The Myth of Idealogical Purity

There has been a parade of editorials and political cartoons depicting the Republican party as conducting some sort of purge, evicting anyone who dares to stray from some ideological standard that they claim is being set by radical right wingers. In short, that is bullshit.

The first thing that you will note on these stories, columns and cartoons, is that they are being told, written and drawn by dedicated liberals. Most annoying, (and a dead give away that it is bullshit) is the approach they take. Never do they display the delight they must surely be experiencing as they observe the self destruction of the party they love to hate. And “hate” is precisely the appropriate term to use. They won’t use it though, because they like to think that they are above that sort of thing. If you believe them, (and I don’t) they don’t hate ANYBODY.

No, they are in a constant state of anguish over the loss of the "loyal opposition,” even though they don’t consider them loyal at all, and never did. They just think it’s a doggone shame that the GOP has gone and shot themselves in the foot. “Why heck, who are we going to engage in a reasoned debate? It’s just terrible the way those Republicans have turned their party over to the right wingers and thrown out anybody who even looks moderate.” Their sympathy is touching.

But sympathy isn’t all they have to offer. They also give lots of advice. Heartfelt advice. Advice designed to put conservatives back on the track to regaining, if not an outright majority, then at least a more respectable minority percentage. They purport to be very concerned about our future and want nothing more than a robust opposition. They will say things like, “The system works best when there are two vibrant parties in the debate.”

But what they really mean is, “The system works best for us when we argue from a far left position and you take the slightly left-of-center position.”

Do yourself a favor and go re-read anything you might have digested during the 2008 presidential campaign. The GOP, trembling in fear, nominated the most “moderate” guy who was running. The man who proudly put his name alongside Russ Feingold in naming the campaign finance reform that conservatives abhorred. The guy who sent conservatives straight up a wall with his amnesty for illegal aliens. The man who spent the previous eight years as the Democrats favorite Republican, always willing to take a shot at the sitting president, to the opposition’s delight. And it was really gratifying when Democrats then showed their appreciation by demonstrating respect for this model of moderateness. It must have had something to do with moderate Republicans like Colin Powell, who publicly advised his fellow Republicans to moderate their views and nominate a real moderate. Say, somebody like John McCain for instance. That would be much more to his moderate liking, than say, Rush Limbaugh, to whom, he advised, we should all stop listening. Anyway, all I know is the Dems were respectful of McCain as a candidate and Colin Powell stood directly behind our candidate. And then stuck a shiv in his back. But at least the Democrats waited until McCain was nominated before they started chanting “Bush’s third term.”

How Noble

Good God almighty! Barrack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Ten months into a presidency that has just recently drawn criticism for having done absolutely nothing, the idiots in Stockholm couldn't resist giving the award to the most ridiculous recipient since Yassar Arafat. Apparently repeating a lot of empty cliches and not being George W. Bush was all it took. Jimmy Carter has got to be kicking himself. He spent ten years building houses and compromising world wide security with his counterproductive visits to North Korea to get his. Of course, they are both chasing Al Gore who also has an Academy Award and a Grammy to boot. Broadway is still trying to figure out a way to slip him a Tony. As the only living Democrat president to not win it, Bill Clinton is on suicide watch.

The Nobel awards for the sciences have retained a modicum of impartiality, due to the fact that they have to deal in facts. The prizes for Peace and Literature have no such constraints, and have simply and blatantly been un-American for years. When they gave it to Jimmy Carter, the message was, "You shouldn't have thown him out for Ronald Reagan." When they gave it to Al Gore, the message was, "You should have elected him instead of Bush." And today the message is, "You finally got it right!"

Here's a trivia question. From what speech does the following quote come?

"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, ..."

That would from Harold Pinter's acceptance speech for the Literature prize in 2005.

And then there is this quote from the man in the street:

"Obama won? Really? Wow," said David Hassan, 43, of Pine Brook, New Jersey. "He deserves it I guess, he's the president. He's a smart guy and I guess he's into peace."

Well there you go.

I think it will now be safe to refer to this award as The Nobel Prize for Left Wing Politics. Seriously. There is no connection to "peace" at all. Carter got it for being openly opposed to the policies of George W. Bush. Gore got it for producing a movie about global warming! Yassar Arafat got it because he said he'd stop blowing up innocent civilians, even though he did nothing of the sort. Betty Williams got it despite saying that she'd like to kill George Bush, twice. Meanwhile, Mohatma Ghandi never got one.

A Swing and a Whiff

When it comes to things that really matter, liberals are always quick to be on the other side of the United States. If you’re talking about energy consumption, they’ll recite statistics to show that we consume a disproportionate share of the world’s resources. Rather than seeing it as a result of our superior accomplishments, they view it as proof of our avarice. If you were to point out the technological advantages that US citizens enjoy, they will try and make you feel guilty because there are so many poor souls in Africa that have never even seen a computer. The average person in the US who is living below the poverty line, has a car, a color television, a VCR and air conditioning. But to liberals, where that line sits on the continuum of lifestyles from destitute to luxurious is of no interest. The very fact that there is a “poverty line” and that some are below it is more than they can stand. Everyone else should be hanging their heads in shame at their embarrassment of riches.

All of which makes their attitude about the 2016 Olympics, that much more befuddling. Now don’t get me wrong. When I put the Olympics into the category of things that don’t matter, I mean really matter. Yes, where they are, does matter. It’s always a huge boost the local economy and infrastructure. And I am a sports fan, although I have given up hoping to see more of those sports that I prefer to watch such as boxing and judo. I’m afraid we are permanently condemned to watch every single second of figure skating and “women’s” (they’re all girls) gymnastics.

But this morning Chicago was shot down as a site for 2016, despite a personal appearance and appeal from our Apologist in Chief himself, Barrack Obama. But this is one case where we truly have had more than our fair share. In the modern era, there have been 29 summer Olympics and 20 winter games. The US has hosted 4 summer events (St. Louis, Atlanta and Los Angeles twice.) North America has had six (Montreal and Mexico City.) Out of only twenty winter events the US has hosted 4 times (Salt lake City, Squaw Valley and Lake Placid twice.) North America has hosted 5 (Calgary) but that will be six after Vancouver in 2010.

In the meantime, South America has never hosted either games, even once. And if there was ever an event that should carry an element of socialist “spread-the-wealth” thinking, it would be the Olympics. It’s truly international, and again, it really doesn’t matter. It’s mostly all about national pride anyway, and liberals are never proud of the United States, particularly when we are doing something obnoxious like winning a disproportionate share of the medals, like we usually do. Well they were devastated today when Rio got the nod. But I feel that’s mostly because Obama took it on as a personal mission, and they are deeply invested in BHO’s success of failure.

Violence and Racism

I have been a critic of liberals and liberal policy ideas ever since I stopped calling myself a liberal. Yes, I once considered liberalism to be the enlightened path and considered myself one of the enlightened. But in all fairness, at the time I was living in West Texas and it was probably about 35 years ago. And at that time in West Texas, if you were young and had long hair (I was and did) you were absolutely liberal by comparison.

But I have found the past few months to be an infuriating time to be a critic of liberalism. Not because liberals are currently holding all the power (although they don't seem to be holding it very firmly or getting what they wanted out of it.) What's been so maddening has been the constant parade of accusations of racism and incitement of violence through our "incivility." I said back when Obama won the election that many people voted for him for many different reasons. And one of them, without a doubt, was the notion that we, as a country, could put to lie the idea that we are a racist nation.

But far from putting that notion behind us, liberals have resorted to crying racism more than ever. Last week Jimmy Carter, a man whose presidency could be called a failure by most any standard, put his mind reading powers on display and declared that the opposition to Obama's health care reform was due to racism plain and simple. What did he offer as evidence? Nothing other than his perception. He wasn't alone. Here are some quotes from the talking heads from just the past few weeks:

CAMPBELL BROWN: (music) ...vicious, racist imagery attacking our first African-American president.

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: (newsroom noise) Gentleman Joe Wilson has done much to make the racist history of South Carolina jump back into our present consciousness.

CANDY CROWLEY: (b-roll) Critics think this is about resistance to a black man as president.

JAMES CARVILLE: People are upset with President Obama because of the color of his skin. Who cannot believe that?

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Could there be a refusal to accept the legitimacy of Barack Obama as president because of his race?

WOLF BLITZER: A small but disturbing minority within the tea party movement is also blatantly anti-black.

JOHN RIDLEY: When you talk about racial image, this is not just standard debate.

ELAINE QUIJANO: (b-roll) A small but passionate minority is also voicing what some see as racist rhetoric.

JOHN AVLON: Hitler. Communism. Racism. All this ugliness is bubbling up.

ANDERSON COOPER: There is an undercurrent of racism in some of the criticism of the president.

JUAN WILLIAMS: An attack on somebody because you really don't like the fact that they are president or because of their race.

ROSS DOUTHAT: Clearly Barack Obama's race plays some role in the kind of anxieties that are roiling the political right.

CLARENCE PAGE: (outdoor noise) People are not just mad at Obama. They are mad at Jesse Jackson. They are mad at Reverend Wright. They are mad at Al Sharpton. They are mad at people who have nothing to do with Obama except they all happen to be black.

The references to Joe Wilson, the S. Carolina congressman who jumped up an yelled "You Lie!" to Obama during his address to congress, have been particularly numerous, despite the fact there he did not stand up and shout "You're black!." Maureen Dowd not only saw racism, she heard it, writing that there was an unspoken word that followed. She heard "You lie, boy!" Obviously the word "boy" was spoken in one of those frequencies that only dogs and NY Times columnists can hear. Calling somebody a racist is, in one way, similar to accusing somebody of rape. It's an easy charge to make, all you have to do is say it outloud. And the accused is reduced to lame responses like "Some of my best friends are black," in a vain attempt to prove a negative.

When it comes to backing up their charge, liberals have found a few convenient incidents that they consistently point out. The most common, it seems, is the poster of Barrack Obama depicted as the Batman villain, The Joker. They claim the racism is evident in the fact that the character wears white pancake makeup, which they claim is the equivalent of a sort-of-reverse blackface. At first, they claimed the image was the work of right wing racists, but that was before it was revealed to be the work of a 20 something year old Palestinian-American who happened to be a supporter of far left loony Dennis Kucinich. Left wing wack job Joel McNally used the Joker image as an example of racism along with a description of one that actually would have been racist. It showed Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. But he couldn't seem to find a picture, so I guess we'll just have to take his word, that at one time, there was such a picture and that an actual individual person carried it. No doubt evrybody else at that place was thinking it. McNally was determined to draw clear lines to the racist heart of those who oppose Obama, so he zeroed in on Michelle Malkin who had spoken at a tea party in his home town of Milwaukee. The proof of her racism was a quote ("I've never been so proud in my lifetime to be part of this angry mob!") and the titles of 3 books she wrote. One was called "In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror." The other two were termed "racially tinged." Their titles were "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores" and "Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies." I guess you have to read them to understand their true racist nature, because I sure don't get it from the titles. He then launched into a guilt by association bit where he points out that Malkin's columns have appeared on a web site deemed as a "hate" site by the Southern Policy Law Center. In other words, her writings aren't racist, but some of the people who read them are.

But the worst of this has been the suggestions about violence. Nancy Pelosi got all choked up the other day, talking about her fear of the strident rhetoric on the health care debate. She invoked the memory of the assassination of Harvey Milk and the mayor of San Francisco decades ago, saying the tone was frighteningly familiar. The epitome of this nonsense culminated with a speech by the latest disgrace from the Kennedy family, congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. Never has there been a more fitting description of a person who woke up on third base and thought he hit a triple.

He too, blasted the tone of incivility and then linked it, of course, to the assassinations that took his two uncles JFK and RFK. Then he dropped this bomb:

“George Wallace didn’t need a gun to pull a trigger. We just need to be mindful of the wisdom of people … who have been through these ugly periods in American history. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

First, does anybody else find it astoundingly ironic (and idiotic) that he puts forth an image of a racially intolerant George Wallace as leading to violence, when Wallace himself was shot and paralyzed in an assassination attempt? But make no mistake, he didn't conjure up that image by accident. He's merely advancing the storyline of a long running, fraudulent myth that his uncles were killed by the "forces of intolerance", with a heavy implication that racists were involved. Always be sure to include an association with Martin Luther King. They all died for the same reason, at the hands of the same rednecks.

JFK was a cold warrior to the core. He spent the day before his death bragging to the defense industry in Fort Worth about how much he had boosted military spending and expanded our forces in Viet Nam. Despite Oliver Stone's demented fantasy, he was NOT about to pull out of Viet Nam (only to be thwarted by a right wing assassin.) Conversations that JFK taped with a Whitehouse taping system (And hasn't he gotten free pass on that particular pactrice compared to some other presidents?), show him and RFK being quite apprehensive about Martin Luther King and what he possibly meant for their political futures. They were brought in to the civil rights movement, maybe not kicking and screaming, but certainly with great caution and apprehension. JFK was murdered by an avowed communist who had previously defected from the US Marine corps to Soviet Russia. After returning to America, he spent his time agitating for Fidel Castro. Three weeks before he shot Kennedy, he took a shot at right wing general Edwin Walker with the same gun he later used on Kennedy. RFK was killed by a drunken anti-Zionist who hated his support of Israel. The point is neither were killed by or for the benefit of racists. But that has never stopped the unimpressive collection of remaining Kennedys from making that ridiculous claim.

But what has been so infuriating about all of this is that all the people who are opposing Obama's policies, opposed those same policies when espoused by any other liberal, white or black. They opposed socialized medicine when Bill and Hillary put it out there. They opposed higher taxes when Walter Mondale tried being "honest" and said he'd raise taxes. The same people have opposed these ideas for DECADES, not just the nine months that we've had a black president. But apparently the consistency of the opposition is overlooked entirely. It must all be due to racism. There is simply no other explanation.

Fast Food Worker Syndrome

I just got back from lunch where I experienced a victim of Fast Food Worker Syndrome. If you don't know what that is just read the conversation that I've recounted below. The cause of this behavior is that all fast food workers are drilled with a script that they are supposed to recite, without fail, to each and every customer that comes in their door. I suppose they are after consistency in the treatment of their customers, which sounds like a good thing. But the result is less than endearing to the typical person like myself. Maybe it's because I have heard the script before and I already know what information they are going to ask of me. Anyway here's exactly how it went at Popeye's Chicken today:

FF Worker: "Can I take your order?"

Me: "Yes, I'd like a two piece combo, spicy, with mashed potatoes and Cajun gravy for the side.

FF Worker: "You want that mild or spicy?"

Me: "Spicy."

FF Worker: "And what do you want for a side?"

Me: (Giving him a very irritated look) "I said I wanted mashed potatoes and Cajun gravy."

FF Worker: "OK, you want that mild and dark meat?"

Me: (Giving him an I-can't-believe-you're-asking-me-this-again look) Spicy!

FF Worker: "Do you want dark meat?"

Me: "I suppose"

FF Worker: "And what kind of drink do you want?"

Me: "Root beer"

You would have to be there to appreciate how stupid that last question was because when he asked me, I looked around the restaurant, and sure enough, the soda machine is on my side of the counter. That's right, you get your own drink.

2010

It's my understanding that Hillary Clinton has maintained a staff of eight from her failed presidential campaign and that they are continuing to raise money. A staff of eight is relatively small for a presidential campaign, but rather large don't you think for one that ended over a year ago. That's a larger staff than some active campaigns for senator have. And continuing to raise money, even though she has already retired all campaign debts?

Look for her to resign as Secretary of State in 2010. It won't happen until Obama's numbers are really tanking, but they are already headed that way. You watch, she will then try and pull the same trick on Obama that Ted Kennedy tried on Jimmy Carter and run against her party's incumbent president for the nomination. The Secretary of State position was always just a resume builder for her, but I think she has decided that she can't wait until 2016.

Hard to Believe They're Going to Do It Again

Just a quick note to express my amazement about the proposed health care insurance "reform" that is about to come out of Washington.

Maybe the final version will be different, but I understand there are two provisions that are infuriating to me. The first one says that illegal aliens, specifically, will be covered. And the other is that members of congress will not be. Congress got away with a similar atrocity years ago when they exempted themselves from Social Security. If there ever was a reason to throw your congressman/senator out of office, this would be it. How can they possibly sit there and impose a system that they know will deliver inferior care to the public, on the rest of us while they have access to a different system? I wrote both senators and the lovely Tammy Baldwin trying to extract a commitment that they would not pass anything that they aren't also participating in. I'm still waiting for the replies.

Sophisticated Taxpayers

In the financial world there is a classification often used by the Securities and Exchange Commission called a "sophisticated investor." It's used to differentiate between the guy on the street who may not understand the risks involved in a particular class of securities from an experienced investor who does, or at least should. So, for instance, Warren Buffet or a PhD in Finance can be sold these securities because they presumably understand the risk, while a short order cook making his first foray into market could not be. That term came to mind during the fiasco that is the Obama cabinet appointments.



Three of Obama's high profile picks were suddenly found to be, or have been tax deficient. All three, in my estimation would qualify as sophisticated taxpayers. Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader apparently filed amended returns as soon as he was offered the job to head Health and Human Services. The original story was that he had not declared the use of a car (limousine) and driver that had hauled him around Washington DC the past 3 years. (You mean he didn't go back to live in South Dakota?) At first glance this seems plausible even to those who know that it should be considered income. It was just an oversight. But after withdrawing his name from contention, the story started to add a few details. The first tip was that the back taxes amounted to $120,000 plus $11,000 in interest. The problem with that number is that it doesn't match up. If we were to assume he's at a marginal rate of 35%, that would make the value of the car and driver around $350,000. I don't think so, even if they gave him the limo. Then it came out that part of the liability came from consulting fees he received and failed to declare as income, and that he "took more in charitable deductions than he should have." Which sounds like he fabricated them. I think in most peoples view, those are both more aggressive actions that would constitute tax evasion. But wait, there's more.

His pick for the newly created productivity czar was one Nancy Killeher. She had worked for the huge international consulting firm, McKinsey & Co. While they are not CPA's, their expertise is in finance and budgeting. What little is out there on this story is total bullshit. It seems that as soon as she was named, the AP did a little digging and discovered that she had a tax lien filed against her house for non-payment of workers comp insurance for a domestic employee. The tax lien was filed in 2005 and was paid off 5 months later. Taking that information at face value, I cannot believe it is at the heart of her withdrawal. A lien of less than $950 is filed against her house 4 years ago, and she paid it off long before she got the nomination. What's the big deal? Obviously this was not about that particular issue, and Obama's team isn't talking. We can only hope that the real reason comes out, but that's doubtful. I can't see anybody pursuing it on a nominee who withdrew. We'll see. But wait there's more!

Timothy Geither was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when Obama picked him for Treasury Secretary. But he had previously worked for the International Monetary Fund. But he was apparently paid as a contract employee for those 5 years and not as an employee. That meant he got a 1099 instead of a W2 and would have been required to pay self employment taxes of around 15%. It is absolutely impossible that he did not understand what his tax situation or status was. In fact, the IMF, well aware of this, would "gross up" his pay each year. That is, they gave him an additional bonus that equaled that 15% and it was for the express purpose of providing him with the cash with which to pay those self employment taxes. For all 5 years, he took the supplemental tax bonus and pocketed it, never paying any self employment tax. Furthermore, when he finally got caught by the IRS at the end of the 5 years, he only paid the tax on the last three because the statute of limitations had run out on the other two. He also tried to write off his son's summer camp as a business expense. It was only after getting the nomination for Treasury that he went and paid off those years where the statutes had run out.

But what really makes this whole thing stink is that Geither who by any measure was far and away the worst offender with the least of a defense, particularly ignorance, is the one who got confirmed while the others hastily withdrew their nominations. We may never know what it is, but there is FAR more to this story than we know now.