Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2024
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘demagoguery’

Dissent is no longer patriotic

Posted by Richard on August 6, 2009

Lanny Davis thinks the spontaneous chants of "Read the bill!" that have erupted at town hall meetings are "fascist" tactics, and he wants such dissidents photographed and investigated.

The White House has a dedicated email address for turning in people who say something "fishy" about its health care plan. As Sen. Cornyn observed, this looks like they're compiling an "enemies list" (emphasis added):

I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed "fishy" or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests.

By requesting that citizens send "fishy" emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House. You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.

I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program–and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.

The people who, with funding from George Soros, invented Astroturfing are trying to portray the ordinary citizens who attend Tea Parties and show up at town hall meetings as shills for the insurance industry. Barbara Boxer said she can tell they're not genuine because they're too well-dressed. I guess to be a genuine concerned citizen, you have to look like part of a Code Pink or MoveOn.org freak show. 

Meanwhile, the Prez himself is directing the troops to create a real top-down, manufactured, Astroturf response. No indication of how the mobilized army of volunteers will be dressed. 

Count on Nancy Pelosi to jump in with a shark-jumping comment reminding us that Godwin's Law still operates (emphasis added):

Interviewer: Do you think there's legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: "I think they're Astroturf… You be the judge. "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism? When swastikas at protest rallies were all the rage? Don Surber remembers.

UPDATE: Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary who's made Scott McClellan appear competent, has assured us that Sen. Cornyn's concerns about those "fishy" emails are completely unfounded. Well, sort of

"Nobody is collecting names," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at today's the White House press briefing. "Nobody's keeping anybody's email."

Asked later by THE WEEKLY STANDARD if the White House is required by law to save all correspondence it receives, Gibbs acknowledged, "Obviously, the National Archives documents correspondence with the White House." Gibbs also said he didn't know how many emails the White House has yet received yet.

So remember: "Nobody is keeping anybody's email," except the federal government at the U.S. National Archives.

What a relief.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Wright blames “them Jews”

Posted by Richard on June 10, 2009

President Obama's "role model and spiritual mentor" for twenty years, the man who helped shape Obama's world-view and inspired The Audacity of Hope, is back in the news. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright told the Newport News, VA, Daily Press that he knows why Obama hasn't been in touch lately (emphasis added):

Asked if he had spoken to the president, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. …

"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. … I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

Wright was unrepentant about the hateful and divisive sermons that surfaced during the campaign (giving us soundbites like "God damn America" and "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color") and denied that he had any regrets:

"Regret for what… that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years?

"Regret for preaching like I've been preaching for 50 years? Absolutely none," Wright said.

So Wright maintains that he's been preaching the same way for 20-50 years, huh? But I recall Obama insisting that he never — well, hardly ever — heard Wright say anything hateful, offensive, or inappropriate during his twenty-year association.

Maybe Obama just never really listened (narcissists tend not to be good listeners). 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

If only he meant it

Posted by Richard on May 21, 2009

President Obama this morning:

The documents that we hold in this very hall — the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights — these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

… I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

This load of hokum was uttered by the man who has for all intents and purposes nationalized banks, auto companies, and the mortgage industry, the man who's working hard to effectively nationalize the energy industry and health care, the man who trashed the sanctity of contract and Rule of Law without a second thought, the man who's looking for a Supreme Court justice willing to put empathy for "the little people" and respect for foreign laws and international standards ahead of those (sometimes-sacred, sometimes-not) "words written into aging parchment," … 

I could go on and on and on …

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Faux outrage, part 2

Posted by Richard on March 19, 2009

The evidence of what I referred to as hokum and hypocrisy regarding bailouts and bonuses is piling up, and Investor's Business Daily has again focused attention on some of the worst. For example, Rep. Barney Frank's grilling at a committee hearing of the new AIG CEO, Edward Liddy (emphasis added):

Liddy, brought in for a dollar a year after the market meltdown Frank had a hand in creating, wasn't the one who should have been in the dock. Frank should have been grilling his Senate colleague Chris Dodd, who now admits writing the language in the stimulus that made these bonuses exempt from any government restrictions.

Sitting next to Dodd should have been Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, late of the Federal Reserve in New York and the architect of the original AIG bailout. After saying he didn't know who wrote the stimulus language exempting AIG bonuses, he now says he did it at the request of Treasury and administration officials.

[After first denying it, Dodd] told a different story, acknowledging that he and his staff did in fact change the language in the stimulus bill to include a loophole for AIG executive bonuses. "As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications in it.

"They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem obnoxious or onerous," Dodd added.

Say what? Exempting AIG bonuses to be paid out with taxpayer dollars seemed harmless to the No. 1 recipient of AIG campaign cash? Some have called this a "reversal" of position. We call it a lie admitted to.

Now we learn that Fannie Mae, a bailout beneficiary and the ignition source of the mortgage meltdown, plans to pay its own retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving. Let them work for a buck too.

Just as was the case with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress and the administration had a chance to stop this. Instead they protected AIG with a bill written in the middle of the night, sliced and diced by a handful of Democrats in a closed conference room, that those voting on it had not read.

Frank et al. have forgotten how Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie from 1998 to 2004, the years of its worst excesses, pocketed nearly $100 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie. He later became an adviser to Obama, the No. 2 recipient of AIG campaign funds behind Dodd.

This is the administration and Congress that promised to be the most transparent ever. They're transparent all right. We can see right through them.

Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Faux outrage

Posted by Richard on March 19, 2009

The posturing, demagoguery, and expressions of outrage about the AIG bonuses continue unabated. Where was all this concern over self-serving and wasteful expenditure of tax dollars when Congress passed and the President signed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill containing over 8000 earmarks?

The President claimed even back during the campaign that he opposed earmarks, but he signed the bill anyway, promising earmark reform in the future. The administration argued that this bill was "inherited" from the previous administration, so why bother to try to clean it up? 

Well, the AIG bailout and AIG bonus agreements are "leftovers" from last year, too. The bonuses amount to less than 0.1% of AIG's bailout money, far less than the earmarks in the omnibus bill. Why so much concern over the former and so little over the latter? 

It's all hokum for the rubes and sheer hypocrisy. Investor's Business Daily outlined the true story behind the AIG bonuses, namely that the Obama Adminstration approved them and Congress authorized them: 

"In the last six months AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury," Obama said after allegedly hearing about it for the first time. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

Well, they justify it by saying they had the administration's permission. The New York Times reports that AIG executives said they never would have proceeded with the bonus payments before getting approval from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

"We would never make any important business decisions without discussing them with our government managers and owners," one AIG executive is quoted as saying.

As Larry Kudlow notes in his column on the next page, "the Obama administration — including the president, Treasury man Tim Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers — knew all about them many months ago. They were undoubtedly informed of this during the White House transition."

The fact is, these bonuses were made legal by the $787 billion stimulus bill that President Obama promoted and signed. A provision, now known as the "Dodd Amendment," was inserted into the bill by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, D-Conn. It exempts from any restrictions bonuses contractually obligated before Feb. 11 of this year.

Coincidentally, Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,000, according to opensecrets.org. Also coincidentally, one of the largest offices of AIG Financial Products, the division that concocted the goofy financial instruments that doomed AIG, is situated in Connecticut.

The second-largest AIG recipient, at $101,232, was the "choked up with anger" President Obama. If AIG gives back the bonuses, will the president give back these and other campaign contributions from troubled institutions?

Don't hold your breath, folks. The Democrats' dirty little secret is that most of the overpaid big shots who ran various insurance, banking, mortgage, and financial institutions into the ground are liberal Democrats and among the party's most generous contributors.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hopenchange or fooled again?

Posted by Richard on February 6, 2009

Steve Clemons, September 26, 2008:

Tonight, George Bush succeeded I think in scaring Americans that this crisis could be a systemic threat. Bush said “our entire economy is in danger.”

That’s the fear button. He pushed it. And he said the clock was ticking.

This seems like a bad episode of “24.”

President Obama, January 20, 2009:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

President Obama, February 4, 2009:

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future," Obama said in his prepared remarks.

President Obama, February 5, 2009:

"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."

President Obama, February 6, 2009

The situation could not be more serious. These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible to get bogged down in distraction and delay while millions of Americans are being put out of work.

That didn't take long. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss …" 

Maybe more senators are buying into this fearmongering, but fewer and fewer of us ordinary citizens are. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama promises to remake America

Posted by Richard on June 4, 2008

I heard this portion of Obama's Tuesday night victory speech on the radio today, and I was chilled by both his words and the intensity of the adulation, cheering, and screaming by the crowd:

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless…

… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…

… this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

Wow. Just wow. Did he ride in on a white horse? 

Set aside for the moment the absurd suggestion that until St. Barack's triumphant arrival, "we" didn't care for the sick or provide jobs for the jobless. What really disturbs me is someone whose mentors, spiritual advisers, friends, allies, and close associates include the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Alice Palmer, Rashid Khalidi, and Raila Odinga (to name just a few*) promising to "remake" America.

I'm glad I ordered some of those bumper stickers

* You can find info on these and more at Obama WTF — check the links in the sidebar under headings 2a-2d. Or Google the names.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Congress says don’t drill, sue

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2008

Just a week ago (for the umpteenth time in the last 25 years), Democrats thwarted efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production by blocking access to vast supplies in ANWR and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We can't "drill our way to lower prices," Sen. Durbin said.

This week, Democrats passed (with the support of countless craven Republicans) an alternative solution cleverly entitled the "Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act." It says that instead of producing more oil, we should just sue OPEC and force them to produce more for us. (Robert Bryce suggested we also sue the Dutch to make them produce more Heineken.)

And today (also for the umpteenth time), Democrats are lambasting oil company executives. Besides the usual demagoguery against "obscene" profits, senators criticized the oil firms for not investing enough in exploration and refineries.

But wait! I thought burning more oil was evil — that we had to give up our "addiction to oil" in order to save the polar bears and prevent the seas from boiling. I thought we all had to accept the fact that, as Sen. Obama chided us, "[w]e can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …"

So why do our brilliant Congressional leaders want to force the OPEC countries and oil companies to produce more oil?

Maybe it's so that they and their Hollywood friends can continue to jet off to "save the planet" events around the globe in their private Gulfstreams. (And then condemn wealth and profits, of course.)

Or maybe it's all just posturing and pandering and jockeying for more power. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Huckabee for Veep? Yuck!

Posted by Richard on May 13, 2008

If this story is true, John McCain is about to make it utterly impossible for me (and lots of other libertarian, classical liberal, and economic conservative types) to vote for him:

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is at the top of the list of John McCain's possible running mates, according to a top McCain fundraiser with ties to his inner circle.

Economic conservatives are likely to oppose the choice of Huckabee as McCain's vice presidential candidate, given the populist tone of his campaign and his tax record as governor of Arkansas.

But in his "Capital Commerce" column for U.S. News & World Report, James Pethokoukis points to the fundraiser's disclosure and cites several factors that could make Huckabee a strong asset for McCain.

For one thing, the former Baptist minister is a great campaigner who could garner support in the South among social conservatives and at the same time appeal to working-class voters in the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Huckabee would also appeal to many more voters on a "he cares about me" level than millionaire investor and possible vice presidential choice Mitt Romney, especially given all the turmoil on Wall Street this year.

<snark>Yeah, that's how "maverick" McCain can solidify the base and restore the Reagan coalition: pick a tax and spend, anti-business, anti-free-trade, populist demagogue who makes people think "he cares about me."</snark> Excuse me, I have to go throw up again. 

McCain's Portland speech on the environment and global warming, in which he embraced "cap and trade" (AKA "ration and tax") greenhouse gas controls, was bad enough. At this point, I'm a long way from ready to vote for him (although I keep making myself read that Obama statement on Supreme Court justices). 

A McCain-Huckabee ticket? I won't vote for that under any circumstances. I'll just cross my fingers that Obama doesn't do too much harm (before becoming the next Carter and being crushed in 2012).

I'll vote for the Libertarian Party nominee. 

Unless it turns out to be this guy instead of this guy.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Clinton rewrites history again

Posted by Richard on November 28, 2007

Stumping for his wife in Iowa, Bill Clinton claimed he'd always opposed the war in Iraq and complained about not paying enough taxes (emphasis added):

On Iraq, he told the crowd that wealthy people like he and his wife should pay more taxes in times of war. "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said, according to The Washington Post

I suppose for Bill Clinton, whether he opposed Iraq depends on what the meaning of the word "supported" is (emphasis added):

In a June 2004 article in Time magazine, Clinton also suggested that he would have acted the same way Bush did.

"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing," he is quoted telling the magazine.

As for his resentment for not being "given the opportunity" to pay more taxes: Bill, nobody's stopping you! You can pay more quite easily. For starters, just stop taking all those deductions you usually take (like the used jockey shorts you donate to charity and write off at an inflated value).

If that doesn't increase your tax bill enough to abate your resentment, Bill, you can simply make a voluntary contribution to reduce the public debt (money is fungible, so reducing the public debt is functionally equivalent to buying the Army a Humvee — they can buy their own Humvee by borrowing back what you contributed). The IRS tells you how in most of its tax form instructions: 

If you wish to do so, make a check payable to “Bureau of the Public Debt.” You can send it to: Bureau of the Public Debt, Department G, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. Or you can enclose the check with your income tax return when you file. Do not add your gift to any tax you may owe. See page 60 for details on how to pay any tax you owe.

I suspect Slick Willy won't be foregoing those itemized deductions or making any voluntary donations to the government. He doesn't really resent the fact that he wasn't "given the opportunity" to pay more taxes, he resents the fact that you and I and millions of other Americans were allowed to keep more of what we earned, instead of being forced to turn that money over to the "public servants" who can spend it so much more wisely.

Asshat. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Regulating political speech: the next step

Posted by Richard on October 4, 2007

The long national nightmare of the Bush-Cheney-Halliburton police state continues unabated, and the authoritarian forces determined to stifle all dissent in Amerikka are ready to unleash the next nefarious step: some lackey of George W. Bush with not a shred of respect for or understanding of the U.S. Constitution wants to censor those who disagree with him, enforce "standards for political discourse," and establish a rating system (I'm not making this up) for political speech. The nerve of these facist neo-con Republicans!

Oh, wait … I was a bit confused. It's not a lackey of George W. Bush, it's a lackey of Hillary Rodham Clinton: namely, the Butcher of Bosnia and one-time weird presidential candidate, Gen. Wesley Clark. Allahpundit has the video, and McQ has the transcript highlights.

I've said it before: it's getting harder and harder to satirize the left these days. Scott Ott at ScrappleFace still does a great job, but just look how quickly reality caught up with Ott's satire from this past Monday (emphasis added):

Phony Vets for Truth, an non-profit group comprised of ex-military personnel who have publicly and deceptively disparaged the United States, the president or fellow U.S. troops in time of war, applauded “Sen. Reid’s bravery, and his appropriate use of senate debate time to discuss Mr. Limbaugh’s scurrilous remarks.”

In a statement completely independent of the Democrat National Committee, Phony Vets for Truth, a non-partisan think tank, also said: “When private citizens start to believe that they can say whatever they want without being subject to the normal democratic process of selective sound-bite editing, and selective outrage, then it’s time for Congress to take action.”

Obviously, just two days later, Wes Clark was speaking on behalf of Phony Vets for Truth. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Edwards fights poverty and predatory lenders

Posted by Richard on May 12, 2007

John Edwards' campaign is once again all about deploring the "two Americas" (AKA, exploiting envy, inciting class warfare, and bashing the rich). So, it's been mildly amusing to read about his 28,000-square-foot house, $400 haircuts, and generally ostentatious lifestyle. It got even funnier when he explained that he worked for Fortress Investment Group, a $30-billion hedge fund catering to billionaires, to learn more about poverty.

But here's what dialed the irony, chutzpah, and hypocrisy meters up to about 11: In early April, Edwards declared war on those evil lenders who specialize in "subprime loans and predatory mortgages" (emphasis added): 

As part of his ongoing effort to expand and strengthen the middle class, Senator John Edwards today released an aggressive plan to end the harmful lending practices that have put millions of families at risk of losing their homes. At a town hall in Davenport, Iowa, Edwards called for strong national legislation to regulate mortgage abuses and prohibit predatory mortgages. He also proposed immediate steps, including bankruptcy reforms and the creation of a Home Rescue Fund, to provide relief for families who are struggling to keep their homes.

"This is about the future of the middle class," said Edwards. "While Washington turns a blind eye, irresponsible lenders are pulling a fast one on hard-working homeowners. Using deceptive practices, hidden fees, and abusive terms, they have already taken billions of dollars from hard-working homeowners, destroying their nest eggs in the process. For too many families, homeownership has become a risky gamble when it should be the foundation of economic security. It's time to put an end to the shameful lending practices that are compromising our strength as a nation." 

Well, it turns out that his former employer, Fortress, is one of those "irresponsible lenders," and greatly expanded its role in the subprime market while he was there advising them: 

The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.

Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job. The former senator from North Carolina said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was assured it was not.

Of course he was. 

Fortress, whose hedge funds are incorporated in the Cayman Islands to get the kind of tax breaks Edwards routinely rails against, is a not-insignificant player in funding his campaign:

Fortress announced Edwards's hiring as an adviser in a brief statement in October 2005. Neither Edwards — who ended his consulting deal when he launched his presidential campaign in December — nor the firm will say how much he earned or what he did.

But his ties to Fortress were suggested by the first round of campaign finance reports released last week. They showed that Edwards raised $167,460 in donations from Fortress employees for his 2008 presidential campaign, his largest source of support from a single company.

Edwards, who was described as a "senior adviser" at Fortress, now insists that he had no idea Fortress was gobbling up subprime mortgages and lenders, and that he really didn't spend much time at the Fortress offices. I can think of two possibilities:

  1. This was a sham job designed to give Fortress a big name on its letterhead and Edwards a valuable "private sector experience" entry on his resume.
  2. Edwards is lying. 

Explanation 1 represents a fairly common practice in certain circles and is thus likely to be true. But given the fact that he's a trial lawyer who got rich by channeling dead fetuses to gullible jurors, I'm leaning toward number 2.

The real irony, from my perspective, is that if he weren't so committed to his anti-capitalist demagoguery, Edwards could justifiably say that, while he regrets certain excesses, on the whole he's proud of what he and Fortress have done for middle and lower income Americans, especially minorities.

New financing tools and easier credit have generally been a big success. Homeownership is at record levels. Sure, foreclosures are up and some lenders clearly went too far with the "creative" financing, but the vast majority of subprime borrowers are not losing their homes — they're making their payments, building equity, and proud to be part of the property-owning class.

But there's simply no pleasing the left. Twenty years ago, liberals complained that it was too difficult for minorities and working-class people to qualify for a mortgage. Now, they're complaining that it's too easy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The “verbal violence” of Imus

Posted by Richard on April 19, 2007

Despite an ability to sound rather moderate, mainstream, and reasonable, Sen. Obama's positions on the issues are standard far-left positions, so I was never inclined to vote for him for President. But now, he's disqualified himself in my eyes for non-ideological reasons — a lack of judgment and decency exhibited in his remarks about the Virginia Tech massacre.

Ben Smith at Politico has a link to the 23-minute MP3 and offers a brief summary with quotes:

"There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

There's the "verbal violence" of Imus.

There's "the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country."

There's "the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored,"

And so, Obama says, "there's a lot of different forms of violence in our society, and so much of it is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other."

Many politicians would avoid, I think, suggesting that outsourcing and mass-murder belong in the same category.

Or the crude, stupid insults of Imus. Or being ignored. This load of moral equivalence crap — this inflating of the importance of minor slights or failings or inconveniences — trivializes a truly horrific event and insults its victims.

It reminds me of Ingrid Newkirk's infamous comparison of broiler chickens with Holocaust victims, and it's utterly contemptible. To borrow a quote from the past, "Senator, have you no shame?" 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Cashing in on carbon credit scam

Posted by Richard on March 15, 2007

It's long been obvious to me that the environmental fear-mongers are chiefly interested in power — their solution to every perceived problem, whether it's overpopulation, pollution, cooling, warming, or whatever, is always less freedom and more government compulsion. And it's been equally clear that many of them are hypocrites, lecturing us for not being green enough while they live in humongous mansions and jet to their second and third homes in their private Gulfstreams.

It turns out that some of them are also greedy money-grubbers using climate-change hysteria to enrich themselves (emphasis added):

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

There's a fine compendium of information about Gore, Knight, and the GIM carbon credit scam at The Global Warming Hoax. Interest in Gore's carbon credit firm grew after the Tennessee Center for Policy Research discovered that Gore's 10,000-square-foot mansion near Nashville used $30,000 worth of electricity and natural gas in 2006. Here's a photoshop picture of the mansion (from FreakingNews.com; used with permission):

Al Gore's mansion, per FreakingNews.com

This isn't the first time Gore and Strong have cashed in on the environment. Back when Gore was Veep, he praised and promoted Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI), which supposedly was developing innovative recycling technology. MMTI got over $30 million in DOE grants, and its stock soared to $35. The company was largely owned and run by Maurice Strong and several Gore associates. Just before news that the technology didn't exist and that the DOE was cutting off funding, Strong and his pals cashed out to the tune of $15 million.

Strong is a piece of work. A wealthy Canadian businessman, U.N. diplomat, and father of the Kyoto Protocol, he was lined up to become U.N. Secretary General before being implicated in the Oil for Food scandal. In 2002, Canadian papers carried a book excerpt profiling Strong and his desire to change the world:

He told Maclean's magazine in 1976 that he was "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." He warns that if we don't heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.

Strong has always courted power – but not through any shabby election campaign. He was a Liberal candidate in the 1979 federal election, but pulled out a month before the vote.

How could a mere MP wield the kind of international control he had tasted in Stockholm? Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN.

"He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda," wrote Dewar.

"He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn't have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives."

Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters. Most power-crazed men would stop at calling for a one world Earth Charter to replace the U.S. Constitution, or the UN Charter.

But in an interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said "the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere." Sounds like Maurice was hanging out at his spirit ranch without his sunhat on.

In 1990, Strong told a reporter a fantasy scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather "to address global issues."

Strong, naturally, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…

In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"

Strong may still want to bring down the rich Western industrial democracies. He and George Soros, with whom he's worked on both political goals and business ventures, are pouring money into the Chinese automobile industry, with the goal of flooding the U.S. market with cheap Chinese cars. Strong lives in China these days, and he wants to help China overtake the U.S. economically and become the world's dominant superpower. Never mind what that does to China's "carbon footprint." 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Insurance scam

Posted by Richard on February 20, 2007

I’m no insurance expert, but I know that flood insurance is a special case. Some time back, the feds effectively preempted the field, and if you want flood insurance, you get it at a federally subsidized rate. Because of that situation, no ordinary property insurance policy covers flood-water damage. You’d think people who live in a highly flood-prone area, such as a Gulf Coast state subject to hurricanes, would know this and gratefully avail themselves of the subsidized, low-cost flood insurance, right? And you’d think those who didn’t bother could expect little sympathy from the courts and public officials, right?

Wrong. And wrong again. In Mississippi, the courts and Attorney General Jim Hood have fallen all over themselves with sympathy for the (voluntarily) uninsured victims of Katrina’s flood waters. As a consequence of some jury awards and coerced settlements negotiated with the AG, State Farm has decided the climate in Mississippi is so hostile that they can’t continue offering homeowner insurance in the state. The future risk is too great.

Attorney General Hood objected to this business decision, and he’s proposed a law to force insurance companies who sell auto insurance in the state to also sell homeowner insurance. Dan Melson took umbrage at this anti-capitalist move:

State Farm is not a charitable organization. They are entitled to charge enough to make a profit – otherwise there is no reason to be in business. If they decide they cannot do that within the environment in a given state, they are entitled to decide to leave. If they can’t do it at all, the correct decision is to go out of business.

Add hefty punitive fines for not wanting to pay out claims for things which weren’t insured, and it’s a miracle that anyone is willing to issue homeowner’s insurance in Mississippi. Make them write homeowner’s insurance in order to write automobile insurance, and some insurers might do it – but others will cancel their policies of automobile insurance. Exactly how bad does the state of Mississippi want their insurance situation to get?

Dan’s right, of course. Hood’s populist grandstanding is both immoral and stupid. The state’s deputy insurance commissioner noted that a similar, but less onerous, law in Florida is driving insurers out of the state already, even though it won’t take effect until 2008. Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Institute, doesn’t think such a law will have the desired effect:

Automobile insurance isn’t profitable enough to offset losses in the sale of homeowner insurance in a hurricane-vulnerable region so the company may be inclined to stop selling auto policies if they also must sell homeowner policies there, Hartwig said.

"The only losers in this situation are consumers facing fewer options for automobile insurance," Hartwig said.

I’m pleasantly surprised that Republican Governor Haley Barbour, despite an upcoming re-election campaign, resisted the urge to pander or cave and rejected Democrat Jim Hood’s call for an executive order:

"Having considered my statutory and constitutional emergency powers including the statute you cited in your letter, I have no authority to force a private company to sell its products in the State of Mississippi," Barbour responded in a letter to Hood.

After the epidemic of invertebrateness among Republicans recently, that statement — as cautious as it is — is a breath of fresh air. Bravo, Gov. Barbour!
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »