Archive for the liberal agenda Category

Liars, cheats, and demagogues

By on March 20, 2009
This entry is filed under liberal agenda.

This is the most venal, corrupt, and hypocritical lying sacks of politicians of  I have ever seen. Obama likens AIG to terrorists, doesn’t mention the campaign cash he received from said terrorists. Likewise Dodd, actually changed the law which would have banned such contributions in order to make it possible for AIG to give these bonuses that congress is now trying to tax expost facto (unconstitutionally) at 90%. Dodd outright lied about his role in this and then had to admit it. In fact he says the Obama administration made him do it.  The top two recipients of AIG bonuses? $100,000 each to both Obama and Dodd.

This is a mess made all the more distasteful by the phony populist outrage of Democrats who are proving themselves liars, cheats, and demagogues.

Topic No. 1 raised by Republicans during the House debate was the last-minute altering of a provision in Obama’s $787 billion stimulus law to cap executive compensation for firms receiving government bailouts.

The measure might have forestalled payment of the AIG bonuses.

But Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and the author of the provision, says the administration insisted that he modify his proposal so that it would only apply to payments agreed to in the future.

That, critics claim, cleared the way for the AIG payouts.

“The idea came from the administration,” Dodd said Thursday

Dodd said he was not aware of any AIG bonuses at the time the change was made. ~news.yahoo.com

Dodd says that he had no idea of what his edit would do?

So is Dodd lying or is Obama lying when they say they had no idea about these bonuses? Because either one or both are lying. The law wasn’t explicitly changed to allow these bonuses all by itself.

BURBANK, Calif. – President Barack Obama told Jay Leno on Thurday that he was stunned when he learned of the bonuses that bailed-out insurance giant AIG was paying its employees.

Obama told “The Tonight Show” host the payments raise moral and ethical problems — and vowed again to try to recoup the cash for taxpayers.

“We’re going to do everything we can to get these bonuses back”, he declared. ~news.yahoo.com

So neither the administration nor congressional democrats had any idea about these bonuses that they find so useful in demagogueing. But the issue is so horrifying that congress has now passed a 90% tax on them and other compensation for bailed out companies. Specifically how does this advance their supposed efforts to stabilize the financial system through this legislation? What message is congress and Obama sending with this witchhunt?

One consequence will be that every bank executive in America will try to repay his Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, money as rapidly as possible. The political punishment for accepting public money is becoming higher than the benefits of the extra capital cushion. According to Wells Fargo Chairman Richard Kovacevich, “If we were not forced to take the TARP money, we would have been able to raise private capital.” On Tuesday, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis joined the rush for the TARP exits, saying he hoped to pay back the $45 billion BofA has received by 2010 if not sooner. It’s hard to argue with the sentiment.

For the larger banking system, however, this is exactly the wrong time to be shedding capital. The main point of the TARP was to backstop the financial system against systemic failure. Treasury botched the roll out and the execution, but with the economy still in recession and housing prices still falling, banking losses will surely grow. Mr. Geithner has projected the need for more than $1 trillion more in public capital, and the FDIC has asked Congress to increase its credit line to as much as $500 billion.  ~online.wsj.com

This is how the opposite of a free market economy is run. This is where Obama and his democratic congress are taking us: towards a political economy. Where congress makes the decisions and then punishes others when they (meaning congress) screw up. This is how and why socialist economies are run into the ground.

Will Obama be paying a 90% tax on his bonus from AIG? Or will Dodd? No, that’s what the phony outrage is for to deflect criticism from their incompetence and stupidity.

Leave it to tax cheats, like Charles Rangel, to levy confiscatory and punative taxes and cloak it as ‘doing the people’s will’:

While the House legislation calls for a 90 percent tax, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he expected local and state governments to take the remaining 10 percent of the bonuses.

Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money.

“The American people demand protection and that’s what we’re doing today,” he told the House. ~news.yahoo.com

Yes, my friends, the free market has failed us yet again. This just proves that the government needs to step in and take more control over the economy to quell the chaos. God help us.

Smallness of our politics

By on March 15, 2009
This entry is filed under liberal agenda.

Saying that they have, “exhausted the use of Rush as an attention-getter,” Obama et. al. are hoping that an all out smear campaign against Republicans as willful obstructionists who are ‘playing politics’ will bring about the bi-partisan consensus and ‘coming togetherness’ that has so far eluded Obama’s grasp.

“[W]hat’s troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics–the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and the trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem.” ~Barack Hussein Obama, The Audacity of Hope, 2006, pg 41.

Hope and change is so ephemeral these days.

Despite the fact that Obama does not need a single Republican vote to pass any of his massive spending programs and social engineering schemes, instead of getting to work, he and all the rest of elected Democrats and partisans want to focus on attacking any and all criticism of his plans. This is more like the one party governments we know and love from history than the one Obama promised, but then he is The One, who are we to question his plans?

Beginning Sunday, the White House will harness every part of the Democratic Party’s machinery to defend President Obama’s budget and portray Republicans as reflexively political, according to party strategists.

A participant in the planning meetings described the push as a successor to Democrats’ message that Rush Limbaugh is the Republican Party leader. “We have exhausted the use of Rush as an attention-getter,” the official said. ~news.yahoo.com

Demonizing Rush didn’t seem to work so well for them so it’s interesting that they are so agitated into going negative on all Republicans now. Maybe wholesale negativity will work better? But the bigger question is why, if Republicans are so irrelevant, is, “every part of the Democratic Party’s machinery,” going to go to war with a minority party with no power in any part of all three branches of government?

I do have a theory. The political ideology of Liberalism, as it has come to be held by so many on the left, views any dissenting ideas as an affront to their very reality. Far too many liberals express the view that the very questioning of Obama’s plans is disturbing. Some go so far as to say conservatives are mentally deranged:

“The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty. ~liveleak.com

Others hope that conservatives can just be completely silenced on the basis that conservatism is hate. A charge unsubstantiated with anything more than partisan libel. But there you have it. If conservatism were hate-speech then censoring it would be ok. What a relief that would be to the majority party.

Bankrupting America

By on March 12, 2009
This entry is filed under anti-capitalism, democrats, liberal agenda and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .

Bush and the GOP failed to stand and deliver on fiscal conservatism. As a result voters didn’t vote GOP because Republicans didn’t do what they said they would. Now, instead,  we have unrestricted fiscal liberalism: tax, spend, and control.

But is this the policy that Obama got elected on? A tax cut for 95% of all Americans? Conservative fiscal discipline? Cutting the deficit and outlawing earmarks? Already in the first 50 days this is nothing if not a trainwreck of lies and broken promises.

  • The ‘tax cut’ is estimated to actually be $13 extra a week from changing the withholding tables not the tax rates — meaning that it is not actually a tax cut if you’re still paying the same rate.
  • A trillion dollars of increased spending in the first five weeks alone with more spending to come.
  • Budget increase to $3.6 trillion dollars in the first year of office.
  • A trillion dollars in tax increases.
  • No earmarks ‘next year’ as Obama signs bill with 9000+ earmarks
  • Federal takeover of Healthcare…

obama-deficit pic stolen from gatewaypundit!

Some argue that capitalism itself has failed and free market ideology is the problem. Hence the Obama Solution: tax, spend, control. Repeat.

Higher taxes not just on the wealthy but on everyone and everything. Notably energy.

Republicans had one chance to turn back the tide of tax and spend policies but failed to seize it. Republicans controlled all three branches of government. Did they follow through on their platform? No. They compromised. They may have slowed the growth of government in comparison to the extent that Democrats would have but in the end will anyone note this?

Air Nancy

By on March 11, 2009
This entry is filed under anti-capitalism, democrats, liberal agenda and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Nancy Pelosi, Zero to bitch

Culture of corruption update:

By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
March 11, 2009

WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone from frequent flier to jet-aircraft connoisseur, with aides berating military officials to get the best planes, e-mails revealed yesterday.

Pelosi, who clashed with the military to get nonstop service when she flies home to California with police protection on government planes, revealed a particular fondness for Gulfstream’s sleek G-5 – a plane glamorized in Hollywood films and rap videos.

“It is my understanding there are no G-5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable . . . The speaker will want to know where the planes are,” a Pelosi aide wrote in an angry e-mail to the military. ~nypost.com

These people are out of control. Mitch McConnell says they are spending $1 Billion dollars an hour!

“In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion between the Stimulus and the Omnibus,” McConnell says. “To put that in perspective, that’s about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour—most of it borrowed. There’s simply no question: government spending has spun out of control.”  ~politico.com

So what it begins to look like is that all these years that Democrats were using spending as a cudgel against republicans the reality is that the precense of the GOP in power was actually holding back Democrats from spending like drunken sailors (which is in fact an insult to drunken sailors everywhere).

Fundamental transformation

By on March 11, 2009
This entry is filed under anti-capitalism, democrats, liberal agenda and tagged , , , , , , , , .

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” ~Barack Hussein Obama, Missouri, October 30, 2008 – (Now with youtube video!)

Fundamentally transforming America? Too bad the complete and total economic ruin of this country will be the result of this effort, but then you can’t make an omelet if you don’t break a few eggs, right?

Obama ran as a centrist, a moderate, a conservative even; and once again we see that if we don’t know how the left has redefined a term we have no idea what they mean. He is decidedly not a centrist and certainly wants to conceal just how radical his agenda really is. We have seen a purposeful strategy of talking conservative and then doing liberal. All to what end?

The current economic free-fall is not unwelcome to the Obama administration, in fact, it may be crucial to their plans. It is the perfect opportunity.

Hillary Clinton:

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience Friday “never waste a good crisis,” and highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy-intensive way. ~in.reuters.com

Rahm Emmanuel:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” ~allthenewsthatfits.wordpress.com

Obama:

Obama: Crisis is time of ‘great opportunity’

WASHINGTON – As the dreadful economic news piles up, President Barack Obama challenged the nation Saturday to not just hang in there but rather to see the hard times as a chance to “discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis.” ~msnbc.msn.com

As Jonah Goldberg so perfectly illustrates:

Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I’m a jerk?

I ask because I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.

“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,”  ~LA Times

Read the manual

Why is crisis important to a community organizer? Well, for starters, it’s in the manual. Chicago radical Saul Alinski is the father of liberal ‘community organizers’ and Obama and Michelle are students and followers of his in Chicago. They’ve quoted him in their speeches and they have set about to do exactly as he has advised in order to ‘transform America’.

The opening sentence of “Rules for Radicals: A pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals,” by Saul Alinski:

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Alinsky describes his ideology as the, “Ideology of Change,” and in describing  how to bring about that change Alinski says, essentially, that the ends justify the means when “mass salvation” is juxtaposed against “personal salvation.”

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s “conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action”; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind.

…the third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.

Why am I quoting from Rules for Radicals? Because it is highly relevant and I believe that it is the blueprint for Obama’s entire political career; indeed his entire campaign for president seems to be lifted from it’s pages.

In little over a month Obama has begun the first step of his radical agenda by deepening the economic crisis. Spending a trillion dollars (in addition to and outside the annual budget)  in the first month alone. That’s twice as much as has been spent on the entire Iraq war over six years! 

He has instituted Cap and trade, which is certain to drive energy costs to unimaginable levels. Far eclipsing any theoretical $13 tax cut for 95% of all Americans. Obama himself describes it as bankrupting Coal Power plants.

Facts, aides said, would be the cornerstone of the administration’s public relations push. Officials faced a tough haul, even as Mr. Orszag and others said the proposal would raise taxes on wealthy Americans and increase energy costs.

Mr. Emanuel said energy costs are too low anyway. ~washingtontimes.com

He has outlined his economic policy as one of ‘fairness’, and pitting the rich against the poor, promising businesses and investors tax increases and punishment for profits.

His proposed budget for this year is $3.6 trillion dollars in addition to a trillion dollar stimulus and who knows how many other emergency spending bills.

Every time Obama releases details about his agenda the stock market goes down and he says he doesn’t care. Why? Why would a President be completely unconcerned with the stock market plunging daily? It could be because he believes that the money in the stock market is in the wrong hands. And his whole plan is to put that money in the hands of those he thinks are more worthy.

To do that he must first prepare the battlefield. Soften up his targets.

–it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.

There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don’t encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let’s not let it happen by default.”

And this is the method of the first five weeks of the Obama administration’s madness of presiding over the largest stock market decline in the history of the United States.

For the last seven or eight years the left has constantly harangued the country and accused the Bush administration of using crisis as a pretext for an imagined fascist takeover. Many even outright claimed that Bush caused/planned/executed the 9/11 terrorist attack in order to become a dictator. But what we are witnessing today is nothing less than a revolutionary coup.

I, for one, agree with Rush Limbaugh in hoping, even praying, that Obama fails in this attempt to radically restructure the American political-economic system. The mess we are in has nothing to do with an imagined lack of utopian social justice.

Countdown to Armageddon

By on March 8, 2009
This entry is filed under anti-capitalism, enviro-death-cult, global warming, liberal agenda and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .

This needs to be filed under, “WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!”

The Prince of Wales is preparing to tell the world we have “less than 100 months to act” before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible. ~news.sky.com

A worldwind tour campaigning for Global Climate change. Hopping on the Royal 747 no doubt jetting from country to country sounding the alarm about how we need to cut corbon emissions or WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!! Yes, that’s the way it’s done. Hypocrisy intact.

Only 100 months to act!

First they came for Rush

By on March 8, 2009
This entry is filed under democrats, liberal agenda and tagged , , , , , , , , , . | 1 Comment

Democrats have an addiction: Demonization. They know well the value of a good scapegoat. Demonizing is more important than fixing the economy, more important than the bi-partisanship they say they embody, even more important than saving the planet. Or is it?

Maybe Democrats believe that it’s necessary to destroy all their enemies first in order to save the planet. This would make sense when you look at the actions of the left rather than their words.

The ‘new’ politics of hope and change looks just like a ramped up, more hateful and malicious version of the old politics (of personal destruction). Who would have thought that this was the way to unite America?

So my liberal friends, is this the blueprint on how to be a uniter and not a divider? Attempting to silence your critics? Using the power of the media and the Executive branch to crush any dissent or disagreement as the model of civility?

Obama’s plan to target Rush began in October according to the Politico. The demonization of Rush Limbaugh was planned, coordinated, and executed by members of the Democratic machine and the administration. Obama himself pulled the trigger, signaling that the slander and coordinated attacks should begin. It continues day after day as liberal journalists demand a disavowal from every Republican on their respective shows.

“Are you now, or have you ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh?”

Ironically (or not) democrats are a caricature of their own psychological projections.

What we should be asking is how long will this targeting of Rush Limbaugh be the main priority of the Obama administration?

First they came for Rush, next, who knows, everyone who disagrees with the President’s plans for radical and “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” may be targeted. Beware.

Russians warn Obama

By on March 7, 2009
This entry is filed under anti-capitalism, democrats, liberal agenda and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .

When the Russians warn you that you are in danger of being too socialist then you have a problem. It’s kind of like Ted Kennedy pulling you aside to talk to you about driving drunk.

Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake.

True, the state’s increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state. ~Vladimer Putin

The Rooskies know socialism when they see it.

« Newer Entries
Older Entries »