Wednesday, June 30, 2010

To Russia with Love

President Obama continues to lift up his skirt and give gifts to the Russians to prove that he is not a useful idiot, but that he is a true believer. As pathetic as a love struck teen trying to curry favor with the popular girls this president thinks he can win over the Vladimir Putin. First it was the oath to eliminate the plan to deploy defensive missiles into Poland. Then it was the looking the other way when democratic ally Georgia was attacked and is still being occupied by Russia. And now this. Obama has ordered the termination of a long term counter-espionage project.

Now you know why it was all smiles and and fond back slapping at the burger joint.
Comrade! Thank you so much! Knowing our program was compromised is a huge relief! Imagine if you had continued the investigation. Oh my God! The risk of turning one of our agents or using them to collect information on our intelligence gathering methods? Oh my. Thank God you put an end to this potential nightmare.
Oh, and by the way, Vladimir says he does think you are cute and he is sorry for calling you a creepy geek.
Yes, yes. Russia has a little egg on their face, but not knowing and not having the investigation shut down was  far more risky.

Think about it. Why did the FBI move in? There are clearly more than 11 of these deep cover agents here. They could have used these guys to get to those guys. And the timing of this is just too curious. I mean mere days after the visit from the Russian president? Are we to believe that Obama didn't know about this prior to the visit? And if he did (which he did) are we supposed to believe it was not a point of discussion?

The reset in Russian relations is a euphemism for the capitulation by the United States.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Stark Raving Mad!

stark   [stahrk]   adjective, -er, -est, adverb :  harsh, grim, or desolate, as a view, place, etc.: a stark landscape.

Wow! This is the best example of the condescending political class dismissal of what Americans, citizen Americans that is, are concerned about.

Rep. Stark Mocks Border Security Advocates: Who Are You Going to Kill Today?

And the mockery did not stop there. The constituent asked serious and valid questions and this guy replied with nothing but disrespecting condescending quips in an embarrassing attempt to dodge a question.
"This is a very serious matter and you're sitting there making fun of it," the Minuteman responded.
"I don't have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself," Stark said.
Watch the video and decide for yourself who is the smarmy asshole!
Stark earned his primary challenge after he slammed a constituent who voiced his opposition to Obama's health care plan last summer at a town hall meeting.
"Mr. Congressman, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining," the constituent told Stark, referring to what he called the smoke and mirrors of the president's plan.
"I wouldn't dignify you be peeing on your leg," Stark fired back. "It wouldn't be worth wasting the urine."
Wow. This guy does not deserve to represent Lovey and Thorsten Howell III.

At one point in the video he proclaims that our borders are safe. How disconnected can you get.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Financial Reform: The Big Lie!

If liberals are good at anything, they are good at applying warm and fuzzy, mom and apple pie labels to issues. Usually the issues are so disconnected from the topics at hand that when reflected upon, the label makes no sense. Take the latest example. The battle cry is 'reforming Wall Street". And the state run media is all to willing to comply.

Federal regs set to restrain Wall Street risk

The legislation creates a new federal agency to police consumer lending, set up a warning system for financial risks, force failing firms to liquidate and map new rules for instruments that have been largely uncontrolled.
Leaving the White House for Toronto, Obama said the package will "help prevent another financial crisis like the one that we're still recovering from."

ummmm...not quite.
Bank stocks soared as investors appeared relieved that the rules were not as strict as they'd feared. Bank of America Corp. stock rose more than 2 percent, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. each posted 3 percent gains.
Again, not quite. This bill does very little at all to Wall Street. The real impact is to mom and pop Main Street. That's why the fat cat's got the market boost that they did.

The New Lords of Finance
Why Wall Street and Washington both like 'reform.'

The Democrats who wrote the bill are selling it as new discipline for Wall Street, but Wall Street knows better. The biggest banks support the bill, and the parts they don't like they will lobby furiously to change or water down.
Big Finance will more than hold its own with Big Government, as it always does, while politicians will have more power to exact even more campaign tribute. The losers are the overall economy, as financial costs rise, and taxpayers when the next bailout arrives.
A perfect example of how the label does not fit the bill (pun intended)

Let's also not forget the Senate's rendering of a "resolution process" for failing financial giants. This provision is ostensibly the reason for this entire exercise—to end the notion of too-big-to-fail banks and create a process in which regulators feel comfortable allowing failure.
Yet the discretion handed to the FDIC as the resolution overseer allows a replay of the AIG debacle, in which the company was used as a conduit to pay counterparties 100 cents on the dollar. The FDIC will now be empowered to do the exact same thing, except that it will be allowed to discriminate even further—with the discretion to give some creditors a total bailout while imposing losses on others. Think United Auto Workers versus Chrysler bond holders.

The bill being passed only makes it easier for the Chicago Gang to line their pockets and the pockets of their allies.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

To Good To Be True; What Are They Up To?

Is it true? Could it be? Is it possible that Government sponsored entity Fannie Mae has learned something that a 5th grader would have figured out years ago? Has the amount of tax payer money that has been spilling from the government ledgers more voluminous than the BP Gulf oil spill be taking a toll? What about the mission to give houses to people who cannot afford them? Has any one told Obama? Has anyone told Barney Frank?

Fannie Set to Penalize Defaulters

Fannie Mae said Wednesday it would "lock out" borrowers from getting a new loan for seven years if they default on a mortgage they could afford to pay.
The move represents the latest effort by the mortgage industry to prevent a new wave of losses that could result if more borrowers who can afford their monthly payments instead opt to "strategically" default on loans, because they owe far more than their homes are worth.

Well, I guess there is a caveat. "if they default on a mortgage they could afford to pay".  So it's a subjective course correction. If you legitimately could not afford a loan, well then, you are eligible for another one.
Fannie's move comes amid greater concern that it has become socially acceptable for borrowers to stop paying their loans, and that such a shift could exacerbate the housing bust. 
That's just funny. file this under "DUH!".  An administration and a congress that has done nothing but inflated the entitlement culture, discouraged the idea of self reliance and personal responsibility, and can't bare the plight of failure is now wondering why it has become socially acceptable for borrowers to walk away from their obligations. Hmmmmm?
Nearly one in four homeowners with a mortgage is underwater, or owes more than their home is worth, according to CoreLogic
So if you are good at managing money and recognize what the right move is, in order to maximize cash-flow for your family, then you don't deserve a home. However, if your some dumb ass who has never been able to balance a check book? Then you deserve the American dream, and it's on us, keep the change.

When I first read the WSJ article I thought for a moment that maybe Fannie was smartening up. Nope. They are still bent on being the transfer of wealth machine that they set out to be. The amount of wealth being transferred to unproductive members of our society makes the BP spill look like a guy taking a whiz into the ocean.

You got to Roll Me......

Revisionist History

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Il Duce Tries Again

Filed under 'you never want a serious crisis to go to waste '. The administration has used the horrific BP Gulf crisis to take over and control another industry. First the banks, then the car industry, etc. etc. and now the oil industry.

In a thinly disguised dictate that was supposedly recommended by industry experts, the dictator-in-chief issued a fiat that 'there would be no deep drilling or working' ( sung to the tune of 'There'll be no more toy makers to the King').
It's a difficult responsibility
That you accept from the Number 1 lawmaker, me
Have it known throughout the land from sea to sea
There'll be no more drilling in the sea.
Well, the president ran into a little problem this week. His attempt to dictate laws and regulations was stalled by one of those nasty checks and balances.

Obama's Moratorium, Drilled
In a remarkably pointed 22-page ruling, the judge made clear that even Presidents aren't allowed to impose an "edict" that isn't justified by science or safety.
Oil-services companies brought the case, which is supported by the state of Louisiana, arguing that the White House ban was "arbitrary and capricious" in exceeding federal authority, and Judge Feldman agreed. He noted that even after reading Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's report on safety recommendations (which included the ban), and Mr. Salazar's memo ordering the ban, "the Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium." 
and finally some justice for the lies perpetrated by the administration in their attempt to make the decision look science based rather than political.

The judge also went out of his way to express "uneasiness" over the Administration's claim that its safety report (which recommended the ban) had been "peer reviewed" by experts. Those experts have since publicly disavowed the ban, explaining that the ban was added to the report only after they had signed off on an earlier draft. White House green czar Carol Browner dismissed their complaints, saying "No one's been deceived or misrepresented."
But Judge Feldman directly contradicted Ms. Browner, describing the report's claim of "peer review" as "factually incorrect." Moreover, the Administration's "hair-splitting explanation" of what the experts did or didn't support "abuses reason, common sense, and the text at issue."

Obama is assuming the posture of a dictator. This is not the first example.

The American Mussolini

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Offer BP Could Not Refuse

While the damage that BP has and is causing in the gulf coast is horrific on so many levels, and while the images of the disaster are so hard to look at, somehow America is devolving into just another Banana Republic.  The rule of law no longer matters. Even though BP waived their protection from the 'liability cap' that was not good enough for the White House. They want the money! Just like Tony Mantana in Scarface, this administration has a style all it's own.
In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you force your ideology down their throats.
So when BP came to the White House for the 'meet' to finalize the deal, I'm sure they got an earful.
What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna BP? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way! 
$20 Billion dollars later, the administration has access to an unlimited amount of funds, available to him for whatever he wants. Oh, he may have to launder it through several parties and hops to make it look quasi legit, but the unions will be involved, and they will make a lot of money too.

Obama's Political Oil Fund

BP has more than 600 claims personnel working to pay fishermen and others that have suffered economic damage. It has vowed to pay all "legitimate" claims and has worked through 20,000 of 42,000 submitted so far, at a cost of $53 million. BP has also promised it will not limit its payments to the Oil Pollution Act's $75 million cap on these damages, and last month it announced it would hire an independent mediator to review claims. Any claimant denied payment has the right to sue for redress under the law, which means BP has an incentive to get these payouts right.
By contrast, a government-administered fund more or less guarantees a more politicized payment process. The escrow administrator will be chosen by the White House, and as such would be influenced by the Administration's political goals. Those goals would include payments to those harmed by the Administration's own six-month deep water drilling ban. That reckless policy will soon put thousands of Gulf Coast residents out of work, but the White House knows that BP isn't liable under current law for those claims. The escrow account is an attempt to tap BP's funds by other means to pay the costs of Mr. Obama's own policy blunder.

and with the government in control?
Democrats are vowing this fund will be tightly crafted and used only for oil-spill payments. But only last week Democrats on Capitol Hill wanted to siphon money out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund—established in 1986 and funded by oil taxes to help clean-up spills—to pay for their extension of unemployment benefits. The history of such government funds is that they are always raided for politically favored purposes.
There is no 'lock-box'. The new arrangement assures that more locals will be victimized because payments that would have been paid by BP, will now go to Obama's political interest groups, and close allies (unions).

And what happened when some heretic stood up to speak the truth?

Apology to BP's Hayward triggers uproar
Representative Joe Barton, a major recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, triggered an uproar with his lengthy apology to Hayward for being the victim of a White House "shakedown."
State-run media is quick to say that the only way you could interpret actual laws and protections contrary to the presidents actions means corruption. The old adage that 'perception is reality' now applies to the law.
In addition, conservative Republican Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was quoted as telling the Heritage Foundation think tank on Tuesday that the escrow account was a "redistribution-of-wealth fund."
I think that pretty much sums it up. It's never about the crisis. It's about the opportunity it represents. "You can't let a good crisis go to waste"

Sunday, June 13, 2010

The Distinguished Gentlemen

File this one under 'be careful what you wish for'.

In what has become a stunning example of irony and unintended consequences, the progressive left is now protesting the fruits of their own platform.

South Carolina Pol Questions Dem Senate Candidate's 'Mental Status'

A South Carolina lawmaker on Sunday suggested that new Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene may be intellectually incapable of participating in the general election race.
State Rep. Todd Rutherford told Fox News that he went to Greene's house to discuss with him how Greene succeeded last week in becoming the candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in the November election, but he found it difficult to decipher an answer.

The fact that the progressives who have championed 'one man one vote' and are now horrified by the very policy they fought so hard for is poetry. You can't make this stuff up. The founding fathers never intended this republic to be governed by a 'one man, one vote' electorate. Their criteria was that you at least had to own property. That was the test of your competency and the demonstration of your vested interest.
"I never said he was a Republican plant. I said he was someone's plant. ... I saw the patterns in this. I know a Democratic pattern, I know a Republican pattern and I saw in the Democratic primary elephant dung all over the place," he told CNN.
Precious. He's not saying it's a Republican conspiracy, he's just saying! The democrats also appear to dismiss the politics of hate and disdain that they ingrained into their base. The democrats brought the 'not that guy' campaign strategy to a crescendo with the 'hate Bush' rhetoric, and it worked perfectly for them. Obama wasn't elected because of his demonstrated skills and experience, he was elected because the electorate was not going to vote for 'those guys'.
As the questions mount over the selection of Greene, some have attributed it to the arbitrary alphabet since Greene's name appeared above Rawl's on the ballot. Rutherford said the Senate Democratic primary in South Carolina was low profile to begin with and probably "people just hit a button and had no idea who they were voting for."
Well? When you cultivate a base that is not supposed to think for themselves, and may not be able to think for themselves, you have to take special care. You have to be careful that you haven't taken their vote for granted. Sure, you might think, so what? Who else are they going to vote for? But, they might be thinking 'not that guy'.

If the progressives have worked so hard to cultivate an electorate of dummies, and the dummies decide they want to be represented by a dummy, then who are we to say? And, who are they to say?

Sorry SC dems. Time to reap what you sow.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The Code Pink Party Tax Protests

They are protesting because they are not getting enough of your money.

Wow. So Nancy Pelosi can be strong and stand up to protesters? As long as they are not from the Tea Party anyways. In what could only be called a spectacle, Code Pink protesters interrupted a speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was a spectacle because it highlights the many levels of hypocrisy that has been perpetrated on all of the American people by the radical left.

It wasn't that long ago that the Tea Party protests erupted in response to the looming healthcare bill and the sudden realization of the reality and the taxes that would be necessary to support such reckless spending. People who were never political in their entire lives went to 'Town Halls' so that they could be heard by their supposed representatives. To most of these people, government was going to go to far, and there was no end in sight.

Knowing, ah heck - inventing, the power of protest and the power of   disapproval, the left first looked to ignore the dissenting voices. Then they ridiculed the dissenting voices. And, when that did not work either, they tried to squelch the speech with the old, trusted, and reliably used political correctness card.

Yes, that is right, exhibiting your frustration and your opposition to the position that your elected official is taking is just down right aggressive and practically violent. Unless of course you are a right wing communist. The emotional outrage is par for the course here and you just have to manage your way through it. No big deal. It happens all the time.

Can you imagine if it were the Tea Party? The shrill of the voice, the manner of the delivery, and the temerity of the interruption would all be cause for hours of critiques and condemnation. But if you are on the left? Well then, that is just good politics.

It's great just to hear her hem and haw at the inconvenience. My favorite line is;
"They are throwing stuff, you're going to have to leave"
Can you imagine if they had that kind of footage from a Tea Party demonstration? The clip would be played non-stop. I am betting you won't see this clip at all on network news.

Gotta love it!

Monday, June 7, 2010

A Few Good Correspondents

Not that there are any. Regardless, like all people of conviction who pretend to be 'neutral' or 'impartial', Helen Thomas had her melt down moment. I am glad that she did not get to take her secret to the grave. Although it was no secret to anyone paying attention, Helen clearly hated Republicans, and was pro-Palestinian. She might feign the occasional disapproval of a democratic administration, but if you look back, odds are it was over a middle eastern issue, where maybe a Jimmy Carter, or a Bill Clinton re-enforced the U.S.-Israeli alliance. Like the one just the other day.

Helen Thomas to Retire 'Effective Immediately' Following Uproar Over 'Palestine' Comments

Thomas has a long history of anti-Israel rhetoric at White House press briefings. Last week at a briefing with Gibbs that followed a flotilla raid by Israeli commandos, Thomas called the raid a "deliberate massacre" and "an international crime." 
"What is the sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship where a country that deliberately kills people and boycotts -- and we aid and abet the boycott?" she asked.

Helen's melt down moment was reminiscent of Col. Nathan R. Jessep's famous melt down in one of the final scenes of "A Few Good Men". "you can't handle the truth!".  Just like the movie, where you almost felt sorry for the patriotic yet misguided Colonel, you almost felt bad for the 90 year old Thomas who has covered every president at the white house since Dwight D Eisenhower.

Is she just old and crazy? Or has she been emboldened and radicalized by the first administration since Dwight D. Eisenhower to hope that the U.S. might turn it's back on Israel.

Let this be a lesson to all the other sheep in wolves clothing over at the whiter house correspondents association. Your beliefs will betray you.