Regnat Populus

The people rule.

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Hey Barack, This Is What A Spine Looks Like

Posted by Max Barron on May 22, 2009

Netanyahu and Obama met last week to discuss the Israel and Hamas conflict –  I sincerely hope that big O was taking notes.  Netanyahu, a man with a steel spine and big cast iron balls, made perfectly clear that Israel will rightfully protect its sovereignty.  Obama, a noted placater and apologist, is a proponent of the implausible two-state solution – which isn’t a solution at all.  Pay attention, Barack, take photos, draw diagrams, whatever – this is what a spine looks like. 

From Wall Street Journal:

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted Thursday that all of Jerusalem will always remain under Israeli sovereignty, taking a hard line on a key Israeli-Palestinian peace issue just hours after his forces removed an unauthorized settlement outpost in the West Bank.

The twin moves came a day after Netanyahu returned from talks in Washington, where President Barack Obama backed creation of a Palestinian state and urged an end to Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, setting up a potential confrontation between Israel and the U.S.

Netanyahu has refused to endorse Palestinian statehood, and his uncompromising statement about Jerusalem focused attention on another issue that could cause friction between Israel and Obama’s administration.

netanyahuNot only did Benjamin refuse to capitulate, he backed up his word with deed.  See Barack, that’s what enforcing the law looks like.  He didn’t tear down a settlement outpost because “The One” demanded it… he tore it down because it was an unauthorized settlement.  Benjamin will no doubt continue to authorize some settlements – as it is Israel’s sovereign right to settle its own land.

More over, Netanyahu refused to yield to the two-state solution proposal that’s being rammed down his throat.  And rightfully so.  The two-state solution has been pushed for decades now and to no avail.  Not from lack of effort or good will on the part of Israel though.  It is Hamas that continues to reject peace – because peace and statehood are not their goals.  The demolition of Israel and the removal of Jews is.  Netanyahu knows this.  He knows from decades of experience with them.  Rightfully, Netanyahu demands that Hamas recognize Israel’s statehood before he will even begin to approach the table.  He recognizes that the fight isn’t about a “Palestinian” state.  It’s about preventing Hamas from killing innocent Israelis in the name of a “Palestinian state.” 

I hope that the Capitulator-In-Chief was paying close attention…  Perhaps if he sees what a spine and a pair looks like – he may eventually grow them himself.

Advertisements

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Wanted: Judge With Empathy

Posted by Max Barron on May 20, 2009

Married black President seeking politically correct Justice with empathy for the downtrodden and innate hatred for the successful.  Willing to rewrite Constitution and legislate from the bench. Also likes long walks on the beach. 

If Barack Obama took out a “Wanted ad” in the classifieds for Supreme Court nominee, that’s what it would look like.  Or so it would seem because every potential nominee on the various “short lists” appear to be the kind of kooks that come along with personal ads. 

As of Tuesday May 20th the President has been interviewing possible picks for the nomination.

President Barack Obama began interviewing potential Supreme Court candidates Tuesday, while a senior White House official defended the president’s stated preference for a nominee who will give the powerless “a fair shake.”

As discussed previously, “a fair shake” is not only a minimal qualification for Obama it is also the crux of a larger problem.  Judicial activism.  Obama wants a judge that uses their personal empathy when interpreting law.  The trouble is – law doesn’t use empathy… if it did then it wouldn’t be law.  Laws are rules to be obided by all who are under them and upheld by those appointed to the courts.  Laws aren’t to be re-written or re-interpreted by the courts.  The U.S. Congress does that.  It is for Congress to write laws, the President to sign them, and the Judiciary to uphold them.  If a judge seeks to follow their heart and not the letter of the law when deciding cases, then in essence a lawless society is created.  One that is governed not by reason and law, but a soft tyranny that is governed by platitudes and emotions.  There is no justification for this sort activism… and no excusing the support for it.  But that doesn’t stop our Oligarch-in-Chief’s Minister of Propaganda from trying to.

“Fidelity to the Constitution is paramount, but as with any document that was written no matter how brilliantly centuries ago, it couldn’t possibly have anticipated all the questions that would be asked in the 21st century,” Mr. Axelrod said.

The duplicitous nature of Axelrod’s statement should be readily apparent to any reasonable and learned individual.  He states with certainty what is the general consensus amongst the statist left.  That the Constitution is a living document to be changed at their whim. And that it is also an old, out-of-touch and outdated document in need of revision.  This is simply not the case.  The Constitution is not living and breathing.  It is a limiting charter written in stone, 10 Commandments style.  Doubtlessly, the statists would love to see a “The 10 Commandments” style breaking of the tablet – with a judge in place of Charlton Heston, less melodrama and of course, they’ll keep the Golden Calf.  It just wouldn’t be right to throw stone tablets at “The One.”

Colorful imagery aside, if Obama manages to push his empathetic nominee through the Senate Confirmation hearings, much less one or two more later, a breaking of the tablets is precisely what will happen.  It is readily apparent that judicial legislation, soft tyranny and social justice are the intent – given that Obama believes that difficult cases should be decided “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.”  We can look forward to class warfare being not just the rule of Democrat politics, but also the rule of law.

Non-vicitim groups, gird your loins!

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

No SCAAP For You!

Posted by Max Barron on May 12, 2009

soup naziWith the unveiling of the Emporer’sPresident’s 2010 budget, the states are set to get yet another kick in the anus as Super O dons his Soup Nazi hat and declares “no SCAAP for states!”.  SCAAP is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program – A $400 million per year program that seeks to partially reimburse states for the federal governments border protection incompetence.  The program, first established in 1990, provides a bit of much needed relief to states for the jailing of illegal aliens that commit felonies, the identification of illegals and the expeditious transferring of criminal aliens for deportation.  SCAAP has been authorized for up to $950 for 2010, a much need boost in funding – as the program is decidedly under funded.  Or, at least it was.  Because as of 2010 it will no longer be funded if the President’s budget goes through unfettered. 

Among the states hurt most by the loss of funding will be California, which spends approximately $1 billion a year jailing criminal aliens.  Though they only receive roughly $162 million in SCAAP funds leaving California citizens to pay for the remaining $838 million annually.  Why should they be forced to pay for the federal government’s incompetence or political cowardice?  California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico cannot control the U.S. border.  That is the province of the federal government.  Thus far, the federal government has been incapable or unwilling to protect the border, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to move into those states… and leaving those states with the bill.  A multi-billion dollar per year bill, at that.  However, the budget does call for more border patrol agents and a new comprehensive approach to handling criminal illegal aliens.

 “In place of SCAAP, the administration proposes a comprehensive border enforcement strategy that supports resources for a comprehensive approach to enforcement along the nation’s borders that combines law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts to investigate arrest, detail, and prosecute illegal immigrants and other criminals.”

What this proposal entails is anyone’s guess at this point.  The budget does state that it will increase funding to Customs Enforcement and provide funding for up to 20,000 new Border Patrol agents… it still does not alleviate the burden on states for jailing criminals that the federal government failed to prevent from crossing – or those that are already here.  While the 20,000 new agents is a good start to securing the border, there are many more things to be done, and continued SCAAP funding is among them.  The states should not have to foot the bill for the federal government’s ineptitude.

Not being one to present a problem without at least attempting to give a resolution – I have taken the liberty of devising a couple of ideas to help the states handle this issue.

  1. The states get to bill the federal gov’t every month the costs of jailing and extraditing illegals. As the costs mount… Barry and the Conga line Congress will have to seal the border. After all, it is only fair that the their budgets get hosed b/c they failed to do their due diligence at the border and jacked up a state’s budget. It’s only fair. OR:
  2. Have those states bring back the chain gangs and factory work. Their schools would be painted and kept. Their state facilities maintained. Ditches, roads, drainage, sewer, etc… They could kill off half the state shovel projects budget by harnessing the manpower already present. Oh, then send the bill for the inmate upkeep to Barry O.

How would I fund either of these options?  Simple, cut out any one of the socialistic redistribution of wealth entitlements from the 2009 & 2010 budgets and that will be ample funding for something that the federal government is ACTUALLY responsible for.  For instance the $1 billion dollar trust fund for low income housing… or the $250 million giveaway to create mixed income neighborhoods, or the new war on childhood hunger, to name a few.  None of which are the province of the federal government.  Controlling the borders IS.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Obama Budget FY2010

Posted by Max Barron on May 11, 2009

Obama as FDR

Ladies and gents, the big O dropped his $3.6 trillion – with a T – bomb of a “budget” for 2010.  Frankly, I don’t know how anyone can really use the term budget with regards to the federal government at all.  There doesn’t seem to be any budgeting involved… Given that $2.3 trillion of that money is tied down by the entitlements our generous benefactors on Capital Hill have seen fit to bestow upon the masses – unconstitutionally of course.  That won’t stop Super O, though.  He is, after all, the anointed one.  So, what’s the One got in store for us in 2010?

The budget can be summarized with one word.  Expansion.  Most of this expansion will come in the form of regulators.  Of course, there is always the obligatory expansion of entitlements – gotta have that next generation of guaranteed Democrat votes.

Here’s the essential breakdown:

  • OSHA is looking to gain an addition %15 in funding for inspectors and enforcers.
  • IRS is getting an additional $400 million this year for more enforcers. 
  • FDA gets an additional $300 million for more field inspectors.
  • Labor Department gets an additional $400 million ($13.3 billion total) in discretionary spending cash.
  • Establishing a $1 billion trust fund for low income housing development and rehabilitation.
  • $250 million transfer of wealth to turn poor neighborhoods into “mixed income” neighborhoods.
  • $1 billion to create a new bureaucracy that will oversee the retirement savings direct deposit program.

Basically we are set to see an enormous amount of growth in public sector jobs and government reach.  Obama is set to spend more than $3.35 billion in additional federal growth.  This on top of 2009’s omnibus spending which sent an additional $513 million to OSHA alone.

But wait!  There’s more!  The Redistributor-in-Chief has decided to launch a new war on childhood hunger.  A war he says that he wants to win by 2015.  The problem here is, it won’t work.  The tax payers will have billions and eventually trillions of dollars siphoned off into this program only to see an increase or no change at all in childhood hunger.  Much like the “War on Poverty” that has been an abysmal failure… except for the success in placing millions on the federal dole and creating multiple generations of Democrat voters.  Welcome to part V of the Democrat Voter Insurance program.

With any Democrat budget comes both massive new spending and a few little cuts.  2010’s cuts while minuscule in comparison to the budget will have some far reaching impacts.  Big O, the little man’s friend, seeks to cut out payments for farmers whose sales are beyond a $500,00 threshold.  Even with the demand for more agricultural production, Obama seeks to punish those that actually DO produce, and could feasibly produce more to meet growing demand.  However, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, has already stated that this particular economic lashing will be a no-go.  But don’t expect to see any such quashing of the $900 million DoD contractor services cuts.  Though, the statists will certainly support the mission to create 33,600 new civilian DoD jobs – which will naturally come at the cost of contractor jobs.

The budget also calls for removing the $400 million State Criminal Alien Assistance program – which helps relieve the monetary burden of states jailing criminals here illegally.  Obama seems to think that the money is best used elsewhere and states that he is hiring more border partol agents.   Obama also states that he will work to deport illegals that commit crimes more quickly.  If that is the case, then shouldn’t ALL of them be deported immediately, since coming here illegally IS a crime? 

As expected nothing in the budget speaks to how we will pay for it all… There simply isn’t enough revenue to cover it.  Tax payers will either see hefty increases or China will get another visit from Hillary, and my and future generations will be paying the interest for the remainder of our lives.  But don’t worry, fellow Americans, we’ll all have government jobs and live in a worker’s utopia, am I right?

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Republicans Should Lay Down And Accept An Activist SCOTUS… Or Something.

Posted by Max Barron on May 6, 2009

Equal Justice Under Law

Equal Justice Under Law

CNN’s Senior Political Analyst, Gloria Borger, seems to have decided that Republicans don’t stand a chance against the Obama appointment machine… So they should just bend over and accept their fate – failure. She may have a point, Republicans don’t have enough votes by themselves to kill Obama’s appointments. They do, however, have a voice and can use that to dissuade certain appointments and/or convince Democrats to help block them.

Of course, Borger fails to understand the finer points of principle, justice and consequences. She also falls into the same category as other statist idiots who promote the ideological litmus testing of judges. Failing to realize that justice should be blind… not empathetic.

After all, hardly anything is more defining than a Supreme Court appointment: it’s about qualifications, judicial temperaments and resumes — not to mention beliefs. It’s what presidential elections are all about, after all. A president’s legacy is often largely defined by those whom he appoints to the court.

The key words are “beliefs” and “legacy.” First and foremost the system of justice, in order to be just, must not rule based on “beliefs,” but instead rule on the letter of the law. The notion that Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, Justices should use their personal beliefs in their rulings promotes judicial activism. Which defeats the purpose of our entire form of government. Judges uphold the laws… they don’t write or rewrite them.
Secondly, the appointment to the Supreme Court is for life. Meaning that long after Obama leaves office, his appointments will still be on the bench. This is where the legacy comes from. The trouble is that an activist judge that rules according to their “empathy” (the word used by Obama) unhinges the legal system. Instead of justice being blind, and judges upholding the laws, the judges now write the laws and favor parties for whom they have empathy. Essentially it creates a miscarriage of justice. 
Borger goes on to question Republican and Conservative interest groups for laying groundwork to oppose certain possible nominees. Borger believes it to be a loosing battle that should not even be fought.

In a memo distributed by the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, the White House is taken to task for vetting at warp speed, which apparently results in appointments “to high government posts nominees who have cheated on their taxes and have other ethical problems.”

Moreover, the memo continues, “any rush to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with lightning speed is all the more unseemly.”

Really? Gee, how is it then that nine of the past 13 Supreme Court nominees were named within six days of the announced vacancy? Or that President George H.W. Bush took only three days to announce David Souter as his replacement for Justice William Brennan? Or just four days to announce Clarence Thomas as Thurgood Marshall’s replacement on the bench? When Thomas was announced, conservatives were enraptured, not offended by the process which they now say “violates the Obama promises of transparency and accountability.”

Brush aside the condescending sarcasm and what is left is the typical “but ___ did it, too.” That doesn’t make it right. Not to mention that the Judicial Confirmation Network has several very valid points. Virtually every other nomination to come from our illustrious president has been riddled with tax problems, ethics violations and conflicts of interest. Whereas the previous administrations to make quick judicial appointments showed far better judgement in their cabinet and high level executive appointments. Obama is withholding the names of his possible nominations to prevent public vetting which DOES “violate the Obama promises of transparency and accountability.”  His previous nominations and appointments also make it clear that he needs the people to do the vetting for him – as Team O is just plain bad at it.
There is, of course, one last issue with Obama’s previous appointments. Competence. All other problems aside, virtually every appointment thus far has completely lacked anything remotely resembling competence.

Every nominee has a paper trail which deserves to be examined. Each one has a judicial philosophy which deserves to be questioned. Each has a certain level of competency, which needs to be probed.

Precisely. In order to probe, the people must know WHO to probe. Which goes back to that whole transparency thing. The Republicans and interest groups are rightfully organizing their forces to combat certain nominations. Naturally, drive-by’s like Borger think it ill advised to do so.

Here’s the problem: It’s likely conservative groups are going to lose. So if President Obama appoints someone in, say, the mold of Justice Stephen Breyer, do they still lay themselves down across the railroad tracks of an incoming train — especially when the ideological balance of the court isn’t at stake?

Borger clearly misses the mark… and the point entirely. It isn’t a simple matter of ideological balance. It is a matter of justice and law. By placing activists on the SCOTUS, Obama ensures a legacy for himself – social justice (Obama’s words) – and thereby a complete lack of justice for Americans. If the courts sway by empathy then the U.S. can no longer be a society ruled by law. Instead it is a society ruled by judicial prejudice. Obama has stated numerous times that he wishes to create a court vastly more activist and legislative than the infamous Warren court. This would be devastating to the rule of law and to Americans.
Of course, Borger seems to think that Republicans and Conservatives should just lie down and allow the American people and the Constitution to take the Imperial butt-humping. I, for one, have an exit only policy…

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Obama’s First 100 Days Most Desructive Since FDR’s

Posted by Max Barron on April 21, 2009

Obama as FDR

Obama as FDR

An un-named senior White House adviser recently stated in an interview with press that Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office have been the most productive since FDR.  That depends on your definition of productive.  The adviser went on to list Obama’s achievements.

Passing the “largest” economic stimulus bill in American history.

Passing the $787 billion Generational Theft Act isn’t something to be proud of… not in the least.  Not to mention the fact that it does very little, if anything, to help the economy – especially given that most of the money won’t be spent until 2010 – 2011.  What it does do is pay off political friends, fund pet projects and rob my children and grandchildren’s future earnings.

Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Prematurely ordering the closing of a long standing military prison with absolutely no plan regarding what to do with the prisoners is a good thing?  Obama signed an order to close this facility with absolutely no idea as to the consequences, what actually happens at GITMO, nor how dangerous the prisoners are if released.  Abolishing “enhanced interrogation techniques” does nothing but kneecap our intelligence operations.  Water-boarding works… and it causes no permanent harm.  He did this for purely political reasons.  He has chosen to risk national security to give the Code Pink crowd warm & fuzzies.

Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Setting a fixed timetable for Iraq withdrawal?  I believe that Bush actually did that with the SOFA.  Only certain combat elements will be withdrawn while many more troops will be left behind to continue their duties rebuilding Iraq, as outlined in the SOFA.

Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan.

When it comes to Afghanistan you see a bit of a political shell game.  Iraq was wrong, but Afghanistan isn’t?  He’s taking troops from one area, risking destabilization, and sending them to another war zone.  As for European assistance, modest is the correct word.  Europe is sending non-combatants.  Essentially their assistance comes in the form of cooks and janitors.  Way to get ’em committed to the cause!

“Returning science to its rightful place” by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Returning science to its rightful place? Correction, funding worthless studies with tax payer dollars.  If ESCR was producing any kind of results, the private sector would be lining up with investments.  They’re not, because there is a much better way.  Adult stem cells.  There is virtually no chance of rejection and they’ve been shown to work on a multitude of human treatments as well as in some animals.  There is also new science regarding pluripotent cells generated from spermatogonial cells and in the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from adult cells.  None of these methods require the death of a budding life.  Not to mention that the federal government should not subsidize the killing of children for the sake of science.

Signing laws to expand children’s health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).

The expansion of S-CHIP was yet another bad decision.  Expanding entitlements leads to more and more problems.  The 300% tax increase on tobacco that is funding S-CHIP is also short sighted.  If smokers quit smoking because of the price tag… where will the money to fund this entitlement come from?  More and new taxes.  What happens when the cost of S-CHIP exceeds the budget?  More taxes. 

Signing a law meant to improve the ability of women who allege pay discrimination to sue their employer.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act isn’t exactly a hallmark piece of legislation.  It is, however, another way to antagonize corporations and take personal responsibility off of the table.  Extending the statute of limitations to 180 days from each paycheck opens the door wide for trial lawyers.  When a person takes a job, they agree to work for a certain amount of money.  That amount is what the employee is willing to take… not the pinnacle of what the employer is necessarily willing to pay.   It is a bargaining process.  One shouldn’t have the power to sue because they are a poor negotiator.  Not to mention the stickier points of hiring dates.  The job market determines pay, therefor, salaries and wage rates rise and fall.  If a woman gets a job during a low point and a male gets a job at a high point, doesn’t this law open the door for her to sue the company.  Even though the company committed no acts of discrimination?  Great new law, Obama… For the trial lawyers.

Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House

Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House?  If that is what you call hiring half of them as staff… then sure.

“Forge a meaningful statement from the United Nations” criticizing North Korea’s launch of a ballistic missile.

I would hardly call the U.N. Security Council statement meaningful.  Telling N. Korea not to launch anymore missiles,

Cartoon by KAL, The Economist, London.

Cartoon by KAL, The Economist, London.

which is already against U.N. sanctions, isn’t even a slap on the wrist.  North Korea knew that launching a missile was against U.N. sanction and did it anyway.  Waggling a finger at Kim Jong Il and saying “bad boy, you aren’t supposed to do that” is almost laughable.  Meaningful statement, I think not.

Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with “strength and humility.”

What this should read is: “Engaging world leaders and tin pot dictators with humiliating acquiescence.”  Going around the

world apologizing to our long-standing antagonists and enemies for wrongs that haven’t been committed does not a strong leader make.  It shows a weak hand to our enemies and a cold shoulder to our actual allies.  America has nothing to apologize for, especially to tin pot dictators.  Not to mention that no president should be touring the world dogmatically bashing and apologizing for the previous administration.  Shame on you, Barack.

 While FDR managed to create the Welfare State and extend the Great Depression by at least a decade, Obama is on track to push us into a depression and expand the burdensome welfare state.  I cannot say that Obama has been more destructive as a whole than FDR yet, but he is certainly the most destructive since FDR.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Credit Where Credit is Due

Posted by Max Barron on April 20, 2009

Being a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due, I have to give Obama credit.  He boycotted the U.N. racism meeting.  Last time the meeting was used almost exclusively as an anti-Israel platform.  This time, it was much of the same.  The exception being that multiple countries led by Canada boycotted the Durban II event, and as an added bonus dozens of mostly European delegates actually walked out during Ahmadinejad’s racist anti-Semitic speech.  Of course, most of us expected Durban II to be just that, a part II, a repeat of the first one.  However, Barack Obama made the right decision to boycott.  He may have made the decision a bit later than I would have liked, but nonetheless, he did make it.  I would have preferred to see Obama take the first stand against Durban II, and show some leadership.  Instead he waited.  Nevertheless, I am actually pleased that he boycotted the event.  Mark it on your calendars folks.  He made a good decision.

For your pleasure, here is the video of the walkout:

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gov’t capping CEO Paychecks?

Posted by Max Barron on February 4, 2009

It has been said a dozen times here and elsewhere, that any opportunity the federal government has to reach in and regulate a free market, will be taken and with all due haste.  This is just another example of the type of knee-jerk reactions that we can expect from the over-simplified economic view of our legislators and new President.  Recently, the federal government (President Obama and Congress) have called for legislation to limit the salaries and bonuses of executives in bailed-out banks and Wall Street firms.  They have decided, in their infinite ignorance, to limit the salaries of said executives at $500,000.00, as they consider it unconscionable for these people to make more while they run a company that is in receivership.

I understand the point of view, and I empathize.  It does not seem right that a CEO or other executive be paid millions of dollars salary and millions more in bonuses while they are accepting tax dollars to prop up their companies.  In order to stem the so-called greedy behaviors of such executives, the liberals in Congress and President Obama have called for salary caps.  There in lies the numerous rubs. 

  1. The government should NEVER be imposing wage and salary limitations on private enterprise.  As with every other “power” granted to the government, it will inevitably expand beyond that of companies in receivership.
  2. By setting a salary cap, the government then ensures that the best-of-the-best executives will not take or keep jobs at firms in receivership.  This in turn diminishes the chances that the company will return to profitability (at least in the foreseeable future), and pay back the tax payer money.
  3. By diminishing the entity’s ability to pay back the funds, the government ensures that the company remains in receivership for longer, and thus allows the government to maintain control of the company and in all likelihood expand their control.
  4. Class warfare.

It is extremely important to note that by capping the salaries of executives, the effective potential of the company is limited.  This is because the best and brightest, the “winners”, will not take a pay cut (especially to the tune of millions) in order to return a company to profitability.  This means that either the current, and in several cases worthless, executives will remain in place while the propped up company spirals even farther into the ground.  It also means that many boards will be unable to replace executives with those talented and dedicated enough to return the company to profitability.  They will instead be forced to hire / keep executives that are inferior but willing to accept the pay.  Essentially it’s like telling a NFL team that they cannot draft until the 4th round and they cannot play (or must cut) their starters, and then expecting that team to reach the playoffs.  The government, through compensation limiting, is in fact limiting the return on our dollars.

This is not to say that I believe that these companies should continue the bloated perks or retreats.  It is to say, rather, that the government should not be capping salaries and handicapping private enterprises.  The outrage about many of these CEOs making multi-million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar bonuses is understandable.  I do empathize.  However, sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.  This is one of those times.

UPDATE: Apparently, I am clarevoyant.  It begins.    I hate to say it but – See, I told ya so.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

I hope he fails…

Posted by Max Barron on January 22, 2009

I simply cannot understand why so many conservatives and Republicans insist on saying that we should rally behind the new President.  I, for one, have no plans of doing so.  I do not wish him success.  It is my sincerest of hopes that he fails, and fails miserably.  I do not say this because I do not wish success for our country, quiet the opposite, I do.  I want the best for our beloved country, which is why I want Barack Obama to fail.

If President Obama succeeds in doing only half of what he has stated repeatedly that he will do, our country will find itself in a free fall towards socialism.  Recent events combined with the gradual movement towards bigger and more intrusive government have placed this country precariously on the precipice of the ruination of all that our forefathers created and fought for.  Should Barack Obama manage to push forward with his economic and health care vision, our country will topple from that precipice and plummet, irreversibly, towards socialism and inevitable collapse.  It will not happen today or tomorrow, maybe not even ten years from now, but that collapse is inevitable.  History has taught us this. 

Our greatest strengths come from our independence and liberty.  As long as we are free to dictate our own future, without relying on government, we will prosper.  Barack Obama does not believe in these virtues.  His social and economic policies show that he believes quiet the opposite.  That independence and liberty are a part of the problem, and that government dependence is the answer.

These past months, filled with rhetoric and conjecture by politicians and citizenry, have frequently brought the words of Thomas Jefferson to mind.

“a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Both of these quotes bear relevance to the current social and political climates of our great nation, and should serve as words of caution.  Our government has been neither wise nor frugal of late.  It certainly has been wasteful, intrusive and regulatory.  President Obama has stated that he wants more regulation, more spending, and ever more interference in to our lives.  Obama has repeatedly stated that he believes that government is the answer for our problems; that government must grow, redistribute our wealth, hand out “entitlements”, and regulate our trade and business.  These are not the values that our nation was built upon, contrarily, they are the policies that our founding fathers sought to separate from.  Obama is ideologically incongruent with our founding fathers, and what I believe is still a majority of people in this nation. 

This is why I say that I do not want Barack Obama to succeed. I want him to fail, because his success is our failure.  His failure gives us a chance at success.  In closing, remember the words Gerald Ford:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Economic Justice, A Constitutional Right?

Posted by Max Barron on January 7, 2009

Economic equality, a constitutional right?  It isn’t yet, but mark my words, if the left has its way, it will be.  How is this to be accomplished in a capitalist society?  The 14th amendment.  The 14th amendment, benevolent in its intent, will be flipped on its head and bastardized into a constitutional law providing economic equality as a right.  Remember the 2001 audio clip, in which Mr. Obama was discussing the Warren Court, that resurfaced during the presidential campaign?  In this interview, Mr. Obama states:

“Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

It is, and has been, clear from day one that Mr. Obama has socialistic leanings (in the same sense that Karl Marx had them).  What has not always been clear is the methods that he will use to achieve his end goal – economic “justice.”  While his tax plan is a clear enough example, it may not see its way through Congress.  It is my opinion, and prediction, that Mr. Obama will use the courts.  More specifically the U.S. Supreme Court.  It has already been stated that Mr. Obama will have the opportunity to appoint at least two new judges with the possibility of a third.  While the religious right and social conservatives have mostly focused on these appointments as a way for the left to maintain Roe and pass FOCA; I submit to you that, while the aforementioned are important, the real “snake in the grass” – the most critical area for concentration, will be the interpretation of the 14th amendment.  In its current form it states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To any person with common sense, something that most liberals clearly lack, this amendment is straight forward.  When it was written, it sought to protect the civil rights of the then newly freed slaves (13th amendment circa 1865) by properly defining citizenship.  However, as Mr. Obama so eagerly revealed in the previously metioned interview, the Warren Court – in its application of the 14th amendment – was not nearly radical enough.  To Mr. Obama the Warren Court’s failure was that it did not address the issue of redistribution of wealth.  It is my contention that Mr. Obama will attempt to right this wrong through the appointment of like minded activist judges.   I believe that Mr. Obama hopes to create a Warren-esque Court, only more radical.  Mr. Obama will attempt to stack the bench with no less than five justices who are willing to not only legislate from the bench, but also willing to transform the constitution.    He would like for these judges to share his view of “economic justice” and shape the constitution accordingly by interpreting, or rewriting, the 14th amendment to provide all citizens an equal share of the economic pie.

During President Bush’s judicial appointment process, the Democrats used judicial litmus testing to reject or confirm appointments to the bench.  We learned, during the presidential campaign, that Barack Obama is in favor of judicial litmus testing.  Knowing this, one could safely bet on a reoccurance for Mr. Obama’s appointments.  The key difference is that the Democrats will be looking for activists, and the Republicans will be trying to block those types of appointments (I hope).  The tendency for Republicans will be to test based on the judge’s stance on Roe Vs Wade and FOCA.  I would caution them also to look carefully at that judge’s stance on domestic issues as well.  Mr. Obama intends to use his appointments to reshape forever this country through the constitution.  While it may begin with the bastardization of the 14th amendment, it most certainly will not end there.  It bares reminding what Mr. Obama’s idea of the constitution is.

 “[The Constitution] Says what the states can’t do to you… what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” 

Mr. Obama believes that the constitution should not be the limiting document that it is.  In that it shouldn’t describe what the government can not do.  He believes that it should, instead, describe what the government must do on your behalf.  Hold on to your wallets, folks, someone else may soon have a right to it.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »