Government to buy "toxic assets". We are supposed to dedicate up to one trillioin taxpayer dollars to this new entity.
This is really the same old Paulson/Wall Street "plan" that Henry Paulson and President Bush abandoned after proposing it as the entire basis of the 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout (the first bailout, right after the initial AIG bailout). This "plan" (proposed by Wall Street) was abandoned, after a three week farce of a "debate" in Congress about "NO BLANK CHECK". Congress ended up giving a blank check to the Secretary of the Treasury, which led directly to the eventual 165 million in AIG bonuses (also helped by Congress specifically authorizing the bounuses, based on a request by the Obama Administration). You will remember that the stock market (the Stupidest People on Earth) JUMPED initially based on this first bailout, but then CRASHED.
Wall Street has never given up on this new entity proposed--but then abandoned--by Paulson, that would magically take over the entire problem of toxic assets. As this blog has previously stated, Wall Street--despite Obama bashing them, for political reasons, while adopting their proposals--is now running the conomic policy of this country.
Why did Paulson abandon this fascist "idea" to start with? I can tell you that. Congress put all kinds of restrictions on how this "purchase" of "toxic assets" was supposed to work (the "no blank check" approach, before Congress ended up granting a blank check). Remember all of that debate (complete farce) about making sure the taxpayers did not pay "too much" for these "toxic assets". Well, the problem still remains. Fascism is a very bad idea. But it is an even worse idea if you put so many restrictions on it that it can't possibly work. Does it really "help" distressed banks/businesses to buy "toxic assets" at MARKET prices? Of course not. That is the entire problem. These "assets" are now pretty much worthless, or the market is saying they are worthless. If you start buying them at HIGH prices, then you are just defrauding the taxpayer. If you buy them at LOW prices, you are not accomplishing anything for the failing businesses you are buying them from. And all of the time, the whole program will be used as further reason for the government to contro. the way all of these private corporations operate.
Nope. This is fascism. See the definition above, and see if you dare contradict me on this. What else can you call it. And the Stupidest People on Earth (traders on Wall Street) are again reacting "positively" to the adoption of another one of their pet "ideas" (just like they reacted "positively" a week ago to the Fed announcement that it was going to pruchase the government's own IOUs--like a compnay issuing a debt instrument and then "financing" itself by buying its own note--creating, or printing, money out of thin air).
Yes, this blog is again proven right (as I will be about the excessive stock market rally today, and Wall Street containing the Stupidest People on Earth). Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram and the rest were STUPID to suggest that Wall Street (the stock market) was the best indication of the success or failure of Obama's economic policies. Contrary to what they were saing, Wall Street traders are NOT "smart". They are now merely players in a giant casino, acting on present HYPE (not the real future of the economy). As I have previously pointed out, if you doubt that, consider that the Dow reached a new ALL TIME high in October of 2007. Then ask yourself whether that was an accurate prediction of the future of the economy. We have gone straight downhill since then.
President Obama is a fascists, and Wall Street people are the Stupidest People on Earth.
P. S.: You might ask yourself whether these recent attacks on AIG employees by politicians trying to cover their own rear end have helped or hurt the chances of AIG to survive? Is it not a marvelous irony that the "justification" for committing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars is that we could not afford to let AIG fail. Yet, for their own political purposes, politicians are doing their best to make sure AIG fails. That is exactly what is ging to happen with this new "entity" which is supposed to purchase "toxic assets", if we were ever stupid enough to adopt this "plan"--a plan straight from the brains of the newly minted fascists/Communists on Wall Street who got us in this mess--along with government--in the first place.
The terms again have to be defined. I am talking economic fascism. This is defined as a central planning partnership between Big Government and Big Business/Wall Street/Big Financial: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". Thus, we are not talking political "Hitlerism" or "Stalinism"--although the central planning aspect is so authoritarian as to encourage political authoritarianism, and there is evidence Obama would "lead" us in that direction. What else can you call it when Congress asserts the "right" to use the tax system to control the conduct of private individuals whose main criime has been to embarrass Congress and the Obama Administration (reference is to AIG bonuses). President Obama himself is attacking executive salaries in all of business, and has previously shown a tendency to try to intimidate political opponents (like Rush Limbaugh, or his radio stations, and talk radio).
The evidence that we are headed down the road of economic fascism is now conclusive. President Obama, in that "Sixty Minute" interview", proposed a new government entity constituting a direct partnership between private capital and Big Government to buy "toxic assets". We are supposed to dedicate up to one trillioin taxpayer dollars to this new entity.
This is really the same old Paulson/Wall Street "plan" that Henry Paulson and President Bush abandoned after proposing it as the entire basis of the 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout (the first bailout, right after the initial AIG bailout). This "plan" (proposed by Wall Street) was abandoned, after a three week farce of a "debate" in Congress about "NO BLANK CHECK". Congress ended up giving a blank check to the Secretary of the Treasury, which led directly to the eventual 165 million in AIG bonuses (also helped by Congress specifically authorizing the bounuses, based on a request by the Obama Administration). You will remember that the stock market (the Stupidest People on Earth) JUMPED initially based on this first bailout, but then CRASHED.
Wall Street has never given up on this new entity proposed--but then abandoned--by Paulson, that would magically take over the entire problem of toxic assets. As this blog has previously stated, Wall Street--despite Obama bashing them, for political reasons, while adopting their proposals--is now running the conomic policy of this country.
Why did Paulson abandon this fascist "idea" to start with? I can tell you that. Congress put all kinds of restrictions on how this "purchase" of "toxic assets" was supposed to work (the "no blank check" approach, before Congress ended up granting a blank check). Remember all of that debate (complete farce) about making sure the taxpayers did not pay "too much" for these "toxic assets". Well, the problem still remains. Fascism is a very bad idea. But it is an even worse idea if you put so many restrictions on it that it can't possibly work. Does it really "help" distressed banks/businesses to buy "toxic assets" at MARKET prices? Of course not. That is the entire problem. These "assets" are now pretty much worthless, or the market is saying they are worthless. If you start buying them at HIGH prices, then you are just defrauding the taxpayer. If you buy them at LOW prices, you are not accomplishing anything for the failing businesses you are buying them from. And all of the time, the whole program will be used as further reason for the government to contro. the way all of these private corporations operate.
Nope. This is fascism. See the definition above, and see if you dare contradict me on this. What else can you call it. And the Stupidest People on Earth (traders on Wall Street) are again reacting "positively" to the adoption of another one of their pet "ideas" (just like they reacted "positively" a week ago to the Fed announcement that it was going to pruchase the government's own IOUs--like a compnay issuing a debt instrument and then "financing" itself by buying its own note--creating, or printing, money out of thin air).
Yes, this blog is again proven right (as I will be about the excessive stock market rally today, and Wall Street containing the Stupidest People on Earth). Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram and the rest were STUPID to suggest that Wall Street (the stock market) was the best indication of the success or failure of Obama's economic policies. Contrary to what they were saing, Wall Street traders are NOT "smart". They are now merely players in a giant casino, acting on present HYPE (not the real future of the economy). As I have previously pointed out, if you doubt that, consider that the Dow reached a new ALL TIME high in October of 2007. Then ask yourself whether that was an accurate prediction of the future of the economy. We have gone straight downhill since then.
President Obama is a fascists, and Wall Street people are the Stupidest People on Earth.
P. S.: You might ask yourself whether these recent attacks on AIG employees by politicians trying to cover their own rear end have helped or hurt the chances of AIG to survive? Is it not a marvelous irony that the "justification" for committing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars is that we could not afford to let AIG fail. Yet, for their own political purposes, politicians are doing their best to make sure AIG fails. That is exactly what is ging to happen with this new "entity" which is supposed to purchase "toxic assets", if we were ever stupid enough to adopt this "plan"--a plan straight from the brains of the newly minted fascists/Communists on Wall Street who got us in this mess--along with government--in the first place.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Children: Sex and the Great, Disastrous Social Experiment
One of the news items last week was that out of wedlock births have now gone above 40% of all births. Back when I grew up (entered high school in 1960), of course, more than 60% of teenage girls were VIRGINS when they graduated high school.
I have accurately told you before that if the Revolutionary War had the kind of results that the sexual "revolution" has had, we would either still be British or we would have taken the insane path of the French Revolution and the guillotine (depending on which anaology you find more apt--the point being that the sexual "revolution" has been an absolute disaster for the health of our society and the well being of our children). While statistics can lie, these statistics are overwhelming. Children are being told more about sex and sex "education" than they ever have ween told in the past, and the out of wedlock births keep going up.
The difference between 1960 (even more true of 1955) and today is striking. There is more support, especially among the leftist elements of our society that have brought us to this p;oint, for GAY MARRIAGE today than there is for heterosexual marriage. Teenage sex is now regarded as "normal", and the people advocating this point of view--who have blood on their hands (Dr. Dean Eddell, this means you)--ridicule any attempt to campaign against non-marital, teenage sex.
Nope. This is NOT "inevitable". For most of our history as a nation, it was not so. Even when I went to high school (and the sexual "revolution" was about to take off in earnest--in full flower by f970), most girls DIDN'T. And the statistics are overwhelming that our society was HEALTHIER then. Certainly, our children were better off.
We are conducting a great social experiment on our children, and our children will be darn lucky to survive it. Our society will be lucky to survive it. I am a pessimist. I don't think we are going to survive it, without major upheaval. We are undermining marriage, both by such things as gay marriage and by the complete separation of sex and marriage (even as sex still results in pregnancy). Yet, it is almost beyond dispute that there is nothing more important to the raising of a well adjusted child than a two parent family. It is beyond dispute that the destruction of the African-American family (mainly by leftists policies and attitudes, where slavery had not succeeded in that destruction) is the primary reason that so many African-Americans children are stuck in an almost hopeless situation. Now we are conducting the same experiment on all of our society.
Nope. Again it is NOT true that we could do nothing about it. What is true is that nothing we can do will turn the situation around on a dime. It took about 40 years to get in this revolting situation. There is no way to immediately change things. But they can be changed.
If you doubt this, look at the anti-smoking campaign. It is now more than 40 years old. For the first two decades of that campaign, progress was very slow. Then it took off. It can be done with sex and marriage. But we are really not trying, because the "establishment" position still is that everyone now has a "right" to sexual expression, and that our main "goal" should be to have sex without adverse consequences. Too bad that is impossible.
Sex (oon-marital kind) is hazardous to the health of children. Tis social experiment is likely to create whole generation's of "lost" children, as we encourage nto only single parents, but sexual practices which will further destroy the lives of our children.
Sex (non-marital kind) is definitely more unhealthy for children than smoking. Oh, I have no doubt smoking is unhealthy. I have never smoked, although my mother smoked most of her life (and how is on oxygen because her lungs are so bad). However, as the case of my 87 year old mother indicates, smoking kills you (generally) SLOWLY. Sex ruins the lives of young people while they are still young.
You should ask yourself about that 40% of children now being born out of wedlock (including even Bristol Palin, who said that sex for young--under 18--teenagers these days is "accepted"): What will the lives of these children be like? How will those lives compare with te lives of children in the 1950's raised--generally--in two parent families--even African-American children? If you answer honestly, you shuld be vastly concerned about this vast social experiment we are conducting on the children being born today.
I have accurately told you before that if the Revolutionary War had the kind of results that the sexual "revolution" has had, we would either still be British or we would have taken the insane path of the French Revolution and the guillotine (depending on which anaology you find more apt--the point being that the sexual "revolution" has been an absolute disaster for the health of our society and the well being of our children). While statistics can lie, these statistics are overwhelming. Children are being told more about sex and sex "education" than they ever have ween told in the past, and the out of wedlock births keep going up.
The difference between 1960 (even more true of 1955) and today is striking. There is more support, especially among the leftist elements of our society that have brought us to this p;oint, for GAY MARRIAGE today than there is for heterosexual marriage. Teenage sex is now regarded as "normal", and the people advocating this point of view--who have blood on their hands (Dr. Dean Eddell, this means you)--ridicule any attempt to campaign against non-marital, teenage sex.
Nope. This is NOT "inevitable". For most of our history as a nation, it was not so. Even when I went to high school (and the sexual "revolution" was about to take off in earnest--in full flower by f970), most girls DIDN'T. And the statistics are overwhelming that our society was HEALTHIER then. Certainly, our children were better off.
We are conducting a great social experiment on our children, and our children will be darn lucky to survive it. Our society will be lucky to survive it. I am a pessimist. I don't think we are going to survive it, without major upheaval. We are undermining marriage, both by such things as gay marriage and by the complete separation of sex and marriage (even as sex still results in pregnancy). Yet, it is almost beyond dispute that there is nothing more important to the raising of a well adjusted child than a two parent family. It is beyond dispute that the destruction of the African-American family (mainly by leftists policies and attitudes, where slavery had not succeeded in that destruction) is the primary reason that so many African-Americans children are stuck in an almost hopeless situation. Now we are conducting the same experiment on all of our society.
Nope. Again it is NOT true that we could do nothing about it. What is true is that nothing we can do will turn the situation around on a dime. It took about 40 years to get in this revolting situation. There is no way to immediately change things. But they can be changed.
If you doubt this, look at the anti-smoking campaign. It is now more than 40 years old. For the first two decades of that campaign, progress was very slow. Then it took off. It can be done with sex and marriage. But we are really not trying, because the "establishment" position still is that everyone now has a "right" to sexual expression, and that our main "goal" should be to have sex without adverse consequences. Too bad that is impossible.
Sex (oon-marital kind) is hazardous to the health of children. Tis social experiment is likely to create whole generation's of "lost" children, as we encourage nto only single parents, but sexual practices which will further destroy the lives of our children.
Sex (non-marital kind) is definitely more unhealthy for children than smoking. Oh, I have no doubt smoking is unhealthy. I have never smoked, although my mother smoked most of her life (and how is on oxygen because her lungs are so bad). However, as the case of my 87 year old mother indicates, smoking kills you (generally) SLOWLY. Sex ruins the lives of young people while they are still young.
You should ask yourself about that 40% of children now being born out of wedlock (including even Bristol Palin, who said that sex for young--under 18--teenagers these days is "accepted"): What will the lives of these children be like? How will those lives compare with te lives of children in the 1950's raised--generally--in two parent families--even African-American children? If you answer honestly, you shuld be vastly concerned about this vast social experiment we are conducting on the children being born today.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Deficits Out of Control as This Blog Proven Right Yet Again: Throw the Bums OUT!!!!!
The Congressional Budget Office announced today that this year's deficit is likely to be at least 1.9 trillion. Our total spendng should probably not even be that much. Not so many years ago, it wasn't. Further, the CBO projected that future deficits will also be worse than originally projected--although the magnitude of this year's deficit makes it easier (ont coincidentally) to meet Obama's "target" of reducing the deficit "in half" by the end of his first term. You will note that "half" of this year's deficit will still be about a trillion dollars.
Now this blog, which really is almost never wrong, projected this weeks ago--at the time President Obama was making his "budget" speeches. Oh, he is still making them, but I projected all of this when Obama first unveiled all of his "cooked" numbers. I told you then that this years deficit would almost surely be 2 trillion dollars. Does it not look like I am right? Sure it does. They may try to hold the final number under 2 trillion (like those $199.99 prices), but 2 trillion is what this year's deficit is going to be (if spedning does ot go further out of control, and raise even that figure). I further told you in thgis blog's previous entries that Obama's deficit "goal" was ridiculous, and left us with out of control deficits as far as the eye can see. Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi, of course, announced today that Democrats would not be deterred in their spending plans because of the deficit--proving again that Obama and the other leftist Democrats are trying to USE the pain of this recession to turn this country into a leftist/socialist "paradise". You might remember what happened when the Soviet Union said it was going to be a "worker's paradise", or that Fidel Castro. has brought nothing but economic misery to Cuba.
This entry is actually a companion entry to this morning's blog entry about why Congress, and every member of Congress, should be RECALLED (or at least defeated in 2010). Congress is willing to betray every principle upon which this country was founded, including dislike of destructive taxation and an all powerful central government, because of 165 million dollars in AIG bonuses that Congress specifically authorized in that "stimulus" bill that none of them read. As the previous blog entry stated, the 165 million has nothing to do with anything. This is entirely explained by the attempt by Congress to deflect public anger from Congress onto AIG. This has actually created further problems for Congress and the Democrats.
Congress and the Democrats can't explain why they authorized the bonuses in the first place. The Obama Administration cannot explain how and why Treasury Secretary Geitner orchestrated the whole thing well before the dates that the Obama Administration has admitted. Congress and the Obama Admistration cannot explain why they only became concerted about OTHER planned bonuses, such as at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (actual government entities) after Congress tried to deflect all of this anger off of them and onto AIG employees. Nor can Congress or the Obama Administration explain why, if AIG is such a villain, we should ever have bailed it out--and continue to bail it out (to the tune of 173 billion, and counting). In fact, Congress cannot explain how it makes sense to conduct these public threats against AIG, when the result will probably be to simply further doom and already doomed company. Why not just let the company fail, if you are going to remove any chance of it not failing. Yes, we shoudl have let it fail in all events, but wthat Congress is doing has no internal logic, and the whole mess was created by Congress int he first place (along with Geitner and the Obama Administration). But this is all a DIGRESSION, worse than any of my frequent apparent digressions in this blog.
Look again at that 1.9 trillion dollar deficit, and the continued trillion dollar projected deficits, with no end. Does 165 million dollars matter, when we are talking about these numbers? Hell no. It does not even matter when you compare it with the 173 billion dollar bailout (without even including the 165 million) of AIG. Remove the 165 million, and you are left with 172.8 billion. This is insignificant. That is why comedian Geitner (see earlier entry this week) proposed to DEDUCT the 165 million from bailout payments to AIG. He did that because he KNOWS that the 165 million is not significant, when compared with the huge numbers we are talking about.
But those evil hypocrites in Congress--especially the leftists--are willing to sell out every principle on which this country was founded, and violate our Constitution, over 165 million dollars (that these same hypocrites in Congress AUTHORIZED to be paid a mere month or so ago). I only suggest recalling/voting these people out of office so as to avoid suggesting that they be shot. 165 million is such a small proportion of 1.9 trillion that it is meaningless. It is certainly not worth establishing the principle that Congress, and the Obama Administration, can USE the Tax Code to DESTROY any people they want to destroy, to preserve or enhance their own power.
Thre was a time when this country would have been horrified by all of this. George McGovern lost 60% of the vote to that crook, Richard Nixon, merely because he advocated giving $1000.00 to every man, woman and child in the country. We are doing much more than that now, although in a worse manner by allowing our "leaders" to pick and choose who gets the majority of our money they are giving away. Further, we are in the process of giving, or they are in the process of taking, our leaders the power to use every tool of the Federal Government--including the Tax Code--to destroy people Congress (or any other people in our Government) want to destroy.
This is terrible. stuff. If you want nightmares, just start thinking at night just how much money the Obama Administration, and the present Congress, is planning on spending--and has already spent. Further, they are "financing" that spending by PURCHASING OUR OWN IOUs. That is what caused the stock market to rise on Wednesday, because it is something Wall Street had wanted (see entry a few weeks ago about a famous bond trader recommending that very scam). Does spending money the Fed does not have to purchase our own paper (Treasury bills) actually "finance" anything? Of course not. It merely PRINTS MOONEY. If we can do this scam without harm, why have we not been doing it all along? You know why. It doesn't work. It is the last resort of scoundrels before lthe whole house of cards collapses. But the people on Wall Street are not only now running the country, along with the leftists (fascist partnership), but they are the Stupidest People on Earth. They proved that by driving the stock market up based on this SHAM to artificially hold down interest rates (which otherwise would rise). You might remember that artificially stimulating lending is what got us in this mess in the first place.
We are in real trouble here. The principlles of our country do not matter to our present leaders (including most of the Republicans). The Constitution does not matter. Reality itself, and history, do not matter, These people are living in the fantasy world of the old Soviet Union. Yes, Vladimir Putin (present leader of Russia) CRITICIZED us for this--for travelling down the dame disastrous road as the old Soviet Union. Putin accurately said that it was a road repudiated by history.
I am a pessimist. I don't see us surviing this. I haven't even mentioned "Total Failure" Pelosi saying that we should not deport anyone here illegally--meaning, of course, that all anyone has to do is make it into this country and they are entitled to stay (a strange policy of "open borders", except we continue the SHAM of trying to stop people at the border, but nowhere else).
I don't see how you can be anything but a pessimist, withour present leaders and our own unwillingness to throw them out wholesale.
Now this blog, which really is almost never wrong, projected this weeks ago--at the time President Obama was making his "budget" speeches. Oh, he is still making them, but I projected all of this when Obama first unveiled all of his "cooked" numbers. I told you then that this years deficit would almost surely be 2 trillion dollars. Does it not look like I am right? Sure it does. They may try to hold the final number under 2 trillion (like those $199.99 prices), but 2 trillion is what this year's deficit is going to be (if spedning does ot go further out of control, and raise even that figure). I further told you in thgis blog's previous entries that Obama's deficit "goal" was ridiculous, and left us with out of control deficits as far as the eye can see. Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi, of course, announced today that Democrats would not be deterred in their spending plans because of the deficit--proving again that Obama and the other leftist Democrats are trying to USE the pain of this recession to turn this country into a leftist/socialist "paradise". You might remember what happened when the Soviet Union said it was going to be a "worker's paradise", or that Fidel Castro. has brought nothing but economic misery to Cuba.
This entry is actually a companion entry to this morning's blog entry about why Congress, and every member of Congress, should be RECALLED (or at least defeated in 2010). Congress is willing to betray every principle upon which this country was founded, including dislike of destructive taxation and an all powerful central government, because of 165 million dollars in AIG bonuses that Congress specifically authorized in that "stimulus" bill that none of them read. As the previous blog entry stated, the 165 million has nothing to do with anything. This is entirely explained by the attempt by Congress to deflect public anger from Congress onto AIG. This has actually created further problems for Congress and the Democrats.
Congress and the Democrats can't explain why they authorized the bonuses in the first place. The Obama Administration cannot explain how and why Treasury Secretary Geitner orchestrated the whole thing well before the dates that the Obama Administration has admitted. Congress and the Obama Admistration cannot explain why they only became concerted about OTHER planned bonuses, such as at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (actual government entities) after Congress tried to deflect all of this anger off of them and onto AIG employees. Nor can Congress or the Obama Administration explain why, if AIG is such a villain, we should ever have bailed it out--and continue to bail it out (to the tune of 173 billion, and counting). In fact, Congress cannot explain how it makes sense to conduct these public threats against AIG, when the result will probably be to simply further doom and already doomed company. Why not just let the company fail, if you are going to remove any chance of it not failing. Yes, we shoudl have let it fail in all events, but wthat Congress is doing has no internal logic, and the whole mess was created by Congress int he first place (along with Geitner and the Obama Administration). But this is all a DIGRESSION, worse than any of my frequent apparent digressions in this blog.
Look again at that 1.9 trillion dollar deficit, and the continued trillion dollar projected deficits, with no end. Does 165 million dollars matter, when we are talking about these numbers? Hell no. It does not even matter when you compare it with the 173 billion dollar bailout (without even including the 165 million) of AIG. Remove the 165 million, and you are left with 172.8 billion. This is insignificant. That is why comedian Geitner (see earlier entry this week) proposed to DEDUCT the 165 million from bailout payments to AIG. He did that because he KNOWS that the 165 million is not significant, when compared with the huge numbers we are talking about.
But those evil hypocrites in Congress--especially the leftists--are willing to sell out every principle on which this country was founded, and violate our Constitution, over 165 million dollars (that these same hypocrites in Congress AUTHORIZED to be paid a mere month or so ago). I only suggest recalling/voting these people out of office so as to avoid suggesting that they be shot. 165 million is such a small proportion of 1.9 trillion that it is meaningless. It is certainly not worth establishing the principle that Congress, and the Obama Administration, can USE the Tax Code to DESTROY any people they want to destroy, to preserve or enhance their own power.
Thre was a time when this country would have been horrified by all of this. George McGovern lost 60% of the vote to that crook, Richard Nixon, merely because he advocated giving $1000.00 to every man, woman and child in the country. We are doing much more than that now, although in a worse manner by allowing our "leaders" to pick and choose who gets the majority of our money they are giving away. Further, we are in the process of giving, or they are in the process of taking, our leaders the power to use every tool of the Federal Government--including the Tax Code--to destroy people Congress (or any other people in our Government) want to destroy.
This is terrible. stuff. If you want nightmares, just start thinking at night just how much money the Obama Administration, and the present Congress, is planning on spending--and has already spent. Further, they are "financing" that spending by PURCHASING OUR OWN IOUs. That is what caused the stock market to rise on Wednesday, because it is something Wall Street had wanted (see entry a few weeks ago about a famous bond trader recommending that very scam). Does spending money the Fed does not have to purchase our own paper (Treasury bills) actually "finance" anything? Of course not. It merely PRINTS MOONEY. If we can do this scam without harm, why have we not been doing it all along? You know why. It doesn't work. It is the last resort of scoundrels before lthe whole house of cards collapses. But the people on Wall Street are not only now running the country, along with the leftists (fascist partnership), but they are the Stupidest People on Earth. They proved that by driving the stock market up based on this SHAM to artificially hold down interest rates (which otherwise would rise). You might remember that artificially stimulating lending is what got us in this mess in the first place.
We are in real trouble here. The principlles of our country do not matter to our present leaders (including most of the Republicans). The Constitution does not matter. Reality itself, and history, do not matter, These people are living in the fantasy world of the old Soviet Union. Yes, Vladimir Putin (present leader of Russia) CRITICIZED us for this--for travelling down the dame disastrous road as the old Soviet Union. Putin accurately said that it was a road repudiated by history.
I am a pessimist. I don't see us surviing this. I haven't even mentioned "Total Failure" Pelosi saying that we should not deport anyone here illegally--meaning, of course, that all anyone has to do is make it into this country and they are entitled to stay (a strange policy of "open borders", except we continue the SHAM of trying to stop people at the border, but nowhere else).
I don't see how you can be anything but a pessimist, withour present leaders and our own unwillingness to throw them out wholesale.
President Obama: Gutter Ball; Sarah Palin: Strike--Bowling and the Special Olympics
Sarah Palin is a better person than President Obama. I am willing to state that flatly and bluntly, from the evidence of her life--as well as the evidence of the pat few days. Okay. Sarah Palin is a better person than me, by a longshot, but that is hardly an issue, is it?
Certainly I can prove the above statement. Sarah Palin had a Down's Syndrome baby, wehn she could have had an abortion. That is not even the important part. Sarah Palin had that baby JOYFULLY, at least to all appearances, without treating herself as a victim or her baby as a worthless thing.
Meanwhile, President Obama went on Jay Leno's "Tonight" show and said something about the special Olympics that was worse than what Don Imus said about the Rutgers basketball team--worse, because Imus' over the top comments were clearly meant as a direct joke about the Rutgers baskeball team (women's), even if a hurtful joke. President Obama's offhand comments about the Special Olympics seemed to represent how he really feels about the Special Olympics, since the comment came so naturally to him. If you have not seen it, Jay Leno aseked Obama about his bowling. Obama--without his usual teleprompter, said he has been practicing (obviously in place of figuring out what to do with the economy), but thjat he still looked like he was "in the Special Olympics" (or words to that effect). Funny, huh?--NOT.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin was presenting a supporting video to the Special Olympics, and posting the video on her website. In that video, Palin says she is looking forward to seeing Trig (her son) compete in the Special Olympics, and is glad such a thing exists for him to have the same opportunity to engage in sports as "normal" people. Further, Palin says that the goal of all parents is to have a "prefect" child, and how she is so glad her son turned out to be "perfect" (a pllay on the word, and a pre-emptive slap at Obama, without even knowing what he was going to say). In other words, of course, Sarah Palin is saying that a Down's Syndrome child is just as "perfect" as other children, despite the handicap. You can regard this as so much pap, if you are a cynic, but it is miles closer to being correct than the attitude of President Obama. Apologies, of course, did Imus no good. They would have done President Bush no good, if he had said what Obama said. But the mainstream media has old its soul to the Devil, and therefore are perfectly willing to let Obama slide. I digress (not really). The point is that Sarah Palin has p[roven herself a better person that President Obama.
Q.E.D. It is demonstrated. Note I am not saying that this proves Sarah Palin would have been a better President. President Obama is proving that, in multiple other ways, every single day--mainly because absolutely no one could be a worse President.
Where did the reference to "Gutter Ball" in the heading come from? That is Drudge (you gotta love Drudge). Drudge's headline this morning, under a pciture of Obama, was "Guitter Ball"--referring directly to Obama's comment to Jay Lenao. The Sarah Palin comparison is mine.
P.S. I am somewhat ambivalent about the Special Olympics myself, but I am not an industrial grade hypocrite, like President Obama and most of the rest of you leftists out there. See the previosu entry, and my multiple entries over the years establisheing that leftists are the worst hypocrites ever to walk the Earth. I am ambiguous abut the concept of the Special Olympics for the very reason that it leads to a reaction like that of Obama. Is it not condescending to handicapped persons. I don't think the concept is logical. What about a golf tournament for person's who are CRIPPLED (even if, for example, in a car accident that mangled their hands or legs). What about normal people with absolutely NO athletic ability? I just think that it treats the handicapped too much as victimcs to suggest that we should have special events just for them, where the "winners" will presumably be those who are LEASAT handicapped. "But", you sputter, "these young people deserve to be able to compete in sports just like anybody else. The joy is in the competing, and not in winning or losing". Uh-huh. Tell it to Vince Lombardi, when you see him in Heaven. As revealed numberous times in this blog, I will not be seeing him there. Of course, neither will most of you leftists out there--especially in the mainstream media. I digress again. I told you I was not nearly as nice a person as Sarah Palin. It should disturb you that I MAY be a nicer person than Barack "World" Obama!!!! The point does bother me. Would I deny Down's Syndrome children the pleasure of competing, and getting whatever joy outof life that brings them? I am conflicted. I can see both sides, and even I can see that the Special Olympics have a potential for good (so long as Obama and the really fanatic "victim's rights" leftists stay out of it). Let Sarah Palin run it, and I think the whole idea could do much more good than harm. And I trust that is true of the people who are running it. Let Barack Obama, or someone like him, control the Special Olympics, and they become just another, condescending, insulting, "feel good" device for self-interest (of professional "charity" people) and expiation of guilt the easy way.
P. S. 2: I have previously "dissed" religion in this blog, if not in the arrogant, insulting way of the left (including the left who profess to be "religious", like Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi. Now I have (mildly) "dissed" the Sepcial Olympics. Let me see, is there anything else I can do to offend absolutely EVERYBODY out there? Let me know.
Certainly I can prove the above statement. Sarah Palin had a Down's Syndrome baby, wehn she could have had an abortion. That is not even the important part. Sarah Palin had that baby JOYFULLY, at least to all appearances, without treating herself as a victim or her baby as a worthless thing.
Meanwhile, President Obama went on Jay Leno's "Tonight" show and said something about the special Olympics that was worse than what Don Imus said about the Rutgers basketball team--worse, because Imus' over the top comments were clearly meant as a direct joke about the Rutgers baskeball team (women's), even if a hurtful joke. President Obama's offhand comments about the Special Olympics seemed to represent how he really feels about the Special Olympics, since the comment came so naturally to him. If you have not seen it, Jay Leno aseked Obama about his bowling. Obama--without his usual teleprompter, said he has been practicing (obviously in place of figuring out what to do with the economy), but thjat he still looked like he was "in the Special Olympics" (or words to that effect). Funny, huh?--NOT.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin was presenting a supporting video to the Special Olympics, and posting the video on her website. In that video, Palin says she is looking forward to seeing Trig (her son) compete in the Special Olympics, and is glad such a thing exists for him to have the same opportunity to engage in sports as "normal" people. Further, Palin says that the goal of all parents is to have a "prefect" child, and how she is so glad her son turned out to be "perfect" (a pllay on the word, and a pre-emptive slap at Obama, without even knowing what he was going to say). In other words, of course, Sarah Palin is saying that a Down's Syndrome child is just as "perfect" as other children, despite the handicap. You can regard this as so much pap, if you are a cynic, but it is miles closer to being correct than the attitude of President Obama. Apologies, of course, did Imus no good. They would have done President Bush no good, if he had said what Obama said. But the mainstream media has old its soul to the Devil, and therefore are perfectly willing to let Obama slide. I digress (not really). The point is that Sarah Palin has p[roven herself a better person that President Obama.
Q.E.D. It is demonstrated. Note I am not saying that this proves Sarah Palin would have been a better President. President Obama is proving that, in multiple other ways, every single day--mainly because absolutely no one could be a worse President.
Where did the reference to "Gutter Ball" in the heading come from? That is Drudge (you gotta love Drudge). Drudge's headline this morning, under a pciture of Obama, was "Guitter Ball"--referring directly to Obama's comment to Jay Lenao. The Sarah Palin comparison is mine.
P.S. I am somewhat ambivalent about the Special Olympics myself, but I am not an industrial grade hypocrite, like President Obama and most of the rest of you leftists out there. See the previosu entry, and my multiple entries over the years establisheing that leftists are the worst hypocrites ever to walk the Earth. I am ambiguous abut the concept of the Special Olympics for the very reason that it leads to a reaction like that of Obama. Is it not condescending to handicapped persons. I don't think the concept is logical. What about a golf tournament for person's who are CRIPPLED (even if, for example, in a car accident that mangled their hands or legs). What about normal people with absolutely NO athletic ability? I just think that it treats the handicapped too much as victimcs to suggest that we should have special events just for them, where the "winners" will presumably be those who are LEASAT handicapped. "But", you sputter, "these young people deserve to be able to compete in sports just like anybody else. The joy is in the competing, and not in winning or losing". Uh-huh. Tell it to Vince Lombardi, when you see him in Heaven. As revealed numberous times in this blog, I will not be seeing him there. Of course, neither will most of you leftists out there--especially in the mainstream media. I digress again. I told you I was not nearly as nice a person as Sarah Palin. It should disturb you that I MAY be a nicer person than Barack "World" Obama!!!! The point does bother me. Would I deny Down's Syndrome children the pleasure of competing, and getting whatever joy outof life that brings them? I am conflicted. I can see both sides, and even I can see that the Special Olympics have a potential for good (so long as Obama and the really fanatic "victim's rights" leftists stay out of it). Let Sarah Palin run it, and I think the whole idea could do much more good than harm. And I trust that is true of the people who are running it. Let Barack Obama, or someone like him, control the Special Olympics, and they become just another, condescending, insulting, "feel good" device for self-interest (of professional "charity" people) and expiation of guilt the easy way.
P. S. 2: I have previously "dissed" religion in this blog, if not in the arrogant, insulting way of the left (including the left who profess to be "religious", like Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi. Now I have (mildly) "dissed" the Sepcial Olympics. Let me see, is there anything else I can do to offend absolutely EVERYBODY out there? Let me know.
Tax Code as a Weapon? RECALL CONGRESS. Watch Out Alex Rodriguez! Eric Cantor Needs to GO (Republican Congressman)!
It is time to "impeach" Congress for gross violations of the Constitution Except you can't "impeach" Congress, because that is a word that only applies to something Congress can do with the Executive and Judicial branches--mainly the President himself Further, asking members of Congress to "impeach" themselves would be futile, because these people do not have the honor of those Japanese mentioned in that over the top suggestion to AIG employees by one REPUBLICAN Senator. No member of Congress is going to "fall on his or her sword" as a matter of honor. These people have NO honor. They don't even recognize honor. You can count the members of Congress with ANY honor on the fingers of one hand. It is time to throw ALL of the bums out--every single, solitary one of them now in office--Republicans and Democrats. But we should not even wait for that.
No, you can't "impeach" members of Congress--at least in the government itself. However, most states have a provision for RECALL of elected officials. It is time for their constituents to take up their pitchforks and go to Washington (Dracula's castle--these people ARE vampires) and remove the blood suckers bodily from the premises. AIG people are mere annoyances in comparison with these people in Congress.
As to this recall, I am talking specifically about recalling every single member of Congress who voted either for this "stimulus" bill or for this outrageous, unconstitutional bill to CONFISCATE the money of those AIG employees who received bonuses (AS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--the Dodd Amendment to the truely outrageous "stimulus" bill).
As this blog has said, leftists are the worst, most sanctimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth. The House, including 85 Republican, has just asserted the "right" to individually use the tax code as a WEAPON against individual people they don't like. Further, they have doe so as a Hitlerian, dictatorial effort to DEFLECT public anger from themselves (where it belongs). If the tax code can be used to PUNISH people members of Congress do not like, or who members of Congress are pretending not to like for their own self-serving purposes, then this country is doomed. Further, the country deserves to be doomed. But we still can save our souls by revolting against these people (NOT AIG employees, but members of Congress). If we fail to do so, then we deserve what we get.
Yes, every single member of Congress who votes for this outrageous bill should be RECALLED (if possible), and certainly defeated in the next election. That includes Eric Cantor of Virginia, a supposed "rising star" among Republicans. You need no further evidence as to why the Republican Party is DEAD.
Now that we know (members of Congress have just told us so--including Senators like Charles Schumer who have not voted on the bill yet) that the tax code can be USED as a naked weapon against people we don't like (or pretend not to like), I have some suggestions.
You know Alex Rodriguez? Yes, the baseball player from the New York Yankees who has admitted using steroids. Well, I think it is time to tax 90% of his ill-gotten earnings (which means a tax rate above 100%, if he lives in New York City). Alex Rodriguez has betrayed our children by setting the wrong example, and he has CHEATED. Of course it does not matter that what he did was legal at the time. So was what the AIG employees did.
And Roger Clemens? Why bother to prosecute him and put him in jail? Just tax all of his income--TARGET HIM. Make him POOR. Don't even leave him enough to eat. You will remember that he is accused of lying to Congress on his use of steroids. Barry Bonds? Off with his head (although I am suggesting worse--making him POOR). Look at the BEUTY of using the tax code as a weapon (not lost on the members of Congress urging it as a weapon of POWER to help them keep their own power). The "wrongdoers" are not only punished, but the government gets the money (reducing the outrageous deficit that Congress is imposing on us with their out of control spending).
Members of Congress? Does anyone think they are doing a good job, or out for anyone but themselves? I doubt if, in their inner souls, even they think so. TAX THEM. Tax them at 90%. They clearly do not "deserve" the money!!!! If you think they will not vote to take away their own salaries completely (you are surely right), surely their ares ome rich members of Congress willing to introduce a bill to tax Congressional salaries above the median level of salaries in the country at large at a rate of 70%. Could these COWARDS in Congress really vote against such a bill? I would like to see them do it, anyway, which would expose them for the outrageous hypocrites they are.
You don't like your neighbor? Easy solution. Get your member of Congress to vote to TAX HIM into the poor house!!!
You can see where this is going. You don't think anyone should earn more than $100,000? Why should Derek Jeter earn that much money? Puljous? Oil company executives? GM executives (even before the bailouts)? Hollywood stars, directors, etc.? Tax away every penny they earn over $100,000.00. Of course this means that they will have no "incentive" to earn more than $100,000.00. But this is the road down which we are heading, in the Age of Obama, even before this outrageous House vote using the Tax Code as a weapon. Tax increases do NOT increase revenue, for this reason. But they satisfy people's EMOTIIONS (at least politicians think they do).
Notice how hypocritical leftists really are (the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth). They talk about Bush being a "dictator", and willing to disregard the Constitution to "punish" and fight terrorists. Yet, leftists are willing to vote for, and support, the most outrageous violations of the Constitution, putting EVERYONE'S freedom at risk, whenever they think it will advance their own POWER.
Nope. I hve had it with these people (members of Congress). They all need to be RECALLED. Just hope that none of them ever have it in for YOU. There are now no bounds to the power these people are seeking, and asserting as their "right". YOU could be next in the cross hairs.
).S. 1: As stated before, I would not have paid any AIG employees any bonuses. That is because the company would have been in bankruptcy, if I were in charge, and all of these people out of a job. But I am not such a hypocrite, and so lacking in honor, as to be willing to simply PERVERT whatever power I have to punish people I don't like, and think should have been permitted to fail.
P.S. 2: If I lived in Eric Cantor's district, I would vote for his RECALLL, and against his re-election. Yes, I perfectly realize that this attitude might end up helping leftist Democrats, because their constituents are perfectly willing to vote for evil hypocrites, and willing to see the Federal Government in complete, arbitrary control of all of our lives. If we had national health care (coming, of course, and really almost here), DENY AIG EMPLOYEES HEALTH CARE. They don't deserve health care. They deserve to DIE. That is thie kind of thinking you get when you start down this road of arbitrary use of unlimited power. I refuse to be a part of it. If that means I have to vote against people like Eric Cantor (and John McCain--for his other crimes, as I don't know where he stands on taxing AIG employees as punishment), so be it. I put principle ahead of power, and will continue to do so. My present principle is that almost all members of Congress need to GO. That includes Eric Canor. Bite me, Eric.
P.S. 3: I have said before that I do not expect to vote for a Republican (or Democrat) again in my lifetime. I should clarify that I mean any present politician in office. I fully expect to vote AGAINST every single incumbent. As I have said, there may be a handful of members of Congress with actual principles. That does not include ANY Republican who voted for ANY of the "stimulus" or bailout bills, or who voted for this perversion of the Tax Code. Eric Cantor, this means YOU. If you ever run for national office, you will win over my dead body. To paraphrase Charlton Heston (on guns): They will have to pry the ballot voting againt you out of my cold, dead hands. We need a revolution, and half measures are no longer enough. We need a conservative coup in the Republican Party, or a conservative third party. I MIGHT make an exception for a conservative governor willing to lead a conservative coup (Bobby Jindal?). But I will not make one for the likes of Eric Cantor, or any of these members of Congress who need to be RECALLED.
P. S. 4: If your state does not have a law allowing recall of members of Congress elected in your state, you should enact one. Then use it.
No, you can't "impeach" members of Congress--at least in the government itself. However, most states have a provision for RECALL of elected officials. It is time for their constituents to take up their pitchforks and go to Washington (Dracula's castle--these people ARE vampires) and remove the blood suckers bodily from the premises. AIG people are mere annoyances in comparison with these people in Congress.
As to this recall, I am talking specifically about recalling every single member of Congress who voted either for this "stimulus" bill or for this outrageous, unconstitutional bill to CONFISCATE the money of those AIG employees who received bonuses (AS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--the Dodd Amendment to the truely outrageous "stimulus" bill).
As this blog has said, leftists are the worst, most sanctimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth. The House, including 85 Republican, has just asserted the "right" to individually use the tax code as a WEAPON against individual people they don't like. Further, they have doe so as a Hitlerian, dictatorial effort to DEFLECT public anger from themselves (where it belongs). If the tax code can be used to PUNISH people members of Congress do not like, or who members of Congress are pretending not to like for their own self-serving purposes, then this country is doomed. Further, the country deserves to be doomed. But we still can save our souls by revolting against these people (NOT AIG employees, but members of Congress). If we fail to do so, then we deserve what we get.
Yes, every single member of Congress who votes for this outrageous bill should be RECALLED (if possible), and certainly defeated in the next election. That includes Eric Cantor of Virginia, a supposed "rising star" among Republicans. You need no further evidence as to why the Republican Party is DEAD.
Now that we know (members of Congress have just told us so--including Senators like Charles Schumer who have not voted on the bill yet) that the tax code can be USED as a naked weapon against people we don't like (or pretend not to like), I have some suggestions.
You know Alex Rodriguez? Yes, the baseball player from the New York Yankees who has admitted using steroids. Well, I think it is time to tax 90% of his ill-gotten earnings (which means a tax rate above 100%, if he lives in New York City). Alex Rodriguez has betrayed our children by setting the wrong example, and he has CHEATED. Of course it does not matter that what he did was legal at the time. So was what the AIG employees did.
And Roger Clemens? Why bother to prosecute him and put him in jail? Just tax all of his income--TARGET HIM. Make him POOR. Don't even leave him enough to eat. You will remember that he is accused of lying to Congress on his use of steroids. Barry Bonds? Off with his head (although I am suggesting worse--making him POOR). Look at the BEUTY of using the tax code as a weapon (not lost on the members of Congress urging it as a weapon of POWER to help them keep their own power). The "wrongdoers" are not only punished, but the government gets the money (reducing the outrageous deficit that Congress is imposing on us with their out of control spending).
Members of Congress? Does anyone think they are doing a good job, or out for anyone but themselves? I doubt if, in their inner souls, even they think so. TAX THEM. Tax them at 90%. They clearly do not "deserve" the money!!!! If you think they will not vote to take away their own salaries completely (you are surely right), surely their ares ome rich members of Congress willing to introduce a bill to tax Congressional salaries above the median level of salaries in the country at large at a rate of 70%. Could these COWARDS in Congress really vote against such a bill? I would like to see them do it, anyway, which would expose them for the outrageous hypocrites they are.
You don't like your neighbor? Easy solution. Get your member of Congress to vote to TAX HIM into the poor house!!!
You can see where this is going. You don't think anyone should earn more than $100,000? Why should Derek Jeter earn that much money? Puljous? Oil company executives? GM executives (even before the bailouts)? Hollywood stars, directors, etc.? Tax away every penny they earn over $100,000.00. Of course this means that they will have no "incentive" to earn more than $100,000.00. But this is the road down which we are heading, in the Age of Obama, even before this outrageous House vote using the Tax Code as a weapon. Tax increases do NOT increase revenue, for this reason. But they satisfy people's EMOTIIONS (at least politicians think they do).
Notice how hypocritical leftists really are (the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth). They talk about Bush being a "dictator", and willing to disregard the Constitution to "punish" and fight terrorists. Yet, leftists are willing to vote for, and support, the most outrageous violations of the Constitution, putting EVERYONE'S freedom at risk, whenever they think it will advance their own POWER.
Nope. I hve had it with these people (members of Congress). They all need to be RECALLED. Just hope that none of them ever have it in for YOU. There are now no bounds to the power these people are seeking, and asserting as their "right". YOU could be next in the cross hairs.
).S. 1: As stated before, I would not have paid any AIG employees any bonuses. That is because the company would have been in bankruptcy, if I were in charge, and all of these people out of a job. But I am not such a hypocrite, and so lacking in honor, as to be willing to simply PERVERT whatever power I have to punish people I don't like, and think should have been permitted to fail.
P.S. 2: If I lived in Eric Cantor's district, I would vote for his RECALLL, and against his re-election. Yes, I perfectly realize that this attitude might end up helping leftist Democrats, because their constituents are perfectly willing to vote for evil hypocrites, and willing to see the Federal Government in complete, arbitrary control of all of our lives. If we had national health care (coming, of course, and really almost here), DENY AIG EMPLOYEES HEALTH CARE. They don't deserve health care. They deserve to DIE. That is thie kind of thinking you get when you start down this road of arbitrary use of unlimited power. I refuse to be a part of it. If that means I have to vote against people like Eric Cantor (and John McCain--for his other crimes, as I don't know where he stands on taxing AIG employees as punishment), so be it. I put principle ahead of power, and will continue to do so. My present principle is that almost all members of Congress need to GO. That includes Eric Canor. Bite me, Eric.
P.S. 3: I have said before that I do not expect to vote for a Republican (or Democrat) again in my lifetime. I should clarify that I mean any present politician in office. I fully expect to vote AGAINST every single incumbent. As I have said, there may be a handful of members of Congress with actual principles. That does not include ANY Republican who voted for ANY of the "stimulus" or bailout bills, or who voted for this perversion of the Tax Code. Eric Cantor, this means YOU. If you ever run for national office, you will win over my dead body. To paraphrase Charlton Heston (on guns): They will have to pry the ballot voting againt you out of my cold, dead hands. We need a revolution, and half measures are no longer enough. We need a conservative coup in the Republican Party, or a conservative third party. I MIGHT make an exception for a conservative governor willing to lead a conservative coup (Bobby Jindal?). But I will not make one for the likes of Eric Cantor, or any of these members of Congress who need to be RECALLED.
P. S. 4: If your state does not have a law allowing recall of members of Congress elected in your state, you should enact one. Then use it.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Duke (Caoch K) to President Obama: BITE ME (translation)
President Obama has picked North Carolina to win the NCAA basketball tournament. Coach (of archrival, Duke) K's (nope--not going to speel it) reaction: "The President should focus on the economy more than tournament brackets."
This is the MAIN headline on Drudge this morning ("Duke Coach Slams Obama...."). You gotta love Drudge.
This is the MAIN headline on Drudge this morning ("Duke Coach Slams Obama...."). You gotta love Drudge.
Christopher Dodd, Comedian (Guest Appearance by Don Imus)
It turns out that Christopher Dodd was responsible for the "Dodd Amendment" (authorizing the AIG bonuses) to the Obama "stimuulus" (porkulus) bill. Well, e all knew that. But it gets better. Senator Dodd is really a funny guy. It bets better.
His latest statement is that the Amendment in question was inserted in the bill--according to Dodd--by his STAFF at the request of the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. It just doesn't get any funnier than this.
Don Imus (who I--justly--criticized for selling out to MSNBC and the politcally correct "establishment" more than a decade ago) actually destroyed Joe Lieberman on his readio program. Lieberman admitted that no one voting n the "stimulus" bill had actually read it, or knw what was in it. Lieberman, of course, said that: "We knew generally what was in it". Imuss' response: "That is like saying you 'generally' know what is in the Bible, but excusing your adultery by saying that you missed that part about 'thouu shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife". Or, I might add to what Imus said, maybe you missed that part about how "thou shalt not murder".
Now we have comedian Dodd admitting his STAFF was responsible for the Dodd Amendment, and throwing the Obama Administration under the bus. And every Democrat who voted for the "stimulus" bill is forced to admit he or she did not know what was in it--as if that excuses them instead of damning them (and the Obama Administration). It does not get any funnier than this.
P.S.: I do admire how Don Imus is handling his canceer diagnosis by deflating stupid questions. "How do you feel". "How do you think I fell. I don't feel very well" ("you idiot"). "This is what comes of eating a vegetarian diet for ten years. Now the idiots, who can always tell you why their recommended, guaranteed health measures did not work, are telling me I have too much 'stress' in my life"
His latest statement is that the Amendment in question was inserted in the bill--according to Dodd--by his STAFF at the request of the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. It just doesn't get any funnier than this.
Don Imus (who I--justly--criticized for selling out to MSNBC and the politcally correct "establishment" more than a decade ago) actually destroyed Joe Lieberman on his readio program. Lieberman admitted that no one voting n the "stimulus" bill had actually read it, or knw what was in it. Lieberman, of course, said that: "We knew generally what was in it". Imuss' response: "That is like saying you 'generally' know what is in the Bible, but excusing your adultery by saying that you missed that part about 'thouu shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife". Or, I might add to what Imus said, maybe you missed that part about how "thou shalt not murder".
Now we have comedian Dodd admitting his STAFF was responsible for the Dodd Amendment, and throwing the Obama Administration under the bus. And every Democrat who voted for the "stimulus" bill is forced to admit he or she did not know what was in it--as if that excuses them instead of damning them (and the Obama Administration). It does not get any funnier than this.
P.S.: I do admire how Don Imus is handling his canceer diagnosis by deflating stupid questions. "How do you feel". "How do you think I fell. I don't feel very well" ("you idiot"). "This is what comes of eating a vegetarian diet for ten years. Now the idiots, who can always tell you why their recommended, guaranteed health measures did not work, are telling me I have too much 'stress' in my life"
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Warren Buffet: The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points at YOU!!!!!
This blog annnounced over the weekend that legendary investor/businessman Warren Buffet was this week's recipient of the coveted/dreaded Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate. The actual awards ceremony was delayed to see if Warren Buffet could be induced to fly to El Paso, in his private jet (see weekend entries), to receive the Finger in person. But scheduling conflicts proved too difficult, even though Buffer expressed his appreciation of the honor, and it was decided to proceed witht he ceremony.
As readers of this blog know, the Finger is this blog's unauthorized reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award for really outstanding stupidity in the previous week. The award is represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger.
See the entry today about President Obama and Jim Owens, CEO of Caterpillar. For whatever reason, the big players in the financial community have become economic fascists (defined as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer"--a partnership between Big Business/Wall Street/Big Government). Thus, Warren Buffet was a big supporter of Barack "World" Obama, and used by Obama to give Obama credibiity on economics. Jim Owens was used, in much the same way, to advance Obama's ridiculously bad "stimulus" bill (see immediately preceding entry as to that bill, along with many earlier entries).
So why does Buffet richly deserve the Finger? Well, see the weekend entries. But, in short, Warren Buffet has BETRAYED his country to avoid interfering with the "cult of personaliby" that is Obama.
Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that President obama was wrong headed in 4 separate areas, including the new TAX known as "cap and trade (along with "card check" forced unionization, corporate jets, and trying to do too much when the economy is falling off of a cliff. In effect, Buffet said Obama was in danger of RUINING the economy of this country by going off in all of these wrong directions--especially when we are already in a bad recession that should be claiming all of his attention.
On "cap and trade" alone, a top economic advisor was quoted today as saying it would cost Americans 2 trillion dollars (dwarfing the small Obama "middle class" tax cuts, as people are forced, by government taxes on "carbon emitting" industries, to pay higher utility bills (not to mention highter gasoline bills, and higher bills for every product using carbon fuels to produce it, including food transported by truck). This alone will ruin our economy, and Buffet recognizes it.
However, Buffet insisted upon repeating that he stilll "strongly supports" Obama. In other words, Buffet took all sting out of his criticisms by basically leaving it up to Obama whether Obama follows Buffet's advice. Buffet made clear that Obama still had Buffet's support, even if Obama totally ignored Buffet (as Obama is doing, despite his campaign promise to "listen" to such advice from experts).
Now Buffet did not have to--lie Rush Limbaugh--say that he wanted Obama to "fail" in pushing his policies, even though that is what Buffet was really suggesting. However, for Buffet to emasculate his own criticisms the way he did was to betray Buffet's country, in favor of allegiance to a single man. For that, Buffet deserves the Finger. And today it is awarded to him.
Award Ceremony (as usual, the ceremony takes place entirely in the imagination, without even any graphics; this is why it is suggested that you visualize Dick Martin presenting the old Laugh In award, solely as a visual aid to help your imagination):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera, and saying: "Warren Buffet, this is for you. You deserve it. Too bad you put your standing in the "in" crowd ahead of your country."
This is Dick Martin again. I repeat that this blog is using my name without my permission. And now the blog author has gone TOO FAR. How dare he criticize Warren Buffet!!! I ask you. How much money does the blog author have? And how much money does Warren Buffet have? I rest my case. This guy could not shine Warren Buffet's shoes, and has no business bashing Warren Buffet in my name. Who knows what Warren Buffet can do to ME. I have no intention of finding out.
Editorial comment from your editor: This blog has been unable to prevent the entity calling himself/itself Dick Martin from hacking into this blog. It is unclear how this is being done, and from where (best not to even think about that). Sorry for the distraction. It is a little disturbing to realize how far Warren Buffet's inflence may reach. This merely shows again the fearlessness of your blog editor, willing to discuss religion (in past entries) and bash Warren Buffet. It is hard to get much braver than that.
As readers of this blog know, the Finger is this blog's unauthorized reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award for really outstanding stupidity in the previous week. The award is represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger.
See the entry today about President Obama and Jim Owens, CEO of Caterpillar. For whatever reason, the big players in the financial community have become economic fascists (defined as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer"--a partnership between Big Business/Wall Street/Big Government). Thus, Warren Buffet was a big supporter of Barack "World" Obama, and used by Obama to give Obama credibiity on economics. Jim Owens was used, in much the same way, to advance Obama's ridiculously bad "stimulus" bill (see immediately preceding entry as to that bill, along with many earlier entries).
So why does Buffet richly deserve the Finger? Well, see the weekend entries. But, in short, Warren Buffet has BETRAYED his country to avoid interfering with the "cult of personaliby" that is Obama.
Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that President obama was wrong headed in 4 separate areas, including the new TAX known as "cap and trade (along with "card check" forced unionization, corporate jets, and trying to do too much when the economy is falling off of a cliff. In effect, Buffet said Obama was in danger of RUINING the economy of this country by going off in all of these wrong directions--especially when we are already in a bad recession that should be claiming all of his attention.
On "cap and trade" alone, a top economic advisor was quoted today as saying it would cost Americans 2 trillion dollars (dwarfing the small Obama "middle class" tax cuts, as people are forced, by government taxes on "carbon emitting" industries, to pay higher utility bills (not to mention highter gasoline bills, and higher bills for every product using carbon fuels to produce it, including food transported by truck). This alone will ruin our economy, and Buffet recognizes it.
However, Buffet insisted upon repeating that he stilll "strongly supports" Obama. In other words, Buffet took all sting out of his criticisms by basically leaving it up to Obama whether Obama follows Buffet's advice. Buffet made clear that Obama still had Buffet's support, even if Obama totally ignored Buffet (as Obama is doing, despite his campaign promise to "listen" to such advice from experts).
Now Buffet did not have to--lie Rush Limbaugh--say that he wanted Obama to "fail" in pushing his policies, even though that is what Buffet was really suggesting. However, for Buffet to emasculate his own criticisms the way he did was to betray Buffet's country, in favor of allegiance to a single man. For that, Buffet deserves the Finger. And today it is awarded to him.
Award Ceremony (as usual, the ceremony takes place entirely in the imagination, without even any graphics; this is why it is suggested that you visualize Dick Martin presenting the old Laugh In award, solely as a visual aid to help your imagination):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera, and saying: "Warren Buffet, this is for you. You deserve it. Too bad you put your standing in the "in" crowd ahead of your country."
This is Dick Martin again. I repeat that this blog is using my name without my permission. And now the blog author has gone TOO FAR. How dare he criticize Warren Buffet!!! I ask you. How much money does the blog author have? And how much money does Warren Buffet have? I rest my case. This guy could not shine Warren Buffet's shoes, and has no business bashing Warren Buffet in my name. Who knows what Warren Buffet can do to ME. I have no intention of finding out.
Editorial comment from your editor: This blog has been unable to prevent the entity calling himself/itself Dick Martin from hacking into this blog. It is unclear how this is being done, and from where (best not to even think about that). Sorry for the distraction. It is a little disturbing to realize how far Warren Buffet's inflence may reach. This merely shows again the fearlessness of your blog editor, willing to discuss religion (in past entries) and bash Warren Buffet. It is hard to get much braver than that.
Christopher Dodd, Comedian: Jay Leno Fades as Democrats Prove Funnier (Explaining President Obama's Appearnce on Jay Leno)
The competition is really getting stiff for Jay Leno. You have Timothy Geitner, and his imitation of a looony tax cheat in charge of the U.S. Treasury, who professes to believe that it makes sense to "reimburse" the taxpayers by deducting "excess" bonus payments (the 165 million dollars) from the billions of future taxpayer money paid to prop up an insolvent company (AIG: See last night's entry).
Then there is Senator Charles Schumer, doing his best imitation of a rabid, Hitler type dictator foaming at the mouth. Charlie Chaplin was not as funny in "The Great Dictator." Again, see last nights entry on Schumer.
Then there is Christopher Dood, the Democratic Senator from Connecticut who got a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Mortgage, as he helped lead the country to ruin as head of the Senate Banking Committee (blocking all attempts at reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Last night I said that Dodd had apparently inserted the amendment in the "Stimulus" (more accurately, porkulus) bill that specifically authorized AIG to give unlimited bonuses, so long as they were based on contracts entered into prior to February 11, 2009.
Christopher Dodd denies that he inserted that amendment in the bill. Here is where the hysterically funny comedy comes in (Jay Leno, eat your heart out). For Dodd went fruther. He says that he does not know who inserted the language allowing this kind of bunus into the "stimulus" bill, and that he did not even realize he was voting for this language when he voted for the bill (as every Democrat did).
Do you realize how hysterically funny Dodd really is? He thinks it is better to admit that you made a partisan vote for a bill--the content of which you were unaware--when you have no idea who was even inserting language in the bill. That is funny.
We know this was a Democratic bill, drafted totally by Democrats. Thus, we are left with blaming the entire Democratic Party, including all Democratic Senators and President Obama, for specifically authorizing AIG to make these bonus payments Timothy Geitner, of course, knew about the payments before they were made, and--in feect--signed off on the bonus payments (whether reluctantly or not).
Hold on, you say Three Republicans (really Democrats merely labeled Republicans) voted for the "stimulus" bill). Maybe one of THEM inserted the offending language in the "stimulus" bill authorizing the AIG bonus payments. Stop. You are killing me. Sorry, Jay, I never laughed this hard at you.
The matter of whatever changes Specter, Snow, and Collins wanted in the bill for their support was a subject of specific negotiation with the Democratic leadership of the bill (Dodd, Reid, Schumer, et. al.). It is more than funny to suggest that one of the three Republicans managed to sneak language into the bill, and deceive the poor, stupid Democratic saps. Nope. Not even faintly plausible. What was in this bill was put there by DEMOCRATS.
But Christopher Dodd says we can't blame him. He didn't know what was in the bill. Where does that leave us? Well, every single Republican voted against this bill in the House. Only three nominal Republicans voted for this bill in the Senate. It was DEMOCRAT'S who drafted the bill, including the final "compromise" bill. It, again was a DEMOCRATIC bill all of the way. However, we are assured by Senator Dodd that it was not him that did it, and that no one knows who did it.
What alternative do we have? None that I can see. The conclusions is obvious:
EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AIG BONUSES.
You say that Paulson and Bush started it all with the AIG/bank bailouts? I agree. Even then, however, it was the REPUBLICANS in the HOUSE who did their best to derail the first 700 billion dollar bailut bill. Even then, it was the Democrats in Congress who actually drafted the bill (throwing out Paulson's one page version, but still giving the Treasury Secretary a blank check). But Democrats have now taken total responsibility for these ridiculous bills, and are totally responsible for the AIG bonus payments.
Is there a further conclusion to be made? yep. Every single Democrat in Congress should be voted out of office, except--perhaps--for the six who voted against the Democratic "stimulus" bill in the House. As I have previously said, if you also want to vote out every Republican who voted for ANY bailout bill, be my guest. They deserve it. The Democrats have simply made clear that they deserve to ber voted out even more than the Republicans, and that takes real talent.
P.S.: Does it not give you confidence (sarcasm) in central planning Big Government that Congress does not even know what is in the bills they pass?
Then there is Senator Charles Schumer, doing his best imitation of a rabid, Hitler type dictator foaming at the mouth. Charlie Chaplin was not as funny in "The Great Dictator." Again, see last nights entry on Schumer.
Then there is Christopher Dood, the Democratic Senator from Connecticut who got a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Mortgage, as he helped lead the country to ruin as head of the Senate Banking Committee (blocking all attempts at reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Last night I said that Dodd had apparently inserted the amendment in the "Stimulus" (more accurately, porkulus) bill that specifically authorized AIG to give unlimited bonuses, so long as they were based on contracts entered into prior to February 11, 2009.
Christopher Dodd denies that he inserted that amendment in the bill. Here is where the hysterically funny comedy comes in (Jay Leno, eat your heart out). For Dodd went fruther. He says that he does not know who inserted the language allowing this kind of bunus into the "stimulus" bill, and that he did not even realize he was voting for this language when he voted for the bill (as every Democrat did).
Do you realize how hysterically funny Dodd really is? He thinks it is better to admit that you made a partisan vote for a bill--the content of which you were unaware--when you have no idea who was even inserting language in the bill. That is funny.
We know this was a Democratic bill, drafted totally by Democrats. Thus, we are left with blaming the entire Democratic Party, including all Democratic Senators and President Obama, for specifically authorizing AIG to make these bonus payments Timothy Geitner, of course, knew about the payments before they were made, and--in feect--signed off on the bonus payments (whether reluctantly or not).
Hold on, you say Three Republicans (really Democrats merely labeled Republicans) voted for the "stimulus" bill). Maybe one of THEM inserted the offending language in the "stimulus" bill authorizing the AIG bonus payments. Stop. You are killing me. Sorry, Jay, I never laughed this hard at you.
The matter of whatever changes Specter, Snow, and Collins wanted in the bill for their support was a subject of specific negotiation with the Democratic leadership of the bill (Dodd, Reid, Schumer, et. al.). It is more than funny to suggest that one of the three Republicans managed to sneak language into the bill, and deceive the poor, stupid Democratic saps. Nope. Not even faintly plausible. What was in this bill was put there by DEMOCRATS.
But Christopher Dodd says we can't blame him. He didn't know what was in the bill. Where does that leave us? Well, every single Republican voted against this bill in the House. Only three nominal Republicans voted for this bill in the Senate. It was DEMOCRAT'S who drafted the bill, including the final "compromise" bill. It, again was a DEMOCRATIC bill all of the way. However, we are assured by Senator Dodd that it was not him that did it, and that no one knows who did it.
What alternative do we have? None that I can see. The conclusions is obvious:
EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AIG BONUSES.
You say that Paulson and Bush started it all with the AIG/bank bailouts? I agree. Even then, however, it was the REPUBLICANS in the HOUSE who did their best to derail the first 700 billion dollar bailut bill. Even then, it was the Democrats in Congress who actually drafted the bill (throwing out Paulson's one page version, but still giving the Treasury Secretary a blank check). But Democrats have now taken total responsibility for these ridiculous bills, and are totally responsible for the AIG bonus payments.
Is there a further conclusion to be made? yep. Every single Democrat in Congress should be voted out of office, except--perhaps--for the six who voted against the Democratic "stimulus" bill in the House. As I have previously said, if you also want to vote out every Republican who voted for ANY bailout bill, be my guest. They deserve it. The Democrats have simply made clear that they deserve to ber voted out even more than the Republicans, and that takes real talent.
P.S.: Does it not give you confidence (sarcasm) in central planning Big Government that Congress does not even know what is in the bills they pass?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
President Obama, Liar (Guest Villain: Jim Owens, CEO of Caterpillar)
Remember President Obama's speech at that Caterpillar plant? That is the speech where Obama had the CEO of Caterpillar there with him, and said that the CEO had told Obama that all it would take to start HIRING workers back was for Congress to pass Obama's "stimulus" bil.
That was a lie. The CEO of Caterpillar said so after the speech, when he said that it was likely that Caterpillar would lay off more workers before it was ever able to hire any back--whether the "stimulus" bill was passed or not. That was the truth.
Yep. Today, Caterpillar laid off 2400 workers, making a liar out of Obama.
Now BOTH President Obama and Jim Ownes (CEO of Caterpillar) received the this blog's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate for this lie. That was because the CEO was hardly very strong in disavowing Obama. Obama, of course, did his usual thing: Issuing a statement saying that what he said was consistent with what the CEO said later (it was not), and then promptly forgetting he had ever said it (Obama forgetting, that is, supported by a similar lack of memory by the mainstream news media).
Yep. This entry is related to the entries today, and blog entries for the past several days. These "bailouts" and "stimulus bills" were supposed to "save" us, and we have been told multiple lies to advance that agenda--lies in effect "justified" by the end justifying the means. This whole AIG mess merely proves how far we have gone off the rails. If our country were a train, it would now be heading through a swamp without the aid of tracks.
That was a lie. The CEO of Caterpillar said so after the speech, when he said that it was likely that Caterpillar would lay off more workers before it was ever able to hire any back--whether the "stimulus" bill was passed or not. That was the truth.
Yep. Today, Caterpillar laid off 2400 workers, making a liar out of Obama.
Now BOTH President Obama and Jim Ownes (CEO of Caterpillar) received the this blog's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate for this lie. That was because the CEO was hardly very strong in disavowing Obama. Obama, of course, did his usual thing: Issuing a statement saying that what he said was consistent with what the CEO said later (it was not), and then promptly forgetting he had ever said it (Obama forgetting, that is, supported by a similar lack of memory by the mainstream news media).
Yep. This entry is related to the entries today, and blog entries for the past several days. These "bailouts" and "stimulus bills" were supposed to "save" us, and we have been told multiple lies to advance that agenda--lies in effect "justified" by the end justifying the means. This whole AIG mess merely proves how far we have gone off the rails. If our country were a train, it would now be heading through a swamp without the aid of tracks.
Senator Charles Schumber and AIG: Hypocrisy and Evil, Self-Serving Posturing Go Nuclear!!!
Senator "Chuck" Schumer (Dem., N.Y.) is an evil hypocrite. He is the worst, most partisan political hack in Washington. Those are facts--not even really opinion The guy is bad, and I don't care if you think I am too harsh. It is impossible to be too harsh about Senator Schumer (which can be said about most Senators, Democrat and Republican). But is Schumer really the worst hypocrite to ever walk the Earth? There it is a matter of opinion, simply because the competition is so stiff these days from other leftist politicians and the mainstream media.
What am I talking about? See the immediately previous entry. Earlier today, Senator Schumer foamed at the mouth THREATENING the people at AIG who accepted the 165 million dollars in bonuses. What in the Hell is a U.S. Senator doing THREATENING private citizens? Is this not a violation of "due process of law", and "equal protection of the laws"? Frankly, I would like to threaten Senator Schumer, but I have more class than he does (and not as much power). Yep. Senator Schumer actually said that SENATORS were writing an "official" letter to the AIG employees who got these bonuses to the effect that they had better give back the money, because Senator Schumer--and his colleagues--were going to make sure they didn't get to keep it anyway (shades of the lying, "phony soldier" letter to Rush Limbaugh's employer, where the Senate of the United States tried to get a private citizen fired over a fraudulent interpretation of a Limbaugh comment--a letter in which Schumer was involved, although Reid ended up as the point man).
How is Senator Schumer going to make sure these AIG employees don't get to keep their bonuses? Well, "Hitler" Schumer said that the Seante was going to make sure that at least 90% of the money was TAKEN from these employees by taxes. In other words, Schumer was saying that the U.S. Government--if Schumer has his way--is going to impose special taxes on specific individuals.
Have I told you that leftists do not believe in the Constitution? Of course I have. Senator Schumer has just proved it again. "Equal protection of the laws"? "Due Process"? Prohibition of ex post facto laws? Prohibition of impairment of contracts? Prohibition of taking property without due process of law? All of those are in the Constitution. Senator Schumer does not care. He just wantst to "get" those ecmployees of AIG who have dared to embarrass him.
Yes, this is where the hypocrisy goes nuclear. It has been known for a year or so that AIG was planning to give these "retention" bonuses. Secretary of Treasury Geitner knew it. Any interested person knew it. Remember the initial Paulson bailout bill? Well, Senator Schumer was on e of those who suggested that Congress had made everyone "accountable", and had not given a "blank check". Candidate Obama said the same thing. It was a lie. AIG was not prohibited, in any of these "bailout", or "stimulus", bills from giving these bonuses.
It gets worse. How could it possibly get worse, you ask? Easy. This is Congress, and leftist Democrats, we are talking about.
Senator Schumer failed to prevent AIG from giving bonuses in the original "Paulson" bailout bill (written by Democrats in Congress). You say that may be so, but it was still the Bush Administration. Wait for it. It gets lots better. Remember the Obama/Democrat porkulus ("stimulus") bill? Well Democrats, including Schumer, made a big point of LIMITING salaries in corporations receiving taxpayer bailouts. However, Democratic Seantor Christopher Dodd added an amendment to this bill, in the Seante, exempting bonuses. Schumer voted for this bill, which specifically authorized AIG to give these bonuses, so long as they were under contracts existing before Febrary 11, 2009 (which these bonuses were). Senator Schumer AUTHORIZED these bonuses with his vote. By the way, Christophe Dodd is the same Democratic Senator who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all of those years, along with Barney Frank in the House--thereby being one of the persons primarily responsible for our present mess--including AIG.
You see where this is going? Senator Schumer (and the rest of these Democrats--see again previous entry) are POSTURING because they have been caught with their pants down. They could have PREVENTED these bonuses by stopping these bailouts. They could have tried to put conditiions in the legislation. Instead, Senators Dodd, Schumer, and ther rest of the Democrats (plus those 3 Republicans) voted to AUTHORIZE AIG to do what it did.
This is what got Senator Schumer so mad. He could see Democrats being crucified on this. When leftists get in trouble like this--when the absurdity of Big Government is exposed--they resort to POSTURING. They want to make the AIG employees VILLAINS--even though the employees had stayed with a sinking ship because of the prospects of these contractual bonuses--in the works for maybe a year. Nope. This is hypocrisy, and evil, on a nuclear scale. This applies to all of the politicians trying to make the villains the AIG employees. The villains here are the politicians who started us down this socialist/bailout road, and are accelerating. This "anger" (like that of Senator Schumber) is to DEFLECT people from the real villains.
See my previous entries over the last two days. EVERY member of Congress should be thrown out, including Senator Schumer--certainly every member who voted for ANY of thiese bailout/"stimulus" bills. That is what scares these Senators: that the public will realize this. That is the reason for the nuclear scale hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty.
P.S. Do I approve of the AIG bonuses? Of course not. But they are minor stuff in comparison with the overall bailout. The evil here is the bailouts. The bonuses are just an example of why the government has no business using taxpayer money to bail SOME companies out (but not others, such as my brother's trucking company, Shippers Transport, which has been forced to cease operations). If I were "in charge, there would have been no bonuses. That is because AIG would have been in bankruptcy, with no taxpayer money involved, and presumably the bankruptcy judge would not have allowed thiis magnitude of "bonus"
P. S. 2: Do you realize what Senator Schumer is saying that he has a "right" to do, if he can get other, self-serving politicians to go along with him? He is saying that HE can use the power of the Ferderal Government to go after INDIVIDUALS, even to the extent of devising special taxes JUST FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. If that does not send a chill down your spine, nothing will And leftists called President Bush a "dicatator"!!!!!!!!! .
What am I talking about? See the immediately previous entry. Earlier today, Senator Schumer foamed at the mouth THREATENING the people at AIG who accepted the 165 million dollars in bonuses. What in the Hell is a U.S. Senator doing THREATENING private citizens? Is this not a violation of "due process of law", and "equal protection of the laws"? Frankly, I would like to threaten Senator Schumer, but I have more class than he does (and not as much power). Yep. Senator Schumer actually said that SENATORS were writing an "official" letter to the AIG employees who got these bonuses to the effect that they had better give back the money, because Senator Schumer--and his colleagues--were going to make sure they didn't get to keep it anyway (shades of the lying, "phony soldier" letter to Rush Limbaugh's employer, where the Senate of the United States tried to get a private citizen fired over a fraudulent interpretation of a Limbaugh comment--a letter in which Schumer was involved, although Reid ended up as the point man).
How is Senator Schumer going to make sure these AIG employees don't get to keep their bonuses? Well, "Hitler" Schumer said that the Seante was going to make sure that at least 90% of the money was TAKEN from these employees by taxes. In other words, Schumer was saying that the U.S. Government--if Schumer has his way--is going to impose special taxes on specific individuals.
Have I told you that leftists do not believe in the Constitution? Of course I have. Senator Schumer has just proved it again. "Equal protection of the laws"? "Due Process"? Prohibition of ex post facto laws? Prohibition of impairment of contracts? Prohibition of taking property without due process of law? All of those are in the Constitution. Senator Schumer does not care. He just wantst to "get" those ecmployees of AIG who have dared to embarrass him.
Yes, this is where the hypocrisy goes nuclear. It has been known for a year or so that AIG was planning to give these "retention" bonuses. Secretary of Treasury Geitner knew it. Any interested person knew it. Remember the initial Paulson bailout bill? Well, Senator Schumer was on e of those who suggested that Congress had made everyone "accountable", and had not given a "blank check". Candidate Obama said the same thing. It was a lie. AIG was not prohibited, in any of these "bailout", or "stimulus", bills from giving these bonuses.
It gets worse. How could it possibly get worse, you ask? Easy. This is Congress, and leftist Democrats, we are talking about.
Senator Schumer failed to prevent AIG from giving bonuses in the original "Paulson" bailout bill (written by Democrats in Congress). You say that may be so, but it was still the Bush Administration. Wait for it. It gets lots better. Remember the Obama/Democrat porkulus ("stimulus") bill? Well Democrats, including Schumer, made a big point of LIMITING salaries in corporations receiving taxpayer bailouts. However, Democratic Seantor Christopher Dodd added an amendment to this bill, in the Seante, exempting bonuses. Schumer voted for this bill, which specifically authorized AIG to give these bonuses, so long as they were under contracts existing before Febrary 11, 2009 (which these bonuses were). Senator Schumer AUTHORIZED these bonuses with his vote. By the way, Christophe Dodd is the same Democratic Senator who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all of those years, along with Barney Frank in the House--thereby being one of the persons primarily responsible for our present mess--including AIG.
You see where this is going? Senator Schumer (and the rest of these Democrats--see again previous entry) are POSTURING because they have been caught with their pants down. They could have PREVENTED these bonuses by stopping these bailouts. They could have tried to put conditiions in the legislation. Instead, Senators Dodd, Schumer, and ther rest of the Democrats (plus those 3 Republicans) voted to AUTHORIZE AIG to do what it did.
This is what got Senator Schumer so mad. He could see Democrats being crucified on this. When leftists get in trouble like this--when the absurdity of Big Government is exposed--they resort to POSTURING. They want to make the AIG employees VILLAINS--even though the employees had stayed with a sinking ship because of the prospects of these contractual bonuses--in the works for maybe a year. Nope. This is hypocrisy, and evil, on a nuclear scale. This applies to all of the politicians trying to make the villains the AIG employees. The villains here are the politicians who started us down this socialist/bailout road, and are accelerating. This "anger" (like that of Senator Schumber) is to DEFLECT people from the real villains.
See my previous entries over the last two days. EVERY member of Congress should be thrown out, including Senator Schumer--certainly every member who voted for ANY of thiese bailout/"stimulus" bills. That is what scares these Senators: that the public will realize this. That is the reason for the nuclear scale hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty.
P.S. Do I approve of the AIG bonuses? Of course not. But they are minor stuff in comparison with the overall bailout. The evil here is the bailouts. The bonuses are just an example of why the government has no business using taxpayer money to bail SOME companies out (but not others, such as my brother's trucking company, Shippers Transport, which has been forced to cease operations). If I were "in charge, there would have been no bonuses. That is because AIG would have been in bankruptcy, with no taxpayer money involved, and presumably the bankruptcy judge would not have allowed thiis magnitude of "bonus"
P. S. 2: Do you realize what Senator Schumer is saying that he has a "right" to do, if he can get other, self-serving politicians to go along with him? He is saying that HE can use the power of the Ferderal Government to go after INDIVIDUALS, even to the extent of devising special taxes JUST FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. If that does not send a chill down your spine, nothing will And leftists called President Bush a "dicatator"!!!!!!!!! .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)