Sunday, March 29, 2009

Braindead Botox Ignoramous

I feel like I have been asking this question a lot more lately. But honestly .. read this quote from Nancy Pelosi. It is about health-care legislation that will include an option for a government-run program that would compete with private insurers.

"This is not only about the health of individuals in our country, which will be justification enough ... It's about the competitiveness of our businesses to make them globally competitive because they are competing with companies and countries where the federal government -- their governments -- pay for health care. They don't have to bear those health care costs."

Hey .. Nancy .. newsflash. It is not the government that will be paying for this healthcare. The government does not generate an income to pay for healthcare. It seizes money from its taxpayers. Money that was earned by the taxpayers. So if the taxpayers have earned the money, and the government seizes it to pay for Democrat dreams and schemes like healthcare .. then the taxpayers are really the ones "bearing those healthcare costs" now aren't then?

Thursday, March 26, 2009

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED--well---not really..

So here's good news on the Global War on Terror – it's officially over.

Well, at least the use of that phrase is.

The Pentagon has "codified" it, which has nothing to do with cod, but still smells fishy. According to the Washington Post, the phrase is being put out to pasture, to be replaced by something called an "Overseas Contigency Operation,." Now, I have no idea what that means, but then again I'm still wearing shoes with Velcro snaps.

But look, it's not difficult to see where this new language is coming from: it's pure civil servant speak designed to take the meaning out of what clearly is the most important battle in our lifetimes. The sad fact is, ever since the rise of deconstructionist thinking in academia, every Ivy League graduate knows that the concept of "good vs. evil" is infantile, and the concept of terror is "relative." There is no difference between our war, and their war – even though we don't fly planes into buildings, or wear vests packed with things that look like roman candles (but aren't). We're just as bad as terrorists, because we're big and powerful – even if we don't behead people who disagree with us.

But look, I don't care about words. What I do care about is commitment. Whether it's a "war" or a "contingency operation," it's never going to be over. It's a battle fought each and every day by brave men and women all over the world. And a change in language is not going to make their work any easier.

But at least there will be a new logo for the coffee mugs.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Hedge Funds win again

The Treasury acknowledges that private investors will be subsidized to take on the ownership of what it’s calling “legacy loans” and “legacy securities.”
(If these horrific securities are legacy loans, then the funeral industry should reclassify corpses as “legacy bodies.")
The Treasury cites as an example a loan valued by a bank at $100 that is sold for $84. In that instance, the private investor and the government would each put in $6, and the investor would borrow the other $72 from the government. If you’re keeping score at home, it means the private investor would put in 7 percent of the cash but would receive a much higher percentage of the profits. However at the end of the day if it doesn't work the taxpayer eats 83% of the losses.

Are you aware of what the word "Toxic" means?

Without the teleprompter he is lost.

Just a question. You do know that Obama wrote a letter to Jacques Chirac recently. In that letter Obama wrote "I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world."

The "coming four years?" Well, it seems that there's a small problem here. Jacques Chirac is not the president of France. That honor goes to Nicolas Sarkozy.

Now if, say, Sarah Palin had done this the press would be full of outrage. Hmmmm. Oh well, read this for yourself.

Monday, March 23, 2009


You may remember that last month Obama unveiled his budget for 2010. And guess what it included? More government! He proposed spending $3.6 trillion, which is more than 25% of our GDP. And that number will only grow so long as Obama is in the White House.

It seems that the Congressional Budget Office has some news for Obama .. his budget would commit Washington to unsustainable deficits and increase borrowing by over $9 trillion over the next decade. That is more than four times the deficits of George Bush.

It gets worse, folks. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that "Obama's policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after the costly programs to alleviate the recession and shore up the financial system have ended. The result, the CBO said, was that by 2019 the US national debt would be about 82 per cent of GDP - about double where it is today."

How about that? You voted for this guy because he looked cool and enjoys basketball. You voted for him because he appeared on all of your favorite magazine covers and was praised by your favorite TV and movie stars. And, of course, you voted for him because of that magical word "change!" Working out pretty well, isn't it?

Obama, of course, is saying that the CBO has it all wrong. HE, based on his immense government and management experience - which he has been displaying so brilliantly - says that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. The ONLY way that will happen is if the House and Senate are turned over to a new breed of Republican and a stop is put to this idiocy.

FYI .. the Heritage Foundation has an excellent analysis of Obama's budget.

Friday, March 20, 2009

The Flying Monkey Show

Yesterday's vote in the House was completely expected. Overwhelmingly, your representatives in Washington voted huge taxes on bonuses for AIG employees. Nancy Pelosi said, "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers." Funny .. after recently passing a bill with more than 8,000 earmarks worth over $400 billion, the hollow-eyed hippy from Haight-Ashbury and her flying monkeys are suddenly worried about the taxpayers.

First point. It is not "their" money. The money, whether you like it or not, belongs to the people to whom they were paid. Those bonuses were paid pursuant to a valid contract and are not the rightful and legal property of the payees. Let's us also remember that the amount paid in those bonuses was less than one-tenth of one percent of the bailout money received by AIG. Remember, though ... politicians believe that ever penny you earn actually belongs to the government. In the official language of Washington any money from your paycheck that these political hacks allow you to keep is a "tax expenditure." You earned it ... but if you're allowed to keep it they treat it as a government expenditure. To the Democrat mind, and in the mind of all too many Republicans, all wealth is owned by government. Produced by the people, but owned by government.

Second point. This is absolutely unconstitutional. Con su permisio I'll explain.

So the House succeeded in passing a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees of AIG and any company receiving at least $5 billion in bailout money. But only with those evil rich employees whose family income is above $250,000 a year will have to pay this 90% tax.

You just cannot like what you're seeing here. These politicians are targeting specific individuals out there who have received some money that the politicians, for political purposes, just do not want them to have. So they pass a law allowing the government to seize that money. Can you imagine where this goes from here? How about Ann Coulter? She delights in writing books that just irritate the ever-luvin' puddin' out of Democrats and liberals. Let's say that one of Nancy Pelosi's flying monkeys reports to the Princess that Coulter made $1.5 million from her last book. This money was legally paid to Coulter pursuant to a contract. Sound familiar? But Pelosi feels that Coulter has made this money by promoting divisiveness in the population, so she decides that punishment is in order. She then has her minions pass a bill establishing a 90% tax on the royalties from all books and writings that promote political dissention and defame public servants in the Congress of the United States. Come on now, you tell me the big huge difference between a confiscatory tax on legally earned bonuses and one on legally received book royalties.

This is going nowhere folks. It will never make it through the Senate. If the members of the House had any appreciation at all for the Constitution it wouldn't have gone this far. And why, pray tell, would that be? That would be because of one pesky little clause found in our (once) supreme law of the land.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution

"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

Do you know what that means? The key is the word "attainder." Let's go to Websters: It's a 15th century word meaning "extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason." A definition, this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, describes "bill of attainder" thusly: "A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."

Well, in this case the Congress isn't trying to put anyone to death ... they're just trying to steal some money. They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial ... except, that is, for this trial that has been taking place in the media for the last week. Well, there's that pesky little Constitution again. A man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and in our country due process means a trial before a jury of one's peers. Barney Frank et al are trying to take these people's money through legislative action without a trial. I would truly hope there isn't a federal judge in this country that wouldn't smack this idiocy down at the earliest opportunity.

This isn't about whether or not those people deserved those bonuses. Perhaps they don't. But the bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally enforceable contract. A contract BTW that was seen approved and dated by Tim Gietner and Chris Dodd. So where should the outrage be? Can you rationalize focusing your anger on Ed Liddy. This (Liddy) is a guy in the job for six months who wanted to serve his country and is being paid $1.00 per year to unwind a financial disaster not of his making and must take take grief from the flying monkeys in congress?

The property belongs to the employee. Now we have politicians who are trying to take it away just because they're unhappy and embarrassed because they didn't take care of this little problem before the bailout money was paid.They sat there yessterday and preened and bitched and beat their collective breast while demonstrating their total lack of any understanding of contract law of AIG's business model. They are idiots!

On to the Senate. Let's hope someone over there has read the Constitution.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

In over the collective heads.

Yesterday, President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner outlined their plan for small businesses. But before doing that, Obama wanted to make sure he had his say about these AIG bonuses. And not surprisingly, he believes that they are outrageous. Not only that, but he wants tax cheat Tim Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue" to block the payments.

Obama, of course, just had to use this occasion to play into the wealth envy. He used one of my favorite words ... "greed." He said, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed ... This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values ... All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules." What rules would that be, PrezBO? Abiding by your contractual obligations? That rule?

Here we have Obama wants to worry about fundamental values. Where were those values when he nominated a tax cheat to be the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the IRS? Willfully cheating on your taxes is OK. Getting a bonus for the work you've done pursuant to a contract is not.

Well---here's the view all of us including the "Chosen One" should be acting on. The American taxpayer owns 80% of AIG. WE are the owners and have the necessary proxies to do what ever the hell we want with AIG. Having that kind of ownership that makes the congress and the Executive branch the Board of Directors. Rather than act the role of the Board they sit back and snipe at the guy running the AIG mess for $1.00 a year. ONE DOLLAR!

So my advice to congress and PrezBo is shut the hell up and do your god-damned job!

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Go Figure

One of the big topic of conversations around dinner tables (or in my case, a lunch box filled with discarded ears), is Obama's tax philosophy. Some find it confusing - for he claims he's for tax cuts, yet he's still raising taxes for some Americans (otherwise known as rich jerks).

Now, here's the thing: if the president is going to cut taxes for something like 95 percent of the population, then he`s got to think that tax cuts are good. I mean, you don`t do something to 95 percent, unless it works.

So, why not just go to 100 percent?

Seriously: Imagine having a classroom full of kids waiting for a flu vaccine. Do you only give it to 95 percent of the class? No - if you believe there`s an antidote that repairs what's wrong, you don't leave any one out.

But here, we do.

The question, then, is why.

Well, It's not because we need the revenue, because that cash from the top 2 to 5 percent won't help.

So then, why?

Oh yeah - that five percent is "rich." And if you've been basting in the sauce of class warfare most of your life - the rich need to be punished, even if all they've done wrong is get rich.

Which is a nasty form of negative reinforcement. Look, if you're going to get nailed for elevating yourself to a higher financial class, after awhile, you`re going to think, "Why bother."

And then, "Is that meth?"

Worse, the definition of rich? Bull crap. What's rich in one area, is poor in another. A family can live happily on 75 grand in Kansas, but in Manhattan, they'll be turning tricks for oatmeal. Inevitably, the so-called rich are going to have to move out of cities, so they can live on skimpier means – which means a lot of whiny Columbia grads wandering confused at Ace Hardware.

And that's something we can all live without.

It`s Saturday, and it`s time for the Saturday's list!

Because, it's Saturday and I feel like crap but not nearly as crappy as what the "Chosen One" and his American Idol presidency has done so far to prove without a doubt that how he ran for president was a lie!

So far: what we`ve learned in the first six weeks of Obama`s presidency!

-When Wall Street suffers, so does main street. The distinction between the two made by Obama is a ruse – class warfare rhetoric that worked to win an election, and lose an economy. But what a historic election!

-"Historic" doesn't mean it can`t be disastrous. For example, see the sky. It`s falling.

-If you`re a corporation - throwing parties is totally evil in these hard times. But if you`re the President – then it`s perfectly fine to bask in your messiah-like popularity every Wednesday night. Seriously, he really is as gorgeous in person as he is on the stamps we haven`t made yet, but certainly will.

-In Canada you can behead a man, and get away with it - which makes me wish that all those folks who said they were moving there during the Bush administration, actually did.

-Jon Stewart understands it`s easier to pick on some dude from CNBC, than to question harmful policies put forth by a charming President. Great job Jon – speaking truth to power.

-Unlike the world press – countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela haven`t let Obama`s abs go to their heads. Yeah, he`s cute and everything, but check out our missiles

- Obama is no longer worth the trouble. The only way now to stop the madness is for Americans to go after Congress. Seeing how the Obama Administration is actually pretty unconcerned that the most successful system for human survival and happiness in the history of mankind is being dismantled in favor of politics and policies that have failed all over the world, it makes it hard for me to say something hopeful about Obama`s presidency.

I guess it`s above my pay grade.

Has anyone seen or heard from Paul Volker?

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Ya just gotta love it.

Letter from a Law Student:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters,

We've stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what's right. So let's just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.

So here's a model separation agreement.

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That's going to be the difficult part, but I'm sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we'll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.

We'll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and we'll let you have NBC and Hollywood.

You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won't have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.

We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place "Imagine." I'd like to teach the world to sing "Kumbaya" or "We are the world." We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.


John J Wall

Law student and an American

P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda

Wednesday, March 04, 2009


The "Chosen one" yesterday told us that he wanted us to go out and buy stock.

Is he kidding? He's waging an all-out war against capitalism, and he wants us to buy stocks? This man who wants a government-controlled economy wants us to invest in the stock market? This is like the Surgeon General telling us to go out and have unprotected sex with and HIV infected, drug addicted street whore.

Yeah ... let's all do that!