Why are "We" Giving the Government so Much Power over Ourselves?

Here's yet one more program recently developed by our community organizer that has quickly failed: The Obama Mortgage Program.

Add this to Cash for Clunkers, the massively expensive 'Stimulus' (which assures indebtedness for every American for decades, if not centuries and was nothing more than a Democrat Pork Barrel dream come true) and the other "crises" that only government, not private citizens as always in the past, could solve.  My favorite analogy to date is the Wizard of Oz, which hinges on another appropriate analogy: a movie set. There is nothing behind the curtain, and no substance to the actual players or set. It's a cardboard set with good lighting, believable actors and of course plenty of cue cards. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain that you believed could give you a heart, brain, courage, and pay your car payment and stop an oil spill.

I think it's pretty clear to most that are paying attention that this administration is inept, excuse-laden, totally power-hungry, egotistical, and dirty. If you disagree, please let me know and I'll give you more evidence than would ever be needed to convince the wobbliest of jurors. Yet even in the midst of the latest fiasco, the Gulf oil spill, people are clamoring to get the government involved, as well as any other daily personal malady that normal people are faced with and used to handle themselves via work and smarts. That's something this administration would LOVE, and will continue to fully exploit. Nancy Pelosi had already said this is going to lead to her fighting to pass her "flagship" legislation, cap-and-trade. She also said she was "agnostic to the means that lead to the end," meaning law, procedure, public opinion, common-sense, research,  contrary fact, and the pesky constitution all be damned. She and her commemorators will try to ram this down our throats, as we've already seen happen. Hopefully this will not come to pass, or else I'm moving to another planet. (If it does pass, and has already made it past Congress, we will be mandated to reduce our power consumption to the level of the year 1867 within 4 decades. I kid you not.

Incidentally, I saw a Rasmussen poll this AM that stated that 62% of Americans say that most politicians want more money and power for the government. Meanwhile, 58% of Americans want the government to have less money and power. Huh? I guess that sheds some light on why we are where we are.

Is This What It's Come to? A Modern Civil War?

If you haven't heard yet, you will soon enough: a civil war is brewing between Arizona and Los Angeles.

So this is how we're going to go about unifying a nation: have America vs. Washington and the states and municipalities shutting each other down, economically and literally, because too many democrat's votes are at stake?

I have my doubts that the mayor of LA is really concerned with 4th amendment rights, and is actually more interested in amnesty for all illegal hispanics=larger voting base for himself: a hispanic mayor (whose girlfriend I know from S.C.) in a huge city with an enormous hispanic population. Call me a skeptic about this whole thing.

Obama's Transparent, But Not in the Way He Promised.

This is just becoming silly. Yesterday I expressed a concern that our President, (whose eloquence and wit like most actors and talking heads, is matched only by the number of teleprompters nearby, with other people's ideas scrolling away,) is quietly working to suppress media that point out his misdeeds, disagree with his policies, or he just doesn't care for. And I don't just mean Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but the entire network and system, including the internet. (Hmm...that sounds familiar, but I dare not point out the obvious past "leaders" that favor this tactic, and why.) With media companies hurting so badly right now, I can almost see the play: bail them out with taxpayer money in the name of "too big" or important to fail, then the U.S. government owns them as well, and that's the end of that. Our bedmate China surely wouldn't have a problem with that tactic.

In addition, he's also (scarily) working to have the White House only release and distribute news it sees fit to publicize, and just do away with all middlemen that may not only put the spin Obama needs, but even mention why this long stream of stupidity coming out of D.C. is completely treacherous and ill-conceived, especially for the middle and long-term. Sort of like how government schools choose what and how to release information/education to its unfortunate pupils, to prepare them for the most mundane and mediocre of lives, but be perfect government employees/subjects. However when the Freedom of Information Act is employed, it will be interesting to see how Obama skirts it and what sort of immunity he claims.

So, here's today's ridiculousness from the White House: our president, who (along with Pelosi and the other Dems currently on a major power trip), as I pointed out yesterday hasn't has a press conference in nearly a year, meets with the Mexican president yesterday. Seeing as how there is a small item in the news lately and an ongoing and increasingly heated and important battle about illegal immigration reform on this continent, one would think that would have been a nice opportunity to have a sit-down with the two people in charge of the countries' governments and discuss it, with goals set, action items laid out, and a meeting of the minds formed. In fact both Obama and Calderon stated there needs to be reform, which seemed to be the entire conference.  Calderon wasn't even asked a question. Of course I hope it goes without saying that BOTH men would love a borderless arrangement. More money for Mexico, more votes and power for Obama; therefore, Nothing will be done by the federal government while democrats are in charge. Plain and simple. Another reason for the Eric Holder jump to blast AZ's bill without even reading it, and all the knee-jerk democrat reactions to a law that merely mirrors what's already on the Fed's books and in fact was used to create the AZ law. But I digress.

In what was already going to be a joke of a very expensive conference, it then was distilled down to only having 2 reporters allowed at the "event," and only one question asked, only to Obama, to which no real answer was given.   That's a complete waste of time and resources like only the government could develop, but it makes me wonder: if this was Bush, would there still be an absence of outrage, especially from the left? So why is this getting a free pass (I ask myself that daily about the hypocrisy I see in America and politics in particular)? But no one seems to notice or care, other than apparently me. Obama's frequent and mighty promise of transparency has been broken over and over to the point it is now just a laughable whopper of a lie. In fact, it's beginning to come across as hiding, for which no one could blame him. But no outrage or even worry. The president is not only thumbing his nose at the media, which put him where he is, but now alienating them and, for some reason, staging faux press conferences.

This, in addition to many other courses that are being set by this administration, cannot be good precedents, and undoing the tangles caused by this administration's attitude of entitlement will take decades, if not centuries to undo, if ever.

Same Country, Different Worlds

I've been watching what this administration does as much as I can, and one of my smaller issues is quickly becoming larger, and I've mentioned it before on this blog. But lately it's becoming blatant: the "stealthy"(I am using that word euphemistically) manner in which the government is implementing "change" and for once not entirely what that change is and how it's leading to a status quo which few Americans want.

Obamacare is a scam that was run through using a legal technicality, and the outrage over that seems to have subsided, along with unpopular bailouts, the massive stimulus bill that hasn't even been spent and many states want no part of, and on and on. It seems if anyone would like to question someone who may have answers about any of this, they're quickly labeled a teabagger, Nazi, or provided some other uninformative retort.

I haven't heard much debate lately about whether the mainstream media is biased--maybe because facts that firms such as the Pew Center collect don't lie. Maybe it's because Obama is biting the hand that fed him, and actually seems to want to bite it off.

Obama hasn't held an official press corps meeting in nearly a year. He refuses to speak to them, as witnessed HERE. He recently claimed that the Internet is a poor place to find information, which was humorous, but alarming. The Internet helped put Obama in the oval office and he relied on it heavily during his campaign. He also promised all legislature that passed over his desk would be posted for at least 72 hours on the White House website for everyone to read before he acted on it, but that's another story. However, the weapon he used against McCain is turning on him, as an overpreponderance of facts and information are coming to light.

I'm not ready to jump overboard and claim Obama is a tyrant yet, but he is quietly implementing a plan to bypass the private media outlets and just release the "White House News" or whatever his focus groups deem catchy. One of the first steps tyrants take is to grab for media control, just as cutting power is one of the first steps when an army wants to immobilize an enemy camp.

Also, he now is futzing around with grabbing the Internet under the realm of the FCC. A court ruled the Internet was for information, not communication, so it fell under a non-governmental authority. We can't have that, of course, so now Obama is rigging it so the Internet may be covered by the government. Not much press play on this. Same with the Puerto Rico movement, which I really think has a chance as being passed, and PR being our 51st state. Especially since an earthquake hit it yesterday. No good crisis shall go to waste.

Also, I'm about to call Hell and see if it has frozen over. I agree with Bill Maher on not one but two(2!) points: Steve Jobs would rip this country into shape(Not that a sane person would ever want to be president of this country), and Obama's strategy of attacking the media is stupid, as far as he goes.

Funny, but not 'Ha-Ha' Funny

This is rich:



At around 5:00 Seth, Amy AND Tina decide to sarcastically lecture Greece about their rising debt and deficit, lack of work ethic which is in lockstep with their fast-growing entitlement programs, and no one paying taxes. Apparently anyone who isn't afraid of a camera can say anything, no matter how insane or unknowingly prophetic. This is the same course the USA is being steered down with the pedal to the metal. I think Tina Fey went to Harvard, which doesn't speak well of the political science/economics classes she may not have taken.

By the way, the "No Fly List," scarily, didn't have anything to do with catching the most recent bomber, whose ilk we should have no fear of(right?). That well-implemented plan failed. Army planes in the skies picked up the guy's cell phone signal and alerted agents at the airport.

USAA Pleads Sanity

As I was paying my insurance bill this morning, I noticed this item from my highly trusted and successful insurer:

Legislative Update: Members Speak Out; More Details Provided

Posted on Apr 23, 2010 | Category: Latest News

We asked, and USAA members responded...in huge numbers. As of Friday afternoon, April 23, tens of thousands had contacted their senators to ask for an amendment to a bill in the U.S. Senate (S.3217). USAA appreciates the support.

Members have told us that they want to better understand this complex matter.

Take Action-Contact your U.S. senators and urge them to amend a portion of the bill known as the "Volcker Rule."

Quite simply, USAA is seeking to adjust one portion of the bill — commonly referred to as the Volcker Rule — to exclude insurance companies' investments. These investments are already strictly regulated by the states, and we prudently manage these portfolios.

Based on the feedback we're seeing, here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.

Q: What are you proposing?

We would like the current Senate bill — the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, S.3217 — to be amended by removing insurance company investment portfolios from the scope of the Volcker Rule. While other insurance companies with an affiliated bank or thrift would also suffer if the bill passes in its current form, USAA arguably would be disproportionally impacted due to the extent it has successfully grown and integrated insurance and banking operations to meet its members' needs.

In general, the bill has many other provisions that will impact USAA and its operations. However, we believe we can manage to those — we cannot continue to operate USAA in the manner we have for the past 87 years if the Volcker Rule is enacted as it is currently written.

Q: "Unless USAA is investing in hedge funds and other high risk investments, I fail to see the impact..."

If the scope of the Volcker Rule was limited to hedge funds and other "high risk" investments, USAA would not have a problem complying with the rule. Moreover, if the scope were limited to our bank's investments, USAA would not have a problem complying with the rule. Unfortunately, such basic investments as corporate bonds and traditional stocks are prohibited investments for not only our bank, but also our other business lines. It is the application to our insurance companies that creates the problem for USAA.

To illustrate the challenge, over half of the insurance companies' investment portfolios are invested in a manner that would not satisfy the Volcker Rule as currently drafted. Of those investments that would not comply, a significant portion are investment-grade corporate bonds. These are not the type of investment most would consider as "high risk" for an insurance company. In fact, when the market returns were very negative in 2008, USAA's diversified insurance portfolio returns were positive.

If USAA is unable to invest in the same diversified manner it presently does, the result is likely to be higher auto and home insurance premiums and significantly less competitive life insurance products and annuities. So, we are making every effort, and enlisting your help, in amending this legislation.

Q: As a military-oriented organization, why is USAA going against the direction of the Administration?

USAA supports financial services reform and is not opposing the bill. USAA is asking, however, that a provision within the bill be amended to ensure that it does not interfere with USAA's ability to continue to serve the military community and their families.

The amendment USAA seeks would apply both to USAA and other insurance companies who — like USAA — are subject to well-defined state insurance restrictions on their investments.

Q: Why is USAA getting involved in a political issue?

It is very rare for USAA to ask our members to contact elected officials, but the potential impacts of the bill on our member-owned association are so significant that we felt compelled to involve members, employees and friends. It is incumbent upon our USAA family to join in defense of our association.

Q: Why is it so urgent that I act now?

The bill is scheduled to be debated in the Senate this week, so we are asking members to contact their U.S. senators now.

Q: What do I do if I am experiencing website delays?

If you are having technical difficulties with the site, please do not hit refresh. We ask that you close the site and come back later.

Q: Is the USAA advocacy site safe and protected?

Yes. The site is secure and also includes a link to our privacy promise.

I have to think that USAA, being the insurer for the US military and millions of their relatives, has some clout in Washington. Nonetheless, it seems congress is just throwing anything they can think of into this stealth-plan(the only tactic usable with the awful legislature coming out of DC these days) and letting those it affects sort it out.

I'm starting to have a fear here. This will be very forward-thinking for some people but I believe Obama has his sights set on private 401ks and IRAs. I think somehow he's going to force the managers of these funds to include T-bills and notes that no one else will buy. When China wakes up and starts saying "no thanks, we already own you" and no one else will buy them, once again the producers and savers in the US will be on the hook. Change we can believe in, I guess.

If There's One Thing We can Learn from History, it's that we Refuse to Learn from History

I just read this article, which is simply amazing.

Here's the scenario and what's happening. See if it sounds familiar: Due to some twist in legislation(which the author happily points out several times began with the Bush administration, but forgets he has long left the White House and another administration is in charge now) the U.S. government is making it VERY appealing and VERY lucrative for these crappy online colleges and glamorized beauty schools that have cropped up everywhere to recruit students. Student loans are easily available, and who would argue that education isn't beneficial? I would.

Problem is, the schools are going to homeless shelters and halfway houses to recruit new "students" because anyone with enough brains to attend and, more importantly, GRADUATE, from college would and should choose a legitimate institution. But the lack of academic rigor involved isn't the main problem here.

The people that are being targeted are, even according to the article which misses a HUGE point, homeless, "previous" drug addicts, mentally ill, and unstable in every way. They have multiple children, are single parents, have no means (common sense or otherwise) to provide for themselves, have become entrenched in taxpayer handouts, and just aren't student material by any measure other than the University of Phoenix and other "for profit" colleges as the author calls them. They may also be called "private," and charge tuition befitting such. In some cases four times what I paid per year for my MBA.

So, these "disadvantaged"(as labeled by the author) who have no money, no place to live, no means to obtain money, no idea how to handle money, and generally have exhibited a long pattern of irresponsible behavior and stupidity see the ads for these colleges. This article is devoted to recruiters actively going to homeless shelters and directly signing people up, while promising them jobs upon graduation. Good luck with that lie. The recruiter tells them they qualify for financial aid for their tuition, which being private schools, is quite high, even for someone with a home, a job, money and most importantly, a clue.

Federal Aid (read: your and my money and anyone who actually pays income taxes) to send these people to school to soon drop out, jumped from $4.6 billion in 2000 to $26.5 billion in 2009. I'm sure the default rate on these loans has followed suit.

I won't address the sleazy tactics these schools use, such as giving $700/month stipends to students to attend class "80% of the time" and maintain a C average. It's not hard to see through that totally unethical scam.

But for those that have extremely short memories, this is the housing disaster all over again. Dems want these people dependent on government, so saddling them with a lifetime of debt is no problem, and they'll bury their heads in the sand while the insane default and attrition rates that accompanies these loans skyrockets. Who bails them out? You and me. The tactic: argue that anyone who has a problem with this is a Nazi that doesn't want the "disadvantaged" to better themselves or have opportunities. Same as with the CRA; we MUST allow the poor "disadvantaged" of this country to be homeowners, their irresponsibility, lack of credit, ambition, collateral and job be damned. It's not their fault they have landed right where they aimed themselves with a lifetime of living day-to-day; it's that they're "unfortunate." Yes, they are, but handing them billions of dollars to never repay in the name of advancement is a program that only could come out of DC. Bush may have relaxed the regulations for this, but Obama is exploiting it and cashing in on the growing number of "disadvantaged" voters, as is his raison d'etre. It's hard for BHO to condemn preying on the ignorant, when that's his entire strategy.

I especially marveled at the woman who used her shelter's one and only computer for her classes, and went out and spent the last $700 of her loan on toys and a guitar for her kid, and then failed out when the shelter's computer broke and just walked away from it all. I guess that's one less PhD Princeton will have to interview for a faculty position.