Joel's Rant

I was just this evening driving back from a GOP “Happy Hour” and was listening to the radio and heard that super-duper star basketball player LeBron James had decided to move from playing ball in Cleveland to playing in Miami.  My take on LeBron is that he seems like a pretty good guy, good to his teammates, and willing to extend himself to fans and their kids.  That’s all good.   Then I started to think about his new Miami contract. 

Now LeBron had been sought aggressively by most every basketball team with cash to spend, and while I don’t know what Miami finally agreed to pay him, I believe it could have been as high as $100 million for 5 years.  That’s a lot of cash, enough for several people’s lifetimes and all that.  It also turns out that LeBron’s a big Barack Obama supporter, just like the other 95% of blacks that support him nationwide and apparently will continue to support him no matter what and regardless of the circumstances, even if it’s over a cliff.

Now this is interesting.  It turns out one of the reasons LeBron chose to play in Miami is that Florida has no state income tax, as opposed to New York or Ohio, teams in cities of those states also contesting for LeBron’s contract, which has some of the highest state income tax rates in the nation.  So who cares?  What’s the problem?  Lots of people don’t want to pay taxes.

Here’s the problem.  LeBron supports Obama.  He supports Obama’s programs, and policies and spending.  He’s in favor of it all.  Yet LeBron, just like other liberals who are among the richest people on planet Earth, would just as soon support all that crap, be vocal about it, yet have other people pay that Obama freight.  He’ll leave Cleveland for Miami, save himself about $10-12 million, and not look back because he’s trying to get away from the high taxes, even though he supports the policies and spending that make those very taxes high.  Let the “small” people pay.  Isn’t that the liberal attitude?  Isn’t that an amoral attitude?

Who does he think is going to pay for all of those programs?  He’s certainly trying to avoid paying for those programs, which he apparently likes so much.  You see my point, right?

Why do the Hollywood types, who can be valued between $1 million and $1 billion, leave California for their ranches in Wyoming or Montana or abroad?  Why do all those rich liberals leave Massachusetts for New Hampshire and California for Arizona and Nevada, and New York for Florida, and Washington DC for Virginia and on and on?  They do it to lower their taxes, even though they support the policies and spending that make the taxes so high.  Isn’t that the liberal attitude?  ?  Isn’t that an amoral attitude?

A liberal friend of mine recently told me that he thinks business is amoral.  He actually said that.  There are those that think the truly rich are amoral.  Barack Obama thinks both business and the truly rich are both amoral and has said so many times, in many places, to many different audiences, all to huge applause.  Of course, he doesn’t like to talk about himself being rich, and needless to say his state-run media friends never ask him about  that either.

Back in the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt, that new favorite of the modern liberals, took on the so-called “Robber Barons” because he and his other “Progressive” elites thought too much wealth in just a few hands was dangerous to the country.  Oh, really?

And what did those Robber Barons do with their money?  What did Rockefeller and Carnegie and Vanderbilt and others do with their riches?  They invested it. They invested it in America.  They used it for research and development.  They loaned it out for others to use to develop their own ideas and products and on and on.  And in doing so they developed companies and businesses that employed tens of millions of Americans and provided the wages and inexpensive products that raised the standard of living in America.  Was that amoral?

And what about the captains of industry in our modern world?  Haven’t they stolen from the people and created chaos?  Haven’t they destroyed our society?  Aren’t they amoral?  Are they really?

Let’s for a moment try to be honest.  Hasn’t industry and free market capitalism provided life saving drugs, and cheap fuel and air conditioning and computers and cheap air travel, and cheap food in amazing quantity and medical care and insurance and cars and dazzling electronics?  And haven’t they, when not forced to do stupid things by the federal government, provided financing for mortgages and credit for average Americans?  And haven’t they created jobs and jobs and jobs, over 40 million jobs and Trillions in wealth from 1980 to 2007.  And don’t you assume there will be bigger and better and more and more in the future?  If you’re an American, you definitely assume that.  Is that amoral?

And who do you suppose does that stuff?  You think the government does that?  If you had to depend on the government for food, how much food would there be?  If you had to depend on the government for gasoline, how much gasoline would there be?  If you had to depend on the government to heat your home in the winter, how long would it take before you froze to death?  If you had to depend on the government for jobs, how many jobs would there be?  The government just spent over $1 TRILLION to create jobs and after more than one entire year not one job was created.  Not a single one. Is it the government you want in control of the free markets?  Are you a complete idiot?  Are you amoral?

Because of capitalism and free markets and big business, poor people in America can essentially enjoy much of the lifestyle of even the richest among us.  Even poor Americans own cars, and have televisions and computers, and own their own homes, and can buy cheap fuel and drive to every part of the country.  And if poor Americans don’t have the money to buy those things they can develop skills and work and save until they do.  Is that amoral?

About 6 weeks ago my wife and I were on vacation in Las Vegas and staying at the Bellagio Hotel, one of the finest 5-star hotels in the world (we got a great deal, it being during the week and the off-season and all that).  But there we were at the Bellagio, having breakfast in the Promenade, where all the expensive and fancy shops are, and I was reminded of a story about capitalism that the great economist Walter Williams likes to talk about, that capitalism really benefits poor people the most. 

To borrow from Walter’s story, here I was having breakfast in the Bellagio and thinking that if Bill Gates suddenly came to Las Vegas that day he might just as easily also be staying at the Bellagio, just like me.  And that if Bill wanted some breakfast he might just as readily come down to the same restaurant as me and maybe even sit 10 feet from where I was sitting.  And the reason is that I could afford what Bill Gates can afford.  Only capitalism could make that happen.

Yes, Bill’s room would likely be much more luxurious than mine, but we would still both be staying at the Bellagio.  He might order more expensive stuff off the menu than me but we would both be eating at the same restaurant.  He might leave the hotel and rent a Ferrari for the day while I rented a Mustang, but we both would be able to rent cars and enjoy the day.  I realized I could essentially do what the richest man in the world can do.  Is that amoral?

Only capitalism could make that happen.  Only under capitalism could I aspire to live the “Bill Gates” life.  Only under capitalism could I develop the skills to work at what I like and perhaps fail as I might. 

In a socialist society, like the one imagined by Barack Obama, and the Hollywood liberals, and rich sports-heroes that support Barack Obama, the place you are is the place you’ll stay no matter how hard you try or what skills you have or dreams you might dream.  In a socialist society, Barack Obama’s society, you are what he says you are and you ain’t stayin’ at no Bellagio, that’s for sure. 

And that’s amoral.

And that’s all there is to it.

My favorite political movie is “V for Vendetta” (2005) in which a masked freedom fighter takes up arms against a totalitarian government and urges the citizenry to fight the oppression of the state.  Since the main character is a super-hero named “V” you obviously need to suspend some disbelief to make this work, but work it does, all too alarmingly well.  What I find most chilling in this story is how the tyrannical government purposely and clandestinely creates a frightening crisis, then uses its power to “resolve” the catastrophe, but in the process takes complete control of the population. 

Yes, a crisis can indeed be considered a terrible thing to waste.  The blatant tyranny that takes place in V’s world, once uncovered, is easy to understand.  But in a movie you’d assume the depiction of evil would have to be at least somewhat blatant since the “hero” only has about 120 minutes to reestablish justice, and secure domestic tranquility, so the moviegoers can walk away and still be able to sleep at night.

Real life isn’t restricted by artificial time frames like that and so malevolence, or the appearance of it, isn’t always so noticeable, even when starring you straight in the face.  Having said that, consider the following.

Is it possible that the oil gusher in the Gulf is being viewed by the Obama regime, not as a crisis that needs to be corrected as quickly as possible, but rather as an opportunity to advance the Democrat’s economy-killing energy bill?

Don’t believe me?  Even after more than 75 days, in which over 100 million gallons of oil have already spilled into the Gulf, and expectations are that at least an additional 100 million gallons will be spilled before a second “relief” well is drilled in August, the Obama regime still rejects help from 13 countries that have offered oil skimmers and technical expertise.  Of the 2000 skimmers in the American skimmer fleet, only 400 are operating in the Gulf.  The Jones Act, which would allow foreign ships into the Gulf to help with the cleanup, has not been waived (George Bush waived the Jones Act 4 days after Hurricane Katrina).  Obama has not waived the Davis-Bacon Act, which prevents non-union labor from helping with the clean-up.  Obama has not suspended FEMA contracting and bidding rules, which would provide for more rapid assignment of contractors to help with the clean-up.  Coastal governors have not been allowed to dredge their coastlines to create barrier islands.  Obama’s EPA will not relax the 15 parts per million restrictions, required during normal times, on the amount of oil remaining in discharged water, meaning water must be continually re-cleaned before returning to the Gulf, thereby taking more time and effort to keep the cleanup moving forward.

In other words, every single positive proactive measure that could be taken to lessen the spill’s impact has been rejected or delayed, the exact and complete opposite of what one would expect in such a dire circumstance.  Instead, the only actions taken by the Obama regime in response to the spill have been to blame the crisis on George Bush and set an energy and economy destroying moratorium on off-shore drilling that was overturned by a federal judge, who’s reasoning in demanding the overturn was essentially that Obama’s action was self-serving, questionable and stupid (although he made it sound more scholarly).

Why would the Obama regime do that?  What’s the rationale?  What do you suppose would have been Obama’s response to the crisis had it affected 4 blue states instead of 4 red states?  Would the delays, rejections and inactions indicated above have taken place had Deepwater Horizon exploded off the shores of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Delaware?

Consider what that means?

Then there’s the curious case of the “slam-dunk” voter intimidation case being dropped against the New Black Panther Party.  In case you’re not aware, armed thugs of this group were stationed outside a polling place in Philadelphia during the November 2008 election to keep white folks from voting, and there’s extensive video and audio to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.  The fact that the New Black Panther Party perpetrators refused to challenge the Justice Department’s case against them might signal even they understood the gravity of the situation.  And then, just literally moments before justice was to be announced, and completely out of the blue, the Obama regime terminated the case, all charges, except for the most minor dropped, and everyone allowed to walk away free of harm. 

What the fudge is going on here?  Blatant voter intimidation and no action taken?  The most sacred right of American citizens completely trampled on and no Justice Department action taken?  Is it possible that this is what can be expected from a “terrorist-sympathetic” Justice Department filled with pro bono Al-Qaida lawyers?  Does it matter that one of the perps, Malik Zulu Shabazz, was a previous visitor to the White House personal residence last year? 

Consider what that means?

And what about Elena Kagan being nominated to the Supreme Court?  Here’s a person who has essentially served only in administrative positions being awarded a lifetime opportunity to shape the futures of every American for literally generations to come.  Yes, she was a clerk for Thurgood Marshall, served in an administrative capacity in the Clinton Justice Department, was the Dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General (SG) of the United States.  Yes, many credentials.  Interesting that as the SG, she actually only argued one single case, and very poorly, before the Supreme Court herself, leaving all the other cases to underlings.  Interesting too that she was never a judge herself, or has written anything of scholarly substance in her entire life.  Interesting too that she believes the Constitution of the United States allows for books to be banned if they’re “too extreme” and that the government can literally force Americans to eat 3 fruits and vegetables every day.  She actually said those things.

In other words, this person, who alleges to “love the law”, believes there are absolutely no limits to what the government is allowed to do to YOU.  No limits at all.  She actually believes that.  While she claims most sincerely to “love the law” she demonstrates through her own words that in reality she hates the governing document of our nation, Constitution of the United States.  And this is the person Barack Obama has nominated as the final arbiter of everything Obama.  Why do you suppose he nominated her above all the other liberals he could have nominated?  Is it because she’ll do whatever the Obama regime wants done?  Does that make her a political operative of Barack Obama?

Consider what that means?

Consider the news this week that Bucyrus International, a mining equipment manufacturer in Wisconsin, was denied a contract this week by the Obama regime to build machines for the Indian mining industry.  Because mining coal contradicts the Obama regime’s stance on global warming and green house gas emissions they will not allow Bucyrus to build those mining machines.  The cost to the company will be over 1000 jobs and $300 million in sales.  India, incidentally, immediately turned around and accepted equipment bids from companies in China and Belarus, so those jobs and that money will go to one of those countries instead.

So here Obama’s political agenda has cost this company dearly and its workers even more.  Here the government of the United States has taken action, for purely political reasons, to interfere with and quash the actions of a private sector company doing legitimate business in the free-market.  Where in the Constitution does the president or government get the authority to do that?  How will that power be translated to the health care industry once the new laws regarding that sector go into effect just a few years from now?

Consider what that means?

Consider the finance bill making its way through Congress and how that will affect the new fees you’ll need to pay for your banking business and the obstacles that will prevent even the most liquid people from getting loans and mortgages, yet does not mention the spending gusher (already over $150 billion and growing) at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in any of the bill’s over 2000 pages.  And consider the Disclose Act, also making its way through Congress, that will essentially set up differing standards for who is allowed to exercise “free speech” and who is not and how that will affect your use of the Internet.  And what about the coming VAT tax and all the other plans for taking as much of your money as possible?

Consider what that means?

Consider that, since January 2009, every action this Obama regime has taken, or has plans to take, is aimed and focused at controlling you and stealing and limiting your liberty.  Consider that.  Consider “V”.

And that’s all there is to it.

There are so many bad things, all about to be brought to you by Democrats, that I can’t keep them all straight.

Try this on for size:

Why did the Obama regime loan Brazil $2 Billion in August, 2009 for them to develop their off-shore oil drilling industry?  Why wasn’t he developing our off-shore oil drilling industry or maybe even building wind mills or repaying debt or something like that?  That’s interesting by itself, no?  But here’s where the plot thickens.  I realize Obama’s not clairvoyant, so even I know he could not have predicted a disastrous oil spill in the Gulf, but look at what’s going to happen.

Because of the spill, the Democrats are going to try to get climate and energy legislation passed under the guise of developing non-fossil based resources.  Hey, nothing like not wasting a crisis.  Obama has already called for a 6-month moratorium on continued off-shore drilling and even falsely and fraudulently and despicably used the names of 7 expert engineers in the field to “document” his plan (lying has certainly become a staple of this regime’s modus operand, no?) and provide the “substance” it would not have otherwise had.  These oil drilling platforms cost about $½ million each day to operate, even if they’re sitting idle, like during a moratorium, and no oil company can afford that so they’ll be moved, and their likely destination will be……Brazil. 

Now oil is a fungible product, meaning it costs the same everywhere in the world, whether it’s developed in the United States or Angola or Iran or Brazil.  It makes no difference.  Once the drilling platforms are moved to Brazil, or wherever, they’re not coming back, at last not for a very long time.  Definitely longer than 6 months, maybe longer than 6 years.

Good riddance, right?  Wrong, you idiot!  The United States presently gets 30% of our national oil production from the Gulf.  If that oil is not replaced the price of gasoline will rise, meaning there’ll be less driving to the mall, meaning less spending money on stuff, meaning more layoffs of people normally selling that stuff, and leading directly to more unemployment and welfare payments and that’s money that is taken directly from you.  You get the idea, right?  It’s a simple calculus that cannot be denied.

Or the oil will be replaced by buying more from foreign sources, causing more and higher dependence on foreign oil, which is what our political class has been railing against for decades.  A bit of a conundrum, no?

But we can be developing “green” fuel resources so good riddance, right?  Wrong, you idiot!  Anyone who believes that is not thinking in reality.  Take a look at Spain, which dumped billions into restructuring themselves into a “green economy” and have recently announced publically their complete and total failure and which helped bring on their near-collapsed economy.  Those resources, if ever commercially viable, will not be ready for prime time for decades or longer.  Contrary to what Democrats think, developments in science and technology cannot be legislated.  If there was a possibility of their coming to market it would have happened already through the free-market, in the same fashion that petroleum oil beat whale oil, and cars beat horses, and computers beat typewriters and on and on.  That’s the genius of the free-market.  How many innovations and useful developments in technology have come out of central planning in China or Cuba or old East Germany, for crying out loud?

Oh, and let’s not forget the economies of 3 Gulf states, in which Gulf oil drilling is either the state’s single largest or second largest industry.  Those economies will be decimated, causing more of the previously mentioned unemployment and welfare payments and that’s money that is taken directly from you.

So why are Obama and the Democrats planning these political moves that will only cause economic destruction and misery on a grand scale, instead of just concentrating on plugging the oil leak?  Maybe because they’re Marxists?

Let’s look beyond merely BP.

Are you aware that the Democrats in Congress voted just two weeks ago to allow the EPA to set carbon limits for all industries nationwide?  Well, good riddance to carbon, right?  Wrong, you idiot! 

What that does is allow unelected bureaucrats, who are accountable to no one, and in most cases have no real-world experience beyond government, to set industrial policy throughout the entire economy of the United States.  The last time we saw this kind of central planning, on a scale that affects every commercial exchange in a nation, was during the Politburo days of the old Soviet Union.  Yes, the Soviet Union. 

By controlling carbon you control energy.  If you are the kind of person that turns on a light bulb, or drives a car, or takes public transportation, or likes heat or air conditioning, or likes to buy products of any type or uses services of any type, or eats food, or needs health care, or lives indoors, you’re going to be directly affected, which means you’ll either be paying much more or you’ll be doing without.  You get the point, right?  It’s a simple calculus that cannot be denied.

Are you aware that the unemployment rate in the United States will, with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, never again fall below 9% or 10% for any extended period of time (yes, if only we had that same GWB economy where “under 5% unemployment” was common)?  Sure, maybe if the government decides to hire another million census workers or hole diggers and hole fillers it may drop below, but not for long.  Do you want to know why?  Because Democrats have made it their business to sow the seeds of instability and chaos throughout the business community.

They forced the passing of so-called health care reform, using diabolical methods of coercion and fraud, which even the Obama regime’s own estimates assume 51% of all employers will need to change their present employee health plans to the new government plan because they don’t meet the definition of a “government approved plan.”  So much for keeping the plan to you like.  But the point here is that businesses don’t know what to do until all the policies have been written….by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.  Until then, no hiring.  And what about the uncertain impact on business of cap and trade, and “card-check” legislation and the coming increase of corporate, personal, estate and capital gains taxes that will hit everyone and everything that generates income when the Bush tax cuts expire on January 1, 2011.  Everyone person, and every business, that presently pays taxes will see a tax increase.  And what about the energy tax that’s sure to come out of this Democrat Congress because of the Gulf spill and what about the VAT tax that’s surely being planned?

All of those taxes and actions conspire to create an environment in which viable employers, those that need to make a profit to stay in business, as opposed to government that doesn’t have that handicap, will not do any hiring now, and maybe won’t in the future.  How can they? 

And needless regulation upon stupid regulation.  As if regulators caught Bernie Madoff before he did severe damage, even though the SEC knew about him and his potential for ponzi schemes years before that disaster hit.  They did nothing until then.  And the Department of the Interior knew there was trouble at the Deepwater Horizon rig days before that disaster hit, and they did nothing until it exploded.  And even then did nothing.  And the regulators of Fannie and Freddie knew a disaster was coming and they did nothing as well.  And the regulators on both the Senate and House Finance Committees not only did nothing to forestall the coming sub-prime mortgage and financial crisis they exacerbated it by encouraging and codifying bad banking policy and even in some cases shared in the greed they wrought.  That’s why unemployment is high and will remain high.  It’s a simple calculus that cannot be denied.

And now there’s a call for more regulation and ceding more and more power and control to government regulators that have proven over and over that they can’t regulate, can’t be trusted and often only make things worse, much worse.

And that’s your modern Democrat Party in action.

And there’s more, all being brought to you by those same Democrats.  Will your 401k be taken over by the government?  Will you lose your mortgage tax deduction?  That’s all being talked about now in the halls of the Democrat Congress as they search for every dime they can in an effort to slow the inevitable rise in interest rates.  You see, as the nation goes higher and higher into debt, at some point the people or countries presently lending us money will stop unless interest rates go up.  That’s what happens when a lender smells a bad loan risk.  We’re like the guy whose credit card debt balance is higher than his yearly earnings.  Those people all eventually go into bankruptcy or otherwise fail in some other fashion.  And if interest rates on that $13.5 Trillion in debt go up we’re not going to be able to pay and risk defaulting and bringing the entire economy of the United States to its knees, just like Greece.  And don’t forget the potential for civil unrest a defaulting economy brings; when government retirement payments and all other entitlement payments and Medicare and Medicaid payments to doctors can’t be made and so on, just like Greece.  To forestall that, the government needs a different source of cash so it won’t need to borrow at the same “40 cents per every dollar spent” rate it’s been borrowing over the past 18 months.  That’s what’s generally meant by the phrase “unsustainable borrowing and spending.”  That new infusion of cash could well be your 401k and mortgage tax reduction.

What about a $165 Billion union pension bailout?  That’s on the table in Congress now, brought to you by Democrats.  What about dumping 30 million more people into Medicaid?  That was part of the Democrat health care reform bill and is a shared cost with the states, so look at your state treasury being drained because of this Democrat plan as well.

What we’re seeing here is the destruction of a once great country by the people that are bringing every conceivable economic insult and injury to you and your family, the Democrats.

(Just for the record, Republicans either voted or opposed virtually all of this stuff, even going so far as to try to reign in Fannie and Freddie during the GWB administration.  Sorry, that’s true.)

And that’s all there is to it.

We’re taking our country back on November 2, 2010.  Hope you can believe in…………..for sure.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZs8k4pJcyk

Here’s a story that has almost completely escaped scrutiny yet should make blood shoot from your eyes.
 
First some background.  In September 2008, federal regulators took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the name of stopping their risky mortgage practices, and in fact legislation was passed that set a limit to cover up to $200 billion in losses incurred by those government operated institutions.  (That’s when $200 billion was considered real money).
 
But in March 2009, the Obama administration, along with its stimulus plan, increased the purchases of risky mortgages and forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to run additional losses of tens of billions more to bailout deadbeat and sub-prime mortgage borrowers, and then tried to cover-up those losses by increasing the limit to $400 billion, thereby staying under the “financial crisis” radar. (Remember, this is all taxpayer money).
 
Now here’s the virtually unreported bombshell.  On Christmas Eve, the day before the “Christmas Day bomber” burned off his genitals and was Mirandized after only 50 minutes of perfunctory questioning by some still inexplicably unnamed Justice Department official who should be fired, and when it hoped no one would notice, the Obama administration lifted the $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and reset the limit to - infinity.  They lifted the limit completely. Now there is no limit.  None!  Zero!  Zilch!
 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can now assume losses in the Trillions and they’ll be covered by the American taxpayers.  Is this déjà vu all over again?  And since all of this was passed by the Democrats in Congress and made the law of the land, such losses would be perfectly legal.  And on top of that, the Obama administration granted Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s executives bonuses totaling over $42 million.  Is that unbelievable?  Where’s Ken Feinberg (Obama’s pay czar) when you need him?  What disgusting hypocrisy, for crying out loud.
 
As you’ll recall, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a primary role in spawning the mortgage crisis by acting as loan agents for the government, buying up risky mortgages that the government forced banks to make under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and thus creating an artificial market for what otherwise would be worthless pieces of crap. Before that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also acted as agents for the Clinton administration that also required them to buy up lots of risky loans, again as part of the CRA.  During that time they paid their CEOs millions (Clinton supporters Franklin Raines and Jamie Garolick were paid $96 million and $36 million respectively) in the process, and were found to have committed accounting fraud; $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone in an effort to increase the size of their Democrat managers’ bonuses.  These organizations are not much different than ACORN except that their ability to do irreparable damage to the fabric of the American economy is unquestioned.
 
Amazingly enough, banks will now be pressured to make even more risky, low-income loans, loans where welfare payments are actually counted as income. Obama is planning on creating the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, whose job will be enforcing the same CRA that required, by law, that banks provide loans to poor people and those with poor credit and was primarily responsible for today’s’ financial crisis. 
 
Are you getting this? This is completely insane. The next crisis will be even worse than the present crisis.
 
And all this happened while everyone was opening presents and drinking eggnog.
 
And that’s all there is to it.