Instead of issuing a ruling on Obamacare, the Robert's Supreme Court has rewritten the law. The Supreme Court, which is often referred by the name of the main justice, struck down the invocation of the Commerce Clause to justify Obamacare. During the oral arguments the five conservative justice correctly pointed out that such a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, intended to regulate interstate and foreign commerce only, would allow the government to mandate anything. It could promote healthy living by requiring people to buy broccoli, as Justice Scalia pointed out repeatedly.
The four dissenting justices: Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas were ready to strike down the entire law. The four liberal justices were willing to use the Commerce Clause, but settled for a radical re-interpretation of the law with justice Roberts in order to salvage Obamacare. There should be little doubt that these ideologues would have used any excuse to justify this expansion of government into private decisions, such as those involving healthcare choices.
The great irony is that in striking down the expansion of the Commerce Clause the court has itself greatly over-reached its authority. Roberts claimed he was showing deference to Congress. Congress, Obama, and all cases prior to this decision by the Supreme Court have been explicit that this law, as written, is not based on Congresses taxing power. For one justice, John Roberts, to "interpret" the law as based on tax, in contradiction to the intent of Congress is a travesty. It is stark judicial activism. It also begs the question whether there are any limits on the limits to judicial "interpretation".
So, while the Court has struck down government over-reach, it has legislated from the bench. Furthermore, the issue of taxes is strongly restricted by the Constitution -- any tax law is supposed to originate in the House of Representatives, and to be approved in exact form by the Senate. Democrats couldn't manage the votes, so they settle for the illegal application of "reconciliation" to average two different bills passed by the House and Senate. What Roberts has done is a kind of "reconciliation" by the Supreme Court to "fix" Obamacare.
This ruling is not a politically nuanced move by Justice Roberts as some would like to see it. It is mere replacement of Obama's hubris with Roberts' own. This shameful decision by Supreme justices is the kind of lawless action of a Kingly Court, which does as it pleases, not a branch of government with a narrow prerogative of interpreting the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Supreme contempt for the US Constitution
Everybody who guess at the outcome of the impending decision of the US Supreme Court on ObamaCare today -- it's last day in session was wrong. The supreme's didn't rule on Obamacare. Instead justice Roberts joined the four liberal stalwarts on the court to rewrite the law.
Wow.
Obama has flaunted the Constitution on many occasions -- on the Defense of Marriage act (Congress passed the law Obama ignored it), on the illegal immigration (Congress failed to pass the law Obama wanted so he implemented it by executive fiat), among many other cases, so it is expected for his to ignore the Constitution. Democrats in Congress have also chosen to ignore the Constitution. Today the last bastion of the defense of the Constitution among the three branches of government fell.
It doesn't take long to grasp the enormity of what happened -- it was a blatant violation of Supreme Court's role. The Court's prerogative is to decide the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress. It's a basic tenet of the balance of powers between the three branches of government.
Obama and democrats who pushed Obamacare using all kind of tricks, such as buying congressional votes, such as the Luisiana purchase, and the Nebraska kick-back, have always insisted that the individual mandate for purchasing health insurance is not a tax. That's ironic, because Congress has a constitutional right to tax, however, that would never have passed Congress -- it barely passed with all the trickery while both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. Imagine the response of the public and Congress if Obama leveled with the American people by saying: "I want to tax everybody, in order to insure 30-45 million uninsured. It's the right thing to do, and it's good for the economy." That's why the administration went the other way and defended it's actions through the Commerce clause.
Administration lawyers argued before the court the constitutionality of the mandate. They invoked the Commerce clause, and never spoke about the tax. They couldn't answer the key question asked by the justices, including Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote about the limitations of this interpretation of the law. Commerce clause gives the Federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, as well as trade with other nations. If going to the doctor affects interstate commerce, so does everything else. If the government in its wisdom can pick products of services and deem them necessary for everyone, where is the limitation? Scalia mentioned several times that using the government's logic people could be compelled into any "healthy" or otherwise "beneficial" activity, such as purchasing and eating broccoli.
So, Obama and the Democrats in Congress made a run around the constitution to get their way. The court should have ruled on the blatant unconstitutionality of the resulting law. Using tortured logic it could have attempted to justify this unlimited application of the Commerce clause. That's not what the Court did, however. Today's ruling tops any prior blatant case of legislation from the bench. The court fixed the law in order to deem it constitutional, but invoking Congresses power to tax.
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito wrote a scathing dissent: 'We cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not".
What makes this ruling particularly egregious is that Congresses power to tax is highly regulated. The constitution requires that any tax originate in the House of Representatives, because that chamber is the most responsible towards the public. (Any law must be approved in exactly the same form by the Senate, which didn't happen with Obamacare either - the Democrats illegitimately used the so-called reconciliation process to find middle ground between two separate bills approved by the House and the Senate. There were not enough votes in both chambers of the house to agree on a single law -- another illegal move on the way to passing Obamacare). For the Supreme Court, which is least responsible to the public, to essentially create a new law, and especially a tax, is particularly illegitimate.
What does this mean for the Republic? To explain my view, I'm going to invoke the other significant event that happened today in the US government. For the first time in history the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder in contempt.
Today's contempt citation is a result of Holder's failure to provide documents regarding the cover-up of "Fast and Furious" operation. In February of 2010 the AG's office submitted a letter to the congressional oversight committee led by Darrel Issa, which claimed ignorance of this operation, which resulted in gun walking and deaths of US border agents. That letter was retracted 10 months later as erroneous. If a citizen made this mistake, he would be in prison for lying to Congress, but AG managed to stonewall the oversight committee. When cornered, Holder received a life-line from Obama, who invoked executive privilege -- a very dubious call in itself that I believe will backfire. There are some who characterize this congressional investigation as a Republican "witch hunt" -- an attempt to take down Holder. It takes a willful suspension of disbelief to accept that a matter as serious as this was handled lightly by the Justice Department. So, are we to believe it made a simple mistake in a matter as serious as Congressional oversight? In essence Holder, as well as the entire Obama administration hold our Constitution in contempt.
Today's decision by the US Supreme Court says that it also holds the US constitution in contempt. Rather than playing its legitimate judicial role, it rewrote the law.
US can recover from contempt of the constitution by an AG, and to some extent even the subversion of our founding principles by a president. But how can US recover from the blow to its constitutional foundation by the Supreme Court? If we throw out the limits to our democracy, we're no better than the moribund European states.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it's possible to reverse this trend in the long run. The US has been on a long slide towards European statism, where a popularity contest between politicians have lead them to over-promise and over-spend. Now they face fiscal bankruptcy, although it's the intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy that is more troubling for the Western Europe. The US under Obama has increased our external debt from 60% to over 100% of GDP, while tearing up the Constitution. Even election of a Republican president is likely to merely hold the line against further government encroachment on individual rights, but not to reverse it. We had the president and Democrat-controlled Congress ignore the constitution for several years, and now the Supreme Court has shown it has no regard for it either. The public is growing used or at least anesthetized to its leaders ignoring the Constitution. Meanwhile, almost half of the USA population is dependent on welfare, a number that has greatly increased under Obama administration. If that number tops 50% our unconstitutional democracy will surely slide towards the same abyss that Europe is looking into.
The trajectory USA is on is likely to be an irreversible slide into statism, bankruptcy and general lawlessness. The great experiment of a nation based on human liberty and empowerment of the individual began with a tax -- the Stamp tax of 1765 imposed by a distant king, and it might end with another tax imposed by equally distant and arrogant five people in black robes. The resolution of the impasse these frauds placed USA in may lie outside of the system. It would be much preferable to keep be able to resolve this problem without our current system, but it may no longer be possible. I mean that there were many people in the USA who considered themselves to be loyal subjects of the British crown, until the could no longer work within the system which did not represent them, and opted for revolution.
The historical parallel may appear extreme, but is fitting, even the main slogan: "taxation without representation" applies very well to the justices of the supreme court. After all, Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people and serve for life. It's ironic that President Obama, fearing the overturning of his signature legislative achievement by the court, has cautioned that "un-elected" officials should not overturn laws passed by Congress. It's alright to overturning the Constitution though. Nancy Pelosi said told her liberal cohorts they should take "yes for an answer" from the Supreme Court", apparently ignoring the blatant unconstitutionality of the Court's move. Obama was also pleased, declaring arrogance tearing up the Constitution by the Supremes a "victory".
The US was a Constitutional Republic, but is rapidly becoming a banana republic.
Wow.
Obama has flaunted the Constitution on many occasions -- on the Defense of Marriage act (Congress passed the law Obama ignored it), on the illegal immigration (Congress failed to pass the law Obama wanted so he implemented it by executive fiat), among many other cases, so it is expected for his to ignore the Constitution. Democrats in Congress have also chosen to ignore the Constitution. Today the last bastion of the defense of the Constitution among the three branches of government fell.
It doesn't take long to grasp the enormity of what happened -- it was a blatant violation of Supreme Court's role. The Court's prerogative is to decide the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress. It's a basic tenet of the balance of powers between the three branches of government.
Obama and democrats who pushed Obamacare using all kind of tricks, such as buying congressional votes, such as the Luisiana purchase, and the Nebraska kick-back, have always insisted that the individual mandate for purchasing health insurance is not a tax. That's ironic, because Congress has a constitutional right to tax, however, that would never have passed Congress -- it barely passed with all the trickery while both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. Imagine the response of the public and Congress if Obama leveled with the American people by saying: "I want to tax everybody, in order to insure 30-45 million uninsured. It's the right thing to do, and it's good for the economy." That's why the administration went the other way and defended it's actions through the Commerce clause.
Administration lawyers argued before the court the constitutionality of the mandate. They invoked the Commerce clause, and never spoke about the tax. They couldn't answer the key question asked by the justices, including Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote about the limitations of this interpretation of the law. Commerce clause gives the Federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce, as well as trade with other nations. If going to the doctor affects interstate commerce, so does everything else. If the government in its wisdom can pick products of services and deem them necessary for everyone, where is the limitation? Scalia mentioned several times that using the government's logic people could be compelled into any "healthy" or otherwise "beneficial" activity, such as purchasing and eating broccoli.
So, Obama and the Democrats in Congress made a run around the constitution to get their way. The court should have ruled on the blatant unconstitutionality of the resulting law. Using tortured logic it could have attempted to justify this unlimited application of the Commerce clause. That's not what the Court did, however. Today's ruling tops any prior blatant case of legislation from the bench. The court fixed the law in order to deem it constitutional, but invoking Congresses power to tax.
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito wrote a scathing dissent: 'We cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not".
What makes this ruling particularly egregious is that Congresses power to tax is highly regulated. The constitution requires that any tax originate in the House of Representatives, because that chamber is the most responsible towards the public. (Any law must be approved in exactly the same form by the Senate, which didn't happen with Obamacare either - the Democrats illegitimately used the so-called reconciliation process to find middle ground between two separate bills approved by the House and the Senate. There were not enough votes in both chambers of the house to agree on a single law -- another illegal move on the way to passing Obamacare). For the Supreme Court, which is least responsible to the public, to essentially create a new law, and especially a tax, is particularly illegitimate.
What does this mean for the Republic? To explain my view, I'm going to invoke the other significant event that happened today in the US government. For the first time in history the House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder in contempt.
Today's contempt citation is a result of Holder's failure to provide documents regarding the cover-up of "Fast and Furious" operation. In February of 2010 the AG's office submitted a letter to the congressional oversight committee led by Darrel Issa, which claimed ignorance of this operation, which resulted in gun walking and deaths of US border agents. That letter was retracted 10 months later as erroneous. If a citizen made this mistake, he would be in prison for lying to Congress, but AG managed to stonewall the oversight committee. When cornered, Holder received a life-line from Obama, who invoked executive privilege -- a very dubious call in itself that I believe will backfire. There are some who characterize this congressional investigation as a Republican "witch hunt" -- an attempt to take down Holder. It takes a willful suspension of disbelief to accept that a matter as serious as this was handled lightly by the Justice Department. So, are we to believe it made a simple mistake in a matter as serious as Congressional oversight? In essence Holder, as well as the entire Obama administration hold our Constitution in contempt.
Today's decision by the US Supreme Court says that it also holds the US constitution in contempt. Rather than playing its legitimate judicial role, it rewrote the law.
US can recover from contempt of the constitution by an AG, and to some extent even the subversion of our founding principles by a president. But how can US recover from the blow to its constitutional foundation by the Supreme Court? If we throw out the limits to our democracy, we're no better than the moribund European states.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think it's possible to reverse this trend in the long run. The US has been on a long slide towards European statism, where a popularity contest between politicians have lead them to over-promise and over-spend. Now they face fiscal bankruptcy, although it's the intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy that is more troubling for the Western Europe. The US under Obama has increased our external debt from 60% to over 100% of GDP, while tearing up the Constitution. Even election of a Republican president is likely to merely hold the line against further government encroachment on individual rights, but not to reverse it. We had the president and Democrat-controlled Congress ignore the constitution for several years, and now the Supreme Court has shown it has no regard for it either. The public is growing used or at least anesthetized to its leaders ignoring the Constitution. Meanwhile, almost half of the USA population is dependent on welfare, a number that has greatly increased under Obama administration. If that number tops 50% our unconstitutional democracy will surely slide towards the same abyss that Europe is looking into.
The trajectory USA is on is likely to be an irreversible slide into statism, bankruptcy and general lawlessness. The great experiment of a nation based on human liberty and empowerment of the individual began with a tax -- the Stamp tax of 1765 imposed by a distant king, and it might end with another tax imposed by equally distant and arrogant five people in black robes. The resolution of the impasse these frauds placed USA in may lie outside of the system. It would be much preferable to keep be able to resolve this problem without our current system, but it may no longer be possible. I mean that there were many people in the USA who considered themselves to be loyal subjects of the British crown, until the could no longer work within the system which did not represent them, and opted for revolution.
The historical parallel may appear extreme, but is fitting, even the main slogan: "taxation without representation" applies very well to the justices of the supreme court. After all, Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people and serve for life. It's ironic that President Obama, fearing the overturning of his signature legislative achievement by the court, has cautioned that "un-elected" officials should not overturn laws passed by Congress. It's alright to overturning the Constitution though. Nancy Pelosi said told her liberal cohorts they should take "yes for an answer" from the Supreme Court", apparently ignoring the blatant unconstitutionality of the Court's move. Obama was also pleased, declaring arrogance tearing up the Constitution by the Supremes a "victory".
The US was a Constitutional Republic, but is rapidly becoming a banana republic.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
A liberal mind is impervious to responsibility
"Obama denies responsibility" is an accurate title for this article, but it is so trite! Saying Obama denies responsibility has about as much news content as "dog bites man"
— both happen every day, and are not newsworthy.
Here's how I feel about such gullible sheep: they are ignoramuses and hypocrites who are generous with other people's money. Obama's policies have fleeced our country — he has added more debt than ... anyone in the history of civilization. The ignorant youth do not know history, and do not even understand the contemporary politics. Who's going to pay for all these goodies? Other people who make money. That makes these supporters hypocrites. They are ignorant of the fact that a large portion of this debt will fall on their shoulders in the form of higher taxes and Social Security payments.
Less than 50% of the people 16-24 years old are currently employed - a record low. The unemployment among the black youth is almost twice the rate of whites, so Obama has not even had a positive impact on his favorite demographic. The official unemployment, of course, underestimates the reality, but is useful as a relative measure. According to these official data below, the average rate of youth unemployment during Obama's term has been nearly double that of Bush's entire two terms.
The latest attempt by Obama to shift blame to Bush, however, takes this blame game up a notch.
Obama officials last week pointed to rising costs under the Bush administration to suggest that the $820,000 Vegas conference could have been avoided — if only the Bush-era General Services Administration (GSA) had acted. In other words, out-of-control spending is still Bush's purview.
 |
| Obama's creative adaptation of Truman's dictum. |
Why do we need Obama occupying the oval office? I mean, we have teleprompters and Carey or another spokesperson can say "It's Bush's fault". Where's the news content? If the administration has nothing new to report, they could at least sell the airtime and pay down our crushing debt, which increased from about 60% GDP when Obama took office to over 100% GDP in a mere three years.
Blaming Bush for the Vegas bash was too much for the former head of the GSA, Lurita Doan, blasted the Obama administration Monday for blaming his predecessor over the lavish Las Vegas. Doan, headed the agency under then-President George W. Bush until her resignation in 2008, told Fox News that President Obama's team is trying to "divert attention" from its own scandal.
Harry Truman had a famous dictum as a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here". What has Obama taken responsibility for? Whenever economy perks up a little, Obama takes credit for the "right direction", but when the news are bad, it's "we didn't realized how bad it was", which translates as "it's all Bush's fault" from Obama-speak.
Who still believes this buffoon? There are some true believers. Van Jones, Obama's former "green czar", recently opined that "even if Obama came out as gay he would not lose the black vote". Not much concern with merit there. What about the white voters? They seem to be still enamored with Obama's race. How else do you explain the enthusiasm and the dominance of white twenty-somethings in Chicago, IL in the photo below? They still believe. Based in what? That's a wrong question. They believe in who, they have bough the personal story. I can understand how Obama's victory in 2008 was a result of the help of mass media, which helped Obama to avoid difficult questions, and he was not properly vetted. I thought Obama's background as a socialist was enough to suggest his dreams were empty rhetoric about hope. Hope triumphed over historical experience. By 2012 Obama's agenda has failed all around, so what's the excuse of placing hope above experience now?
 |
| Chicago office of Obama 2012 reelection campaign — young, white and clueless. |
 |
| Have they read "Fleeced" by Dick Morris? |
According to MSNBC, young “voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976.” How's that "hopey, changey" thing working out for them?
Less than 50% of the people 16-24 years old are currently employed - a record low. The unemployment among the black youth is almost twice the rate of whites, so Obama has not even had a positive impact on his favorite demographic. The official unemployment, of course, underestimates the reality, but is useful as a relative measure. According to these official data below, the average rate of youth unemployment during Obama's term has been nearly double that of Bush's entire two terms.
 |
| Forgive them, oh Lord, for they know not for whom they vote. |
It's ironic that Obama's young supporters are among the people who're doubly "fleeced" by his policies — presently through the loss of employment opportunities and in the future through higher taxes to cover the debt Obama incurred on their behalf.
There is a saying that "a liberal mind is impervious to experience". In my humble opinion to vote for Obama in 2008 could be excused by ignorance (a triumph of hope over experience), but to vote for him in 2012 is simply irresponsible. My upgrade of the above dictum is: "a liberal mind is impervious to responsibility" - that's why the seek to "spread it around".
Monday, April 9, 2012
Social justice, according to DOJ
Zimmerman family challenged the Attorney General Eric Holder on New Black Panther Party (NBPP). One of the family members wrote in an open letter to the Holder:
Spike Lee had originally tweeted an incorrect phone number for George Zimmerman, causing an elderly couple to flee their house in fear of their lives. Then, he apologizes for getting the old couple in trouble, and retweeted the correct address for Zimmerman. The couple is still fearing to go back to their house and is asking for Spike Lee to issue a formal apology to ensure their safety.
Why is Spike Lee not charged with reckless endangerment, and a hate crime?
The irony is that Zimmerman can justifiably claim claim that Spike Lee, Black Panthers, and the NBC, which admitted to putting a falsified audio tape on the 911 call on air, are all potentially responsible for any harm that could come to Zimmerman or his family. What about a fair trial? Considering the bias projected by mass media's representation of George Zimmerman, he would need to go to Mars to get a jury which is not biased one way or another in this case.
Holder has no shame and is unlikely to do the right thing -- to execute his duties as Attorney General without regard to race, by protecting the "due process", and ensuring the safety of Zimmerman's family. Hopefully, this case will show very clearly the the reality of the so-called "social justice" -- it is a euphemism used by a bunch of racists in power to justify their selective application of laws.
I am writing you to ask you why, when the law of the land is crystal clear, is your office not arresting the New Black Panthers for hate crimes?
The Zimmerman family is in hiding because of the threats that have been made against us, yet the DOJ has maintained an eerie silence on this matter. These threats are very public. If you haven’t been paying attention just do a Google search and you will find plenty. Since when can a group of people in the United States put a bounty on someone’s head, circulate Wanted posters publicly, and still be walking the streets?The letter concludes that the lack of interest in this matter Eric Holder and the DOJ is ‘based solely on your race’.
A black leader who actually has integrity, Allen West, has called this bounty a hate crime, and urged the Justice Department to prosecute the NBPP for the bounty. The Department of Justice, however, said it had "no comment" on the on the bounty on George Zimmerman.
Spike Lee had originally tweeted an incorrect phone number for George Zimmerman, causing an elderly couple to flee their house in fear of their lives. Then, he apologizes for getting the old couple in trouble, and retweeted the correct address for Zimmerman. The couple is still fearing to go back to their house and is asking for Spike Lee to issue a formal apology to ensure their safety.
Why is Spike Lee not charged with reckless endangerment, and a hate crime?
The irony is that Zimmerman can justifiably claim claim that Spike Lee, Black Panthers, and the NBC, which admitted to putting a falsified audio tape on the 911 call on air, are all potentially responsible for any harm that could come to Zimmerman or his family. What about a fair trial? Considering the bias projected by mass media's representation of George Zimmerman, he would need to go to Mars to get a jury which is not biased one way or another in this case.
Holder has no shame and is unlikely to do the right thing -- to execute his duties as Attorney General without regard to race, by protecting the "due process", and ensuring the safety of Zimmerman's family. Hopefully, this case will show very clearly the the reality of the so-called "social justice" -- it is a euphemism used by a bunch of racists in power to justify their selective application of laws.
US economy: lies, damn lies and statistics
The unemployment report released last Friday showed a nominal decrease of unemployment from 8.3% to 8.2%. However, the mere 120,000 jobs created created broke the pattern of robust job creation during the last two months that was boosting Obama's reelection chances. The economists were expecting over 200,000 new jobs. The real numbers reflect a worse reality - in March, the number of unemployed dropped by 133,000, but the overall labor force declined by 164,000. That means the economy shed a total of 31,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the government reports lower unemployment.
There's a saying about the malleability of statistics: there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Only by discounting a large number of discouraged job-seekers can the government report a statistical reduction of unemployment, in stead of an actual reduction of employment.
The labor non-participation has reached a record 88 million. The issue of how this rate the unemployment rate is officially calculated is becoming a part of the political discourse. A Republican congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.
For example, the most recent unemployment rate released on Friday, at 8.2% unemployment, is the so-called U-3 rate calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). It also calculates more inclusive measures U-5 and U-6. The more realistic U-5 rate of 9.6% it includes the “total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force."
Thus, the measure proposed by Representative Hunter would not require any additional numbers to be calculated; it would simply elevate the statistic that the BLS already calculates each month. That would add a lot of realism to the discussion, and not allow the statistical unemployment rate to decrease, while the number of actual employed people is falling.
The lack of realism in official statistics is obscuring not clarifying the direction of the economy. The Dow ended below 13,000 and logged its fourth straight daily loss. One of the reasons may be that during the weekend the traders had a chance to reevaluation the latest unemployment report, which was released last Friday. The stocks tumbled heavily at the open, clawed their way up to recover some ground, then finished near their lows by the end of the day.
The job gains of the last couple of months were helped by unseasonably warm weather, and may have cannibalized job gains of the spring. It has given an entirely unrealistic perception of an accelerating recovery.
Barack Obama has been the undertaker of this economy, but he refuses to accept any responsibility. It's time for him to ask: "Did I do that?" ask Steve Urkel from TV show Family Matters used to do after causing some mishap. He won't. So, I've asked and will now answer:
"Yes, he did."
There's a saying about the malleability of statistics: there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Only by discounting a large number of discouraged job-seekers can the government report a statistical reduction of unemployment, in stead of an actual reduction of employment.
The labor non-participation has reached a record 88 million. The issue of how this rate the unemployment rate is officially calculated is becoming a part of the political discourse. A Republican congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.
For example, the most recent unemployment rate released on Friday, at 8.2% unemployment, is the so-called U-3 rate calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). It also calculates more inclusive measures U-5 and U-6. The more realistic U-5 rate of 9.6% it includes the “total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force."
Thus, the measure proposed by Representative Hunter would not require any additional numbers to be calculated; it would simply elevate the statistic that the BLS already calculates each month. That would add a lot of realism to the discussion, and not allow the statistical unemployment rate to decrease, while the number of actual employed people is falling.
The lack of realism in official statistics is obscuring not clarifying the direction of the economy. The Dow ended below 13,000 and logged its fourth straight daily loss. One of the reasons may be that during the weekend the traders had a chance to reevaluation the latest unemployment report, which was released last Friday. The stocks tumbled heavily at the open, clawed their way up to recover some ground, then finished near their lows by the end of the day.
 |
| Yes, you did, Barry. |
Barack Obama has been the undertaker of this economy, but he refuses to accept any responsibility. It's time for him to ask: "Did I do that?" ask Steve Urkel from TV show Family Matters used to do after causing some mishap. He won't. So, I've asked and will now answer:
"Yes, he did."
Egalitarian fraud
The Democrats often complain that requiring IDs for voting is an intolerable burden, and disproportionately affects minorities.
The conservative activist James O’Keefe decided to demonstrate to the Attorney General Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.
In a shocking new video from Project Veritas a man (picture below) voted on Eric Holder's behalf.
Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case. When a white bearded dude came to vote in the primary on April 3rd and claimed to be Holder and used his address, the poll worker didn't hesitate and promptly offers the young man Holder’s ballot to vote.
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, and they have registered celebrities like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota. Now - Washington DC. The voting there lies in a federal jurisdictional area. Will the federal government take up the challenge?
Probably not. Looking incompetent doesn't seem to bother DOJ or the Obama administration enough to overcome their love for "social justice".
The conservative activist James O’Keefe decided to demonstrate to the Attorney General Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.
In a shocking new video from Project Veritas a man (picture below) voted on Eric Holder's behalf.
 |
| Is that you, Eric? Didn't recognize you with the sunglasses. |
Project Veritas has already shown how dead people can vote in New Hampshire, and they have registered celebrities like Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to vote in Minnesota. Now - Washington DC. The voting there lies in a federal jurisdictional area. Will the federal government take up the challenge?
Probably not. Looking incompetent doesn't seem to bother DOJ or the Obama administration enough to overcome their love for "social justice".
Social justice in the USA
There is a confluence of the arts with real events, which illuminates the some serious challenges for the society in the USA. The case of Trayvon Martin has captured the airwaves, and the mass media has rushed to judgement to label the man that shot him, George Zimmerman a bigot and a murderer, in contradiction to his claim to self defense and without deference to the several ongoing investigations, including one by the FBI.
NBC news had to apologize for editing George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call that made him appear to be racially profiling Trayvon. ABC initially reported no injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head, until it stopped covering his head with its logo in the video, and reported that enhancement of the video of Zimmerman in police station did show injuries. In other words, ABC also tried to obfuscate the issue.
The main culprit in the mass media is the prime-time show host on MSNBC, Al Sharpton, who called for "occupation" of Sanford, FL. He demanded immediate arrest of Zimmerman and has led rallies, blurring the line between activism and journalism.
President Obama has issued a call for "soul searching" in relation to Trayvon case. Why did he single out this case, and what effect did it have?
According to Obama the answer to the first questions is: "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". As for the effect of a president getting involved, in addition to race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- it has elevated the importance of an issue that was already national news, and being prejudged by the mass media.
A comedy, “Neighborhood Watch” by 20th Century Fox intended for release in early summer is in unexpected trouble, because of it's name. The Zimmerman has not even been charged, but the name "Neighborhood watch" is already seen as sullied!
Is that where we are as a society? Not only will we rush to judgement, we will destroy the legitimacy of neighborhood watchmen?! That would be bad enough, it it was not for the racial issue.
The only evidence of racial profiling in this case is the lie put forward by the NBC. Obama's outspoken concern with the possible racial profiling in the Trayvon case, flies in the face of his silence in the recent black-on-white hate crimes? Why did the mass media and the president not speak out against a the crime against a white kid who was dosed with gasoline and set on fire on his own porch, while his attackers yelled: "You get what you deserve, white boy"?
Why the silence on the recent attack of black teenagers on a white cabbie and his white passenger in Philladelphia? The coverage of the mob attack of seven black teens on a white teenager just blocks from Independence Hall, failed to mention the races. The white teenager went to the hospital, while Fox showed a a purposefully grainy video of the event, and other news organization failed to mention it at all.
Then there's an attack by a black an Atlanta street gang on a Hispanic "faggot" videotaped by the perpetrators themselves? Will this brutal attack be prosecuted as a hate crime?
That's social justice for you. There are favored groups, and less favored groups. If you're "white" or a "faggot" an assault on you is not as important an issue as an assault on blacks - a group favored by President Obama by default, as his previous jump to conclusion regarding professor Gates showed.
Obama is a racist, so his reaction is predictable, we just have to deal with it. That means not giving up, but the opposite. We need to fight the bigoted pre-judgement in Zimmerman's case, and not allow the concept of "Neighborhood watch" to be destroyed by race-baiters, even if they occupy the highest office. If the country falls prey to the siren song of "social justice" you can kiss regular justice good-bye.
NBC news had to apologize for editing George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call that made him appear to be racially profiling Trayvon. ABC initially reported no injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head, until it stopped covering his head with its logo in the video, and reported that enhancement of the video of Zimmerman in police station did show injuries. In other words, ABC also tried to obfuscate the issue.
The main culprit in the mass media is the prime-time show host on MSNBC, Al Sharpton, who called for "occupation" of Sanford, FL. He demanded immediate arrest of Zimmerman and has led rallies, blurring the line between activism and journalism.
 |
| Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton - the usual suspects. |
According to Obama the answer to the first questions is: "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon". As for the effect of a president getting involved, in addition to race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- it has elevated the importance of an issue that was already national news, and being prejudged by the mass media.
A comedy, “Neighborhood Watch” by 20th Century Fox intended for release in early summer is in unexpected trouble, because of it's name. The Zimmerman has not even been charged, but the name "Neighborhood watch" is already seen as sullied!
Is that where we are as a society? Not only will we rush to judgement, we will destroy the legitimacy of neighborhood watchmen?! That would be bad enough, it it was not for the racial issue.
The only evidence of racial profiling in this case is the lie put forward by the NBC. Obama's outspoken concern with the possible racial profiling in the Trayvon case, flies in the face of his silence in the recent black-on-white hate crimes? Why did the mass media and the president not speak out against a the crime against a white kid who was dosed with gasoline and set on fire on his own porch, while his attackers yelled: "You get what you deserve, white boy"?
Why the silence on the recent attack of black teenagers on a white cabbie and his white passenger in Philladelphia? The coverage of the mob attack of seven black teens on a white teenager just blocks from Independence Hall, failed to mention the races. The white teenager went to the hospital, while Fox showed a a purposefully grainy video of the event, and other news organization failed to mention it at all.
Then there's an attack by a black an Atlanta street gang on a Hispanic "faggot" videotaped by the perpetrators themselves? Will this brutal attack be prosecuted as a hate crime?
 |
| Social justice is not blind. |
Obama is a racist, so his reaction is predictable, we just have to deal with it. That means not giving up, but the opposite. We need to fight the bigoted pre-judgement in Zimmerman's case, and not allow the concept of "Neighborhood watch" to be destroyed by race-baiters, even if they occupy the highest office. If the country falls prey to the siren song of "social justice" you can kiss regular justice good-bye.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Obama's reelection magic
Obama's reelection chances rest on creating some straw men to deny responsibility for the status of the economy and the increased divisions in society his "post-racial" election was supposed to cure. Obama is using Houdini method of creating grand illusions with misdirection, but it's hard to deny responsibility on that scale.
Myth: Congress is a "Do Nothing" Congress, because of the intransigence of the Republicans.
Reality: Congressman Paul Ryan's budget includes some common sense ideas for slowing the growth of government. These proposals are far from the caricature of it painted by the Obama administration, which is "so far to the right," said Obama , "that it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal."
Under Ryan's plan, the federal government would be 46% bigger in real terms than it was in 2000, which was President Clinton's last year in office, according to analysis of budget data by Investors Business Daily.
Ryan's plan would simplify the tax code and widen the base by replacing the current behemoth code with just two marginal tax brackets — 10% and 25%, while eliminating loopholes. Democrats' objections to Ryan's tax reform plan is that it "showers money on the rich" by lowering the top rate to 25%.
Myth The Supreme Justices nominated by Republicans are judicial activists who're going to overturn the wondrous Obamacare.
Reality: Obama administration lawyers failed to provide a constitutional basis for the law, in particular to show any limitation for the intended interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- that economic activity (or even inactivity) affects interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to Federal regulation. In fact, after Obama fired the preemptive strike at the justices of the Supreme Court, calling them "unelected" in a blatant effort to delegitimize their likely rule against his signature domestic reform.
What was Obama thinking? Surely he knew the blatant assault on judicial purview could now go unanswered. Joseph Curl of Washington Times is probably correct: Obama knows the consequence of picking a fight - he is betting that his key to victory is to get his base on engage in a confrontation. The fact that it is ultimately a lost cause does not trouble Obama or his minions. It reminds me of Napoleon's famous dictum: "The important thing is to engage the enemy -- the proper strategy will present itself".
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit directly responded to the president's comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law by asking the DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, about the judicial review. She said, of course, DOJ recognizes it's legitimacy and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago.
 |
| Obama in wonderland (teleprompters included). |
Reality: Congressman Paul Ryan's budget includes some common sense ideas for slowing the growth of government. These proposals are far from the caricature of it painted by the Obama administration, which is "so far to the right," said Obama , "that it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal."
Under Ryan's plan, the federal government would be 46% bigger in real terms than it was in 2000, which was President Clinton's last year in office, according to analysis of budget data by Investors Business Daily.
Ryan's plan would simplify the tax code and widen the base by replacing the current behemoth code with just two marginal tax brackets — 10% and 25%, while eliminating loopholes. Democrats' objections to Ryan's tax reform plan is that it "showers money on the rich" by lowering the top rate to 25%.
Myth The Supreme Justices nominated by Republicans are judicial activists who're going to overturn the wondrous Obamacare.
Reality: Obama administration lawyers failed to provide a constitutional basis for the law, in particular to show any limitation for the intended interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- that economic activity (or even inactivity) affects interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to Federal regulation. In fact, after Obama fired the preemptive strike at the justices of the Supreme Court, calling them "unelected" in a blatant effort to delegitimize their likely rule against his signature domestic reform.
What was Obama thinking? Surely he knew the blatant assault on judicial purview could now go unanswered. Joseph Curl of Washington Times is probably correct: Obama knows the consequence of picking a fight - he is betting that his key to victory is to get his base on engage in a confrontation. The fact that it is ultimately a lost cause does not trouble Obama or his minions. It reminds me of Napoleon's famous dictum: "The important thing is to engage the enemy -- the proper strategy will present itself".
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit directly responded to the president's comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law by asking the DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, about the judicial review. She said, of course, DOJ recognizes it's legitimacy and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago.
One of the tree appellate judges then demanded a "three page single spaced letter" directly from Eric Holder on this subject. Holder admitted his acceptance of judicial review the next day, and sent the letter to the appellate court on Thursday.
Why would Obama administration want the embarrassment of being taken to task like this? The only logical answers is a calculation to engage on an emotionally charged subject. We will hear a lot about the poor and the uninsured who are driven to desperation by Republican defence of the rich men's greed.
Myth: The economy is getting better. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.2% in March.
Reality: The rate dropped for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time high: 87,897,000.
Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Myth: Economic difficulties are due to external factors according to Joe Biden, like the financial crisis in the Eurozone, or oil price increase due to the "Arab spring" and the tsunami in Japan.
Reality: The Obama administration has created more onerous regulations than any other. They have created a certainty of increased costs to hiring with Obamacare, and manufacture with cap-and-trade. They have shut down a lot of oil exploration in the Mexican gulf, and rejected the Keystone pipeline from Canada. They invested recklessly in companies like Solyndra, while neglecting traditional resources. Increasing regulation, cost of hiring and cost of energy has lead to a slow economic recovery. If the Obama administration doesn't understand this basic reality they are either lying or utterly incompetent.
Myth: Republicans plan to poison the waters, and the kids. That's the essence much what Obama said.
Myth: Republicans plan to poison the waters, and the kids. That's the essence much what Obama said.
Reality: The EPA regulations, which Obama administration recently enacted, are a way of enforcing tax-and-trade without Congressional approval. Rejection of such expensive, holier-than-thou hyper-environmentalism does not imply a desire to poison the environment or the kids.
Myth: The economy is getting better. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.2% in March.
Reality: The rate dropped for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time high: 87,897,000.
The economy added a mere 120,000 jobs according to one survey, well below the expectations of up to 200,000. So, why did the unemployment drop? Washington Post reveals the real numbers: in March, the number of unemployed dropped by 133,000, but so did the number of people employed — by 31,000. That indicates that those people didn’t necessarily find new jobs, since the overall labor force declined by 164,000. So, the economy is still bleeding jobs, and they cite meaningless and, therefore, bogus statistics about reduction in the unemployment!
Obama can only run on distortions and rhetoric, and you can't underestimate how low he is willing to go to create an illusion of competence that lasts long enough to get him reelected. The man has no shame. Rush Limbaugh correctly called him a thug.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Obama disses the Judicial branch
The U.S. Supreme Court has completed its hearings on Obamacare last week. "We the people" will find out about the results in June, but the judges already know which side is in the majority.
The hearing exposed Obamacare as an example of unlimited and unconstitutional power-grab by the executive branch of government. The swing vote -- justice Kennedy -- appears to have swung against that law, when the government lawyer failed to provide a limit to this interpretation of the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The clause, which allows the Fed to control trade between states and with other countries, has been used by the administration to justify this intrusion. Your heathcare impacts interstate commerce, get it? By that measure any human activity impacts interstate commerce, so where's the limit? The administration failed to provide one.
Obama charged that the "unelected"Supreme Court could not and should not take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law, saying:
My liberal friends used to tell me that "Obama is the smartest person in the room", regardless of other occupants. Really? He seems really obtuse to me. Does he not realize how consistent the narrative of the overreach of his administration has been?
Given Obama's ridiculous outburst, some believe that Obama has been tipped off on the decision by the Supreme Court on health law. It should not matter. It appears that some of Obama's advisers think that running against the U.S. Supreme Court is a winning strategy for reelection. After all he's already running against the unpopular Congress. What a great narrative for Obama's reelection: "Although last three and a half years have stunk, you should vote t o reelect me, because the problems were the fault of the other two branches of government."
According to Obama's revisionist history his signature healthcare law was passed by a strong majority in Congress?! This is news. I thought it was the reluctance of congress that required the Cornhusker kickback and the Alabama purchase for the passage of Obamacare. The same type of sweetener was required for other items on Obama's ideological agenda.
Obama also noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example. Determination of Constitutionality is a form of "judicial activism". According to Obama's logic the Court should be a mere rubber stamp since its function of verifying the constitutionality of laws is merely perfunctory.
Obama desperately wants his presidency to be historically consequential. It is - as an example of everything that is wrong with liberal ideology, and the threat its autocratic approach poses to our Constitution.
The hearing exposed Obamacare as an example of unlimited and unconstitutional power-grab by the executive branch of government. The swing vote -- justice Kennedy -- appears to have swung against that law, when the government lawyer failed to provide a limit to this interpretation of the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The clause, which allows the Fed to control trade between states and with other countries, has been used by the administration to justify this intrusion. Your heathcare impacts interstate commerce, get it? By that measure any human activity impacts interstate commerce, so where's the limit? The administration failed to provide one.
 |
| We the people are so over this ... Constitution. |
Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.Obama has taken an unprecedented step of warning the U.S. Supreme Court not to overturn his law. Not only that, he's charging the Justices with ... not being elected. That is the precisely the means for ensuring impartiality of justices chosen by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in the Constitution. Surely a constitutional lawyer like Obama is aware of this fact. Obama's bemoaning the Constitution as a potential impediment to his designs is understandable. It's one thing to think it, and another to actually say this foolishness.
My liberal friends used to tell me that "Obama is the smartest person in the room", regardless of other occupants. Really? He seems really obtuse to me. Does he not realize how consistent the narrative of the overreach of his administration has been?
Given Obama's ridiculous outburst, some believe that Obama has been tipped off on the decision by the Supreme Court on health law. It should not matter. It appears that some of Obama's advisers think that running against the U.S. Supreme Court is a winning strategy for reelection. After all he's already running against the unpopular Congress. What a great narrative for Obama's reelection: "Although last three and a half years have stunk, you should vote t o reelect me, because the problems were the fault of the other two branches of government."
According to Obama's revisionist history his signature healthcare law was passed by a strong majority in Congress?! This is news. I thought it was the reluctance of congress that required the Cornhusker kickback and the Alabama purchase for the passage of Obamacare. The same type of sweetener was required for other items on Obama's ideological agenda.
 |
| Obama's agenda required some incentives. |
Obama desperately wants his presidency to be historically consequential. It is - as an example of everything that is wrong with liberal ideology, and the threat its autocratic approach poses to our Constitution.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
EPA revives cap-and-tax
Make it end. I'm talking about the insanity of the Obama administration in general and regarding energy policy and oil, in particular.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new U.S. power plants, circumventing the Obama administration to push through cap-and-trade through Congress. Why would Obama use this strategy in an election year knowing it will be strongly contested by Republicans and the industry? To ask this question is to answer it. The Obama administration wants this fight.
There is a microcosm of Obama's philosophy within this decision -- ideology trumps realism. It's a desperate move to appeal to the the political left -- environmentalists who think the country should subject itself to great financial pains associated with extremely expensive energy and gasoline for an ephemeral benefit.
That's right. I give no credibility to the fear-mongering associated with CO2. The idea that CO2 has resulted in global warming is total baloney, as the Climate Research Unit effectively admitted recently. There's no uniform warming of the planet. The Earth temperatures have been completely in accord with the Sun cycle, for as long as accurate records have been kept.
Carbon dioxide happens to be essential for plant life, and unlike oxygen is not toxic. There's also the inconvenient fact that all of use exhale CO2, just like those evil power plants. So, what's to prevent the government for taxing you for you carbon footprint? How would you like to be taxed not just for oil and gas you use, but also the air breathe?
There's no fundamental justification for CO2 tax, beside tax revenue and increased government control.
The politics of this decision appear to be simply nuts. Consider, that a similar set of regulations - the so-called cap-and-trade, more accurately described as cap-and-tax, was rejected by Congress over a year ago. Then Obama has shut down the majority of exploration in the Gulf, sending dozens of off-shore pumping platforms to China, and costing many thousands of jobs. More recently Obama has rejected the Keystone pipeline. The gasoline has nearly doubled in price since Obama took office. External factors had a lot to do with this increase, but Obama administration's antagonism to oil development has not helped.
Democrats continue to use fallacious numbers. On March 7 Obama declared: “We've got 2% of the world oil reserves; we use 20%. What that means is, as much as we're doing to increase oil production, we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices.”
The 2% number, in particular, is based on a very strict definition of proven reserves, which conveniently discounts more than half of the oil which could be economically extracted. The conclusion from Obama's description seems clear - the U.S. must be running out of oil. However, nothing is further from the truth. The known, financially lucrative reserves have actually grown -- due to improved technologies for detection that allowed identification of resources like shale oil that have become lucrative to develop consider given current prices. The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” columnist Glenn Kessler dismissed Obama’s figures as a “non sequitur”, which is exactly how I first thought of these figures, because the expected conclusion does not follow from these false statistics.
Even some Democrats from energy-intensive states have complained. "The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.
Obama once said regarding cap-and-trade: "Under my plan the energy costs will necessarily skyrocket". Is the Obama administration so obtuse as to double down with a losing hand in the debate on carbon-based fuels? They must be desperate to energize their left-wing base, despite the fact this issue is a loser with the general public. The geniuses in the Obama administration have not considered that the vacation season is around the corner. When gas approaches $5 per gallon, they will rue this short-sighted strategy.
Five dollar gasoline will certain results in an "O'bummer" summer of discontent for travelers, although nobody should be bummed too much. The pain at the pump serves a greater good. The true believers in the pie-in-the-sky alternative energy can look forward to decreased use of pricey oil in the U.S., while the rest of us can look forward to Obama's early retirement.
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from new U.S. power plants, circumventing the Obama administration to push through cap-and-trade through Congress. Why would Obama use this strategy in an election year knowing it will be strongly contested by Republicans and the industry? To ask this question is to answer it. The Obama administration wants this fight.
There is a microcosm of Obama's philosophy within this decision -- ideology trumps realism. It's a desperate move to appeal to the the political left -- environmentalists who think the country should subject itself to great financial pains associated with extremely expensive energy and gasoline for an ephemeral benefit.
That's right. I give no credibility to the fear-mongering associated with CO2. The idea that CO2 has resulted in global warming is total baloney, as the Climate Research Unit effectively admitted recently. There's no uniform warming of the planet. The Earth temperatures have been completely in accord with the Sun cycle, for as long as accurate records have been kept.
Carbon dioxide happens to be essential for plant life, and unlike oxygen is not toxic. There's also the inconvenient fact that all of use exhale CO2, just like those evil power plants. So, what's to prevent the government for taxing you for you carbon footprint? How would you like to be taxed not just for oil and gas you use, but also the air breathe?
There's no fundamental justification for CO2 tax, beside tax revenue and increased government control.
The politics of this decision appear to be simply nuts. Consider, that a similar set of regulations - the so-called cap-and-trade, more accurately described as cap-and-tax, was rejected by Congress over a year ago. Then Obama has shut down the majority of exploration in the Gulf, sending dozens of off-shore pumping platforms to China, and costing many thousands of jobs. More recently Obama has rejected the Keystone pipeline. The gasoline has nearly doubled in price since Obama took office. External factors had a lot to do with this increase, but Obama administration's antagonism to oil development has not helped.
 |
| Yes, he can (and he did). |
The 2% number, in particular, is based on a very strict definition of proven reserves, which conveniently discounts more than half of the oil which could be economically extracted. The conclusion from Obama's description seems clear - the U.S. must be running out of oil. However, nothing is further from the truth. The known, financially lucrative reserves have actually grown -- due to improved technologies for detection that allowed identification of resources like shale oil that have become lucrative to develop consider given current prices. The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” columnist Glenn Kessler dismissed Obama’s figures as a “non sequitur”, which is exactly how I first thought of these figures, because the expected conclusion does not follow from these false statistics.
Even some Democrats from energy-intensive states have complained. "The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.
 |
| No, he can't (and he didn't). |
Five dollar gasoline will certain results in an "O'bummer" summer of discontent for travelers, although nobody should be bummed too much. The pain at the pump serves a greater good. The true believers in the pie-in-the-sky alternative energy can look forward to decreased use of pricey oil in the U.S., while the rest of us can look forward to Obama's early retirement.
An errand boy and an appeaser
An errand boy and an appeaser walk into the Oval office. The errand boy is under-dressed, "I'm sorry, you can't be here unless you are wearing a tie," the Secret Service tells him. The errand boy goes to his car to find anything he can use for a tie. All he finds is a set of jumper cables, so he ties them around his neck. "This works," says the appeaser, "but we can't start anything yet, but after my election I will have the flexibility to hook you up with some 'juice'".
Actually, the meeting between Demitri Medvev, the current Russian Prime Minister, and Obama occurred in South Korea, but otherwise the description is apt. A hot mike caught Obama saying to Medvedev: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama said of incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin, who will replace Medvedev in May. “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replies, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir," a reference to the next Russian President-elect Valdimir Putin.
A few observations are in order. Medvedev's term as the Prime Minister won't run out until May 7th. He only served one term, and didn't even attempt to run again - it would interfere with Putin's ascendancy to the third (or fourth, if you count the last 4 years) term. Medvedev's response to Obama's comments is something that would be expected of a junior diplomat with no decision making power. Medvedev provided confirmation to the view that he's an impotent placeholder, an errand boy, in fact.
Medvedev is a joke - that's fine. Obama's comments are more significant, and disturbing. What does he mean by more "flexibility" after his potential reelection?
Consider Obama's record on missile defense. Obama's Start I treaty with Russia has betrayed US allies who wanted the defensive missiles house on their territory in Poland and the Czech republic. Even worse, this treaty amounted to a "unilateral disarmament", as John Bolton, the former ambassador to the U.N., has called this move.
What does "flexibility" mean in this context? Accommodation and appeasement. That has been Obama's strategy throughout his first term - appeasement of enemies, such as Iran, North Korea, Russia and Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere. What about friends? Obama has treated England and Israel with barely concealed contempt.
Charles Krauthammer's criticism of Obama's comments is so articulate, I'd like to quote a large part of his comments to RCP:
So, how did Obama try to diffuse this situation? He made light of the issue, and added: "Arms control is extraordinarily complex, very technical, and the only way it gets done is if you can consult and build a strong basis of understanding both between countries as well as within countries."
Oh. It's a good thing the "Reset" button for which the State Department originally used the wrong Russian word is working out so well. Think of the cooperation U.S. has gotten from Russia concerning nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and and civil war in Syria! Actually, think of something else. Happy thoughts. La, la, la. Forget the fact that Russia is not a democracy, and its elections are rigged. Forget the fact that Putin accused Hillary Clinton of instigating and sponsoring protests in Russia. Another "reset" will sure fix this.
According to Obama's own logic, his promise to continue to appease Russia rests on the sound foundation of understanding with Russia. He is right - Russia, in the face of Putin does understand Obama - he avoids standing up for American values preferring the easy route of appeasement.
Actually, the meeting between Demitri Medvev, the current Russian Prime Minister, and Obama occurred in South Korea, but otherwise the description is apt. A hot mike caught Obama saying to Medvedev: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama said of incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin, who will replace Medvedev in May. “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev replies, "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir," a reference to the next Russian President-elect Valdimir Putin.
 |
| The appeaser-in-chief meets an errand boy. |
 |
| Obama bowing to Japanese emperor and to Saudi Arabian King. |
Consider Obama's record on missile defense. Obama's Start I treaty with Russia has betrayed US allies who wanted the defensive missiles house on their territory in Poland and the Czech republic. Even worse, this treaty amounted to a "unilateral disarmament", as John Bolton, the former ambassador to the U.N., has called this move.
What does "flexibility" mean in this context? Accommodation and appeasement. That has been Obama's strategy throughout his first term - appeasement of enemies, such as Iran, North Korea, Russia and Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere. What about friends? Obama has treated England and Israel with barely concealed contempt.
Charles Krauthammer's criticism of Obama's comments is so articulate, I'd like to quote a large part of his comments to RCP:
I think that the key word here in that exchange was Obama saying to the Russians, 'this is my last election.' It's not just that 'I have another election and I'll be occupied with other issues, let's talk about this. [...]
'This is my last election.' That's his way of saying with a nod and a wink, 'Look, you guys have a free hand because you run a dictatorship, your elections are rigged. Well, ours aren't rigged, but once I get passed my last election, I'm unleashed. I can do anything I want.
And what he's saying is, 'you know that reset I began three years ago where I completely undermined our allies in Eastern Europe. I cancelled the missile defense system and I began a process in which our supremacy in missile defenses is now negotiable, which the Republicans have never allowed to be negotiable.'
'Well, after election day, I can't speak about it now of course because it's my last election and Americans won't actually like that -- after election day, I'll be open.'
This is a huge gaffe, if Etch-A-Sketch is a problem for Romney, this is the President himself saying, 'I'll be unleashed. I can govern hard left. I can do all this reset stuff in the future unmolested.' That's his way of telling people, 'you may have no idea what my agenda in the second term is going to be, but let me tell you, the Russians, it's going to be pretty hard left.'Mitt Romney has jumped on the opportunity afforded by Obama's candor: "Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage. And for this president to be looking for greater flexibility, where he doesn't have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia, is very, very troubling, very alarming," Romney said on CNN's "The Situation Room."
So, how did Obama try to diffuse this situation? He made light of the issue, and added: "Arms control is extraordinarily complex, very technical, and the only way it gets done is if you can consult and build a strong basis of understanding both between countries as well as within countries."
Oh. It's a good thing the "Reset" button for which the State Department originally used the wrong Russian word is working out so well. Think of the cooperation U.S. has gotten from Russia concerning nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and and civil war in Syria! Actually, think of something else. Happy thoughts. La, la, la. Forget the fact that Russia is not a democracy, and its elections are rigged. Forget the fact that Putin accused Hillary Clinton of instigating and sponsoring protests in Russia. Another "reset" will sure fix this.
According to Obama's own logic, his promise to continue to appease Russia rests on the sound foundation of understanding with Russia. He is right - Russia, in the face of Putin does understand Obama - he avoids standing up for American values preferring the easy route of appeasement.
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Black House in DC
Would you like to know what "social justice" looks like? Regular justice has no color, "social justice" depends on the social status (e.g. skin color, homesexuality, etc.) of the victim and the perpetrator. According to social justice the aggressor may actually be the victim, depending on the "classes" involved.
Almost two years ago Obama has said in regard to Cambridge police detaining a black professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., who appeared to be breaking into a house:
Later it was revealed that the police were called by a concerned neighbor and when they realized the was no break-in, they attempted to leave the scene until professor Gates showed his real colors he screaming his lungs out about the white officers mother, so the neighbors could hear. He was warned that he was out of order, but he persisted and was eventually arrested. Where was this paragon of equanimity and justice employed? At Harvard. At an Institute for African and African American Research. Any chance he preaches his bigotry there?
So, the only person who acted rashly and stupidly was ... Obama. His jump to the conclusion that Cambridge police "acted stupidly" and his insinuation that this had to do with bigotry in law enforcement is beyond the pale. Obama had to invite the white office for a few beers to the White House to patch things up. Not that Obama apologized to the officer. He attempted to suggest his sublime thinking was simply misunderstood. Oh well, that's the danger of Obama going off the teleprompter - he's likely to say what he really believes, like "spearing the wealth around is good for everyone". Talk about a Manchurian candidate.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Eric Holder is notoriously unwilling to prosecute black on white crime. He even let go the two black panther racists, who were found guilty of voter intimidation.
This brings me to the recent events with Tayvon Martin. The events are not yet clear - it could have been justifiable self-defense action by a Latino man, as police have judge the case, or maybe it was more sinister. Just like in the situation with Prof. Gates, Obama decided to weigh in on this situation before all the facts are in. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," said Obama and urged "soul searching" among all of us. Apparently he forgot to take his own advice. Is Obama's statement about appearances? In other words, the logic is "he's black like me, must be a good kid". Or was it about the essence of this young man, his character? This connotation is likely to come back to bite Obama, if it is confirmed that Trayvon was the aggressor, because it would expose his apparent contentment with the rotting culture of violence and the sense of entitlement that undermine future of many minority children.
I think the president has much better things to concern himself with, but since it is a black man who has been shot Obama's first reaction is to go to the bat for him, without bothering with waiting for the evidence. As a lawyer, and a politician Obama should know better - a good lawyers knows not to ask a question he does not know an answer to. A good politician has the presence of mind to avoid needless controversy. Why is Obama raising racial issues so imprudently again? It seems unlikely that Obama feels the need to prove his credentials to the black community - they will vote for him anyway. The remaining explanation is that he instinctively favors a black person in an altercation with a person of any other color. That's racial bigotry, and the country knows it.
Obama's imprudence mirrors the rhetoric of two established racists - Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, both of whom hurried to proclaim the Martin was a victim of racial prejudice. 'Blacks are under attack,' yelled Jesse Jackson. Farrakhan tweeted a warning: "Where there is no justice, there will be no peace... Law of retaliation may... be applied".
The black community meanwhile is following these "leaders" and coming out in strong support of Martin, including wearing "Hoodies" in a church during a service. These communities have prejudged the case, and have left themselves no room to retreat. If Trayvon turns out to be the attacker, they will look like a bunch of fools who champion delinquency.
Almost two years ago Obama has said in regard to Cambridge police detaining a black professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., who appeared to be breaking into a house:
"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played. But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 ... that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."To summarize Obama's points: specifics don't matter, race does. Cambridge police is stupid, most likely due to being racially bigoted.
Later it was revealed that the police were called by a concerned neighbor and when they realized the was no break-in, they attempted to leave the scene until professor Gates showed his real colors he screaming his lungs out about the white officers mother, so the neighbors could hear. He was warned that he was out of order, but he persisted and was eventually arrested. Where was this paragon of equanimity and justice employed? At Harvard. At an Institute for African and African American Research. Any chance he preaches his bigotry there?
So, the only person who acted rashly and stupidly was ... Obama. His jump to the conclusion that Cambridge police "acted stupidly" and his insinuation that this had to do with bigotry in law enforcement is beyond the pale. Obama had to invite the white office for a few beers to the White House to patch things up. Not that Obama apologized to the officer. He attempted to suggest his sublime thinking was simply misunderstood. Oh well, that's the danger of Obama going off the teleprompter - he's likely to say what he really believes, like "spearing the wealth around is good for everyone". Talk about a Manchurian candidate.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Eric Holder is notoriously unwilling to prosecute black on white crime. He even let go the two black panther racists, who were found guilty of voter intimidation.
 |
| DOJ is OK with reverse racism, too. |
I think the president has much better things to concern himself with, but since it is a black man who has been shot Obama's first reaction is to go to the bat for him, without bothering with waiting for the evidence. As a lawyer, and a politician Obama should know better - a good lawyers knows not to ask a question he does not know an answer to. A good politician has the presence of mind to avoid needless controversy. Why is Obama raising racial issues so imprudently again? It seems unlikely that Obama feels the need to prove his credentials to the black community - they will vote for him anyway. The remaining explanation is that he instinctively favors a black person in an altercation with a person of any other color. That's racial bigotry, and the country knows it.
Obama's imprudence mirrors the rhetoric of two established racists - Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, both of whom hurried to proclaim the Martin was a victim of racial prejudice. 'Blacks are under attack,' yelled Jesse Jackson. Farrakhan tweeted a warning: "Where there is no justice, there will be no peace... Law of retaliation may... be applied".
The black community meanwhile is following these "leaders" and coming out in strong support of Martin, including wearing "Hoodies" in a church during a service. These communities have prejudged the case, and have left themselves no room to retreat. If Trayvon turns out to be the attacker, they will look like a bunch of fools who champion delinquency.
 |
| Senior Pastor Rev. Raphael Warnock at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta made the Trayvon Martin case the focus of his sermon on "Hoodie Sunday. |
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Insanity in Afghanistan
On 22 February several members of the U.S. armed forced stationed at the Bagram airfield in Afghanistan dropped some Islamic texts, including copies of the Koran, into an incinerator to be burned. Several Afghan garbage collectors at the base reported finding a number of charred books and quickly made this incident public.
The question of motivation (or sanity) of an American soldier who killed 16 civilians, including many women and children remains to be determined. The horrific story has important implications for the US-Afghanistan relation. It even affects the US presidential campaign.
Let's recall some basic facts. Bagram airbase is one of the largest American military bases in Afghanistan that was built by the Russians, who were despised by much of the local population, but were never on the receiving end of such protests.
The day after the incident Obama apologized to Karzai. Nevertheless, the unrest has resulted in at least 41 dead and 270 wounded in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Several American and French soldiers were killed by their Afghani counterparts. Nobody has apologizes to the U.S. for these deaths. When I googled "Karzai apologizes to Obama" the search engine suggested I had it backwards, giving me links to "Obama apologizes to Karzai". Apparently our Afghani allies consider copies of Koran to be more important than the lives of servicemen of its US ally.
Let me suggest a possible diagnosis of the U.S. soldier who went on a murderous rampage in Afghanistan - his insanity lay in seeking revenge, and acting upon his frustrations. His actions also showcase the weakness and hypocrisy of the position of U.S. position -- which much be particularly hard to bear for a serviceman -- apologizing for unintentional burning of Korans, but not even attempting to defend the servicemen from murderous rage of the local barbarians.
In order to handle this political faux pas the U.S. is going to declare the serviceman who perpetrated this atrocity insane, regardless of the fact that he's on par with the rationality with many of the locals. The real insanity, as many are beginning to realize, lies in the very presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
The question of motivation (or sanity) of an American soldier who killed 16 civilians, including many women and children remains to be determined. The horrific story has important implications for the US-Afghanistan relation. It even affects the US presidential campaign.
Let's recall some basic facts. Bagram airbase is one of the largest American military bases in Afghanistan that was built by the Russians, who were despised by much of the local population, but were never on the receiving end of such protests.
 |
| Overcoming the language barrier. An Afghani protesting outside besieged Bagram gives the Americans the finger. |
Let me suggest a possible diagnosis of the U.S. soldier who went on a murderous rampage in Afghanistan - his insanity lay in seeking revenge, and acting upon his frustrations. His actions also showcase the weakness and hypocrisy of the position of U.S. position -- which much be particularly hard to bear for a serviceman -- apologizing for unintentional burning of Korans, but not even attempting to defend the servicemen from murderous rage of the local barbarians.
In order to handle this political faux pas the U.S. is going to declare the serviceman who perpetrated this atrocity insane, regardless of the fact that he's on par with the rationality with many of the locals. The real insanity, as many are beginning to realize, lies in the very presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Obama's transformation of the U.S.
President Obama has been in full campaign mode for about nine months now. Foxnews noted the frequency of fundraisers:
There was something important beneath the surface of Obama's words:
There's a bigger point here. A nod to the progressive Illuminati who came to the fundraiser that Obama believes the current system of government of the U.S. is fundamentally unfair and comparable to the colonialism in India or the apartheid in the South Africa.
That is the question that everybody fears to touch - is Obama's redistribution policies have a well-hidden racial motivation. Mandela, Gandhi - they were transformational emancipators who fought against dominance of the whites against blacks and Indians. This country has emancipated blacks. Women have received suffrage almost a hundred years ago. Gay, lesbian, transgender any many other groups have protection so solid it borders on over-zealousness. Who is left to emancipate? If we're not emancipating anyone, what are we transforming?
If there was a logical way to explain the preference for black over white by the Obama administration, including the U.S. Justice department (see black panther case) it would have been made already. Placing whites from the head of the line to its back is what "social justice" is all about for Obama.
Obama's rhetoric lends support to the view that he finds that he prefers "social justice" to plain, universal justice through equality before the law. He seems to be playing to the favoritism of progressives in general - including other groups, such as women, gays, "workers"/unions, etc.
Intelligently, Obama has not attempted to put this issue high on his agenda. In his second term Obama's transformation make take 'affirmative action' (I hate that lying euphemism with a passion) and pushing it towards reparations for slavery. It's unlikely Obama would overtly institute reparations in his second term (if we're so unfortunate as to deserve one), but he could certainly "spread the money around" in other ways, where "social justice" with racial overtones will dominate.
What Obama promised was a completion of his socio-economic ;transformation based on redistribution, such as public investment in Fannie and Freddie, banks, automakers, and last, but not least - healthcare.
If my concerns about racial overtones of Obama's redistributional policies are overblown, where's the "fundamental transformation" if not in centralized planning of the economy?
Having been born in Moscow, I am a U.S. citizen by choice, and although I see many flaws nowadays, the system as envisioned and preserved by the U.S. Constitution is better than any other. The fundamentals are great. Market economies consistently outperform planned economies. The problem is the malignant growth of human corruption on this solid foundation that hides behind euphemisms like "social justice" and is driving this great country towards a socio-economic suicide.
As another aside, I live close to Salem, where the famous witch trials took place. That is an example of "social justice" from the 17th century. It is arrogant to think that modern "social justice" will be more just, however. Sure, we don't burn people these days. Still, "social justice" to "justice" what "mob rule" is to "rule" - each combination is a contradiction in terms. Rule of the mob is just cruel anarchy of a pack before it the stability of dictatorial rule of the strongest. There's another connection between the two pairs of terms above -"social justice" is "mob rule" in that it is the dictatorship of the majority (or the strongest faction) who hypocritically claim privilege the deny to others, and is the weak-point of any democratic system.
Obama's choice of leaders to compare himself with clearly shows he sees himself fighting against a fundamental social injustice, which in the USA is primarily racial injustice. The Democrats like to pretend that "social justice is not socialism". In case of Obama that is true to a degree: his "social justice" is more about racism than socialism.
Unfortunately for Obama, the U.S. Constitution, based of the foundation of plain "justice", without regard to the social niceties is in the way of his transformation. This summer, the U.S. see the first engagement in this epic battle over the country's soul and future when the Constitutionality of Obamacare is considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Obama does get re-elected for a second term despite his performance he will be emboldened. How much further will he then go to make "social" justice the dominant form of justice in the U.S. when he no longer is limited by concerns over re-election?
The president has been engaged in somewhat of a fundraising frenzy lately, having held roughly 100 events this election cycle. That's twice as many held by former President George W. Bush at this point in his 2004 reelection battle, and more than three times former President Bill Clinton's total in the 1996 cycle.In one of the latest fundraising events Obama invoked Mandela and Gandhi in appeal for second term. The surprise of Fox that "Obama compared himself to Gandhi, Mandela!" are anachronistic. Reporting that Obama arrogantly compares himself to great historical figures (Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther King), is like a "dog bites man" headline - trite line, lacking in novelty.
There was something important beneath the surface of Obama's words:
Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela–what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term.In addition to the sweeping arrogance of this comparison in Obama's appeal at the fundraiser the is a reference to his promise to "fundamental transform" the U.S.A made in 2008. Obama used Reverend Wright's words "A white man's greed run a world in need" in one of his books. In an unguarded moment before the election Obama opined that "when you spread the money around, it's good for everyone." In other words Obama believes in government redistribution, and a managed economy.
There's a bigger point here. A nod to the progressive Illuminati who came to the fundraiser that Obama believes the current system of government of the U.S. is fundamentally unfair and comparable to the colonialism in India or the apartheid in the South Africa.
That is the question that everybody fears to touch - is Obama's redistribution policies have a well-hidden racial motivation. Mandela, Gandhi - they were transformational emancipators who fought against dominance of the whites against blacks and Indians. This country has emancipated blacks. Women have received suffrage almost a hundred years ago. Gay, lesbian, transgender any many other groups have protection so solid it borders on over-zealousness. Who is left to emancipate? If we're not emancipating anyone, what are we transforming?
If there was a logical way to explain the preference for black over white by the Obama administration, including the U.S. Justice department (see black panther case) it would have been made already. Placing whites from the head of the line to its back is what "social justice" is all about for Obama.
 |
| What "social justice" pretends to be |
Intelligently, Obama has not attempted to put this issue high on his agenda. In his second term Obama's transformation make take 'affirmative action' (I hate that lying euphemism with a passion) and pushing it towards reparations for slavery. It's unlikely Obama would overtly institute reparations in his second term (if we're so unfortunate as to deserve one), but he could certainly "spread the money around" in other ways, where "social justice" with racial overtones will dominate.
 |
| What "social justice" really is |
If my concerns about racial overtones of Obama's redistributional policies are overblown, where's the "fundamental transformation" if not in centralized planning of the economy?
Having been born in Moscow, I am a U.S. citizen by choice, and although I see many flaws nowadays, the system as envisioned and preserved by the U.S. Constitution is better than any other. The fundamentals are great. Market economies consistently outperform planned economies. The problem is the malignant growth of human corruption on this solid foundation that hides behind euphemisms like "social justice" and is driving this great country towards a socio-economic suicide.
As another aside, I live close to Salem, where the famous witch trials took place. That is an example of "social justice" from the 17th century. It is arrogant to think that modern "social justice" will be more just, however. Sure, we don't burn people these days. Still, "social justice" to "justice" what "mob rule" is to "rule" - each combination is a contradiction in terms. Rule of the mob is just cruel anarchy of a pack before it the stability of dictatorial rule of the strongest. There's another connection between the two pairs of terms above -"social justice" is "mob rule" in that it is the dictatorship of the majority (or the strongest faction) who hypocritically claim privilege the deny to others, and is the weak-point of any democratic system.
 |
| Dems says: "Social Justice is not socialism" |
Unfortunately for Obama, the U.S. Constitution, based of the foundation of plain "justice", without regard to the social niceties is in the way of his transformation. This summer, the U.S. see the first engagement in this epic battle over the country's soul and future when the Constitutionality of Obamacare is considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Obama does get re-elected for a second term despite his performance he will be emboldened. How much further will he then go to make "social" justice the dominant form of justice in the U.S. when he no longer is limited by concerns over re-election?
Monday, February 27, 2012
The U.S. 'debt doomsday' opportunity
Whenever I hear about economic policies in the West, be it the draw-out Greek rescue, or the US policies (of the socialist-lite Obama administration): "... eventually, you run out of other peoples money". That, of course, is the problem with socialism, according to Margaret Thatcher. A very steep price in lives has been paid to observe the historical veracity of this phase. The juxtaposition of the moral and fiscal hazards is not merely cynical, it's insightful. For example, USSR ran out of moral justification for the one-party rune long before it's financial collapse.
I see the same fate befalling countries in the West, as the slide off towards greater 'collectivization', such as the increasing EU control over the Greek economy as a price for the second bailout. U.S. has also been sliding in the socialist direction. U.S. has recently surpassed 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.
The U.S. debt may exceed $16.4 trillion debt ceiling before the 2012 presidential election. Politico.com characterized this scenario in an article "Debt doomsday may come sooner than expected". However, with various accounting tricks, the U.S. Treasury could delay the absolute deadline until February 2013. Charles Krauthammer recently called Obama the lawless president, and the Obama administration will undoubtedly do everything legal and semi-legal to try to avoid face the reality of its unsustainable largess. Meanwhile, the U.S. external per capita debt exceeds that of Greece, for example, and is the highest in the West.
The debt ceiling debate is a crucial opportunity to check the growth of government, because it exposes the fiscal bankruptcy of the socialist malaise brought about by the Obama administration. This fiscal failure is readily apparent and can easier to attack than the ethical bankruptcy of socialist policies for weak-need politicians. However, the socialist nature is egregious and should be denounced in its own right - it pits the majority against minorities, for example different generations against each other. Obama's use of short-term borrowing for political gains, which benefits the old, comes at the expense of financial future of the youth, saddled by vast debts.
Regrettably, the U.S. is at a point, where a painful debate about the ethics and finances of government largess before the 2012 elections is the best medicine we can hope for.
I see the same fate befalling countries in the West, as the slide off towards greater 'collectivization', such as the increasing EU control over the Greek economy as a price for the second bailout. U.S. has also been sliding in the socialist direction. U.S. has recently surpassed 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.
The U.S. debt may exceed $16.4 trillion debt ceiling before the 2012 presidential election. Politico.com characterized this scenario in an article "Debt doomsday may come sooner than expected". However, with various accounting tricks, the U.S. Treasury could delay the absolute deadline until February 2013. Charles Krauthammer recently called Obama the lawless president, and the Obama administration will undoubtedly do everything legal and semi-legal to try to avoid face the reality of its unsustainable largess. Meanwhile, the U.S. external per capita debt exceeds that of Greece, for example, and is the highest in the West.
Regrettably, the U.S. is at a point, where a painful debate about the ethics and finances of government largess before the 2012 elections is the best medicine we can hope for.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
What peace treaty?
The power in Egypt still lies with the military junta, which is composed from remnants of the Mubarak regime. This government has initiated a crisis with U.S. over some American workers and funding for NGOs.
Egyptian judges have referred 16 Americans and 27 others linked to NGOs for trial, accusing them of using foreign funds to encourage disruptive protests. Among the targeted NGOs whose assets and funds have been seized are the U.S. government-funded International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute.
Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood that has won 3/4 or the lower Parliament want to show its enmity to the U.S. as well. MB lawmaker Essam el-Erian told the pan-Arabic al-Hayat newspaper that any reduction in U.S. aid to Egypt would violate the U.S.-brokered 1979 peace agreement with Israel. In other words, while the military junta has unlawfully detained Americans the Muslim Brotherhood has the audacity to blackmail the U.S.!
Since the ouster of Mubarak, Egypt has become the patron of Hamas (taking over from Shiite Iran) and has treated Israel as an enemy. The military junta, the Muslim Brotherhood, indeed the majority of Egyptians, want to 'reevaluate' the the peace treaty. For all practical purposes the treaty is already null and void. The irony is that there's little to gain, but a paper promise.
Last Sunday a great Mideast expert Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Israel, wrote in a column explaining the Egyptian brinkmanship:
“This is only the beginning of the anti-American populism/nationalism/Islamism we are going to be seeing in Egypt from now on.” Rubin also predicted: "The Obama administration’s bluff is already being called. If trials go forward — and some compromise might be found to save face for both sides — will the Obama administration cut off aid or is it bluffing and will back down? I’ll bet on the latter, and that will send a real message to every radical in the region."
It took only a day for this prediction to come true. Obama's budget released the next day (Monday, February 13th) proposed continuation of $1.3 billion in aid to Egypt, despite outrageous behavior of its rulers.
I wrote about a week ago that Egypt is following in the footsteps of Iran. Needless to say, I agree with Barry Rubin's projection for the trajectory of Egypt, and his assessment of the dire consequences. I don't think the Obama administration even attempted to bluff denying U.S. aid to Egypt. There's a lot of grumbling in Congress, and the U.S. State Department made some threatening noises about the funding, but it never rose to a high level that would prove the Obama administration even attempted to bluff. That would reveal that not everything is going well with the Arab spring.
Yesterday I wrote about the costs of Obama's appeasement for the region:
Egyptian judges have referred 16 Americans and 27 others linked to NGOs for trial, accusing them of using foreign funds to encourage disruptive protests. Among the targeted NGOs whose assets and funds have been seized are the U.S. government-funded International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute.
Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood that has won 3/4 or the lower Parliament want to show its enmity to the U.S. as well. MB lawmaker Essam el-Erian told the pan-Arabic al-Hayat newspaper that any reduction in U.S. aid to Egypt would violate the U.S.-brokered 1979 peace agreement with Israel. In other words, while the military junta has unlawfully detained Americans the Muslim Brotherhood has the audacity to blackmail the U.S.!
Since the ouster of Mubarak, Egypt has become the patron of Hamas (taking over from Shiite Iran) and has treated Israel as an enemy. The military junta, the Muslim Brotherhood, indeed the majority of Egyptians, want to 'reevaluate' the the peace treaty. For all practical purposes the treaty is already null and void. The irony is that there's little to gain, but a paper promise.
Last Sunday a great Mideast expert Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Israel, wrote in a column explaining the Egyptian brinkmanship:
“This is only the beginning of the anti-American populism/nationalism/Islamism we are going to be seeing in Egypt from now on.” Rubin also predicted: "The Obama administration’s bluff is already being called. If trials go forward — and some compromise might be found to save face for both sides — will the Obama administration cut off aid or is it bluffing and will back down? I’ll bet on the latter, and that will send a real message to every radical in the region."
It took only a day for this prediction to come true. Obama's budget released the next day (Monday, February 13th) proposed continuation of $1.3 billion in aid to Egypt, despite outrageous behavior of its rulers.
I wrote about a week ago that Egypt is following in the footsteps of Iran. Needless to say, I agree with Barry Rubin's projection for the trajectory of Egypt, and his assessment of the dire consequences. I don't think the Obama administration even attempted to bluff denying U.S. aid to Egypt. There's a lot of grumbling in Congress, and the U.S. State Department made some threatening noises about the funding, but it never rose to a high level that would prove the Obama administration even attempted to bluff. That would reveal that not everything is going well with the Arab spring.
Yesterday I wrote about the costs of Obama's appeasement for the region:
What can the Obama administration do, facing a failure of its policy in Egypt? Simple - the White House refuses to acknowledge the reality.The political costs of acknowledging the utter failure of his policies prevent Obama even from bluffing to influence Egypt's behavior. He will gladly pay Egypt to avoid acknowledging the reality that his foreign policy has produce another Iran, and that Egypt is already not honoring its peace agreement with Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)