HOW TO DESTROY AMERICA - Sounds like they have checked all the boxes

Useful Idiots and the Something for Nothing Society – Part 2 of 4

				Useful Idiots and the Something for Nothing Society – Pa... This is part II of IV of Useful Idiots and The Something for Nothing Society.  In part I, we covered the beginning of the evolution from a capitalist constitut...
				View on tedbits.com	Preview by Yahoo

  

We need look no further than his Rules for Radicals (published in 1971) to see the blueprints of what is transpiring today throughout the developed world:

How To Create a Social State by Saul Alinsky

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

1) Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people

2) Poverty - Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)

6) Education - Take control of what people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools

8) Class Warfare –Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

How To Destroy America | Dick Lamm | Safehaven.com

				How To Destroy America | Dick Lamm | Safehaven.com First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, con...
				View on www.safehaven.com	Preview by Yahoo

http://www.safehaven.com/article/4837/how-to-destroy-america

(Editor's note: A 2004 speech on the dangers of multiculturalism in the United Stated titled "I Have a Plan to Destroy America", became famous after being frequently forwarded as an email. With the immigration debate again heating up, it is time to revisit the speech. Reprinted with permission.)

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Recently there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Davis Hansen talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.' Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E. Pluribus Unum -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus'. Instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson's book, Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book, 1984. In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that the future of our great nation is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped quickly, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream. 

--

LENIN QUOTES

ECONOMICS

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. 

MARRIAGE

Destroy the family, you destroy the country.

2ND AMENDMENT

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS / MEDIA

We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.

EDUCATION

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

OBAMACARE

Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.

COMPROMISE

We do not have time to play at “oppositions” at “conferences.” We will keep our political opponents... whether open or disguised as “nonparty,” in prison.

The 11th Circuit vs. the Health Care Law: A Manifesto - Andrew Cohen - Politics - The Atlantic

Bye-bye Obama-care. So-called health care (in reality sick care) in this country is a bit of a joke. But this approach was nowhere close to an answer. Time to hit the delete key and start over on this one.


The 11th Circuit vs. the Health Care Law: A Manifesto - Andrew Cohen - Politics - The Atlantic:

"A bad week for the White House got worse Friday when a federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down the 'individual mandate' portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Whatever else it portends, the 2-1 decision by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals guarantees that the United States Supreme Court will have to resolve this legal dispute on its merits, probably by next spring. Even if they want to, the justices in Washington won't be able to duck this one.

It took the 11th Circuit 304 pages to announce its findings and conclusions in Florida et al. v. Dept of Health and Human Services: The 'individual mandate' provision of the law, which requires the uninsured to buy health insurance, violates the Constitution because it is beyond Congress' power to regulate such activity. But other provisions of the new law, including its expansion of Medicaid coverage, which also were struck down by a Florida trial judge in January, are permissible. In other words, as bad as this ruling may be for supporters of the Affordable Care Act, it could have been much worse."

----


Atlanta Appeals Court Crushes Obamacare Argument in [Market-Ticker]:

"Who's left?  Healthy persons who forego purchasing insurance.  In other words, the government penalizes you for being of normal weight and taking care of yourself.  If you do so and by doing so decide you do not need to purchase this medical insurance, you are forced to either become sick or pay a penalty!

That's just a bit backward, don't you think?

The court also rejected the mandate on the principle of federalism.  This is an important finding, for it is one of the few decisions I've seen of late that recognize the inherent distinction between federal and state regulatory power.  In fact, this is exactly what our founders intended - 50 'laboratories' in which one could choose to live, and should one not like the outcome in one of those laboratories of government they could move and enjoy the experience of pleasure (or pain) in a different one!

Federalism is at the core of a limited federal government with most regulatory activity taking place in the States.  It has been lost over the decades, and as such it is vitally refreshing to see this argument raised 'front and center' in the Obamacare litigation chain - and defended by the 11th Circuit."

----
The Case Against President Obama's Health Care Reform: A Primer for Nonlawyers
by Robert A. Levy

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12972&utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=318a0dde46-Cato_Today&utm_medium=email

Multiple challenges to President Obama's health care reform are percolating through the federal courts. Soon the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on perhaps the most important question of the post–New Deal era: Are there any remaining limits on the breadth and scope of federal power?

Reinforced by decades of Court decisions that have gutted the Framers' original conception of limited government, the Obama administration has embraced an unprecedented expansion of centralized control. This paper addresses the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which includes a mandate that individuals either purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy or pay a penalty.

The Department of Health and Human Services has asserted three constitutional provisions as sources of authority for the mandate — the Taxing Power, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Each of those purported sources is deficient.

First, the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax. Even if the penalty were a tax, it would fail the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes. Second, the power to regulate interstate commerce extends only to economic activities; it does not permit Congress to compel such activities in order to regulate them. Third, the mandate is not necessary; indeed, it is merely a means to circumvent problems that would not exist if not for PPACA itself. Nor is the mandate proper; it cannot be reconciled with the Framers' original design for a limited federal government of enumerated powers.

An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA's directive that Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases individual liberty. And it's unconstitutional.

A somewhat younger Herman Cain schools Bill Clinton specifically and liberals in general regarding Health care.

Hermain Cain Educates Clinton on Economics in 1994 HC Town Hall Forum
http://youtu.be/vy542UgSelQ


Liberal Confronts Herman Cain!
http://youtu.be/mOJxQ7umeVw

The Eleventh Circuit nullifies the essence of ObamaCare with these words:
“the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional"

Your Tax Dollars at Work, Garbage In - Garbage Out

America needs to be a place where all of us can feel a part of the American dream. But it will not happen by dividing us into racial groups. It will not happen by trying to turn the poor against the rich. It will not happen by asking Americans to accept what is immoral and wrong in the name of tolerance. - J.C. Watts

A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both. - Milton Friedman

This week, aside from Sheriff Joe Biden telling us that the stimulus worked, we get this garbage in, garbage out from economists Mark Zandi and Fed apologist Alan Blinder, titled "How We Ended the Great Recession".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35002562/How-We-Ended-the-Great-Recession

So this is what we get from our government, two economists who predicted the stimulus would be hugely beneficial, conduct a study that concludes that the stimulus was hugely beneficial.
HOW STUNNINGLY INEPT.

DEFINITION OF CONFIRMATION BIAS:
Confirmation bias (or myside bias) is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true.

Buried in the minutiae of the study is the admission that what the Federal Reserve did actually had more impact than our tax dollars.

Also, the authors compare the "success" against a set of alternatives that suggest that the administration and the Federal Reserve just "do nothing" in response to the collapse of the financial system and the economy.

SERIOUSLY?!? Is that the standard we are looking for? Is that where the bar is set? IT WAS BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING?? That's even worse than, "close enough for government work".

The larger problem the "useful tools" in the administration have is that the facts (economic data) keep flying in their faces. My Dad used to say "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story". This is often described as "anchoring" instead of the term confirmation bias. I just hope that they don't pull the whole economy down again by remaining "anchored" to what appear to be failed policy choices.

This is a pretty accurate synopsis of the situation from back in January 2010. Zandi was a goofball then, he's more of one now.


http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/an-accurate-unemployment-projection/

The Obama administration has explained the dire employment situation thusly:

The economy was way worse than anybody thought
Their predictions were in line with other economists
Things would have been worse without the stimulus
All in all, a nice deflection of blame from themselves (and usually on to the preceding administration). But history isn’t so kind.

You see, back around the time that the Obama team put forth their errant predictions, a fellow named Mark Zandi (Moody’s Economy) made a similar set of predictions using an actual economic model. And here’s how he did:

Yes, your eyes do not deceive you – the unemployment rate is closely tracking Zandi’s predictions for the non-stimulus case. This leads me to the following conclusions (which are somewhat at odds with the administration’s spin):

The economy was exactly as bad as some economists thought
The Obama team’s predictions were much more optimistic than other economists’
The stimulus has had no effect

You can believe the spin or the facts you see/feel for yourself.

My conclusions would echo those of one of the commentators to the story and flow from the wisdom of Milton Fridman:

“I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.”

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

The discrepancy may be explained by either the economy being in worse shape than economists thought at the outset (the Obama excuse, even though we were told this was the worst thing since the Great Depression). In this case the model of the economy without stimulus is wrong.

Alternatively, the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the model generating the effects of stimulus is wrong. The GIGO argument. Either argument can be made and supported by facts and figures, ultimately we have elections that decide who is right and who is wrong.

We heard the mantra that these stimulus funds would go to "shovel-ready" projects that would have a near immediate effect on jobs and the economy. That has proven to be false at worst or understated at best.

The problem IMO was that the anticipated stimulus multiplier effect was muted or strangled by the harsh anti-business rhetoric and punitive regulatory euphoria that has created a climate where in effect CAPITAL IS ON STRIKE.

Why would a businessman hire, invest and strive for climate in an environment where the costs to hire are increasing, the incentive to invest is disappearing and the profits, if any, generated from investing and hiring are going to be demonized as ill-gotten gains or confiscated by an angry, greedy business partner by the name of Uncle Sam, who is motivated to "level the playing field" and will take your profits to aid those of your less competent competitor. (See GM, Chrysler, Ford)

Put that in your model and smoke it, Zandi!!

It is interesting to see that the political contributions of businessmen and women appear to be heading in a different pocket lately. And Team Obama has taken notice. Also, interesting now that the Obama team, which benefited greatly from contributions from these same businesses to get elected, now criticizes these same businesses for appearing to have buyers remorse. Isn't that their right, sir? To change their mind?

-----

MORE GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT THAT EMENATES FROM THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS:

CBO Admits It Ignored the Economy’s Actual Performance
Published on March 23, 2010 by Brian Riedl


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Stimulus-Jobs-Count-CBO-Admits-It-Ignored-the-Economys-Actual-Performance

1) RESULTS PRE-DETERMINED? THAT'S NOT TOO FRAUDULENT OR SELF-SERVING - NICE PR JOB

CBO Confirms Its Methodology

In a recent speech to the National Association of Business Economics, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed this by stating:

[W]e don't think one can learn much from watching the evolution of particular components of GDP [gross domestic product] over the last few quarters about the effects of the stimulus … so we fall back on repeating the sort of analysis we did before. And we tried to be very explicit about it that it is essentially repeating the same exercise we did rather than an independent check on it.[1]

When asked if this means that any actual underperformance of the stimulus would fail to show up in the CBO's stimulus jobs count, Elmendorf replied "That's right." This means the 1.5 million jobs saved estimate was pre-determined.


Of course, the stimulus was originally promised to create (not just save) more than 3 million jobs.[2] Instead, the economy has since lost more than 3 million additional net jobs. The abject failure of the stimulus policies recommended by Keynesian economic models should induce some fundamental re-analysis of these models' assumptions. Instead, the CBO is re-releasing the same jobs analysis--with the same economic assumptions--that they had used a year ago.

2. GIGO - GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT - WHAT IF THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG?

The "Begging the Question" Fallacy

The CBO's conclusion that the stimulus created jobs is based on an economic model that began with the premise that all stimulus bills create jobs. In other words, the conclusion is already assumed as a premise. Logicians call this the fallacy of begging the question. Mathematicians call it assuming what you are trying to prove.

More specifically, the CBO's model started by automatically assuming that government spending increases GDP by pre-set multipliers, such as:

Every $1 of government spending that directly purchases goods and services ultimately raises the
GDP by $1.75;

Every $1 of government spending sent to state and local governments for infrastructure ultimately raises GDP by $1.75;

Every $1 of government spending sent to state and local governments for non-infrastructure spending ultimately raises GDP by $1.25; and

Every $1 of government spending sent to an individual as a transfer payment ultimately raises GDP by $1.45.[3]

(Note that all CBO figures in this paper represent the midpoint between their high and low estimates.)

Then the CBO plugged the stimulus provisions into the multipliers above, came up with a total increase in GDP of 2.6 percent, and then converted that additional GDP into 1.5 million jobs.

The problem here is obvious. Once the CBO decided to assume that every dollar of government spending increased GDP by the multipliers above, its conclusion that the stimulus saved jobs was pre-ordained.

The economy could have lost 30 million jobs, and the model would have said that the economy would otherwise have lost 31.5 million jobs without the stimulus. An asteroid could have hit the United States, wiping out everyone outside of Washington, D.C., and (as long as Washington still spent the stimulus money) the CBO's economic model would have produced the same stimulus jobs data. There is no adjustment made to reflect what actually happened in the economy after the stimulus was enacted.

3. CONFIRMATION BIAS, ANCHORING - CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL - MOST PEOPLE FEEL LIKE IT'S JUST PLAIN OLD FASHIONED B.S.

Test the Multipliers

The debate over the efficacy of Keynesian stimulus is essentially a debate over the correct multipliers. Some believe the multipliers are high[4]; others believe they are as low as zero[5] (or even negative). Testing the stimulus requires testing the multipliers. Yet by simply assuming large multipliers, the CBO effectively pre-ordained its conclusion that the stimulus worked regardless of what actually happened in the economy.


Elmendorf has confirmed that the CBO's stimulus analysis consists of little more than re-releasing its pre-stimulus projections. Policymakers and analysts should not mistake this analysis for an actual examination of the stimulus's impact.

And this is why the people they call the Tea Party are gaining in numbers, not because they are racists, not because they do not want top see our President and therefore our country succeed. But because they see and feel these things that are going horribly wrong and they have had enough.

This hit my e-mail last week from James Quinn who publishes the blog The Burning Platform
http://theburningplatform.com/

The Burning Platform has posted a new item, 'NAACP - MOST RACIST ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA'

Again, I would like to reiterate that the NAACP, backed up by the hate spewing liberal media pundits on MSNBC and CNN, are just mouthpieces for the Obama agenda. Obama despises white people. Whenever his policies fail and the country is clearly headed downward, he will pull the race card. It is the liberal gameplan. They expect us white people to back down like we have for decades. No more. The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility. The racists are in the NAACP and the Obama White House. Funny that black men like Thomas Sowell and Deroy Murdock aren’t invited on MSNBC to put Olbermann, Madow, and Matthews in their place. The liberal agenda is hate, racism and division.

Liberals fear the Tea Party. They should. We’re coming to get them.

He defends the Tea Party by noting that

"Consider the Tea Party’s Contract from America, a pledge to which it holds its endorsed candidates. (TheContract.org.)

Among 10 planks, it advocates a single-rate tax, a two-thirds-vote requirement for tax hikes,
ObamaCare’s repeal, and the defeat of cap-and-trade legislation.

Nothing is even remotely related to race, ethnicity or identity. Wouldn’t bigots devote at least one of 10 reforms to something racial?

The Tea Party movement avoids racial issues and instead advances lower taxes and spending and greater fiscal discipline. These issues are neither black nor white. They are green."

This is what I've been saying about the Tea Party all along.

If you really want to get a gander at a wholly racist organization, look no further than the Black Congressional Caucus, whose members basically started this "Tea Party is racist" nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus

The Congressional Black Caucus is an organization representing the black members of the United States Congress. Membership is exclusive to blacks,[1]

I have to agree with J.C. Watts here as well.

Watts said of his refusal to join the caucus, "...they said that I had sold out and Uncle Tom. And I said well, they deserve to have that view. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps."

White members of Congress have never been welcomed into the caucus, although CBC by-laws specifically prohibit any discrimination.

And then there was the infamous Ralph Nader incident.
Sorry, in terms of level of overt racism compare and contrast the overly trumped up version of the congressman walking the gauntlet of Tea Partiers, up the Capitol steps to sign the Health Care bill with this incident.

Oh, you never heard about this incident, or the Sharpton / Brawley smear of NYPD officers. No surprise there.

Ralph Nader incident

In 2004, independent presidential candidate and consumer activist Ralph Nader attended a meeting with the Caucus which turned into a shouting exchange. The caucus urged Nader to give up his presidential run, fearing that it could hurt John Kerry, the Democratic Party's nominee. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the upcoming election "a life or death matter" for the Caucus members' constituents. Nader accused Congressman Mel Watt of twice uttering an "obscene racial epithet" towards Nader; he alleged that Watt said: "You're just another arrogant white man – telling us what we can do – it's all about your ego – another f—king arrogant white
man." Watt never offered an apology.[9]

Nader wrote to the Caucus afterwards:

"Instead, exclamations at the meeting... end[ed] with the obscene racist epithet repeated twice by Yale Law School alumnus Congressman Melvin Watt of North Carolina. One member of your Caucus called to apologize for the crudity of some of the members. I had expected an expression of regret or apology from Congressman Watt in the subsequent days after he had cooled down. After all there was absolutely no vocal or verbal provocation from me or from my associates, including Peter Miguel Camejo, to warrant such an outburst. In all my years of struggling for justice, especially for the deprived and downtrodden, has any legislator—white or black—used such language? I do not like double standards, especially since our premise for interactions must be equality of respect that has no room, as I responded to Mr. Watt, for playing the race card. Therefore, just as African-Americans demanded an apology from Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz and Senator Trent Lott—prior to their resignation and demotion respectively—for their racist remarks, I expect that you and others in the Caucus will exert your moral persuasion and request an apology from Congressman Watt. Please consider this also my request for such an expression—a copy of which is being forwarded directly to Mr. Watt's office."[10]

So all these factors contribute to the rise of the Tea Party movement. Not racism. Not black /white issues, green issues ($$$). These folks have sat back were not involved as much in politics as they maybe should have been. They allowed the discontented to drive the agenda. Well, good job losers, you've pushed the economic and political climate to the point where now successful and otherwise happy, contented people are pissed off. GOOD JOB, ASS-HATS.

They have put up with the entitlement culture, the ever increasing social safety net and the social justice programs grow way out of control. When times were good they really didn't pay too much attention to what was going on. Politics is always about "greasing the squeaky wheel" and these are folks that didn't have much to complain about. Now they do.

These are people that when times are good are the epitome of good, decent, caring, charitable people. But their patience and kindness and generosity does have it's limits -- it's breaking point -- and we are rapidly reaching that point in this environment.

SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER!!!
----

The other success that was touted this past week was the so-called Financial Regulatory Reform bill that was passed. Another gift form out leaders. I'll leave it to a well-respected bank analyst, Rochdale Securites Dick Bove, to give his take on the bill. It's right on the money.

How Wall Street Will Beat the New Financial Regulations - Yahoo! Finance

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-Wall-Street-Will-Beat-the-cnbc-2430801725.html?x=0

"What the law did was force the banks to rethink their business lines, their pricing strategies, their methodology for maintaining their balance sheet," banking analyst Dick Bove of Rochdale Securities said in an interview. "When they rethink it all, they will be able to offset all of the costs of this bill."

But crafty financial veterans already are finding loopholes in the law and banks likely will profit both in spite of and because of the reforms.

"If you had anyone who knew anything about the financial industry writing this law, that's one thing," said Bove, who has called the law one of the worst in US history. "But if you have a bunch of hysterics who were looking for political gain, you get something that was an abortion. All it did was increase the cost of banking in the United States relative to the cost of banking in other countries."

The banks' course of action likely will break down into four strategies:

1. Outfox the foxes

A harsh critic of the law, Bove is among the analysts who nevertheless believe banks will thrive. One big reason is because he thinks industry executives will show that they're smarter than the legislators who crafted financial reform, also known as FinReg.

Once again, thanks for nothing guys.

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

Speaking of garbage, this is the prevailing opinion of the current administration, that the people of this country are too stupid to understand that all the data that confirms what people are feeling everyday is wrong and they are right. That is the problem, people are too stupid.



I really hope that we remember to add ALL incumbents to the unemployment lines this November. There isn't one of them that deserves to be re-elected.

They need to be defeated and I use that term in lieu of they need to be beaten, Mussolini-style.

The Italians didn't mess around when a politician preached false hope and fanciful dreams and then failed miserably to deliver (the trains did run on time, though). Maybe a little history repeating around here would do some of our congressmen and women, well. HAHAHAHHA.

FROM ANDREWCOSSACK.COM - MUSSOLINI'S FALL FROM GRACE:

http://www.andrewcusack.com/2007/11/18/mussolini-in-his-own-words/

After a summary execution, Mussolini’s corpse, along with those of his mistress and others, were dragged through the streets of Milan before being strung up at a gas station. Il Duce had previously expounded upon the idea:

“Every man dies the death which befits his character.”

KEEP THAT IN MIND, MY D.C. HOMIES AND REMEMBER WE'VE GOT OUR EYE ON YOU.

OBAMA AND HEALTH CARE - THE MORE THINGS CHANGE...

OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN - A BAD IDEA THEN, A BAD IDEA NOW?

ACCORDING TO VITALIY KATZENELSON (Author of Active Value Investing - Making Money in Range Bound Markets) - It's a fundamentally flawed idea for improving our health care system overall. How can it be better with less doctors and less wonder drugs being produced?

Vitaliy's ContrarianEdge

Obama’s First Econ Lesson

Posted: 27 Apr 2009 09:28 AM PDT

Mr. President is facing the first econ lesson of his presidency. According to a New York Times article Mr. President is trying to figure out what to do with shortage of doctors. He said “we are not producing enough primary care physicians”.

Education is expensive, consumes a lot of time and the payoff is not worth the trouble. This is a very early wake up call on socializing medical care in the US.

The econ lesson? When you lower the price you get less of it. This is a good preview of what will happen to little chemical compounds we call legal drugs that save millions of lives every day if you start instituting price controls to “protect” people from “evil” pharmaceutical companies.

------------------
ACCORDING TO RASMUSSEN REPORTS - the people are against it.

Just 35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a
government health insurance company to compete with private
health insurers. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone
survey shows that 50% of voters oppose setting up a
government health insurance company as President Obama and
congressional Democrats are now proposing in their health
care reform plan.

-------------------

ACCORDING TO THE Congressional Budget Office - it won't
achieve the fundamental goal of reigning in costs.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats' health care bills won't meet
President Barack Obama's goal of slowing the ruinous rise of
medical costs, Congress' budget umpire warned on Thursday,
giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break
the bank.

The sobering assessment from Congressional Budget Office
Director Douglas Elmendorf came as House Democrats pushed to
pass a partisan bill through committees, while in the Senate
a small group of lawmakers continued to seek a deal that
could win support from both political parties.

-------------------

BUT ACCORDING TO OBAMA - we're going to get it whether we
like it or not. I'm sure he'll tell us that EVERY economist
is in favor of what he intends to do. Every economist except
those hired by Congress to appraise whether the plan will
actually work or not.

So, is this the type of change we signed on for, or more of the same hubris and arrogance that was characteristic of the dreaded Bush administration?

------------------

P.S. - LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE WILL STILL HAVE ABOUT 17 MILLION PEOPLE UNINSURED UNDER THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN AND THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE (GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS) WHO BROUGHT COMMAND AND CONTROL HEALTH CARE TO OUR NATION'S SENIOR CITIZENS AND VETERANS. ASK THEM HOW WELL IT WORKS.