At the time of the banking disaster late last year it was not difficult to discern that the Obama administration took a hand in Bank of America's seemingly untimely acquisition of Merrill Lynch.  B of A, after all, was on the precipice of financial ruin.  What sense would it make for that bank to suddenly take over similarly beleaguered Merrill Lynch?

The deal had the smell of rotten eggs right from the beginning.

Clearly the government forced the merger.  Now, I'm not going to say that Obama's cabinet is the most un-American since the days of James Buchanan (three quarters of his cabinet ended up serving in the Confederate government after secession), but this Bank of America coersion is just one occurrence on a growing list of things most of us never thought we'd see out of an 'American' administration.

Here's the link from the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/21/feds-threatened-to-oust-bofa-execs-over-merrill-de/

No matter how liberal your interpretation of the Constitution might be, there is no way anyone can reasonably argue that it guarantees the right of adequate health care.

If the Democrats insist on spending trillions of dollars on a drastically overhauled health care industry, they should first put their money where there mouth is and propose a constitutional amendment which DOES guarantee adequate health care to all U.S. citizens and legal residents.

This way, all 50 states will be able to meet and discuss the merits of said proposals.  If 2/3 of the states agree with what is being proposed, then the amendment will be ratified and all critics will be marginalized if not silenced.

It's the right thing to do.

On the one hand, it will forever guarantee the government's obligation to ensure that the nation's health care system is not gamed by deviant private businesses.  It will also put an end to the long standing question of whether or not all Americans have a RIGHT to adequate health care.

But even on a more practical level it should be noted that health care ultimately boils down to the individual and their health and well being.  This is not like social security.  Not even close.  If the federal government is truly serious about reforming health care for all Americans, should not these desires and actions be backed up in the Constitution?

Dear Senator Baucus,

I feel compelled to pass along a few words in light of your health care proposal which, among other things, compels every single American to purchase insurance or face significant penalties. This misguided proposal is disappointing for several reasons.

First, the segment of the population currently lacking health insurance is proportional to the segment that lacks the necessary income to afford it in the first place. Hence, struggling individuals or families would be unjustly coerced into re-allocating precious dollars away from essential elements such as food and shelter in an effort to satisfy the demands of this proposal. The tax credits and adjustments contained within the proposal may amount to a pseudo-reimbursement, but that is only on the back end and does not take into account the strife which would be thrust upon those who must first come up with the money at the outset.

Second, unlike the requirement on the part of all motorists to possess automobile insurance (in effect a contract in which each motorist agrees to purchase auto insurance in exchange for access to public roadways maintained through tax dollars), the federal government cannot guarantee or even know whether all participating individuals will ever require or seek applicable medical treatment or care.

Finally, the Constitution of the United States does NOT guarantee the right of quality health care to any citizen or legal resident of this country regardless of how one's political leanings cause him or her to interpret said document. Consequently, any attempt on the part of the federal government at Washington to browbeat the citizenry of this country into forced participation in this plan must be deemed unconstitutional. Indeed, if this proposal ever graduated to the president's desk for signature into law, would he not instantly recognize its legal shortcomings and acknowledge that at some point it must find its way to the Supreme Court for ultimate consideration and rejection?

In closing I would politely and respectfully request that you, Senator Max Baucus, take into account that your proposal fails to serve not only your own constituency in the great state of Montana, but also places an injurious burden on those portions of the population that can least afford to have yet more hard earned money ripped from their clutches under the threat of the political bowie knife. Common decency decries this coercion while the Constitution expressly prohibits it. As you are a valued member of the United States Senate, I implore you to simply do your job.

Very Respectfully Yours,

Christopher Virnig

Several published reports surfaced on Monday (4/13) saying that the Obama administration will preserve its right to invoke the "state secrets" privilege that drew unwavering criticism from Democrats when former President George W. Bush put it into practice.  Essentially this allows the federal government to not only continue its domestic eavesdropping practices, but shields such programs from any and all public exposure.

Several left-leaning think tanks have already voiced their dismay, but it'll be interesting to see if the general public (that was so up in arms a few years ago when Bush did this) gives Obama yet another hall pass.

Sketchy.

That is the word that sums up the first couple weeks of the Obama Presidency.  In lieu of a wordy post, I'll be concise:

1.  Obama had not even been sworn in and he was already demanding over a trillion dollars from congress.  Is that normal?
2.  Why spend another trillion dollars of bailout money when the first trillion has yet to yield even the most diminutive results?
3.  Why doesn't Obama attempt to pass tax initiatives that would entice American companies to a) stop outsourcing employment, and b) bring some employment/manufacturing back stateside?  After all, when you break it down, isn't this issue at the heart of the matter with regard to the recession?
4.  Why doesn't anyone seem to care that two of Obama's cabinet picks are blatantly guilty of tax fraud?  Timothy Geithner, who clearly is guilty of payroll tax fraud, is now Secretary of the Treasury?  Wow.  And how about Tom Daschle?  The guy owes $120,000 in back taxes and didn't even inform Obama until just before the inauguration.  White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Daschle and his purported fraud but could only counter with, "nobody's perfect."
5.  If two Bush picks were guilty of tax fraud, wouldn't there be riots in the street?
6.  We're only two weeks in.  This could be a long 4 years.

The days of the United States being the world's preeminent superpower are unequivocally over.  Perhaps the most disconcerting and disappointing reality is that the corrosive elements that have led to our country's downfall have largely been from self-inflicted wounds.

An interesting historical document is The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.  I've read it twice and was left with the same two impressions both times.  First, upon completing the reading of it, there awaits endless hours of fascinating thought and discourse.  Second, the actual document itself is horrifyingly boring to read.

Nevertheless, there is one part of the Communist Manifesto that rings true with regard to American culture.  That one part is the notion that whomever controls the base of production within a nation assumes the true authoritative and governing power of that nation.  Marx and Engels cautioned that in a Capitalistic system comprised of free markets, the private sector controls the base of production and that after a period of difficult times those private institutions would strive to ensure their own survival and the actions taken to do so would run counter to the best interests of society and populations; i.e. the wishes of government.

For well over a century there seemed to be minimal conflict between the private sector and the public sector.  The technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution allowed the United States to manufacture its endless supplies of raw materials into finished goods where previously it was forced to merely ship these raw materials to Europe for manufacture.  American industry sprang up and our products and inventions were the envy of the entire civilized world.  The two World Wars further augmented the American gains of the late 19th century simply because war time fueled production when Europe twice was forced to rebuild itself after complete annihilation.

Things are changing though.  As time has gone on, other countries have caught up to the U.S. in terms of technological advancement.  To make matters worse, the U.S. developed a horrendous addiction to oil in an effort to feed its invention of the automobile.  Unfortunately, oil is the one valuable natural resource of which our own supply fails to meet demand.  The middle eastern nations of OPEC have utilized their advantage through various price gouges.  American oil companies, in turn, have offset their profit inequities by passing along that gouge to the American consumer.

Now, in the face of rising wages and production costs, a vast multitude of other American companies have decided to outsource domestic jobs in an effort to make the most of cheaper work forces in other countries.  To date, hundreds of thousands of American jobs are gone with the wind and millions more are soon to follow.  Of course, it also hurts that private sector men with private sector ideals have slowly been making their way into government to ensure that the best interests of business find receptive ears (and votes) in congress.

The current economic crisis has shown for the first time the battle lines that are being drawn between the private sector and the public sector.  Battle lines that Marx and  Engels so accurately predicted in 1848 when the U.S. was nothing more than a vacant land with a couple big cities.

The trillion dollar bailout of the financial system shows definitively that the government is at the mercy of the private sector; a private sector who is content to ensure its own survival by sending its jobs overseas and relegating its manufacturing power to foreign lands.  China's burgeoning economy and manufacturing infrastructure already dwarfs our own ability to make things. 

The downfall of the U.S. is inevitable because not only does the government have no ability to stop this process, but very soon the United States won't have any production capacity whatsoever.  When once the rest of the world relied on importing American goods and materials, America will soon be forced to import the goods and materials of China.

Obama won't be able to stop this process.  Nobody will.

Can you imagine if, in 1972 and beyond, the Washington Post had opted to sit on the investigative journalism of Woodward and Bernstein?  What would have happened if the Post had been allied with troubled President Richard Nixon and refused to print the scandalous findings that surely would have been a political game-changer?

Thankfully that did not happen.  The Washington Post, for all of its faults, hit a proverbial grand slam with the Watergate Scandal.  In contrast, the 2008 Los Angeles Times has shown, for the entire world to see, just how far the integrity of the mainstream media has plummeted in the last 30 years.  I thought I had seen it all five or so years ago when the New York Times had a reporter(s) not only creating fiction in place of true journalism, but purporting to be reporting from Iraq when they were actually bottled up in their New York City apartment.

But the LA Times has hit a new low in its abject refusal to release what promises to be a controversial and game-changing video of Barack Obama toasting one of his controversial friends in the PLO.  It's not so much that it could help John McCain.  Most of us want McCain staying right where he is -- in the U.S. Senate chamber.  But if the LA Times is willing to sacrifice wholly its journalistic integrity to protect a politician, what are the American people to make of that?  It honestly sounds like something straight out of Al Jazeera.

For its part, the LA Times cites a promise it made to its "source" that it would not make public the video.  This would be akin to George W. Bush, at his farewell address, saying that all of the mistakes made during his presidency were purely the result of "bad advice."  For one, I've never heard of a "source" giving a damning piece of evidence to a newspaper unless they wanted it exposed to public scrutiny.  Second, look at what Woodward and Bernstein were able to accomplish without EVER compromising the most famous source ever, Deepthroat.

But perhaps the most damning thing is that the mainstream media, as shown here by the LA Times, has sunk into the same cesspool of treachury, mistruth, and yellow journalism that has drowned the White House over the last 8 years.  It shows that the "progressives" have fallen to the same level as Fox News.

Obama talks a lot about change.  But as time goes on, more and more things remain the same.

It goes without saying that the Obama camp must do its best to press the insinuation that four years of McCain is akin to "four more years of Bush."

I get that.

But what I cannot seem to grasp is the left's notion of what a "Neocon" really is.  Being a Libertarian who happens to despise both McCain and Obama (at least as a potential Chief Executive), I find it ironic that many of the Democrats that I know (or read on this site and others) seem obsessed with the term "Neocon" and the faces which represent the word, i.e. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitcz, etc; but they seem to not know exactly WHAT Neocons are actually after.  Money, for sure, but given their track record, it must be more than just personal profit.

Indeed, if you read most of the posts here, you would think they're nothing but a group of rogue criminals who simply take glee in smashing the sacred American institutions of government and law/order.  While part of this may be true, surely they have an ultimate goal in mind at the end of the day, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it become obvious that the true strategy of the Neocons has been to change things?  More specifically to:
1. Use foreign policy and war as a diversion in an effort to clandestinely reform the domestic agenda.
2. By reform, I mean to siphon the ruling authority (power) out of Washington/Congress and into the Corporations of the private sector (where most of these "Neocons" will slink back to in January when Bush's term ends).
3. Hence, in the future, the government will be wholly dependent on the services rendered by the private sector to enact any and all of its laws and regulations.  Oil companies and energy companies will thus have the ruling authority and will be in a position to set the Congressional agenda.

Isn't that what the Neocons are all about? Am I missing something?

If so, John McCain must be the most ill-fitting Neocon in the history of Neocons.  Being a military man all of his life, he hasn't had much time for private enterprise.  Indeed, he's been heavily scrutinized lately for being clueless as to the extent of his wife's enormous estate.  Tell me, what Neocon wouldn't know every facet of his/her assets?

I'm certainly not saying John McCain would be any more attractive a candidate if he were just, say, a regular "old" Conservative instead of a Neocon.  I'm just saying, what if?

Of course we are all aware of the delicate volatility which currently plagues the Middle East.  I was reading the Wall Street Journal last week, however, and a map of the region in the article struck me as being particularly dire.  In short, there was a map of the Middle East with arrows placed on Palestine/Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  Next to the arrows there were text boxes listing briefly the economic/military unrest which is present in each of these territories.  Although we certainly know where these nation's are located, it puts things into perspective when seeing that all four of these "hot spots" are closely connected to each other.  Putting the Bush Administration and the Iraq War aside for a moment (these problems, of course, were around long before Bush took office and will be around long after he is gone), I am curious as to what will happen in this region. 

Naturally, Israel has the most to lose.  Although they have made threats towards Iranian President Ahmadinejad, they have done a reasonable job at containing their anti-Islamic biases within their own (and Palestine's) borders.  To the west it would appear that any option is on the table so long as it does not lead to a unified Middle East.  Granted, locations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emerates, etc. are much better at understanding what is in their own best interest than is Syria or Iran.  But what long-term strategy should be employed in the region? 

 

   Bush and the neoconservatives seem to not concern themselves with the long term consequences of their actions.  As many of you know, I am a staunch Bush supporter, but I must point out that I only support him in light of the modern political situation.  In actuality, reform is something which should be cherished an strived for.  The New World is a beautiful and haunting narrative as to why mankind must place itself not at the head of the line, but in its rightful place.   

With the Iraqi elections being praised as an undeniable success, the Democrats have suddenly grown strangely quiet on the issue.  The unexpectedly high Sunni turnout led to a one hour extension of the voting hours.  It would appear as if Iraqi's, even those in the "disgruntled" minority, embraced these elections as a sign that permanent reform is indeed upon them.  The Bush Administration certainly took the road less travelled in reaching their destination, but it appears as if the end is in sight.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard points out in a recent article that the many months of quiet from Mr. Bush with regard to the Iraq War was certainly a flaw in strategy, but it was intentional on the part of the Commander In Chief.  Indeed, Barnes writes, "Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq. It is a decision he now regrets. And has reversed."

 The argument has not been waged by the right that the war has been properly managed.  Flawed execution, poor intelligence, and a lack of contingencies has created an altogether less-than-great situation in Iraq.  And the media, for their part, goes to great lengths to show the chaotic, unstable situation which plagues the so-called "Sunni Triangle" region of Iraq.  Roadside detonations, ubiquitous insurgency, and mounting casualites are the points of emphasis of broadcast and print media.  It seems not to matter that true progress is indeed being made in Iraq--as various senators and congressmen substantiate after travelling to the nation.  These signs of progress, however, are largely neglected by the media.  Last week Senator Joseph Lieberman wrote an article which appeard in The Wall Street Journal.  Senator Lieberman's article stressed two main points: 1)Cutting and running on the part of the United States would be a grave error and would risk creating a failed state in Iraq, thus leaving an open wound for the entire Middle East region to deal.  2)The situation in Iraq is not nearly as bad as the media, and those on the left, seem to think.  In point of fact, Lieberman described how the Kurdish areas to the north, as well as the Shiite regions to the south, have actually advanced both economically and technologically beyond where they were prior to Saddam Hussein's ouster.  He also said that it is really only the Sunni Triangle region which suffers from a pandemic of violence and intolerance.

 Lieberman, as one might expect, was assailed from those in his own party as being a traitor and a Bush cronie.  Blatant McCarthyism on the part of the Democrats undoubtedly.  But it serves the administration well.  President Bush, as Barnes points out, attempted to look toward the future in Iraq by going several weeks without responding to the mounting spin being promulgated by the media and those on the left.  So baseless were most of these claims, however, that he was forced to go on the offensive himself.  Barnes interviewed an anonymous White House aide who put it this way: "Obviously the bombardment of misleading ads and the earned media by MoveOn et al. had an impact," the Bush aide says, "and culminated during the Libby indictment and the [Democratic] stunt of the closed session of the Senate" on prewar intelligence. "That's when we pivoted."

 The tragedy of this is twofold: 1)The Democrats seem not to grasp the true significance of the war in terms of its economic importance.  Indeed, the "Bush lied" theme being strewn about daily by those on the left seem to confirm this suspicion.  2)If Democrats secretly do understand the real reasons for war but maintain a false offensive in the name of "Bush lied," one cannot help but feel terrible for the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day.  It is impossible to support the troops and not support the job the mission they have been sent on.  This is a paradox by definition.  That the Democrats would rather see Bush fail than have the U.S. be successful in Iraq goes a great distance to understanding the true identity of that party.  The media, in its own right, shares the responsibility for this over-spun, nationally detrimental media blitz aimed at dishonoring a sitting president.  Is this not treason?