Goddam Sachs

Sorry for the blasphemy. It is just that Lloyd Blankfein and his little party of Geckos really know how to screw the pooch.

To start with, they refused any contrition (probably on advice of counsel) in front of the Senate yesterday. "Yup, we sold those securities." "Nope, we are not sorry about it." Goldman pointed out that lots of firms sell lousy paper all day long. People sell lousy cars, too. But what Goldman failed to point out is that they also created that lousy paper. Sure firms bring companies to market in IPOs that stink ... but that is disclosed in offering circulars and analysts have a fair shot of describing that to the public.

With Goldman's securities, they designed them to fail. Surely, that is almost unique.  It is not good enough to say that our trading desks were doing their business, and we originators were doing ours. With the demise of all corporate separation (Glass Steagal) etc., you are one firm, with one bottom line.  In this instance, you knew that the AAA rating was phony ... but you did not put a "wrapper" on the book stating that potential buyers ought ti have a look at the rating. There is no "management believes" as you would see in an offering circular. Goldman sold shit, knowing it was shit, calling "shit" in internal memos with the full knowledge that the outside world thought it was at least "good shit" if not AAA as it was catagorized.  In that, the case is made for fraud.

I mean, they let Paulson & Co. help pick the securities to be included in the CDOs, knowing for certainty that Paulson intended to short it. It does not get clearer.

You have reasonable reliance, knowing misrepresentation, intent to deceive, motive and profit.

More Arizona

In case I may have been misunderstood yesterday: I think everybody should have to carry identification cards.  I think that employers who hire illegals are the malfeasors here -- if relative wealth was across the border, I'd do it too.

And there is a huge risk of innocent people being unfairly singled out merely because of race and color.  But equally, you cannot just say "OK, so we will just let it happen because we don't want to offend anyone." Instead, punish the employers of illegals with real teeth and provide a guest worker program that makes sense.  Most illegals are just trying to make a living, and I don't want to begrudge them that: I just don't want to pay for it either.

Which brings me back to Obama: by and because of this Administration's inaction and incompetence, millions of Latinos will now have to be watching their backs as second class citizens -- and they DO NOT deserve that.  Open borders is NOT a solution. Ignoring the problem is NOT a solution. Benign neglect has created chaos. Thanks, Obama. This is a move of desperation by the people of Arizona and the blame lies squarely at your feet.

Arizona

Yeah, it is about time that I have some words about Arizona. I have some Latino friends who are understandably concerned about the prospect of harassment of people who look like they do, but there is so much else that needs to be considered in this move.

For starters, let's one thing straight:  not all the Latinos in the United States are illegal, but the overwhelming majority of illegals are Latino.  Sort of similar to the terrorist Muslim argument: not every Muslim is a terrorist, but the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim. If you want to enforce United States law as to illegal immigration, the Latino community will bear the brunt of enforcement action: numerically the number of non-Latino illegals is a vanishingly small percentage of the total.

That idiot Al Sharpton is headed to Phoenix because it means "racial profiling" that he wants to protest. Duh. If you are looking to find an illegal in Phoenix you don't head for the nearest hotbed of Thai refugees or Canadians. While there may be some, it is stupid and inefficient to try. Instead, you head to the nearest Home Depo(r)t to look for guys waiting for a day job. You stop a pick-up with 15 guys in it. Its not hard!

The people of Arizona - and all the other border states are overrun by illegal immigration. Sure that provides cheap labor for the unscrupulous that hire them, and those that benefit directly and knowingly from it, but it is NOT good for the United States as a whole. It suppresses wages, costs staggering sums in entitlements and support (everything from education for children of illegals, to health care, to bilingualism in the Courts), denies the United States of its unifying language, debases the tax system -- I could go on. Various think tanks have calculated the real cost to the taxpayer of each illegal in the United States at between $18,000 and $22,000 per year.  Of course, that is using the same number of illegals used by Obama and Liberals ...  about 12 million illegals. The known number is actually about three times that, about 30 million illegals. That would put the per unit cost down some, but also reflect huge costs not thrown into the calculation, costs that are literally breaking the bank in various states.

States like Arizona bear an unusual burden in the illegal/cost mixture. While they benefit from the cheap agricultural labor provided by the illegals, that does not even begin to recoup the costs to the State in humanistic / welfare support. You could look at this equation as a sort of unofficial State subsidy of agricultural producers. The workers ... get a savage and dangerous life on the fringe of society, fostering an atmosphere where gang violence and drug running is a rational choice, and to the detriment of Americans.

The average Arizona tax payer gets hammered.  The same is true in California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida.  Other States, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont etc., also gain from cheap food and from seasonal workers -- who do you think mows the lawns of rich communities like Wellesley and Greenwich? The owners? But even those States have to pay up for the privilege of having desperately poor Guatemalans do the gardening of the wealthy and the dishes in their favorite restaurants.

But why did Arizona break first? This might help explain some of it.... Over 1/3 of the entire population of Arizona is Latino, including legal and illegal residents (maybe as much as 1/2). Arizona is one of the primary channels of illegal immigration into the United States, and with the fence largely confined to Texas and California, Arizona becomes ground zero for the often violent smuggling operation run by gangs that also "dabble" in drug running.  The sheer volume of illegal activity has made Arizona a very unsafe place to be: (caps necessary) PHOENIX IS ONLY SECOND TO MEXICO CITY, WORLD-WIDE, IN TERMS OF KIDNAPPINGS PER YEAR. Consider that for a moment. You are more likely to be kidnapped in Phoenix, a U.S. city, than Jakarta, Karachi, Kabul, Baghdad, Soweto, Rio ... you get the picture.

Arizonans are understandably rather upset about that. Is there a common theme in violence South of the border and here? You betcha, Mexican (drug) gangs.  Arizona just passed laws eliminating the license requirement for concealed weapons and that was not so that the criminals could do so, they do it anyway. Rather, it was to make it a hell of a lot more dangerous to scoop some poor schmo on the street, who might have a .357 with one up the spout on him or her.


So what other options does Arizona have to address its nightmare? None, really, if they want to get a grip on rampant crime they have to target the source and that means illegals. Arizona's police community was against this legislation, not because it won't work, but because they feel they should not have to enforce what they have always perceived to be the job of Federal Authorities.  Too many illegals, and too few police officers to do the rest of their assigned tasks. 

Is there any hope from Washington (now we are back on a familiar theme)? No. And that is because our "President" is using this situation as a political football. If he were to start to enforce the laws that were already on the books, he would run afoul of Liberals -- who largely don't have to contend with MS-13, the Sinaloa Cartel or El Nortes stealing their cars, selling drugs to their kids, and perhaps kidnapping them -- and totally alienate the Latino vote. Since he has totally screwed the Catholic suburban vote, he is desperate to replace it with Latinos, and hopefully grant voting rights to illegals themselves.

Obama is also savvy enough to let the Republican boobs define themselves as anti-immigrant, anti-Latino.  He hopes. But over 70% of voting Arizonans support the legislation, so Obama may be making the tactical decision to hand over a few electoral college votes in hopes of gaining Latino votes elsewhere ... by whatever means.  So we should see more of these desperation bills coming down the pike -- notwithstanding Obama's direction to Justice to see whether this legislation is unconstitutional. Just where does this (expletive) "President" get the balls to send something for constitutional examination when his entire presidency appears to violate the constitution on a daily basis? Bet the New York Times won't comment on that one either.

One other thing that really riles me is the response of Mexican President Calderon ... who stated that the new law was discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the new crackdown. As a foreigner in Mexico, if you do not produce your "papers" upon request and prove that you are there legally, you are imprisoned. So to the extent that the law singles out criminals under U.S. law, he wants to threaten us? Does Arizona give a rat's whether trade and political ties with Mexico will get worse?

The Dean at U.C. Davis (not exactly a conservative establishment *cough, cough*), said that he felt that legal challenges to this law should succeed in that you can't have local or state police enforce federal immigration laws.  Which only goes to prove that he hasn't really considered the matter more closely: the law gives police authority to prohibit that which is already illegal under Federal law. It is being in Arizona illegally that results in 6 months jail and a fine of up to $2,500 -- NOT entering into the United States illegally.  It is an additional layer of protection afforded to the citizens of Arizona above and beyond that afforded by the Federal Government ... and that is within State's rights.

"If every state had its own laws, we wouldn't be one country; we'd be 50 different countries," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Yes. And Obama's selective political application of the laws already on the books may tend to have that effect.

Co-inky-dink? I think not.

Brother Obama travelled to New York today ... and the first that the Mayor of that fair city heard of it was through a blog following the Presidential calendar.  That is a far cry from having Bloomberg do the warm-up intros at Obama's campaign speeches....

On the Goldman watch: Goldman Sachs have engaged ex-White House counsel Gregory Craig. Craig is now a partner at Skadden Arps in Washington -- where he claims to be a lawyer and not a lobbyist. Right. One of the world's most prestigious law firms would hire Obama's counsel ... for his litigation prowess? Uh, huh. And Goldman thinks that he is a jim-dandy litigator too.

Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's CEO has travelled to Washington 4 times over the past year (apart from appearing before Congress to get a whipping): to meet with Obama twice and Larry Summers (Obama's chief economic advisor and "he who was drummed out of Harvard by the Loonies of the Arts and Sciences faculty for opining that men may be biologically better suited to mathematics" fame).  Do you suppose that Blankfein will have access to Craig's Rolodex? Or is that now the "contacts" file?

On other matters today: South Park creators have been threatened with death after creating an episode that is unflattering to the Prophet Mohammed.  Well, they showed a picture of a dead Theo Van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam stating that they (South Park guys) could wind up like this.  And this was by AMERICAN Muslims -- "Revolution Islam" a New York based radial group.  Comedy Central have censored the offending two-part episode ... I guess the idea is that "they know where you live." I think the FBI should send a nice message to each of the members of this organization, at whatever may be their current addresses ... containing some fish wrapped in newspapers. That's art too. At least it is close enough for my needs.

EARTH DAY!!!  And POTUS felt it necessary to screw up the traffic in New York and speak at Cooper Union (a leftie-arts school!!!) about Wall Street. Uh, let me think about this ... are we not meant to respect the environment and worry about such things as Global Warming on April 22?  But POTUS flies in from DC using how ever many planes and helicopters, snarling traffic, burning oceans of fossil fuels ... to lecture us about the evils of capitalism? Do think that if GW Bush had done this that there may have been enviro-weenies by the thousands demonstrating? But the Huffington Post gushes purple prose?

OH WAIT ... I forgot. Joe Biden is also in NYC today!!!  He is due to appear with Whoopie and Babs on "The View." So, lets think about this ... Obama on Air Force 1, that's a Boeing 747-400 converted with all the goodies. Biden on Air Force 2, that's a Boeing 757 (but more stripped out).  And hundreds of planes circling around La Guardia (Biden) and Kennedy (Obama) burning fuel wasting time.  Sure, we cannot have both of them on the same plane (we just can't get that lucky), but you may well ask why either of them have to travel this day at all? I think that Biden should have taken a helo from D.C. far cheaper. Personally, I'd rather see his miserable heine on the Jersey Turnpike.

More Goldman

Just in case I misstated the matter yesterday, it was the personnel of Goldman that gave Obama nearly a million dollars (about $2000 shy of the total).  The Center for Responsive Politics also stated that Goldman employee gave about $5.9 million in the 2007-2008 cycle, including all state and federal election races. Seems about right? And this does not include the PAC money that went to the DNC which also went to Obama's race. And 3/4 of all Goldman donations went to Democrats, as did the majority of donations by other money center banking staff. Wall Street provided Obama with 3 of his 7 largest sources of direct donations.

Let me digress ... Of the top five candidates in terms of money received from Goldman staff, four are Democrats. Part of that list includes Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY) whose list of committees is in part:

• Committee on Finance
  
  • Subcommittee on Health Care
  • Subcommittee on Taxation, IRS Oversight, and Long-Term Growth
  • Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy
• Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  
  • Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
  • Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
  • Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment
• Committee on the Judiciary
  
  • Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
  • Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
  • Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
  • Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security 
  
  Let me see, money to support a POTUS that will institute a revolving door for Goldman staff to the highest levels of United States executive positions ... check. Money to Senators on the Senate Committees for Finance, Banking and Judiciary ... check. And people wonder how the SEC intention to sue Goldman got out early?
  
  Back to Goldman, Obama and the SEC.... The SEC 's suit filed on April 16 alleges the firm failed to tell investors in a 2007 collateralized debt obligation that hedge fund Paulson & Co., which planned to bet against the CDO, helped select the underlying assets. Goldman, of course, denies any such intentional deed, according to Greg Palm, the Co-General Counsel for Goldman. The thing is, in a civil suit you don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt ... you only need to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegation is true and you're done.
  
  Goldman, clearly knew that this "house of cards" (quote from a Goldman trader in charge of constructing and selling this poop) was about to "collapse." Given that knowledge -- and the fact Goldman sold almost all of their holdings of CDOs, unlike the other banks that got caught hold this toxic sludge and which bankrupted or nearly bankrupted our financial system -- it is hard to state that you did not intentionally mislead anyone. You can't just hide behind caveat emptor and expect that to hold water: (1) Goldman knew that the ratings were voodoo; (2) Goldman knew that the underlying securities were toxic junk, they had a hand in creating or selecting them; (3) they knew that Paulson & Co., a hedge fund was getting ready to short the stuff as soon as it was created and sold.
  
  By selling something with an AAA rating, you are saying to the world that "its investment grade stuff." If you don't really believe that, then your disclosure should read "Moody's and Fitch have their heads up their collective asses and it should really be rated BB-." You can't just hide behind a rating that you KNOW is fictitious. This is really no different than an offering circular failing to disclose that a company's plant is built on the next PCB dumping ground. Sure, the institutional investor that buys it may be "sophisticated," but "reliance" is exactly that. For better or worse, if you knew that the reliance was misplaced, you had a part in the commission of a fraud.
  
  So how does the Obama-Goldman connection profit here? There HAS to be a hook. Yesterday I offered some ideas, but I suspect the real plan will reveal itself in the near future.
  
  
  P.S.  Biden is out there ranting and raving about not letting Republicans upset their plans to fundamentally reform finance .... Here at a Brookings Institution Forum,  in a speech about restoring the prosperity of America's middle classes.  He promised "new rules for derivatives that bring the light of day into that shadowy risky market," and measures designed to limit the systemic risk of interconnected banks "dragging down the market" again.
  
  Among other things, the bill would end the practice of hiding "opaque derivatives in invisible accounts" so investors "can once again receive clear transparent price signals they need in order to function efficiently," Biden said.  Since neither Biden nor any member of Congress would  know a derivative if it jumped up and bit him on the ass, I wonder who is going to draft all this transparency legislation? My guess ... ex-Goldman staffers.  All that cap and trade trash? Designed and crafted by ex-Goldman personnel. Which money center bank is tooled up to reap the profits from the scheme ... yah.
  
  The horrible thing is that Americans, without a reliable source of news and any insightful analysis will believe this crap from Biden and Obama. Nauseating. Simply nauseating.
  

Goldman ... all roads lead to Goldman

Hands down the most prestigious "investment bank" in the world. No doubt about it: they make more money than a Gulf State and have more connections than Ma Bell.

And I think possibly among the shiftiest group of money grubbers ever assembled. Of course, POTUS is also in bed with them: the Democrats are nothing if not able hypocrites and dissemblers. But the recent circus surrounding Goldman needs another look.


I have written extensively on the sheer audacity of Goldman and similar institutions to take TARP money to save their skins and then pay out record bonuses to their elite less than 365 days later.  It is enough to make you gag ... actually I was thinking something a lot more violent, involving mobs, pitchforks, torches and perhaps rope. That AIG should have been bailed out largely to the benefit of Goldman makes my vision go red -- the complicity of Geither cannot be denied. But then just look at the parade of Goldman staff to have held positions of national trust as appointees of the executive branch over the last 20 years. Only an idiot would fail to see how the fox was allowed to raid the henhouse ... 'cause the fox has the negatives of the farmer's extra-curricular activities.

Here, however, something odd just happened. Obama's SEC voted 3 to 2 to bring a civil action against Goldman, Democrats holding the 3 "yes" votes. First question: what the hell are the Republicans doing trying to protect Goldman ... or is there more at stake here than meets the eye? Goldman's PAC was the Obama administration's largest campaign donor.  They (staff and executives) also individually held fund raisers providing many times the PAC donations. Goldman is Obama's mine.

So why did two Republicans vote "no" at the SEC commission level? Why are Republicans trying to prevent regulation of the banking industry? It was Republicans in 2003 and 2005 that tried to stop this whole e-coli taco in its tracks, only to be beaten back by Barney Fwank and Co.  Just being contra whatever the Dems are doing sort of enables the Dems to set a trap for you, as may be the case here.

Why are the Dems "for" killing off the goose the lays the "Golden" eggs?  A suspicious mind might think that this is nothing but a Rahm Emanuel Chicago misdirection ... and I resemble that remark.  Do you seriously think that Goldman gives a rat's ass about what the public thinks about it? They care about stock price, vesting of their non-cash bonuses and the price of bootleg Havanas.  And a fine of a couple of billion? Chump change. That's profits from about a month's work.

So what really happened? Wait ... my blood pressure is rising and I had better take a quick break ... those greedy scumwads at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. figured out how to hoodwink the American public yet again.  Huh? Say what?  You see, this is the opening salvo of Obama the crusader for the little guy to clean up all those nasty economic imperialists (and Goldman as target #1 probably shorted their own stock on a tip).  Obama managed to blanket the internet with political adds for DNC controlled organizations, so that any Google search for Goldman or SEC had banner and column ads for these liberal fifth column groups. A fundraiser.

Just think about it ... a phony war against your private piggybank which looks good to Goober in Idaho who is pissed off at bailing out Goldman for bad bets, and which also looks good to the Cambridge Liberal Loonies as evidence that their "man" is on the job against capitalists. Net, it is a win-win for Obama and the Republicans look like idiots again.

Except for Rep ISSA who has decided to subpoena the White House, the SEC, and everyone possibly involved with this SEC suit charade. You see, the SEC is MEANT TO BE INDEPENDENT from political suasion ... and Obama running a little political scam fund raiser timed perfectly to coincide withe the announcement of a legal action (meant to be super-secret due to potential insider trading -- leading to 10(b)(5) fraud on the market suits) is ILLEGAL.  Boesky did time for this, as did Milken.

Add this to Goldman's deep doo-doo for selling securities that they then bet against (they certainly do not want to bring this in front of a jury ... you can bet that the defense will want a bench trial), and you get a lot of moving pieces that are not too easy to explain.  And now various Europeans who got screwed by Goldman's Abacus trades will want to have a word with Goldman's local representatives....

We are NOT amused.

http://www.breitbart.tv/blogger-responds-to-obama-we-will-never-say-thank-you/

Well, I am not amused. And I cannot fathom how the President of the United States can be "amused" by the tens of thousands of Americans who took time of from work -- yes, the Tea Partiers work, as opposed to Obama's base -- to protest the way that America is headed. The scorn that he shows for honest hardworking Americans reveals more about the character of our President than just about any other thing.

It is as if our "President" is saying, "ha, ha, I am picking your pocket and there is not a damn thing you can do about it."  He is, however, depending on the listless, and shiftless in America voting for him in November or being too lazy to vote against him. He is counting on receiving enough time required to so fundamentally change America -- amnesty for illegals and then the power to vote, being a good bet -- that we cannot undo his evil. People in Germany in the 1930's did too little to prevent the ascendancy of the National Socialists through the ballot box. Freedom of thought and expression was systematically eradicated there.... Today, MSNBC, CNN, NYT are all already "party media organs," and their commentators decry, scorn and belittle our attempts to be "heard." Remember #41? According to MSNBC, a protest against the administration policies is "racist" and an example of civil disobedience. My blog would probably entitle me a one-way ticket to Rachel Maddow's gulag, as might my vote for Scott Brown.

Obama is desperately trying to sweep the election of Scott Brown under the rug of public opinion: but it cannot be ignored. Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the Nation elected a social conservative to the seat once held by one of the most Liberal politicians in the U.S., Ted Kennedy. He wants us all to believe that this was an aberration, a mistake.  But it is not. More Tea Party inspired movements are starting every day, a true groundswell.

George Pataki, ex-governor of New York -- another Liberal state -- has just started the Revere America organization in the last two weeks. Its mission? To repeal Obamacare.

Obama, I will not be saying "thank you" to you, anyone that voted for you, or any Congressperson that voted for any of your tax hikes. Ever. You want us to be happy (as apparently hundreds of the Liberal Faithful at Gloria Estefan's house were) for this:

That does not include the double counting of almost $500 billion for "savings" in Medicare and Medicaid through the elimination of fraud and spending cuts ... and then spending those "savings." Since that obviously won't work the shortfall will result in liabilities for all Americans, requiring money to be raised to cover it ... through more taxes. Likely that will require a Value Added Tax.

To put this in perspective, limiting the amount that American can stash away in FSAs (flexible spending accounts) to generate an additional $13 billion for Obamacare, represents more money than Greece's current debt payment shortfall, or a quarter of the total EU bailout package. We are talking simply staggering sums here.

Then you have the increased top tax rate to 39.5%. And the increase in corporate taxes (to make American corporate taxes the highest in the G-20 ... nothing like making us uncompetitive). Don't forget the unlimited FICA: Obama removes the cap of $104,000 in earnings so that FICA can be charged against everything you make. And, of course, the perennial favorite of Liberals, those nasty dividends and capital gains are going up at least 5% each. After all, it is only "rich" people that will be affected. That this might stifle the capital markets that allow companies to operate (and hire workers) is conveniently forgotten.

I don't want to forget the Cap and Trade crap that Obama is trying to get passed by June, either. The House passed their version last year and the Senate gets a crack at it in the next few weeks. That will result in the single highest tax hit to American corporations EVER imposed.  That is worth hundreds of billions.

And don't forget all the Bush tax cuts that are due to roll off on Jan. 1, 2011. Obama does not call those tax hikes and does not include those in his calculation of what we have to be "thankful" for. But the failure to renew those cuts is a tax hike to Americans in no uncertain terms. If you see masked men with sawed-off shotguns standing in the vestibule of your jewelry shop, do you let them in? Because if you do, you are as much a part of the heist as those in the masks.

Now Obama does not consider any of this unusual, instead he finds American's horror and outrage "amusing."  If we sweep the Democrats in November, clean up the mess of spending to get our house in order, we may just be able to get this ship turned around. Don't get me wrong -- I am not saying "vote Republican." I could give a damn. Just do not vote for ANYONE that voted for this legislation. Interestingly, by extension that could mean not voting for Scott Brown in 2012.

P.S., did I mention the doctor - payment sophistry? You see Medicare is meant to pay doctors a lot less than it actually does for various procedures -- 21% less. In order to get the doctors to do them, Congress has delayed the imposition of the payment cuts for services. But Obamacare counts those cuts as part of the "savings" ... to the tune of something like $200 billion. The monkeys at the DNC controlled "Senior Journal" characterizes this as follows: "April 16, 2010 – Senior citizens can take their annual sigh of relief that a Medicare pay cut for physicians has once again been avoided. The giant pay cut – over 21 percent – had the potential of causing many doctors to no longer care for Medicare patients. The bill stopping this year’s pay cut was signed by President Barack Obama last night after Democrats won a hard fought battle with Republicans. Three Republican senators did vote with the winning Democrats."(Source: Senior Journal)

Senior citizens may well heave a sigh of relief, but to characterize Obama as their savior is another piece of breathtaking Democrat dishonesty: IT IS OBAMA THAT PLANS TO ENFORCE THIS PAY CUT AS PART OF OBAMACARE. HE MUST DO THIS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NUMBERS HE PUBLISHED WORK. IT IS HIS PLAN. Now why did the Republicans fight this? Simple, to make seniors and other affected realize that damage that Obama plans to inflict to services, and if Obama won't cut the payments, expose the utter LIES LIES LIES of Obamacare and the funding quagmire IT MUST inflict on America. On us.

I somehow do not think that this analysis will appear in the New York Times.

Tea Party and Racism

Listening to CNN on the treadmill today, I watched a brief report about "the Tea Party movement of the Republican Party."  Come on. As if we didn't already know that CNN was the party propaganda outlet of the DNC.   Friends, the Liberal establishment is desperate to paint the Tea Party Movement as just another bunch of Republican right-wing crazies: if they can squeeze the Tea Party under the Republican tent, then potential blue collar Democrat-leaning voters will be turned off by that.

Or that is the hope. But just in case, the second avenue of attack is racism. I am utterly sick be being told that to question or disagree with the Administration is racism. Which harkens back to the last post on Obama's choice to list himself as "black" as opposed to bi-racial.  With this firmly in place, he can continue to wield the shield of "racism" against criticism of his politics: the decision to reject "bi-racial" is politically motivated.

The trouble is this: Americans are tired of that crap. His Administration is characterized by simply terrible decisions, domestically and internationally, all aimed as social reformation and change of the American social fabric. But Americans liked the way we were ... and are. And object to be called racist because they disagree with the Administration.

From Webster's:

Main Entry: rac·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\

Function: noun

Date: 1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

So how does the DNC and Liberals derive "racist" from disagreement with a particular Administration of the United States? Merely because Obama is "black?" That is a sophistry that is both tired and false ... not to mention insulting.

On the same CNN piece, another man was interviewed who complained that the Tea Party adherents were responsible for maintaining the "divided nation." That they were holding on to beliefs that prevented us from coming together under Brother Obama. Hmmm. Let's look at that the other way around: the nation is divided and it is the Tea Party's fault because they won't cross over the divide and "heal" the nation. So it is the people who identify as Tea Partiers that are morally or otherwise obliged to change their beliefs to accept Obama? How so? Says who, apart from those on the other side? Remember Obama PROMISED to make the legislative process more transparent and bipartisan? Wasn't it a tenet of the Obama faith that he would bring people together? Now we are told by Liberalism's useful idiots, the media, that it is our (Tea Party-type people) fault that we are not together as a nation ... because we choose to retain our beliefs of fiscal prudence and representation for taxation?

Since when have you EVER been able to point to genuine conservatives and realistically accuse them of trying to deny another their political views and rights to express them. By contrast, the Left is on a crusade to label all independent thought "as a real threat to the Administration" (Rachel Maddow's words, speaking for MSNBC), citing the Oklahoma City bombers as the logical extension of Tea Party activism!!!!

Only more reason to stand up against these morons.

Let me get this straight...

Depends are in short supply in Russia.  The Russian supplied and built nuclear reactor at Bushehr, Iran is scheduled to go online in August. The Russians have told the world so. Russia, despite Obama's best groveling, refuses to assist the U.S. in any meaningful way in stopping Iran from becoming a nuke nation in terms of weapons.  Duh. If you follow the ancient maxim of "follow the gold", you will doubtlessly find that Iran handsomely pays the Russians -- or more correctly, the proper Russians -- for their assistance in achieving nuclear generated power.  The prospect of said Russians assisting the U.S. in anything as it relates to Iran is near zero. And Obama and his advisers should know that. So either Obama is incredibly stupid, or he is incredibly naive. Either way, as far as it concerns U.S. citizens, he is an idiot.

Add to this the equally obvious tenet: if I arm my enemy's enemy, I may be able to just sit back and watch while someone else does my work. Russia has everything to gain from a nuclear Iran threatening the U.S. and its oil supplies ... Russia has its own oil for its own needs for the foreseeable future. And if a time should come where Russia needs nuclear power of its own to supplement its carbon-based supplies, there is no significant domestic resistance to building as many plants as they may need.

The one risk is that a nuclear Iran becomes suddenly interested in the welfare of Muslims in Russia. A Muslim bomb in the hands of any one of a dozen active "terrorist" groups within Russia would mean Moscow missing part of its buildings. Or maybe St. Petersburg. Russia discounts that particular worry, doubtless for these reasons: (1) Russia's spying agencies are not bound by the ethics and liberal crap used to bind the CIA et al.; (2) Russia believes in "humint"... real people penetrating enemy organizations, and real blackmail and payoffs for information; (3) Russia can devote how ever much time and money to developing radiation detectors to protect the elite and territory on which they may be found; (4) Russia will simply kill those that threaten them (can you imagine Obama standing up and telling the world that they will exterminate domestic terrorists?); (5) and Russia's homegrown FBI/CIA (the FSB) is everywhere in Russia, and operates without the niceties of search warrants and probable cause.  There is also likely the unspoken threat that Russia would not hesitate to assassinate a foreigner that reneged on their deal: Ahmadinejad must surely know that if he screws Russia, he is a dead man.

So Russia would kind of like to see the U.S. caught in an untenable position: exactly where it is now. How did it get there? Simple, we lost our nerve. We, the American people, elected someone who promised to apologize to the World and then carried it out. We elected someone who was guaranteed to allow all this to unfold at the correct moment, as Iran approached its nuclear dawn. Guaranteed? How?

Could Russia and various rich (Muslim) Middle Eastern power brokers have helped arrange this?  By way of an answer, consider this: it has been proven by records released from the Kremlin that the anti-nuke and peace movements of the 1960's through 1980's was funded directly from the Kremlin.  Those huge anti-Pershing missile rallies in Germany? Russian-paid.  The "remove U.S. bombs from Britain?" Russian-paid. The great socialist upheavals in the U.S. during this period? Largely Russian funded, inspired and orchestrated. Unbelievable, but the Kremlin's own documents prove it. Global trades union movements have been funded by the Soviets since they were able to muster the money to send abroad -- another provable item.  Racial unrest in the U.S.? If the Soviets were able to bring some about, it would fit nicely with their goals.

So who or what created Obama the political animal who leads us in this time of stress?

Let's take his connections to Frank Marshall Davis, his "father figure and mentor" during his years in Hawaii. Those are Obama's words -- from Dreams From My Father.  Davis was a black labor leader and communist (and probably a direct Soviet-controlled agent). From Wiki: "In the pages of the paper, Davis articulated an agenda of social realism, which included appeals for racial justice in politics and economics, as well as legal justice. Davis became interested in the Communist party in 1931 during the famous Scottsboro boys and Angelo Herndon cases and championed black activism to compensate for social ills not remedied by the larger white society. In the early 30s he warned against blacks accepting the Depression-era remedies being pushed by communists but by 1936 Davis was listed as a contributing editor to the Spokesman, the official organ of the Youth Section of the National Negro Congress, a Communist front organization.

Hmmm. "Father figure" might be bad enough, but "Mentor?" Did something in this relationship prompt Obama's decision to list himself in the latest census as "black" as opposed to bi-racial? His mother is unequivocally "white," as are the grandparents that actually raised him. Does "black blood" make him "black?" That sounds racist, like something a Klan member might say.  In Obama, it becomes a political distinction, because logically he is bi-racial.

Let's take this a bit further.... So if 3 of 4 grandparents were "white," would Obama still call himself "black?" How about 7 of 8? (Tiger Woods labels himself as "Cablinasian" reflecting caucasian, black, native American and Asian). The point is Obama decided at some point to make the political determination that he was "black" and eschews the notion and reality that he is half white. His birth father was black and Muslim -- from Kenya. His second father was Indonesian and Muslim.  Davis, as his third father-figure was a black socialist. I 'll leave it to future sociologists to discuss how or why Obama identified with each of these transient men and not the constancy of his grandparents. Not my issue, fine, his call ... but what affects all of us it is not the fact of lost boy choosing to style himself after father figures he never had, but the determination to follow the political tenets of those persons ... and that bothers me a great deal. Oh, I forgot ... his maternal grandfather, a close friend of Davis, was also a leftist social activist during a time in Hawaii when that would have been outright dangerous. So, politically, Obama's background is the grand slam of socialist indoctrination.

More on Davis: in the 1950's Davis wrote for the ILWU -- the international longshore and warehouse union -- paper on labor issues and racism. No doubt there was bad blood there: Davis's own wholesale paper business burned to the ground during racial unrest in 1951, and can only have deepened his political radicalism. At this time Davis was also on the Executive Board of the Civil Rights Congress, which was cited by the Truman administration as a communist subversive organization. That the ILWU was communist dominated and led is not subject to serious dispute.

From FBI files:
Robert M. Kempa, a communist party informant who agreed to cooperate with government investigators, reported,

“

Late in the fall of 1950, I started contacting Frank Marshall Davis in connection with Communist Party matters, and relaying to him information received from my superior contact in the Communist Party, either James Freeman or [redacted]. During a portion of 1950, 1951 and part of 1952, I continued contacting Frank Marshall Davis and also transmitted dues for the Communist Party received from him to my contact above. During the period of my contacts with Frank Marshall Davis, he advised me that his wife, Helen was a member of Group #10. ...During a portion of 1951 [redacted] took over contacts with the Davis group but I resumed contacting Davis in 1952 and continued meeting him on Communist Party matters until I left the Party in June of that year."[14]

  Obama himself wrote:  "It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, Daishiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created.^"

From Wiki: Gerald Horne, a contributing editor to the CPUSA official publication Political Affairs, identified "Frank" as Davis, and "a decisive influence in helping Obama to find his present identity" as an African-American.^[20] Claims that Davis was a political influence on Obama were reiterated in the hotly-disputed anti-Obama book The Obama Nation.^[21] A rebuttal to The Obama Nation released by Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, confirmed that "Frank" was, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis, but disputes certain claims about the nature of their relationship.^[22]


And we know that Obama was a close friend of Bill Ayers. And that he spent 20 years in a Black Liberation Theology church ... more than a few Sundays is enough to turn your stomach. Google it and read. If you haven't, it is important that you do. Years of attendance and allegiance .... It is what it is, no matter how much the left wants to characterize it another way.  It is clear that everything in his background supports the notions that Obama simply hates the America that was and is. He is trying VERY HARD to change it.

Back to the Russians and Soviets.

Take one Barack Hussein Obama. Insert a past burning with personal shame at the evil America represents ... and utter misunderstanding of how the world really works, how entire nations are pawns in superpower struggles -- let alone fabricated political beliefs he was raised on, and you get POTUS. Really, Obama's election is the culmination of all the Soviet Union had worked for for 80 years. Only about 20 years too late. Enough BS had been fed into the collective American brain to accept the pap and campaign promises to get this socialist plant, this mole or Manchurian Candidate elected. Enough control had been effected over the media, academia and Liberalism's useful idiots. And suddenly, like a gift from the atheist ghost of the USSR, Russia has been presented with a useful idiot in the role of the President of the United States. Iran can't believe its good fortune. Similarly, despots and pseudo-communist leaders across the world are still sitting in stunned surprise that the might U.S. of A. screwed up so royally as to elect an idealist / socialist newbie to office.

So, is Russia happy? They are delirious! Bring on more Depends.  Ahmadinejad? He needs to hang a few dissidents to calm himself down. For every dollar that the price of oil rises, Iran has $1.5 BILLION more money to spend on its form of Jihad, and Russia is able to fund untold mischief for the World. And Obama just does not "get it." Russia help us stop Iran's pretensions? What, are YOU stupid?

Let me get this straight...

You know, I was writing this long blog on Soviet influence in the U.S. during Obama's childhood, his connections to Frank Marshall Davis, his "father figure and mentor" during his years in Hawaii. How Davis was a labor leader and communist (and probably a direct Soviet-controlled agent). How deeply the Soviets had penetrated the hippie movements and the anti-nuke movements in the U.S. and Europe --  all proven by Kremlin records to be true, so Reagan WAS correct in his allegations -- when ... all of a sudden ... my Firefox crapped out. Just went "ZAP" from the screen. Normally, when Firefox has troubles, it lets you know about it. Normally, when blogging, a draft is saved every two or three minutes.

But no. This time it was all gone. It was as if enough had been written to trigger a protocol in the servers to send a terminate function. How the hell did the saved drafts on Google / Blogger disappear? How the hell did this coincide with a crash of Firefox. And I am using a Mac, not something hack/virus prone as a PC. And two things had to detonate in disparate locations at the same time. So I will publish this right now, then try to reconstruct parts of the "disappeared" blog.

50% Pay No Federal Taxes

I have been asked by friends to explain this at least a dozen times and most people simply refuse to believe it -- the implication that they could have been suckered so royally is offensive to those that pay and even more offensive to those that pay and may have been also have been suckered into voting for Obama. So rather than labor through this myself, I take the liberty of passing on to you an article by Stephen Ohlemacher....

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Washington (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
 
Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.
 
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
 
Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.
 
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
 
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
 
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
 
The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.
 
That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.
 
"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.
 
The federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion -- or a little less than half of all government receipts -- in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don't pay it, mainly lower-income families.
 
The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.
 
In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.
 
In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.
 
Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.
 
There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.
 
"All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we'll reduce your tax bill by some amount," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
 
The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.
 
Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from
39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.
 
But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
 
 Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
 
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
 
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

What up wit dat?

Specifically, what up wit da Euro?

Really, it quite simple: Greece.  Nobody in their right minds really thinks that the Greeks will do a damn thing to clean up their endemic corruption, tax evasion and outright stealing. So, the chance that they will pay their government debt, it pretty darn slim. The prospect is a Euro-zone country going "tits-up." Defaulting. As in, not paying their debts, trying to issue more and being surprised when nobody want to buy any.

Sounds rather like our own country, doesn't it? But in the case of the Euro, it means that Greece might have to withdraw from that currency system, start printing their own pesos (drachmas) and debasing the place generally. Nothing like a Zimbabwe in your favorite holiday spot. The Greeks have always been Bolshie to the extreme, while hiding bucket loads of convertible currencies in their Taberna cellars. March against capitalist oppression during the day, wait on tables for tax-evaded tips during the evening, seduce Swedish holiday-makers at night and repeat.

The issue seems to be that hard working Germans ants no longer want to pay for the Grasshoppers of the South. And really, who could blame them? I don't want to pay for the Federal Deficit Holes of urban America, either. I'd make anyone seeking Federal assistance of any kind pee into the cup one a month to prove that they are not simply living off of my dime to support a life of dope dealing and consumption.  Similarly, the Germans might do well to send brigades of German tax inspectors to Greece -- and send Greek tax cheats to rebuild the Autobahns. Or even re-built Greek infrastructure ... but they'd figure out a way to mess that up locally. Better to send them someplace cold and wet: Ireland.

Obamawatch 
All sorts of people are now starting to laugh at POTUS. The incidence of Depends usage is WAY up. Chavez is now cozying up to Putin, Ahmadinejad and Uruguay's new leader.  Iran flat out threatened us: "if America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.  It goes without saying that any Israeli attack will be taken as an attack by their sponsor ... the U.S. 


Actually, that is hysterical in that Obama is the most hostile U.S. leader with respect to Israel since that State's inception in 1947.  That will no doubt be lost on Ahmad-wacka-job, who has called Obama a cowboy and wet behind the ears.


Volker, Obama's pet Fed-guru, is bracing -- a.k.a. us for the prospect of how Obama intends to pay for all this collective folly: VAT ... the dreaded value-added tax.  Also, higher fuel taxes, taxes on just about everything else.  That is OBAMA speaking folks.


WELCOME TO OBAMUNISM

O-boy...

What is this Oval Office hazard up to now? A pledge of no-first-use on nukes, at least for those states compliant to the anti-proliferation treaty. Sure it is tempered with exceptions --which carves out Iran and North Korea, but is utterly without any impact because those states could care less what he thinks or does anyway.  Putin and Medvedev just ordered some more Depends because they know that this will end up hilarious to behold.

So Obama "brings home the bacon" with a new nuclear - reduction treaty ... if the Senate will ratify it. Great, right? Not quite: (1) Russia reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if the new U.S. defense system becomes a "threat"; and (2) it ignores the 500 Russian and 200 U.S. tactical warhead known to exist, 50 of the U.S. warheads are known to be in Europe. Nobody knows where the Russian tacticals are -- probably not the Russians, either.

Why do these facts make a mockery of this Obama triumph? Let's look at loophole #1: the Russians can unilaterally withdraw any time they decide to declare the U.S. missile defense system a threat. Since they have already done so (declared it to be a threat) and forced Obama to cave to its non-deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic, they can do it again at any time that it might suit them ... like when they get the upperhand in some technology. There is certainly no issue of accountability to an electorate, such as an American President might have. So it is merely an executive order ... and its done.  This, in effect, makes Obama a stooge for the threat of the Russian withdrawal: it gives them control of the trump suit.  If Russian needs U.N. support for something, or it decides to export nukes to Venezuela  .... that system instantly becomes an unacceptable threat, so the Russians withdraw. Obama has already shown a remarkable aptitude for disarming the U.S., now he handing the blackmail negatives to our enemy.

Tactical warheads are a far greater threat. Essentially, who gives a shit about strategic nukes in the first place? They are extremely hard and expensive to maintain and deploy, fielding a fleet of boomers is the best method, and in any scenario those are functionally immune to an ABM system, theirs or ours. Furthermore, only a few countries can muster the cash or the know-how to actually deploy a functional boomer threat that covers the globe, so it is and will remain a stand-off.  Ten boomers or 50, who cares? 

Tactical nukes are FAR harder to control: the briefcase bomb, the device carried on a Predator drone, the 155mm nuclear shell ... those are a nightmare. Where are they? Are they safe? The Russian won't even begin to discuss those ... and they have more than double the amount of them. So what kind of victory is it where we throw away first-use as a threat (and therefore a weapon in its own right) and enter into an agreement that completely benefits an enemy that has NEVER done anything outside of its own enlightened self interest. Far from making the world a safe place, Obama has done precisely the opposite.

Just a last reflection ... the explicit / implicit message is that America will not retaliate with all or certain of the weapons at its disposal even in the face of a bio/chem attack on the United States. Say, a compliant Arab country sponsors and manufactures a briefcase of bugs that is unleashed on the U.S.... We have told the sponsor that we won't nuke you for that.  Since we have destroyed our bio/chem warfare capacity already (thank God ... we didn't need to have the stuff around when we had the nukes which would do the punishment job adequately), we have now told sponsors of terrorism that the worst you can expect is a GPS guided missile through your front door. We hope to find you at home.

However, prior to this craven act, it has always been understood that if you VX gas-attack Grand Central Station in New York, you up the ante. That means you, or your people have a very short while to live before the very center of Hades is created in an airburst above your capital. A powerful message indeed. The message now given by Obama is so wishy-washy that Jimmy Carter is starting to look good. Why did people not mess with Reagan? It was because there was every reason to believe that he would "do it."

Obama took an oath to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. In his view, so it is implied, these actions provide for the fulfilling of that oath -- will make the U.S. and world a safer place. It is clear to me that either:(1) he really is not as smart as he is reputed to be -- by a large magnitude; or (2) he is violating his oath and attempting to punish and cripple the United States for years to come, economically and militarily. He may be the ultimate Manchurian Candidate. I think we need to know more about him ... like right now.

What's new?

Our esteemed POTUS flew to Maine yesterday to rally support for the Obamacare. Why? I mean, why bother? It passed, maybe by only a few votes, but it was rammed through Congress and signed by POTUS. Done deal. Or is it?

You see, Obama is now very busy trying to make sure that this does not explode in his face come November. And if there is I anything I can do about it, the election will resemble the devices that removed substantially most of Bikini Atoll from the face of the planet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngq2jb79mPU 

I cannot even begin to express my anger at the lies promulgated by the Obama administration.  Yesterday, Obama told the citizens of Maine that "you got it done. You got together in a grass roots campaign to make this happen."  Mr. Obama, that is a lie.  There was no grass roots campaign to "get this done," it was "done" to us behind closed doors in Washington D.C., passed by Democrat Congressmen too afraid of their own party (and funding provided by the DNC) to have the courage vote as their constituents would have them vote (70+% against). This was done behind a tissue of lies as to funding, reneged vows as to taxation, blatant violation of campaign promises -- did you see any of this on C-SPAN -- and a desire, as described by Joe Biden,  to effect a redistribution of wealth.  THIS IS THE FIRST STEP OF SOCIALISM.

Through Biden the Administration came out and admitted it: this is an attack on capitalism and the American way of life -- responsibility for oneself.

Obama is now trying to get everyone to believe that they voted for this disaster, that it won't be so bad, that this will be a step-up for the American people.  Step up to what? European medicine? Ever been there? Ever tried to get something done in England or anywhere else? NOWHERE in Europe can you get "free" care if you are a foreigner ... but Obama feels that we should provide free care for the poor and indigent of the World.... There is not enough money to do that, Obama. There is not enough spare cash in the U.S. to take care of what we already have, let alone create the largest entitlement system the world has ever seen.

I was watching Fareed Zakaria on CNN while at the gym (otherwise, I'd turn that S.O.B. off), and he made misstatements of fact that are breathtaking: "the U.S. has the worst health results of any Western industrialized nation."  I know where that statement comes from, the World Health Organization -- another interesting socialist-run money-pit.  The WHO made that determination based on money spent int he U.S. and what THEY consider to be acceptable outcomes. That is, WHO's algorithm states that for "x" spent, "y" should be result. That piece of subjective sophistry results in the U.S. coming about 35th on their tables. While is fact, in virtually every field of medicine, the U.S. leads the world in cure rate, treatment rate and individual healthcare outcomes. As in over 95% of medical fields. But since the money spent (which is admittedly WAY too much) is so high, WHO relegates us to the bottom of the Western nations tables.

But, when Canadian politicians need specialized surgery, where do they go for treatment? South of their border. Fact. When the wealthy of the world, to whom only the result matters, have medical issues where do they come? The United States. We are extremely lucky to be here as citizens given the fact that the rest of the world wants to come here to get what we ALREADY have.

Zakaria asserts that we finally joined the civilized world in bringing the right to universal healthcare to all our citizens, as is the case in Europe. Mr. Zakaria, you are an idiot: while it is not optimal, every American has access to healthcare through the emergency room of their local hospital.  That is their right -- you cannot be turned away. And it may be a hell of a lot quicker than waiting 6 months in the socialist system for even basic treatment -- personal experience shows that a CAT scan is a rare diagnostic luxury in Europe. Here in the U.S., the machine is rarely 50 yards away from the ER. My mother was given a scan within 1 hour of entering the ER with stomach pains. Her friends in the Netherlands and U.K. had already waited over 8 months for the same test.

And Mr. Zakaria asserts that universal healthcare is a fundamental human right ... says who? Consider the obese blimps walking around America, with Burger King and McDonald's as their grocery stores ... why should healthcare needs related to their lifestyle choices be a right? Why should I have to pay for their stupidity? Is it my "right" to pay, as well?  And where in the great scheme of human rights (let's use our own home-grown formula ... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) is health care enumerated? Surely, healthcare is something that we are each individually responsible for, and while disease can strike the unfortunate as well as the fortunate, fate and the divine hand is not something you can legislate against.

The European model is broken. To model our system after something that does not work is lunacy -- as is our enacting legislation given our proven inability to pay for it. Mr. Obama, even the CBO says it can't be done. Yet, you smugly proclaim "victory" over something that will bankrupt our nation and impoverish our children -- and the major kick-in of costs starts in 2014. Tell me that that this is an accident and was not designed to cause the most negative of effects starting until such point as you hope to be in your second term? And by then, it will be too large to stop -- another intended consequence.

Reform healthcare ... yes. Let's start by cutting off the handouts to non-citizens. Let's reform Medicare/medicaid. Let's shut off the tap of litigation lottery forcing our medical personnel to practice needlessly expensive medicine. Let's eliminate fraud by criminal sanctions. Let's force drug companies to sell us drugs at world prices, and not use the U.S. as a cash cow. Let's force insurance companies to offer cross-state line policies, breaking up the insurance monopolies/oligopolies -- those are Democrat controlled institutions! Here is Mass., there is no earthly way that this lack of competition can be called some Republican scheme... there aren't any Republicans in government to speak of, nor are there in some of the other most expensive healthcare states in the U.S. (NY, CT, NJ, PA, CA, WA, OR).  That is the way to healthcare reform -- not tax, borrow and spend.

Remember November.