The Politico reports Governor Palin will make an announcement from her home in Wasilla, which some are speculating means that she will announce she won't run for reelection as governor. Who knows. Maybe the hateful, bigoted, and just plain insane accusations (Sullivan still insists Trig is not her baby) made about her and her family may have just become too much. I hope that's not the case because it would mean that the haters can succeed in driving out those they fear from public office.

Update: Mark Halperin offers 10 reasons why Governor Palin won't run for reelection as governor.

Here are some predictions from friends on Twitter:

The Anchoress thinks Palin will announce she is ill and won't run for reelection. She makes this prediction based upon the fact she has become quite thin lately.

Jim Geraghty says his wife thinks Palin will announce she and Todd are expecting again.

Update II: CNN reports that according to GOP sources Palin won't run for reelection. \

Update III: Palin says she can better affect positive change for Alaska and the country from outside the governor's office. In the video of her speech announcing she would not run for reelection she referenced all she did to help Alaska's energy production, but she also said she and her staff spent too much time and public money to fight the frivolous ethics complaints. It cost the state $2 million and her family $500,000 to as she said "set the record straight."

My gut tells me she will not run for president in 2012.

Update IV: Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC says sources tell her Palin is out of politics for good:

Some have speculated in the past that Palin may be interested in running for president in 2012, but she did not mention running for another office at her press conference. Sources told NBC's Andrea Mitchell that Palin is out of politics for good.

Update V: The Anchoress is sticking by her prediction that there's something else going on that she wants to keep secret, like maybe she or one of her kids is ill and has no interest in giving the leftist haters something else to rip apart with their fangs.

Update VI: Jim Geraghty touches on what has me upset and that is how Palin's kids were treated by sickos like Andrew Sullivan, David Letterman and others on the left who said such evil, nasty things that I have begun to accept that they have no souls but are the human equivalent of Orcs:

The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician's children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

Permalink | Comments (40) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: News, Sarah Palin

I discuss in my AIP column today how in the 233 years since we told the king of England that we were going to make our own course the independent and self reliant streak of our Founding Fathers is no longer recognizable in so many Americans today. Here's a portion:

Since government interference into Americans' daily lives was kept to a minimum, independence and self reliance were principles that were valued not just because they were good character traits but because they were necessary for everyday life. These values, though, had been ingrained into the people who created and built our fledgling Republic, for they were the descendants of the brave men and women who sailed, cramped in wooden ships for months, from Britain to the New World to build the colonies. The new Americans had been handed down a hardiness and strong will to not just survive, but to thrive, which made them a bit different from their family members and friends who remained in the more established and comfortable world of Britain. They surmounted illnesses and bitterly cold winters without any of what we take for granted today. There were no government programs like welfare or food stamps or Medicare. There were no Wal-Marts or Costcos. Many people were farmers so they grew their own fruits and vegetables and raised cattle, dairy cows, and pigs to eat. They kept what they needed for themselves and then sold the rest to others in their communities. Many were skilled tradesman like carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, tailors, gunsmiths, and wheelwrights. Rugged individualism and an independent spirit ran strong through the early Americans. Government interference was minimal so independence and freedom flourished.

It is a bit unnerving that 233 years later Americans will celebrate Independence Day with many of its citizens dependent on the government for their income or some kind of significant assistance. Sadly, much of the rugged individualism and independent spirit that were the foundation of our Republic have been slowly dying. According to a study by Gary Shilling and reported in the Christian Science Monitor, in 2007, only two years ago, 52.6 percent of the American people were receiving significant income from government spending. It breaks down this way:

Mr. Shilling's analysis found that about 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.

With the passage of President Obama's stimulus bill that funds Democrats' dream projects, the mortgage relief plan that bails out homeowners who were irresponsible and bought too much house, the president's budget that expands welfare spending, grows government, and included over 9000 earmarks, the government takeovers of Chrysler and General Motors, Obama's proposed health care reform plan that will make millions dependent on government-run health care, and a potential cap and trade plan that will create a monstrous new government bureaucracy, this statistic will only continue to sky rocket. Unfortunately, when government grows, freedom, self-reliance, and independence shrink more and more as new regulations and laws are enacted to limit and control the behavior of the individual.

Sadly, the character traits that separated us from the rest of the world don't seem to be in existence in the majority of Americans anymore. It's a sad day when the President of the United States essentially tells us that we really aren't any more special than any other citizenry in the world, so we can let go of our history, our self-reliance, our independence - the great American experiment - and just conform to the rest of the world, which is heavily dependent upon their big brother governments.

Read all of my column and tell me what you think. Am I off base here? Brian Faughan also has a column today and he believes that conservatisim, which embraces the independence and self-reliance of our Fore Fathers, is on a comeback while progressivism is waning. TJ Brown writes about the Five Stages of Political Decline.

Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Big government

It's Friday, which means it's time for the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™. In honor of our newest U.S. Senator we dusted off this Wizbang exclusive photo from our archives... Enter your best caption for the following picture:

Winners will be announced Monday morning.

Permalink | Comments (61) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Weekend Caption Contest

I have become an avid admirer of our "Founding Fathers". The early history of our young country, the Revolution itself, and the people who gave their lives to its outcome, are a wellspring of unending inspiration to me.

It is within these parameters that I say, with no joy and an unfortunate sense of hopelessness, that there are no true patriots anymore. At least not in the classical American sense of the word.

Sure, there are heroes on a daily basis. Members of our military, especially. Men and women who do extraordinary things. We should be thankful for their sacrifice. But none, with particular emphasis in the realm of politics, which provoke a sense of awe and personal admiration for their levels of insight, or for their personal determination to use their given talents for the betterment of their fellow citizens and their country.

The time we are in sickens me. Our representatives possess no qualities redeemable or virtuous. Politicians of our time have deviated from the path of righteousness. A path which their early predecessors left as a legacy for them to follow. One passed down from those who held a personal sense of philosophical integrity, and a deep belief in civic duty. I speak of those which once gave their very lives in pursuit of liberty, who were consumed with notions of goodwill, tempered with boundless wisdom and enthusiasm for the formation of a government worthy of a free people, exempt from fear and oppression.

These visionaries are gone. They are memories from an important past long since vanished, found only within the writings of history books, biographies, or marble statues. They are emulated by no one. The stark realities reveal today's politicians to be nothing more than deceitful, deviant creatures. Men and women in pursuit of corruptible power. In this quest of selfish purpose, they leave in their wake a path of hopeless ruination, using fear to promote a subversive agenda, spitting on the very cause for which greater men gave their all.

Yes, there are some very intelligent, insightful people in positions of political power. Most end up as uninspired policy wonks: Continually attempting to figure out how to beat the other at that which has become nothing more than a game of dull political wit and petty brinkmanship.

This is not to say that the men and women of our country's founding had reputations beyond reproach. To the contrary, they were every bit as flawed with emotions and human frailty as are we, as is the nature of human existence. However, even their flaws, more often than not, would manifest themselves into actions which contributed to the good of their intentions, whether or not by design.

Gone are the likes of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. Men who possessed uncanny education, vision and miraculous foresight. Whose belief in freedom from tyranny and oppression led them to set in motion a revolution of ideals unmatched in the history of the world. Men who, refusing to be burdened with the heavy yoke of oppression, fervently set themselves upon a path of choosing their own grand system of government, one to be led by the governed themselves. One which was to become the envy of the world. One for themselves, their children, and generations of countrymen and women they would never know. One for us.

The confluence of events which led to the involvement of these specific individuals at that precise moment in time, with each member possessing their own unique talents and genius, contributing to the whole, is an act which I am more convinced each day was set in motion from a divine providence. Men, many times with the unheralded strength of their wives at their backs, who, against unimaginable odds and a fragile populace, changed the world with the sheer will of their hearts and minds. Men, whose courage and conviction, made possible their political and philosophical creations, which have withstood the test of time and the attacks of much lesser men.

Though we are still blessed to be born in the greatest country ever to have graced the earth, it is sadly much diminished, diminished by fear and lies: Its possibility, promise, and distinction held back by people who are unworthy of its creators. People who think their ambitions are dearer than the whole, who value style over substance, who offer up "bread and circus" other than bold and caring creations from their god-given souls.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."

- John Adams

Let us pray his words ring prophetic, still.

Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Democracy, History, Patriotism

On Wednesday of this week, President Obama held a "town hall" meeting before an audience of about 200 people at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale. The focus of the meeting was health care reform, and the photo-op moment came when the President hugged 53 year old Debby Smith, after she tearfully described how difficult it has been for her to get treatment for a recently-discovered tumor.

All in all, it was yet another Obama White House stage production, complete with pre-screened questions and an audience hand-picked from groups generally considered to be supportive of the President's political agenda.

From The Washington Post.

The president called randomly on three audience members. All turned out to be members of groups with close ties to his administration: the Service Employees International Union, Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America, which is a part of the Democratic National Committee. White House officials said that was a coincidence.

Uh-huh. Funny how often those "coincidences" seem to happen at Democrat-orchestrated events, isn't it?

___________________________________

And speaking of The Washington Post, The Politico learned yesterday that the Post had planned an exclusive "salon" meeting at the home of the newspaper's publisher, Katharine Weymouth, for lobbyists and association executives interested in meeting face-to-face with "those powerful few" who oil the wheels of the DC bureaucracy, including Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the Post's own "health care reporting and editorial staff." The price? A mere $25,000 to $250,000 "sponsorship" of the event.

Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom "but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity. Sponsorship of events, like advertising in the newspaper, must be at arm's length and cannot imply control over the content or access to our journalists. At this juncture, we will not be holding the planned July dinner and we will not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom. "

She made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source. "We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington," she said. " And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity."

After serving as today's laughingstock for bloggers, Twitterers, and other newspapers, the Post finally announced that the upcoming salon dinner would be canceled.

Oh well ... at least JournoList is still free, and still running.

Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Media
Tags: health care reform, town hall meeting, Washington Post

Last week, during Senate hearings on the proposed Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions offered the following hypothetical scenario to Attorney General Eric Holder: "[A] minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality, is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality." Sessions then wanted to know if the minister would be protected under the new proposed hate crimes legislation, because he was attacked specifically because of his religious views. AG Holder responded:

Well, the statute would not -- would not necessarily cover that. We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute.

Later in the hearing, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn asked AG Holder about last month's attack on a US Army recruiting office in Little Rock by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a radical Muslim, that left Pvt. William Long dead and Private Quinton Ezeagwula seriously wounded. The recruiting office and soldiers were targeted simply because they represented the US military. Again, Holder responded:

There's a certain element of hate, I suppose. What we're looking for here in terms of the expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis to see groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don't know if we have the same historical record to say that members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African-American, Hispanic, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over -- over the many years.

Thank you, AG Holder, for clearing up the real purpose behind "hate crime" laws -- they are designed only to protect "historic" minorities, i.e. non-whites, homosexuals, and non-Christians. If you are white, or associated with a belief system akin to Christianity, and you are singled out as the target of a criminal act solely because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, you have no additional recourse against the perpetrators of the crime under the proposed law.

For example, Mormons living in California who have been the targets of various criminal acts committed by gay extremists including vandalism, extortion, and verbal and physical attacks would not be victims of "hate crimes" per se, even though they were targeted by gay extremists solely because of their affiliation with the Mormon church.

In an excellent opinion piece discussing the recent tiff between "Perez Hilton" (Mario Lavandeira) and Will.I.Am, the black frontman of the Black Eyed Peas, Andrew Breitbart made the following observation:

The calculus of political correctness is like roshambo, the "rock-paper-scissors" game. Different identity groups hold specific levels of power over others when their battles play out in the media. To wit: Black beats white. Gay beats white. Black beats gay.

Don't ask why. It just is.

Of course conservatives have understood this for some time now, and we have delighted in insulting the legions of perpetually morally superior liberals bydaring to ask why on a regular basis. Seriously though, this is the fundamental reason why conservatives have always opposed hate crimes laws -- we believe that it would be a travesty for our legal system to prostrate itself before a fleeting and shallow fad like political correctness. And we are always thankful when liberals finally admit the shallowness behind their line of reasoning.

(For the record, a 2004 ABC News investigation found little evidence of an anti-gay "hate crime" in the death of Matthew Shepard. Instead, they found that the likely cause of Shepard's death was the drug-induced rage of the primary perpetrator, Aaron McKinney, who went on to assault and rob yet another victim on the same night, after Shepard had been already beaten and left to die.)

h/t Rush Limbaugh

Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Law
Tags: Eric Holder, Jeff Sessions, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, Tom Coburn

Members of Congress just love to use the American taxpayers as their own personal ATM. They can go to the bank and money they never earned is magically there. Overseas trips by congressman and senators have gone way up the past few years, especially since the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006. The Wall Street Journal explains:

Spending by lawmakers on taxpayer-financed trips abroad has risen sharply in recent years, a Wall Street Journal analysis of travel records shows, involving everything from war-zone visits to trips to exotic spots such as the Galápagos Islands.

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as "codels," has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data.

Politicians are arguing that it's a good use of the money because they get to learn about the world. What a scam. They could learn about the world just as well and save us a lot of money by doing a Google search. That's what the rest of us do when we want to learn about an exotic land far away.

I'm sure there are many parents who would love to send their high schoolers and college age kids overseas to learn about the world, too, but unlike the congressmen and senators, they would have to pay for it themselves and most parents don't have that kind of cash lying around, especially in an economy like we have now.

And these same politicians couldn't get their mugs on television fast enough to express their "outrage" that business executives used private jets for travel.

Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Congress

It appears that the question of whether the federal government is going to bail out the state of California has been rendered moot. Two large banks have announced that they will accept the IOU's issued from the State of California to its customers beginning today. Wells Fargo announced this afternoon that the bank would be accepting the monopoly money for a period of one week.

Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) said today it will accept registered warrants issued by the State of California from its retail and business customers for a limited time. It will begin accepting the registered warrants for deposit on July 2, 2009 and stop accepting them no later than July 10, 2009.

Chase also made a similar announcement:

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Chase, the banking unit of J.P. Morgan Chase , said Thursday it will accept registered warrants issued by the state of California through July 10. "We will accept the registered warrants from our customers to help them through this challenging time," said Pablo Sanchez, head of Chase's branches in the Western region.

Now that the camel has its nose under the tent who thinks this scheme will be just temporary? The fact that the banks mentioned are TARP banks, beholden to Washington for their very existence, suggests that the U S taxpayer bailout of California has begun.

Update: According to Seeking Alpha, it's looking a lot more like currency:

Watch out Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve now has competition in the currency game. California is planning to create its own money in the form of IOUs, just like the Fed. What is the California IOU - currency or an interest bearing note?

Officially the IUOs will be called "registered warrants". State Controller John Chiang planned to issue $3.4 billion, maturing on Oct. 1 to replace state payments. The interest rate is set to be determined on Thursday, but cannot exceed the statutory limit of 5%.

California's ingenuity poses an interesting dilemma for the Fed. The IOUs would be structured as short-term tax-free bills, but trade like cash. Banks are being asked to accept the IOUs and advance customers interest. Should the Fed sanction alternate forms of money?

This is all very surreal.

Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics
Tags: California Bailout, California IOU's, TARP

I speculated recently that the worm may be turning as it relates to the Obama administration's political capital. The near Teflon like protection that a fawning press afforded him is being overwhelmed by events that have no regard for lofty rhetoric, such as job losses:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. economy shed jobs at a faster pace in June than in May, suggesting that the turnaround in the economy may take longer than expected.

Nonfarm payrolls shrank by 467,000 in June, higher than the 325,000 decline expected by economists surveyed by MarketWatch and the 322,000 jobs lost in May.

The unemployment rate ticked higher to 9.5% in June from 9.4% in the previous month. Economists had expected the unemployment rate to rise to 9.6%.

There was only a very slight 8,000-downward revision to payroll losses in April and May.
Since the recession began in December 2007, payroll employment has dropped by 6.5 million.

Construction, manufacturing and professional and business services reported heavy job losses in June. Construction payrolls fell by 79,000, factory payrolls fell by 136,000, and professional and business employment fell by 118,000.

Democrats are already talking about a second stimulus package. That's just brilliant. How did that first stimulus package work out for you? And don't forget that under the Bush administration in 2008 a stimulus package was approved. That one didn't work very well either.

Those unemployment numbers released today contain some chilling results. For example, note the business and professional job losses. While Democrats love to play class warfare and belittle the misfortune of the rich, they refuse to acknowledge that those professionals are the highest wage earners. Except that they aren't earning wages now, hence no tax receipts. Get your erasers out and prepare to recalculate the Obama deficit.

Update: Check out this chart

Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Economics
Tags: Deficits, Stimulus, Unemployment

Another day, another Obama infomercial.

President Barack Obama held a townhall style meeting today, one in which the audience was "hand-picked" by White House staffers.

It was conveniently "moderated" by White House domestic policy chief Valerie Jarrett.

Questioners included members from, gag, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and the group Health Care For America Now.

The other questions from the audience were also hand-picked by Obama's casting crew, er, I mean, staff.

At one point, Obama just happened to pick a woman, named Debbie Smith, who, by pure coincidence, is a volunteer for Obama's "Organizing For America" group. She received tickets through the White House staff. Debbie proceeded to give a tear-jerker of a speech concerning her kidney cancer and how she cannot get health insurance, nor a job.

Obama, in an "I feel your pain" moment, hugged her, and told her she would receive help immediately. (Hallelujah! Can I git an "Amen"?!)

Just another example of honesty taking a back seat to Obama's agenda.

Permalink | Comments (61) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama, Health Care, Scams

The president's apologists at The New York Times are putting the best possible spin on the administration's economic forecasting failures. That the Times is even writing about this subject indicates how vulnerable the Obama administration (and its state run media enablers) must be feeling about the worsening recession:

In the weeks just before President Obama took office, his economic advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.

To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate -- then 7.2 percent -- rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year.

The only thing the Obama administration got carried away with last January and February during the stimulus "debate" was dissembling. The one trillion dollar plus stimulus bill was rammed through with all manner of half truths, camouflaged pork and flawed forecasting. The promise of keeping unemployment below 9% this year was just another song to placate the few among the Hope and Change chorus that might actually ask a serious question about fiscal policy. Now that we are six months into this disaster of Obama/Pelosi/Reid fiscal policy it merits asking when this administration will be held accountable to some real results.

Given the precise targeting of employment and GDP growth metrics used by President Obama in February to sell the stimulus legislation, voters should demand precise answers to the following questions:

1. Where will unemployment peak?
2. When will unemployment peak?
3. If GDP growth does not hit the Obama forecast of 3.2% next year what will be the amount of the budget deficit based on growth levels ranging from 0% - 2%?
4. What will be the budget deficit next year if GDP growth is negative?

As with any monumental piece of spending legislation, congressional Democrats are hoping voters forget the promises made while the bill was being sold to them. Maybe the loss of another 400,000 jobs just in the month of June will serve as reminder to voters that Washington is completely out of touch with a recession that is gutting the private sector. The prospect of tax increases for individuals and businesses to pay for the poorly targeted, half baked stimulus legislation will further diminish the prospects for employment recovery. One theme that should predominate in Tea Party gatherings this 4th of July weekend is that the historic Obama deficits are job killers.

Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Politics
Tags: Budget Deficits, Obama Stimulus Forecast, Unemployment

I have mentioned before the contrast between the restructuring and hard choices being made by the private sector and the response of state and federal governments to the economic downturn. When the term "private sector" is used it's important to understand that the descriptive includes individuals, families, small employers and larger corporations (Fortune 1000 companies, with the obvious exception of the TARP recipients) that employ thousands.

The private sector has, during the last eighteen months, severely reduced spending, increased savings and paid off debt. This is the natural reaction to a view of an uncertain future. American spending habits are as well known as they are immense. Given an optimistic outlook Americans will not only spend substantial amounts of their current income, they will spend equally large proportions of future income (by borrowing). However, in the presence of real uncertainty, they are quick to change their habits and behave in a manner that is characterized by increased saving, reduced spending and rapid debt reduction (all of which are happening now).

Contrast this behavior with the actions of state and federal governments of late. The U S budget has exploded in size, government debt has skyrocketed and government savings....well, you get the idea. It is the epitome of irrationality to believe that the private sector will somehow find itself in better shape while its government conducts its fiscal and monetary affairs in such a radically different manner. Today brings news that the state of California, having run out of cash and unable to reach a legislative solution, is printing IOU's to pay bills. These IOU's are a form of currency (does printing currency sound familiar?) and it will be interesting to see how the marketplace assesses the value of these pieces of paper. As Joe Weisenthal notes:

Please, please, please let there be an after-market in these IOUs. We'd love to see how they're valued and how businesses will conduct exchange using them.

It appears that California is becoming more like the federal government and less like the private sector in attempting to resolve its budget woes. Ironically, that might be a good thing if the ultimate outcome is that voters see that the IOU's are worth nothing without a real plan for fiscal sanity in future budgets. This may be a Prop 13 moment in California as the Golden State demonstrates for the rest of the nation that fiat currencies have no value and that the federal government is no different. (There are more than a few people that have recognized that the federal government is not unable but, rather, adamantly unwilling to reform itself and therefore "the Beast must be starved"). Maybe we are again at a moment when Clifornia is the future.

Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Economics

Whenever you read that some large company is embracing a policy that seems counter to their interest, look closely at their motivation. Consider today's news that the nation's largest private employer is backing a health insurance mandate. Why would they favor something that would seem to increase their costs?

Wal-Mart backs employer health insurance mandate

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wal-Mart has embraced President Barack Obama's call for requiring all large employers to offer health insurance to their workers, adding momentum to the president's push for far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system.

Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, announced its position in a letter to congressional and administration officials Tuesday. It was joined by a major labor union that sometimes has criticized Wal-Mart as stingy with employee benefits.

"We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage," the letter said.

Why would they want a mandate? Read on to find out:

Wal-Mart recently said that 94 percent of its employees now have insurance, either through the company or a family member.

The law would not affect them, so endorsing it is a cost free decision. But all those other retailers who don't offer health insurance will find their costs going up. Grocery store chains like SuperValu, Kroger, and Safeway, department stores like Target, big box stores like Home Depot and Lowes, electronic retailers like Best Buy will all find themselves with higher costs if the health insurance mandate becomes written into law. Wal-Mart is just begging the government to impose a mandate on them that will cost them nothing, but saddle their competitors with a huge new expense. I can't wait until Obama says it's for the children.

Think about that the next time you hear of General Electric backing new regulations like the Cap and Trade mess working through congress:

That's part of the reason why I think you saw a lot of businesses supporting this bill -- everybody from Starbucks to GE, because what business is looking for is clarity and certainty, and what this bill signals is that we're not going to keep on being a prisoner of the past, we're going to reach for the future. The country that is able to lead on clean energy is the country that ultimately is going to be able to compete effectively in the 21st century.

Reach for the future with a GE™ carbon scrubber. But hold on to your wallet.

Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Health Care

Al Franken, better know as a famously un-funny man, has just been affirmed the winner in the Minnesota senate race..

I have no words...

Permalink | Comments (43) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Breaking News

You won't hear anything about this one on the mainstream media. Mike Adams explains at Town Hall:

Frank Lombard is the associate director of Duke's Center for Health Policy. The university administrator was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children. So far, he's declined to comment.

University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a "perv dad for fun." The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son.

Lombard is also gay and his adopted 5 year old son is black, so it isn't difficult to surmise why the politically correct mainstream media won't touch this story with a ten foot pole even though that same mainstream media jumped on the bandwagon that the white Duke lacrosse players were guilty of raping a black stripper even though there was no evidence what so ever.

More at the American Thinker and Michelle Malkin.

Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Media, News

(Kim wrote a great piece on the Honduran political conflict, saying many of the same things I've written here. Though hers is a bit more eloquent, I figured, with her approval, I'd throw my own thoughts up here since I had already written this article before seeing hers. So, for what it's worth, here it is.)

With the hyperventilating coverage of Michael Jackson's death dominating the news, a development of serious implications has gone underreported.

The Honduran political apparatus has undergone a major upheaval in recent days.

The democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted by an apparent military coup in the early morning hours of Sunday.

On the surface, this sounds ominously illegal: The military of a battered, poor country kicks out a legally elected president, to administer control via its own version of justice.

There is a bit more to it than that.

It is true that Zelaya was elected in a fair, democratic election. He has, however, been accused by many of using heavy-handed tactics during his tenure.

His approval rating, which now hovers around 30%, is evidence of his decreasing popularity. This has prompted him to take some very illegal actions concerning his current and future rule.

Specifically, Zelaya has called for a referendum to bypass his single, four year term limit, allowing him to serve indefinitely.

Under the Honduran constitution, the term limit law happens to be one of only eight which specifically can not be amended.

In addition, only the Honduran congress can call for a referendum. This is also in accordance with the constitution, and has been verified by the Honduran supreme court.

The military, acting on specific legal authority from the supreme court, took Zelaya into custody for violating the Honduran constitution. He has been replaced by Roberto Micheletti, president of the Honduran congress.

This "coup" has, for the most part, been universally condemned by the international community, including President Obama.

The most vocal condemnations have come from some of the worst violators of human rights in the region.

Hugo Chavez, the Castro Brothers, Daniel Ortega, and Rafael Correa have all vociferously condemned this action, feeling a sense of brutish brotherhood, and possibly fearing similar outcomes in the future.

President Obama's response included the standard "deeply concerned" sound bite. Calling it an "illegal coup" (is there such a thing as a legal coup?), he has called for the prompt reinstatement of Zelaya, saying he is still the recognized democratically elected leader of Honduras.

Something is wrong when you are allied with scum like Hugo Chavez.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, Hitler was democratically elected, as well.

Zelaya's ultimate ambition is to construct an iron-fisted, leftest administration, modeled after the likes of Chavez and Castro.

It is ironic how Obama refused to comment on the Iranian situation for fear of appearing to "meddle" in their internal affairs. Yet, he has no reservations of declaring foul in the tribulations of Honduras.

He seems to have a desire to cozy up with undesirable regimes so as not to exacerbate problems regarding future diplomatic relationships.

His unwillingness to speak out against corrupt ideologues and repressive governments shows either a frightened approach to engage these types of people, or it shows he has a deep affinity for them.

Either way, it bodes ill for the Honduran people.

Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Justice, News, World

If you didn't get the chance to see the ABC News/Barack Obama health care show at the White House, you will want to watch the Cato Institute's video. It summarizes Obama's points and offers counterpoints that you will find very interesting (via The Corner):

Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama, Health Care

Earlier this month Iranians took to the streets to protest what they saw as being fraudulent elections perpetrated by the repressive Iranian regime. In response, the regime worked to squash the protests by beating and killing Iranians in the street. America's president Barack Obama would not stand up and support real democracy in Iran. It took him days to say anything, and when Obama finally said something, it was so milquetoast it was embarrassing. It took him two or three more times to actually show any kind of backbone toward the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad, and even then it was obviously a reluctant gesture as he still didn't put his full support behind the protesters and their fight for freedom and democracy.

Now there's a upheaval in Honduras as its former president, Manuel Zelaya, tried to unilaterally - and illegally - change his country's constitution so he could increase his power. In other words, he wanted to tyrannically force himself onto the Honduran people. As a result, the Honduran Supreme Court stepped in to protect its country's constitution and ordered that Zelaya be removed from office. The military complied with that court order and now Zelaya is in exile in Costa Rica.

This time Barack Obama was quick to jump in and cry foul at Zelaya's removal by calling the Supreme Court's actions "not legal." He also has put his full support behind the ousted dictator by declaring that he is the only truly democratically elected leader of Honduras. Obama has joined with, of all people, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro in condemning Zelaya's removal.

So, this is the pattern that is forming with Obama: he refuses to support democracy in Iran by denouncing the fraudulent elections and supporting the protesters. At the same time he supports Zelaya's Chavez-inspired attempts to illegally change Honduras' constitution so it helps him maintain power, and denounces the Honduran Supreme Court's attempts to protect its constitution.

Based upon these two examples alone I have to ask: does President Obama like and respect democracy or is he deep down a latent and wannabe dictator himself?

Permalink | Comments (78) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama, World

Well, this is a bit awkward. The AP is reporting that the Supreme Court just overturned the Ricci case with a 5-4 ruling with Kennedy writing the decision. This was a very high profile ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who rejected the white firefighters' complaint that they were discriminated against when an entire test was thrown out because not enough black firefighters scored highly enough. Judge Sotomayor is visiting with all the members of the senate who will vote to confirm her or not. I'm sure a number of Senators who have been on the fence will have a few questions for her about this case.

You can read Kennedy's opinion here.

Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Supreme Court

Yesterday the Washington Post was trying to make the point that President Obama is offering no solutions to the debt tsunami that has suddenly consumed the newspaper's attention:

"To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO's most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 -- roughly double what it was in 2008."

Um, to put it bluntly, this is not news. As Jennifer Rubin notes, no one should be surprised by this:

"John McCain regularly accused then-candidate Barack Obama of being a tax-and-spend liberal, seeking to "spread the wealth" as Obama disclosed in a much regretted off-hand comment.

Obama ran as a fiscal moderate -- swearing affection for markets and promising only to tax the "rich." The reality, just as McCain predicted, is quite different. The question remains whether the voters will notice and object to having been so blatantly deceived."

There is no doubt that some voters have already noticed the deceit and evidence has been out there for weeks that President Obama is walking back his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class. The mirage of green shoots of economic recovery is apparently sedating the Washington/New York pundit class into a stupor just as deep as the one they fell into last year during the election. The dumbfounding aspect of the national discussion on Obama/Pelosi/Reid economic policy is that no one is demanding to know what their endgame is. A recipe of higher taxes, historic spending and massive federal borrowing will deliver economic collapse and currency collapse.

Where is the policy that provides incentives for private sector growth? Cap and Trade? Nope. Health care reform? Nope. Massive middle and upper middle class tax increases? Nope. Bank bailouts? Nope. Stimulus spending? Nope. There is not a single Obama policy being considered or recently enacted that promotes the private sector growth necessary to create tax revenues sufficient to pay for the above. The same can be said for the lack of incentives to create jobs.

While President Obama and Congress remain knee deep in the hoopla of their grand schemes no one is asking them about their endgame.

Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Economics
Tags: Deficit, Obama Cap and trade, Tax Reform