Obama and the G8 Save the World

Well now, Obama and the rest of the G8 leaders have signed a non-binding resolution to keep the earth from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F). Good thing it’s non-binding because I have a feeling they have no idea how to cool down the earth if it started warming again. To help them out, I have a few modest suggestions if temperatures start to creep up:

Give the earth a giant aspirin. It always worked with my kids when they had a fever. Of course it wasn’t a giant aspirin, it was a St. Joseph’s, but the concept’s the same.

Build huge air conditioners next to wind farms. This way you can cool the planet and avoid having to build all those expensive and ugly transmission lines.

Take a page out of Obama’s book and appoint a Sun Czar to regulate Old Sol’s output. The sun, when all is said and done, is the real culprit behind global warming (and global cooling). It’s been running in warming and cooling cycles since the beginning of time without humankind’s pitiful contribution of carbon dioxide. And these Czars actually get things done, don’t they?

All of these would work equally as well as the world leaders' silly Cap and Tax ploy to take more of our money and gain more control over each of us.

But I have another suggestion that actually will work. Since they failed to set a base line for global warming at the recently held conference, I have one for them -- 1998. That was the year that the planet actually stopped its most recent warming trend and, in the last few years, started cooling -- a trend that is likely to continue. By selecting 1998 as the base line, Obama and the other G8ers won’t have to worry about temperatures increasing and they can focus on doing what they do best -- nothing.

Honduras, Democracy, and Obama

Now, let me get this straight. Honduran president and self-proclaimed socialist Manuel Zelaya tries to force an unconstitutional ballot vote that would extend his term beyond that allowed by law. Since the Honduran constitution forbids a president from running for consecutive terms and he wants to stay president, he talks to his buddies Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez and they cook up a plan. Zelaya issues an executive decree calling for a national referendum to rewrite the constitution before the next election.

What does the Honduran constitution say about this?

That any amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the congress, not by popular ballot. The congress, the supreme court, and the electoral tribunal overwhelmingly declared the referendum unconstitutional.

What does Zelaya do?

He ignores them all and has ballots for the referendum printed by his buddy
Chavez and announces the vote will take place.

The Honduran attorney general, following the law, takes the case to court. The supreme court rules the referendum illegal and orders the ballots to be confiscated.

What does Zelaya do then?

He directs the army to distribute the ballots. General Romeo Vasquez, the head of the Honduran military, gets legal advice and decides not to distribute the ballots.

What does Zelaya do then?

He fires Vasquez. The supreme court unanimously declares the firing illegal and reinstated him.

What does Zelaya do then?

He leads a violent mob that storms the military base where the illegal ballots are stored and seizes them. He then directs government officials to set up 15,000 polling stations. The congress, controlled by Zelaya’s own party, opens an investigation into Zelaya’s mental stability and fitness to govern. He responds they had no authority over him, which, of course, they do.

Just hours before the illegal election is to be held, the Honduran supreme court issues a warrant to the military to arrest Zelaya. They do and send him into exile in Costa Rica for violating the country’s constitution. Then, in accordance with the constitution, congress names the president of the congress as interim president to serve until elections could be held.

And who does President Obama support in these actions?

Manuel Zelaya.

Kinda makes you stop and think a little, doesn’t it?

The Obama Shuffle

On Sunday July 5th Vice President Joe Biden said that the Obama administration had “misread” the economy and that the recession is much deeper than they had calculated.

I maintain what the administration misread was the “solution”. Simply put, you can’t solve a problem by throwing money at it. In the case of the car companies, their original problem was that they were too far in debt. The administration’s solution was to dig them an even deeper hole. My Dad was fond of saying “you can’t borrow your way out of debt.” But that’s just what this administration is doing. Plus, the country is going much deeper in debt because we have to borrow money before can loan it to the stricken companies. And where do we borrow it from? China! Now, does that really sound like a good idea to you?

So, you ask, what should the Obama administration have done to save these companies?

NOTHING!!!

First, recessions are a natural part of the business cycle and, if left alone, they fade away on their own. You would never know that if you listen only to politicians who never let a good crisis pass without profiting from it politically.

But what about the companies that are too big to fail?

There’s no such thing.

The bankruptcy laws are designed to give a business a chance to get back on its feet (Chapter 11). If that doesn’t work, the business fails. Its assets are sold to other companies in the same business and the money divvied up to stockholders and debt holders by a bankruptcy judge and the world goes on.

So, why did the Obama administration burden GM and Chrysler with this incredible debt and then force GM into bankruptcy anyway?

The news came out today that a federal bankruptcy judge has approved the sale of GM’s assets to a “new company”. And who owns the new company? Well, the federal government will own 60 percent.

Wait, wait, didn’t Obama say that he didn’t want the government to be in the automotive business?

Aha! I have been saying from the start that you must judge this man by what he does, not by what he says.

From the start I was worried about his left wing politics and since then every move he makes has been one you would expect from a Socialist leading to government control of the means of production. First, the banks, then the automakers, next health care, etc., etc.

And all of this with no means to pay for it.

Pretty soon China will stop lending us money. What does the Obama administration do then?

Is the Change you Hoped for?

Some Inconvenient Truths on Health Care

Well, let’s see. We’re going to get nationalized health care because our current health care system 1) makes health care too expensive for the poor 2) leaves 45 million people without health care 3) just doesn’t work as well as the nationalized systems in Canada and Europe.

Lets address these in order:

1) It is a myth that the poor can’t afford health care. First, it is illegal for emergency rooms to deny care to people who cannot pay. I know, who wants to think of an emergency room as your primary care physician, but it is there and it is available. More important, the poor have other choices. It’s amazing to me that most people don’t know about all the clinics that are available to, not just the poor, but for those who are struggling financially.

Right here in the Valley we have Hudson River HealthCare. Give them a Google. You’ll be amazed at what they offer for how little. Here’s a short paragraph from their home page:

“Hudson River HealthCare provides the highest quality comprehensive primary, preventive, and behavioral health services to all who seek it, regardless of insurance status and ability to pay.”

And this outfit is not unique. Clinics like this exist all over the country.

2) Actually, that’s 45 million without health insurance and it’s not nearly as bad as it sounds. We already have programs in place for the needy. Approximately 14 million are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP and are signed up when they go to emergency rooms, and 70 percent of uninsured children are eligible for SCHIP. Another 10 million or so are illegal aliens and not eligible for insurance. Of the remainder about 18 million are under the age of 34 and most could afford insurance but choose to do something else with their money.

So, between clinics, emergency rooms, and current government programs there is ample health care available for those who need it.

3) This is the greatest myth of them all. First, almost all of the medical breakthroughs come from this country because nationalized health care promotes the status quo and discourages research because it is run by bureaucrats not physicians.

Stanford University’s Hoover Center for Policy Analysis reports the following:

Americans have better survival rates for common cancers than do Europeans.

Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in all other developed countries.

Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.

Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.

Americans spend less time waiting for care than do Canadians and Britains.

70 percent of people in countries with nationalized health care are dissatisfied with their programs. 52 percent of Americans are satisfied.

Americans have better access to new technologies.

So why the rush to nationalize health care? For the same reason the rush to bailout financial institutions and car manufacturers.

Wake up folks, IT’S A POWER GRAB!!!

Safe From Socialism

Nationalization of automakers, nationalization of major financial institutions, nationalization of health care, 21 czars who operate outside the checks and balances of the Constitution, firing or intimidating those who get in your way, saying one thing and doing the opposite, the means justifying the ends -- sounds like Socialism is taking over the country, doesn’t it.

But it’s not. You know why? It doesn’t work.

“From each according to his ability from each according to his needs.” Sounds great, doesn’t it. Who said it, John Stuart Mill? Jeremy Bentham? Nah, Karl Marx.

And it’s never succeeded because it lacks a key component that has driven American free-market captialism from the earliest days -- incentive.

Many – in fact most – do not know that the Pilgrims and the other members of the party (only 41 of the 102 expedition members were Pilgrims) were under contract to their merchant sponsors and that contract called for everything produced to go into a common store and that each member of the community was entitled (gotta love that word) to one common share.

Sound familiar? That’s right – In 1620, more than 200 years before Marx and Engels started their rabble rousing, the Pilgrims and their associates experimented with Socialism. All property and buildings belonged to “the community”. You know, the community as in commune as in the ultimate manifestation of Socialism – Communism.

How’d it work out? Just as any conservative would expect. Since all were entitled to a share whether they were productive or not, many didn’t do their share of the work. Production dropped and there was a lot of anger and finger pointing. Those who were originally hard working and productive, saw no reason to break their backs for those who didn’t pull their weight. Production went down and nobody was a happy Pilgrim camper.

There was no INCENTIVE to achieve!

So, what’d they do? Govern William Bradford cancelled Socialism and gave every family their own home and their own parcel of land to farm.

“This had very good success,” wrote Bradford in his journal. “for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

In fact, the expedition found that they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians (not Native Americans, I am a native American because I was born here. If you want to split hairs, the correct term is Aboriginal Americans). The profits enabled the expedition members to pay off their debts to their merchant sponsors and their success attracted more Europeans.

Not for the last time, Capitalism triumphed over Socialism for the best reason in the world – one works and the other doesn’t.

In this silly old world the pendulum of history is always swinging. In this country it has just about reached the furthest point in its left-most arc. In Europe it has already started to swing back right. Even in China and India the free market is thriving.

Obama and company are just a glitch on the American cultural scene. Oh, they will do some damage, but the example of what a mess Socialism is should stay in our citizens’ memories for decades. Look at all the good Carter did for us.

Free-market capitalism works because it is the natural way to do business.

Checks and Balances

Most of us remember studying in school about the checks and balances the founding fathers had built into the Constitution so none of the three branches of government could become too powerful. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches each has a certain amount of control over the other two branches. For example, the president appoints cabinet members, but the legislature must approve them and can investigate them after appointment.

So what’s with all these Czars?!!!

I can’t even find out how many there are. Some say 16, some say 22. But the problem isn’t the number (although that many is pretty scarey) it’s the power they wield. They are appointed by the president without the blessing of congress. They report directly and only to the president. They control their own budgets. If summoned to testify before congress, they can plead executive privilege and refuse. The word Czar would appear to be very apt, indeed.

The problem is that these folk operate outside of the checks and balances. They give Obama unrestricted power over everything to which he appoints a czar.

This is not new. FDR had a couple that he more accurately called “dictators”. Nixon appointed and energy czar during the Opec embargo in the mid seventies. But because it’s been done before, doesn’t make it right and doesn’t make it constitutional. And so many!

Can anyone spell “power grab”?

Obama to the Left

First, let me explain for whom I write this blog. It is not for fellow conservatives unless they are unable to find the information I provide elsewhere, and they are always welcome readers. It is not for those on the Left who are True Believers in the Cause and will never change their minds. Both, though, are welcome to read and comment. But the people I really write for are those who bought the Obama campaign tapioca that committed to nothing and promised everything, because I am convinced that all the rhetoric of vague promises of Hope and Change were really meant to cover up a true Socialist agenda. And I believe a lot of voters were deceived by that rhetoric, and are wondering what their votes bought them.

I have said often on this blog that I don’t judge people by what they say, but by what they do.

So, let’s examine what Obama has done and where his roots lie and try to make sense of things based on those two areas. I already did some of this on an earlier post, but I want now to look at Obama’s actions in relation to where his political roots lie.

First, we must understand that Socialism is the antithesis of free market Capitalism. Socialism wants government to control manufacturing, financial institutions, healthcare, everything that generates or affects individual income. It also wants to control what people earn. With Socialism there is to be a minimum income and a maximum income. With Capitalism, individuals control the market and the market, with some oversight by government, controls itself. The first is the land of guarantees; the latter, the land of opportunity.

Second, we must understand that the first goal of Socialism in a Capitalist society is to destroy Capitalism. To the committed Socialist, they are antithetical, they cannot exist together.

Now, not all Democrats are Socialists. In my observation there are essentially three types of Democrats. The Blue Dogs are closest to the center. They are fiscally conservative and socially liberal and can work with Republicans to get financially sane laws passed. Then there are the pragmatists. They are tax-and-spenders who believe government exists to help the needy, but they can be reasonable. Think Bill Clinton. Then there are the true leftists, the Socialists, who believe Capitalism is evil and must be destroyed. They can’t do it blatantly, so they work incrementally, nibbling away at the fabric of the free market and the Constitution. And this is the part of the Democrat Party where Obama’s sympathies lay.

How have I come to this conclusion?

Research. Here’s what I found (and no links, I don’t do footnotes. If you want to know more, there are a lot of search engines out there).

Since the late 60s the far left of the Democrat Party has followed the Cloward-Priven strategy first expounded by Columbia professor of social work professor Richard A. Cloward and his research assistant, Frances Fox Priven in an article in The Nation, the self-proclaimed “flagship of the Left”. Their goal, according to David Horowitz, a former Marxist and left wing activist and a long-time student of the Left, was “to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.” One of their tactics was to ramp up the number of poor signed up for existing welfare plans. At one time in New York City there was one person on welfare for every two working in the private sector. This action led directly to the City’s bankruptcy in the mid 70s. A similar tactic practiced by ACORN, another far left organization, has been to create a crisis in voter registration by registering as many Democrats as possible, legal or not, and helping them to vote, and to overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations.

With that background, let’s look at what Obama has done, not what he has said.

First, when he left law school he worked for Project Vote, an arm of ACORN.

As a senator, he had the most left wing voting record in the Senate.

As president, he nationalized (acquired stock in) numerous important financial institutions including Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

He nationalized two of our three auto manufacturers.

He is in the process of helping the Congress nationalize health care.

He has hugely grown our national debt.

Remember the Cloward-Priven strategy: “…hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands and pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

It’s clear to me where Obama is going. Am I the only one who can see this?