Category Archives: Democrats

Is It 'Moran' Or 'Moron'? (& More Of The Latter)

Barack Obama, Crime, Democrats, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Liberty, Morality

The following is from my new, WND column: “Is It ‘Moran’ Or ‘Moron’?”

“Nothing is going to happen to me, man.”

“Those were immortal words of an inebriated illegal alien who rear ended an ass—Democratic State Rep. Michael Moran of Brighton, Massachusetts—in what was described in the press as a ‘serious car crash.’

Welcome to our world, Mr. Moran.

The suspect was as spirited as he was high. The soused 27-year-old Isaias Naranjo was decked up in a Mexican costume. And, as the local Fox 25 channel reported, Naranjo laughed when he was ‘told of the serious charges he would be facing’ (lies). ‘Nothing is going to happen to me, man,’ he taunted the cops (true). I’m ‘going back to my home country, Mexico.’

He might have been drunk and deadly, but Naranjo was dead-on about the joke of a ‘system’ he would be facing. …

Moreover, the merriment of the miscreant Naranjo is perfectly justified—and logical.”…

The complete column is “Is It ‘Moran’ Or ‘Moron’?”, now on WND.COM.

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE (May 29): MORE MORON MATERIAL. The imperious president has refused to grant Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer an audience. Fox reports:

Brewer will be in Washington to meet with other governors. She said Friday that she had asked to meet with Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss border security and immigration

The pioneering Gov. Brewer ought to have sold Obama on a visit by saying she only wished to kiss the president’s papal ring.

Updated: Diversity À La Democrats

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Democrats, Law, Media, Race, The Courts

Doesn’t Pat Buchanan know that diversity is code for displacing da white man? Bush tried hard to appoint a woman simpleton to the SCOTUS, but the Party kicked him so hard for Harriet Miers, whose mind was even more pedestrian than SotoSoAndSo, that he withdrew her nomination and gave us the non-diverse Alito and Roberts.

Still, some interesting points from Pat:

“What kind of diversity is this – either in geography or life experience?

While Sotomayor went to Yale Law School, the other three liberals went to Harvard, though Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia. Seems a fairly narrow range for a party that once claimed to be America’s party.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg tied for first in her class at Columbia, but neither Obama nominee is academically distinguished. Sotomayor called herself an ‘affirmative action baby’ who, at Princeton, was urged to read children’s books in the summer to improve her reading and writing skills. Kagan never served as a judge, never litigated a case before being named solicitor general, never wrote a book or anything else anyone has turned up that manifests real legal scholarship.

From her Princeton thesis on the sad demise of 20th-century socialism, to her tears at the defeat of the radical liberal Senate candidate Elizabeth Holtzman in 1980, to her hostility to the U.S. military on the Harvard campus while dean of the law school, Kagan has revealed herself to be one more Ivy League leftist anxious to use a lifetime seat on the court, winning the plaudits of her peers by imposing her ideology on a nation that has never voted for it.

Conservatives will not soon get another opportunity like this to take down Ivy League pretensions to represent and rule America.”

[SNIP]

Back at the farm, liberals really do worship their magic mulatto. The mind boggles at this utterance from MSNBC’s LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, sitting in for odious Ed of “THE ED SHOW”:

“… we don‘t know a lot about Kagan, but we do know a lot about the man who appointed her. Barack Obama is the wisest and most learned legal scholar ever to occupy the White House. That‘s who Kagan would have had to fool if she really were some sort of stealth conservative.”

Update (May 15): Remember: BHO, author of bestsellers, and not one law journal article (no that that means a thing) is being hailed as greater than Thomas Jefferson, lawyer (as far as I know), legal and political philosopher, author of the Declaration of Independence and generally a genius.

This is sick stuff (but then so is it sick to credit Palin with doing battle for Jeffersonian liberties).

Update II: Further Financial Centralization (Budding Bureaucracies)

Bush, Business, Democrats, Economy, Federalism, Law, Regulation

Charles Krauthammer points out that BHO’s financial-reform bill is a move toward a further increase in the overweening powers of the Executive branch, which will now be able to seize a firm it designates as systemically risky. Where was Krauthammer during the Bush administration? It invented the doctrine of an overreaching executive. Still, he is right.

Michele Bachmann sums up the impetus of the bill: privatizing profits; socializing losses. (By the way, Bachmann is infinitely superior in intelligence to Palin who’s only growing more ignorant with notoriety. The more I see of Bachmann, the more impressed I grow with her demeanor and unshakable command of the facts.

Here is The Wall Street Journal’s “Factsheet: Senate Financial-Regulation Bill”

Update I (April 27): As Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has been pointing out, the bogus lawsuit against Goldman-Sachs, a major donor of Obama and the beneficiary of a bailout, is political theater designed to prepare the public for the passage of enormously intrusive financial regulation.

The Heritage Foundation on “The Dodd Bill:

“Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration want to create a permanent bailout mechanism all [the] while spouting their rhetoric of getting tough on Wall Street, but if you look at who is already lining up to support their ‘reform’ measure it’s a who’s who of the big banks that have already received the taxpayer bailout the first time.” … “Wall Street supports this measure. Why? Because big investment houses realize they’ll get bailed out and would have less reason to worry about risky behavior.”

“Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) crafted the Senate version of so-called ‘Financial Reform’ with the support of the President. The procedure used to date resembles the non-transparent and secretive tactics used to pass ObamaCare. The Senate Banking committee marked up the bill in 22 minutes, with no amendments offered and no debate allowed. …

“There are two specific problems with the Senate approach to ‘reform.'”:

“First, this legislation would create a new $50-billion bailout slush fund controlled by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Very big banks and other ‘eligible financial companies’ would be taxed by the FDIC to build up this fund. As with any tax, though, it’s consumers–you and me–who would eventually pay this levy.

The Obama Administration this weekend requested that the $50 billion pre-funded bailout money be removed from the bill. But according to Foxnews.com, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner advocated last year that any bailout funding should be addressed post bailout through a tax on big Wall Street firms. If Senate Democrats only take out the $50 billion slush fund and leave the bailout authority intact, then the taxpayers will still be on the hook for any future bailouts.

Another problem with this bill is that it would bail out the creditors of companies and wouldn’t require any creditor to take a loss after a company starts to fail. If the bailout slush fund is tapped, the FDIC would have the power to reimburse creditors. That could allow the FDIC to pay creditors more than they invested (pursuant to Section 210 of the Dodd bill).

Think about that. If creditors know they aren’t likely take a loss, and risk has been eliminated from an investment, its taxpayers who are assuming all the risk. Of course, taxpayers get none of the rewards if the investments pay off–we would simply be on the hook if they fail. Taxpayers could expect no reward for having insured transactions and protected wealthy investors from any risk. The AIG bailout is a great example of this model.”

Update II: BUDDING BUREAUCRACIES. Senate Republicans are, so far, blocking debate, and thus a vote, on The Bill, which makes them look like obstructionists to a moronic populace.

Bloomberg:

“Republicans say the bill would set up a permanent bailout of Wall Street banks and create bureaucracies … Dodd’s legislation would create a consumer financial protection bureau at the Federal Reserve with authority to write rules and enforce them at banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets. … The bill would limit the Fed’s regulatory authority to banks with assets of at least $50 billion, transferring its powers to monitor smaller lenders to other regulators. It would also set up a council of regulators to monitor the economy for systemic risk and ban proprietary trading at U.S. banks.”

What pigs do with power ….

Updated: Regulator ‘Claims Credit For Nascent Economic Recovery’

Barack Obama, Business, Democrats, Economy, Government, Regulation, The State

Obama can boast of job growth for the month of March—162,000— because, from his standpoint, an accretion of the parasitical sector (government) is as good, if not better, than that of the private, productive economy. Laissez faire capitalists understand that the “U.S. Census Bureau’s addition of 48,000 jobs for its once-in-a-decade head count of the U.S. population” will hit the private sector hard. Barack doesn’t.

Note that none of the modest job gains in other industries, respectively, rivals the gains of one government department, the Census Bureau. And sixteen thousand other IRS thugs will be hired to enforce the healthscare bill.

That rising tide of hiring brought relief to some long-suffering sectors of the economy. Construction added 15,000 jobs, the first increase of any kind in the sector since June 2007. Manufacturing also added 17,000, with 2,500 of that gain coming at auto plants and their parts suppliers.
Retailers added nearly 15,000 jobs and leisure and hospitality accounted for 22,000 more jobs.

What interests me about Obama’s blather is not so much that he has declared that the “country has successfully ‘turned the corner,'” but that in response to criticism of his interventionist policies, he “insists the country cannot return to the more conservative hands-off regulatory philosophy traditionally favored by the GOP.”

The US economy is regulated to the hilt; legislators of both parties have placed it in knots of bondage.

Take banking. “For all the talk about deregulation run amok, banking is one of the more heavily regulated sectors in most Western economies. In the US, for instance, banks have numerous regulators, ranging from the federal Reserve System to the Federal Deposit Insurance Funds to a variety of minor offices and state regulators, all acting in concert. Not only did these regulators fail but they egged on the excesses which later exploded. The more consolidated regulatory approach of the UK didn’t seem to fare much better. We’re counting on the regulators to fix the markets but there is very little talk about how to fix [or rather fire] the regulators. [Tyler Cowen, Times Literary Supplement, February 26, 2010]

Peter Schiff sees a bubble in government brewing. In “The Fed’s Last Hurrah,” he writes:

“While the earlier booms at least provided the illusion of prosperity and some fun while they lasted, the government bubble will cripple the economy and deliver widespread misery to the vast majority of Americans.

Of course, there will be winners in the government bubble, at least for a while. As was the case with the stock and real estate bubbles, plenty of money will be made by the well-connected and parasitic classes. Government employees will continue to enjoy pay raises at our expense, as will anyone benefiting from the new wave of subsidies, such as Wall Street investment bankers, financial speculators, and those working in health care or education.

These gains will come at the expense of the taxpayers who foot the bill and the consumers who face higher prices. As government grows, it deprives the private sector of the resources it needs to survive and grow. The result is a lower overall standard of living. Not only are government jobs less productive than private sector jobs, but bureaucratic interference actually makes the remaining private sector jobs less efficient as well.”

Update (April 5): FRED REED RIPS apart the US Managerial State. No one on this site buys the line you hear from Mr. Hannity, and other iconic conservatives, that the US BB (before Barack) was a free country:

“Washington is out of control. It does as it likes, without restraint. It spends American money and American lives to fight remote wars for which it cannot provide a plausible reason. It determines what our children will be taught, who we can hire and fire, to whom we can sell our houses, whether we can defend ourselves, even what names we can call each other. The feds read our email and track the web sites we visit, make us hop around barefoot in airports at the command of surly unaccountable rentacops. They search us at random in train stations without even a pretense of probable cause. We have no influence over them, no way of resisting.

… Washington has learned to insulate itself from interference by the population. Huge impenetrable bureaucracies beyond public control make regulations that amount to laws, spending God knows how much money to do God knows what for the benefit of the interest groups that run the government. These bureaucrats cannot be fired and usually cannot be named. Congress, like the bureaucracies, serves not the United States but the big lobbies.” …