Indecision1984

Sieg Hill!! Sieg Hill!!

2016-08-21T10:58:00.001-07:00

Once again a fanaticism from another time rears its head in America. At a Trump gathering in Minneapolis people lie in wait outside, then attack people who attended the meeting. They chase people, beat them up and jump up and down on their cars as they try to escape. Police are there, but nothing is done to stop the violence. Sound familiar?

Same thing in San Jose in June, mob violence against Trump supporters trying to take part in the democratic process. Some bloodied, cars demolished, some running for their lives chased down by the mob. The mayor of San Jose, a democrat, not only limited police presence at the rally in an obvious attempt to encourage violence, but said afterword that it was okay to use violence against people you disagree with.

In Arizona a mob blocked a highway to prevent people from attending a trump rally. A sheriff attempting to enforce law then finds himself threatened by democrats in the state.

The world has seen this before. When we were kids, at least when I was a kid, we all asked the question, how could the German people just stand by and let it happen? Well the best answer was always "magic". His oratory was hypnotizing, the Germans were fooled by a master speaker, the anti-christ or whatever.

But what was it really like? Germany passes a law making gun ownership illegal, and everyone turns in their guns to the state. 24 hours after that deadline, Jews all over the country are attacked and businesses destroyed in what became known as Kristallnacht. The violence was blamed on the victims, the Jews themselves. The only thing the German people heard was the propaganda, there was no Fox News channel in 1930's Germany, no alternate sources of information. The Brown Shirts, Hitler's private army, were "defenders of the German people", trying to right "clear" injustices that were being visited upon the innocents.

Germans supported him fanatically, many rank and file Germans willing to do violence to protect their country from the internal threat. Even upper class Jews supported him for a while, thinking that he wasn't really talking about them.

Today that should sound very familiar. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, as Mark Twain may have said. Today we find ourselves at the beginning of a long rap, where fascism is being employed by rank and file supporters of Hillary Clinton, and threatens to become part of our everyday lives.

The parallels are uncanny. When Trump supporters are attacked by the mobs, the media gives very little coverage. What they do say is that Trump and his supporters "incite violence". The main stream media, what we used to call "the state media" when it was another country, blames the victims. If someone who the media decides is a Trump supporter hits someone at all, it makes headline news, and video is covered around the country in all time slots. The narrative, what we used to call "the propaganda", is that Trump supporters are a violent lot, and the rest of us need protection from these brutish thugs. Then the protesters, or what in 1930's Germany were called "the Brown Shirts", show up to defend our nation from the brutish Trump supporters.

Think back to the weeks long invented controversy, invented by our state media, claiming Trump wouldn't "disavow" David Duke. Duke is the media's symbol for the KKK. Do you think it's odd that Trump was not asked to disavow the KKK, but rather some guy who no one but Rachel Maddow pays attention to? Oh, and she does by the way. During primary season she slavishly follows his twitter, waiting desperately for him to say something, which she immediately goes public with on MSNBC during their primary coverage. You would think he was a former president the way she announces his tweets with solemn "I told you Trump was bad" importance, giving Duke the best media coverage he's ever gotten. Its bizarre to see, if not comical.

Trump was supposed to know that State Media Rules are that David Duke = KKK. When they ask him about David Duke, their rule is "when we say Duke, we are really saying KKK". So when he doesn't get that, the state media gets to spend weeks claiming Trump would not disavow "David Duke -and- the KKK". It is narrative. Propaganda.

To date no one has ever asked Hillary Clinton to disavow her violent supporters, to disavow her mobs chasing down their fellow Americans and beating them because they disagree on politics. She's never asked to disavow the mobs jumping on cars trying to leave the rally. They will ask Trump why he refuses to dial down the "violent rhetoric", even actually accusing him of threatening Clinton with assassination recently. Hillary doesn’t have to answer for her mobs, her private army. Instead the media blames the victims.

None dare call her Fascist. She has a private army today, though allows proxies to organize and run the mob. Millions of Americans today take part in the political process at risk of violence due to her mobs and her defacto support of the violence. Today her army commits nationalistic acts of violence against our country's perceived internal enemies, to protect the innocents. And all the while she accuses Trump of inciting the violence, and accuses him of nationalism.

Democrats often get accused of following the Saul Alinsky playbook. I think Clinton is following a much darker playbook, spelled out in 1930's Germany. If she wins, past will be prologue.

Sieg Hillary.

While Waiting for Pre-Crime... Governments Invent the Inverse: "Lookback"

2016-04-06T21:09:00.000-07:00

You probably remember Pre-Crime. From the Spielberg/Cruise movie Minority Report (and series on SyFy channel), based on a Philip K. Dick story, where three pre-cognitive's are able to see crimes before they happen. The murderer gets arrested before ever committing the crime.

We don't have this yet, though if the government ever needed to get rid of political opponents, it would pre-crime would be a handy tool. Not just political opponents... how about anyone dissenting with main stream dogma.

Several states and the Federal government are doing the next best thing. They've come up with a new concept. It's real and it has had immediate impact. The new concept is called "Lookback".

The US Treasury dept issued a new regulation a few days ago. The regulation goes back three years, and says that if a company wasn't a certain size three years ago, they cannot merge with a foreign company. The rule was actually written, tweaked, to have an affect on one single company. And it stopped a massive biotech merger in it's tracks.... the two companies called off the merger today after only a day or two after the new rule was made public.

There are a bunch of states doing something similar, I'll get to that in a second. In the cases of the Federal government and the states, the one goal of changing law retroactively is to collect more money from companies.

America is known the world over for "rule of law". That means the law rules. It can change tomorrow, but you will never get hauled off for doing something 3 years ago that was legal 3 years ago. If it becomes illegal today, that's where the line is drawn. Getting dragged off today for that act, or statement, or opinion that was legal three years ago is the sort of thing that happens in dictatorships and totalitarian states, where people disappear overnight charged with some crime because they had expressed an opinion unpopular with the new government.

But that isn't really happening here. No one is getting dragged off, it's just a couple of big companies not being allowed to merge because the current administration wants them to pay more taxes.

This is still wrong. They created a regulation that was specific to these two companies. Really, so if we can do that, what stops me from passing a law that says Walmart has to pay their employees $2 an hour more than everyone else pays. Why not? Is that "law", or is it "lawless". First world democracy, or third world strong-man?

We've seen this predilection toward unequal treatment before from this administration. The Waiver circus from a few years ago, when some companies were given waivers lessening the blow from ObamaCare regs, while others weren't. How were those decision made? Based on how much money those companies had given to DNC campaign coffers? If McDonalds got a waiver, did Chick-Fill-A also get one? I wonder, but the main stream media was never curious about such questions.

Obviously the IRS scandal stopping any group from getting tax free status if that group supported republicans. Another example of the flaunting of Rule of Law.

If you can "Lookback" 3 years to force companies to pay more taxes, why not 30. That's exactly what California is doing. And 16 other states have or are pursuing related laws.

In California, the law allows the state to treat oil companies who have ever done business in California, as if they are responsible for every ill imaginable over the last 30 years. You see, there is no difference between oil companies and cigarette companies. You've probably guessed how this works.

If 30 years ago, someone who worked for an oil company, ever said something about climate change, then that means they new about it, and sold Californians a product knowing that it would cause floods, droughts, mudslides, earthquakes (yes... I've heard people blame earthquakes on global warming). By the way, back then "Climate Change" was called "Global Cooling". See civilization was ushering in a new Ice Age back then. See: "Earth Day" circa 1970. Take phony data points from the 70's, fudge them, and cooling becomes warming.

What all that means, according to these people, is that the oil companies owe California billions of dollars, and California is going to sue.

16 other states are planning similar strategies.

What will actually happen is states will use kangaroo courts to shake down well run companies, and their insurance companies, for huge amounts of cash to try to make up for how poorly managed those states are. This cash would have meant jobs and taxes in states where the companies reside.

I missed the oceans rising 20 feet in the late 90's... yep that was really supposed to happen. Lately NOAA is having so much trouble getting their temperature monitoring systems based in the middle of the biggest cities in the the world to show rising temps, so they've decided they were doing it wrong and are now adding fudge factoros to the temp readings.

This beach has seen the ocean rise 6 inches. The next beach down the ocean has risen 3 inches. Remember when we called that erosion? No one uses that word anymore.

Junk science being used to extort massive amounts of money is not new. Even in Texas, long ago, we saw the fictitious disease Chemical Aids used to extort money from chemical companies, into the pockets of lawyers. Most famously, one time VP candidate John Edwards used junk science to build a fortune off insurance companies by claiming C-sections caused babies to be delivered with brain defects.

Passing Lookback laws allowing lawyers to go back 30 years and apply junk science against what companies were doing or saying 30 years ago, and suing for that, opens a door to a tidal wave of lawsuits that makes the current legal environment look restrained.

They can't go into the future, the Pre-Crime scenario is a tough sell. But going back in time, 3 years or 30 years, and saying we've decided after the fact that something you did or said was wrong, that truly is the inverse of Pre-Crime. Lookbacks are just as dangerous.

The Pfizer & Allergan merger was completely legal, carefully planned out, and so to stop a company from fleeing the ultra high US corporate tax rates, the Treasury Dept decided it was okay to go back in time 3 years and stop the merger. Because you weren't big enough 3 years ago, you can't do this.

But watching California lookback 30 years and make plans to ravage and feed off of companies that are based in other states, to use courts to steal massive amounts of cash to try to fatten their own treasury at the expense of the home states of these companies, that seems to almost amount to an act of war against those states.

Pre-Crime turned out to be a (spoiler alert) corruptible system. But lookbacks start out corrupt. They are pure criminal shakedowns of companies, pretending to use science as an excuse to make criminal allegations against companies that will end up paying billions... for doing nothing wrong. Paying billions for decades of weather that had nothing to do with oil, global warming or anything else... except the sun, the moon and the earth. These lookback laws have the possibility of taking money out of well run states and transferring that money into the bottomless money pit that is California. Those states, any states with large oil companies based there, could find themselves short on taxes and services as California steals it all away.

Why stop at 30 years. Do we Lookback 100 years and figure out which companies to blame for influenza and malaria. I'm sure we can find companies to blame for World War 1 and 2. Let's Lookback 400 years and figure out which companies to blame for slavery.

If you can Lookback 3 years, you can Lookback 30. And 100. And 400. Rule of Law would prevent all this... but we don't have governments able to see even into the next week to see how retroactive lookbacks have the potential for devastation.

Howard Schultz - Starbucks CHO - 8 Years Late to the Hatefest

2016-03-26T13:50:00.000-07:00

The Chief Hypocrisy Officer of Starbucks has suddenly decided that we all need to just... get along. He is running full page ads lamenting the animosity and even hate that Americans, in his judgement, have just discovered we have for one another. He seeks to remind us that this "new" discourse, which coincidentally just started in July of 2015, is tearing us apart and even hurting people. Can't we just express our opinions without indicating any sort of disdain, critique or in anyway sliming anyone else who might hear our opinions, or worse see our name written in chalk on the sidewalk?

I'm thinking there is a 50/50 chance you already know why this is so hypocritical of Howard, but let's lay it out for everyone else. The hateful, name-calling, personal smearing, you-name-it baiting has been going on full bore for over 7 years now. No... to be fair, it's been going on for decades. But either way, the left has been smearing the right and anybody who dares to show even ambivalence to opinions held by someone on the right for a very long time.

It's been impossible to turn on MSNBC the past 7 years without viewers being called racist if you disagree with anything the current president says or believes. That's if you are white or minority, if black you get called much worse things. The previous eight years, if you agreed with anything that president said, you were flat-out stupid (oh, that hasn't stopped by the way).

Hollywood has made many movies to point out their beliefs that anyone on the right is stupid, racist, hateful, dishonest, ugly and if the character happens to be over about 45, also senile. Meanwhile, leftists in the movies are made of sugar and spice, and everything nice.

How many times has the current president jumped head first into some local issue, instantly blaming a police officer when the president heard some black person has possibly, allegedly, been victimized. Bigotry anyone? No of course not, only the right is bigoted, remember sugar and spice?

Howard, Black Lives Matters has chanted for the killing of Police. Howard? I guess he was traveling that week. Leftist organizations have paid protesters to wreak havoc on towns like Ferguson Ill. The President has admonished Christians for complaining about peoples heads being cut off in the middle east.... because of you know, the Crusades.

On college campuses nationwide, speakers known to be from the right side of the aisle are prohibited from speaking, and people who want to attend are prevented from attending. Prevented by blocking roads and entrances, physical intimidation, threats against the administrators. Prevented in other words, by force.

Not even a peep out of Howard. You see, the left believes all these hateful things about the right are true... so it's not hate speech when they say it. It's just intelligent analysis combined with snappy dialogue. Only when the Donald Trump started giving the left (and other republicans) a taste of it's own medicine did the main stream media and other democrats erupt with reports and sadness about the "rise" in hate speech lately. As in, the last 9 months.

So when Emory students discover the name "Trump" scrawled in chalk amongst the chalk scrawling's of Bernie and BLM, they erupt. They've been traumatized by the very name of He Who Shall Not Have His Name Scrawled in Chalk. Many feel sick, and need counseling. One is so misinformed about the candidate, she thinks the KKK has arrived on campus. And of course, they find a willing (and slightly terrified) college president who disavows the tagging of the Great Sata... er, the Great Donald, and vows to hunt down to the ends of the earth the infidels responsible.

Well, Howard is also erupting. He is also traumatized by the terrifying specter of left wing tactics being used on his peace loving, tolerant, bridge building, citizen of the world presidential candidate. And he has just realized we have less than 4 months away from the Republican Convention, after which Donald will train his left-wing style attack-dog politics on Howard's candidate Hillary.

It's okay for the left to spray the right with hate speech for years. Hate speech is only bad when it comes from the right, and is aimed at the left. Howard actually seems to be a good CEO, but as CHO he shows himself to be an emperor without clothes, without clue, and without shame for the hatefest that he has helped create over the years.

Media Water Boards Public over 180 Times!

2009-04-25T09:53:00.000-07:00

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

Did you say three people?

On no... the number of people doesn't matter! All that matters is the number of times the people were water boarded!

Right. I'm still holding my breath waiting for an honest report on this by the American Media.... at what point does the media's treatment of me cross the line to torture?

The torture memos have been wildly misreported. Like the Cylons from Battlestar Gallactica, the media has a plan.

Wildly misreported you say? Oh yes. As in the media is not telling the truth. Pop Quiz... how many people were water boarded. Who knows??! you scream? It doesn't matter??? One is too many???? Now we are getting somewhere.

The left knows that 3 prisoners being water boarded in 8 years doesn't give us anywhere near the righteous indignation that reporting that one prisoner was water boarded 182 times. The only reason for making that number the headline, instead of the actual number of people water boarded (again, that number is 3), is if you want to trick the public into becoming angry over something that you believe wouldn't anger them if they were told the truth.

How much high grade Uranium was found in Iraq? none? go to the back of the class.

The fact is that media cover ups have changed and continue to change historical fact. Four years from now, anyone saying publicly that only three prisoners were water boarded will be publicly ridiculed. When the subject comes up in presidential debates, people who know the facts will not confront those who lie about the facts, because they will be afraid. Revisionism holds sway over the truth. That's not some Orwell novel, that's today. In these United States.

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

If you truly believe that no number of LA residents lives were worth the water boarding of three people or even a single person, then fine, you opinion is at least informed. You know that it was only three people, and you know that among other things, critical information was obtained about a 911 style attack being planned for LA.

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

On the other hand, if you read those two lines and can't believe them, because they seem so out of sync with what "must" be true, because the public furor is so intense, then you have been told what to believe. But now that you know the truth, do you choose to be free? Or do you continue to Obey the Media?

The Buck Stops There

2009-04-25T09:17:00.000-07:00

So up until now, Obama has done pretty good with the buck stops here crowd, whoever they are. That ended with the about face on trying to prosecute Bush administration officials. Now afraid to evoke the wrath of the left, he has thrown his own Attorney General under the bus, and washed his hands of responsibility.

Originally Obama says that there will be no prosecutions. Then the torture memo's are released, wildly misreported, and Obama says there will be no prosecutions. Then the angry left catches rabies, and Obama says.... well, what I meant by not prosecuting anyone is just that "I" will not prosecute. My Attorney General might though. Smile for the camera.

Wildly misreported you say? Well yes, but I cover that in the post following this one. Suffice to say three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003. Thousands of lives in LA may have been saved.

Back to the subject at hand, allegedly, a president has never attempted prosecution of a previous president's administration. Even Nixon and Clinton's administrations were left alone, though there were plenty of prosecutions and convictions while they were both still president. This would be the first time. The question Obama needs to be asking is, will his passing of the buck open the door to many more to follow, as president after president tries to exact a share of revenge for their followers, taken out of the hide of the opposing party previously in power.

Obama's calculating enough to know this can only go so far. His public needs some red meat, so expect after a few weeks some new bone thrown to the left to get them off their current fever. Right now, according to Rasmussen, 58% of the public is unhappy with his decision to release the memo's, and you can bet that plurality is not lost on him. So the left is mad that he hasn't already started trials, and the right and center are questioning just whose side is he on. Some political acrobatics may be called for to get the left off chasing something else while at the same time putting the middle at ease that he is in fact on their side.

Add into the equation that he has, in the past, left the door open for his own administration to use harsh questioning techniques. Even though he has recast the War on Terror as a police action, Obama is not one to restrict the potential activities of his own administration. Remember that "Torture", as defined by the media, is not just water boarding. Serving bland food is also "Torture". I'm not kidding.

So chalk up two tactical errors for Obama. Letting the memos out was one. Now he has to somehow deal with the left's faux outrage, as if we just learned about water boarding for the first time, while pirouetting to assure the center that sanity will prevail. The second was turning this over to his Attorney General. So much for sanity. Many people are unaware of the Attorney General's previous statements calling Americans "cowards". Statement's he has made recently, since becoming Attorney General. The media covered that up, keeping it from blowing up in Obama's face, but this is an AG who needs to keep a low profile for awhile. Giving the AG such a high profile decision, welcomes a second chance for the AG's absurd statements to become part of the discussion.

After bending to his supporters, and then passing the buck to his AG, the next step in the ballet will be to throw a new bone to the left that doesn't offend the center so much. Then his AG will be instructed to keep mum, and see if the flames can be brought back down to a low setting. Eventually a position paper will be issued saying that water boarding is bad, but no clear violation of laws were broken, which is correct by the way, and we (they) are putting this dark period in American history behind us (ie- the saving of thousands of lives in Los Angeles).

Let the ballet begin.

No Virginia, Conservative Americans are NOT Entitled to their own opinions

2009-04-21T15:55:00.000-07:00

What a bazaar and dishonest controversy to suddenly surface. One of the runnerup's for Miss America was given a question during the pageant about gay marriage. Her answer reflected her beliefs, which is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the short version. Afterward, several people involved have said that the answer "cost her the crown". Not because she stammered, added dozens of nervous words that rendered her sentences incomprehensible, or even the use of the word "uh". Nope... It cost her the crown because her answer was "wrong". One judge and former Miss USA said that she should have given a politically neutral answer rather than the offensive answer. The judge who asked the question has gone public since then denouncing her by using gender specific derogatory descriptions, which no one in the news media has noticed is blatantly sexist.

The Judge's name is Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger. A typical close minded angry liberal who takes instant and nearly violent offense at anything another American says that he disagrees with. He has openly admitted that had she won, he would have raced out on the stage and physically removed the crown from her head. When a fascist finds his beliefs challenged, violence is always an acceptable reaction. "Any means necessary". That's one of the ways you can tell the difference between fascists, and say... the rest of us.

Of course today, who can tell what people really believe. Someone takes on Miss America, or a runnerup, and the more noise they make, the more extreme they are, the more airtime they get. All though he talks like an angry liberal, he looks like one happy cherub on the Today Show. Matt Lauer takes 2-3 minutes with Hilton, but avoids asking the obvious question... in fact the only question that should have been asked: what would Hilton's reaction have been if she had answered with the equally polarizing "I support gay marriage"? Would he have been equally offended, or would he and the rest of the judges danced around the stage singing HosanaHosana.

Okay, sorry, that's Jesus Christ Superstar reference, which recently appeared on Hulu.com.

Back to the controversy, the "B-word" and "C-word" references he has given in other diatribes on TV seemed the emotional reactions of an angry hate filled person. I think he was not being that honest later on the Today Show. Matt Lauer just accepted Hilton's new Today Show persona, without confronting him. The newly politically correct Hilton says the answer should have been neutral rather than expressing her own opinion. It should have been an "inclusive" answer, making everyone feel good. Well.... that almost sounds reasonable, but I don't believe him. If that's why they ask the contestants questions, to judge how inclusive and neutral and inoffensive their answers are, well this is the first I've heard that. I really thought judges were mainly looking for complete sentences. What do I know?

Of all networks... NBC actually pulled up a clip of Barack Obama answering the same question during a debate before the election. Guess what his answer was? The same answer Miss California gave. You see, Obama is entitled to his opinion. Of course smug liberals might assume he is just saying that to get elected. Where was the outrage? The offense? Carrie Prejean is a conservative, at least in this one subject. They are not mad at her for being a conservative. They are angry because she spoke her mind aloud and her opinion differed from theirs. That kind of speech is almost dangerous to some tolerance challenged liberals.

So we have an angry liberal response, to nothing more than an opinion voiced aloud.

Cramer v. Stewart

2009-03-13T18:30:00.000-07:00

I posted this on hulu and decided to paste it up here. I posted this as commentary on the March 12, 2009 Daily Show featuring the face off between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer.

Here is a link to the show if you haven't seen it:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62203/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-mar-12-2009

This was dull, cramer was a treestump. He was exactly like this years ago on Bill Maher's show. When he gets confronted by someone he is a fan of, like maher or stewart, he backs way down.

Meanwhile, he's owned up over and over to the way the markets are and the power that big money has over the markets. The he goes on telling people to buy or sell with no more accuracy than anyone else. Big money moves markets. Period. Big money trumps news. That's what cramer is saying in these online videos. He made money by trumping the news with big money. That's the way markets have always worked. Read Richard Wyckoff circa 1910.

Cramer makes ironic statements in those videos on purpose, and stewart doesn't get it. why doesn't cnbc read ceo's minds? People make mistakes when they try to predict the future? Duh Jon, if that's the way your name is really spelled, what's on A&E right now?

Stewart does get:"We capitalize your adventure". Right. Now just like 100 years ago.
The only way to make money in the markets is to follow that money.

Cramer wimps out here. It could have been a lot more interesting. But stewart hasn't said anything that wasn't said on cnbc's own message boards over and over ever since they've had a web site. So what if there is a show called Fast Money. That's a debate point?

So again, this show was no big deal, anticlimactic, very disappointing on both sides, boring.

Is there anyone Obama knows who HAS paid their taxes?

2009-03-02T20:48:00.000-08:00

This record is so broken. US Trade Representative nominee Ron Kirk is now in trouble for not paying taxes. No one in the media questioning Obama's vetting procedures. Ron Kirk and his friends are all smiles. Oh you caught me, guess I'll pay my taxes. There were a couple of issues, but mainly back taxes are owed on taking deductions for tickets to Dallas Mavericks games. Because, you know, that's work.

The questions here isn't so much what exactly are the rules, when one candidate withdraws for owing less than $1000 but Kirk presses on. The question isn't about whether he was trying to cheat the tax man. He deducted the cost of tickets to basketball games. Nuff said.

The real question is what would the reporting sound like right now if Kirk, Geithner and Obama were Republicans?

Obama announces the End of World War II

2009-02-28T14:15:00.000-08:00

Well he has announced the end of the Iraqi War, and that end is due in 2011. In reality we will have withdrawn all troops from Iraq before the end of 2011. So that's when the Iraq war ends?

Based on that logic, he should pull all American troops out of Germany. Finally World War II, the seventy years of bloodshed, well mostly peace but lots of bloodshed at the beginning, will be at an end. The 50 year Korean War could finally be wound down by pulling US troops out of that country.

Evidently it's the withdrawal of troops that ends a war, not any of that "fighting battles" stuff we used to hear about. Based on Obama's latest announcements on our pullout, and the non-announcement that we are following Bush's plans to the letter, the media will be reporting that Obama plans to end the war in 2011.

The war in Iraq has been over for awhile. Granted it was declared over once before, when Baghdad fell. That was wrong. That was also then. This is now and the War has been over and it was won while Bush was calling the shots.

But why ruin fawning headlines with reality. Hey while you are at it Obama, why not get those nasty Normans off the British Isles, and bring that war to an end?! That Battle of Hastings is closing in on 950 years.

What's up with State of the Union

2009-02-24T18:17:00.000-08:00

That's been a question for a few days. In every mention of this speech tonight, no one calls it a "State of The Union" speech. Neither did I. I've seen it called "State of the Union - like". Well I finally looked around to figure this out, and turns out the speeches we get in January of February are not always State of the Union speeches. The first speech of a presidency is not a state of the union evidently. Here's a good discussion of State of the Union speeches:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php

The third paragraph gets you the recent history. Next year we will have a State of the Union, maybe.

For this year, Obama starts with a "we shall overcome the economy" message... and that's the right way to go. There's been quite a bit written about his Scare Monger in Chief style the last few weeks, especially here, hopefully we will now see a more proactive leadership style starting tonight.

.... and nary a negative word to be heard. Tonight was by far the most positive statements from Obama since becoming president. Trading would be a good way to judge the speech, Australia and oil are both non-reactive to the speech, but at least there's been no massive selloff. So the verdict is, cheer leading is good. Scare mongering is bad. Obama did a little cheer leading.

Details? There were a few vague references that could spell big trouble for our future. Rumor has it he wants to ax missile defense, and there was a vague statement tonight refering to that. Missile defense has been hated by democrats ever since it was a gleam in Ronald Reagen's eye. It is amazing technology that we need to protect ourselves against Iran's EMP scenario, if for no other reason. A successful EMP attack would set our economy back 100 years, and change the world overnight. The same people who ridiculed the idea of terrorist attacks against the US in the 90's today ridicule the idea of an attack from Iran.

Well, like I said there were no specifics. It was a good cheer leading speech. That's what was needed tonight.

Halloween coming early this year

2009-02-23T13:21:00.001-08:00

Tuesday night we will have one trick or treater coming through, and since we didn't buy candy, I'm expecting a big trick. Obama plans an address to the full congress. Not unlike a State of the Union address. Or a declaration of war. It seems Obama will be dressed in his FDR costume, and I'm guessing we will be hearing some of the most dire, "depressing" statements about our economy yet.

I hope I'm wrong. The Scare Monger in Chief is getting a lot of help here, but talking down the economy works and I'm afraid everyone will be told exactly what we should think about our current economy tomorrow night. Those of us not out on a ledge, will be dragged out to one by Obama as he sets his own bar for performance to the lowest level yet. you see, he says that he inherits a 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit. Well, that's not really true. The $800 billion spent by Bush/Paulson and our TARP is not part of any annual expenditure. It was the bailout. Is he planning to do that bailout every year? It's already been matched by the so called stimulus bill, but that also is a one time thing. Obama has announced that he plans to cut the current "budget" in half. That means, believe it or not, he will be "cutting" our annual deficit back to $533 million. Really? Cutting it back to a larger budget deficit than Bush had at any time in his first seven years in office? Does anyone else get the feeling Obama plans amazing amounts of spending over the three years?

How will he talk us into spending all that money?

Here's the likely scenario for tomorrow night. Obama wants to spend huge amounts of money. To get everyone to go along, he will spend tomorrow night talking about the Great Depression II. That 's where we are headed if we don't agree to spend the money. Talk of a brighter future will apply not to next week or next month, but years from now. He will scare democrats to death, and republican Lindsey Graham who has already terrified himself talking about nationalizing banks, and this show under the big top will send the real economy further into the tank. He will have both halls of congress so that pictures reflect the proper gravitas needed to convince people, to trick people into thinking that thing's are really that bad. It's just like 1933! It will be an FDR moment, to help pass a budget to be introduced in a couple of days. I'm thinking.... a really big budget.

I hope I'm wrong, but just in case turn off the porch light on Halloween Tuesday, because here he comes. Booo!

Obama will not deliver on Wall Street

2009-02-22T08:27:00.001-08:00

Obama talks tough on Wall Street today. Whether or not he deliver's on Wall Street is another question. After a month he has already discovered that talk is much cheaper than action. It was Wall Street's influence in his White House that changed up, or ambiguitized, Treasury Sec Tim Geithner's original plans for dealing with banks. Plans finally so vague that they caused a 500 point Dow day when they were announced a day late last week.

Here's Obama's new plan: treat income from trading OPM, "Other People's Money", like regular income, and tax it at regular income tax rates. Today George Soros, Warren Buffett and their ilk trade OPM and generate fee's based on the gains from that trading. Soros is theoretically retired, but still involved with his Quantum Fund. They then treat that income, the 20% fees, as if it were capital gains. So they pay taxes at a much reduced tax rate to what they would pay if that income were treated as if from doing a job that happened to involve trading. There are several points to be made.

Kudos to Obama, for the first time, for even mentioning it. However "IT" will never happen.

Every time we have had to listen to Soros or Buffett, billionaires both, say that the government should raise taxes, they meant that the government should raise your taxes and my taxes, not their taxes. Because they trade OPM they are on a different rate table than we are, and they have never spoken up when this issue has been raised in the past, nor will they now. "IT" was raised while Bush was president, and it got so little air play, and got so over-complexified, that today few know what "IT" is. Watch democrats flee this issue, like rats from a ship, when the phrase "taxing the rich" actually refers to billionaire hedge fund traders.

"IT" is one of the more bazaar and nonsensical aspects of US Tax Code so let's be clear. The line from OPM traders is that the money they make is payed to them directly from trading profits, and so their pay is literally capital gains, not income.

Here is capital gains the way you experience it. If you buy a stock, and later sell that stock, you will pay cap gains taxes on that stock. The taxes you pay are figured on the schedule D. If you held the stock long enough for it to qualify as long term capital gains, then you have a maximum tax rate, the "Capital Gains Tax" rate, that you pay. This rate changes a lot since it has been shown to be directly tied to economic activity. Both Bush W. and Clinton lowered Cap Gains Tax rates while president, and both times economic booms followed almost immediately. If you are wealthy enough to invest in a hedge fund, and the minimum is set by the SEC and was changed a couple of years ago but might be net worth of over $1000000, then your hedge fund profits would be treated the same way. See, you are risking capital in the markets. Your capital feeds progress, because companies go to these markets to raise money for their own new investments in people, equipment, marketing, or sometimes in other companies. Not unlike your savings accounts being used to loan money for new business creation by your bank. Your money is being used literally to fund progress, and in lieu of a flat tax system, the tax code rewards your behavior with lower tax rates on gains and dividends.

Hedge fund traders are not putting any money at risk. Not one dime. Their customers are, and pay Cap Gains rates as well they should. But to extend that tax treatment to the traders has never made any sense. They typically charge an administration fee, say around 2%, and they charge a piece of the profits, usually 20%, sliced right off the top. It is that 20% that turns traders like Soros and Buffett into billionaires. Because that cash is taken directly from proceeds of trading profits, they argue that their share of that cash gets identical treatment to the share that goes to the investor. For decades, this has been the case.

Their share should NEVER have been treated the same. They are not risking their own capital. Their investors are. Traders are paid from profits of trading. For one thing, if traders get the same treatment as the investor, then everyone who gets paid from those profits should get that treatment. To be consistent, if someone mows the lawn of the investor, that $30 should get treated as long term capital gains. There is NO difference. The Hedge Fund trader is being paid 20% for making good trading decisions, that is their job. Sales people for companies that build capital equipment get paid a % of what they sale, let's call that pay "commissions". Yet commissions are taxed at normal income rates, not at the rates paid by the corporation for their own gains from the sale of that equipment. Traders are taxed differently because their day to day activity resembles that of an investor or trader making profits from their own capital investments, but it is just a resemblance. They are not the actual investors, and should never have been treated as if they were the investors. They are just pretending to be the investors, by making trading decisions for those investors.

Would either Soros or Buffett be billionaires if they had been paying the same tax rates the rest of us had for the last 40 years? Good question. I'm thinking the answer is NO. When I see either of those men, I see two people who have the money they do because they have been allowed legally to cheat the tax code for their entire lives.

The business news media, and I guess we all know who I am talking about, will immediately obfuscate the debate in banalities that have nothing to do with the real issues. "Do Hedge Fund traders make too much money??" Remember that ridiculous discussion? It was just a couple of years ago. You can bet they will do it again. The real issue is as stated in this blog. Is the money paid from Capital Gains it's self Capital Gains. If it is, someone tell the guy doing the lawn!

Obama looses control part 3

2009-02-20T21:44:00.000-08:00

Did the Attorney General of the United States call America a "nation of cowards?"

In the White House press briefing from earlier today, linked to in my previous post, just after the 26 minute mark, a reporter asked a question where he quoted our Attorney General.... let's say "Obama's Attorney General", as saying "on things racial, we are essentially a nation of cowards". Evidently this unbelievable comment was made several days ago.

Where is the outrage? Where is the story?? Why hasn't such an absurd comment been given air by the media. Unless of course, their job is to filter the news, and cover up loose cannons for the administration.

This guy is not a spokesperson for the president of Cuba, or Iran, or Venezuela. If he made such a hateful public statement about the country he is supposed to be Attorney General of, if his opinion of the people who pay his salary is so low that we are so despicable to him as to be cowards, then he should resign immediately.

Here is the exact quote: "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

Where has this person been the last 45 years?? This is hate speech straight out of Jeremiah Wright's book of sermons. Probably what he really means is that he wants a different outcome in the race debate that American's have had, and that we continue to have. There are signs of bigotry in his statements, and someone who calls Americans cowards is probably very close to leveling that charge at one group of people above (or below) all others. Maybe there is one group that perhaps he feels haven't participated in the race debate to the extent that he thinks they should have. Because he's been waiting for some sort of apology. Some sort of "truth and reconcilliation".

I wonder if that commentary is frank enough for the AG.

Obama needs to tighten up this administration. The loose cannon quotient is off the scale just 1 month into his term. But the AG calling out his own country as a "country of cowards" is inexcusable. It doesn't matter what spin you come up with Mr. Obama, but Eric Holder must go. He is no longer qualified to hold any cabinet position for any American President.

Once again, Obama's top people and allies are completely out of control. Day by day, we see an underlying hatred for the rank and file people of the Untied States, and for the free market capitalist system, from Obama's top allies and cabinet members. Chris Dodd, Rahm Emanuel, and now AG Eric Holder, show us that with leaders like these, who needs enemies.

Obama looses control UPDATE

2009-02-20T19:36:00.000-08:00

It seems a couple of hours after my last post, give or take, the administration moved to calm market fears, and mine, of a nationalization of the banking system. Not Obama directly, but White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, taking a break from attacking CNBC's Rick Santelli, said "This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go, ensuring they are regulated sufficiently by this government. "

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15681

This statement caused large rebounds in the market before the close. The dow gained 200 points before closing back down 100. Bank of America closed about 33% higher than it's low for the day.

Markets can't be read well on an expiration day, the third Friday of each month. The real test of any statements will be next week. Does the Dow move above November's lows or not? That's the test for the market. The real test will be for Obama. He still needs to make a statement personally regarding his commitment to solving the banking problems within the confines of a private banking system. More importantly, he needs to grab Chris "Joe Biden" Dodd by the ear and muzzle him. We shouldn't hear the word "nationalization" leave Chris Dodd's lips... ever again.

Obama looses control of his party.

2009-02-20T09:58:00.000-08:00

The market can yet crash, and Chris Dodd is doing everything possible to make it happen. Friday afternoon he makes comments on Bloomberg pushing the idea that nationalization of our nations banks is a real possibility, and big bank stocks started pushing to new lows. Remember, bank nationalization is a complete reversal of a free market economy. Haven't they learned anything from the lessons of Fannie and Freddie? If large bank stocks suddenly drop to zero, which is one of many effects of nationalization, then the American tax payers,are suddenly on hook for all they owe. We may owe money to some bank investors as well, possibly bond holders and maybe even preferred stock holders. Our accounts go from being insured by the government, to being deposits with the government.

I was always worried that congress would try to take over and nationalize the oil companies. Any nationalization is bad. Bank of America is protesting that they are profitable and have plenty of assets, and are in no danger of default. Does any of that matter to Chris Dodd? The last time there was a nationalization of an industry, and it railroads. It was such an unqualified disaster that nine months later all politicians were of a single mind when they dumped the companies back on the public. In nine months trains had gone from never running on time to never running.

The likely scenario would be nationalizing some of the larger banks but either way, until the administration says there will be no nationalization of banks, the stock market is in big trouble. If one happens, we could be looking at a drop of thousands on the Dow. This market was, in my opinion, ready to bottom, and it still could, but it will be held hostage by this controversy, and can only go down until someone like Geithner or Obama step up.

If we loose thousands of points in one day, it will have a shot of being the worst percentage down day in market history.

In the mean time, rumors that Rahm Emanual pushed through punitive measures toward wall street behind Obama's back, measure's that Obama was not entirely supportive of. Between Chris Dodd running the economy and Rahm E. running the White House, the nation may be at a precipice. It's time for Obama to take control of things. There needs to be a message this weekend that is very clear. No confusion nor vague generalizations to provide cover for an administration with several chiefs. That disqualifies Geithner as the messenger, it needs to come from Obama himself. No bank nationalizations. It must be taken completely off the table.

If that doesn't happen this weekend... watch out monday.

Earmarks to the Rescue

2009-02-15T18:50:00.000-08:00

Now that congress has passed Obama's 800 gazillion dollar Earmark Stimulus plan, will Obama stop talking down the economy? My guess is he and the rest of the democrats have only yet begun to spend, so the answer is probably not. That's too bad. Eight years ago the media openly ridiculed Bush for speaking out loud about how bad the economy was before he took office. That was the word in DC back then.... don't say anything bad about the economy because if you scare people it only becomes worse. People stop spending, CEO's stop hiring, and the house of cards falls down.

Today that is happening, but now the media is cheering the scare mongers onward. The Great Depression 2 scare is going full steam, and the Scare Monger in Chief is Barack Obama. Between Obama's scare tactics and the mindless spending coming out of congress, well things are probably about to get worse. Amazingly, Obama has said that tax cuts didn't work to stimulate the economy. Many others in the media are echoing this line. So now the democrats and the media are pretending 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were all just a dream. Sadly this is a case where ignoring history will not lead to us repeating it. Too bad, because the economy was in great shape for most of this decade, thanks to tax cuts.

Before we have a depression, we need to have a really bad recession going, and that's where Obama has a problem. Right now this doesn't come close to 1982 or 1973-74. Much less the 1930's. During Hoover's term the economy dropped 35% from high to low, before it started recovering. Recovering while Hoover was still president I might add. So far, the Great Depression 2 has seen the economy drop by 1.1%. Yep... you might want to come in off that ledge. The Great Depression was 3000% worse than our current situation.

So how bad are things really. For a great comparison between now and the big bad recessions, neither of which came close to being a real depression, try this out for size: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29163654

In the mean time, sure this could be a bad recession. The last two were pretty mild, but they were fought off by real stimulus. This one is being met by the same wild out of control spending we saw when we saw our budget surplus of 1998 pop it's head out of it's mole hole, only to be whacked back to sleep by a money-drunken congress. But I digress.

When you hear a congressman say that wildly spending money will save us, that we are all Keynesian's now, well remember that Nixon was the last guy to say that and he gave us 1973-74. Also remember that Keynes insisted that the way to recovery was paying people to dig holes, and then paying people to fill the holes back in with dirt. When Nixon and Keynes are at bat, playing it play by play, maybe we'd better get back out on that ledge.

Geithner Followup

2009-02-12T08:44:00.000-08:00

I ran across this this posting from Larry Kudlow with similar, though more diplomatic concerns about the new Treasury Chief.

I worry about posting links because they tend to disappear, so we'll see how long this lasts:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/is_tim_geithner_ready_for_prime_time

In addition to questioning whether Geithner is ready for Prime Time, we get the revelation of who Geithner was really taking advice from when he watered down details from his plan. It seems the dog didn't eat his plan after all, it was his friends fom wall street.

Spiro Agnew phones it in

2009-02-11T09:07:00.000-08:00

You may remember the former VP leaving office in 1973. You see, he pleaded guilty to not declaring $29,500 in income, and didn't pay taxes on that income. That used to be against the law, and politicians used to leave Washington when they got caught.

Today in the Obama "This time it's different" Era, politicians don't mess around with such trivial amounts of money. Tom Daschle stole, I mean "failed to pay", $120,000 in back taxes. That's not the income he failed to declare, that is the amount of taxes he has owed the American people. So Obama's new Socialized Health Care Czar decided, maybe that was a tad much. After much thinking, he decided to decline the appointment, for Obama's sake. Next stop prison?? Don't be silly, it's the new Obama Era. Daschle Obama-Friend is back doing what he was doing before, making and taking huge amounts of money as a lobbyist.

Along comes Tim Geithner. Former NY Fed chief. Now Geithner, it turns out, only owed $35,000 in back taxes. Again.... Agnew agreed to leave office because of failure to declare less than that in income. Geithner failed to pay tax bills over several years of $35,000, owed from his time at the IMF. Guess what else... the IMF payed Geitner that money so he wouldn't have to pay social security taxes out of his own pocket, but that money wasn't forwarded to the IRS.

The IMF compensated Geithner for his Social Security taxes owed to the IRS, Geithner pocketed this extra money as if it were a bonus, didn't even declare it as income, shades of Hillary, and then probably lied under oath to Congress about not realizing that he did the same things in 2001, 20002, 2003, and 2004. You know what Obama said? Geithner was too big to fail. Only Geithner can save the country from the next great depression. Geithner.... he's just sooooo smart!

Arguably one of the most corrupt presidencies in history, Richard Nixon's set ethical standards far exceeding those of Barak Obama's presidency with regard to all the president's men. Spiro Agnew resigned. Geithner, is welcomed to the fold as a hero.

Ironically, if that word applies to such a sad state of affairs, the heroic James Tiberious Geithner went on TV to tell America his little genius of a plan for saving our economy. It was such a sophomoric, generalizing speech that anyone could have given that the stock market just about crashed. Minute by minute, traders waited for the meat. The details of what the hero genius Geithner had planned. Especially after the speech had been delayed a day.... maybe the same dog that ate his tax returns also ate his recovery plan. So Geithner droned on with banal generalities, and the market crashed. Over 500 points from top to bottom. For days we had heard he would be proposing a fix to the "mark to market" accounting rules that in a very real way led to our current economic mess. Nothing.... nothing even close to that specific. In other words, there is no plan. In other words he's just guessing. He didn't finish his homework in time for class. The hero Geithner owed America a plan, and as usual Geithner didn't pay up. He phoned it in.

Note to Obama, I'd have someone double check Geithner's tax returns the next four years, cause he's still the same old fraud.

Obama accussed of failure to properly vet Richardson

2009-01-05T10:38:00.000-08:00

Where is that headline? Can't find it? See... that headline criticizes the vetted, as well as the vettor. We did see this headline when the teenage pregnancy story broke after Sarah Palin was picked by McCain to be her running mate. The headline in that case was complete fiction, because McCain had been told about the pregnancy during vetting, and picked Palin anyway. Yet for weeks the story lines questioning John McCain's vetting process kept coming. The mythology once created, is treated as fact by news and entertainment media to this day.

In this case of course, well Bill Richardson was kind of an "odd" fit anyway. That's NBC's cover story. Evidently, according to NBC, he was just picked because he was Hispanic. Golly, I must have missed it last week when NBC was reporting that!

All of the discussion will be about Bill Richardson. This morning Obama gave a press conference with Nancy Pelosi on unrelated issues, but no questions were allowed. I didn't even hear questions shouted out to Obama. My... the press is so well mannered around him. The press may ask Obama, later today, about his vetting process. If they do, it will be only to put their own stamp of approval on it. There will be no lingering questions about Obama's vetting process.

I guess this is prediction #3 for 2009.

Predictions for the New Year

2009-01-03T17:02:00.000-08:00

The new year doesn't start for another 3 weeks of course. Sure it's 2009, already Jan 3 in fact, but nothing really changes until Obama swears in as president. Then things will change. Overnight.

Here are one or two predictions to start with. The Guantanamo thing will suddenly become more complex. Well, we can't just release them... because some of these people are hardened terrorists sworn to kill Americans! Oh sure.... it was handled wrong by the Bush Administration, could have been handled differently. Oh and the torture.... the torture!

Torture at Gitmo of course consists of a marine touching a copy of the Koran in full view of a Muslim prisoner, or I suppose, in full view of another marine who happens to be Muslim. Liberals believe the prisoners should have been charged with crimes or released, you know... like on CSI:Miami. They do it twice week on CSI... why not Gitmo? I really never saw the left explain how we go about charging people from the middle east with breaking the law as it's written in New York City. But that was the problem with Bush, evidently. Enemy combatants indeed!

All that changes when Obama becomes president. Suddenly the media starts to have an honest discussion about actual terrorists being held in Guantanamo. Instead of worrying about holding them illegally, the left will worry about what would happen if just one of them made their way to Manhattan.

The discussion changes from "What ARE YOU going to do with them President Bush", to "what SHOULD WE do with them". It's about time.

On a related note, the country will experience it's first serious thwarted terror attack in 2009 or 2010. Up until now, of course, the last 7 years, attack plans have been drawn up by Keystone Terrorists. The plans are laughable, simple minded, fantasy laden, amateur hour attempts that sources say were not to be taken seriously.

The media, including the NY Times, has minimized and ridiculed every attack plan. In every case the plan is derided as being a pipe dream of a lone nut wannabe terrorist that could never have succeeded. High school kids drawing up an attack on home room are treated with far more seriousness than terrorists by our media. Had the CIA or FBI been able to ferret out the 911 conspirators and prevent that attack... that plan would have been just as ridiculed by the NY Times. Imagine the absurdity... cutting through cable to topple the Brooklyn Bridge,,, running planes into buildings as if they were missiles.

The next thwarted plan will be big, big news. Page 1 Headlines. Like coach Jimmy Johnson once said... print it in 3 inch headlines. We will be treated to what Obama is doing different that allows us to catch the "real" terrorists now, instead of the Keystone Terrorists. The media will paint him such a hero, it will almost embarrass him. When reporters in New York decide that Obama has personally saved their lives, well, look out. They could go overboard. Just a bit. They could make Chris Matthews' leg tingles sound tame.

Well that's just two glimpses into the future. When the new year starts, just three weeks away, look for these and other non-subtle changes in news coverage, as the American press demonstrates that they are the ones with short memories.

non-stick Blagojevich

2008-12-26T08:44:00.000-08:00

That title almost rhymes.

Does anyone wonder why they keep doing it? The news reports on Blagojevich's attempts to sell off Obama's senate seat continue to mis-label him as having no party affiliation. Oh but yes... leaving out that information is a mis-label, because if it's a republican doing bad things, the "R" is ever-present. We know that Blagojevich is a democrat simply by observing the lack of the party affiliation tag, and the media knows we know because they have played this little game for years. We've known for years, they know we know, and yet they keep doing it.

Are they fooling anybody? Well, probably somebody, some of the time. That however, is not the reason they leave out the "D" next to Blagojevich's name.

They leave it out, because of basic marketing principles. Successful marketing is a series of little hits. Not the one big superbowl commercial, it is seeing the product name and placements over time. Giving up on true reporting, the news media markets a product we call the democratic party. Even if we see there is no "D", and we know the "R" is always there, we also see the "R". The mind will store information associating the R to bad people, but the "D" will be less besmirched. Because we do not SEE the D. Even if we know all this, our minds are being conditioned over time to associate the R with bad, but not the D. It works too, just watch any poll on the subject.

Don't think they do that on purpose. They can't be that conniving. calculating? Then you need to answer for yourself, why do they leave off the "D". Every time, a new scandal breaks, why not identify when they know we know the lack of a label means democrat. Why keep doing it year after year?

They do it because it works.

The Campaign for 2012

2008-11-30T16:20:00.000-08:00

If stories are true we are about to get Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense. I think Clinton's creds for being Secretary of State is that she has been a senator a few months longer than Obama. I'm not sure I get it really, from her point of view, isn't she better off as a Senator. I mean aside from the slightly better health plan, she has an agenda of her own that she wants to get back to. Right? Doesn't she? Being Secretary of State means you get to do a lot, as long as it is what the President tells you to do. Clinton is not just trading in a Senate seat, she's trading in a lifetime appointment to the senate. As long as she wants it, New Yorkers aren't giving it to anyone else. What is in it for her... and for Obama?

That's the other thing, Obama had won this one. Throwing a bone to Clinton supporters is one thing, just to make peace. This is adopting the dog. Well, that's the metaphor. So Hillary is not here for her expertise. If Obama wanted that he would keep Condi Rice. She 's the real deal when it comes to expertise. Like Kissinger, except maybe much more popular. Is Hillary an "enemy" to keep closer? I think they qualify as two comrades who simply wanted the exact same job at the same time. There may be animosity between the "camps", but not between the two individuals. They are both radical leftists who do a good job of acting centrist. Why Hillary. Why now, and by the way, if now, then why not last summer?

I think he wants to get his approval rating as high as it can go. That's the only reason for her being there. See, if virtually all democrats support either her or him, then if they are both working in the same administration, almost all dems will vote yes... fantastic job Mr President. In fact, he wraps up a chunk of the independent vote as well. Republicans... well, you really can't please all the people. However Gates will help a lot both with republicans and independents who see him as the catalyst to changing our fortunes in Iraq. He could, by the way, hint hint, be the most popular republican around these days.

So lets say in bad times your poll numbers are about 60% approval, and in good they are 85%. That's pretty good. Easily good enough to get re-elected. That's all there is to it. Stuffing the ballot box so the media will report month after month what great poll numbers he has, even if the editors & reporters have grown disallusioned with his decisions.

The future Mr. President has realized something I don't he think had figured out when he picked Crazy Joe Biden as his running mate last summer. The real 2012 campaign has already started, and the approval ratings are the thing. He is worried about the same thing I am, that the media made him president and they will elect the next president too. Good approval ratings make that a lot harder to do. Iraq until 2011? Baby steps in Universal Health Care? Four more years of Bush after all? Maybe those tax increases on the wealthy (ie- people with jobs) will not be so big after all. Under cover of the monthly Approval Ratings bonanza of Obama & Clinton & Gates supporters, this new president might just take that honeymoon through to 2012.

Obama Goes Nuts for Acorn

2008-10-17T13:39:00.000-07:00

So the Obama campaign has evidently given almost one million dollars to ACORN. Not directly of course. The modus operandi of democrats has been to set up multiple organizations, for moving money around. Not unlike the dummy corporations one would see in a money laundering scheme. Money goes from the donor, to some multiple other organizations, but eventually winds up at the organization to which the donation is realy being made, in this case ACORN.

This is the same ACORN that congressional democrats earlier this year funneled 1/2 Billion dollars to through legislative fiat, and tried to funnel a second 1/2 Billion a few weeks ago in the so-called bail-out bill before House republicans decided they were having none of it. Later versions of the bail-out bill scrapped the half billion for ACORN.

This is the same ACORN that faces about a dozen federal indictments for voter fraud all over the country. These people have been paying suragotes a lot of money to invent fictitious voters and get them registered by walking into voter registration with bags full of registration forms... and in many cases, Ohio being a prime example, the fictitious voters immediately cast REAL votes, as bags of filled out absentee voter ballot forms are turned in at the same time. Tens of thousands of fictitious votes. Maybe hundreds of thousands. Enough to change the landscape of the US Congress, and maybe the presidency, in our upcoming election.

In the last few weeks, Obama has donated $800,000, through the network of democratic party non-profits, to ACORN. For "getting the vote out". The main stream media does not consider this news worthy... and there will be no questions concerning his support for ACORN. There were none at the debate, and none forthcoming over the next 3 1/2 weeks. If Obama says he doesn't condone voter fraud, and then immediately writes a check for $800,000 to the biggest perpetrator of voter fraud in US history, isn't that news worthy?

Paul Krugman wins 2008 Nobel for Bush-Bashing

2008-10-14T16:34:00.000-07:00

You said it yourself Paul, there were other economists playing important roles in the studies you were involved with 30 years ago. This was a solo prize awarded to one and only one economist. Think the Nobel committee knew you were not alone in this work? Think they cared?

Dude... you're an economist. Remember math? 2 + 2 = 4. Except maybe at the New York Times, yeah I know. Okay, but you know that the election is three weeks away, the Nobel Committee has expended a lot of prizes over the last eight years in their effort to admonish those who might support Bush, and to generally speak to the world of their royal displeasure with our president and republicans in general.

They picked you first Paul, and then justified the prize after confirming that you did something, anything reasonably intellectual 30 years ago. But if the prize were really for economics, Paul, there would have been a few more names included. Deep down inside, I think you know.

NBC goes Orwell on us

2008-10-11T11:23:00.000-07:00

I still hear the talking heads proclaim that Saturday Night Live is even handed. Oh yes they make fun of republicans and democrats. During this election campaign they had seemed more even handed than ever. Someone however, has put their foot down. SNL went too far, criticized the left too much, and now some writers are learning first hand how much freedom of speech they really have.

I kept clicking on this one skit, wanting to see the CSPAN-Bailout skit SNL did recently. It turns out the skit blamed Barney Frank, in part, for today's economic crises. The line used is "and thank you congressman frank as well as many republicans for helping block congressional oversight of our corrupt activities". The line is spoken by Herbert Sandler (protrayed by Darrell Hammond), one of those who has been greatly enriched by the subprime lending that took place.

Well it turns out.... I will not be able to see the original skit on any NBC websites or on HULA. The skit has been pulled, CENSORED, and then replaced. That's right.... criticism of Barney Frank has been edited, removed from the skit. The censored portion is visible now only on youtube. The censored portion, aka the "Missing 18 Seconds", also picks on Herb Sandler, not just a billionaire but like George Soros he gives massive amonts of money to democratic party 527's, including 2.4 million to moveon.org in the last election cycle.

Frank and Sandler are still portrayed in the post-censored video, but the close friendship between the Sandlers and Nancy Pelosi and the thanks for Frank's running interference for them in congress has been conspiciously removed.

The message to SNL's writers and actors: Barney Frank is off limits, as are giant democratic party donors. They do beat up George Soros, but he extremely high profile, we have heard it all and more, and The Party is in no danger of ever loosing his support. Most of us had never heard of the Sandler's until this skit.

The media narrative is driving Obama's poll results. His lead nationwide currently sits at 52%. The Narrative says this economic mess is due to Bush, cronies, lack of regulation, greed, and of course, John McCain. Never mind that Bush and McCain both actually tried to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac earlier in this decade, and that Barney Frank and the democrats and the media portrayed that oversight as an attack on the poor and the middle class. The campaign for president has been distilled into a simple process of Obama saying simple things, not taking chances, and the presidency is his, crowned by the main stream media.

An SNL skit that differs from that view, and in this case goes out 180 degrees from the official narrative, could loosen that hammerlock on 50+% that Obama now holds. That's all it would take... any inference that the narrative people are being told is not complete. Remember, these skits are getting hammered themselves, in a good way. Over 10 million hits for a Sarah Palin skit in just a few days. SNL is getting big attention from a lot of people, but it's the young voter that the NBC-Obama campaign frets about the most. Those are the voters most susceptible to manipulation. So goofy spoofs are okay, but don't get in the way of big democratic donors, or Barney Frank, or most of all The Narrative. That narrative has given Obama the lead, and keeping the blame pointed squarely at republicans will guarantee victory.