Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE LIST OF REASONS TO DISLIKE OBAMA:

 In a wide-ranging interview with the New Yorker, President Obama characteristically saw fit to cast aspersions on those who disagree with him. Obama told David Remnick:
There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who really just dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President.
Now it’s true that Obama went on to say that there are many voters, both black and white, who give him the benefit of the doubt on account of his race. What this indicates is a man who sees everything in terms of race. Or put another way, Obama views the world in black and white.
As I write this, it is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. My dislike of President Obama isn’t a matter of the color of his skin, but rather because of the content of his character or lack thereof.
I dislike President Obama because of hispetulance. What other President would tell the opposition party in his first meeting with them, “I won. I’m the president,”? What other President would intervene in a local matter and declare that its police department had “acted stupidly” while admitting he did not have all the facts? What other President would make the Dalai Lama leave the White House through a side entrance with a big pile of garbage awaiting him? What other President would tell the Prime Minister of Israel to let himself out of the White House? What other President would unceremoniously return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the British? What other President would while traveling abroad describe his country as “arrogant, derisive and dismissive?”
I dislike President Obama because of his prickly disposition. For most of his public life, President Obama has faced a media which fawns over him. But when a TV reporter from Dallas would not bow before Obama and had the temerity to question him about his margin of defeat in Texas in the 2008 election, the President tersely told the reporter to let him finish his answers in the future. Our President is also quick to challenge those he believes are questioning his patriotism, but has no qualms about questioning the patriotism of others as he did with those in Congress who demanded to be consulted about our mission to Libya in 2011.
I dislike President Obama for his lack of humility, unlimited capacity to overestimate his capabilities, and delusions of grandeur. Obama believes he knows more about Judaism than any of his predecessors including John Adams and James Madison, both of whom read Hebrew. Yet such a boast is consistent with someone who thinks he is a better speechwriter than his speechwriter or a better political director than his political director; consistent with someone who thinks he can play on LeBron James’s level; consistent with someone who likens his plight to that of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela and consistent with someone who likens his presidency to that of Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ.
I dislike President Obama for his disingenuous disposition. It has been nearly three years since Obama told Americans to talk to each other “in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” Obama, however, gave himself and those working for his re-election a waiver from this edict. When Stephanie Cutter, his deputy campaign manager (now a co-host for CNN’s new version of Crossfire), suggested that Mitt Romney had committed a felony concerning his departure from Bain Capital, Obama not only didn’t condemn Cutter’s statement but called it “entirely appropriate.”
So it’s not surprising that President Obama considered it “entirely appropriate” for Latino voters to “punish our enemies” before the 2010 mid-term elections and the following year considered it “entirely appropriate” to say that Republicans want Americans to have “dirtier air, dirtier water” and “less people with health insurance.” Well, with the way Obamacare has been implemented there will be fewer people with health insurance.
Having mentioned Obamacare, I dislike President Obama because of his dishonesty. Now I should mention I thought Obama’s honesty was questionable when he claimed he had no idea Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man he knew for 20 years, presided at his wedding with Michelle and baptized his children, held anti-American views. Alas, a majority of Americans were prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in 2008 over Reverend Wright. A majority of Americans were also prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in 2012 when he repeatedly declared, “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.”
Well, in the 120 or so days since the implementation of Obamacare, millions of Americans have found out the hard way that they cannot keep the health insurance that they like. If the employer mandate is not delayed again this year then millions more will join their ranks. Over the past 120 or so days, more Americans have come to dislike Obama, including many who voted for him not once, but twice. Late last November, CNN/ORC International released a poll indicating that 53% of Americans do not believe Obama to be honest and trustworthy while 56% of Americans believe that Obama is not someone to be admired. These numbers represented an all-time low for President Obama. None of this has anything do to with Obama’s race.
Indeed, why should anyone dislike Obama because of his race when there are so many other good reasons to dislike him?

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Sunday, January 19 2014

IN A NUTSHELL WHY DEMOCRATS DO BETTER THAN REPUBLICANS WITH CORRUPTION:

BLUE STATE BLUES: WHY DEMOCRATS ARE 'BETTER' AT CORRUPTION

This story begins with the first bailout the Tea Party ever stopped. 

In May 2010, I helped the Illinois Tea Party organize a demonstration on LaSalle Street in downtown Chicago outside the offices of Shorebank, which was about to be bailed out by the federal government and Wall Street's biggest banks. The bank was meant to have been closed down already by the FDIC, given its staggering spiral of bad debts, but the day of reckoning had been delayed while its friends in the White House and on Capitol Hill tried to find a way to save it.
Those friends included Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), whom I challenged in the 2010 election, and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). They tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the State of Illinois to bail out the bank. They tried using their contacts in the White House--the president and first lady had been neighbors to Shorebank executives--to forestall the bank's collapse. Andhrough FDIC chair Sheila Bair, they called the same big banks they were browbeating in Congress--including Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan--to bail out their precious Shorebank.
It might have happened. But the Tea Party protest gained some local media attention, and the interest of former Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who demanded answers as to whether, and how, the Obama White House was protecting Shorebank. Republicans asked the FDIC inspector general to investigate, and the Treasury and Federal Reserve began backing away. The bank was shut down and taxpayers took over its bad assets--but its managers were permitted to buy the good ones, reopening as Urban Partnership Bank.
The FDIC inspector general concluded, incredibly, that there had not been inappropriate political influence--that the Wall Street banks agreed to help, for instance because they "believed in ShoreBank's mission and they did not feel pressure to invest as a result of the FDIC chairman's calls." 
That is a joke: the banks are required to "believe" in banks like Shorebank due to the Community Reinvestment Act, as well as by the daily bullying of politicians and the thuggish tactics of far-left groups like the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.
Now, the FDIC is suing Shorebank for $73 million over its bad loans. Yet it is not suing Shorebank's directors. Rather, it is suing the lowly loan officers. That is "a highly unusual omission," notes Steve Daniels of Crain's, "as board members have been sued in all but one of the 70-plus FDIC suits filed since July 2010." 
The FDIC claims that Shorebank's board members did not actually approve the loans. But that's not what the loan officers say. And so the question of the cozy relationships between the directors and the government has arisen once again.
Initially, I found the Shorebank scandal interesting because Schakowsky's husband, Robert Creamer, had used Shorebank as part of a check-kiting scheme that he used to fund his left-wing organizing operations. He eventually went to federal prison for several months in 2006-7, where he began work on the political manifesto that laid the foundations for selling Obamacare to the public after an anticipated "progressive" presidential win in 2008 (“To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust”).
After he left prison, Creamer was hired by the Obama campaign to train its volunteers and continues to play a role in Democrat strategy on issues such as immigration reform, as well as in political campaigns around the country. There was no evidence of any quid pro quo in Creamer's dealings with Shorebank--a point he stressed to me when I met Schakowsky for a debate held by the League of Women Voters. Yet Schakowsky's personal interest in the fate of Shorebank--which was not the only troubled community bank around--remains a mystery.
While Shorebank cost the FDIC half a billion dollars, the scandal was largely overlooked, save by the Tea Party and a few journalists--notably Steve Daniels of Crain's and Becky Yerak of the Chicago Tribune
Democrats often excel at making such scandals disappear. The IRS scandal is a case in point: the Obama administration assigned an Obama donor to lead the internal investigation, and has now rewritten the rules governing 501(c)4 non-profit groups so that many of the abuses by the IRS in the past would be legal in the future--and forgotten.
In contrast, subpoenas have been issued in New Jersey to investigate lane closures on the George Washington Bridge that members of Gov. Chris Christie's staff are alleged to have ordered as a form of political retaliation against a local Democrat mayor who would not endorse the governor's re-election. 
If true, the allegations are grave. Yet they are no worse than what the Obama administration has done--not just in the IRS scandal but as a matter of routine practice, as when it shut down open-air national monuments last fall to hurt Republicans.
There is a media double standard, but there is more to it than that. The emails (!) allegedly sent by Christie's staff have an amateurish tone, reminiscent of the clumsy tactics of Richard Nixon's team of "Plumbers," whose botched burglary at the Watergate Hotel brought down that administration. It may be that Republicans are simply worse at corruption and abuses of power. Democrats occasionally get caught but seem better at covering their tracks. (Who remembers how close Obama was to Tony Rezko? Who is Tony Rezko, anyway?)
Democrats are the party of government, so they understand it better, at least when it comes to using it for a political self-interest. They know that punishing your enemies is only part of the game: the more important part is rewarding and protecting your friends. 
Most know that government is inefficient at achieving anything of use (e.g., Obamacare), but when it comes to spending money and spreading favors, it must be, in the words of David Axelrod, a "well-oiled machine." That is how Democrats govern, and few manage to get into trouble.
Republicans like Christie and Nixon understand the punishment part but not the reward part. Like the leaders of formerly colonized third world countries, when they gain power they cannot help but imitate the old regimes, but seem to reproduce only their worst aspects. 
Democrats learn quickly--Obama's best models were Chicago mayors--how to couch self-dealing in the public interest. They still believe, or pretend, there is a difference between "honest graft and dishonest graft." And--best of all--they heap praise on each other for their "service."

It is demonstrably apparent that Democrats love big government because it is their business.  This has been the case since Woodrow Wilson's progressive era administration in the teens, and has evolved since, first in the Roosevelt New Deal years, followed by the Johnson War on Poverty years and now with the Obama Administration's socialized healthcare regime.  All this is a progression to collectivism and a state run economy that produces equal outcomes and social justice.  All this has been tried many times in the past and has always failed to produce the society its proponents seek.  To understand why collectivism always fails one must understand the subject of economics.  Regrettably there are almost no Democrats (and far too few Republicans, by the way) who are familiar with this subject.  Until there are more who are, we are bound to lurch along, reinventing the wheel with the  Democrats, pulling back from the abyss occasionally with the Republicans, vacillating between the two ad infinitum.