Russia's Satan II Missile

This was just a blip in the news. Should we be paying more attention? I think so:

Russia unveils 'Satan 2' missile, could wipe out France or Texas, report says

[...] The missile will have a range exceeding 11,000 kilometers (6,835 miles), TASS said. The warhead will weigh 100 tons and is designed as a successor to the R-36M Voyevoda.

According to a statement posted on the maker's website, "the Sarmat is designed to provide strategic Russian forces with a guaranteed and effective fulfillment of nuclear deterrence tasks" and is being co-developed with the Russian military.

The Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau's website describes it as "one of largest research and design centers in Russia for the development of rocket and space technology."

NATO has been bolstering its defenses in countries along the Russian border amid growing concerns about Moscow's military direction. NATO defense ministers are currently meeting in Brussels to discuss the situation, as well as the fight against ISIS.

Earlier this month, Moscow announced that it was suspending an arms reduction agreement with the US in which both countries agreed to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium, enough for thousands of nuclear bombs, over what it called Washington's "unfriendly actions" toward Russia, TASS reported.

I had posted previously about why sanctions against Russia would be likely to fail. While we've been downsizing and underfunding our military, China and Russia have been spending billions expanding and updating theirs.

While the Democrats flog hysteria about Russia, in an attempt to smear and discredit Donald Trump and the Republican party, they seem oblivious to the real danger they are encouraging and facilitating.

Closing the two Russian compounds on American soil was an appropriate response to any meddling the Russians may have attempted. It was enough. But everything else goes too far, and isn't serving our national interest. It's serving Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, who can't face up to the fact that she was a poor candidate, who lost once to Barack Obama, which proved she could be beaten, and who couldn't even beat Donald Trump, with all his flaws.

As usual, she takes no responsibility and blames anyone and everyone else, when her will is thwarted. Hillary's sour grapes are NOT something worth escalating conflicts with Russia for.

     

Russia Gate: no "golden ticket" for clueless Democrat Leaders?

I think even most Democrats see it for what it is, even if their party leadership is clueless. A case in point:

Russia-gate Flops as Democrats’ Golden Ticket

The national Democratic Party and many liberals have bet heavily on the Russia-gate investigation as a way to oust President Trump from office and to catapult Democrats to victories this year and in 2018, but the gamble appears not to be paying off.

[...]

Indeed, the Democrats may be digging a deeper hole for themselves in terms of reaching out to white working-class voters who abandoned the party in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to put Trump over the top in the Electoral College even though Clinton’s landslide win in California gave her almost three million more votes nationwide.

Clinton’s popular-vote plurality and the #Resistance, which manifested itself in massive protests against Trump’s presidency, gave hope to the Democrats that they didn’t need to undertake a serious self-examination into why the party is in decline across the nation’s heartland. Instead, they decided to stoke the hysteria over alleged Russian “meddling” in the election as the short-cut to bring down Trump and his populist movement.

A Party of Snobs?

From conversations that I’ve had with some Trump voters in recent weeks, I was struck by how they viewed the Democratic Party as snobbish, elitist and looking down its nose at “average Americans.” And in conversations with some Clinton voters, I found confirmation for that view in the open disdain that the Clinton backers expressed toward the stupidity of anyone who voted for Trump. In other words, the Trump voters were not wrong to feel “dissed.”

It seems the Republicans – and Trump in particular – have done a better job in presenting themselves to these Middle Americans as respecting their opinions and representing their fears, even though the policies being pushed by Trump and the GOP still favor the rich and will do little good – and significant harm – to the middle and working classes.

This article, I could argue with that last comment or any number of assumptions and assertions that the author makes throughout. But I'm not going to bother. Because far more interesting to me, is the arguments he makes about how the Dems are out of touch and really screwing things up. Read on:

By contrast, many of Hillary Clinton’s domestic proposals might well have benefited average Americans but she alienated many of them by telling a group of her supporters that half of Trump’s backers belonged in a “basket of deplorables.” Although she later reduced the percentage, she had committed a cardinal political sin: she had put the liberal disdain for millions of Americans into words – and easily remembered words at that.

By insisting that Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee – after leftist populist Bernie Sanders was pushed aside – the party also ignored the fact that many Americans, including many Democrats, viewed Clinton as the perfectly imperfect candidate for an anti-Establishment year with many Americans still fuming over the Wall Street bailouts and amid the growing sense that the system was rigged for the well-connected and against the average guy or gal.

In the face of those sentiments, the Democrats nominated a candidate who personified how a relatively small number of lucky Americans can play the system and make tons of money while the masses have seen their dreams crushed and their bank accounts drained. And Clinton apparently still hasn’t learned that lesson.

Citing Women’s Rights

Last month, when asked why she accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking to Goldman Sachs, Clinton rationalized her greed as a women’s rights issue, saying: “you know, men got paid for the speeches they made. I got paid for the speeches I made.”

Her excuse captured much of what has gone wrong with the Democratic Party as it moved from its working-class roots and New Deal traditions to becoming a party that places “identity politics” ahead of a duty to fight for the common men and women of America.

Demonstrating her political cluelessness, Clinton used the serious issue of women not getting fair treatment in the workplace to justify taking her turn at the Wall Street money trough, gobbling up in one half-hour speech what it would take many American families a decade to earn.

While it’s a bit unfair to personalize the Democratic Party’s problems, Hillary and Bill Clinton have come to represent how the party is viewed by many Americans. Instead of the FDR Democrats, we have the Davos Democrats, the Wall Street Democrats, the Hollywood Democrats, the Silicon Valley Democrats, and now increasingly the Military-Industrial Complex Democrats.

To many Americans struggling to make ends meet, the national Democrats seem committed to the interests of the worldwide elites: global trade, financialization of the economy, robotization of the workplace, and endless war against endless enemies.

Now, the national Democrats are clambering onto the bandwagon for a costly and dangerous New Cold War with nuclear-armed Russia. Indeed, it is hard to distinguish their foreign policy from that of neoconservatives, although these Democrats view themselves as liberal interventionists citing humanitarian impulses to justify the endless slaughter.

Earlier this year, a Washington Post/ABC News poll found only 28 percent of Americans saying that the Democrats were “in touch with the concerns of most people” – an astounding result given the Democrats’ long tradition as the party of the American working class and the party’s post-Vietnam War reputation as favoring butter over guns.

Yet rather than rethink the recent policies, the Democrats prefer to fantasize about impeaching President Trump and continuing a blame-game about who – other than Hillary Clinton, her campaign and the Democratic National Committee – is responsible for Trump’s election. Of course, it’s the Russians, Russians, Russians! [...]

He's nailed it! Read the whole thing for even more about the deep roots of the problem, and the serious errors the Democrat Party are continuing to make.
     

OMG is The Donald Going to Win?

I predicted it would be Hillary, and said I'd have to eat crow if he won. Anyone got a good recipe for crow?

I had almost done a post about this article from the Atlantic Monthly:

Hillary Has No One to Blame but Herself
Despite all the advantages she enjoys, the Democratic candidate could lose the election in November.

If Donald Trump becomes president, the world will have Hillary Clinton to blame.

On the day her campaign released an ad that makes a brutal and effective case against a Trump presidency—“Our children are watching”—a New York Times poll revealed the cost of her squandered credibility.

Clinton and Trump are tied nationally, each supported by 40 percent of voters, in a survey taken after FBI director James Comey undercut Clinton’s shifting and deceptive explanations of her email practices at the State Department. A month ago, she held a six-point lead in the same poll.

While this is just one poll, virtually all statewide and national surveys suggest the race is tightening despite a number of factors weighted in Clinton’s favor. These include: [...]

You can read the whole thing. The many reasons. It's starting to look prophetic now. And it was one of many, from The New Yorker and more. For all the reasons these articles state.

I live in a Blue State, in a Democrat town. I've seen lots of signs for Trump/Pence. Lots of signs for local Democrats. None for Clinton. In the last election, there were tons of signs and bumper stickers for Obama. But this time, none for Clinton. I thought I saw one Clinton bumper sticker the other day, but when I got close, it didn't say "Hillary Clinton for President 2016". It said "Hillary Clinton for Prison 2016".

In so many ways, she was an unpopular choice for the nomination. So many Democrats who were younger and more qualified, who never got a chance to even try in the nomination process. This is what happens, when you try to push an unpopular candidate on people. Of course there are other factors as well. Read the articles I linked to for details!

Anyway, it's not over till it's over. We shall see.
     

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Here is the Myth exposed:

No, Bernie Sanders, Scandinavia is not a socialist utopia

When Bernie Sanders was asked during CNN’s Democratic presidential debate how a self-proclaimed socialist could hope to be elected to the White House, he gave the answer he usually gives: Socialism has been wonderful for the countries of Scandinavia, and America should emulate their example.

“We should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people,” Sanders said. When the moderator turned to Hillary Clinton, she agreed that America has to “save capitalism from itself” and that, yes, Scandinavia is great. “I love Denmark,” declared Clinton. It was the only time in the debate a candidate uttered the verb “love.”

Liberals have had a crush on Scandinavia for decades. “It is a country whose very name has become a synonym for a materialist paradise,” observed Time magazine in a 1976 story on Sweden. “Its citizens enjoy one of the world’s highest living standards. . . . Neither ill health, unemployment nor old age pose the terror of financial hardship. [Sweden’s] cradle-to-grave benefits are unmatched in any other free society outside Scandinavia.” In 2010, a National Public Radio story marveled at the way “Denmark Thrives Despite High Taxes.” The small Nordic nation, said NPR, “seems to violate the laws of the economic universe,” improbably balancing low poverty and unemployment rates with stratospheric taxes that were among the world’s highest.

Such paeans may inspire Clinton’s love and Sanders’ faith in America’s socialist future. As with most urban legends, however, the reality of Scandinavia’s welfare-state utopia doesn’t match the hype. [...]

The rest of the article goes into detail about how Scandinavian prospered in spite of socialism, not because of it. How socialism nearly destroyed their prosperity, and how they have spend years rolling back welfare and taxes, and re-introducing free market reforms. How much of the success of Scandinavian countries has to do with who they are:

[...] The real key to Scandinavia’s unique successes isn’t socialism, it’s culture. Social trust and cohesion, a broad egalitarian ethic, a strong emphasis on work and responsibility, commitment to the rule of law — these are healthy attributes of a Nordic culture that was ingrained over centuries. In the region’s small and homogeneous countries (overwhelmingly white, Protestant, and native-born), those norms took deep root. The good outcomes and high living standards they produced antedated the socialist nostrums of the 1970s. Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t spring from leftist policies. It survived them. [...]

Read the whole thing, it's short and it gets to the point, with many embedded links to back up what it says.

BTW, I've no objections to looking at Scandinavia as a model, so long as we look at everything, their successes and their failures. We could learn a lot from both of those. If some things they've done were successful and could be adopted by us, so be it. It's just the sweeping generalizations based on fantasy that I'm leary of. Read the whole article. Why adopt policies from the Scandinavians that they themselves have discarded as unworkable? Even policies that work for them in their largely homogenous culture, may not necessarily transplant to ours. When looking for role models, let's keep it REAL, shall we?
     

"The Clintons are counting on America to digest their ethical lapses the way a python swallows a goat" Will we?

Hillary’s Cynical Song of Self

Recently I wrote a column about Hillary Clinton’s method of lying: bald deceit sold to liberals with a wink-and-nod as the price of advancing a progressive agenda in this bigoted country of ours. Several readers wrote me to object that the mendacity I ascribed to Mrs. Clinton applied equally to Republicans.

Maybe. But what was striking about these critics is that none of them bothered to rebut the point that Mrs. Clinton is a habitual liar who treats truthfulness in politics the way a calorie-counting diner might treat hollandaise sauce on steak: to be kept strictly on the side or dribbled on in measured doses. Her lying has become as much a given in the liberal mind as Bill Clinton’s womanizing: He does his thing, she does hers.

Get over it.

All of which means that Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid is an exercise in—and a referendum on—cynicism, partly hers but mainly ours. Democrats who nominate Mrs. Clinton will transform their party into the party of cynics; an America that elects Mrs. Clinton as its president will do so as a nation of cynics. Is that how we see, or what we want for, ourselves?

This is what the 2016 election is about. You know already that if Mrs. Clinton runs for president as an Elizabeth Warren-style populist she won’t mean a word of it, any more than she would mean it if she ran as a ’90s-style New Democrat or a ’70s-style social reformer. The real Hillary, we are asked to believe, is large and contains multitudes.

In other words, she’s singing a Song of Herself. She will say, do, and be pretty much anything to get elected. And the rest of us are supposed to fall in line because we prefer our politics to be transactional not principled, our politicians to be opportunists not idealists, and our national creed to be “do what you gotta do” not “upon this rock.” This is what might be called the Clinton Bargain: You can always count on their self-interest trumping other considerations, so you never have to fear that they can’t be bought.

The only question is who is doing the buying.

In recent days we’ve begun to learn some of their names: [...]

Hillary doesn't have to appear perfect to win; she only has to appear to be less-bad than any Republican candidate she runs against. And with the media on her side, she just might pull it off.

The article goes on to postulate the reasons why. And one or two why-nots. The author thinks Hillary can be beat. Ida know. I won't hold my breath. Read the whole thing, and see what you think.


Also see: Clinton's email spin-control, and the questions that nobody is asking

     

The Coronation of Hillary Clinton?

Dick Meyer: The problem isn't Hillary, it's the Democrats

[...] The scandal is not that she may have broken rules, it's that the Democratic Party is allowing her to march unopposed to a coronation.

[...]

There cannot be a single voter in America that is surprised Hillary is already boiling in a scandal, or pseudo-scandal, depending on your perspective. Love them or hate them, this is what they do and this is what happens to them. Fair or unfair, this is their mythic cycle, their dramatic fate.

Perhaps this is the act that ends Hillary's performance, but probably not. And perhaps, if she stays in the race, there will be no more scandal dramas before November 2016, but probably not.

The very simple point is that Democratic Party is insane to have put itself in this position - this entirely predictable situation. After all, Hillary did lose to an unlikely newcomer in 2008, Barack Obama. She'll obviously be beatable in a general election.

Some blame the Clintons, which is wrongheaded. It's not their fault that they scared off all credible opposition and ran the most effective pre-primary of any modern campaign (thus far). That is exactly what they are supposed to do.

It is the job of the party to create competition and breed national candidates of stature. Mock the Republican field if you want, at least it is a field and not just a pitcher's mound.

I have argued before that the Democrats have become the conservative party in America, the Establishment Party more protective of the status quo and big business than the Republicans. This is yet another sign.

The Democrats are arguably more invested in the Political-Industrial Complex. Their legions aren't true believers but consultants, lobbyists, vendors, hacks, ambassadors-in-waiting and aspiring political appointees. Not backing Team Clinton is a bad career move. But now they have a problem. [...]

Do they? Have a problem? The author rightly points out that people have come to expect this sort of thing from the Clintons. The email controversy would likely be fatal for a Republican, but for a Democrat? I doubt it. Her supporters are not likely to stop supporting her. I think the coronation will proceed.

Ever since Ted Kennedy was allowed to continue in office even after he left a woman to die of suffocation underwater in the back seat of his car, the Democrats lowered the bar for what is acceptable from their candidates. I doubt that the email scandal will derail the coronation of Hillary, or even slow it down much, but we'll see.
     

Clinton's email spin-control, and the questions that nobody is asking

Fact check: Clinton e-mails and the privacy 'privilege'

[...] Clinton, a likely presidential candidate in 2016, has been embroiled in an e-mail controversy since March 2, when The New York Times reported that she exclusively used a private e-mail account at clintonemail.com to conduct government business. At a press conference on March 10, Clinton said she sent and received more than 60,000 e-mails during her time in office. At the State Department's request, Clinton turned over about half of them to the government in December. The rest were deleted because they were personal, she said.

Asked whether she would agree to allow an "independent third party to come in and examine your e-mails," Clinton replied that she should be treated no differently than federal employees who have a government e-mail account and a personal e-mail account. They can decide when they send an e-mail whether to use the government or private account.

"So, even if you have a work-related device with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that," she told reporters.

That's true, of course, but the situation she describes is not entirely analogous, since Clinton had no government account. She made the choice to use only a personal e-mail account set up on a personal server.

Moreover, Clinton's office went too far when answering the same question in a Q&A it released on the day of the press conference. The Q&A detailed the Clinton team's review process and answered some common questions that have been raised since the Times story first appeared.

One of the questions in the Q&A: "Do you think a third party should be allowed to review what was turned over to the Department, as well as the remainder that was not?" Clinton's office answered, in part: "Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts. Secretary Clinton exercised her privilege to ensure the continued privacy of her personal, non-work related emails."

That characterization of the rules governing government e-mail systems is not accurate.

State Department policy — spelled out in the Foreign Affairs Manual under "Points to Remember About E-mail" — says there is "no expectation of privacy." Specifically, 5 FAM 443.5 says, in part: "Department E-mail systems are for official use only by authorized personnel" and "The information in the systems is Departmental, not personal. No expectation of privacy or confidentiality applies."

Clinton is correct that the department policy allows employees to delete e-mails that are not work-related. The 5 FAM 443.5 rule also says, "Messages that are not records may be deleted when no longer needed."

But Baron — who served 13 years as director of litigation at the National Archives, which is responsible for maintaining government records — said in an interview that Clinton's use of a private server gave her exclusive control, thus preventing the department from having full access to e-mails she sent and received while a federal employee. Government employees have no right to privacy on government computers and even personal e-mails are subject to review and perhaps release at the department's discretion.

"Setting up a private server to conduct public business inappropriately shifts control of what is accessible to the end user alone rather than allowing the institution to decide threshold questions," he told us.

We sent e-mails to Clinton's office and to the State Department asking about the privacy claim but received no response. [...]

Read the whole thing for embedded links and more.

The article goes on to say that Clinton claims that she was emailing people in the State Department with .gov email accounts, and that they have copies of the emails she sent. Sure, the one's she sent to THEM. What about the other emails she sent other people, as Secretary of State? Ironically, her statement also confirms something else. The people in the State Department that she was emailing, knew that she was not using a .gov account, and they just let her do it anyway. Why was she allowed to do this?

If this were a Republican being investigated, the press would be asking those people, "What did you know and when did you know it? Why was she allowed to break the rules her position required her to follow?" Will the press do so this time? If they don't, then WE need to.

ALL politicians, regardless of party affiliation, need to be questioned and held accountable for their actions, if we are to get better people in office. Clinton has been let off the hook so many times, she just keeps on acting as if she has privileges no one else has. Why? Because too many people let her do it. And that just encourages more of the same. It has to stop.

     

Islamists to gain ground in Middle East politics

At least that's the way it looks to be unfolding:

As Tunisians Cheer Egypt, Islamist Leader Returns

Now it's being predicted that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood will also rise to power in Egypt, and replace the current Dictatorship of Mubarak.

Years ago, I posted about the Nazi roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the actual, strong, historical connections. It begs the question: how much are they still like that, today? Or can we say, "That was then, this is now?"

There are people who claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is more moderate. It has defenders like Omar Sharif, who see it as a force for good. Can it be? Will it be? Is it possible?

In the late 70's, the Islamists in Iran claimed to be moderate, but we saw what happened when they got power. I think it's that kind of drastic change that Hillary Clinton wants to avoid, while at the same time recognizing that change IS coming:

Clinton: U.S. not taking sides in Egypt

[...] Clinton waffled Sunday on the political upheaval in Egypt, praising and decrying the process in a Fox News interview.

Clinton's diplomatic skills were tested in the interview when pressed about the uprising that has killed more than 50 people in Egypt, where the 30-year autocratic rule of Mubarak is being challenged.

She also hinted the United States sees an end to Mubarak's reign.

"We want to see an orderly transition so that no one fills a void, that there's not a void, that there be a well thought-out plan that will bring about a democratic, participatory government," Clinton said.

Despite the "transition" reference, Clinton said there was confidence in Washington about Mubarak's governance. [...]

I'm sure the White House is hedging it's bets, because they are uncertain about who's going to come out on top. We have just a little influence, but no control, over that. I think that the "orderly transition" that she spoke of is going to be their main focus. It sounds like the best plan. Helping to avoid that "void".

The U.S. is often accused by Leftists of tolerating dictators. But if we over-throw a dictator, like we did in Iraq, we are accused of meddling in foreign affairs where we don't belong. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

The fact is, we often have to deal with governments we would rather not deal with, because we have no control and little influence over their internal affairs.

In another interview I read, Clinton said that the Egyptian people are going to choose who their leadership is. I suspect she's right, and we will just have to deal with it.

And if the Muslim Brotherhood is "it", well, lets hope that Omar Sharif's optimism regarding them is at least somewhat justified.
     

Hedge Funds, Democrats & the Financial Crisis

While posting about the Chelsea Clinton Wedding, I came across some links about Clinton/Democrat corruption, and our current financial crisis. Here are some of the more interesting bits:

Bridegroom's Father is Ex-Congressman & Convicted Felon

[...] It Runs in the Family

Edward Mezvinsky was convicted of fraud for shady business deals that had prosecutors calling him a "one-man crime wave." Prosecutors claimed that in 20 years of doing business between 1980 and 2000, every single deal he consummated displayed aspects of fraud. After his indictment in 2001, he pleaded guilty to 31charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He tried to raise a defense of diminished capacity due to his suffering from bipolar disorder, but the judge disallowed it.

His rip-off of almost $10 million got him seven years in the hoosegow. Ed Mezvinsky got out of the federal lock-up in 2008. By then, his son Marc was dating Chelsea Clinton. Both children of politicos attended Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, where they studied finance. They became friends at Stanford, and the friendship ripened into a romance sometime around 2007.

Post-Palo Alto, while Marc decided to enter the more venerable profession of investment banking, Chelsea opted to join a hedge funds. She eventually got a job with the Avenue Capital Group, big campaign donors for both her parents.

Hedge funds as they are now constituted were illegal from 1933 to 2000, as their type of activity was outlawed as it was considered as destabilizing speculation that helped cause the Great Depression. In the year 2000, her papa bear Bill Clinton turned his back on 67 years of proven financial regulation and signed a bill legitimating speculation. Mama bear Hillary was running for the U.S. Senate in the State of New York, Moloch's Big Town, and needed the big bucks from the free-booting financiers.

Baby bear Chelsea is doing very nicely as one of the parasitical class that has turned the United States into an economic and financial casino. A "casino" economy and stock market is a state of affairs which economists considered to be the antithesis of a well-managed economy well into the 1990s, when the hustlers took over and began to brazenly rule the roost. [...]

Of course, you aren't hearing any of this from the MSM, as they gush, and gush, and GUSH over the $3,000,000 dollar Clinton wedding. After all, as they keep telling us, the Clintons are political ROYALTY. And isn't that what America's all about? Worshiping Royalty?

Unfortunately, the corruption continues. Lest you think this is all in the past, it's tentacles most definitely reach into the present:

The Soul of the Democratic Party Sold

[...] Hedge funds have been major financial backers of Democratic candidates ever since Bill Clinton made like Abe Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, and set them free. Chelsea's mother Hillary received mucho hedge fund loot during her 2008 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Hedge fund managers hedge their bets, and they also heavily backed Barack Obama, who rewarded them with a watered down "financial reform" bill that left hedge funds unmolested and hedge fund mangers' incomes taxed at the lower capital gains tax rate.

Former Goldman Sachs trading desk honcho Rahm Emmanul is President Obama's chief of staff, whilst his recent Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, worked as a paid "adviser" to the financial power house. Goldman Sachs is what J.P. Morgan and the House of Morgan and Paul Mellon and the Mellon Bank were to Republican Administrations in previous years, the marionette master who pulls the strings.

As predicted by naysayers, within seven years of Clinton legitimating financial speculation, hedge funds and other speculative financial schemes helped bring the U.S. economy back on its knees in the worse political catastrophe since the Great Depression.

Since it was Bill Clinton's "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council that sold the soul of the Democratic Party to Wall Street, it is fitting that Chelsea Clinton should be marrying the son of a convicted felon who works for the titan of Wall Street, a firm that engages in legal robbery. It recently got off easy from double dealing in the subprime mortgage market with a half-billion-dollar fine. [...]

Remember when the Goldman-Sachs executives were hauled before Congress to testify? It was just a dog-and-pony show for the cameras. Sachs went along with it, and in return were basically getting a bail-out.

Bill Clinton's administration occurred during one of the most prosperous times in American history, but he had little to do with it. He was riding the coattails of prosperity set into motion by previous Republican Administrations. Clinton's spending was held in check by a Republican dominated Congress, so Clinton didn't over-spend. Where the Republican's failed, was in going along with Clinton's "Centrist" financial reforms and his expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1997, which was then used by "activists" and "community organizers" (like Obama?) to coerce lending institutions to make millions of bad loans.

When there were signs that the melt-down was coming, some Republicans tried to make corrective reforms, but they were blocked by Democrats. Thus, the inevitable happened.

Now, what can we do about it? Remember in November.


Also see:

The roots of the financial crisis
     

Clinton subdued at last; Obama VS McCain

While this is a great cartoon, I'm sure this isn't the last we'll see of Clinton, although this may well be the end of her 2008 campaign. Where did she go wrong, and where does the election go from here? John O'Sullivan at the British Telegraph provides and interesting perspective:

Amid Barack Obamamania, John McCain could still win the US presidential election

[...] Despite all the praise for her gallant uphill fight, Mrs Clinton blew a sure thing. As the candidate of inevitability, she lost. As the candidate of competence, she won most major battleground states, but lost the nomination because her campaign failed to organise in the smaller states. As the candidate with an unrivalled Democratic Rolodex, she lost the "super-delegates".

Even her late emergence as the friend of Joe Sixpack reflected her loss of most other Democratic constituencies rather than her recruitment of a new political base. She is a very implausible leader of a white working class that is drifting steadily towards the Republicans.

Her campaign's excuse for defeat - that sexism trumped racism - implicitly accuses all Democrat voters of being bigots. It leaves behind a poisonous atmosphere of internecine identity politics on the Left. None of this augurs well for her post-2008 presidential prospects - whoever wins in November.

John McCain is probably the only Republican who could win the presidency in a year when almost any Democrat should beat almost any Republican. Voters prefer Democrats to Republicans by 15 per cent.

Even if McCain makes it to the White House, their opponents may win the Senate majority sufficient to override a presidential veto. McCain might well campaign in the final days on the theme "Help me to restrain a rampaging Democrat Congress". [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The author goes on to examine the road ahead for McCain and Obama, and what they will have to achieve to win. And interesting analysis from across the pond.


Related Link: I'm grateful to Obama for one thing
     

McCain leads Obama and Clinton in Gallup poll

From Lydia Saad at Gallup Daily:

Gallup Daily: McCain Moves to 6-Point Lead Over Obama

PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain has moved to a six percentage point, 48% to 42%, lead over Barack Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of the general election, while he edges out Hillary Clinton by only one point, 46% to 45%.


This is according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 27-May 1 with 4,381 national registered voters.

The ongoing turmoil in the Democratic race -- with neither candidate able to sustain a winning streak in the primaries and animosity seemingly mounting between them -- seems to be benefiting McCain and hurting both Democrats. Last week McCain had fallen three points behind Clinton in the preferences of registered voters for the general election, and only tied Obama.

Although both Clinton and Obama have lost ground to McCain over the past week, the current results may be particularly troubling for Obama in trying to combat Clinton's assertion to superdelegates that she would be the more electable of the two candidates in November.

The current six-point margin for McCain over Obama is the largest lead McCain has had over either candidate since Gallup began tracking general election preferences in early March. The gap between Obama and Clinton's percentage of the vote when both are pitted against McCain is also the largest since the general election tracking began. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Well that has cheered up my day. John McCain is doing a lot of things right, I admire the way he's been managing his campaign. You can read the rest of the article for details of the Democrat race.


Related Links:

Stuck in the middle

A riff on McCain - the right man at the right time

Obama: schizo, in denial or a pathological liar?
     

A Democrat Eclipse?

Or is it something more permanent?

Hillary finished?

Ding dong! The wicked witch is dead


UPDATE 02-21-08:

OK, maybe she isn't dead yet...


But she's got to be, well... uncomfortable? She seems increasingly desperate. We'll see how she does in tonights CNN debate.
     

McCain too liberal? Try Republicans for Obama!

Many conservatives seem upset with John McCain, who they percieve as being too liberal. Yet I have to wonder just how much influence such conservatives have in the Republican party anymore.

Conservative Talk Radio endorsed Romney, but the voters didn't follow their advice in sufficient numbers for Romney to succeed. Gallop polls suggest that as many as 1/4 of Republican's nationally are voting for Huckabee, who may be conservative on social issues like abortion, but is more like a big government Democrat on everything else.

John McCain has won the lead in the primaries, because many Republican voters put him there. Changes are happening in the Republican party. Instead of worrying about John McCain, perhaps conservatives should be more concerned about the Huckabees, or even worse...

Obama Republicans?

[...] If one great communicator -- the eloquent Ronald Reagan -- could build a coalition of disaffected Democrats that swung both of his presidential elections his way, can an almost-great communicator -- the fiery Barack Obama -- build a coalition of disaffected Republicans to swing the Democrat primary election his way?

It's possible, says Brian F. Schaffner, an assistant professor of political science at American University in Washington, D.C. "Obama definitely has the potential to win over some Republicans in the same way that Reagan won over some Democrats," says Brian F. Schaffner, an assistant professor of political science at American University in Washington, D.C.

Even though Obama probably takes more liberal positions on many issues than does Hillary Clinton, Schaffner says the perception among Republicans is that he is more moderate.

"This is a matter of style over substance," Schaffner notes. "Obama speaks so often of bringing the parties together and working with Republicans, he seems less polarizing to Republicans than Clinton, who has long been demonized by that party."

The Pew Research Center corroborates Schaffner's inkling. It recently produced a report showing that Obama is perceived as more liberal than Clinton among Democrats, yet is seen as more moderate than Clinton among Republicans.

One Republican who isn't afraid of Obama's liberalism is John Martin, who directs the grassroots Web organization "Republicans for Obama."

A Bronx, N.Y., native who was very active in the Young Republicans in college, Martin, 29, is in law school but serving on active duty in Afghanistan as a U.S. Navy reservist. E-mailing from Afghanistan, Martin said his group has more than 400 members since he last checked and that the Web site's server received so many clicks the day Obama won Iowa that it crashed.

Lisa Kinzer, 30, is another rock-ribbed Republican who's gone Obama. The Norman, Okla., native has been a registered Republican for 12 years. She has nothing against President Bush. But she does have a problem with the GOP's 2008 candidates. [...]

So while Republicans are busy shooting themselves in the foot, arguing about who is a "real" conservative or who is a "RHINO", and generally trashing their own party and tearing it apart, swing voters, conservative Democrats and even some Republican's may be looking elsewhere to cast their vote in November.

I find it incredible that Republicans would actually believe that Obama is more conservative than Clinton, when Democrats believe exactly the opposite. In fact, his record shows he was the most liberal senator in 2007. The most liberal, out of 100 senators.

One could simply dismiss it by claiming that Republican's have "air heads" in their party too. I don't doubt it, but that might be too easy a way out. It ignores the simple fact that voters don't find a split and quarreling party attractive to vote for. Obama is an excellent speaker, and people who follow their emotions more than facts are easily swayed. But I think it also points to the fact that many Republicans, and people who are tempted to vote Republican, are more liberal, more flexible, than the Hard Right.

If the party is going to have a Big Tent and win elections, it can't be totally ideologically rigid. It will have to encompass more diverse views within the party. That is in fact what a coalition does; and it is with coalitions that Republicans win elections. Where is our coalition?

If Republicans don't unite soon and get their act together, they may find they no longer even have a place on the stage. A new coalition needs to be formed, and those who cannot or will not compromise with their fellow party members may find themselves left out all together.


Related Links:

You Gotta Hand It To Obama

A riff on "redefining conservatism"

The GOP is not the "Conservative Party"
     

Pending legislation by Clinton and Obama

If conservatives reject McCain in November, and we get Clinton and/or Obama instead, just what might we excpect? A look at current pending legislation sponsored by Clinton and Obama provides some clues, and it's not pretty:

Equal Rights Nonsense

Now that the excitement of Super Tuesday has passed, we should remember the kinds of policies and principles at stake. Exhibit A: three pieces of legislation pending in Congress that would dramatically increase the liability of private companies for alleged acts of employment discrimination.

The first would resurrect the discredited idea of "comparable worth." The second would add various sexual orientations to the classifications protected from employment discrimination. The third is a plaintiffs' bar wish list, aimed mostly at overturning cases it lost in the Supreme Court.

There are actually two versions of comparable worth legislation, the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. The former is co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama; the principal sponsor of the latter is Sen. Hillary Clinton (Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor). Both would push companies to set wages based not on supply and demand -- that is the free market -- but on some notion of social utility. The goal is to ensure that jobs performed mostly by men (say, truck drivers) are not paid more than those performed mostly by women (paralegals, perhaps).

President Ronald Reagan correctly called comparable worth "a cockamamie idea." A great lesson of economic theory, not to mention historical experience, is that government-set wages and prices not only curtail freedom, but lead to shortages, surpluses and market disruptions. [...]

Read the whole thing for all the horrific details. These are the same old and tired commie ideas that the Dems have pushed for in the past. Great for crippling employers, driving up costs, sending more jobs out of the country and damaging our economy, all in the name of social engineering and feel-goodism. Reality be damned.

They will bring "change" alright... the same way Jimmy Carter did, but probably even worse. If conservatives don't support McCain in November and we end up with all this crap forced on us, I will blame the anti-McCain conservatives as much as the Democrats; allowing it to happen is just as bad as legislating it.
     

Hillary lies again; what she isn't telling you.

"Tax cuts for the wealthy" is a favorite complaint of Hillary and many Democrats. The "evil rich" aren't paying their share. Well apparently, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't support that contention. In fact, the wealthy are paying more taxes now than ever before. From Nealz Nuze:

[...] This comes from the Congressional Budget Office. Hillary has access to this information, as do all members of the media. So ... let's see what the Congressional Budget Office has to say about this "tax cuts for the wealthy" stuff.

First .. here's a chart you can refer to for verification. This chart was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office. There are two lines on this graph, one for the bottom 80% of taxpayers, the other for the top 1% of taxpayers. The trend there is so obvious that even Democrat voters should be able to see what is going on. The share of federal taxes paid by the evil rich is constantly going up, while the share paid by the bottom 80% is on a steady downward trend. Bear in mind that this chart shows a percentage of ALL federal taxes, not just income taxes.

Now ... some bullet points for you to consider:

• The richest 1% of households in the U.S. are now paying a record 27.6% of all federal taxes and a record of 38.8% of all federal income taxes.
  
• The richest 1% of households only earn about 17% of all income.
  
• The top 1.1 million households (the evil rich) pay a greater share of the income tax burden than the bottom 90 million households combined.
  
• The chart and the report from the CBO shows that the nation's tax burden has been shifting away from typical Americans to the wealthiest households since the early 1980s.

You are never going to see this chart or read this information on the news pages of America's leading left-wing newspapers, nor will you see this information presented on network newscasts. Why not? Because the more the people of this nation understand what is really happening with our tax situation, the less the demagoguery of people like Hillary Clinton --- that "tax cuts for the wealthy" line --- will work on the voters. Informed voters are the enemies of the MoveOn Democrat Party. The media admits that Hillary appeals to less educated voters. Well, there's no sense educating these voters. If you do, they might not be Hillary supporters any more?

Something else we need to cover. These evil, filthy rich people that are so much fun to hate ... these are the people who invest. These are the people who create the jobs. These are the people who start new businesses. These are the people the very people who hate them will have to depend on for a better job or a growing economy.

Spread the word. The other side is sure getting out the "tax cuts on the wealthy" line. We need to do a better job of getting the truth out there.

It's taxes on corporations that cause people to invest their money overseas; American jobs go overseas as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much Democrats like Hillary lie and say that you can.
     

Lowering Health Care Costs for Everyone

From In order to bring health care costs down, it's important to understand what makes them so artificially high. John Stossel at Real Clear Politics sheds some light on this important issue:

Control Your Own Health Care

Candidates for president have plans to get more people health insurance. Some would compel us to buy it; others would use the tax code to encourage that. Regardless, insurance is the magic that will solve our health-care problems.

But contrary to conventional wisdom, it's not those without health insurance who are the problem, but rather those with it. They make medical care more expensive for everyone.

We'd each be better off if we paid all but the biggest medical bills out of pocket and saved insurance for catastrophic events. Truly needy people would rely on charity, not government, because once government gets involved, unintended bad consequences abound.

If people paid their own bills, they would likely buy high-deductible insurance (roughly $1,000 for individuals, $2,100 for families) because on average, the premium is $1,300 cheaper. But people are so conditioned to expect others to pay their medical bills that they hate high deductibles: They feel ripped off if they must pay a thousand dollars before the insurance company starts paying.

But high deductibles may be the key to lowering costs and putting you in charge of your health care.

Five years ago, the Whole Foods grocery chain switched to a high-deductible plan. If an employee has a sore throat or a sprained ankle, he pays. But if he gets cancer or heart disease, his insurance covers it.

Whole Foods puts around $1,500 a year into an account for each employee. It's not charity but part of the employee's compensation. It's money Whole Foods would have otherwise spent on more-expensive insurance. Here's the good part for employees: If they don't spend the money on medical care this year, they keep it, and the company adds more next year.

It's called a health savings account, or HSA.

CEO John Mackey told me that when he went to the new system, "Our costs went way down." [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article goes on to describe the many ways this plan has worked out to benefit both the employer and the employees. I have high deductible health insurance, and a Health Savings Account. All my deductible medical expenses can be paid out of that account; Dentist, Optometrist, Doctor, Chiropractor, even Acupuncture if I want it. With insurance, I'd have to have separate Dental insurance. Eyeglasses or contacts are not always covered. Alternative medicine like Chiropractic and Acupuncture are often not covered by insurance. The HSA account allows ME to choose the kind of care I want, and how much I want to spend on it.

Last year I had a severe gall bladder attack; before the year was over, I had surgery to have it removed.

I used up all the money in my HSA account, but not long after that, my high deductible insurance kicked in, so I didn't end up spending a lot out of pocket. But I was also in charge; I wasn't sure I wanted the surgery, and was able to explore options and have addition tests, because I was paying for them, not the insurance company. That experience has made me a BIG believer in HSA accounts.

Read the rest of Stossel's article to see the affect this freedom has had on Whole Foods Employees. The freedom to choose works out best for everyone.


Related Link:

The Democrats corrupt use of children; lying to promote government sponsored health care:

Graeme Frost and the perils of Democrat poster child abuse
I feel sorry for the kids; it's not their fault that their parents couldn't be bothered to buy health insurance, but spent their money instead on things like business real estate and private school tuition for their kids, among other thingsWhat a sham. It would seem the parents feel entitled to spend their money on luxuries, while the rest of us pay for their insurance.

This isn't the first time Democrats have used children falsely to promote government health care. Remember what Hillary Clinton did in 1994:

Hillary's poisoned poster child

The Media was there while Hillary was using this child as a prop, but where were they when the real sordid story broke out?
     

Threats made over Chelsea Clinton Photo?

Chelsea Clinton Photo Causes NYC Ruckus

(CBS/AP) The days may be numbered for a photo of Chelsea Clinton posing with the owner of a popular Italian restaurant. That's because Chelsea's dad has weighed in.

Former President Bill Clinton sent a letter to Osso Buco proprietor Nino Selimaj, demanding that he take down the picture from the walls of his Greenwich Village restaurant.

"I was surprised to get the letter because the picture has been there a few years," Selimaj told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "She's eaten here a few times."

The Sept. 18 letter from the office of William Jefferson Clinton says Chelsea is a private citizen and that although she may have eaten at the restaurant "this does not serve as an endorsement."

The letter, signed by Clinton counselor Douglas J. Band, says Chelsea "was not consulted prior to this picture being displayed, and thus, her permission was not given for you to do so."

"We reserve the right to exercise any and all options available to us if you refuse to comply," the letter says.

Selimaj notes that celebrity photos in New York restaurants are common: He also has pictures on his walls of him posing with former mayor and GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and New York Yankees star Derek Jeter.

"A photo of a celebrity in New York is as common as a hot dog vendor," he said.

Selimaj says the letter came as quite a shock. [...]

I'm not shocked or surprised. I could personally care less about this, but it IS a bit curious, from a Public Relations perspective. With Chelsea's mom running for president, why make a fuss, sending threatening letters from lawyers about a photo in a restaurant, especially when celebrity photos are so common in NYC?

The Clintons seem to have a habit of acting needlessly heavy-handedly.

Also in this article, was another photo. On the left, you see Dorthy Rodham, Hillary's mother:



It's the first time I've seen her. She's often kept out of the public eye. The following link is a bit of a puff piece about Rodham, but does provide some curious details:

Clinton's Mother Remains A Mystery
     

Hillary says she's a "Progressive"; what it means

From Matt Mayer at Townhall.com:
Liberals Are Now Progressives (Again)

When Hillary Clinton recently discarded the term liberal for the term progressive, it reminded me of the famous question of whether a leopard could change its spots? The answer, of course, is no. A leopard is genetically a leopard as a liberal is philosophically a liberal whether she is called a liberal or not.

Nonetheless, it is important to know what a progressive is since that is now the preferred term of the left. It comes from the Progressive Era. One of its intellectual and political leaders was President Woodrow Wilson. The Progressive Movement's chief aim was to centralize power by eliminating those pesky little concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances and escape the confines of a fixed constitution so that America could progress (not that it hadn't up to that point as evidenced by the abolishment of slavery and its rise as a world power).

Wilson despised those constitutional mechanisms because they prevented government from "proceeding" in accordance with the will of "an outside master." Wilson believed that the Constitution should be a living document. [...]

Yeah, a "living document". That means you ignore precedents, and interpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean. And when that becomes impossible, you start making changes:

[...] The aim of the Progressive Movement succeeded as it gave birth to the rise of the administrative state and the consolidation of power in Washington during the New Deal and Great Society periods where many new rights and federal powers were suddenly found into the Constitution. This couldn't have happened had the progressives not succeeded in amending the Constitution in 1913 first to provide for a source of funding the administrative state (the federal income tax via the 16th Amendment) and then to eliminate any check the states had on the power in Washington (electing senators by popular vote instead of by state legislatures via the 17th Amendment). When states lost their ability to reign-in recalcitrant senators with threats to appoint someone else after his term ended if they voted to expand federal power or push costs to the states, the principle of federalism suffered a horrible blow. Given the failure over the last thirty years to reduce the power in Washington, that blow may have been deadly.

(bold emphasis mine) those changes by "progressives" are, IMO, where things started to go wrong; where the rot began that has created our growing Imperial Federal Government.

The article also touches on the Dark Side of the Progressive movement, such as it's embracement of concepts like Eugenics, which became also became popular with Big Governmetn groups like the NAZIS.

[...] This dark side of the Progressive Era, thankfully, came to an end. Its belief that there are those among us who know better and shouldn't be constrained by a fixed Constitution and limited government, unfortunately, did not. To escape the baggage of the term progressives, they started calling themselves liberals. Today's liberals, like yesterday's progressives, believe wholeheartedly that the answer to all of societies problems lies in the use of government by enlightened leaders to effectuate progress and view constitutional constraints as archaic and quaint. [...]

Constitutional restraints as "archaic and quaint"? Does that not sound like Hillary Clinton and many of today's Democrats?

There is a world of difference between genuine liberals, who are easy going live-and-let-live people, and progressives like Hillary who believe in an enlightened elite who need to be unhindered by the constraints of the rule of law so they can "progress". Isn't the latter like what the Kings and Queens of old did? Isn't that why we have constitutional constraints?

The whole article isn't very long, but is well worth reading.


Related Links:

From Born Again Redneck:
Liberals Are Now Progressives (Again)
Here are some excerpts by Pat from the same article, with his commentary at the end.

From Neal Boortz:
WHY DEMOCRATS JUST ABSOLUTELY HATE BEING CALLED .....
     

More Clinton Hypocrisy

She should be so honest. It seems Hillary wants to jump on the bandwagon regarding the absurd controversy over the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys by the Bush Administration.

Firing U.S. attorney's is certainly something she knows about, seeing as the Clinton's fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. It's an event worth revisiting, as this recent piece from the Wall St. OpinionJournal does. An excerpt:

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The MSM sure gave them a free ride on that! And now, they want to make a drama over the firing of 8 attorneys, who refused or failed to pursue investigations of Democrat voter fraud?

Politicizing Justice? Yes Hillary, you and the MSM.