Showing posts with label Netroots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netroots. Show all posts

Monday, June 11, 2012

Democratic Nightmares



What’s New Today

Story #1 relates as to why the Democrats are starting to panic.  #2 shows the cracks in the Democratic coalition.  #3 asks if liberals will destroy the West.  #4 talks about liberal philosophy collapsing on itself.  #5 tells about the Netroots convention.  Things were not light and happy there.  #6 talks about the new eugenics vs the early Twentieth Century Movement. 


Today’s Thoughts

“The lesson the unions should take away is that just as there is power in numbers, there is also hubris -- enough to make for an irreparable fall from grace in the eyes of both voters and workers.”  Esther Cepeda

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for the period from June 21, when the Church commemorates Catholic martyrs to political persecution, through Independence Day, to be dedicated to "this 'Fortnight for Freedom.’”

Ann Althouse has an interesting blog asking what happened to the reported robocalls that told people in Wisconsin if they had signed the petition they didn’t need to vote?   They seem to have disappeared. 



1.  Reading the Tea Leaves

Panic is setting in among the people who ran the Democratic Party prior to the miraculous arrival on the scene of Barack Hussein Obama and the perfect storm of events that propelled him into the White House.  
These people, starting with Bill Clinton, the master Democratic politician of our era, can read the tea leaves, and the following factors alarm them:

1. Obama has energized his opposition.  Despite throwing everything they could into the game, the turnout effort in Wisconsin was handily beaten by those Tea Party nobodies and an RNC head who is actually up to the job.

2. Obama has alienated hugely important constituencies.  Labor unions, utterly essentially to the ground game in November, feel betrayed, and are starting to focus more on their own survival than the success of the Obama re-election campaign.  The antiwar left feels betrayed over Gitmo, drones, rendition, domestic surveillance, and a host of other issues.  They turned out in San Francisco picketing his fundraisers, and spoke of not voting.  His Bain Capital attacks are verging into a repudiation of capitalism, so Wall Street and the finance sector are getting alarmed, and the essential flow of political contributions to Democrats from them is drying up.

3. The economy is a disaster, and Obama is doing all the wrong things.  The administration is reduced to making implausible claims of spending moderation based on an internet post.  The public is fed up with Obama's performance, and his personal popularity is declining and will tank further as he goes increasingly negative on Romney.  Swing voters are almost as negative about Obama as are Romney voters.

4. Obama is out for himself, and himself only.  He has even thrown national security under the bus, allowing the leaking of critical information to the press about intelligence operations and cyber-warfare, and feigning outrage in Friday's presser over the idea that he would do such a thing.  Never mind what they say publicly; the insiders know that we are at cyber-war with Iran and China, among others, right now.  Following the prosecutorial lynching of Scooter Libby, it is politically impossible to sweep this leak, which actually is causing our allies to shun information-sharing with us, under the rug.  Unlike the Valerie Plame case, people have died, and intelligence operations have been seriously harmed.

5. A wave election is shaping up.  Democrats could be swept out of office in Congress, and on down to statehouses, city halls, and dog pounds.  With the left flank threatening to stay home, union funds and enthusiasm depleted, and Obama offering nothing but negativity, while Tea Partiers mobilize nationally as never before seen on the GOP side, the electorate will skew so far right that the GOP could end up as dominant in 2013 as the Democrats were in 2009.

It's already leaking into the smarter corners of the media world: Obama is killing the Democratic Party… 

The last point is very significant.  A wave election would sweep the Democrats out of power in Washington and probably a number of state capitals.  It will by 1932 again, but in the opposite political direction with the Republican being swept into power across the country.

2.  Cracks in the Democratic Coalition

Divisions in the Democratic coalition have burst into view, endangering both President Obama and his party colleagues in Congress as November’s election nears.

Fissures have opened over everything from tax policy and former President Bill Clinton’s  off-message comments to recriminations following the party’s  fiasco in the Wisconsin recall, which some say should have been avoided.

Democrats disagree over the wisdom of Obama’s attacks on Republican Mitt Romney’s private equity background at Bain Capital and are split over the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s vast oil sands.

The divides are opening just as Republicans appear more unified, which underlines the danger for Democrats and highlights an abrupt reversal in the two major parties’ fortunes…


Obama has compared himself to FDR, JFK, and even Ronald Reagan.  Perhaps it is more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover and even Richard Nixon. 


3.  Is the left going to destroy the West?

…And yet, today's Western media have never stopped working to destroy the very societies they claim to serve.  We have the most pathogenic media in history -- they create social divisions, ethnic hostilities, massive deliberate misunderstandings of the real causes of economic despair, and political "solutions" from the very people who created those problems in the first place.  Our media are the worst plague virus in history because they spread falsehoods and block the truth.  No society can solve problems if the media lie as a daily habit.  Perverse and dysfunctional media can destroy working societies -- Joseph Goebbels' handiwork being a prime example.

Today's euro crisis in Greece and the other dysfunctional Eurocolonies is a direct and predictable result of what Tony Blair called "Third Way Socialism" -- which turns out to be crony capitalism wearing a Groucho mustache.  Tony Blair himself is now one of the chief Cronies.  Blairite Socialism rejected Soviet Marxism and American capitalism equally; but capitalism is productive and Soviet socialism never was, so Third Way Socialism turns out to be parasitical on free market inventiveness and hard work.  When all is said and done, Blairism becomes a kind of Brezhnev style of a corrupt, unaccountable ruling class.  That's why George Soros and his ilk love crony capitalism; it puts them in the driver's seat.

Eurosocialism today copies Barney Frank's compulsory sale of empty mortgages to American banks, under threat of direct action by ACORN and other gangsters, backed by media blackmail and an endless supply of inflated money from the Fed.  Empty mortgages are toxic because they are lies, and everybody knows it.  They are monopoly money, and there will always be a reckoning.  So the banks that are forced to buy them put them in gaudy Xmas wrapping, and everybody passes that hot potato to the next sucker, hoping that they won't be the last one holding it when the bubble finally pops…. 

I don't know how and when the liberal media will collapse, though the drooping balance sheets of TIME, Newsweek, and the New York Times suggest that the end is near.  Power classes take a lot of time to die, even after they become public jokes.  The talking heads of today's pop culture lost any rationale for existing a long time ago.  They are now repackaging their empty souls, and tossing that smoking potato from CNN to CNBC to Facebook and Twitter.  They have been tried and found wanting, and the handwriting is on the wall…

This is an interesting article.  It moves around quite a bit in its basic focus, but most of what it says is true and frightening.



4.  The Left’s Super nova Collapse

Two parties, left and right, are central to good consensual government — one the perennial check on the other, both within the general boundaries of constitutional free-market capitalism.

Yet the hard-Left takeover of the Democratic Party has meant that there is no longer a credible balance in our system, as almost all the tenets of contemporary left-wing ideology are blowing up, imploding super nova style — unsustainable ideas that are contrary to human nature and demand coercion for their implementation, given that they are increasingly anti-democratic and have to be implemented from high by an elite technocracy whether in Brussels, Sacramento, or Washington.

Far too much is always seen as not enough: Greeks are angry that there was too much “austerity” and not enough of the old borrow and spend; Obama is blamed for only borrowing $5 trillion for too “little” stimulus; Democrats threaten to withhold from the community-organizer Obama because he was not hard enough on “fat cats” and the capitalist state; in California, a 10.3% income tax is too low, not too high. When the remedy is seen worse than the disease, then the patient is indeed terminal….

We could go on forever with illegal immigration, the therapeutic university, or the media, but the message is universally the same: we are coming to the theoretical limits of liberal orthodoxy. Detroit is liberalism’s Nagasaki; California its Greece — and the hated Scott Walker its Angela Merkel.
All the old shiny chrome is rusted and crumpled: Harvard? Knee-deep in the Elizabeth Warren scam.  The Noble Peace prize?  Neither Al Gore nor Barack Obama had a record of bringing peace to anyone. The postmodern EU and its vaunted euro? The mystery is how even technocrats could design such a suicidal currency. The paper of record? The New York Times has become a sort of shopper’s insert, its op-eds and news accounts synopses of yuppie and baby-boomer angst.

Like a super nova, contemporary liberalism is imploding through its own irreconcilable forces.


I highly recommend you click the link and the read the entire thing.  VDH nails the left with plenty of specifics. 


5.  Netroots:  The absence of Hope

…Van Jones — the former Obama administration “green jobs” czar who was forced to resign from the White House after his radical past was exposed — did his best to follow the Obama video with some fiery rhetoric. “We do not have the right to sit here and feel sorry for ourselves and let these people destroy our country,” he yelled.

But after another burst of obligatory fear mongering about the Tea Party— “When they get power, they use it to decimate us!” — even he calmed down and acknowledged that these were tough times for the Left.  He claimed the union recall in Wisconsin had been a “potential national breakthrough” but admitted it had fallen short. The local forces “fought alone,” he said. “Let’s be honest now. We’re all friends here.” At that point, someone in the audience shouted out, “Where was Obama?”

“Where were the national Democrats?” Jones replied. “And where were a lot of us?” The questions lingered in the room, and no one addressed them further.

What participants did address — frequently — was their dissatisfaction with the fact that elected Democrats have failed to deliver on the progressive agenda. During a panel discussion on Latino issues, Gaby Pacheco weighed in. A liberal crusader working to pass the DREAM Act (which would allow the children of illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition at U.S. colleges and also give them a path to citizenship), Pacheco was openly disdainful of the Obama White House. She pointed out that more people (some 400,000 last year) have been deported in the Obama years than at any other time in U.S. history. She compared minority groups to people trapped in abusive relationships they refuse to leave, no matter how bad things get — and in her analogy, the abusive partner was Obama. “That, I feel, is the situation that we’re in,” she told the crowd. “And it’s very hard for a lot of people to stand up to their abusers and say, enough, no more.”

Another panel featured four local liberal activists discussing the problems of the host state for Netroots Nation: “When Democrats Aren’t Democrats: The Story of Rhode Island.” Kate Brown, the executive director of the liberal group Ocean State Action, warned that progressives are in a minority on “a lot of issues” they care about, including gay marriage, expanding abortion rights, raising tax rates, and even implementing Obamacare. “We cut tax rates for the wealthy,” she asserted. “So when they tell us there’s no money [for programs], they are lying! There’s lots of money.”

Her grievances took no account of the fact that Republicans are a minority in the Rhode Island legislature and hold no statewide elected offices. Rhode Island sends only Democrats to Congress. Steven Brown, the executive director of the state’s ACLU, pointed out that Rhode Island passed into law a tough voter-ID bill last year; he noted that the bill’s chief sponsors were Rhode Island’s only African-American state senator and the leader of the Latino caucus in the state house.

Of course, it wasn’t all doom and gloom at Netroots Nation. There was no shortage of bravado and chest-thumping among liberals who are convinced they are the wave of the future. But having attended most of the Netroots Nation gatherings, I observed many fewer victory jigs than in previous years…


This is bad times for the left.  The ignorant don’t realize it yet.  They are like the Germans who in 1944 and 1945 thought Hitler’s super weapons would save them.  But it is dawning on a lot more Democrats that the end is near. 



6.   Eugenics Past and Future

THE current issue of the Yale Alumni Magazine includes a portrait of Irving Fisher, a Yale economics professor in the 1920s and ’30s and a giant of his field. The author, Richard Conniff, takes note of Fisher’s prodigious professional accomplishments and his private decency in order to foreground the real subject of his article: the economist’s role as one of his era’s highest-wattage proponents of eugenics.

The American elite’s pre-World War II commitment to breeding out the “unfit” — defined variously as racial minorities, low-I.Q. whites, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the criminally inclined — is a story that defies easy stereotypes about progress and enlightenment. On the one hand, these American eugenicists tended to be WASP grandees like Fisher — ivory-tower dwellers and privileged have-mores with an obvious incentive to invent spurious theories to justify their own position.

But these same eugenicists were often political and social liberals — advocates of social reform, partisans of science, critics of stasis and reaction. “They weren’t sinister characters out of some darkly lighted noir film about Nazi sympathizers,” Conniff writes of Fisher and his peers, “but environmentalists, peace activists, fitness buffs, healthy-living enthusiasts, inventors and family men.” From Teddy Roosevelt to the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, fears about “race suicide” and “human weeds” were common among self-conscious progressives, who saw the quest for a better gene pool as of a piece with their broader dream of human advancement. 

This progressive fascination with eugenics largely ended with World War II and the horrors wrought by National Socialism. But while the West has discarded the theory of the eugenics era, the practice urged by Fisher and others — the elimination or pre-emption, through careful reproductive planning, of the weaker members of the human species — has become a more realistic possibility than it ever was in the 1920s and ’30s. 

The eugenicists had very general ideas about genetics and heredity, very crude ideas about intelligence, and deeply poisonous ideas about racial hierarchies. They did not have, as we do, access to the genetic blueprints of individuals — including, most important, human beings still developing in utero, whose development can be legally interrupted by the intervention of an abortionist. 

That access, until recently, has required invasive procedures like amniocentesis. But last week brought a remarkable breakthrough: a team of scientists mapped nearly an entire fetal genome using blood from the mother and saliva from the father….


The Germans consider Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and Homosexuals “untermench” and eventually set up camps to kill them.  It appears we already have the camps and have now found a way to pick out the victims. The one paragraph that got to me was when author separated the academics from the sinister people who implemented their theories.  I guess he had to because they were progressives just like he is. 

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Thursday: Obamacare problems, Obama problems

Politics

Obamacare: I guess we did need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it

The Democrats’ “historic achievement,” shocking as it seems, TURNS OUT TO BE AN EXPENSIVE, JOBS-CRIPPLING MONSTROSITY THAT IS FILLED WITH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Employers are likely to dump employees into highly subsidized exchanges. It’s not going to bend the cost curve. And today, the Associated Press reports:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE LAW WOULD LET SEVERAL MILLION MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE GET NEARLY FREE INSURANCE MEANT FOR THE POOR, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

UP TO 3 MILLION PEOPLE COULD QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID IN 2014 AS A RESULT OF THE ANOMALY. That’s because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s communications director e-mailed me in response to this report, “Nearly every week we find a new reason to say ‘repeal and replace.’ ”…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/how-did-obamacare-get-so-screwed-up/2011/03/29/AGtI3heH_blog.html

Yet another mistake in a ill-advised bill.

Incumbents in trouble in 2012?

CALIFORNIA SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN'S POPULARITY HAS PLUNGED BY DOUBLE DIGITS FROM HER PREVIOUS RE-ELECTION RATINGS, according to a new Field Poll survey, demonstrating the toll that the anemic economy is taking on incumbent Democrats, including President Obama, heading into next year's elections.

Campaigning for a fourth full term, FEINSTEIN ENJOYS A FOUR-POINT EDGE, 43 TO 39 PERCENT, among registered California voters asked if they would vote for her - even as a strong majority, 46 to 31 percent, approves of the job she is doing. Eighteen percent of voters have no opinion on whether they'd vote for her, leaving a wide opening among swing voters for a potential challenger.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/21/MNOB1K09BP.DTL#ixzz1Q0PawpVC

This is not good if you are among those who are incumbents and feel as if it is your god given right to be in office.



Reid: Huntsman over Romney in GOP field

Even though he won't be able to cast a vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) picked his favorite Mormon candidate in the GOP presidential field on Tuesday: Jon Huntsman.

Reid, a Mormon, was asked if the country is ready for a president of his faith because there are two in the Republican primary race. Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China faces Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

"CERTAINLY THEY'RE NOT READY FOR THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS. WHICH SAYS IN THAT RACE IF I HAD A CHOICE I WOULD FAVOR HUNTSMAN OVER ROMNEY," he told reporters at the Capitol.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/167649-reid-prefers-huntsman-over-romney-in-gop-field


Here’s another feather in Mitt Romney’s cap. If you are endorsed by Harry Reid, you might as well kiss your chances for the Republican nomination goodbye. Romney is obviously the tougher candidate.

Only 3 in 10 will definitely vote for Obama

Americans are growing increasingly more frustrated with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and ONLY 3 IN 10 SAY THEY ARE CERTAIN THEY WILL VOTE TO RE-ELECT HIM IN 2012, a new poll finds.

JUST 23 PERCENT OF THOSE SURVEYED FOR A BLOOMBERG NEWS POLL RELEASED WEDNESDAY SAY THEY ARE HOPEFUL ABOUT THE ECONOMY because they see signs of improvement, while 25 percent say they are fearful things are getting worse and 51 percent are cautious because nothing seems to be happening.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57507.html#ixzz1Q0W4PDRL

Three in ten puts you pretty much just with just your base. Obama has lost the people who actually elected him in 2008. It’s the economy.

Superman and Jim Crow

Having experienced the psychological pain of Jim Crow laws first-hand, I won’t allow those who likely only read about Jim Crow in history books to trivialize it.

That’s why I’m outraged about a recent edition of TV One’s “Washington Watch” in which host ROLAND MARTIN AND REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL) COMPARED STATE-LEVEL VOTER IDENTIFICATION RULES TO JIM CROW.

To the contrary, requiring valid identification in exchange for something as sacred as a ballot is a pragmatic approach to governing.  IT’S AN INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE AND INTEGRITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY BLACK AMERICANS, TO PLAY THE RACE CARD WHERE RACE IS NOT AN ISSUE.

Martin mused: “We talk about [voting being] the fundamental right [of] Americans, but to put roadblocks up to… for… voting makes no sense to me.” WASSERMAN SHULTZ REPLIED, “NOW YOU HAVE THE REPUBLICANS, WHO WANT TO LITERALLY DRAG US BACK TO JIM CROW LAWS AND LITERALLY — AND VERY TRANSPARENTLY — BLOCKED ACCESS TO THE POLLS.”

We are required to have a state-issued driver’s license for many daily activities. Besides specifically verifying a person can operate a motor vehicle, it’s used for everything from access to buildings to birthday discounts.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/voter-id-is-no-jim-crow-i-would-know/#ixzz1Q0WuoPfJ

What I’m seeing here is a rerun of the old Superman TV episodes. In those episodes, the bad guys would shoot Superman until their gun was empty. They would then throw the gun at him, like the bullets didn’t hurt him, but the gun might??? This is the equivalent of throwing the gun at him.

More on Jim Crow

E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Baghdad Bob of the liberal left, dutifully trots out the latest propaganda line. HE CLAIMS THAT "AN ATTACK ON THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS UNDERWAY ACROSS THE COUNTRY," through, among other things, antifraud measures requiring voters to present identification before casting a ballot:

Besides Texas, states that enacted voter ID laws this year include Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Tennessee. Indiana and Georgia already had such requirements. . . .

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, by 6 to 3, upheld Indiana's voter ID statute. So seeking judicial relief may be difficult. Nonetheless, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGE THESE LAWS, PARTICULARLY IN STATES COVERED BY THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. And the court should be asked to review the issue again in light of new evidence that these laws have a real impact in restricting the rights of particular voter groups.

"THIS REQUIREMENT IS JUST A POLL TAX BY ANOTHER NAME," STATE SEN. WENDY DAVIS declared when Texas was debating its ID law early this year. In the bad old days, poll taxes, now outlawed by the 24th Amendment, were used to keep African Americans from voting. EVEN IF THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T SEE THINGS HER WAY, DAVIS IS RIGHT. THIS IS THE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF OUR MOMENT.

In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?

Here Dionne parrots an assertion by the unwieldy named Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said earlier this month that Republicans "want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." (Literally? She's lucky there's no literacy test for members of Congress.) EVEN THE LEFT-LEANING SITE POLITIFACT.COM RATED THIS FALSE.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070104576399433777333002.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h

Notice how Dionne sites many quotes, but not a fact to back up what he is saying. It’s an example how the left views facts. Quotes they agree with are the equivalent of fact to them.


Media and Politics

Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?

Abstract:
Accusations of political bias in the media are often made by members of both political parties, yet there have been few systematic studies of such bias to date. This paper develops an econometric technique to test for political bias in news reports that controls for the underlying character of the news reported. OUR RESULTS SUGGEST THAT AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS TEND TO GIVE MORE POSITIVE NEWS COVERAGE TO THE SAME ECONOMIC NEWS WHEN DEMOCRATS ARE IN THE PRESIDENCY THAN FOR REPUBLICANS. When all types of news are pooled into a single analysis, our results are highly significant. However, the results vary greatly depending upon which economic numbers are being reported. WHEN GDP GROWTH IS REPORTED, REPUBLICANS RECEIVED BETWEEN 16 AND 24 PERCENTAGE POINT FEWER POSITIVE STORIES FOR THE SAME ECONOMIC NUMBERS THAN DEMOCRATS. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference. AMONG THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND THE TOP 10 PAPERS, THE WASHINGTON POST, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, ASSOCIATED PRESS, AND NEW YORK TIMES TEND TO BE THE LEAST LIKELY TO REPORT POSITIVE NEWS DURING REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration. We also find that the media coverage affects people's perceptions of the economy. Contrary to the typical impression that bad news sells, we find that good economic news generates more news coverage and that it is usually covered more prominently. We also present some evidence that media treats parties differently when they control both the presidency and the congress.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453

Newspapers are bias toward democrats? Now that’s a non-story.


Nets Ignore Emissions Decision, Politico Carries EPA's Water

The Supreme Court on Monday unequivocally rejected the notion that courts should force power companies to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, but NONE OF THE MAJOR BROADCAST NETWORKS COVERED THE UNANIMOUS DECISION ON THEIR EVENING NEWSCASTS OR MORNING SHOWS.

The New York Times teased the ruling on the front page of Tuesday's paper, directing readers to a thorough analysis of the 8-0 decision, but ABC's "Good Morning America" and "World News," CBS's "Early Show" and "Evening News," and NBC's "Today" and "Nightly News" all skipped a decision that prevents environmentalists from using the courts to impose greenhouse gas regulations on electric utilities.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alex-fitzsimmons/2011/06/21/nets-ignore-emissions-decision-politico-carries-epas-water

So the networks failed to note this?  Again what else is new?  Jon Stewarts opinion of Fox News looks more and more partisan and more and more stupid.


Media Recast THE Crisis Villains

SUBPRIME SCANDAL: With the housing market crashing again, the truth is finally dawning on some media elite that Washington played a bigger role in the mortgage mess than first told.
A NEW BOOK, "RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT," ZEROES IN ON THE CORRUPT PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN FANNIE MAE AND BELTWAY INSIDERS — who used the federally chartered firm as a giant slush fund to enrich themselves while pushing liberal housing scheme….

….Refreshingly, the lead villain in Gretchen Morgenson's book isn't Lloyd Blankfein or some other "fat cat" banker. It's ex-Fannie chairman Jim Johnson, one of many Clinton cronies who helped set the stage for the financial disaster back in the 1990s.

SHE BLAMES JOHNSON AND FANNIE FOR FANNING THE EASY CREDIT FLAMES BY UNDERWRITING HOME LOANS FOR LOW-INCOME MINORITIES. But this is still only half the story.

The Clinton White House and Democrat Congress were obsessed with closing the racial mortgage gap, and they enlisted Fannie and its brother, Freddie Mac, in their reckless social crusade.
FANNIE AND FREDDIE DIDN'T CO-OPT REGULATORS, AS THE BOOK ARGUES. IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THEIR CHIEF REGULATOR — HUD — PRESSURED THEM TO TARGET CREDIT-POOR BLACKS AND HISPANICS WITH SUBPRIME LOANS. If they didn't meet HUD's increasing quotas, they were threatened with fines and stiffer oversight.

And Johnson's successor, FRANKLIN RAINES, DID FAR MORE DAMAGE AT FANNIE'S HELM. Unlike Johnson, RAINES PUSHED FOR ZERO DOWN PAYMENTS. He also begged mortgage bankers to originate more subprime loans so Fannie could buy them and fuel even more risky lending.

Under Raines, a Clinton appointee, FANNIE LOADED UP ON SUBPRIME SECURITIES WHILE GUTTING THE UNDERWRITING STANDARDS IT SET FOR THE ENTIRE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY. It was under his leadership — 1999-2005 — that the bubble of making loans to people who would have a tough time paying them off got supersized.

"We have to push products and opportunities to people who have lesser credit quality," Raines exhorted mortgage bankers gathered in San Francisco in 2004.

As Clinton's old budget director, as well as an African-American, Raines agreed with his goal of putting more blacks in homes through subprime mortgages. Home ownership was "unevenly distributed in society," Raines complained, and he was fully on board government efforts to redistribute housing credit through private lenders.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=576075&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EditorialRss+%28Editorial+RSS%29

Fannie and Freddie appear to be the Typhoid Mary’s of the Economic crisis. This viewpoint is vigorously denied by the left (it spoils their blaming the Republicans, deregulation, and the Wall Street fat cats) but facts are facts. HUD, Fannie and Freddie, and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are prime suspects in what is going on in America today. All the others are people who took advantage of the policies these groups foisted on the American Financial System.


Congress

Issa Lays Down the Law to DOJ: "We Are Investigating You"

The following video is from the House Oversight Committee hearing last week about Operation Fast and Furious and is worth watching.

The hearing opened up a slew of questions about Operation Fast and Furious and Issa is just getting started in his gathering of information about the lethal project, however, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich couldn't answer one simply question: Who in Washington authorized Operation Fast and Furious?

In his opening statement, Weich said that the Justice Department had complied and cooperated with the Oversight Committee, adding the DOJ had provided information requested through subpoenas from Issa in his investigation. As you will see, Issa strongly disagreed, making it clear there has been no cooperation from the Obama Justice Department in this case.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/06/20/issa_lays_down_the_law_to_doj_we_are_investigating_you

This is something the democrats didn’t have to worry about when they controlled the congress. Expect to see a lot more of this and a slew of Democrat scandals and unseemly actions.

Mean while Rand Paul strikes a chord for basic common sense

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul told the Transportation Security Administration today that IT SHOULD END WHAT HE CALLED THE “UNIVERSALITY OF INSULT” OF RANDOM PAT-DOWNS OF PASSENGERS.

In a meeting of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Paul grilled TSA Administrator John Pistole over the recent pat-down of a six-year-old Kentucky girl, a video of which went viral over the Internet.

“IT MAKES ME THINK YOU’RE CLUELESS, IF YOU THINK SHE’S GOING TO ATTACK OUR COUNTRY AND YOU’RE NOT DOING YOUR RESEARCH ON THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ATTACK OUR COUNTRY,” Paul said. “It absolutely must involve a risk assessment of those who are traveling. And the fact that she’s being patted down and I don’t feel comfortable really with your response that we are no longer doing random pat-downs. I think you ought to get rid of the random pat-downs. The American public is unhappy with them, they’re unhappy with the invasiveness of them. The Internet is full of jokes about the invasiveness of the pat-down searches and we ought to just consider, is this what we’re willing to do.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/video-sen-rand-paul-tells-tsa-to-end-random-pat-downs/#ixzz1Q1zxtlJd

Random pat downs are worthless for making us safer. We have limited resources at airports and we should be behaviorally profiling individuals and using these resources on people who are the most likely ones to be terrorists. This is just common sense, but the problem we have with Homeland Security is that common sense is not very common.

SCOTUS

Olson and Elwood on Wal-Mart v. Dukes

Walter Olson comments on the implications of Wal-Mart v. Dukes in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Here’s his conclusion:

This week’s decision will make it harder, though not impossible, to apply class actions to employment-discrimination cases in which cash damages are the main point. (As the court noted, though, class treatment is still more liberally available for injunctive relief, such as in a suit asking that a company be ordered to change a discriminatory personnel policy.)

That does not mean, as one veteran Supreme Court reporter wrote this week, that future aggrieved employees will all have to “file their own lawsuits,” or that large companies can operate with impunity. The court did not rule out lawsuits on behalf of groups of employees affected by the actions of some identifiable corporate policy, for example, or by particular managers or supervisors or offices. And even suits by individual employees against big companies regularly demand, and sometimes get, million-dollar damages.

The message of this ruling is simple: Employees have to prove that they have been legally wronged, not just cash in because somebody else was.

http://volokh.com/2011/06/22/olson-and-elwood-on-wal-mart-v-dukes/

Volokh is always interesting. You can read this and be sure to read the comments if you want to understand more about what this means. What the Court said was that with 8000+ stores worldwide, the actions of a few managers, contrary to written policy of the company is not grounds for a class action by every women in every location in the company.

10 cases of Liberal Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy: Carbon Footprint the Size of…Some Really Big Thing—Al Gore
Hypocrisy: No Guns For You, But My Guy Packs Heat—Rosie O’Donnell
Hypocrisy: War Investments, Non-Union Labor, Calling for the End of the American Dream While Living It -- Michael Moore
Hypocrisy: Getting Married After Condemning Marriage As Pointless –Gloria Steinem
Hypocrisy: Accepting Union Awards But Not Using Union Labor—Nancy Pelosi
Hypocrisy: Coastline Protection Lawsuit—Barbara Streisand
Hypocrisy: Opposing Wind Power While Proposing Alternative Fuels Elsewhere—Ted Kennedy
Hypocrisy: Counseling on Adultery While Committing Adultery—Jesse Jackson
Hypocrisy: Protesting Animal Testing While Benefiting from Animal Testing—Mary Beth Sweetland
Hypocrisy: Using Non-Union Labor to Strike for Higher Union Wages—US Labor Unions

http://listverse.com/2009/05/02/10-cases-of-liberal-hypocrisy/

Some of these are really hypocrisy while others are simply being human (look at Gloria Steinem, and Mary Beth Sweetland.

Here’s an 11th

Things got a little testy this weekend when a Republican online conference and conservative online publisher Andrew Breitbart showed up in Minneapolis at the same time as Netroots Nation, a gathering of liberal operatives, bloggers and activists.

So in an effort to prevent similar blogger battles next year WHEN NETROOTS HEADS TO PROVIDENCE, R.I., NEXT JUNE, EVENT ORGANIZERS ARE TRYING TO BAN OTHER GATHERINGS FROM USING THE CITY’S CONVENTION CENTER AND TWO OF ITS HOTELS DURING NETROOTS WEEKEND. IT IS INSISTING ON A NONCOMPETE CLAUSE IN EVERY CONTRACT AT THE RHODE ISLAND CONVENTION CENTER AS WELL AS THE WESTIN PROVIDENCE AND PROVIDENCE BILTMORE HOTELS, Raven Brooks, Netroots executive director, told Washington Wire. A convention center official said he was not immediately aware of the arrangement.

The conservative conference, RIGHTONLINE, HAS FOLLOWED NETROOTS AROUND THE U.S. SINCE 2008, SEEKING TO ACT AS A COUNTER-EVENT. This year, a shouting match broke out when Mr. Breitbart tried to enter Netroots, camera crew in tow. Mr. Brooks alleged other cases of harassment at the Hilton Minneapolis, which was used by both events, and at downtown bars.
There are, of course, other hotels, in downtown Providence.

“The folks at RightOnline are free to hold differing political views,” Mr. Brooks said in an email. “THEY ARE NOT FREE TO HARASS OUR PEOPLE AND CREATE A POOR SOCIAL EXPERIENCE AT OUR HOTELS.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/21/netroots-nation-tries-to-keep-its-distance-from-rightonline-at-2012-conference/

The last sentence is the money quote. Netroots is looking for an echo chamber experience. This is typical of the left and is one of the reasons their arguments are so pathetic. They don’t test their ideas with others with a different perspective.


Feminism redefined

Freshman Congresswoman Kristi Noem busted the liberal "republicans hate women" myth tonight on the House floor, stressing the importance of having people in Congress with real world experience, regardless of gender.

"I didn't run because I was a woman and I didn't expect people to vote for me because I was a woman."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/06/21/kristi_noem_republicans_are_pro-woman

Feminism is being redefined and the liberals hate it. A color blind, gender blind society is much more what the Republicans represent rather than the quota embracing Democrats support.

Stupidity reigns on Current TV

Keith Olbermann is back and here is the stupidest thing he opined right at the beginning of his show:

“This is to be a newscast of contextualization and it is to be presented with a viewpoint that the weakest citizen of this country is more important than the strongest corporation.”

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2011/06/21/keith_olbermann_returns,_nothing_changes

So basically passing a bill that would help the weakest citizen of this country but hurt the strongest corporation even if 10,000 people would lose their jobs as a result, it not simply a fair tradeoff to Mr. Olbermann, but it seems morally right. Olbermann is like a weed in an intellectual garden. He may be green, but he adds nothing of value to the rest of the garden.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Today's craziness in the news


The left may be abandoning the left

It seems the netroots aren't happy with Obama and the Democrat Party.

But as Netroots Nation, a conference of 2,100 liberal activists, opened here
Thursday, it was clear that anger among some prominent progressives is still raw -- and it could imperil some Democrats this fall.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos blog and an organizer of the
first such annual conference five years ago, said he and his followers are
disinclined to help Democratic candidates simply to preserve the party's big
majorities.

"There's a lot of Democrats I'll be happy to see
go," Moulitsas said
in an interview. "I'll celebrate when Blanche
Lincoln is out of the Senate. There is a price to be paid for inaction and
incompetence. We're not getting much done with 59 [Democratic senators], so if we're down to 54, who cares?"

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/07/what-happens-in-vegas-netroots-meltdown.html

The Myth of White Privilege

An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal today by Jim Webb addresses this issue.



The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own
government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of
slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of
this logic to all "people of color"
—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high
rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html

This is probably very timely with the NAACP charging the TEA Party with racism, etc.

No Great Right Wing Conspiracy, but It Appears the Left Had One.

A good review of what the Journolist scandal is all about.

In other words, JournoList is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is
not a secret conspiracy but something more like the "open conspiracy" H. G. Wells fantasized about, where the smartest, best people at every institution
make their progressive vision for the world their top priority.

As James DeLong, a fellow at the Digital Society, correctly noted on the Enterprise Blog, "The real problem with JournoList is that much of it consisted of exchanges
among people who worked for institutions about how to best hijack their
employers for the cause of Progressivism."

For a liberal activist, that's forgivable, I guess. But academics? Reporters? Editors? Even liberal opinion writers aren't supposed to "coordinate" their messages with the mother ship.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/23/journolist__the_liberal_mother_ship.html


Population experts and the Mainstream Media

"Population Expert" Paul Ehrlich? How absolutely and totally wrong do your predictions have to be before the Mainstream Media stops calling you an “expert” in your field? The New York Times laid down a marker in its deeply sympathetic Tuesday obituary for alarmist climatologist Stephen Schneider, in which writer Douglas Martin identified Paul Ehrlich as a “biologist and population expert.”

I guess if you still call Ehrlich a "population expert" you need to still call Bernie Madoff a financial genius.