March 27, 2009

Sympathy for the CEO

Obama at Bat

When AIG handed out their millions in bonuses, Obama was thrown what is called a slow-ball pitch. He walked up to the plate with a crowd getting more and more disgusted with his spending and budgetary plans. There were a few boos audible from the stands - some even coming from his team’s supporters. So he needed a hit. And it didn’t take much to score a populist point by deriding AIG for handing out employee retention bonuses after receiving huge taxpayer bailout money.


For a few moments Obama was able to throw off some heat, tap into some pigheaded class antagonisms, and perpetuate his ‘looking out for the little guy’ image. The only problem is that - Obama didn’t just get a slow ball pitch…the whole play was phony. The AIG bailout was a Bush Administration deal (but ongoing) and employee compensation plans were guaranteed to remain intact. So when the bailout deal was negotiated these bonuses would have been impossible to hide and common knowledge to all the parties involved including the Obama people (especially Tim Geithner).And not only that but,: (CNN) -- "Senate Banking committee Chairman (democrat-ed) Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored"*. It was in the Stimulus Bill!(see links below) All Obama and other members of congress had to do was wait for the wind-up…the throw…and wham – be all over the media feigning disgust and complaining about “corporate greed”.

True, the whole affair was a convenient distraction from Obama’s disaster-in–the-making economic schemes, but it doesn’t make the million dollar-plus payouts any easier to digest. With many people out of work and some sectors of the economy clearly beleaguered, who wouldn’t be frustrated about some Wall Street executives making out like bandits? The whole affair does raise some interesting questions though.

Whipping Post Du Jour

In tough times people start looking to point fingers. Often immigrants get blamed for making a tight job market even worse. Unfortunately, this country finds it easier to harass valuable legal immigrants who contribute to our society rather than the system- sucking illegal immigrants…but that is another issue. Unlike the 'under-the-radar' illegals our other target du jour is very often high profile, high-flying, corporate executives. When times are good no one gets too excited about seven figure salaries or the plethora of compensation packages. But in times like these, it is quite a different story.

Mr.Burns and his lovely ape-chest vest

Sympathy for the CEO

From movies to television shows to children’s cartoons, how often is the villain a top level corporate executive – invariably white, male, and insatiably greedy? Not that this is anything new. After all, the past few decades have many examples of evil portrayed as being a CEO or faceless corporation. (One of my favorite characters is the Simpson’s Mr. Burns who, incidentally, meets his fellow Republicans in a creepy and haunted looking mansion on a hill.) But these characterizations work both subliminally and overtly to foster suspicion or worse on those who are so vital to any nation.

The wage market is no different than any other market. The laws of supply and demand are just as applicable in the high-level executive wage market as any other market. How much would you expect to be paid for having the livelihood of thousands in your hands? How much would you expect to be paid to take on the responsibility for millions and millions of dollars from investors (who could include everyone from sovereign nations to your retired grandmother)? How much would you expect to be paid when your job is running a company who directly and indirectly may affect countless other business and jobs?

So far, the answer to these questions are not answered by any one ‘enlightened’ person - but by the wage market which functions surprisingly well in determining how much a CEO gets paid. Of course, like anything involving human beings it does not and will never work perfectly. But in comparison to any other system, the market is the most efficient determiner of compensation, salaries, and value.


An easy way to understand this process would be to first remember a business’s goal is to be profitable (I realize I have already lost my liberal friends at this point). So any business wanting to maximize profits will seek to pay the market wage for a CEO. They would not want to pay more than the market value for the job because this would be counter to the profit motive. They cannot pay less than the market value because a highly educated and ambitious executive-to-be would just work for the company next door, in the next state, or even in another country.

Since that all makes sense to most people the problem is in perception. When a high school educated worker at the local burger joint compares his wage to that of a CEO, the difference is staggering. But then again, the differences in responsibilities and duties between the two jobs are equally staggering. Also, the labor pool (supply) of burger flippers is much larger than for CEO’s. At this point my more philosophical liberal friends will usually say, “Well it’s just not fair!”


If it is not fair, than what would be the alternative? If not the market, then who pray tell should value work and decide upon compensation? Perhaps a committee of ‘the people’ should decide - but that was already tried before in the many failed communist nations. There is no need to reiterate the inherent failures of command economies, but in simple terms: few people would be willing to go through the intense schooling and then take on the vast responsibilities of a corporate executive for the wage of a burger-flipper.

Is this good art?

Eye of the Beholder

But since the issue of “fairness” is in question, I could think of other things that seem quite unfair. Is it fair for an actress, who plays pretend for a living, to be paid millions of dollars for a film? Does some scrawny kid deserve millions for lip-syncing pop songs that they didn’t even write? And what about writers? Does writing a story really merit the huge advances and earnings they can make? What about athletes like Tiger Woods who hit a ball around grass? Are any of these high paid occupations more valuable than perhaps building homeless shelters or curing diseases? Furthermore, I walked through the Gardens Mall a few weeks ago and stopped in an art store. How someone could be paid $60,000 for producing art -a piece of canvas with paint that looked like colorful vomit - will never seem fair to me.

How much is this worth?

For artists, it is probably a good thing that I am not on a committee of ‘the people’ to value art because I would not value it in a way that they would think fair. To be quite honest with you, I believe most actors, musicians, and artists deserve the same or less than our intrepid burger-flipper. So, we see how the market works even when it may not always seem fair from an individuals perspective. It arrives at value through consensus and the latest information. It factors in the expertise of the whole which far exceeds the expertise of the parts. In this manner the people who appraise, buy, sell, and insure art, for example, set its value not me. The same is true for the wage markets.

Next time you see the President and these Washington fat cats hamming up to the media whilst they speak with outrage about the pay of Wall Street executives, don’t for a second think that they are concerned for the average person. They are just playing the same old class warfare card to get your support. These executives are an easy target when people don’t understand how the wage market works and have been raised on negative stereotypes of executives by the media. Ironically, liberal Hollywood itself is made up some of the largest multi-national corporations staffed by countless CEOs. Perhaps like all liberals, they see themselves as exempt from the caricatures they condemn.

Fictional Hollywood Executive Les Grossman

For more info checkout:

Stay tuned and subscribe to:

March 20, 2009

Liberal Wing Nuts and the Folks Who Love Them

The Umbilical Overlords

When you were a kid, did you ever hear your mom say something like, “Go get it yourself…I am not your slave…”? Well, that may not have been entirely true. According to Dawn Johnsen, a mother is in fact a slave to the helpless fetus in her womb. The fetus “…requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest”. Since the “state’s asserted interest” is presumably the well being (ie. survival) of the child, the pregnant mothers are also slaves to the State - their bodies “conscripted” and “…no more than fetal containers.”

Dawn Johnsen

You might be wondering, how exactly does this vicious slavery happen? By Johnsen’s reckoning, any laws which place restrictions on public funding of abortion would be enough to shackle a woman to the chains of motherhood. Without taxpayer funded abortion counseling, for instance, women would not receive “proper information about contraception…” and would therefore “(not)… be said to have a meaningful opportunity to avoid pregnancy.” These women having ignorance forced upon them, as well as all “losers in the contraceptive lottery”, would have a pregnancy which would be in effect a “forced pregnancy”. Such forced pregnancies violate the Thirteenth Amendment, which as we know, prohibits slavery.

Worse than punishment? Slavery?
Womb: Half empty of full?

Normally, such ridiculous Left-wing logic would not be any more than a curiosity to me but Dawn Johnsen happens to be Obama’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. So in addition to his recent nomination of tax cheats and scoundrels (Killefer, Geithner, Daschle) comes this Clinton Administration rerun. In fact, Dawn Johnsen was the acting Assistant Attorney General for the last two of the five years she spent in the OLC during the Clinton years. What was that campaign promise about “change we can believe in" and no more "politics as usual"?

In an office which is served best by moderation, Obama chose to nominate an extremist. Johnsen’s resume includes legal director of National Abortion Rights Action League ( NARAL) where she opposed any restrictions on abortion such as waiting periods or parental consent. (It is interesting to me that we have waiting periods for handguns and parental consent requirements for tattoos - but Johnsen doesn't believe unborn children deserve such consideration.)


It was during her tenure for the NARAL that she proposed her half-baked Thirteenth Amendment fetal slave-driver theory in a Supreme Court brief (Webster v. Reproductive Health Services). Naturally, the court could not take her argument seriously and Johnsen attempts to downplay it today. In fairness, the position was a footnote in the brief but it is consistent with her many public statements during her career, it is indicative of her true core character and is ludicrous none the less.
More recently, Johnsen spent a great deal of time during the Bush Administration criticizing most of his anti-terrorism policies and the expansion of presidential powers. It was, fortunately for her, these policies which have prevented a repeat of the 911 attacks – keeping the country safe for wackos like her to reach high offices. Should we face another domestic terrorist attack, I wonder if she would be as critical of Obama expanding his powers.

Daphne Eviatar

As of today, Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation will be heading to the Senate. The Judiciary Committee vote of 11-7 offered no surprises in that it fell along party lines. It is also not surprising that the media covers the hearings with their usual bias. Daphne Eviatar, of the Washington Independent, is a 'reporter' typical of the liberal dominated media machine. In Eviatar's recent article, questioning of Johnsen by concerned Judiciary Committee members becomes, “Johnsen has otherwise been getting beaten up for her past criticisms…” I suppose that asking a liberal to explain themselves is equal to a physical assault (how dare you question my intentions using my actual words!). That’s almost as nutty as…well… equating motherhood with slavery.

In another article, Daphne Eviatar quotes Johnsen lying to the Judiciary Committee about the 13th Amendment contention of her Webster v. Reproductive Health Services brief. She even admits that Johnsen’s response to a question regarding her argument was “pretty muddled”.Yet she defends the slavery argument by writing that Johnsen was, “just being a little creative,” and it was her job “…to fight legal restrictions on abortion rights.” Eviatar, with the moral flexibility common to liberals,then asserts that Johnsen’s past position and present mumblings don’t really matter anyways. If you say so, Daphne!

The one thing everyone agrees on is that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to be an office that functions with impartiality. “…The role of the OLC director is not to advocate for any particular position,” Eviatar writes of Johnsen’s beliefs, “but to present the executive branch with a fair and impartial reading of the law.” She is totally convinced that Dawn Johnsen will be capable of being “impartial”.This is why, incidentally, Eviatar thinks that Johnsen's theories or admitting to them doesn't really matter. We should trust her sincerity - this least about her promise of impartiality when she is eventually nominated for the OLC position. Hm...
But I have to wonder… if this was a nominee who had equally radical, but pro-life views, would Eviatar and the rest of the liberal media be so willing to take that kind of chance?


related articles:


Add to  Technorati Favorites

March 19, 2009

The Obama Behind the Curtain


I must confess the past month or so has made being a political junkie and blogger not only fun but easy. With the Obama administration in full effect and characters like Pelosi and Biden around, there is no shortage of material. It could all make for a slapstick comedy (if the future of our country wasn’t at stake) and there were a few times this past week when I was totally convinced the lunatics are now running the asylum.

Thinking back at the school-girlish enthusiasm of supporters during the Obama campaign, the comment by Sex Pistols Johnny Rotten after their final Winterland show comes to mind: “Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?” I picture the giddy throngs of “yes we can-ers” who were convinced that only two things were needed to be done to usher in the new dawn of prosperity. The first was to get rid of Bush and the second was to elect Obama. Yet the proverbial morning after looked… well… much the same as the day before. In fact, things started to get worse. But the Obama folks could rationalize this fairly easily. They could forget the cyclical nature of the economy (if they knew what that meant in the first place), they could gloss over the role the Democrats played in exacerbating the mess, and they could blame old George W. (Blaming him is odd, considering the Obama administration continued some of W's worst ideas, increased the deficit in an astronomical way, and increased government budgetary spending!)

Then Obama and began to take action with a preposterous 787 billion dollar stimulus package and as a result we are now facing down a deficit that will plague us for generations to come. Obama broke promises: "We need earmark reform and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely”, and
9000 earmarks showed up in his very unwise omnibus spending package. In addition, his taxation strategy is so punitive that even with the Democrats fuzziest math, it is clearly going to hurt the middle class. It must have, at the very least,given pause to his flock if not a little gnawing feeling in the heart of some. So Obama chose to dazzle with lifting the ban of stem cell research, promising to solve the health care crisis, clamp down on carbon emissions and promote the development of alternative energy, and a whole host of other things. It’s enough to make your head spin. His administration also tried to minimize some of these uncomfortable things by calling the 400 billion dollar omnibus spending package...just a little "unfinished business" and we should just move on. After the bill is passed then Obama promises to change spending rules. How convenient…


Maybe he kept the flock in line a little longer but there is some grumbling. His flock are the only citizens he needs to worry about because Mr. Work Together has already shown that he will ignore criticism and marginalize the Republicans and even fiscal conservatives in his own party. But even the faithful are going to recognize how bad his prescription for the economy truly is and all the fast talk and dazzle is not going to keep Americans from noticing that salvation isn’t coming as easy as they were lead to believe. So sit back and let us share a few recent events and pray your head doesn’t explode…


America to the Left of Europe?!

After Obama’s rock star reception in Europe during his campaign, he had to feel a good sting when things did not go according to plan recently in Brussels. Larry Summers, Obama’s lead economic adviser, was given a flat out NO when he suggested that the 16 Euro-zone countries use more tax payer money to stimulate their economies. Can you imagine!! Not content to spend American tax dollars for generations to come in the flawed demand-side scheme to stimulate the economy, the Obama administration now wants European taxpayers to give more.
Europe might be Left-leaning but they are not stupid! "We agreed that the recent US calls on Europe for an additional budgetary effort do not suit us…" Luxembourg Finance Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said - but he could have added, “listen, we like Obama as the president of your country but not ours”. The Obamanites must have been shocked when after decades of idolizing European socialism - the Euro-zone countries did not follow the Saviors lead. Some of the finance ministers were concerned about deficits spiraling out of control, a fear that our leader doesn’t seem to have. Even more amazing was the Europeans icy reception to increasing private sector regulation! Wow, the Europeans are now more concerned with the free markets than the United States.
All of this should be throwing up warning signs about the expectations of the Obama administration. They have only yet begun to institute their grand plan for America and already it seems too radical for the Europeans. It is one thing to cheer and support the first MTV president during his campaign tours last year, but a whole other thing to take more from their tax paying citizens at his direction.
I was suspicious when I saw how much the Europeans loved Obama. After all, when have they ever wanted anything good for the United States? I even thought that maybe they purposely wanted this disaster in the White House so we could finally ‘get what was coming to us’. Regardless, their love affair with Obama lasted only until his first bad suggestion to their own countries.


Not as I Say or Do

Attached to the Stem Cell bill signed by Obama a few days ago was a memo which set a new level of presidential hypocrisy. On the surface his directive appears sound if not noble, which only makes the hypocrisy all the more astounding. "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology…", Obama said of his memo. He added, "(the memo) is about letting scientists… do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient."
I think the word “inconvenient” works well here when we consider one particular “inconvenient” truth. That being the truth that Obama has continued a policy of doing just the opposite of his directive when it concerns Global Warming. Is there another example of a scientific issue being used to serve a political agenda in modern times? Is there any other issue which data is more “distorted” and “concealed”? Could there ever have been, in recent times, another instance where scientists with inconvenient data are marginalized and outright blackballed? The answer is no, of course.

Ever since the Left has seized upon the global warming theory as a tool to further their goals, we have seen every violation of the norms and practices of scientific inquest. I think this entire fiasco is all the more unbelievable when just recently Al Gore was forced to remove a slide from his ‘global warming is coming’ slide show because it was phony. One of his slide sequences attempted to insinuate that the earth is experiencing more severe and numerous natural disasters as a result of global warming. As it turned out, his data was incorrect and he had to pull it from his show. The data in reality showed that it was impossible to prove that global warming, if it existed at all, was even a factor. But the show goes on because data was never all that important to Gore or any of the politicians who see a good opportunity.
The hypocrisy of the Obama directive is all the more unbelievable when we consider many of his programs like the Cap and Trade scheme and a myriad of other alternative energy and environmental programs. All of these programs are based on the gospel acceptance of a theory with enough conflicting evidence to cast reasonable doubt.


What could be more inconvenient to Obama’s business destroying and taxpayer bilking plans than scientist such as Dr. William Grey disputing the validity of global warming research? If you haven’t heard of him, he is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and among other things considered the best hurricane forecaster in the country. With an M.S. in meteorology and a PhD. in geophysical sciences, Dr. Grey is someone who is certainly qualified to comment on global warming and carbon emissions. Yet he and many other scientists who draw different conclusions than the Gore camp are ostracized. For a list of many other prominent scientists you have never heard from, see:

Will Obama’s new directive help give them a fair hearing now? Somehow I don’t think so. His memo only applies to “real science” - that being whatever science the left has decided to be true. Furthermore, the stakes are just too high for the Administration to allow a little hypocrisy to mess up their plans. Cap and Trade and other restrictions are just too powerful of tools, for both control and taxation of consumers and business, to let unfettered scientific debate possibly derail.


Closet Conservative DVD Rental of the Week!

Once in awhile, a movie with a conservative message gets past the Hollywierd movie machine. I can’t say for sure if the original writers knew that they were doing a Right of Center story, but The Beach starring Leonardo DiCaprio is just that.

Without giving too much away, this 2000 film, follows a young mans trip to Thailand and the search for a secret island. The island develops into a ‘paradise found’ or so it might seem. Their attempt to live free of society’s rules and in a hedonistic commune unravels in a spectacular way.

I won’t spoil it for you by saying that as much as they try to create a perfect little commune, they can’t escape their own weaknesses and inequalities. Nor can they escape Mother Nature and hostile outsiders - - none of these things wanting to cooperate with the island kids Utopian creation.

The whole movie is an excellent critique of Marxism and Liberal naïveté. Obvious parallels could be drawn with the 1960’s hippie culture, but also with the modern Lefts head-in-the-sand attitude towards Islamo- fascism. I would also like to see this movie played for high school and college students to expand the play list beyond the Color Purple. Rent it this weekend!



Obama campaigned as hard against special interest and the lobbyist culture in Washington as he did against earmarks and pork spending. He is also going back on his word just as quickly. When we consider the big labor unions, we are talking about special interest defined. The Bosses of these antiquated organizations of workers did much for Obama during the campaign trail (over 60 million dollars in contributions) and now they want payback. The “Card Check” legislation, which will give the government broader rights to force labor contracts on workers and end the right to a secret ballot, is hoping to piggyback on the success of Obama’s other bad ideas already signed into law. Big Labor better hurry up because the fact is that not only Republicans are against this bill but also as much as 82% of Democrats. Unions have long funneled their workers money towards candidates and political vehicles of the bosses’ choice. With a lot of money comes a lot of power and vice versa. What develops is the kind of ‘I scratch your back’ relationship that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid can’t refuse.

Not that any of this is new and the behavior of unions and their bosses are as dubious as their friends in Washington. What is bad is the timing. With Obama trying to tackle everything all at once and doing much of it poorly, is now the time to be passing legislation like this? Worst of all, with the Cap and Trade policy, the crippling tax plan, and other anti-business legislation, is now the time to hurt business even more when so many people are losing their job? I hope that Obama realizes very soon that you can’t have the socialist dream and a prosperous America…simply because, the socialist dream has been a nightmare for most of the 20th century.

Stay tuned, friends....

A Conservative in Exile Speaks



First, what happened to Obama’s promise to examine and eliminate “pork” spending “line by line”? The 410 billion dollar spending bill (HR 1105) contains around 7000 of these special interest and lawmaker driven pet projects! Somewhere between 3 and 7 BILLION dollars are going to the very type of spending Obama promised in his campaign to end! He thought it was a serious problem before being elected but after only six weeks in office, Obama will sign off on a bill with YOUR TAX DOLLARS funding everything from tattoo removal to honey bee farming in Texas. Is this really the time to be spending your money on pork spending that he thought should be eliminated? So, I am asking a question of all you Obama supporters, "How do you feel about being lied to so early on?" Please send me a comment or email with your thoughts so I understand. I wont use your name if you don't want and frankly, I would not blame you for it. And for those of you with the time and stomach for it, check out a list of these earmarks at TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE -

The New ‘New Deal’

Harry Truman once said, “There is nothing new in the world but the history you do not know.” If it was only as simple as Barack Obama
missing a few critical history lessons… but the solutions to the current economic crisis now becoming policy are the results of a long entrenched contempt of both history and sound economic principles. It is the defining debate of our century in terms of economic and governmental policy. We are all witnesses to this ideological clash right here, right now.

On the one side are those who believe in more government regulation and control, the redistribution of wealth, expansionary fiscal policy, collectivism directed by centralized planning, and a version of Keynesian economic theory that marginalizes tax cutting and emphasizes government spending. With the charismatic Obama at the helm, their allies are the mass media and all popular culture outlets. As powerful as those allies who can control what people read, watch, hear, and teach may be - nothing compares to their ultimate partner. This most dangerous ally is the ignorance and lack of interest in history and policy on the part of many American citizens.

On the other side are those who believe in a smaller, less interventionist government, less regulation, individualism, private ownership, and a fiscal policy centered on tax reduction. The responsibility of government is to assure the right to life,liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The markets work better with minimal interference. Unfortunately, the allies on this side of the battle are the not-so-sexy historical facts and the less than photogenic statistics. The heroes are not movie and pop stars who talk about how they ‘feel’ things ought to be but bespectacled economists in book filled rooms working out complex mathematical formulas for how things are. How could you ever get the Brittney Spears generation to understand how aggregate supply curves can explain more about the economy that an Obama sound bite?


It is very important for the Obama administration to spread as much fear and panic over the condition of our economy. In order to justify the outrageous economic package dictated to the American people recently, much has been done to compare our situation with the Great Depression. In this way, Obama could be the second coming of FDR, his package the new ‘New Deal’, and Bush a modern day Hoover. While the Democrats in Washington use historical references to gain power and the support of the masses, they are counting on the American people not looking any deeper in to history. Because when you do, things get really frightening.



Within a few weeks of taking office, Roosevelt created a veritable alphabet soup of government organizations: the HOLC for people going into foreclosure, the FERA for the unemployed, the WPA and the PWA for massive public works, the NRA and AAA for wage and price controls, the SEC, the CCC to regulate the exchanges, and on and on. Essentially massive government spending in order to increase demand and stimulate the economy coupled with an assault on the free market with a spider’s web of regulations. Since the government had no money, what it could not get through taxation it obtained through increasing the deficit. The New Dealers blamed capitalism and big business for the countries predicament. With talk of hope and change from the charismatic FDR, policy was enacted with lightening
speed and dissension ignored. The people would be saved. Does any of this sound familiar?

And it all seemed to work…for awhile… an amazingly short while. Within a few years, in 1937, the
Depression returned with a vengeance. The stock market collapsed on par with the crash of 1929. Unemployment raged to 19% by 1938. The lowest level it reached was 14%. People went homeless and hungry and the zoo of government agencies produced negligible results. The response to this total failure was to spend more and blame more. The slow growth of GDP was probably hampered and limited by the New Deal and it wasn’t until 1941 that it came close to its 1929 levels. But that was that was the year the United States entered World War II and debate about the New Deal was forever obscured.

Governmental economic intervention became an unproven matter of faith for the Left. The grandiose intentions meant that, to the Left, it had worked or would have worked. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that the interventionists were again able to influence policy and riding the wave of 1950’s prosperity it appeared to have at least prevented uncomfortable market fluctuations. The result was the 1970’s recessions compounded with inflation (or stagflation). The interventionist policy of demand-side economics was proven to make things worse. When Ronald Regan instead enacted a supply-side policy and cut tax rates the longest peacetime expansion had begun.

One would think that would have been the final nail in the coffin of demand-side, interventionist economic policy. Interestingly enough many of the institutions created by the New Deal are still with us today and nearly all of them are considered ineffective, inefficient, and “broken”. Again, the grandiose intentions of New Deal (or inspired by the New Deal) entitlement programs like welfare and social security means, to the Left, that they must exist no matter how ineffective or harmful. Just as the response in 1937 was to blame and spend even more, so it is today. And now the morning after the Obama Deal, we see the same thoroughly discredited economic policies on a massive scale passed into law with lightening speed and dissension ignored. Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? I suppose to
the Democrats it is okay to employ insanity as long as it gets votes and after all- if it doesn’t work just blame and spend.

global hoax

Next up: How to tax based on an idea!

It is possible, my friends, albeit unbelievable. The Obama government will now sell the right to exceed whatever the current caps on carbon emissions are. I say “sell” but it is in effect a tax (Cap-and-Trade plan). I am assuming this tax will have a progressive and direct relationship to increasing amounts of emissions. The Government will now have yet another source of tax revenue and the more you exceed the cap the more you pay. In addition, the government could lower the cap anytime it needs to squeeze more out of companies (who are already struggling to compete with nations like China and India). But the insanity is that, contrary to popular belief, global warming is still only a theory, a guess, an idea!

There is enough evidence that there is NO correlation between carbon emissions and global warming as there is to the contrary- At least enough evidence to warrant further study before we place more crippling taxes and restrictions on industry (and consumers!) in these difficult times. Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that level “x” of carbon emissions has a direct contribution to global warming? And if they could, why in the world would they allow a company to emit level “x+1” or “x+2” so long as they pay the taxes. Talk about selling out the environment for money! Unless of course they set “x” and an absurdly low level to make avoiding the tax impossible for business and thereby “x+1”would not be as harmful for the environment. Or, as I suspect, the government itself knows it is all a bunch of nonsense and a great way to make money while appearing to save the planet. Obama and his administration have now shown that not only will they tax in the same old way but also in new creative ways. They will tax on the basis of theory alone!

This sounds like a great way to get companies to continue to flee from the United States to less punishing shores. With industrial flight will go millions of jobs and the related economic benefits. If you still think that this will only affect fat cat businessmen, guess again. This tax will be passed down to you – the consumer in a huge way. Gas, electric, and other goods will all be affected. Are you prepared to spend hundreds of dollars a month more than you do today based on a theory? Is it not easy to see that this global warming thing is about - control?

An Excellent article on Global Warming can be found at:

*If you want to know how much more you will be paying directly and indirectly there is a study by the George C. Marshall Institute which you should see here.

... So Sorry (not really)!

all obamas men

One of the few nasty emails I received some time ago referred to my posting of Obama’s connection to Islamic terrorists (aka: our enemies). The email stated, “There is nothing wrong with being Muslim!” Well that is true…as long as you are not Jewish, Christian, a woman, gay, or anything except a Muslim.

They seek to change us all or destroy us. It is part of their belief system. If you think that this ideology is only part of a fringe element - I disagree and the universal dancing and celebration after the destruction of the Twin Towers in the Islamic world attests to this. But more importantly, the lack of widespread condemnation by the Muslim world for those and subsequent terrorist attacks is more telling.



The Left, in one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled, sells itself as the protector of the oppressed. Yet they raise no significant outcry against the subjugation (and mutilation) of women in the Islamic world; No mass rallies against the execution of homosexuals. Of course, I would not expect the Left to demand that the Islamic nations stop the murder of Christian who simply
attempt to go to church. That would be asking for pigs to fly… but… why aren’t aggro- feminists parachuting into Iran to help their sisters? Because Liberals are phony. They have it too good growing rich and popular here in America. They can pretend to hold to high ideals and drive home in SUV’s feeling good about themselves.


I have recently become more outspoken in my support for one nation which does stand on the front lines against Islamo-Fascism. A country which is an island of civility surround by an ocean of hate. That nation is Israel. This is a tiny outpost of Western Culture on a frontier filled with those who are bent on its destruction. Israel faces unceasing terrorist attacks and overt threats from Islamic leaders. Can anyone seriously believe that if the Muslims controlled the area they would keep it the democratic and religiously tolerant place that it is? Noticeably but not surprisingly, the American Left has been silent and sometimes hostile to Israel’s right to defend

Stay Tuned...