Blogs For Victory

The good, old US of A under Obama, et al:

…Many economists and analysts are worrying that the United States might go the way of Japan, which suffered a “lost decade” after its own real estate market fell apart in the early 1990s. But I’m more concerned that the United States is coming to resemble Argentina, Russia and other so-called emerging markets, both in what led us to the crisis, and in how we’re trying to fix it.

Over the past year, I’ve been getting Russia flashbacks as I witness the AIG debacle as well as the collapse of Bear Sterns and a host of other financial institutions. Much like the oligarchs did in Russia, a small group of traders and executives at onetime venerable institutions have brought the U.S. and global financial systems to their knees with their reckless risk-taking — with other people’s money — for their personal gain.

Negotiating with Argentina’s top officials during their multiple financial crises in the 1990s was always an ordeal, and sparring with Domingo Cavallo, the country’s Harvard-trained finance minister at the time, was particularly trying. One always had the sense that, despite their supreme arrogance, the country’s leaders never had a coherent economic strategy and that major decisions were always made on the run. I never thought that was how policy was made in the United States — until, that is, I saw how totally at sea Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Timothy F. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke have appeared so many times during our country’s ongoing economic and financial storm.

The parallels between U.S. policymaking and what we see in emerging markets are clearest in how we’ve mishandled the banking crisis. We delude ourselves that our banks face liquidity problems, rather than deeper solvency problems, and we try to fix it all on the cheap just like any run-of-the-mill emerging market economy would try to do.

We are, as I’ve said before, broke. And I mean that – we’ve not got a cent left to our national name. Blame it on Bush, if you like. Heck, blame it on the banks; on the government…blame it on little, green men from Mars, if you’ve a mind. Doesn’t matter whom you blame – the fact still remains: we’re broke.

What does it mean to be broke? It means we have obligations in excess of our assets. In our case, our obligations are massively larger than our assets – and Obama wants to increase the obligations in the hopes that by spending money we don’t have, we’ll end up to the good at the end of the day. Yes, I know its stupid – but its in line with the most brilliant liberal thinking. No, really – the people liberals consider geniuses swear by this. If we’re flat busted now, we’ll be squishy flat busted if we go with Obama’s plan.

What to do?

Stop spending more than we make. I know, who would think of such a radical, untried idea? But, bear with me here: there is method to my madness. You see, if we spend less than we make, then each year we’ll owe less and less money and, eventually, our assets will exceed our liabilities and we’ll no longer be broke. Might take a while and it might take a lot of hard work and sacrifice, but it can be done – we can live on our income, if we just try.

How do we spend less than we make? By stopping all spending not necessary for the safety and health of the American people. Sorry, NPR. Sorry, NEH. Sorry, Department of Commerce. Sorry, Department of Education. Sorry, Department of Labor – but some things just have to be laid aside for a while. We’ll also have to do without grants to ACORN and we won’t be able to afford the Obama Jugend. I know, its disappointing we won’t have mindless, leftist robots around to spy on us, but it is just one of those sacrifices we’ll have to make. We’ll also not be able to go into socialized medicine, and welfare will have to be tightened up considerably to ensure that its only going to those who are unemployable or unemployed through no fault of their own. In short, we’ll just have to get by with defending ourselves against foreign and domestic threats as well as ensuring that no one starves, is un-housed, is un-clothed or lacks the very basics of medical care. Trust me on this, boys and girls, we can tough it out.

If we do this, then we’ll eventually be a quite rich nation, again – you see, we have vast resources, most of which remain untapped. We must get going on making, mining and growing things and by so doing build up the wealth to pay off the debt we accrued during those years we figured that shuffling paper around was a worthwhile activity. If we don’t do it? Then we’ll end up in complete economic collapse and perhaps political breakdown.

Apparently he really didn’t mean transparency of government; no, silly little man–he meant that our private affairs would be more transparent–to the government!:

I suppose he had to pay back his big donors in Hollywood, didn’t he?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of online piracy. But paying fines up to and beyond a hundred grand for downloading a movie is a bit disproportionate to the crime. Hell, OJ walked after hacking two people to death. Will I need my best Orlando criminal defense lawyer on retainer because I let my 15 year old daughter use the internet… Really?

Beyond that is the road to the “big brother” police state that Obama and his fellow-travellers appear to be more than willing to walk. Oh, the libs wailed and gnashed their teeth during the Bush administration’s supposed warrantless wiretaps of phone conversations that took place in international-to-domestic communications between terrorist elements; but even that had a national defense rationale. This, on the other hand…

If they have the ability, without probable cause and warrants, to seize laptops for music, then they have the ability to seize your laptop for any reason.

The Dover Ban is the executive order signed by President Bush that the media were exempt from taking pictures of flag-draped coffins of service men and women as they made their final journey home to their families via Dover, Maryland, after making the supreme sacrifice.

The Obama administration, being sensitive, kind, and caring to military families, moved to end the Dover ban, saying that media pictures could once again be taken of the flag-draped coffins, but only with the permission of the fallen’s family.

Sensible, right?

Think again.

Gold Star Mom Knottie makes the best case why this decision to reverse the Dover Ban is about as compassionate as salt in an open wound.

Read the whole thing.

He’s disappointed:

President Obama has just spoken on AfPak. I closed my eyes and listened closely to his words, coming via the BBC from the other side of the world.

The President’s words were disappointing. He talked about our goal to reach a force level of 134,000 Afghan soldiers and 82,000 police by 2011. This is not even in the neighborhood of being enough. Further, the increase of 21,000 U.S. troops is likely just a bucket of water on the growing bonfire. One can only expect that sometime in 2010, the President will again be forced to announce another increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

If there were not people like Gates and Petraeus up there, my gut would say to pull out. It is only my faith in the military, and what I saw them accomplish against heavy odds in Iraq, that gives me hope.

Others would disagree with me. A well placed and very experienced British officer just emailed me his impressions, to whit:

“An impressive statement of intent – I particularly liked the bits about bearing down on Afghan corruption and corruption in how USAID money is spent. The speech inspires confidence and, as he is not Bush, it could encourage others to come to the party in a more meaningful way.

I don’t mean any offence about Bush as I for one see history judging him more favorably than contemporary commentators it’s just that the Europeans might follow Obama in a way that they never would Bush.”

And so my views clearly are not held by everyone. Most British and American officers – especially American – have been far more positive about Afghanistan than I have been. My confidence in them is great, and before publishing this I called London to talk about this. There is more confidence coming from the British Army than meets the public eye.

As an aside, I’d like to note the thunderous silence from the anti-war left over this – nothing in recent memory has painted them better as the hypocrites they are. That said…

I, too, hope that the British officer is correct and that the mere fact of Obama being President will pull in more support for the Afghan campaign…I hope this because I’m worried that all Obama has done is send enough troops to ensure that we lose slowly. We have learned – to our sorrow in Vietnam, to our glory in Iraq – that you can’t do war by halves – its all the way in, or all the way out.

In late 2006, President Bush was faced with the choice of either surrendering Iraq to the terrorists, or putting such a powerful force into Iraq that the terrorists would be crushed. President Bush decided to double down, and we – and the Iraqi people – have reaped the benefit. While even many of President Bush’s erstwhile allies were calling for half measures such as the absurdly stupid Iraq Study Group program, he decided that in war there really is no substitute for victory. Here in early 2009, President Obama is facing a similar choice and while the announced goal is all one can hope for, the means provided don’t seem to meet the needs of the moment.

What will happen if, a year from now, President Obama is facing a lengthening US casualty list and an ever more brutal enemy? Will he announce, a few short months ahead of the 2010 mid-terms, that he is sending more troops into the war zone…or will he strike some sort of deal with Iran and other terror masters in order to allow a “decent interval” between US withdrawal and terrorist triumph? What may be won relatively easy with 30,000 more troops today might not be retrievable with 130,000 troops my April of 2010 – to send 21,000 today might prove the largest folly of all.

The news story:

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

Why should Reid make such a wickedly false statement? Could be one of two reasons:

1. Reid is setting up a situation where Obama nominees will be excused from tough questioning on their judicial philosophy.

2. Reid is setting up either the eventual impeachment of Roberts and/or setting up a bid to put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

The former is more likely than the latter, but we can’t ignore the prospect of Obama and his Democrats attempting to entirely re-cast the Supreme Court. The four liberal Justices are likely to retire, and no problem – Obama will appoint people even more ignorant in their leftist fanaticism than the current four liberals. But how to get around those four young conservative Justices? Rather difficult – each of them is almost certain to outlast an Obama Administration, even if Obama is re-elected. So, lay the ground work to force the conservatives out at some point.

As I said, it is more likely that Reid is just preparing the ground for kook leftist Obama nominees to skate by without any intense questions – all of a sudden, intense Senatorial scrutiny will not be needed, ya know? But we must be on our guard as the people who lead our nation are people who are entirely unaware of what liberty actually is, and thus they will violate law and precedent with complete indifference.

Have a bunch of things to do in the morning – including visiting my Dad – so haven’t got the “oomph” to wright anything for the AM at the moment.

Have at it, boys and girls.

Typical:

When President Barack Obama recently called for construction spending, he probably did not envision Web design. Yet the website financialstability.gov that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced more than a month ago with the Financial Stability Plan (FSP) was launched with the banner “This site is coming soon”—and the banner remains (link has screen shot taken March 23rd). A former Federal Reserve official remarked after visiting the site looking for information, “Is this supposed to make me confident?”

And these are the people who liberals want running health care…

What the cartoon said:

What the cartoon should have said:

That’s what these communist/socialist ne’erdowells are calling an erstwhile, room-temperature, piece of slime cop killer:

Oakland, CA–As the city prepares for a massive public funeral for four police officers slain in the line of duty, dozens took to the streets in a show of support for the man authorities say was their killer.

Organized by International People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement, the march Wednesday evening took participants near a police substation within sight of the two locations where Lovelle Mixon allegedly shot the veteran officers before being slain himself.

Loved ones and supporters walked through the streets chanting, “OPD you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!” There were no officers patrolling the march route.

“I don’t condone what he did, but it’s bringing to light the frustrations between the community and the police,” said Uhuru Movement member Kihad Deen. “This gives people a chance to speak their minds.”

Mixon’s cousin, Dolores Darnell, 26, addressed the small crowd, calling him “a true hero, a soldier.”

“This is the real Lovelle,” she said, holding a picture of a smiling Mixon with his wife. “We do apologize for what he did to the officers’ families. But he’s not a monster.”

Yeah. And neither was Frankenstein.

More about these commie Black Panther retreads called the Uhuru:

Lovelle Mixon’s life, like that of thousands of young African men in the impoverished neighborhoods of Oakland, was over long before he was killed by police. He faced a hopeless dead end of joblessness, poverty and criminalization by a society that would rather lock up young African men than make college or jobs available to them.

The police are not social workers; they are a military force with the assignment to carry out a violent containment policy against a whole community. The purpose of the police is to maintain power for the status quo and uphold the relations of poverty and wealth in the city.

If we want to move forward and “build bridges” as a city there is only one road to do so. We have to truly understand the calls of a community under siege and demand an immediate end to this completely failed public policy of police containment, this war without terms waged against the African community of Oakland.

So, concerned about “social justice,” are we? Concerned about a policy of “violent containment,” you say?

Well let me school you about the origin of your discontent. The policy of “containment” is not a police-initiated policy. This may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but your much reviled “policy of containment” wasn’t even a policy initiated by evil Republicans.

The policy of “containment” was in fact initiated and made possible by LBJ in 1964 with the advent of “The (not so) Great Society” that served to contain and imprison the poor in a never-ending cycle of poverty.

It was perpetuated by years of separating fathers from the responsibility of raising their own children.

It was perpetuated by endless brow-beating about the glass ceiling; placed ostensibly by some mythical entity known as ‘da man;’ not to mention the day after day hammering by elected liberal democrat officials of the message that impoverished minorities could do nothing and would be nothing without white liberals in limousines running to their rescue, doling out the meager sub-subsistence afforded by the welfare state.

The “policy of containment” has been perpetuated as a campaign of fear by white limousine liberals and their black slavemasters (a/k/a, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al.); delivering empty promises and false warnings to their charges that they would starve if democrats weren’t maintained in power. This was done, of course, as a means of perpetuating and “containing” a ready-pocket of democrat voters.

This “policy of containment” is even to this day being perpetuated by the present Administration as the same-old, same-old turd, polished and repackaged in a pretty pink ribbon; now labelled “Hope and Change.”

In short, if Uhurus want to blame someone for their being “contained,’ look no further than your friendly neighborhood liberal democrat congressman or woman.

Then blame yourselves for listening to them.

And by the way, “Hero,” my backside.

Yep:

Reflecting on the campaign, Palin said there were “a variety of reasons” Republicans lost in November, namely the faltering economy, but she seemed to place most of the blame on the press.

“Some in the media actually participated in not so much the ‘who-what-where-when-why’ objective reporting on candidates and positions, those five W’s that I learned when I had a journalism degree so many years ago in college, when the world of journalism was quite different than it is today,” she said.

“No, things have changed,” she continued. “But complaining? Or whining? Absolutely not. But I am going to call it like I see it. It doesn’t do any good to whine about any of this. But I can call it like I see it. Sometimes it gets me in a lot of trouble when I speak candidly, and I speak from the heart and I do such a thing. But I am going to.”

“And there was that media slant this go round,” she said. “And unless things change, the GOP had really better can stand together, ’cause we got that on the battlefield also. I call it like I see it and like I lived it on the campaign trail. Not complaining, but dealing with reality.”

“Those are the cards that are dealt us,” she said, “and we had better learn to play that hand and do things right and do things better.”

Just as we don’t get to go to war with the army we want, so we also don’t get to go into political battle with the MSM we want. The MSM is essentially a propaganda arm of the DNC and we’re just going to have to deal with that – and learn to use it against itself. MSMers are naturally lazy, intellectually incurious and, especially on top, very much self-absorbed – such traits are ripe for exploitation by a carefully crafted media campaign.

But even with the best possible media campaign, the plain fact of the matter is that the GOP will have to speak over the heads of the MSM in order to really reach the people – using the various New Media formats, we’re going to have to get the word out without the benefit of a carefully edited soundbite designed to be relentlessly drilled into the American mind by endless MSM repetition. We’re going to have to actually think our way through this – we’ll leave the mindless talking point stuff to the liberals.

The most important thing is to never complain – never let them think they’ve got our number. We have to show complete disdain for the views of the MSM and the Democrats. We have to figure out way to express in short bursts just how contemptible the Democrats are, from Obama on down. We have to show that we’re the party of the people, while they are the party of the incompetent, the corrupt and the ignorant. In things like the Obama Administration’s re-classifying the War on Terrorism as an “Overseas Contingency Operation”, we’re being handed all the ammunition we need to turn the tables on the Democrats and make everyone with a brain positively embarrassed to be within a country mile of a Democrat position.

We shall have them, and we shall conduct a genuine revolutionary change in America – of course, it will be a re-establishment of the Revolution of Washington and Jefferson as our paradigm. Right makes might – all we need now is the spirit to carry on the fight.