The Absurdities of Leftism

The title of this post is the best way to characterize this recent announcement by the head of NASA:

"When I became the NASA administrator, [Obama] charged me with three things," NASA head Charles Bolden said in a recent interview with the Middle Eastern news network al-Jazeera. "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

For the moment, let's ignore the massive stupidity of this agenda, especially coming from the National Aeronautic and SPACE Administration, whose primary mission has always been the exploration of space. Let's also ignore the fact that Obama has reduced NASA into a self-help advisor for Islamic nations, "Because you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you." Nevermind how pandering and elitist this entire mindset is, it's remarkable that the Obama administration feels it needs a special cheerleader for the Arab world. I guess this also helps explain why Obama cut the budget for NASA and cancelled all its future space exploration programs - and the thousands of jobs that went with it.

So, the question that must be answered is why NASA, and why now? I think Jonah Goldberg at National Review gives a great answer:

"In my book, Liberal Fascism, I called this phenomenon the “liberal Gleichschaltung.” Gleichschaltung is a German word (in case you couldn’t have guessed) borrowed from electrical engineering. It means “coordination.” The German National Socialists (Nazis) used the concept to get every institution to sing from the same hymnal. If a fraternity or business embraced Nazism, it could stay “independent.” If it rejected Nazism, it was crushed or bent to the state’s ideology. Meanwhile, every branch of government was charged with not merely doing its job but advancing the official state ideology.

Now, contemporary liberalism is not an evil ideology. Its intentions aren’t evil or even fruitfully comparable to Hitlerism. But there is a liberal Gleichschaltung all the same. Every institution must be on the same page. Every agency must advance the liberal agenda.

And this is where the Catch-22 catches. The dream of a nimble, focused, problem-solving government is undone by the reality of hyper–mission creep. When every institution is yoked to an overarching philosophy or mission, its actual purpose can become an afterthought. In 2005, volunteer firefighters from all over the country offered to help with Katrina’s aftermath. But FEMA sent many of them to Atlanta first to undergo diversity and sexual-harassment training (which most already had)."

The leftist believes that all arms of the state must be in harmony, driven by the same ideological and political agenda, while using all available means to achieve this agenda. This would explain the ludicrousness of having the National Aeronautic and SPACE Administration partake in a role that has nothing to do with its intended purpose and very reason for existence.

Charles Krauthammer sums up the ridiculousness:

Imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy indeed.

The Obama Agenda: Amnesty

After a few months of accusations, speculations, and threats, the Obama Justice Department has filed suit against the new Arizona immigration laws that are meant to enforce current federal immigration guidelines and regulations.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the federal lawsuit is the fact that it does not challenge the Arizona law on the basis of discrimination, in fact, discrimination is not mentioned once in the entire legal brief, but on the basis of a usurpation of federal authority by the states. In other words, for the last few months Obama and his cronies have been shouting "discrimination, discrimination!" at the top of their lungs for expressly political purposes, and now when the suit is actually filed, it is over the federal government's desire to exercise its authority, or lack thereof.

This is my summation of the motivations and desires of the Obama regime:

Obama is against the Arizona law for two main reasons. The first is that he sees Arizona's actions through his leftist prism of the inviolable right of large bureaucratic government to heal all the nation's problems. He also views the issue through his cultural Marxist, multi-cultic belief in the universal repression of minorities, and the notion that all actions are motivated by a desire to hurt "disadvantaged" groups. This helps him to comfortably oppose the law on ideological grounds in order to reap the political benefits.

The political benefit would be the enticement of Hispanics to vote Democrat in the fall elections. Let's face it, according to all the polls and public opinion, the Democrats are looking at historic electoral losses this fall. In order to possibly salvage Democratic victories, Obama and his cronies will do whatever is possible to secure votes this fall. If that means playing to an issue and a constituency, which is what the Democrats do best, then so be it. Does Obama really care about illegal immigrants? Perhaps he does, but you can rest assured that he cares about the Hispanic vote and turning them out by any means possible, including by creating a divisive issue and increasing his rhetoric towards it in order to foster anger and its subsequent actions.

The second reason why Obama and his regime are against the Arizona law is because if it is successful, it will lead to other states adopting similar legislation. As I previously noted, the Arizona law simply mirrors and enforces federal laws already on the books and which the federal government has refused to enforce properly. If the states enforce these laws using their resources, the border and illegal immigration problem will gradually subside. But this would be a huge defeat for the Democrats. Why? Because the Democrats and Obama want AMNESTY. Amnesty will provide Democrats with what they believe to be 10 million-plus votes. (They believe former illegal immigrants will all become Democrats if the Democrats push the legislation through congress.) The Democrats and Obama know that they will be unable to pass any kind of amnesty bill unless it has border security provisions attached to the legislation. This is why Obama actually told a Senator that he would not secure the borders before he attempts to push an amnesty bill through congress:

Sen. Kyl Claims Obama Told Him: “If We Secure the Border, Then You Won’t Have Any Reason to Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (Video)

And in Obama's own words:

If Arizona, and other states, successfully secure a majority of the border and cut down on illegal immigration, the political expediency of passing any kind of amnesty legislation disappears, therefore eliminating what Democrats believe to be a chance to add 10 million-plus voters to their rolls. You see, Obama and the Democrats are drunk with visions of power, and they desire this power in perpetuity. Their belief in the supremacy of the state to manage the affairs of its citizens, of leftist government to "correct" the "sins" of America, and their desire to redistribute wealth and resources to its "rightful" owners, has led them to embark on a crusade that is in its end result tyranny.

Everything I have just mentioned is perfectly shown in this exchange with Robert Gibbs:

You see, he can't answer because the truth is that opposition to sanctuary cities does not fit the political and ideological agenda of the Obama regime.

"This is my rifle..."

I remember it fairly well. I was 19 years old and a brand new cadet in the Army ROTC program at UNC. The doors to the Armory were flung wide open, and some of the junior and senior cadets were carrying in locked weapon racks off of a truck into the drill deck. My eyes grew wide as I finally saw real M-16A2s for the first time in my life. They looked lighter, more detailed, and just plain cooler than the fake M-16s we trained with for squad tactical exercises. The slightest scent of weapons lubricant began to fill the air, a scent I'd grow to love. I remember taking the weapon and being given instruction on proper assembly and disassembly of the weapon; I marveled at its simple and elegant design that would propel a live round out of its casing. I recall being filled with a feeling that I can only describe as a solemn respect and weight responsibility for the power that I held.

Unlike the perception that most have, owning or holding a weapon does not change a person into a power-crazed maniac or an off-kilter, gun-toting hillbilly. Sure, we have that in America, but those who still have a sense of reason and a conscience won't undergo some Edward Hyde-like transformation from a thin, nervous, Starbucks-sipping artist to Darth Vader. I was a socially awkward, nerdy, Korean American teenager who grew up in a small Southern city suburb. Crime, weapons and warfare sat in the furthest periphery of my mind while growing up. I am still a socially awkward, nerdy, Korean American guy who against all reason donned a green suit and went traipsing around the world for a few years. A firearm doesn't transform a person into a raging maniac fueled by blood lust and power. Weapons, in the hands of moral, law-abiding citizens, can be a wonderful, useful instrument.

The Supreme Court recently ruled against the handgun ban pushed by the politicians in Chicago. Fully committed to the idea that a firearm somehow corrupts and inevitably creates more violence, they pushed this case to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, this highest court ruled in favor of not only of gun owners but the Constitution. I, for one, and greatly relieved and still somewhat nervous that it was still a 5-4 ruling.

With Second Amendment rights secure for a little while longer, I hope my friends will rediscover an aspect of their common, American heritage - the liberty to protect oneself. I hope to see more firearms in the hands of moral, upright individuals, ready to protect themselves and their loved ones. Imagine the beautiful possibilities.

The Fate of the COINdinistas

It's the way no military officer would want his or her name in lights. General Stan McChrystal has been recalled to Washington to be dressed down by the Commander-in-Chief for remarks he made as reported in the soon-to-be published edition of the Rolling Stones. You can find the article here for your reference.

On all the major news outlets, journalists, political commentators, and news junkies are out in full force to express their opinions. They've typically fallen along party lines - those who lean right condemn the remarks but want McChrystal to stay on as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Those who lean left are immediately calling for his resignation. Though the case against General McChrystal is straightforward, the factors surrounding this legendary commander tends to murky what would be an easy call.

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a punishable offense to display any sort of contempt against public official by a commissioned officer. Sounds straightforward to me. The only exploitable loophole a lawyer could argue would probably be the fact that General McChrystal may or may not have said these words in the United States or U.S. territory. Semantics aside, the commander is guilty of a punishable offense.

Yet there are two peculiar dimensions regarding the punishments of flag officers. The first of which is how evenly a standard is applied between higher ranking officers versus the lower ranked ones. It's a common Soldier complaint that a young private can be bitterly punished for a minor offense while an officer may get a pass for the very same. This unfortunately happens on a routine basis. I recall a senior officer making some rather unsavory comments about another over email. She served on my commanding general's staff but her actions went largely ignored. No one would extend me the same mercy. I found myself repeatedly dressed down after having made a smart-aleck comment at the logistics officer. To this day, I still bristle with anger when I hear his name, but that's another story for another time. What will happen to the general? Will the commander-in-chief send him to a court-martial, drum him out unceremoniously, or let him delicately resign from his post? The nation will soon find out. The second dimension is the wisdom of taking a wartime commander from his post while he is active engaged against the enemy. This more or less speaks for itself, and it will be up to Obama to make that determination.

However the confounding factors are not limited to these two. There are countless more that will make it difficult to render a clean decision. This is the man who reportedly tried to cover up the true cause of death of Corporal Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger and former NFL star. This is the man who had command responsibility over allegedly abused detainees in Iraq. This is the man who made a bold and honest recommendation to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, a move that lacked political decorum but expected in the military culture. He is a devout acolyte of counterinsurgency operations á la Petraeus (or would that be au Petraeus) - determined to minimize civilian casualties but maximize victory. These rules of engagement draw the ire of young infantrymen but the applause of senior policymakers - is this Stan McChrystal's style or the political pressure on an otherwise gung-ho general? Unlike most commanders though, he does not hesitate to go out on patrol with his soldiers and to suffer alongside them, but he's obligated to report to demanding superiors.

The list goes on and on, and I find my emotions cloud my more rational judgment. One part of me respects him as a tough but wise military leader. A man, I believe, who should not be restrained by politics and petty egos bruised by a straightforward personality. But another part of me worries when the tables may turn one day when an unwise commander is pitted against a more experienced commander-in-chief. If McChrystal gets a pass, would that set a precedent that would keep a less qualified military commander in place? Perhaps my emotions do cloud my judgment, but I would recommend only a verbal reprimand without resignation / firing. Regardless of what happens, I hope someone will take good care of those young men and women in Afghanistan; I know what a harsh place it can be.

Arizona vs. ...Mexico??

As a preface to this post, it would only be proper to review the hypocrisy of the corrupt ruling class of Mexico, and how they will use the useful idiots in America (and their dear leader Obama) in order to oppose the Arizona immigration bill - a bill that simply enforces the current U.S. immigration laws, which are not being enforced by the Obama administration.

First is the Mexican immigration laws, and sections of the Mexican constitution that deal with immigration and foreign citizens:

"MEXICO VS. UNITED STATES: MEXICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE TOUGHER"

It should come as no surprise that Mexican laws are much tougher (illegal immigration is a FELONY), and that foreign immigrants are treated as second-class citizens. For those of you who don't know, much of the world outside of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe - i.e. the West - treats immigrants as both ethnic and national outsiders, no matter how long they have lived in the country. Tribalism is very much alive, as it always has been, and it is in fact growing stronger in most places (i.e. China).

What the corrupt oligarchs in Mexico City won't admit is that the 11-18 million illegal immigrants in America remit vast portions of their wealth to Mexico, which is a sizeable portion of Mexico's GDP. And what better way to keep a handle on the vast underclass of your country, than by "allowing" millions of this said class to cross illegally into the United States. Not only does it now become America's problem, but you no longer have to worry about a sizeable number of your constituents who are unhappy with your governance and could become a potential liability.

"How Mexico treats its illegal immigrants"

"Getting Lectured on Human Rights by Mexico"

The following video is pretty damning. Not only does it reveal the rank hypocrisy of Senor Calderon, but it also reveals, straight from his own mouth, that Mexico's immigration policies are tougher than America's, and are a real version of the worst unfounded accusations against the Arizona law.

(Mexican President Felipe Calderon admits that Mexico has tougher immigration laws than Arizona or the USA for that matter. He admits that Mexican police profile and look for people that might be illegals; he also makes it clear that you have to have "proper" papers to enter the country, and if you lack papers, you will be jailed and deported.)

What instigated this post was the recent report that Mexico will be supporting an AMERICAN lawsuit in an AMERICAN courtroom to reject the Arizona immigration law.

"Mexico asks court to reject Ariz. immigration law"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not qualify as an unlawful intrusion into the sovereign affairs of another country? As has been demonstrated, by the very fact of the amount of GDP generated by illegal immigrants' cash remitances to Mexico, and the political benefits of the migration of a large portion of your electorate, should not the Mexican government be barred from any influence in any American courtroom? The entire situation is one that mocks the rule of law, American sovereignty, and democratic values.

Finally, to reinforce the rightful and lawful aims of the Arizona immigration legislation, here are two reports from June 22 (Let it be clear that the drug wars and lawlessness of Mexico have been spilling over our border, are increasing, and will continue to do so unless our borders are enforced. Obama and the Democrats are creating a national security disaster.):

"Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona"

"AZ COPS THREATENED BY DRUG CARTEL SNIPERS AT BORDER"

Connecting the dots...

Receive bundles of money:
"Surprise! Obama Was Top Recipient of BP Donations in 2008!"

Allow the government agencies you control to approve construction, fail to inspect properly, and bypass regulations:
"Deepwater Horizon Inspections: MMS Skipped Monthly Inspections On Doomed Rig"

Fail to respond to the disaster until weeks later, when you are forced to by plummeting approval ratings:


Then punish BP to score political points, while filling your government coffers with billions to use as you deem fit:
"BP, Joe Barton, Obama, and the Shakedown"

Related:

"OFF-SHORE OIL-DRILLING, OBAMA, SOROS, PETROBRAS: CONNECTING THE DOTS"

Toss the Skeptic a Bone

A friendly, "Hello," to all. James, here, the new contributor to this fine blog. More on my (sleep-inducing) background later. You'll find fairly quickly that I'm less well-read or erudite as my fellow writer, Secundus Paulinus (whom I will refer to as SP from this point forward - at least until he berates me for arbitrarily pulling acronyms from thin air). I don't even have as slick of a handle as he does. Nevertheless, I hope to contribute for a long time and start with this humble piece just to get my toes wet. SP can then chase me around with a steel bat for taking forever to write something.

I turn our attention to climate change. It's a popular topic receiving coverage in many of the media outlets whether televised, blogged, or published. There is an international panel devoted to this phenomena as a branch of the United Nation's Environment Program(me). Would-be prophets like Al Gore regularly tour the country on a regular basis warning all of the impending doom of climate change.

But has anyone ever stopped to think, "Is this right?"

Opponents, skeptics, and even individuals who aren't completely sold on climate change are made out to be fools, lunatics and "Holocaust-deniers". Harsh words for ordinary people who approach it with a dose of healthy skepticism! To liken these people to someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who believes the Holocaust to be nothing but the product of Zionist conspirators is just a bit of a stretch, no?

My point is simply this - it would be worthwhile to hear out the climate change skeptics in the arena of scientific research and public debate. Marginalizing or minimizing the legitimacy of their arguments is unwise and scientifically unhealthy. SP has written (quite extensively) on the holes appearing in the climate change proponent arguments. The leak from the University of East Anglia has only punched through the chink in their armor and has shown that the discussion is not over. Patience, time, respect, and more research is needed before we can come to firmer conclusions.

Global Warming, R.I.P.

Whatever happened to Global Warming? Oh yeah, the international left is all worried about "Global Cooling" now.

2010: Global Warming, R.I.P.

And as the movement slowly dies and transforms, the rats are bailing ship:
According to a top IPCC scientist, there never was a consensus on Global Warming; it was just a few dozen dudes (what happened to the "THOUSANDS" of experts?).
"The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider":

'The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,”...'

Oh, and for all the dingbats who believed islands would sink under an onslaught of melting ice, yeah, no dice on that also.

"EDITORIAL: Pacific islands not sinking from global warming; New study debunks Al Gore's hysterical fairy tale":

'...researchers from the University of Auckland in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji documented changes in 27 vulnerable, low-lying reef islands in the Central Pacific. Using aerial photographs taken as early as 1944, the areas were carefully mapped and compared with modern satellite images.

It turns out that the islands did, in fact, change over time, but they are hardly sinking. Overall, 20 grew or remained stable. The island of Funamanu, for example, expanded from 7.4 acres to 9.5 acres in size - a 28 percent growth. Only seven islands shrunk, with the biggest percentage change occurring on Tengasu, which dropped from a tiny 1.7 acres to 1.5 acres - a diminishment of 9,670 square feet, the size of Mr. Gore's Tennessee mansion.
...
So the islands aren't sinking, the Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked, the Himalayas still have snow and the polar bears are alive and well. As just about every tenet in the Church of Global Warming has been debunked, it's time for the movement's high priest, Mr. Gore, to offer a refund to those from his flock who bought his work of fiction.'

I'm willing to go ahead and call this one: Victory from idiocy. Now to combat the left's next disaster-scare agenda...

Obama is in Control

One of the most common tools of calculating, devious politicians and leaders is the use of surrogates and underlings to take the blame for perceived and real failures, while always taking full credit for any successes, whether or not it has been due to their own actions. Nowhere has this behavior been more apparent than with the Obama administration.

According to Obama, failures and problems are never the result of his orders or actions, but instead are the result of incompetence or bad judgement among his various cabinet officials or unwise Democrat congressmen. Awarding KSM a civilian trial in NYC? Why, that was the idea and plan of Attorney General Eric Holder; we are supposed to believe that Obama new nothing about it and it was all Holder's doing. In other words, a major legal and security issue was decided without the approval or advice of the president? I'm sorry, but the American people are not all idiots.

From the "health" care legislation, to the Honduras debacle, to numerous other events, Obama has claimed ignorance of failures and unpopular policy. If there are noxious sections to a piece of legislation, like the Cornhusker kickback or the Louisiana Purchase, Obama claims ignorance and blame rests solely on Democrat senators. Regardless of how much back room "persuading" his chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel partakes in. We are supposed to believe that Obama, as the head of the U.S. government and his political party, does not direct or control affairs that crucially affect America.

That's what makes videos like this one so special; because they lift the mask off of the charade and show Obama in all his devious, narcissistic glory. Perhaps the only shocking part of the whole testimony is the fact that a few Democrats were working with Republicans to attempt to draft truly bipartisan legislation. But a visit to Obama got that silly notion of "bipartisanship" cleared up real quick, while adding the necessary radical elements to appease his union and leftist base while gratifying his desire for power. That the bill became the government power grab and crony capitalist piece of garbage it is now shows the true nature and agenda of Obama, and how his ideological beliefs and policy plans are vile in their disregard for working citizens and dangerous to individual liberty.

If any more proof is needed to show Obama's callous disregard for the people, his belief in his utter superiority above any kind of moral and ethical standard, and his full embrace of the postmodern leftist belief that the ends are the only real truth, look no further than his recent comment to reporters about new middle-class taxes. When asked if he would renege on his promise not to raise "any form of tax" on Americans making less than $250,000 a year, Obama replied that he wasn't going to play that "old Washington game," and that everything is on the table when it comes to reducing the deficit (that he created).

Tyrants throughout history have shown that they will promise constituencies the world in order to grab power, and once they have it, they will do anything to keep it. The socialist ideological programs of the twentieth century both exercise the totalitarian power-consolidating impulse while effectively fulfilling the vain desire to control and engineer society due to belief in intellectual and moral superiority. Studying the words, actions, past history, and character of Obama, one finds that this picture fits, and all that is required to turn him into a truly historical tyrant is an increase in the power that he currently now holds. And if you review his stated agenda, this power is what he now seeks.

The Stimulus Failure and Economic Collapse

One of the biggest stories this week was a report that a majority of economists see the Obama stimulus bill as a failure. ("Economists: the stimulus didn't help") According to these economists, the stimulus package both failed to create jobs and improve the economy, which were its supposed two main purposes. Instead, it has been pretty well documented that the Obama stimulus has operated more like a giant political slush fund, rather than a piece of legislation drafted to address the financial hardships Americans are experiencing. How else to explain the fact that "Democratic districts won twice as much stimulus as GOP districts." Well, they wrote the bill, so why not take in the spoils?

This survey of economists is yet another report, on top of the visible proof, that the stimulus failed and has only made the problem worse by papering over the problems that exist, namely excessive government spending, lax enforcement of existing financial regulations, government-forced lending to unqualified recipients, and government intervention in markets. With unemployment hovering around 10%, the real unemployment rate hovering around 17%, the highest deficits and debt in U.S. history, a costly and oppressive health care bill, a record-high budget proposal, and an unprecedented expansion of government spending, the problems will not go away, and in fact, they are going to get a lot worse in the future unless government changes its current actions.

So what is the administration's response to the fiscal insanity? To cut spending? To decrease the over-bloated size and reach of the government? To lower taxes on workers and employers in order to increase productivity and commerce? Nope, no, and not a chance. Obama's brilliant solution is to appoint a bipartisan commission with the task of advising how to reduce the deficit that he just created. And of course, the conclusions of this panel will be for "austerity": to raise taxes, introduce new taxes (like the VAT), and cut spending. But will they cut spending where it really counts, namely entitlements? Of course not. The spending that will be cut will be on defense, which will further exacerbate American decline, making the world a lot more dangerous. Just ask Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, and that's just in East Asia.

What makes one's blood boil is the fact that the record-high deficits have been created by the out-of-control spending of Obama and the Democrats since last year. And as soon as they enact economy-killing spending legislation, they immediately try to play the fiscal responsibility routine:

This is a now familiar pattern for the White House: first enact record breaking levels of deficit spending, then turn right around and promise austerity sometime in the future. This February, after signing the largest single-year increase in domestic federal spending since World War II, President Obama held a “fiscal responsibility” summit designed to “send a signal that we are serious” about putting the nation on sounder financial footing. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank quipped at the time: “Holding a ‘fiscal responsibility summit’ at the White House in the middle of a government spending spree is a bit like having an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting at a frat house on homecoming weekend.”

As stated earlier, the economic outlook is bleak. Two highly successful businessmen and financial gurus, Peter Schiff and Marc Faber, echoed economists fears by stating in no uncertain terms that "the economy is in worse shape than in 2008," and that "governments will bankrupt us."

Peter Schiff:

"A lot of people were confused – they thought the market going up was somehow ratifying what the government had done – that the stimulus and bailouts were good and the economy was improving – it's not," Schiff says. "The economy is in worse shape than in 2008."

Rather than resolved the crisis, all we've done is papered over problems in the banking system with "phony accounting" and "dug ourselves deeper into debt," says Schiff, a longtime deficit hawk.

The crisis of 2008 was merely the "overture" to the "real crisis" Schiff (still) sees coming: "The real crisis is going to be a currency crisis, a funding crisis, a sovereign debt crisis – and that's when we have to pay the piper," he says. "We're in very bad shape. Sovereign credit risk in the U.S. is just as great -- if not greater than [in] Greece."

Marc Faber:

Current economic policies are not sustainable and the world faces doom because "the governments are taking over"..."They will all bankrupt us and expropriate us, but it may not happen tomorrow. They'll give us something to play with, until the whole system breaks down...they'll just print money and print more money."

"What I object to the current government intervention in so-called 'solving the crisis', (is that) they haven't solved anything. They've just postponed it."

Faber warned that the "ultimate armageddon" would be much worse the next time around, as "governments will go bust", which would lead them to print more money.

Unless a Republican congress is elected this November that pledges to and fulfills the promises of repealing the "health" care bill, cutting entitlements and government spending, lowering taxes and enforcing existing regulations, while encouraging open markets and setting balanced budgets, any hope for an American resurgence is lost. Forever. Because if the situation is not rectified, the next step will be an increase in the supply of paper money, which will result in massive inflation, which will fatally cripple the American economy when combined with all the other conditions, including the political environment.

In other words, say hello to the rapid decline of America.

In regards to advice for the future, both Schiff and Faber are singing the same tune - along with thousands of other investors:

Schiff’s investment thesis also remains the same: He's "trying to capitalize on better opportunities that exist abroad" by being long commodities like gold and sliver, agriculture, global resource producers and emerging market stocks

and

Instead of holding cash, Faber, commonly referred to as 'Dr Gloom', advised investors to "gradually accumulate physical gold and silver" while those who want exposure to shares of gold exploration companies should buy them from time-to-time when they become cheap.

"Some of them still have reasonably good value at the present time. This is a long-term strategy because in an environment where governments will print money — and I'm convinced they're gong to bailout Greece, which means you transfer essentially bad assets on to the balance sheet on the government," he said.

When that happens, Faber warned the purchasing power of paper money will go down, rather than an appreciation of precious metal prices.

"Paper money (will go) down relative to precious metals. So in that environment, I think you...should all accumulate some gold.

Lying Liars and "Health" Care

So, it turns out that the Democrats not only lied about what is in the "health" care bill, they also withheld damning information that was presented to them before the health care vote:

The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama's health care "reform" law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius's staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

"The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote," says an HHS source. "Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think."

The analysis, performed by Medicare's Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a "nonpolitical" office, set off alarm bells when submitted. "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff," says the HHS staffer, "and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report."

In the end, the report was released several weeks after the vote -- the review by the secretary's office reportedly took less than three days -- and bore a note that the analysis was not the official position of the Obama administration.

"ObamaCare Mulligan: About those lower insurance costs we promised..."

"Administration Defends Health Law Despite Medicare Report Hiking Nation's Tab"

Well, like Nancy Pelosi said: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it!" I guess she was the girl that would eat the yellow snow to find out what it was.

Well, we are finding out more of what's in the bill everyday, and nobody likes it. The two main purposes of any potential health care legislation were to (1) bring down costs and (2) extend coverage to those who do not have it and need it. And, as we have discovered, Obamacare fails to do both of these things, and in fact, actually makes the problems worse.

Some would say that this might be by design... Some would say that this will increase the problems with medical care, which will lead to the need for more "changes"... Some might say that this is what Democrats and Obama want in order to take complete control of health care, and by extension, the lives of every individual in America...

Oh, and those claims about "death panels" in the healthcare legislation that the mainstream media denounced as lies? They're real; it's called "rationed" care, and simply put, it's when the government appoints a group of unelected bureaucrats to decide what care is approved, how much care one is entitled to, and whether or not a person is "suitable" to receive any medical care at all. And the primary concern for these "officials" is cost, not the individual. Yep, sounds like a death panel to me:

(Peter Orszag, Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget)

Oh, and 60% Believe Health Care Law Will Increase Deficit, 58% Favor Repeal.

The Absurdity of the Present

"More American Expatriates Give Up Citizenship"

Amid mounting frustration over taxation and banking problems, small but growing numbers of overseas Americans are taking the weighty step of renouncing their citizenship....

“It is a sad outcome,” Ms. Bugnion said, “but I personally feel that we are now seeing only the tip of the iceberg.”

Eating Hormone-Injected Chicken Changes Your Sexual Orientation

According to Hugo Chavez's BFF, President Evo Morales of Bolivia, eating hormone-injected chicken will make you "deviant," i.e. gay.

"Bolivian president under fire for linking chicken to deviance"

The Bolivian nutcase "also suggested that the European diet made men go bald."

While it's obviously pretty funny, it's also sad to think that this man is president of an entire nation. When you have guys like Chavez, Ahmendinejad, Mugabe, etc. spouting nonsense and absurdities on a regular basis, it really is no surprise when you witness the results of their policies. But perhaps the saddest part of all of this is that there are useful idiots in the U.S. and other Western countries who support these leaders due to their leftist philosophies.

It's also no surprise that this loon believes in the nutty idea of man-made global warming. Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective, doesn't it?

Obama vs. Israel

Since the moment Obama assumed office, Israel has experienced the wrath of a president whose leftist views inform his understanding of the Middle East. Like most radical leftists, Obama sees the Middle East, the Palestinian issue, and Israel from the perspective of perceived grievances and social justice. In other words, Israel is the mean aggressor (never mind it is a tiny Western democracy surrounded by Islamic Arab states) that seeks to deprive Arab Palestinians of their rights and economic well-being. Furthermore, Obama, as seen through his "outreach" to the Islamic world, his courting of Arab dictators, and his unwillingness to confront radical Islamofascism, seems bent on blaming Israel for all the problems in regards to the "peace" process.

This pattern of behavior fits a man who looks at America, Europe, and by extension, Israel, as colonial, imperialist oppressors, who share a combined history of guilt and injustice. To Obama, free, open democratic societies like Israel are unfair, capitalistic entities who take advantage of minorities and other groups in order to provide riches for themselves.

Taking all this into consideration, it is no wonder that Obama has treated Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, with the utmost scorn and contempt, while bending over backwards to placate Arab leaders who have proven to be intransigent and corrupt.

Stunner. Obama Has Refused All Israeli Military Requests Since Entering Office in 2009

Not only has Obama started the process of dismantling America's military superiority, but he has also seen fit to begin the process of downgrading Israel's defense capabilities. This is possible because Israel receives their defense support mainly from the U.S., which has provided them with the means to defend themselves from the hostile forces that surround their small nation.

Imagine waking up in the morning to the constant sound of sirens, warning you to find shelter because of incoming Katyusha rockets. This has become almost a way of life for residents in south and north Israel. Even recently, Israel has been faced with the prospect of another missile bombardment.

And the biggest threat to Israel is undoubtedly an Iranian nuclear bomb, for the current leadership of Iran, from President Ahmedinejad, to Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, to numerous defense and government officials, has declared that they will not hesitate to destroy Israel and wipe it off the face of the map. And how can Israel take this threat lightly? This isn't the first time that Israel has been threatened with annihilation, and Iran currently supports, supplies, and funds a massive war by proxy with Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, terrorists in Syria, etc., all receive their weapons, funding, and training from Iran. So while President Obama continues to twiddle his thumbs as Iran acquires nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel is faced with a life or death decision.

In fact, there is very little evidence to make Israel believe that Obama actually cares about their future. It has already been leaked that Obama prescribes to the popular "realism" of many American foreign policy "experts" who believe a nuclear armed Iran can be managed and contained. If this is true, then it would be clear that the current talk of "sanctions" is a massive charade, which is what the evidence indicates so far.

This has left Israel with the serious contemplation of "going it alone," and striking Iranian nuclear facilities without U.S. approval. And this really shows us how far we have come: that America's closest ally (the other is Britain, which has also been dismissed by the Obama administration) cannot depend on its closest friend to even allow it to defend itself from annihilation.

And how does a man-child president, indoctrinated in leftist bile, respond to this possibility? Why, by threatening to possibly shoot down Israeli fighter jets if they attempt to take out Iranian nuclear sites.

So it has come to this: an American president opposing a valued and close ally with the threat of military action. Obama does nothing to stop Iran from obtaining the bomb while opposing Israel every step of the way, and this results in one simple conclusion: Obama, however indirectly, is siding with evil. How else to explain the situation. Is Iran's regime evil? Yes. They murder and torture their own people who demand freedom, they supply terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza, they have formed alliances with totalitarian despots in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc., and they preach the extermination of an entire ethnic group. Now they are attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, and Obama is doing nothing to stop it, while preventing the only nation that is attempting to truly stop it from taking any action. Obama has sided with evil.

At least Israel has strong leadership during this time, which it desperately needs, and that refuses to bow down to the commands of a disastrous American president. I am also hopeful for the American Jewish community, which has been a liberal Democrat bastion for most of the last century. It seems that Obama's scorn towards Israel has awakened many American Jews to the harsh reality of leftist hatred towards Israel.

(A terrific article by Dennis Prager about America, Israel, and history.)

"Read my lips, I am a pathological liar."

"Millions face tax increases under Dems budget plan"

"Obama ‘Suggests’ VAT Tax Is An Option"

"Obama: Yeah, I'm open to a VAT"

"A VAT would rapidly increase costs across the entire spectrum of wage earners, but the middle class would get particularly hard. Usually, a VAT gets accompanied by some sort of subsidies for low-income families, and wealthy families won’t have it hit their disposable income as hard. The middle class will end up carrying the burden of a VAT, the very antithesis of Obama’s promise in 2008."

Much has been made in the past few weeks about new taxes, especially the buzz around the VAT. All of the tax talk, while it has been a constant noise in the background, has gained tremendous momentum since the passage of the Obamacare monstrosity in Congress. (Let this be evidence of the lie of deficit-neutrality in the Democrat "Health" care disaster.) But, as much as politicians may think otherwise, out-of-control spending will always be followed by taxes. And let's face it, the Democrats are run by a bunch of fiscal incompetents who believe in the lofty promises of Marxism and the regressive delusions of Keynesian economics, and these incestuous philosophies are literally founded upon the redistribution of wealth through government.

Obama, being a calculating and cynical Alinskyite-Leftist, knew that he had to sell himself as a caring centrist during the election. This naturally led to his numerous promises of "no new taxes" on the middle class. Unfortunately, for anyone who even studied the past four years of his political career, his tax promises had no bearing on the reality of the policies and programs he supported. Therefore, we are now all faced with the fact that yet another Obama promise has proven to be a lie, and we all face a future economic collapse caused by more spending, more debt, and more taxes exacerbated by government corruption. The next step will be massive inflation, and you can likely say goodbye to hopes of economic prosperity in your lifetime.

Crony Capitalism: Welcome to Obamaland

Obama received almost $1,000,000 in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs (The 2nd biggest contributor to his campaign). His chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel worked for them, Mark Patterson, the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was a Goldman Sachs lobbyist, and various other officials of the Obama administration have ties to Goldman. As one popular political personality has put it, "Goldman's nickname is Government Sachs because they've got so many people at various bureaucratic levels."
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

"All the President's Goldman men"
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_president_goldman_men_e2n0aCBBZgC4cEBbEhqFdI

"REID DODGES QUESTIONS ON GOLDMAN $$$"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/20/2275442.aspx
Harry Reid received money from a recent Goldman Sachs fundraiser, and he refuses to give the money back. Funny how Goldman Sachs holds a fundraiser for him while he is pursuing a massive financial regulatory bill... Unless Goldman Sachs likes the bill and stands to profit from it... Which in turn will be good for Harry Reid and other Democrats like Chuck Schumer, who will receive more campaign contributions. In fact, let's look at a list of Goldman Sachs' contributions to high-ranking Democrats in the Senate:

Chuck Schumer (NY), Member of both the Finance and Banking Committees:
Goldman Sachs: $481,040 (Top career contributor)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=C&cid=N00001093&newMem=N

Chris Dodd (CN), Chairman of Banking Committee:
Goldman Sachs: $273,466 (6th largest career; #1 Citigroup, #3 Bear Stearns, #5 AIG)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000581&type=I

Robert Menendez (NJ), Member of both the Finance and Banking Committees:
Goldman Sachs: $149,950 (2nd largest career contributor)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00000699&newMem=N

Max Baucus (MT), Chairman of the Finance Committee:
Goldman Sachs: $88,900 (2nd largest career contributor)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00004643&newMem=N

Just for kicks:
Hillary Clinton (NY), Former Senator and now Secretary of State:
Goldman Sachs: $682,690 (2nd largest career contributor)
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00000019&newMem=N

"Goldman charge looks more like politics than fraud"
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/financials/story.html?id=2926436
Isn't it interesting that the SEC panel, after nine months of investigation, votes to charge Goldman the same exact week that Obama and the Democrats are pushing regulatory reform legislation? And that the vote was along party lines, with the 2 Republicans voting against it, while the 2 Democrats and the Obama-appointed "Independent" vote for it?


"Dem Web war on Sachs"
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dem_web_war_on_sachs_KFbf4AqtQR2tMo2rYKyZTO
I'm sorry, either the White House and the Democrat Party believes we are all a bunch of idiots, or this is just one of the biggest coincidences in the history of politics. In short, Obama's political propaganda outfit, run out of the White House, pays Google to have the link to their regulatory reform page appear as the top search whenever a person types in the words "Goldman Sachs SEC." And this was done before the SEC released the formal charges against Goldman Sachs, and before the New York Times released the story, which the White House claims is when they were first notified about the decision.
Yes, and this morning pigs flew out of my ass.


"A Difficult Path in Goldman Case"
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/a-difficult-path-in-goldman-case/?src=busln
And what do you know? Turns out that it looks like the SEC really doesn't have any kind of case against Goldman. Well, if the case was meant to be flimsy from the beginning that means the only court it was ever meant to win in was the one of public opinion, so Democrats can pursue their political ends and pass the Dodd reform bill.


"Obama’s Former White House Counsel Craig Advising Goldman Sachs"
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-20/obama-s-former-white-house-counsel-craig-advising-goldman-sachs.html
Oh, and isn't it a coincidence that Greg Craig, former White House counsel to President Obama (he also defended Obama in the Rod Blagojevich corruption case), was assigned as counsel to Goldman Sachs? Incestuous? Yes. Is this a huge scam? Hmmm.....

"GOP seeks SEC records on Goldman"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36097.html

"Is the Goldman-Sachs scandal manufactured?"
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/is_the_goldmansachs_scandal_ma.html

Considering that Goldman only seems to be facing some slight "discomfort" as far as penalties go (if the case even sees a jury), it seems "convenient" that Obama and the Democrats have the Goldman charges right as they are pushing to pass their financial reform bill. Furthermore, the bill will actually reward Goldman, and other major firms, with taxpayer funded "bailouts" should it ever encounter financial difficulties. In other words, while Goldman will temporarily play the "bad guy," it will potentially help the Democrats and Obama to pass their legislation, which would ultimately benefit Goldman Sachs and other investment firms tremendously, which in turn benefits the politicians in Washington with fat campaign coffers.

And just to nail home the point about how good this bill is for huge investment firms like Goldman Sachs, I give you Brad Sherman, Democrat Representative from California: "The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That's something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn't dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority."

One really needs to seriously think about a "financial regulatory reform bill" that is championed by Obama and the Democrats, when it will benefit companies that are so tied in with Washington, while giving the government more control over the economy. Oh yes, the Dodd bill will give the Obama regime complete and unrestrained oversight of all American businesses. With this bill, Washington will be able to dictate which companies receive favors and get away with violations, while raising costs overall that will impact average Americans the most. Say hello to unrestrained Crony Capitalism: your new princes in Washington demand fealty.