Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was removed from office early Sunday morning by the Honduran army, on the orders of the country’s Supreme Court. He was deposited in Costa Rica in his pajamas, and the Congress appointed a new president. The media, the White House and regional leftist despots are calling it an illegal military coup. In reality, this is a forced impeachment.
Zelaya proposed a referendum to change the Honduras constitution, which imposed term limits on the president. In attempting to follow in the footsteps of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and assume a lifetime office, Zelaya miscalculated, believing he could strong-arm his country into allowing him to disregard his country’s rule of law. He pushed ahead with the referendum, against Honduras law, Congress, and the Supreme Court, at which point he was deposed.
Secretary Hillary Clinton says this should be condemned by everyone. President Obama said, “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras,” claiming, “We stand on the side of democracy.”
The White House is joining a chorus which includes Venezuelan dictator and Zelaya's close ally Hugo Chavez, who himself had successfully maneuvered into a lifetime presidential term, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who earlier this year railed against the United States in a speech before President Obama, and Fidel Castro, as well as unanimous condemnation from the U.N.
Honduras was well within its own rights to depose Zelaya to protect its constitution and its democracy, despite President Obama and other leftist leaders’ accusations that this action trampled democracy.
Zelaya routinely riled up the poor in a proletariat versus bourgeoisie type of populist “democracy”, much to the detriment of Honduran prosperity. According to Ray Walser, writing in the New York Post, “Honduras is a poor nation, and got worse on Zelaya's watch. But rather than blame the global downturn or his own failures, Zelaya sought to rally the masses behind him by fingering the nation's elites as behind the nation's woes.”
The success Hugo Chavez had securing a lifetime presidency inspired Zelaya to emulate it. Instead, Honduras resisted and is now being condemned by the one who should be celebrating the safeguarding of constitutional law and the democratic process, and thwarting a dictatorship, the President of the United States.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
It's a better game than checkers.
The new "smart foreign policy" of the United States is apparently uncontested concession. Whereas France, long the butt of jokes and mockery for their foreign policy style of surrender, has stepped up to condemn the sham elections in Iran, the United States now resembles George McFly in the beginning of Back To The Future.
"I'm afraid I'm just not very good at confrontations."
Gordon Brown, Great Britain's maligned Prime Minister, also had strong words for Iran's leaders. "The regime must address the serious questions which have been asked about the conduct of the Iranian elections."
Meanwhile, Barack Obama does not want to be seen as "meddling" in Iran's affairs.
If the United States, the Light of Liberty in the world, does not stand with an oppressed populace, who will? Iranians are being killed for protesting. They are risking their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of their friends, all for the slightest shred of freedom. President Obama is sending all oppressed peoples buried under harsh, cruel regimes throughout the world the message that the United States will not stand with them.
It makes sense, given President Obama's worldview of moral equivocation. The United States has committed atrocities in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and throughout its history at home. Perhaps we, in our previously flawed condition, have no right to condemn Iran's atrocities. Perhaps we are more to blame than them.
But President Obama's squishiness denies the good that America has done. Iraq, for example, is now freer than is has been in many years. We have built schools, hospitals, infrastructure. This is America's Exceptionalism, that, by virtue of our freedom and liberty, we are free to help others and to free others. This is not to say that America is better than other peoples or nations. Rather, we are freer.
President Obama's apparent compulsion to straddle both sides of a debate is weakening him, weakening the United States, weakening our allies, and strengthening the resolve of the worst factions. Even more dangerous, his weakness worsens the plight of the oppressed in these regimes. Those whose sole goal is to attain a sort of worldwide dominance are hastening their ascent.
North Korea has ramped up their braggadocio, largely in response to Obama's tepidity. President Obama called North Korea's antagonistic accelerated nuclear weapons program a "grave threat." North Korea replied with a threat of a "thousand-fold" military retaliation to any U.S. actions.
As a former educator, perhaps Mr. Obama will be familiar with this scenario:
Teachers often encounter one student whose goal, it seems, is not to learn, but to continuously, antagonistically, test the limits of the teacher's patience. When told to sit in their desk, the student will instead run around and poke other students. When told to be quite, the student will instead talk incessantly to any student who may or may not listen. When told to hand in an assignment on Thursday, the student will instead hand in the first page the following Wednesday.
It's a lot easier when the teacher can simply send the student to the Principal's office to be disciplined, or send a note home to the student's parents. Perhaps, in a university setting, the teacher can simply drop the offending student from the class.
The game changes when the teacher is the final authority, but is reluctant to dispense any sort of punishment. Or when the principal, allegorically, the U.N., is as toothless as an old man who forgot his dentures, eyeing an apple.
Or when the student's rogue actions could destroy half the planet, and leave the other half in the darkness of nuclear winter.
North Korea is reportedly preparing additional tests of long-range missiles that could reach the U.S. According to the Associated Press, a Japanese newspaper report suggests North Korea might fire a long-range missile toward Hawaii in early July. North Korea is thought to possess enough plutonium for several atomic bombs, and is reportedly enriching uranium.
Aggressive threats from North Korea, Iran and other unscrupulous, unpredictable regimes require consequential responses. Potential destructive acts wreaked upon South Korea, Japan, Israel, the United States, or even upon their own citizens will require necessarily strong punitive actions. A foreign policy that relies on concession, or in President Obama's case, perhaps overly self-confident personal charm, will fail. Kim Jong Il will have his nukes if he wants them. So will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs in Iran. The stakes in this game are too high, and the consequences too dear.
Historically, for better or worse, the United States has assumed the responsibility of maintaining the peace, so to speak. It is in the interest of our continued liberty, but is also the product of a general lack of resolve for a cooperative, forceful effort among other nations. The U.N. can impose sanctions or pass resolutions, but is often powerless to enforce them.
The saying goes, "To whom much is given, much is expected." President Obama must now assume responsibility not just for the safety and welfare of the American people. As the leader of the free world, now he must lead.
"I'm afraid I'm just not very good at confrontations."
Gordon Brown, Great Britain's maligned Prime Minister, also had strong words for Iran's leaders. "The regime must address the serious questions which have been asked about the conduct of the Iranian elections."
Meanwhile, Barack Obama does not want to be seen as "meddling" in Iran's affairs.
If the United States, the Light of Liberty in the world, does not stand with an oppressed populace, who will? Iranians are being killed for protesting. They are risking their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of their friends, all for the slightest shred of freedom. President Obama is sending all oppressed peoples buried under harsh, cruel regimes throughout the world the message that the United States will not stand with them.
It makes sense, given President Obama's worldview of moral equivocation. The United States has committed atrocities in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and throughout its history at home. Perhaps we, in our previously flawed condition, have no right to condemn Iran's atrocities. Perhaps we are more to blame than them.
But President Obama's squishiness denies the good that America has done. Iraq, for example, is now freer than is has been in many years. We have built schools, hospitals, infrastructure. This is America's Exceptionalism, that, by virtue of our freedom and liberty, we are free to help others and to free others. This is not to say that America is better than other peoples or nations. Rather, we are freer.
President Obama's apparent compulsion to straddle both sides of a debate is weakening him, weakening the United States, weakening our allies, and strengthening the resolve of the worst factions. Even more dangerous, his weakness worsens the plight of the oppressed in these regimes. Those whose sole goal is to attain a sort of worldwide dominance are hastening their ascent.
North Korea has ramped up their braggadocio, largely in response to Obama's tepidity. President Obama called North Korea's antagonistic accelerated nuclear weapons program a "grave threat." North Korea replied with a threat of a "thousand-fold" military retaliation to any U.S. actions.
As a former educator, perhaps Mr. Obama will be familiar with this scenario:
Teachers often encounter one student whose goal, it seems, is not to learn, but to continuously, antagonistically, test the limits of the teacher's patience. When told to sit in their desk, the student will instead run around and poke other students. When told to be quite, the student will instead talk incessantly to any student who may or may not listen. When told to hand in an assignment on Thursday, the student will instead hand in the first page the following Wednesday.
It's a lot easier when the teacher can simply send the student to the Principal's office to be disciplined, or send a note home to the student's parents. Perhaps, in a university setting, the teacher can simply drop the offending student from the class.
The game changes when the teacher is the final authority, but is reluctant to dispense any sort of punishment. Or when the principal, allegorically, the U.N., is as toothless as an old man who forgot his dentures, eyeing an apple.
Or when the student's rogue actions could destroy half the planet, and leave the other half in the darkness of nuclear winter.
North Korea is reportedly preparing additional tests of long-range missiles that could reach the U.S. According to the Associated Press, a Japanese newspaper report suggests North Korea might fire a long-range missile toward Hawaii in early July. North Korea is thought to possess enough plutonium for several atomic bombs, and is reportedly enriching uranium.
Aggressive threats from North Korea, Iran and other unscrupulous, unpredictable regimes require consequential responses. Potential destructive acts wreaked upon South Korea, Japan, Israel, the United States, or even upon their own citizens will require necessarily strong punitive actions. A foreign policy that relies on concession, or in President Obama's case, perhaps overly self-confident personal charm, will fail. Kim Jong Il will have his nukes if he wants them. So will Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs in Iran. The stakes in this game are too high, and the consequences too dear.
Historically, for better or worse, the United States has assumed the responsibility of maintaining the peace, so to speak. It is in the interest of our continued liberty, but is also the product of a general lack of resolve for a cooperative, forceful effort among other nations. The U.N. can impose sanctions or pass resolutions, but is often powerless to enforce them.
The saying goes, "To whom much is given, much is expected." President Obama must now assume responsibility not just for the safety and welfare of the American people. As the leader of the free world, now he must lead.
What have we got?
There is a story that, after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A Republic", he replied, "if you can keep it."
In this country today we have a president who criticizes one particular news network he does not like for a perceived lack of "positive" stories about him.
We have a news media which has discarded all pretense of being impartial as they fully and openly support and endorse a president and ideology.
We have a president, a party in power and a complicit media who silence opposition.
We have a president who eliminates people who threaten to expose his friends' corrupt or criminal behavior.
People do not yet realize or understand what is taking place under their blissfully ignorant noses. The threats America faces are much subtler and much more subversive than a nuclear U.S.S.R. threatening children cowering under their school desks, fearing an impending shower of missiles raining radioactive death.
America faces the threat of losing itself to insidious forces working from within to destroy it. America faces a crisis of identity.
"A Republic," if we can keep it.
Barack Obama, President of the United States, leader of the free world, in an interview on CNBC Tuesday singled out and accused a TV news network of being "entirely devoted" to attacking his administration. In an unprecedented, egregious abuse of the Office, President Obama indicted Fox News Channel claiming, "You'd be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me."
Since when have "positive stories" been a prerequisite of responsible journalism? Is it the job of the journalist to please the President or to report the truth? Is favoring an egotistical, narcissistic demagogue the new journalistic ethic?
When President Obama claims all he wants to do is bring "competition" to the health care marketplace with a competitor that by its very nature fights unfairly, is it not the responsibility of the journalist to report his deceit?
There was a time when the news media was considered the fourth branch of government. They were entrusted to act as a watchdog for the people of this country. Their job, once upon a time, was to keep government honest, so to speak. Those days have passed. Like George Orwell's 1984, the news media is a government appendage. Or, more specifically, a tool of the Democrat party. In this "Big Brother" world news is state-run. All Obama, all day long.
On Wednesday, June 24, the ABC network plans to air their nightly news program directly from the Blue Room at the White House. Unfortunately that is not a trendy new nightclub. Rather, in broadcasting directly from the Obama White House, it is a blurry Obama/media cooperation to fundamentally alter society and suppress dissent. ABC will also air an hour-long special from the East Room at the White House entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" to advance the Obama administration's health care "reform" agenda. ABC is literally in bed with Barack Obama. A fine example of unbiased journalism from the All Barack Channel.
And what happens when you displease President Obama? He will either demonize you, as with Fox News, or he will extend his reach into your workplace and eliminate your job. Recall the unceremonious firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Centuries ago monarchs would simply have critics and rivals killed. In these civilized times, political murder is too extreme. But imposing your dictatorial will in a formerly independent private sector is, apparently, perfectly acceptable.
Last Wednesday Barack Obama fired the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service with little notice and for flimsy reasons. Apparently Obama did not have the "fullest confidence" in Gerald Walpin, whose job was to act as a watchdog to ensure taxpayer money used by volunteer organizations such as Americorps is being spent responsibly. He was investigating alleged misuse of grant money by Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, former NBA player and Obama friend and supporter.
The President is required by law to give 30 days notice and proper reasons for firing an inspector general. The White House notified Walpin and gave him one hour to either resign or be fired. He refused to resign, so Obama fired him.
The job of the inspector general is to protect taxpayer money from misuse for political reasons. A lot of money floats around among service organizations, volunteer and other government services. A lot of politicians want to use that money for their own interests. This firing is another dangerous precedent set by the President, circumventing and politicizing the oversight and independence of such organizations.
Eliminate your foes, reward your allies.
Benjamin Franklin understood the potential promise and the imminent danger of the new American government. "A Republic," if we can keep it.
President Obama seems intent on transforming his office into a monarchy, unchecked, unregulated, and unquestioned.
What has happened to our country?
"A Republic", he replied, "if you can keep it."
In this country today we have a president who criticizes one particular news network he does not like for a perceived lack of "positive" stories about him.
We have a news media which has discarded all pretense of being impartial as they fully and openly support and endorse a president and ideology.
We have a president, a party in power and a complicit media who silence opposition.
We have a president who eliminates people who threaten to expose his friends' corrupt or criminal behavior.
People do not yet realize or understand what is taking place under their blissfully ignorant noses. The threats America faces are much subtler and much more subversive than a nuclear U.S.S.R. threatening children cowering under their school desks, fearing an impending shower of missiles raining radioactive death.
America faces the threat of losing itself to insidious forces working from within to destroy it. America faces a crisis of identity.
"A Republic," if we can keep it.
Barack Obama, President of the United States, leader of the free world, in an interview on CNBC Tuesday singled out and accused a TV news network of being "entirely devoted" to attacking his administration. In an unprecedented, egregious abuse of the Office, President Obama indicted Fox News Channel claiming, "You'd be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me."
Since when have "positive stories" been a prerequisite of responsible journalism? Is it the job of the journalist to please the President or to report the truth? Is favoring an egotistical, narcissistic demagogue the new journalistic ethic?
When President Obama claims all he wants to do is bring "competition" to the health care marketplace with a competitor that by its very nature fights unfairly, is it not the responsibility of the journalist to report his deceit?
There was a time when the news media was considered the fourth branch of government. They were entrusted to act as a watchdog for the people of this country. Their job, once upon a time, was to keep government honest, so to speak. Those days have passed. Like George Orwell's 1984, the news media is a government appendage. Or, more specifically, a tool of the Democrat party. In this "Big Brother" world news is state-run. All Obama, all day long.
On Wednesday, June 24, the ABC network plans to air their nightly news program directly from the Blue Room at the White House. Unfortunately that is not a trendy new nightclub. Rather, in broadcasting directly from the Obama White House, it is a blurry Obama/media cooperation to fundamentally alter society and suppress dissent. ABC will also air an hour-long special from the East Room at the White House entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" to advance the Obama administration's health care "reform" agenda. ABC is literally in bed with Barack Obama. A fine example of unbiased journalism from the All Barack Channel.
And what happens when you displease President Obama? He will either demonize you, as with Fox News, or he will extend his reach into your workplace and eliminate your job. Recall the unceremonious firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Centuries ago monarchs would simply have critics and rivals killed. In these civilized times, political murder is too extreme. But imposing your dictatorial will in a formerly independent private sector is, apparently, perfectly acceptable.
Last Wednesday Barack Obama fired the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service with little notice and for flimsy reasons. Apparently Obama did not have the "fullest confidence" in Gerald Walpin, whose job was to act as a watchdog to ensure taxpayer money used by volunteer organizations such as Americorps is being spent responsibly. He was investigating alleged misuse of grant money by Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, former NBA player and Obama friend and supporter.
The President is required by law to give 30 days notice and proper reasons for firing an inspector general. The White House notified Walpin and gave him one hour to either resign or be fired. He refused to resign, so Obama fired him.
The job of the inspector general is to protect taxpayer money from misuse for political reasons. A lot of money floats around among service organizations, volunteer and other government services. A lot of politicians want to use that money for their own interests. This firing is another dangerous precedent set by the President, circumventing and politicizing the oversight and independence of such organizations.
Eliminate your foes, reward your allies.
Benjamin Franklin understood the potential promise and the imminent danger of the new American government. "A Republic," if we can keep it.
President Obama seems intent on transforming his office into a monarchy, unchecked, unregulated, and unquestioned.
What has happened to our country?
Monday, June 8, 2009
A tale of angst, love, sorrow, vampires and "saved" jobs...
Perhaps President Obama's third book will be young adult fiction, because the media squeals like teenage girls when he spins his yarns. Here's a helpful tip: vampires are popular.
William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal of the President's rhetorical slight-of-hand, "Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has 'saved or created' 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin."
But it's not just President Obama weaving fantastical tales of far-off lands, where leprechauns are all happily employed, dancing and singing folk songs in a lush green valley teeming with unicorns, rainbows and pots of gold.
The media is complicit as well, a fawning accomplice, as though all their adolescent dreams have come true as they transform Newsweek and the New York Times into Teen Beat. "So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already 'saved or created' 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved."
President Obama is the magician and the media is the ditsy assistant in the skimpy dress. The American people are the guest from the audience who gets called up to the stage to participate in the grand illusion at the end of the show.
Except the President hasn't practiced this trick. We're going to get sawed in half.
The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims
William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal of the President's rhetorical slight-of-hand, "Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has 'saved or created' 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin."
But it's not just President Obama weaving fantastical tales of far-off lands, where leprechauns are all happily employed, dancing and singing folk songs in a lush green valley teeming with unicorns, rainbows and pots of gold.
The media is complicit as well, a fawning accomplice, as though all their adolescent dreams have come true as they transform Newsweek and the New York Times into Teen Beat. "So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already 'saved or created' 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved."
President Obama is the magician and the media is the ditsy assistant in the skimpy dress. The American people are the guest from the audience who gets called up to the stage to participate in the grand illusion at the end of the show.
Except the President hasn't practiced this trick. We're going to get sawed in half.
The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims
Welcome to the Obama Recession.
Despite constantly blaming the Bush administration for our economic woes, this is now the Obama Recession.
President Obama met with his cabinet today to discuss the economy and his "stimulus" spending program.
He made clear the difficult position in which he purports to be entangled. "We're still in the middle of a very deep recession that was years in the making."
Had he done nothing, he posited, our economy could have gone into a tailspin. It's a disingenuous rhetorical maneuver, as the option of doing nothing was never suggested. But, in his relativistic view, that matters little.
What does matter, however, is the economic maelstrom of his own making.
Last Friday documented unemployment reached 9.4%. The economy has shed more than 2.7 million jobs since January and 6 million since the recession began.
Since the "stimulus" package was passed more than 1.6 million jobs have been lost. Yet Obama claimed the 345,000 jobs lost in May are a "sign that we're moving in the right direction.
Obama as much as conceded his "stimulus" package has not been effective, however. "I'm not satisfied. We've got more work to do."
Again, in his position above the fray, he bears no blame. He is too much of a transformative, inspirational figure for such petty squabbles. Likely because, as we learned last Friday from Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, Obama is god.
No, he places the blame squarely at the feet of the previous administration. "When we arrived here, we were confronting the most significant recession since the Great Depression. It was bad and it was getting worse."
He went on to promise to accelerate distribution of "stimulus" spending to create 600,000 jobs this summer, although the White House conceded nearly a quarter would only be temporary summer jobs. Considering his promise the "stimulus" spending would create or save 3.5 million jobs, they have a long way to go.
In the reality in which the rest of the country lives, after more than 100 days the "stimulus" plan continues to fail. Of the $787 billion spending spree, only $44 billion has been distributed. President Obama claims 150,000 jobs have been "saved." If we are on track to create or "save" approximately 50,000 jobs per month, it will take ten years to recoup the 6 million jobs lost during this recession.
The illusion of jobs "saved" is nothing more than statistical slight-of-hand. There is no way to accurately and reliably quantify jobs "saved". If you know how, email me. Then email the Department of Labor, because they have a very high-paying job for you.
Public support is waning as well. According to a recent Rasmussen poll from June 1, only 31% say the "stimulus" package helped the economy and 27% say it has hurt the economy. 31% say it's had no impact.
Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp, which owns Fox News and many other media assets expressed worry today that unemployment could reach 10 or 11% and would likely continue to rise. Factor in the inevitable tax increases and hyperinflation as a result of all this "stimulus" and irresponsible, extreme deficit spending, and America is bracing for stormy weather.
Welcome to the Obama Recession.
President Obama met with his cabinet today to discuss the economy and his "stimulus" spending program.
He made clear the difficult position in which he purports to be entangled. "We're still in the middle of a very deep recession that was years in the making."
Had he done nothing, he posited, our economy could have gone into a tailspin. It's a disingenuous rhetorical maneuver, as the option of doing nothing was never suggested. But, in his relativistic view, that matters little.
What does matter, however, is the economic maelstrom of his own making.
Last Friday documented unemployment reached 9.4%. The economy has shed more than 2.7 million jobs since January and 6 million since the recession began.
Since the "stimulus" package was passed more than 1.6 million jobs have been lost. Yet Obama claimed the 345,000 jobs lost in May are a "sign that we're moving in the right direction.
Obama as much as conceded his "stimulus" package has not been effective, however. "I'm not satisfied. We've got more work to do."
Again, in his position above the fray, he bears no blame. He is too much of a transformative, inspirational figure for such petty squabbles. Likely because, as we learned last Friday from Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, Obama is god.
No, he places the blame squarely at the feet of the previous administration. "When we arrived here, we were confronting the most significant recession since the Great Depression. It was bad and it was getting worse."
He went on to promise to accelerate distribution of "stimulus" spending to create 600,000 jobs this summer, although the White House conceded nearly a quarter would only be temporary summer jobs. Considering his promise the "stimulus" spending would create or save 3.5 million jobs, they have a long way to go.
In the reality in which the rest of the country lives, after more than 100 days the "stimulus" plan continues to fail. Of the $787 billion spending spree, only $44 billion has been distributed. President Obama claims 150,000 jobs have been "saved." If we are on track to create or "save" approximately 50,000 jobs per month, it will take ten years to recoup the 6 million jobs lost during this recession.
The illusion of jobs "saved" is nothing more than statistical slight-of-hand. There is no way to accurately and reliably quantify jobs "saved". If you know how, email me. Then email the Department of Labor, because they have a very high-paying job for you.
Public support is waning as well. According to a recent Rasmussen poll from June 1, only 31% say the "stimulus" package helped the economy and 27% say it has hurt the economy. 31% say it's had no impact.
Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp, which owns Fox News and many other media assets expressed worry today that unemployment could reach 10 or 11% and would likely continue to rise. Factor in the inevitable tax increases and hyperinflation as a result of all this "stimulus" and irresponsible, extreme deficit spending, and America is bracing for stormy weather.
Welcome to the Obama Recession.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
A Look Into the Auto Industry's Future Lineup - FOXBusiness.com
From Fox Business:
"Ford Motor Company, the only domestic auto maker not to ask Uncle Sam for a loan continues to receive success from its popular 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid.
...'I think Ford will clean the floor up with GM and Chrysler with its changing product and tremendous product line,' [Erich] Merkle said. 'Ford has a stunning new Taurus coming out and the Focus, Explorer and Fiesta will have newer designs and be affordable and economic transportation.'"
A Look Into the Auto Industry's Future Lineup - FOXBusiness.com
Posted using ShareThis
"Ford Motor Company, the only domestic auto maker not to ask Uncle Sam for a loan continues to receive success from its popular 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid.
...'I think Ford will clean the floor up with GM and Chrysler with its changing product and tremendous product line,' [Erich] Merkle said. 'Ford has a stunning new Taurus coming out and the Focus, Explorer and Fiesta will have newer designs and be affordable and economic transportation.'"
A Look Into the Auto Industry's Future Lineup - FOXBusiness.com
Posted using ShareThis
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Throwing good money after bad habits...
President Obama addressed his desire to reform the American health care system in his radio and internet address today. The text can be found here.
According to Obama, "Fixing what’s wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve – it’s a necessity we cannot postpone any longer.”
He went on to say in his most mellifluous, yet ominous tone, "If we do nothing, everyone’s health care will be put in jeopardy.”
Okay, Chicken Little. You're making the sky fall.
This sounds eerily similar to the rhetoric he used to ram the mammoth "stimulus" plan through Congress. So far there has been little evidence that, to paraphrase his words, we've turned the economy from the cliff. Initial jobless claims fell slightly this week, yet unemployment has risen to 9.4%, its highest level in twenty-six years. The immediate future looks grim, as economists expect unemployment to continue to increase through next year.
The reasons for his haste are obvious. Obama is still riding high on public approval and enjoying his honeymoon with the electorate.
His goals seem laudable: access to quality health care for all Americans.
"I’m talking about the families I’ve met whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy or forcing them to go without the check-ups or prescriptions they need. Business owners who fear they’ll be forced to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers."
There is, however, considerable danger in his ambitions. Let's take, for example, the business owners whom Obama mentioned. The Wall Street Journal reports initial legislation has been circulating in Washington that "would require employers to cover their employees or pay a penalty." Conveniently, Obama's plan makes the choice for them.
Obama went on to say, “My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we’ll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues.”
Given the nearly $800 billion "stimulus" spending plan which he heartily championed and the vigor with which he promoted "fiscal discipline" when he required his cabinet to trim their budgets by $100 million, I am not reassured by his promise of "rigorous spending reductions." He is correct that his plan is historic, however, in that he is proposing an entitlement program epic in size, complexity and cost. Costs to the taxpayer could explode to more than $1.5 trillion over the next several years. And it will be the taxpayer who "covers the costs," in Obama's words, through "appropriate additional revenues."
One of the additional revenues of which he spoke may be a value added tax, or VAT as it is known in Europe. The value added tax is essentially a national sales tax which will affect everybody from the poorest to the richest. A value added tax of 10% to as much as 25% has been suggested in Washington recently as a method to pay for Obama's health care plan. Other options being discussed by lawmakers are increasing taxes on alcohol or taxing sugary beverages. Additionally, lawmakers are considering taxing employee health benefits.
The most dangerous of Obama's ambitions as he pushes his health care reform agenda may be the hidden costs Americans will pay with their freedom.
President Obama addressed the cost of his health care reform promising, "we can’t welcome is reform that just invests more money in the status quo – reform that throws good money after bad habits."
Bad habits?
He continued, "We must attack the root causes of skyrocketing health care costs." One of the biggest contributors to rising health care costs is the increase in obesity. In 2007 the CDC reported that more than 34% of Americans were considered obese. Health care costs connected to obesity approximated $117 billion in 2000, according to the CDC.
With an administration reaching farther into the private sector than ever before, controlling executive pay and firing CEOs, how much further can their reach go? Can it extend into the personal lives of private citizens?
In the interest of keeping health care costs low, the door may be open to regulation of "unhealthy behavior." Government mandated exercise and physical activity programs, government designed diets? Perhaps not. Every behavior which could negatively impact health care costs, however, could and likely would be regulated, subversively, through taxation. Consider the high taxes on cigarettes. Given the legislature's recent proposal of a tax on sugary beverages, a general "behavior tax" may not be out of the realm of possibility.
Perhaps President Obama's health care reform will be funded with a "fat" tax. After all, obesity contributes to many diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, stroke, osteoarthritis, and a host of other ailments which burden the current health care system. What better way to deter weight gain than to levy prohibitive excise taxes on Snickers bars, pizza and ice cream? What better way to regulate the populace than to make things people like harder to get? And as an added bonus, less heft would contribute to better fuel efficiency. Lose weight, save the planet!
So how, then, can government intrude into your private life and personal decision-making, such as what to eat for dessert or whether to exercise or sit on the couch all day? What if you want to ride your motorcycle when it's raining? What if you want to swim less than an hour after eating?
At the same time, abortion has been ruled as a protected right, citing the right to privacy.
President Obama's intended health care reform is less like reforming health care and more like reforming government's role in people's personal lives. Much like some people start going to church, and some profess a deeply profound, personal relationship with Jesus.
It's not about health care reform. It's about power and control. It's always about power and control.
Obama claimed his intent was to "protect consumer choice." In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed, "a new public health insurance plan would benefit consumers by providing more competition in the market." How competitive can a private company be when its competition can print its own money?
Further, how competitive can a private company be when its competition makes the rules? The federal government makes the policy, sets the rules, and regulates the industry. What is to stop lawmakers from making laws which only they can follow? Or making policy that benefits them and increases their hold over their "customers"? Or, if you're still under the illusion it's still a free market and it's still a fair playing field that means what stops government from increasing their market share, if not service or price?
The ones who make the rules always win, and the ones who are bound by those rules always lose.
That includes everyone President Obama intends to "help." Just imagine standing in line at the post office the next time you break your leg and have to go to the emergency room. Don't get too attached to that leg, you won't have it much longer.
Perhaps eating a Snickers bar is dangerous. I'll take my chances, and I'll make the choice.
According to Obama, "Fixing what’s wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve – it’s a necessity we cannot postpone any longer.”
He went on to say in his most mellifluous, yet ominous tone, "If we do nothing, everyone’s health care will be put in jeopardy.”
Okay, Chicken Little. You're making the sky fall.
This sounds eerily similar to the rhetoric he used to ram the mammoth "stimulus" plan through Congress. So far there has been little evidence that, to paraphrase his words, we've turned the economy from the cliff. Initial jobless claims fell slightly this week, yet unemployment has risen to 9.4%, its highest level in twenty-six years. The immediate future looks grim, as economists expect unemployment to continue to increase through next year.
The reasons for his haste are obvious. Obama is still riding high on public approval and enjoying his honeymoon with the electorate.
His goals seem laudable: access to quality health care for all Americans.
"I’m talking about the families I’ve met whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy or forcing them to go without the check-ups or prescriptions they need. Business owners who fear they’ll be forced to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers."
There is, however, considerable danger in his ambitions. Let's take, for example, the business owners whom Obama mentioned. The Wall Street Journal reports initial legislation has been circulating in Washington that "would require employers to cover their employees or pay a penalty." Conveniently, Obama's plan makes the choice for them.
Obama went on to say, “My budget included an historic down payment on reform, and we’ll work with Congress to fully cover the costs through rigorous spending reductions and appropriate additional revenues.”
Given the nearly $800 billion "stimulus" spending plan which he heartily championed and the vigor with which he promoted "fiscal discipline" when he required his cabinet to trim their budgets by $100 million, I am not reassured by his promise of "rigorous spending reductions." He is correct that his plan is historic, however, in that he is proposing an entitlement program epic in size, complexity and cost. Costs to the taxpayer could explode to more than $1.5 trillion over the next several years. And it will be the taxpayer who "covers the costs," in Obama's words, through "appropriate additional revenues."
One of the additional revenues of which he spoke may be a value added tax, or VAT as it is known in Europe. The value added tax is essentially a national sales tax which will affect everybody from the poorest to the richest. A value added tax of 10% to as much as 25% has been suggested in Washington recently as a method to pay for Obama's health care plan. Other options being discussed by lawmakers are increasing taxes on alcohol or taxing sugary beverages. Additionally, lawmakers are considering taxing employee health benefits.
The most dangerous of Obama's ambitions as he pushes his health care reform agenda may be the hidden costs Americans will pay with their freedom.
President Obama addressed the cost of his health care reform promising, "we can’t welcome is reform that just invests more money in the status quo – reform that throws good money after bad habits."
Bad habits?
He continued, "We must attack the root causes of skyrocketing health care costs." One of the biggest contributors to rising health care costs is the increase in obesity. In 2007 the CDC reported that more than 34% of Americans were considered obese. Health care costs connected to obesity approximated $117 billion in 2000, according to the CDC.
With an administration reaching farther into the private sector than ever before, controlling executive pay and firing CEOs, how much further can their reach go? Can it extend into the personal lives of private citizens?
In the interest of keeping health care costs low, the door may be open to regulation of "unhealthy behavior." Government mandated exercise and physical activity programs, government designed diets? Perhaps not. Every behavior which could negatively impact health care costs, however, could and likely would be regulated, subversively, through taxation. Consider the high taxes on cigarettes. Given the legislature's recent proposal of a tax on sugary beverages, a general "behavior tax" may not be out of the realm of possibility.
Perhaps President Obama's health care reform will be funded with a "fat" tax. After all, obesity contributes to many diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, stroke, osteoarthritis, and a host of other ailments which burden the current health care system. What better way to deter weight gain than to levy prohibitive excise taxes on Snickers bars, pizza and ice cream? What better way to regulate the populace than to make things people like harder to get? And as an added bonus, less heft would contribute to better fuel efficiency. Lose weight, save the planet!
So how, then, can government intrude into your private life and personal decision-making, such as what to eat for dessert or whether to exercise or sit on the couch all day? What if you want to ride your motorcycle when it's raining? What if you want to swim less than an hour after eating?
At the same time, abortion has been ruled as a protected right, citing the right to privacy.
President Obama's intended health care reform is less like reforming health care and more like reforming government's role in people's personal lives. Much like some people start going to church, and some profess a deeply profound, personal relationship with Jesus.
It's not about health care reform. It's about power and control. It's always about power and control.
Obama claimed his intent was to "protect consumer choice." In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed, "a new public health insurance plan would benefit consumers by providing more competition in the market." How competitive can a private company be when its competition can print its own money?
Further, how competitive can a private company be when its competition makes the rules? The federal government makes the policy, sets the rules, and regulates the industry. What is to stop lawmakers from making laws which only they can follow? Or making policy that benefits them and increases their hold over their "customers"? Or, if you're still under the illusion it's still a free market and it's still a fair playing field that means what stops government from increasing their market share, if not service or price?
The ones who make the rules always win, and the ones who are bound by those rules always lose.
That includes everyone President Obama intends to "help." Just imagine standing in line at the post office the next time you break your leg and have to go to the emergency room. Don't get too attached to that leg, you won't have it much longer.
Perhaps eating a Snickers bar is dangerous. I'll take my chances, and I'll make the choice.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Despite criticism to the contrary, Rex Grossman can play.
I must preface this with a disclaimer:
I am, always have been, and always will be, a Chicago Bears fan. No matter what.
I just came across a column on cbssports.com which basically validates much my criticism of the Bears for some three years. Surprisingly, this comes from Pete Prisco whom, in my estimation, is no Chicago fan. But he does, apparently, understand that Lovie Smith and Ron Turner are less than fully capable of running a dynamic NFL offense.
Not to sound completely arrogant, but I had Tony Romo figured out a full week before opposing defenses determined his flaws. Granted, my initial response was "make him throw from the pocket," which is undoubtedly a simplistic gameplan. That is, however, just what happened the next week. But my point is the commentators, prognosticators and talking heads are often ignorant bandwagoneers.
Anyway, to my original premise: Rex Grossman can play. Many of his struggles can be blamed on lousy play-calling or an aged offensive line. Any quarterback, no matter how good, will struggle to make big passing plays in an obvious passing situation. And I can't count the number of times I saw Grossman sacked, on his back with three or four defensive players all over him while three offensive linemen were standing at the line of scrimmage, looking for someone to block.
I've maintained that if Grossman were in a system that played to his strengths, his live, accurate, very strong arm, he could be more successful. There are few quarterbacks who can throw as pretty a deep ball. Protect him in the pocket and just let him throw. I'm not so naive as to suggest, however, that Grossman is an elite quarterback. But, given the right circumstances, he possibly could be. He has the talent.
One last observation -- Grossman was pummelled for his tendency to throw interceptions. My theory is he threw recklessly at times because he could. He had a big arm and could make strong throws few other quarterbacks could. So he took chances.
As an aside, Jay Cutler, the big-time Pro Bowler for whom the Bears sold the farm, is a gunslinger as well. Just something to think about...
I am, always have been, and always will be, a Chicago Bears fan. No matter what.
I just came across a column on cbssports.com which basically validates much my criticism of the Bears for some three years. Surprisingly, this comes from Pete Prisco whom, in my estimation, is no Chicago fan. But he does, apparently, understand that Lovie Smith and Ron Turner are less than fully capable of running a dynamic NFL offense.
Not to sound completely arrogant, but I had Tony Romo figured out a full week before opposing defenses determined his flaws. Granted, my initial response was "make him throw from the pocket," which is undoubtedly a simplistic gameplan. That is, however, just what happened the next week. But my point is the commentators, prognosticators and talking heads are often ignorant bandwagoneers.
Anyway, to my original premise: Rex Grossman can play. Many of his struggles can be blamed on lousy play-calling or an aged offensive line. Any quarterback, no matter how good, will struggle to make big passing plays in an obvious passing situation. And I can't count the number of times I saw Grossman sacked, on his back with three or four defensive players all over him while three offensive linemen were standing at the line of scrimmage, looking for someone to block.
I've maintained that if Grossman were in a system that played to his strengths, his live, accurate, very strong arm, he could be more successful. There are few quarterbacks who can throw as pretty a deep ball. Protect him in the pocket and just let him throw. I'm not so naive as to suggest, however, that Grossman is an elite quarterback. But, given the right circumstances, he possibly could be. He has the talent.
One last observation -- Grossman was pummelled for his tendency to throw interceptions. My theory is he threw recklessly at times because he could. He had a big arm and could make strong throws few other quarterbacks could. So he took chances.
As an aside, Jay Cutler, the big-time Pro Bowler for whom the Bears sold the farm, is a gunslinger as well. Just something to think about...
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Why Obama Voted Against Roberts
The Wall Street Journal has a transcript of Barack Obama's remarks regarding his reasoning for voting against confirming John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
According to Obama, "he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process." Apparently Obama thought Roberts was a racist.
Not only that, Obama also thought Roberts discriminated against women, claiming sexism. "He seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."
Obama voted against Roberts because he claimed Roberts consistently sided with people who ignored or even perpetuated racial discrimination and with people who ignored or perpetuated gender inequality.
Obama claimed that as a legal academic he weighed methodology rather than results. "What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision."
Despite his words to the contrary, however, Obama voted against Roberts based solely upon political ideology and societal activism. Despite his claims to the contrary, Obama did not respect his "intellectual rigor and honesty" in his decision-making. Obama claimed, "I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power."
Obama also spoke very highly of Roberts as highly qualified, of good temperament as a judge, and a decent, respectful person. According to Obama, in 95% of the cases Roberts would serve as an excellent Supreme Court Justice. The other 5%, however, those cases which require "empathy," disqualify him in Obama's mind.
"In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
According to Obama's judgement, Roberts did not possess the right kind of "empathy" to merit a seat on the Supreme Court. Never mind that justice is supposedly blind.
Thus we get the nomination from now President Obama of a candidate who does possess his preferential "empathy" in which justice is not blind, rather it keeps one eye open as it shows preference based on economic status, race, and gender.
According to Obama, "he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process." Apparently Obama thought Roberts was a racist.
Not only that, Obama also thought Roberts discriminated against women, claiming sexism. "He seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."
Obama voted against Roberts because he claimed Roberts consistently sided with people who ignored or even perpetuated racial discrimination and with people who ignored or perpetuated gender inequality.
Obama claimed that as a legal academic he weighed methodology rather than results. "What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision."
Despite his words to the contrary, however, Obama voted against Roberts based solely upon political ideology and societal activism. Despite his claims to the contrary, Obama did not respect his "intellectual rigor and honesty" in his decision-making. Obama claimed, "I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power."
Obama also spoke very highly of Roberts as highly qualified, of good temperament as a judge, and a decent, respectful person. According to Obama, in 95% of the cases Roberts would serve as an excellent Supreme Court Justice. The other 5%, however, those cases which require "empathy," disqualify him in Obama's mind.
"In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
According to Obama's judgement, Roberts did not possess the right kind of "empathy" to merit a seat on the Supreme Court. Never mind that justice is supposedly blind.
Thus we get the nomination from now President Obama of a candidate who does possess his preferential "empathy" in which justice is not blind, rather it keeps one eye open as it shows preference based on economic status, race, and gender.
Monday, June 1, 2009
How GM Filing Bankruptcy Affects Ford Motor Co.
In a statement from Ford Motor Company President and CEO Alan Mulally, "We look forward to working with the Obama administration to ensure that the government’s majority ownership of GM will not change the industry’s competitive dynamics and that a level playing field will be maintained."
How GM Filing Bankruptcy Affects Ford Motor Co.
Posted using ShareThis
How GM Filing Bankruptcy Affects Ford Motor Co.
Posted using ShareThis
In defense of autonomy...
Blue Oval or Bow Tie?It's time to embrace car partisanship. The perpetuity of Ford correlates directly to the prosperity of the American Dream.
First things first. With government intervention on behalf of GM, the deck is already stacked against Ford. GM has a potentially unlimited source of funding from taxpayers and the dollar factories where the Fed is printing money like toilet paper. Further, Obama is practicing unabashed protectionism and bowing to the UAW by restricting GM from importing popular European small cars to meet his "green" standards. GM's European subsidiary Opel is up for sale. Potential buyers will be restricted from selling them in the U.S. or China. A few years ago to make the Saturn brand more profitable and desirable GM imported rebadged Opels and sold them as Saturns. They were widely regarded as superior to previous Saturns, and many domestics in general. Obama apparently prefers mediocrity. Not to mention the enormous cost of retooling current factories to build what may be essentially the same small car.
Obama claimed today he does not want to run GM, yet reserved the right to exercise governments ownership rights in "all but the most fundamental" decisions. Decisions such as choosing board members, closing factories, eliminating dealerships, vehicle types and specifications. Obama is already making these decisions and will continue to do so. Any rhetoric to the contrary is simply that, empty rhetoric.
And don't forget the decision to shift towards much smaller "green" cars GM will now build at government's behest, whether or not the buying public wants them. My guess is they will be forced to "want" them.
Obama has stepped into a serious pile of conflicts of interest. Government has pumped tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into GM, and may continue to do so indefinitely. At the same time, government will continue to regulate safety, efficiency and the like for all cars sold in the U.S., not just the GM and Chrysler vehicles they are now building. That includes Ford, who did not take bailout money. The potential for favoritism, or preferential regulation, is precipitous, since as a shareholder government will expect a positive return on its investment. As just one example, the TARP bill included a $7,500 tax credit for purchasers of the Chevy Volt, GM's expensive forthcoming plug-in hybrid electric car. Obama will try to subsidize his way success with GM, perhaps at the expense of Ford.
For all of Obama's machinations, we, as consumers, still have power. If the President can choose sides, so can we. It seems there are signs that we are. According to a Wall Street Journal article today, Ford has seen its market share increase over six of the last seven months, and that trend is expected to continue when May numbers are reported Tuesday. Ford also plans to increase production in the third quarter. Ford was in better shape to weather the economic storm than its rivals, having borrowed and raised operating capital in 2006, which cushioned the blow of the recent economic troubles.
There is no question, however, that the road will be difficult for Ford. Their profit leader is a large truck. They must also comply with the new fuel economy standards. As the Last American Car Company, their competition is now the United States government with all its interest groups, constituencies and other assorted wards of the state.
They also have a large number of American consumers on their side who still remember what free enterprise and a free-market economy meant for prosperity. It meant if you had a dream and followed it, if you had a good product you wanted to share with others, or a service you could better provide, you could achieve success and prosperity. You could build a better life for yourself and your family. You could get the big house with a big back yard and the nice car that you could wash, wax, and detail in your driveway every Saturday afternoon without worrying about competition the entire United Stated federal government, who can print money.
Fundamental business decisions should not be made by government. They should be made by autonomous businesses, not beholden to interest groups as political payback. They should be guided by consumer demands and market compliance, not ideological scientists and sheltered academics.
A business unfettered by government intervention is a free business, free to make its own decisions. Autonomous, it is free to succeed or fail on its own merits. Free to reap rewards, free to suffer consequences, free to learn from mistakes, free to try again. Free to pursue excellence.
Until GM and Chrysler are able to break the shackles of government bureaucracy dictating their every move, GM and Chrysler will never be free. They will always be beholden to a clumsy, inefficient leech whose unlimited funding ensures unlimited control. Indentured servants of the state.
From an article on Marketwatch.com today, "Ford's ability to survive the historic industry downturn without the help from Uncle Sam has clearly struck a chord with consumers exhausted by the bailouts and clamoring for the free market to take its course." Consumers still have power. The President is not a dictator yet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
