Liberal Hypocrisy: Deaths caused by EIT's 0...deaths caused by drone strikes...3,674.

Since last year's ambush report released by Senator Dianne Feinstein,  accused the CIA of committing some fairly odious acts against terrorist operatives, the fallout that was supposed to follow has  generally been an empty nothing. Call it the 'thud of silence'. Nevertheless, the protesting malcontent crowd was pretty ginned up and raucous in their usual slacktivist ways. (For further situational awareness may I recommend going on Twitter and typing in  #TortureReport to observe the rabidity. If there observations don't make you laugh they sure as hell will make you cry laughing.)

Ironically though this little nugget below doesn't seemed to have done much in the way of motivation for the brain deficient lemmings on the American Left. 

The most consistent and era-defining tactic of America’s post-9/11 counterterrorism strategies has been the targeted killing of suspected terrorists and militants outside of defined battlefields. As one senior Bush administration official explained in October 2001, “The president has given the [CIA] the green light to do whatever is necessary. Lethal operations that were unthinkable pre-September 11 are now underway.” Shortly thereafter, a former CIA official told the New Yorker, “There are five hundred guys out there you have to kill.” It is quaint to recall that such a position was considered extremist and even morally unthinkable. Today, these strikes are broadly popular with the public and totally uncontroversial in Washington, both within the executive branch and on Capitol Hill. Therefore, it is easy to forget that this tactic, envisioned to be rare and used exclusively for senior al-Qaeda leaders thirteen years ago, has become a completely accepted and routine foreign policy activity. 

Thus, just as you probably missed the tenth anniversary—November 3, 2012—of what I labeled the Third War, it’s unlikely you will hear or read that the United States just launched its 500th non-battlefield targeted killing. 

As of today, the United States has now conducted 500 targeted killings (approximately 98 percent of them with drones), which have killed an estimated 3,674 people, including 473 civilians. Fifty of these were authorized by President George W. Bush, 450 and counting by President Obama. Noticeably, these targeted killings have not diminished the size of the targeted groups according to the State Department’s own numbers.

No outrage, nor gnashing of teeth, no nothing...just hypocrisy. 

Maybe we should drop another $40 million and investigate this administration and see how heinous and insidious this program really is, because it sure as hell has killed a lot more people than any recently used EIT has. 

Continue reading ...

President Obama's admission to being in a perpetual campaign mode?

On December 18th the President did a softball interview with NPR. While reading the transcript I came across an admission which I thought was an interesting testimony to his philosophy on governance. 

"Now you've got Republicans in a position where it's not enough for them simply to grind the wheels of Congress to a halt and then blame me. They are going to be in a position in which they have to show that they can responsibly govern, given that they have significant majorities in both chambers. And, you know, what I've said repeatedly is that I want to work with them; I want to get things done. I don't have another election to run."

More often than not the POTUS has been criticized for being in a perpetual campaign mode rather than actually governing. In his own words, he seems to have indicated that these criticisms have an air of legitimacy to them.

Continue reading ...

Senate's CIA "Torture Report"

It is truth, but truth is not always appearance.

~Ichabod Crane, Sleepy Hollow (1999)

As readers undoubtedly already know...the Senate Intelligence Committee, under the auspice of Senator Dianne Feinstein, has released the very damning report titled "Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program." In it we see a pretty horrific picture painted of the CIA's interrogation program; ranging from allegations of "avoiding or impeding oversight" of any kind, was "brutal and far worse" than represented, "not an effective means of acquiring intelligence" etc. Fairly damning and damaging to the Agency's reputation as well as to the United States' standing in the world.

(Before I go on and for the integrity of this topic, I emphatically sanction the use of EIT's on terrorists--who seek to kill, torture, and subjugate the free people of this world in the name of "religious rectitude"--to secure their motivations and plans. My perspective on most foreign policy or security issues is strictly and religiously utilitarian. In that if actions maximize the overall benefit--protecting US civilians, military, and interests--is achieved then the judgement of the action--use of EIT's--should be measured by this metric.)

Now that that disclaimer is out of the way and there is no question as to my motivation let's get started with the critique.

The Partisan Nature of the Report

Absolutely the largest point that makes taking this report seriously extremely problematic is who produced it.

From the Washington Post, (Emphasis Mine.)

The investigation was conducted exclusively by the Senate committee’s Democratic staff. Its release Tuesday is certain to stir new debate over a program that has been a source of contention since the first details about the CIA’s secret prison network began to surface publicly a decade ago. 

So...why weren't any Republican staffers present? Well...the blame and culpability for this being the case lies solely at the feet of the GOP.

“My predecessor, Sen. Bond, was the lead Republican on the Committee when the report was started. Sen. Bond’s determination early on was that this report was clearly a partisan effort, and there was no reason for the Republican staff to continue to participate,” Blunt said.  

(Emphasis Mine.)

Any present day Republican decrying the "partisan nature" of this report should shut his/her collective mouth. Because they, the GOP, had motive and opportunity to fight inside the committee and control some of the report's outcomes. Not take their toys and go home. Anyone who is politically active or pays attention should have known how that these little Progressive knobs would structure this report in the manner they did, it was or should have been expected.

Where the Republican leadership is concerned, these Democrat actions aren't or weren't some kind of fucking recent revelation brought on by a momentary lapse in their judgment. The Republican leadership had five years to mull over this and if they would have stayed engaged they might have had an opportunity to do something about it instead of just crying foul. All of this was part and parcel of the larger problem that has plagued these tools (Democrats) since 2007 and earlier--their Leftist extremism and their sick-headed and morally bankrupt agenda.

If you are uninitiated in the Progressive mind-set towards war and foreign policy, please see this post for an eye opening crash-course on their ludicrous philosophies.

Structure of the Report

By any means necessary...

~Jean Paul Sartre, Dirty Hands (1948)

Piggybacking of the abovementioned content, you would be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise that the Democratic staffers or their leadership didn't start this investigation with the presupposition that the Agency was guilty of transgressions. These little nihilists so vehemently opposed the use of EIT's that they would burst into histrionics at the mere mention of the acronym. So with all the emotional vomiting they had subjected the nation to over the years, they HAD to prove themselves correct.  Regardless of the cost and who it might affect.

In a op-ed for USA Today, former Senator, member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Democrat, Bob Kerrey, echoed this sentiment, among other criticisms.

The Republicans checked out early* when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it.

*One point I would like to make is that the motivation that supposedly led the GOP to "check out" for me is still no excuse, they should have stuck it out.

Another problem that this "investigation" suffers from is what was investigated. From the Bob Kerrey op-ed.

I have participated in two extensive investigations into intelligence failures, once when Aldrich Ames was discovered to be spying for Russia after he had done substantial damage to our human intelligence collection capability and another following the 9/11 attacks. In both cases we were very critical of the practices of the intelligence agencies. In both cases we avoided partisan pressure to blame the opposing party. In both cases Congress made statutory changes and the agencies changed their policies. It didn't make things perfect, but it did make them better.

In both of these efforts the committee staff examined documents and interviewed all of the individuals involved. The Senate's Intelligence Committee staff chose to interview no one. Their rationale - that some officers were under investigation and could not be made available – is not persuasive. Most officers were never under investigation and for those who were, the process ended by 2012.

Fairness should dictate that the examination of documents alone do not eliminate the need for interviews conducted by the investigators. Isolated emails, memos and transcripts can look much different when there is no context or perspective provided by those who sent, received or recorded them.

(Emphasis Mine.)

Timing of the Report's Release

The essential ingredient of politics is timing.

~Pierre Trudeau, 15th Prime Minister of Canada

There are many reasons that could be offered for the timing and release of this report. But rest assured, all of the reasons offered are purely political in nature. 

One motivation for the Democrats which has gained traction in conservatives circles was that report was coincidentally released as Jonathan Gruber was given his testimony to the House Oversight Committee on the 10th. Mr. Gruber, in case you forgot, was the so-called architect of Obamacare who recently and on several occasions called the American people, "stupid." 


Another reason that could be considered is that in one month the Democrats are leaving their majority position in Congress. They know full well that propaganda piece would probably have not seen the light of day when the Republicans took over. So they do what Democrats do, they shit all over everything before turning over the keys.

Timing, for Feinstein was a big factor. "I realize the Senate changes leadership in January, and so the likelihood of the report coming out next year was slim and none, so we had a limited opportunity after five and a half years of work to get this out," she said. She conceded that the safety situation abroad was "difficult," but, she continued, "It's going to remain difficult."

Furthermore there is the aspect of hypocrisy and the depth to which Feinstein and her ilk actually oppose the use of EIT's.

From William McGurn in the New York Post, 

 If you really wanted to ensure the CIA never tortures again, why didn’t you just outlaw waterboarding and other methods you call torture altogether — instead of leaving it to an executive order another president might reverse?  

The honest answer to this question speaks to contemporary congressional morality, and underscores how the loudest notes of moral outrage in the Beltway are so often sounded by its least serious people.

After all, back in 2009 the stars were all in alignment for putting a ban into law. The war in Iraq had been turned around by the surge; the CIA in fact hadn’t waterboarded anyone since 2004; and the need for harsh tactics, if ever they were necessary, seemed far behind us.

Indeed...? Why not end it?

Back in 2009 the Democrats had the political capital, the moral authority, and above all else the control of the executive branch and the legislative numbers to make this happen. Beyond burning down the building on the way out, this lends itself to the upcoming general election in 2016. Since the Democrats took such a drubbing in the mid-terms--getting completely decimated in the South--there base is disillusioned, beaten down to the lowest level possible, and the country is souring on their brand. They need revival and they need it badly.

From Ferguson, to Eric Gardner, and now a play from the old playbook that was near and dear to the political hearts of the Progressive faithful...EIT's. Nothing gins up the base like a Bush administration/Iraq war related controversy.  The base gets motivated and therefore mobilized and the wheels will start to turn. But, how far the wheels will take them is another story altogether.

You see the attitude that American's possess towards EIT's has changed quite a bit since the mid-2000's.

From the  Pew Research Center,

Pew Research Center (Fact Tank, Dec 2014)

This may produce fire in the belly of the your local activist--or maybe just indigestion--but the average American is a little more pragmatic on the subject. So...parading the CIA report come election time and the Right will use it as a political wall that the Left's head will be smashed on.

Continue reading ...

In 2014 the "War on Women" was a Fluke...a Sandra Fluke

Historically speaking, minority participation in mid-terms is usually low. This fact is usually troubling for Democratic operatives who now, like in mid-terms past, have opted to target the female demographic, in order to make-up the lost share of votes that are otherwise cast by racial minorities.

So...if you are targeting women then it only seems reasonable that you would dig into your political bag of tricks and bring out an oldie but a goodie, the perpetual Republican "war on women."

Beyond using the ass-beating Democrats took in the mid-term as a metric for success, there is a far more humorous and snide way of determining whether or not this "strategy" was effective.

Enter...the Condom Fairy Princess, Sandra Fluke.

Mzzz. Fluke gained a certain bit of notoriety in early 2012 by testifying in front of the Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the "importance of requiring insurance plans to cover birth control."  Fluke was then repudiated by Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, as a "slut" and a "prostitute." Needless to say this catapulted Mzzz. Fluke to upper echelons of Liberal hierarchy and sympathy; even garnering her a shot at California state Senate seat this past election cycle.

Well...Mzzz. Fluke lost that contest to a fellow Democrat and a man!! And lost it quite handedly I might add.

Fluke lost to fellow Democrat Ben Allen, a Santa Monica-Malibu school board member, by over 21 points.

Subsequently, it seems that the "war on women" adage isn't even resonating with hard core liberals of the California variety. But on a brighter note, maybe with this defeat it might be the last we see of Mzzz. Fluke. Well maybe until Liberals want to recycle identity politics of Christmas past and dust Mzzz. Fluke off for the next go-round.

Continue reading ...

Republican Victory...Republican Governance

Ok...the GOP won BIG TIME in the 2014 mid-terms! Fifty-two seats on election night alone, Louisiana hangs in the balance until December, and Landrieu will lose, Alaska looks like a another lock for the GOP as votes are still being counted, and a small possibility in Virginia that a recount could unseat incumbent Democrat, Mark Warner.

This makes their control of the Senate reach upwards of 55 seats. Then there is possibility of snagging up two wayward members of the political herd--Senator Angus King (I-ME) and centrist Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV)--to caucus with the GOP. Needless to say, this would put them in super majority territory. But the question that remains is what will the Republicans do with all of this new-found power and authority? My first reaction, which is based on their past history, is snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

However despite my personal reservations about future GOP performance, the Republicans did do a few things right that they deserve credit for. During the Senate and House campaigns the GOP successfully tapped the anti-Obama sentiment that permeates the country. Accordingly their efforts to nationalize the election as a referendum on the President and thus Democrats, was very fortuitous.

Also there was the gift that keeps on giving; the Democrat candidates proclivity to the Todd Aiken disease. That is the inevitability of a candidate to say something stupid that is used against them in a campaign ad. Conversely, the Republicans seemed to have learned from their past mistakes of moving gaffe-prone candidates into the limelight.

From Politico,

In an effort to avoid any Todd Aiken-like gaffes, the National Republican Senatorial Committee put on a media-training bootcamp for candidates ahead of the midterms. NRSC trackers met the candidates at the airport, watching them as "soon as they poked their heads through the security doors." Then, it was two full days of training.

As I have already eluded to, my expectations as a member of the Right are very low in way of GOP governance. Their past actions--not including excellent parliamentarian maneuvering--was less than lackluster. Agenda speaking they have not provided much to be enthusiastic over other than an expectable mid-term drubbing of Democrats.

Continue reading ...

Millennials evidently want a GOP run Congress.

Well...I wish I could say that I had planned this but sometimes "it's better to be lucky, than good." Last night I offered up Sean Trende's perspective on the so-called 'Emerging Democratic Majority' (EDM) in which  Latino/Hispanic populations and Millennials, both key players in the "foreordained" Liberal rise to permanency and primacy. Two polls which, just released today, lend themselves towards Trende's observation that the EDM theory is a figmental  supposition that is impossible to predict.

The first poll was provided by Harvard and shows that the 18-29'ers, aka Millennials, are apparently breaking for the GOP in the mid-terms.

A new and massive poll of 2,029 18- to 29-year-olds from Harvard’s Institute of Politics just released found that of those who say they will “definitely be voting,” 51 percent want the GOP in charge, 47 percent favoring Democratic control. The unexpected anti-Democratic swing prompted a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reporter quizzing poll experts on a media conference call to IOP blurted out, "How did the Democrats and Obama screw this up?"

The second poll was produced by Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project.

From: Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project

As you can see the Democratic share of the Latino/Hispanic vote still weighs heavy in favor of Democrats. However, the GOP share of the vote has increased to a level which matched support when President Bush, who was popular with the Hispanic community, was in office. Resulting in a 7% increase in three years without much to little effort by the Republicans in voter outreach to the Hispanic and Latino communities respectively.


Putting all of this into perspective, this does not equate some monumental shift in paradigm by these two demographics. This phenomena appears to be more related to both groups' disgust with the continual incompetency of both the Administration and Democrats on the Hill. Additionally, it has absolutely nothing to do with the GOP being some sort of idea factory that has won them over ideologically. The latter would be asking entirely too much from Republican leadership.

Addendum: There is an interesting point in the above mentioned Pew Research poll which I found on Real Clear Politics.

Only 36 percent of Latino voters would not support a candidate who disagrees with them about immigration policy (even if they agree on most other issues). Fifty-four percent would consider voting for the candidate they disagree with, and 6 percent said it “depends.”

Continue reading ...

The 'Emerging Democratic Majority'

Around here...we talk politics offline, as hard as that might be to believe. Nevertheless, one of the recurring themes that we drift to is the inevitably or the uncertainty of the so-called "Emerging Democratic Majority Theory."

The theory in essence states that due to demographic shifts taking place in the United States the face of the electorate in coming decades will dramatically tilt, considerably favoring the Progressive/Democratic agendas. Thus relegating the GOP to the same fate as the Whigs...obscurity then oblivion. 

Why wouldn't you believe this on face value when you see the influx of immigrant populations  growing through illegal and legal immigration? Also there is the assimilation factor; first generation immigrants are not necessarily adapting to proto-American culture and are demonstrating a considerable proclivity towards the Democratic camp. Also, there is a vast plethora of evidence to support this theory beyond what is presented here. 

However, Sean Trende-a political analyst for Real Clear Politics--offers a refutation to this particular rationale. 

Most skeptics, on the other hand, start from a belief that realignment theory does not accurately describe how American elections work.  Following David Mayhew’s seminal “Electoral Realignments,” many political scientists and EDM skeptics came to conclude during the 2000s that realignment theory is fatally flawed.  I’ve explored this numerous times on this site, as well as in my book, “The Lost Majority” (now available for a bright, shiny penny at Amazon marketplace). Among the reasons for being skeptical of the concept of realignments:

• Many elections that are not listed as critical elections nevertheless show many of the features of critical elections (1874, 1912, 1952), which disrupts periodicity and argues against the idea of extended party rule.

• There is a distinct tendency to regress toward a neutral mean in elections.

• One-party control of government is actually rare, and has only occurred after 13 of the past 34 elections.

• The “runs” of wins and losses by one party or the other that we see in presidential elections are consistent with random chance.

• The periodicity of electoral cycles, to the extent it ever existed, breaks down in 1932, as Republicans only briefly took unified control of government during their supposed majority period.

• Realignment theory can be deconstructed as revealing a preference for an economic narrative; if our preference were for, say, a foreign policy narrative, we could write a coherent realignment narrative focusing on 1900, 1920, 1952, 1980 and 2008.  A civil rights narrative might see critical elections in 1860, 1892, 1936, 1964 and 2008.

• Elections are well-predicted by a few fundamental factors, such as the economy, wars, scandal, and incumbency.

That last factor is, I think, the kicker. Even the most ardent realignment theorist will concede that the occasional war, recession and so forth will allow the out-party to win. To me, that is exactly backwards: Wars, recessions, expansions and so forth are the rule in elections, and our elections follow those much more closely than they do demographic trends. So a skeptic’s baseline belief is substantially lower -- maybe 10 percent. 

This is not to deny the EMD theory just to say that planning out 'emerging majorities' may be a false premise based on a vast amount of circumstantial evidence. These coalitions are not immutable nor are they abatable. Realistically we have no idea what the world of tomorrow will be or even look like. Of course you can say you are running a fool's gambit by denying its inevitability in the face of the tsunami of data.

Continue reading ...

Is the Political Left becoming anti-science?

A good question... Suffice to say that when it comes to science--in the generalist of terms--each side of the political aisle has sub-groups that undoubtedly go off the rails when it comes to their perceptions of information and data. Their views tend to be cynical, conspiratorial, and one-dimensional. Nevertheless on a wide variety of issues the Left has felt and portrayed that "science" is unconditionally on its side.

Continue reading ...

2012 Polls and Election: A cautionary tale for Democrats, and Republicans, for the 2014 Mid-Terms.

Nate Silver, sabermetrician, political prognosticator, and proprietor of fivethirtyeight.com, reminds us of the Republican now infamous "the polls are skewed" in the 2012 presidential contest.  That Ostrich Effect which infected the GOP has now spread among the Democratic party-faithful.

However...this in no way, shape, or form means that the GOP should suffer from a bout of overconfidence about victory in the mid-terms as Silver highlights. 

This year’s Senate election is close. Republicans have the clearer path to a majority, but it’s a treacherous one. Republicans are favored in Iowa and Colorado, for example, but not by much. If Democrats eked out victories in those states and picked up the seat in Kansas (by persuading independent Greg Orman to caucus with them), they could control 50 Senate seats and keep their majority. Democrats could also still pick up seats from the GOP in Georgia and Kentucky. And Republican gains in Arkansas and Louisiana are probable but far from certain.

There are still three weeks left until voting day. Subsequently, there is still room for the GOP to flub this election by becoming brash and lazy. Thus throwing away their chances for a Senate majority.  

Continue reading ...

Ebola is the October Surprise

“The situation with Ebola and what’s going on in Syria and Iraq — all of this is creating a high level of anxiety among voters and a sense of uncertainty about the future,” said Democratic strategist Doug Thornell.

You don’t say. Yes Ebola and the typical head-in-the-sand take on the consequences of the spread of the virus are playing as strong factors headed into the midterm elections. Americans are worried, sure, but disgusted is a better description. It is almost as if we anticipated the eventual and inevitable spread of Ebola to the US. I mean who but our politicians, and what but our government, is better equipped to inflict an unmitigated disaster on their countrymen?

The lethal virus carried willy-nilly by a man from West Africa, who jetted his way to the US, on an international flight from the Ebola cradle, sick of course with the virus, landed on US soil like a dirty bomb and died in Dallas, Texas. However, not before he infected, now two hospital workers, before he died. Assuredly, there will be more to follow.  

A Liberian Ebola patient was left in an open area of a Dallas emergency room for hours, and the nurses treating him worked for days without proper protective gear and faced constantly changing protocols, according to a statement released late Tuesday by the largest U.S. nurses’ union.

Nurses were forced to use medical tape to secure openings in their flimsy garments, worried that their necks and heads were exposed as they cared for a patient with explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting, said Deborah Burger of National Nurses United.

This is insanity. An outrage our political class has inflicted upon Americans. In the name of inclusion and diversity, not the slightest scrutiny was given to passengers from Ebola infected countries. The thought of a travel ban, even the mere discussion of it, is sacrilegious to dumb-headed multiculturalists. 

Dr. Tom Frieden: If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is the disease staying there. It will spread more, all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.

This makes no damn sense whatsoever. So in the name of inclusion and diversity we must ensure “It will spread more, all over America so that we’ll be at higher risk?”

These types of people are in charge of our country and somebody has to pay for it. Short of taking up arms and forcibly cleaning out Washington, Americans will use the only legal means at their disposal.

Like a man frantically running from one side of the boat to the other just before it capsizes, voters will frantically run to Republicans. Not realizing jumping ship and braving the sharks is a better alternative. 

Nonetheless, voters will punish the Democrats and President Obama for this disaster.

Continue reading ...

Liberal Desperation: Agenda Project Action Fund blames Republicans for EBOLA crisis because of budget cuts.

Yesterday I highlighted an interview with Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute for Health, and the Huffington Post. In this interview Dr. Collins declared that the reason the United States does not have an ebola vaccine or treatment was due to budget cuts. However, some research provided a little bit of  a different story. Now it seems that a liberal PAC has created an ad that lays the blame for Ebola solely at the feet of the GOP. Now there are many things you could honestly blame the GOP for, however, Ebola and the results of the horrible disease are not one of them. 

The rest of the one-minute ad is peppered with clips of Republicans asking for cuts, interspersed with top officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health saying the Ebola outbreak in West Africa could have been better handled if their agencies had more funding. NIH head Francis Collins said in an interview published Sunday that an Ebola vaccine might have been developed by now if it were not for a “10-year slide in research support.”
Erica Payne, the producer of the ad and president of the Agenda Project Action Fund, blamed the Ebola crisis wholly on the Republican Party.
“I think any Republican who attempts to chalk this ad up to politics is a Republican who is too afraid to examine the results of his of her actions and the very real consequences that they have,” she said. “They have developed a governing philosophy that is so fanatically anti-investment that they literally have at their doorstop death. There is no exaggeration in this.
“I think that the blame for the situation that we’re in now with the Ebola crisis is 100% the fault of Republicans and their fanatical anti-government philosophy,” she added. “They did this.”

This political scare-mongering reminded me of the video in which a mock Paul Ryan was shown pushing "grandma" off of a cliff in her wheelchair back in  2012. The Ryan video was also brought to us by the Agenda Project Action Fund (APAF), the creators of the abovementioned Ebola video. It seems the slime merchants over at the APAF have a penchant for attempting to cash in on the fear which is currently gripping the national consciousness.

Another point of interest is that this video is now garnering some attention around the same time Dr. Collins is out on the stump in interview after interview, blaming budget cuts for the NIH, more specifically NIAID, for the lack of an EBOLA treatment.  This to a skeptical mind might smack of political coordination and back room dealing to get attention off of the real problem. The inefficient way in which TEN different government organizations deal with the development and manufacturing of treatments for infectious diseases!

Continue reading ...

Obama adminsitration shifts on energy policy.

This is pretty interesting news on the energy front. It seems the Obama administration, presumably under relentless pressure to address rising energy costs, has shifted its view on domestic drilling. Previous plans included an investigation of commodity markets (Which I assume is still going to continue.), removal of subsidies for oil companies to the tune of $21 billion over ten years, and a push for more renewable energy sources. Now they are in favor of more domestic oil drilling.

From the Hill.com.

The White House will take a series of steps — including expediting drilling plans on government lands in Alaska — designed to show that the administration is serious about expanding domestic oil production and lowering gas prices.

President Obama announced Saturday the government would hold annual onshore lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve; extend the life of leases in the Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off the coast of Alaska for one year; speed up ongoing Interior Department testing in the mid- and south-Atlantic to gauge the level of resources; and establish an interagency task force to coordinate permitting for offshore drilling in Alaska.

The White House is making the policy shifts after taking intense criticism from Republicans in recent weeks over energy policy as gas prices have topped $4 per gallon in some parts of the country. [...]

Obviously more needs to be done. Our country is teeming with natural resources such as natural gas, coal, and shale. All of which can be extracted and refined into fuel, relatively cleanly. Additionally, we can pursue this all while developing a stronger infrastructure for augmentary energy sources such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-fuels, nuclear, etc. Two words which the administration needs to be highlight is "comprehensive" and "domestic."

Commentary

• Jammie Wearing Fool 
• Right Wing News 

Continue reading ...

Republican and Conservative Women, The Body Politic

You know, Stacy McCain made a great point, via Ann Coulter, that the stereotypical conservative guy is seen as being some aged, balding, white guy, with a bad complexion and he sweats too much. Well, it got me thinking about the stereotypical view of conservative woman also.

Here is what used to pop in my mind.



Here is the reality though.


Can't forget the recent advent of one Michelle Muccio, the Rebel Economist.



Oh if I only lived back in DC the Rebel would have a stalker...er...admirer!!

Let's not forget to mention the field of candidates and elected officials that conservatives are offering up these days.

Love her or hate her, you have to admit that is a million dollar smile.

How can you go wrong with a woman who is over fifty, hot, and loves the 2nd Amendment?

Another million dollar smile in the making.

Even FOX News has an impressive line-up.






Of course we cannot forget our Democratic colleagues, that just wouldn't be fair or fun. Here are the women of the Left.



Ooooh, did someone turn my stool upside down again? You jokers!



Aaah, I love when the tingle goes up my leg!!



Hey Olberman, I turned your stool upside down. You have room for one more???

Well here are some of their men.





Whew!! Glad I am on the Right!!

Finally, I know this is juvenile but the world is too damn serious these days and a little humor, even if it is tasteless, is what we need from time to time.

Continue reading ...

The GOP Reagan-Conservative Conundrum.

There has been much to do over the path which the GOP should travel in order to make it back into power. Some "moderate republicans" such as Meghan McCain, David Frum, and David Brooks argue that the GOP needs to move further from the right in order to win "big."

Even Nancy Pelosi, Screecher of the House, has put her two cents in on the ailing GOP's problems.

Yahoo News-"I say to Republicans in America, take back your party," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters. "The party of protecting the environment, the party of individual rights, the party of fairness."

Niccolo Machiavelli reminds us though,

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."

Fred Barnes, Fox News contributor, penned an article titled, Be the Party of No for the Weekly Standard. In his article, Barnes, makes the conjecture that the GOP should wear the brand of the"party of no." He provides an interesting trek into politics of the past and provides a badly needed history lesson for our beleaguered Republican strategists.

As he points out, everytime Republicans have faced off against far-left destructive policies they have won.

Weekly Standard-If Republicans scan their history, they'll discover unbridled opposition to bad Democratic policies pays off. Those two factors, unattractive policies plus strong opposition, were responsible for the Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994. A similar blowout may be beyond the reach of Republicans in 2010, but stranger things have happened in electoral politics. They'll lose nothing by trying.

Let's take this one step further an analyze the Democratic victories in 2006, 2008, and some components of the Obama victory.

In 2006 and 2008, Democrats used a fifty state strategy and made incursions into traditionally GOP held territory. By moving further right, far-right by progressive standards, and running a host of Blue Dogs, or moderate to conservative dems, the liberals were able to retake control of the House.

From the New York Times, October of 2006.

NY Times-In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

From USA Today.

USA Today-Leaders of the 51-member Blue Dog coalition, which helped House Democrats bolster their majority in the 2008 elections, say they want tighter spending controls in exchange for their support of the proposed stimulus.

Some might grab on to the wording of moderate appearing in this article as further proof that moderates are the key to victory. Not so. What this proves is not that the GOP has gone to far to the right that it cannot win elections, it is that the Democrats had gone to far to the left and needed to appear to return to basic conservatism so they could remain viable.

The basic tenets of the Blue Dog coalition which I recognize to be conservative, are considered a "far-right" ideology by most Progressives. Strangely, in three elections, the progressive wing of the democrats has had to rely on the conservative candidates or having a candidate appear as conservative-minded in order to win "big."

From the Blue Dog Coalition.

The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.

Right now fiscal conservatism is the glue which can bind the fractured GOP. Much like the war against communists did when it brought together classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians under one roof into an impressive coalition. Although important, differences on social issues can be fought out later, now is the time to apply what works. Something us non-Beltway dwelling dullards pointed out months ago.

Finally, Jeb Bush recently stated that it's time for the Republican party to give up its "nostalgia" for Reagan and that the GOP should steal the winning strategy used by Democrats in 2008.

He is actually halfway correct about adopting the Democratic strategy. But not about his "leaving Reagan behind" moment, since following Reagan is exactly what the Dems did.

Transcript provided by Open Left of Obama talking about why he admired Ronald Reagan.

Open Left-I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

There are a few more examples of how Obama framed his campaign in a Reaganesque style. This is not to say he matched the Gipper on policy but more on political strategy. However as Scott Rasmussen shows in a November 2008 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Reaganism isn't exactly dead and assisted more in an Obama victory than most realize. Let me list the ways according to Rasmussen.

• Mr. Obama's tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are well-received at such times: 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree and see them as bad policy.



• A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."



• Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called "conservative," "moderate," "liberal" or "progressive."

If these so-called geniuses running the GOP are ever going to learn one thing it is always model your present fight on situations which have historical relevance. Then adapt accordingly. Consequently, the incompetents are on a quest to reshape the core of the GOP into a progressive model while heavily overlooking the key victories which basic conservatism has brought them. Thus, not adapting but "progressing." Besides anytime Nancy Pelosi is saying, "Hey, be more like us." any person of sane mind should run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. I guess these bozos aren't exactly sane.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

Arlen Specter, the Newest New New Deal Democrat

As the world now knows, Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) has switched his political affiliations to those which are more suited to his likings.

Specter's switch was more than likely not so philosophically driven as it is motivated by plain old political survival. As one of three Republican Senators who voted in support of the bailout, Specter has received a lot of harsh criticism from those on the right.This has even brought up the consideration within the RNC hierarchy to withhold money from his campaign for 2010.

Specter was also facing a very difficult challenge from former Congressmen, Pat Toomey, in Pennsylvania’s upcoming 2010 Republican Primary.

From Rasmussen Reports,

Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.

Reading the handwriting on the wall, as far as the Republicans are concerned, is not very difficult, most are glad he is gone. However, the reaction amongst the left is a little more blurry.

From the Democratic National Committee.

Earlier today Senator Arlen Specter left the Republican Party and he is now a Democrat.

A Republican for 43 years, Senator Specter has chosen to leave a party that he says has moved far to the right and join Senate Democrats as they work with President Obama to turn our country and our economy around.

Senator Specter courageously supported the President's economic recovery package -- setting politics aside to create solutions to America's problems.

Not exactly the warmest reception one would expect from your newest benefactors.

Also there is the linking of Specter to the bailouts, which will either haunt him politically or make the twilight of his career shine. Your take on that outcome just depends on your point of view concerning the bailouts.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

One More Time, Stupid!

CT

Well let's go over it one more time. The American economy is entirely to sophisticated and intricate to be brought to this point by one person or group, especially over such a short amount of time. So what does that leave us? Maybe this has been an ongoing series of bad desicions and situations that were intertwined which caused this crisis. Just because it is election year does not give anyone the right to reprimand another group or person, it was all of us. From Wall Street to the Fed (Democrats and Republicans) to the everday American who had their hand out. Take responsibility for your actions and quite crying and blaming, no amount of spin is going to solve this mess. For those of you who missed it the first time here it is again.

As published on September 16th, 2008

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

An Obama Fact Check, Sub Prime Finger Pointing

CT

This post has developed very interestingly, while researching the sub prime mortgage crisis some months back I came upon some dates that tied the Housing Bubble to legislation as far back as 1994. Now, with Obama, blaming a Republican Congress and George Bush, those dates started popping back in my head. So, I started looking and found some interesting information. Well, the news is not all great for me though, it is making me rethink the conclusion I drew on my post Market Correcting Itself.

Now there is no denying the Republican Congress and George Bush are complicit in the Sub Prime Crisis, through the American Dream Downpayment Act and the Zero Down Payment Act. But the waters here run much deeper than that; enter Phil Gramm, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, and Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

If you notice, sub prime mortgages running flat until 1997. Then from 1997-98 there was a very noticeable spike that continued until 2000. Then it runs flat from 2001-02, possibly because of the economic implications of 9-11. After 2004, with the passing of the above mentioned Acts, there is a huge increase in the number of sub prime mortgages being acquired.

Let's backtrack to the Community Reinvestment Act and its amendment n 1995, under then President, Bill Clinton. As passed by the Carter administration, the CRA was supposed to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to undeserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. Under Bubba, there was an increase in the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. CRA Moving forward a bit to 1996-97, with Glass-Steagall, a law which prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. Glass-Steagall was passed by the FDR administration, after a Congressional study revealed that the banking collapse of 1933 was directly attributed to the mixing of commercial and investment banking as well as the stock market crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall Act

In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent). This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. [1]

If you noticed on the graph above there was a spike in sub prime mortgage loans from 1997-99. This is rather fascinating to me, because this truly highlights the very beginning of the Sub Prime Bubble.

By 1997, good loans were bundled with poor ones and sold as prime packages to institutions here and abroad. That shifted risk from the loan originators, freeing banks to begin pyramiding and make more of these profitable subprime products. [2]

This next little piece taken from a 1997 Wachovia press release provides some very interesting hindsight also, notice some of the names of these institutions involved.

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977."The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation. [3]

Now, jump to Oct-Nov. 1999, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) successfully passes legislation that eliminates Glass-Steagall through passing of the Financial Services Modernization Act. Thus giving simple lending banks the ability to underwrite huge securities, as noted above (This is exactly what Bank of America has done with Merill-Lynch, hence my apprehension). This gave way to the evolution of Citicorp and Travelers merging into the mega-colossus, Citigroup. Unfortunately the elimination of Glass-Steagall did not come with out a price, enter Bill Clinton, once again, and the Community Reinvestment Act.

At first Gramm could not get the legislation to eliminate Glass-Steagull pushed through. He had to make a compromise with the Democrats concerning the Community Reinvestment Act.

Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLBA, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates there of, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the CRA. [4]

There were a few other equally important provisions added, one of note was Gramm's insistence on transparency concerning coercion of banks by community groups such as ACORN. But this, although, related is an entirely different article.

Gramm had maintained that he did not want anything in the bill that would expand the application of the Community Reinvestment Act because it was, he said, unnecessarily burdensome to banks.He had sought a provision that would exempt thousands of smaller banks from the law. He also wanted a provision that would expose what he has described as the "extortion" committed by community groups against banks by requiring the groups to disclose any special financial deals the groups extract from the banks. [5]

Summarizing this information, Clinton seeks to strengthen opportunity for home ownership in the States and amends the CRA, a few years later Phil Gramm seeks to overturn a Depression era piece of legislation, he cannot because of the Clinton administration concerns about lending practices concerning poorer people in the community. Gramm makes the compromise to get the Financial Services Modernization Act passed. You have coupled the farthest reaching free market thinking with a massive liberal community giveaway program. The regulations forced on these institutions, along with their greed, gave rise to the Sub Prime Bubble. Then a few years later, you have a Republican Congress and President who forgot they were Conservatives, passing liberalized legislation under the guise of free market thinking and I give you the Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis. Obambi might want to go back and check his facts, because it looks like most of the players in this were wrong, not just the Republicans. The last thought I have is what a wonderful idea it is to regulate an attempt at deregulation.

CT

[1] The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall
[2] Age And Experience: Carter's Catastrophes
[3] Wachovia Press Release
[4] Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
[5] Agreement Reached on Overhaul of U.S. Financial System

Continue reading ...