Another Obama Speech, more Shenanigans

I have not been writing my comments on current events lately, partly because I am too busy, but also because there has not been much new. Current political events are merely elaborations on the themes of one or two years ago. For instance, see my post of August 11, 2009, Mixed-Up Economy: We Are All Blood Suckers Now. The war of ideas between the Keynesian outlook and the Free market/Small Government school rages even more today.

Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.

On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.

What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.

Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.

Is Obama Going to Play Nice?

According to the popular press, the country has now come together to transform the nation, including the Republicans. The evidence, they say is that the Republicans and Democrats will sit together at the president's State of the Union address. Presumably, the Republicans will also stand to applaud with the Democrats. Although there was never any strict practice, the two parties usually sit on opposite sides of the isle and the opposition party usually keeps it's seat during the frequent standing ovations. In point of fact, this is merely another public relations ploy of the Democrats and the Party sponsored press. It will be informative to see which Republicans keep their seats after some of the more provocative statements that are sure to come from Barack Obama. In other words, we will see which Republicans are not sell-outs and which ones are.

Much of the recent discussion regarding a more 'civil discourse,' is pre-election positioning by the Democrats. As usual, they claim to be moderate as an election approaches. Unfortunately, the left, the Democrats, and certainly BHO never change their plans and policies. When they are ideologically radically liberal and far left, they rarely if ever change, especially while in power. What we are hearing is a public relations, propaganda campaign for two purposes. First, to get more moderate, independent votes. Second, to intimidate the Republicans so that they will become more moderate or even moderately leftist. Republicans, especially those who claim conservatism, have to learn to ignore the press. We have our own press now and need not depend upon the discredited 'lame-stream' press. (See the New York Times' recent attack of Glen Beck. Their article is not only uncivil, it is based upon entirely untrue premises. Glen Beck has consistently and conscientiously discredited the left only by playing their own words. His long clips of the likes of Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Frances Fox Piven*, George Soros, and Barack Obama himself are not played out of context. His presentations are carefully analysed and fairly presented, unlike the 'news' stories on MSNBC and The New York Times. The Democrats, even Colin Powell, have the audacity to accuse talk radio and Fox News of doing precisely what they themselves do constantly as a conscious policy -- chickenshit.

*Piven, who wrote, "The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income." See Wikipedia, Coward and Piven, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

(Note: In case you don't know, Frances Fox Piven and George Soros are two of Glen Beck's favorite radical progressive leftists, after Commissar Cass Sunstien and Communist Van Jones.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591374,00.html

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/

Gorilla Pelosi looking for Revenue

In order to collect taxes for bankrupt California, Senator Pelosi was seen fleecing corporate officers. She wore a Halloween gorilla costume for these effort. It is unclear if she was posing as a PETA community organizer or if her true personality was coming out. In any case, she attacked corporate officials to hide the fact that the taxes would actually be paid by people in their roles as workers and consumers.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKCJHReZPIs&feature=watch_response

Taxen People


Also see remarks of Dr. Milton Friedman for commentary on the end of Golden Ages, applicable to California

Washington State Demos Support BHO Agenda (Openly)

The local television campaign ads may not be examples of all that is wrong with American politics, but they are not far from it. Democrat Senator Patty Murry says that Dino Rossi is a pawn of big corporations, especially Wall Street. To prove it, she plays a short clip in which Dino says he would vote to repeal the Wall Street Reform Bill. He should have said he would repeal the Wall Street so-called reform bill. Obviously no one is against reform but he opposes the bill for what is in it, not for its title. The bill is over 2,000 pages of who knows what. Like the other bills passed by the sitting Democrats with the help of a few Rinos, it enacts into law more of the socialistic, state control agenda of the far left.

This blog and many others along with talk radio have explained some of the aims of recent Wall Street take-over attempts by government. The Party's primary purpose is to funnel power and money to the constituent groups of Barack Obama and his leftist associates, and Wall Street is where the power and money is. Mr. Rossi should obviously want it repealed. Unfortunately, his message is, "Our problems did not start yesterday, but I will start fixing them tomorrow." A Tea Party candidate would go to the the heart of the current debate and point out that Democrat Party socialistic policies are what caused our problems. In other states, the Democrat candidates are facing that kind of opposition and respond by disavowing their support of Obama / Pelosi / Ried. Unfortunately, almost all these 'blue dog' Democrats vote with their party when they are back in Washington, DC. In Washington State, the Demo's don't have to distance themselves from their Masters in the other Washington.

Update to Hate List

Nancy Pelosi has taken the lead in targeting the health insurance industry as the next bad guys. (That is a bit of an understatement, she actually seems to be saying that they are the REAL bad guys, super yucky, horrible, despicable guys, the cause of most of our problems and certainly the cause of our health care problems.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32237227/ns/politics-cq_politics/ Speaker Pelosi is doing this of course to help pass a government health care bill. From listening to some liberal friends, I thought that they would be pushing the "children in danger" talking point. That is, they would be saying things like, "in spite of whatever shortcomings the bill might have, the lack of health care for children has reached the crisis level and children are dying every day. We just need to pass a bill now, no matter what. Even if we have to sacrifice some ourselves, the children should not be made to suffer like this." They have not taken that tack; maybe because the proposed legislation would preempt state programs for child health that probably provide better care that any federal law would. (See "Will Health-Care Reform Hurt Washington Kids," Lynne Varner, Seattle Times Editorial, July 28, 2009; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009554360_lynne29.html )

Instead the democrat leadership is opting for the tried and true hate speech method. In my opinion, this is only a step away from the Jew hating propaganda that was so successful in the Third Reich. (That is, it was successful in keeping the Nazi party in power although it contributed to their downfall because the dumkoff Nazi's believed their own propaganda.) It has often been pointed out, that successfully demagogues have to target a few groups to hate and to blame their shortcomings on. It worked so well in the presidential campaign that without the "hate the mega-rich CEO's" vote, BHO may not have won. (The ever present Hate-Bush voters would never have voted for a Republican anyway, but then the Bush hatred syndrome may have been just strong enough to get them to vote, which they usually wouldn't bother to do.)

The health insurance companies join not only CEO's on the hate list but also the auto companies, oil companies, the "rich" and banks to name just a few. Whatever the truth about the insurance companies is, as Rush L. points out, the Democrats want it both ways. They say the health insurers are unfairly limiting coverage to policy holders and they say that they are not keeping costs down. Government will do a much better job providing more care and doing it for less, they say. (I suppose because they are not motivated by profit -- which is actually close to the reason why Government always dose a worse job.) So anyway, we need to hate the evil profiteers and ask our representative to vote in a government option. With the diminution with time of the Hate Bush vehemence, and with opposition in store for BHO, who will we be told to hate next? Maybe talk radio, then who knows, maybe you.