Category: Politics


Dear Reader, 

This is an excellent piece,  and I want you to read it!  Please click the link to read  

Obama bows down to Saudi King (updated)

I mean what’s up with that,  man?  Bowing to a saudi king as President of these great united States!  

Thank you for your patience while I transition to the new No Compromise blog.  

~No Compromise

 

Advertisements

TR:  Have the Sheeple been so sodomized by the ravaging Porkulus Demoncatus that they are going to fall for this?  Folks, they’re now ‘strapping-on’ boosters which are rocketing us straight into Socialism.  Are we so dumb as to let Big Daddy and Frank’n’Beans Barney exercise some despotic authority to take over any company, set its salaries, and run it straight into the ground, IF they accept $1 in aid or subsidy from this beast?  Really?  Please, THINK ABOUT THIS PHONY OUTRAGE BIG DADDY HAS SUCKED YOU INTO – and the power you are about to relinquish to never be seen again!!  From what part, exactly, of the U.S. Constitution is this power-grab authorized?  That’s right – from nowhere!   Prepare to bend over for Big Daddy..

By Byron York

Behold, Happiness.

Behold, Happiness.

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.” And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

Banking Queen - starring Barney Frank!

Banking Queen - starring Barney Frank!

The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. “It’s just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG,” Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. “This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling,” Garrett said.

Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is “you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure.” Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.

“This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they’re willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable,” Grayson said. “We’ll find out who are the people who understand that the public’s money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street.”

After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.

TR:  But, that’s not all folks, they’re working hard to extend this goodness to ALL companies – From a recent article in Financial Week:

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

Rorschach Test.

Rorschach Test.

Dear Reader,

This is a must read article, and I don’t want you to miss it so please click:

Press refuses again to check and report the facts, this time in BART shooting

Please leave your comments on the new blog.  Thank you for your patience while I transition to my new No Compromise blog

Kindest regards,

~No Compromise

We hope you will visit our  new No Compromise blog!  

 

If only the media would actually go after the politicians like Beck did in this video!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Public Protection or Political Gain? “, posted with vodpod

The real threat is an EMP!

Dear Reader,

This is a must read article and I don’t want you to miss it so please click:

The real threat is an EMP! 

Thank you for your patience while I transition to my new No Compromise blog

Kindest regards,

~No Compromise

by Sid Bridge, Financial Correspondent for the whole whirled! 

Heck, it's all fake anyways, except the Ukluku!

Heck, it's all fake anyways, except the Ukluku!

The Chinese push for a world currency has raised a world-wide uproar over whose currency would prevail. China was quick to suggest its own currency, the Mao. The controversial Mao is a 12 inch diameter disk that is dominated by a large depiction of Chairman Mao Tse Tung.

 

“We believe it’s time for the world to use our currency,” said Chinese President Hu Jintao, “We expect to cover the world with Chinese people by 2030 anyway.”

President Barack Obama was quick to promote the American dollar.

“The dollar is the greatest currency in the world,” said Obama, “Right now it’s up against the Euro by… no, wait, it’s down. No, it’s up again. No. It’s down. Look, it folds nicely and fits in most wallets.”

In a rare show of unity, African countries came together to promote their currency.

“It’s time that the world recognized a significant portion of its population, Africans,” said Zaire’s President Mbeko Fambiki, “For hundreds of years we have traded with the Ukluku, a round ball of Ibex dung placed at the end of a stick. It is cheap to produce and accepted all over Africa. Let us throw our Uklukus at you.”

Not to be outdone by the show of unity, South American countries stood together, represented by Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva.

“South America is an up-and-coming economic giant,” said Da Silva, “We trade in the one currency that the world understands and values – lines of Brazilian cocaine. Try walking into a store with some of our currency and see how popular you are!”

The other super power in the world weighed in as well.

“The Russian people are proud of the Ruble,” said Vladimir Putin, “It’s a nice coin and it’s worth, um, we don’t have a chance at this, do we? Screw ya’ll.”

“Obviously, the Euro is the only choice,” said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, “It’s valuable, pleasant, quite attractive, well sized, articulate. I say, hello? Where has everyone gone? Excuse me, I’m trying to lecture you on a currency. How rude.”

Canada also expressed concern about being left out of the process.

“Our dollar’s totally different from the American dollar,” said Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper, “It doesn’t even work in their Coke machines. You’ve got to listen to us! We really have a country, too. We have hockey and public restrooms here! Will someone please recognize Canada?!”

Faux-bama’s False Choice

A “chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is exactly what we need right now.

By Mark Steyn, National Review columnist, author of America Alone

Imported Treasure

Imported Treasure

Writing in the Chicago Tribune last week, President Obama fell back on one of his favorite rhetorical tics: “But I also know,” he wrote, “that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.”

Really? For the moment, it’s a “false choice” mainly in the sense that he’s not offering it: “a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is not on the menu, which leaves “an oppressive government-run economy” as pretty much the only game in town. How oppressive is yet to be determined: To be sure, the official position remains that only “the richest five percent” will have taxes increased. But you’ll be surprised at the percentage of Americans who wind up in the richest five percent. This year federal government spending will rise to 28.5 per cent of GDP, the highest level ever, with the exception of the peak of the Second World War. The 44th president is proposing to add more to the national debt than the first 43 presidents combined, doubling it in the next six years, and tripling it within the decade. But to talk about it in percentages of this and trillions of that misses the point. It’s not about bookkeeping, it’s about government annexation of the economy, and thus of life: government supervision, government regulation, government control. No matter how small your small business is – plumbing, hairdressing, maple sugaring – the state will be burdening you with more permits, more paperwork, more bureaucracy.

And don’t plan on moving. Ahead of this week’s G20 summit in London, Timothy Geithner, America’s beloved Toxic Asset, called for “global regulation.” “Our hope,” said Toxic Tim, “is that we can work with Europe on a global framework, a global infrastructure which has appropriate global oversight . . . ”

“Global oversight:” Hmm. There’s a phrase to savor.

“We can’t,” he continued, “allow institutions to cherry pick among competing regulators and ship risk to where it faces the lowest standards and weakest constraints . . . ”

Just as a matter of interest, why not? If you don’t want to be subject to the punitive “oversight” of economically illiterate, demagogic legislators-for-life like Barney Frank, why shouldn’t you be “allowed” to move your business to some jurisdiction with a lighter regulatory touch?

Borders give you choices. Your town has a crummy grade school? Move ten miles north and there’s a better one. Sick of Massachusetts taxes? Move to New Hampshire, as thousands do. To modify the abortionists’ bumper sticker: “I’m Pro-Choice And I Vote With My Feet.” That’s part of the self-correcting dynamism of capitalism: For example, Bono, the global do-gooder who was last in Washington to play at the Obama inauguration, recently moved much of his business from Ireland to the Netherlands, in order to pay less tax. And good for him. To be sure, he’s always calling on governments to give more money to Africa and whatnot, but it’s heartening to know that, when it comes to his wallet as opposed to yours, Bono – like Secretary Geithner – has no desire to toss any more of his money into the great sucking maw of the government treasury than the absolute minimum he can get away with. I’m with Bono and Tim: They can spend their money more effectively than hack bureaucrats can. We should do as they do, not as they say.

If you listen to the principal spokesmen for U.S. economic policy – Obama and Geithner – they grow daily ever more explicitly hostile to the private sector and ever more comfortable with the language of micro-managed government-approved capitalism – which, of course, isn’t capitalism at all. They’ll have an easier time getting away with it in a world of “global oversight” where there’s nowhere to move to. Unfortunately, even then it won’t work. Think about it: It takes extraordinary skill to create and manage a billion-dollar company; there are very few human beings on the planet who can do it. Now look at Obama and Geithner, the two men currently “managing” more money than any individuals in human history: not billions, but trillions.

Notwithstanding the Treasury secretary’s protestations that the Yes/No prompt buttons of Turbo Tax were too complex for a simple soul such as himself, it’s no reflection on the hapless Geithner that he’s unable to fix the planet. When the Bolsheviks chose to introduce Russians to the blessings of a “command economy” 90 years ago, they were dealing with a relatively simple agricultural society largely contained within national borders. Obama and Geithner are trying to do it with a sophisticated global economy in which North American consumers, European bankers, Asian suppliers, Saudi investors, and Chinese debt-holders are more tangled than an octopuses’ orgy. Even with “global oversight” – with the Toxic Tims of Germany, Argentina, and India all agreeing on how to fix the game – it can’t be done.

Nation Destroyer

Nation Destroyer

Barack Obama, even when he’s not yukking it up on 60 Minutes, barely disguises his indifference to economic matters. He is not an economist, a political philosopher, a geopolitical strategist. He is the president as social engineer, the Community-Organizer-in-Chief. His plan to reduce tax deductions for charitable giving, for example, is not intended primarily to raise revenue, but to advance government as the distributor of largesse and diminish alternative sources of societal organization, such as civic groups. Likewise, his big plans for socialized health care, a green economy, universal college education: They’re about extending the reach of the state.

Unfortunately, all of it costs money he doesn’t have. So he has to borrow it, in your name. Where does the world’s hyperpower go to borrow more dough than anyone’s ever borrowed in human history? More to the point, given that, partly at the behest of Obama and Geithner, almost every other western government is ramping up national debt to cover massive bank bailouts and other phony-baloney “stimuli,” is there enough money out there to buy up the debt that’s already been run up? Last week, at the official British Treasury auction, investors failed to buy the full complement of so-called “gilt-edged” 40-year bonds. Two such auctions have already failed in Germany. The U.S. Treasury, facing similar investor reluctance to snap up $34 billion of five-year notes, was forced to increase the interest it will pay on them. The Chinese and the Saudis have long taken the view that it’s to their advantage to own as much of the western world as they can snaffle up, but it’s unclear whether even they have pockets deep enough for what America and the many Bailoutistans of Europe are proposing to spend.

In their first two months, Obama and Geithner have done nothing but vaporize your wealth, and your children’s future. What began as an economic crisis is now principally a political usurpation. And, to return to the president’s “false choice,” that “chaotic and unforgiving capitalism” is exactly what we need right now. It’s the quickest, cheapest, fairest, most-efficient route to economic stabilization and renewal. A regimented and eternally forgiving global command economy with no moral hazard will destroy us all.

Obama and Khamenei

 by Amil Imani

During the U.S. presidential election, President Obama boasted that he would embark on personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with terrorist countries such as Syria and the Islamic Republic. He said that he would meet their leaders without any preconditions to settle our disputes. Doesn’t that sound like a change of heart, a real change and a great relief to us all? Never mind the fact that this president has about zero experience in foreign policy matters, he is foolish enough to aim to negotiate with the ever-conniving Assad of Syria and masters of deceptions such as the mullahs of Iran.

President Obama, how do you propose to engage the point-man of the end-of-the-worlder Shiite regime in negotiation or discussion without sacrificing the valiant Iranian people who are struggling to free themselves from the yoke of fascist Islamists? You believe that you, still somewhat wet behind the ears, can do better than the four-year combined efforts of seasoned diplomats from France, Germany, and Great Britain?

There are those who see the solution in negotiation with the Mullahs. These people are either naïve or dishonest. The Mullahs’ idea of negotiation is Islamic to the core. They take all and you give all since you, according to Islamic fiat, are not entitled to anything. The track record of Muslims negotiating even among themselves in places like Iraq, the Palestinian territory, Pakistan and almost every other Islamic land speaks volumes.

President Obama, it takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. The uncompromising oil-intoxicated fanatics of Iran and their proxies don’t want to dance with you. They want the entire floor — the Middle East — and the rest of the world down the road.

Continue reading

We hope you will visit the new and improved No Compromise Blog

Amidst the American Counter-Revolution

By Clifford D. May, NationalReviewOnline

It’s what’s coming – unless we commit to remaining an “Exceptional” nation.

Pick One: American Exceptionalism, or Euro-Wussiness

Pick One: American Exceptionalism, or Euro-Wussiness

The question posed by social scientist Charles Murray at the American Enterprise Institute’s annual dinner this month could hardly have been simpler: Do Americans want the United States to be like Europe?

He asked as someone who likes and admires Europe and Europeans. He asked also because it is becoming increasingly apparent that restructuring the U.S. along the lines of the European social-democratic model is the change many in the new administration – perhaps including President Obama himself – believe in. Such a redirection surely deserves consideration.

Murray is convinced that Europeanizing America is a bad idea, and not only because the European model creates chronically “sclerotic economies.” More significant, he says, is the fact that embracing the European model means discarding the Founders’ revolutionary reinvention of government, and of the relationship between the state and the citizen. Murray argues this would inevitably “enfeeble” the habits and institutions that have been singularly responsible for making America “robust and vital” – an “exceptional” nation.

The intent of the modern European welfare state, Murray says, is laudable: to take “some of the trouble” out of life. Dealing with troubles, he concedes, is not always easy or pleasant, but it can lead to satisfactions accessible through no other means. It is how people’s lives “make a difference.” By contrast, those relieved of important responsibilities tend to while away their days “as pleasantly as possible.”

If amusement becomes “the purpose of life, why have a child, when children are so much trouble – and, after all, what good are they, really? If that’s the purpose of life, why spend it worrying about neighbors? If that’s the purpose of life, what could possibly be the attraction of a religion that says otherwise?” And so, in Europe, one sees a diminishing work ethic, catastrophically declining birth rates, a dwindling sense of nation and community, and empty churches.

I would add this: Such a society is no match for the challenge of radical Islam, a surpremacist and aggressive political/religious movement with ironclad convictions about every aspect of life, and adherents willing – in many cases eager – to kill and die in pursuit of their vision.

Murray has not explored the national-security implications of Europeanization but, coincidentally, John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, addresses precisely that topic in a new essay in Commentary magazine. He notes in particular that “foreign-policy eminences here and abroad, including former Secretaries of State of both parties as well as defense officials from the Clinton and first Bush administrations” are now advocating to Obama that the United States emulate “the European Union (EU) as the new model.”

Such an approach would require that Washington achieve “transnational consensus” for foreign policies it wishes to implement. It would mean replacing the traditional American concept of sovereignty – U.S. citizens governing themselves within the framework of the U.S. Constitution – with something called “responsible sovereignty,” a euphemism for ceding sovereignty to the United Nations in the interest of building a “cooperative international order” and, in time, “global governance.”

Bolton argues that following this course would make America, by design, weaker, while strengthening “international organizations, which have, time and again, proved inefficient and ineffective.”

More fundamentally, this would mark a historic break with “the understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which locates the basis of its legitimacy in ‘we the people,’ who constitute the sovereign authority of the nation.”

Emulating the experiment now underway in Europe, in which nations “share” sovereignty even with non-citizens, Bolton adds, “by definition will diminish the sovereign power of the American people over their government and their own lives, the very purpose for which the Constitution was written. This is something Americans have been reluctant to do.”

But that’s the direction in which we now appear to be heading. Bolton contends that only “concerted action” can prevent it. The possibility that “irreversible damage will be done to the American project over the next few years is real,” Murray warns.

“The drift toward the European model can be slowed by piecemeal victories on specific items of legislation, but only slowed,” he adds. “It is going to be stopped only when we are all talking again about why America is exceptional, and why it is so important that America remain exceptional. That requires once again seeing the American project for what it is: a different way for people to live together, unique among the nations of the Earth, and immeasurably precious.”

Do a sufficient number of Americans still believe that? Given the failures of America’s educational system, do most people even understand the choice that is about to be made? And, even if they do, how many are willing to fight to prevent such a counter-revolution? There may be no questions of greater consequence asked and answered over the years ahead.