The solution to sleazy politicians is: less government

The Solyndra scandal, TARP, bailouts for the zombie banks, bailouts for the auto makers, money for big unions -- it's all coming down hard on Americans, we pay for it all. While the politicians, bankers, CEO's, investors, and thugs cover their losses at tax payer expense and move on to the next game.

The reasons why Solyndra will hit the Obama administration very hard are two fold, first; because it should, and second; because the American people are sick of it.

But if you want a withering indictment of the sleaziness of the whole Obama gangster government enterprise, a trip to Chicago is very illuminating.

Here’s some of what John Kass of the Chicago Tribune wrote about the “Chicago smell” of this issue.

Excerpts below ;

The Solyndra scandal cost at least a half-billion public dollars. It is plaguing PresidentBarack Obama. And it’s being billed as a Washington story. But back in Obama’s political hometown, those of us familiar with the Chicago Way can see something else in Solyndra — something that the Washington crowd calls “optics.” In fact, it’s not just a Washington saga — it has all the elements of a Chicago City Hall story, except with more zeros. …did you really believe it when the White House mouthpieces — who are also Chicago City Hall mouthpieces — promised they were bringing a new kind of politics to Washington? This is not a new kind of politics. It’s the old kind. The Chicago kind. And now the Tribune Washington Bureau has reported that the U.S. Department of Energyemployee who helped monitor the Solyndra loan guarantee was one of Obama’s top fundraisers. Fundraising? Contracts? Imagine that. …it’s the same old politics, the same kind practiced in Washington and Chicago and anywhere else where appetites are satisfied by politicians. When the government picks winners and losers, who’s the loser? Just look in the mirror, hold that thought, and tell me later.

Kass does a great job of describing how these legal forms of corruption take place.

    In Solyndra, like any proper City Hall political scandal, there are similar archetypes. There are the guys who count. The guys who bring the cash. They count because they do the counting. They have leverage. They’re always there at the fundraisers. And so they’re the ones who are allowed to gorge at the public trough. The bureaucrats are the fulcrum so the guys with the leverage can lift great weight without too much effort. And while they might whine privately among themselves, they don’t hold news conferences to blow the whistle. They keep their mouths shut until the deal is done. If anyone gets caught and the problem becomes public, at least they’ve got email to cover their behinds. And they’re doing a good job covering. But there’s one group that doesn’t get their behinds covered. Instead, their behinds are right out there, suspended foolishly, and waiting to get kicked. We’re the taxpayers — in Illinois we call ourselves chumbolones because we’re the ones who stupidly end up covering all the losses. As in the Solyndra mess.

His last point hits right to the heart of the matter. Taxpayers always wind up with the short end of the stick. Meanwhile, all the politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and interest groups simply shrug their shoulders and move on to the next scam.

Liberals vow to challenge Obama in Democratic primaries

It's increasingly likely that liberals will nominate someone to run against Obama. He is weak and unpopular with his democratic base, especially the progressives, and losing ground with independent voters everyday. He still can depend on over 90% of the black vote, majority of Hispanics, and probably most union voters as well. However more and more he is being viewed as a sinking ship, panic is setting in, and the rats are getting ready to jump ship.

The Washington Post is reporting that Ralf Nader and progressive leaders want to field a slate of candidates against President Obama in the Democratic primaries to make him stake out liberal stances as he seeks re-election. Ralf Nader emphasizes that this is not a move to defeat Obama.It is more an attempt to keep him er, uh honest -- good luck with that.

Mr. Nader said the intent is not to defeat Mr. Obama but to make him focus on issues that might get lost in a purely Obama-versus-GOP discussion.

So what have Democrats learned from 2008 -- NOTHING. We know from the campaign in 2008 that Obama will say anything to get elected. Just don't hold him to it after the election. If Obama had any moral integrity it would have shown up by now.

Nader goes on to say that liberals are disappointed in Obama's handling of the Wall Street bailouts, the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the U.S. involvement in the military effort in Libya. They also criticized Mr. Obama’s decision to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and the recent deal he struck with Republicans over cutting spending to raise the debt ceiling.

Could we say that Obama lied ? No they won't go that far, they dare not. This is how Obama learned to make his living in the halls of America's elite Universities like Harvard, slipping and sliding through the huge cracks liberals leave open for him to duck out of taking any responsibility for his actions or deceptions.

Ralph Nader's message to the poor and middle class that are suffering through the worst economic crisis since the Great depression seems to be -- eat shit and die, we have to raise taxes and generate more revenue for the Nanny State to waste.

It gets better...Nader -- Mr. Snap and Sizzle himself goes on to say that :

“What we are looking at now is the dullest presidential campaign since Walter Mondale — and that’s saying something, believe me,” Mr. Nader told The Washington Times.

We believe you Mr. Nader if anyone knows boring it would be you. The Democrats and liberals are hopelessly out of touch with reality. They are locked onto their failed Keynesian economic policies like a suicide bomber locked onto his detonator switch. More taxes and more stimulus will fix everything. Completely ignoring the wasted $800 billion of the first stimulus, TARP, and the bailouts . In the last ten years we have had so many stimulus programs the government has run out of acronyms for them. The Keynesian's reply to every one of their failed policies is always the same -  It wasn't big enough.

I saved the best for last. The main reason they are worried is that;

They fear the liberal voice is being drowned out in the presidential campaign.

Drown out the liberal voice ? They must be kidding. The liberal voice is everywhere CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Time, Life, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, along with thousands of their toady affiliates.  It's not likely their voices will be drowned out any time soon, unfortunately.

I think what they mean is that they fear that someone else may get a chance to be heard, and expose the sham they are running on the American people.

Good Luck with that nomination. Liberals will not vote against Obama in any great numbers, they would then be considered racists, and we all know that can never happen.

California, New York, and IIlinois worst places to do business

Mike Shedlock has done an excellent article graphically pointing out the differences between the worst states to do business, and the States considered the best. California tops the list as the worst, followed by New York, and Illinois. Taxes and high costs were among the factors that contributed to the state's poor showing in the survey. California was deemed to have the worst business climate, followed by New York and Illinois.

Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina were viewed as having the best business climates, according to the survey.

Best and Worst States, Things in Common

• Illinois, New York, and California all have Democratic governors.
• Illinois, New York, and California all have governors beholden to public unions.
• Illinois, New York, and California are not right to work states.
• Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina are all right-to-work states.
• Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina do not have governors beholden to public unions.

Right to Work States 

Chart courtesy of National Right-to-Work legal defense foundation

Paul Krugman, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, others, Ignore Extortion, Bribery, Coercion, and Slavery; No One Should Own You!

Collective Bargaining neither a Privilege nor a Right

Even FDR Understood the Problem

Public unions get into bed with management and politicians and work out sweet deals for themselves at taxpayer expense. No one looks out for the taxpayer. Even FDR understood the problem.

Message from FDR

Inquiring minds are reading snips from a Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions written August 16, 1937.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.

A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

 The Heritage Foundation also points out that The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates. This shields unions from competition on federal construction projects. It will also add $10.9 billion to the deficit in 2011.

Repealing The Davis -Bacon Act would save the taxpayers $10.9 billion dollars. So when the politicians say they cannot find things to cut from the budget it really means they just aren't looking hard enough.

Why Chris Christie wil NOT be President of the U.S.

Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor since 2010, has qualities and achievements that appeal to mainstream conservatives, from his direct style to his impressive budget cutting. As a result, he has won strong support to run as a Republican candidate for president of the United States.

But he has an Achilles heel. Christie has a strange relationship with Radical Islam. Christie's nomination of Sohail Mohammed to be a state judge shows the governor's tin ear for radical Islam. Not only did he appoint a longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists to be a judge, but Christie has also turned a blind eye to the activities of one of Mohammed's clients – radical imam Mohammed Qatanani, head of one of New Jersey's largest mosques.

Qatanani has a history of Hamas support and was related by marriage to a leading Hamas operative in the West Bank. This fall, Qatanani will return to a New Jersey immigration court, where the Department of Homeland Security is fighting to have him deported. In his initial application for a green card filed in 1999, government lawyers say Qatanani failed to disclose a conviction in an Israeli military court for being a Hamas member and providing support to the terrorist group.


Oddly, Christie – who was then the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey – sided with Qatanani against DHS, allowing a top lieutenant, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, to testify as a character witness at Qatanani's first immigration trial, and publicly embracing the imam at a Ramadan breakfast at his mosque. Christie later appointed McKenna as New Jersey's head of homeland security.

Cristie came under heavy criticism from fellow conservatives for nominating Sohail Mohammed, an Islamist who aspires to apply Islamic law, the Shari'a, as a state superior court judge. In response, Christie delivered a tirade on July 26, 2011, on the topic of Shari'a:

Sharia law has nothing to do with this [i.e., the appointment of Sohail Mohammed] at all. It's crazy. It's crazy. … So, this Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.

Calling critics of Mohammed "crazies" who are "accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background" reveals Christie to be a headstrong ignoramus; the IPT report on Mohammed is not about religious background but political activities.

For a substantial reply to Christie's rant, answering him point by point, see the excellent 2,500-word analysis by Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Below is an excerpt from his article, "Christie's 'Crazies': Sharia is not a figment of our imagination":

The questions about Governor Christie's appointment of Sohail Mohammed and his exertions on behalf of Mohammed's client, Mohammed Qatanani, have nothing to do with either sharia or the all-purpose smear of Islamophobia. They are about the governor's judgment. They are about a U.S. attorney with political ambitions pandering to a politically active constituency at the expense of national security and enforcement of the immigration laws. They are about his decision to award a state judgeship to an attorney who was an active and vocal board member of a very troubling Islamist organization — and who has a penchant for presuming that perfectly valid anti-terror prosecutions are, instead, anti-Muslim persecutions. Those questions are not answered by bluster.

Although still a small issue in the U.S., Shari'a has grown very fast since 9/11 as a concern to Americans and should continue to do so for many years to come.

It is possible that Christie could apologize for his remarks and undo much of the damage he has done to his public image, but given his persona, that's not likely to happen. Therefore, Christie's strange, and unremitting friendly attitude toward Islamists will turn conservatives against him and sink his possible candidacy of his for higher office.

Read more here : Gov. Christie's Strange Relationship with Radical Islam

Gary Locke advises the Chinese on how they can fix American economy.

 In what is becoming theater of the absurd the Obama administration continues find scapegoats for it's failed economic policies.

With more than a year to go until the election the Obama administration is in full campaign mode, and the hypocrisy, and finger pointing is reaching levels of the absurd, even for the Obama administration.

In this video from CNBC Gary Locke raises some valid concerns about the stalled American economy, but fails to explain why he thinks the Chinese should abandon their highly successful economic policies, and begin to focus on creating jobs in America and building the American economy, or why they would even consider following the Obama administration's advice on economics, considering it's perfect track record of FAILURE, except to say it's in Chinese's best interest. I doubt the Chinese are buying any of this. Maybe they should be lecturing Garry Locke ?

Obama lectured Americans on living within their means - really, he did

The all time leading KING of spending other people's money and driving up debt came out and lectured us on "living within our means" As with most Obama speeches it was long on rhetoric and abstract concepts, very short on details, and facts.

We have reached the intersection of Cloud-Cukoo-Land and The Yellow Brick Road. In what can only be described as an another awful political stunt to portray himself as the only fiscally responsible adult in the room. Obama took credit for the talks that averted a government shutdown,and  also lectured America on “living within our means.” and acted as if the last three years never happened, they just went up in Pixie dust right before our eyes ;

“Like any worthwhile compromise, both sides had to make tough decisions and give ground on issues that were important to them,” Obama said before cameras in the White House Blue Room as he acknowledged some of the cuts agreed to would be painful, with certain programs cut back and other projects encountering delays. “But beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs,”

Of course, Obama never wanted to cut a dime from the budget that he increased by a trillion dollars in the last three years.

We know because we have video tape, and the internet now to prove it. We've watched hundreds of these speeches by now, and they keep looking more like DNC fund-raisers than an Oval Office address. Though Obama constantly refers to the need to compromise, his idea of compromise  is to take to his bully pulpit and tell the public to overwhelm Republicans with demands to raise taxes. ... never once has asked them to demand congress cut spending, except when it's couched under the guise of raising taxes.

As far as the "Grand Plan' to save the poor honest, hardworking folk it's another reelection scam that he hopes will save a few people enough money on refinanced underwater mortgages, with the hopes that they will then take that money and spend it, creating some positive economic numbers before the election.

This one could actually work, for his reelection, not the economy if we lived in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. We all know that when Obama wants to hand out money to Wall Street, or pet alternative energy companies like Solyndra, his administration green lights the money, breaks the rules, and possibly the law, to fast track the loans almost immediately.

But when The feds are handing out money to the poor, honest, hardworking folk, they create a maze of red tape and government restrictions that a layman cannot even understand, and needs to hire a lawyer, who will take 50% off the top, just to do the paper work. The money barely trickles out, if it ever trickles at all.

It's a pitiful sight watching a president twisting in the wind, pretending that he is just caught in forces beyond his control, unable to do anything except go on repeating the same mistakes. It takes courage to change course. he doesn't have that courage.

Obama, Geithner and Bernake are ideological prisoners of the failed Keynesian faith they have been following all along -- their conviction is that the country can spend its way out of hard times. And when times get harder, just keep spending more. They couldn't change, even if they wanted to, and they don't want to.

Obama likes to complain no other President in history has been treated worse than him. No one gives him credit for all he has done, and that he can't get anything right. At this point he is right, he's continually doubled down on failed policies for three years, and passed up many opportunities to change course. If he actually gives in to any of the fiscally sound ideas that he's been bashing and rejecting for the last three years now, right before the election, he really looks bad. But he has the audacity to do it. That's for sure.