What's one more gaffe, right?

Dear CU Members,

While Congress was distracting everyone with phony outrage over AIG, they were able to slip under the radar a bill designed to establish mandatory civilian labor. This is doubtless the beginning of Obama’s fascist, “national civilian security force” he spoke of during the campaign. You can read the whole story here: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288. The title of the bill is H.R. 1388, the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” also know as the GIVE Act. It has already cleared the House and is headed to the Senate, where, as it happens, they are working on a similar, additional, bill that is being called the “Serve America” Act. Shockingly, 70 Republicans voted for the House bill, proving once again that most elected Republicans are tools and losers who will do whatever the Democrats want unless they are pressured otherwise. Not amazingly, the Senate's Serve America Act is being sponsored by Ted Kennedy with RINO and useful idiot, Orrin Hatch in tow as a cosponsor.

Both of these bills MUST BE STOPPED! It’s hard to overstate how important this is. Please call AND email your Senators (Democrat and Republican alike) and tell them to oppose the so-called GIVE Act that just passed the House, as well as the Serve America Act that’s being brewed up in the Senate.

As always, here is the contact info of all 100 Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

If you can, please also contact Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell and let him know he needs to get Republicans in lockstep on opposing this: http://mcconnell.senate.gov/.

Lastly, I have listed below, the names of the sell-out Republicans in the House who voted for GIVE. If you want to give them a piece of your mind, you now know who they are. There is something very rotten that is stinking up the Republican Party, and it needs to be uprooted . . . and fast. Here’s where you can get contact info for House members: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml.

Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R, FL-5]
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44]
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4]
Rep. Anh Cao [R, LA-2]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6]
Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4]
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-25]
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21]
Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R, MI-3]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6]
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2]
Rep. Dean Heller [R, NV-2]
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4]
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14]
Rep. Christopher Lee [R, NY-26]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
Rep. John McHugh [R, NY-23]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25]
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18]
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3]
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6]
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19]
Rep. Adam Putnam [R, FL-12]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
Rep. David Roe [R, TN-1]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8]
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18]
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18]
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19]
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4]
Rep. Mark Souder [R, IN-3]
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1]
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2]
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5]
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12]
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6]
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2]
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10]
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0]
Rep. C. W. Young [R, FL-10]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show

Sincerely,

Misha

The bill itself is known as H.R. 1586 - The AIG Key Executives Bonus Accountability and Capture (TAKE BACK) Act. The Act itself calls for taxing bonuses that were given after January 1st on specific companies who were given TARP money by the federal government – aka – U.S. Taxpayers. This act that the House of Representatives just voted into law is in direct violation of the United States Constitution – Article 1 – Section 9 specifically states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto is defined as formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group.” The $165 million retention bonuses that were given to certain AIG Executives fall into both of these categories.

It was the members of Congress and the President who signed the stimulus bill into LAW that had a specific clause allowing the bonuses to be given. Now they want to feign anger and outrage at the very bonuses THEY allowed? Not only was it a bad idea to vote the stimulus in the first place but then to pretend they are outraged because the people of the United States are outraged is absolutely an ‘ACT’. Most people in the country do not realize this violation of the Constitution. While the bonuses are outrageous, the violation of our Constitution should cause MORE outrage than bonuses totaling approximately 1% of the bailout money given to AIG.

This proves a few things – neither the members of Congress who voted for the stimulus bill NOR the President – actually read the bill. Something most of us already knew but their tomfoolery is proving the point. It also proves the complete hypocrisy of both groups because they are outraged by the bonuses but NOT by their OWN behavior for allowing the bonuses to be given. It also shows that neither Congress NOR the President actually take the Constitution of the United States of America seriously. Violating the Constitution is nothing to take lightly or to joke about.

It is simple to see that all of the outrage and anger occurring on Capitol Hill is literally and figuratively an ‘ACT’. A great show put on by Congress and the President to pretend they actually care about the people of this great country. People need to understand that it is Congress and the President who were actors in the great AIG bonus ‘giveaway’. The H.R. 1586 is just another scene from their political pandering play but one that could open doors for more Constitutional violations and abuses in the future.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9

I'm going to be blunt: the anger over the AIG bonuses is bull-effing-crap.

Bullcrap. Straight from the rear, not even on the ground yet bullcrap.

What Congress and the Democratic majority won't tell you is that the AIG bonus “loophole” was written in AIG bailout by the Democrats at the behest of AIG's bosses, who somehow thought that running the newly government-owned company like a business, and not as congressional political puppet, would be a good thing. Of course, the CEO and the management are quite undeserving of bonuses since their company is no longer independent due to their choices, but there are employees at AIG who did nothing wrong and who rely on these mostly merit-based bonuses in their paychecks.

The fact that the same Congress who wrote the bailout is now screaming bloody murder to inflame populist anger against AIG and Wall Street is disgusting to extremes. These are the same people who told oil companies that they'd be nationalized if they did not co-operate with Congress' paranoid hearings during high gas prices (Hugo Chavez has admirers in Congress, apparently). These are the same people who refused to fix the very obvious problems with government owned Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac years before those problems infected the economy. Fanny and Freddie held held over 50% of the so-called toxic mortgages that sunk companies like AIG. These are the same people who now attack capitalism itself for the economy when it was the failings of their own confusing and unbalanced regulatory system. And now they have the stones to throw a bone to the populist mob, sacrificing a major American company for political gain.

Disgustingly dishonest.

Populism is not an old ideology, if you can call it an ideology. Anytime a leader gave in to the protests or riots of angry people, that was populism. Anytime a leader inflamed a group of people with an “us vs them” speech or a “poor vs rich” speech, that was populism. Anytime a politician claimed that everyone but an agree upon social pariah deserves the same rights as everyone else, that's populism. Populism is a broad-reaching, very successful way to gain votes and turn a population against a minority.

Populism is, for lack of a better term, the poor man's revolutionary theory. While Marxists, anarchists and even Islamists have written and debated about how to exactly create a revolution, all populists have to do is get a group of people together and say key words. With conservatives in 2008, it was things like “liberal”, “socialist” or “abortion”. With liberals in 2008 (actually, pretty much from 2000) it was things like “free market”, “war on terror”, “Guantanamo”, “Iraq”, “privatization”, “surge”, “war”, “patriotism”, “success” or “George W. Bush”. When these words were said crowds would become filled with a renewed energy and maybe even anger. They'd become even more motivated to take on the people they see as harmful to the United States.

This kind of serious politics is cheap. It supports rumor mongering, anti-intellectualism and, to be blunt, the most stupid people in politics. At the height of the election, when both candidates were basically carrying torches and pitchforks to every rally, the worst of the worst in attacks made it to everyone's doorstep.

Intentional or not, Barack Obama supported people who went after John McCain's age, spread rumors about his mental capacity, insulted his wife, demeaned his service in the military and so on. Obama's populist army also took horrible shots at Sarah Palin's intelligence and her skills as a mother as well as her husband, her soldier son, her pregnant daughter (and still to today attack her daughter) and her disabled infant son.

From our side, we had people questioning Obama's citizenship (which still continues to this day in an insane, paranoid crusade), holding Obama's race against him (his blackness and/or his mixed blood, humorously), accusing him of being a closet Muslim terrorist despite the fact a huge scandal erupted over his loudmouthed Christian pastor, and countless bigoted statements and cartoons from so-called patriots.

Call me an elitist, but I believe pandering to the mob doesn't help the country all that much. I understand that in a democratic nation like ours the people are the last word on any politician or policy, as they should be, but the extent our leaders pander to the bottom of the intellectual barrel as they do today just shoves out any real chance we have at high minded debate. Political laymans, those who have a very shallow knowledge of politics and history, should not be the ones defining where our country goes.

Our Founders were not kids with a crush on Obama or wearers of large T-shirts with Sarah Palin's face painted on the front. Our Founders were some of the best and brightest people of their generation in British North America. They knew the difference between rights and privileges. They debated law, society, war and justice. They could tell when a king was overstepping his bounds in a constitutional monarchy. Today's laymans write to each other using a massacred version of the English language. Today's laymans read both US Weekly as well as political blogs (US Weekly being more accurate in its reporting). Today's laymans get enraged when a President uses his constitutional powers to listen in on our foreign enemies, but do not blink when Congress usurps the power of states to decide their own fates as they have with the stimulus package and as some want to do with gay marriage.

The need to inflame populist outrage has a lot to do with education. We don't teach critical thinking. We don't teach proper history or enforce proper economic teaching, let alone ideological history and proper identification of ideologies. We have professors teaching that fascism and communism are polar opposites when they are actually nearly the same. We have entire sections of American military history focused (Vietnam) on while others are blatantly ignored (War of 1812, early 1900s Progressive imperialism). These things should be taught in high school or elementary school. Our kids should be able to know what populism is before they vote, not after they have a tenured professor skip over the crimes of the Soviet Union so he can talk about the joys of the command economy.

There is nothing wrong with anyone talking politics or speaking out on politics. The First Amendment gives citizens the right to do so, but it does not means we have to listen to them or think they are smart. We should not be afraid of giving in to mobs just because they threatened to whine and bitch about something they thing is wrong. Like the AIG bonus anger, lowbrow populist anger over Rush Limbaugh's comments on how he wants President Obama's socialist agenda to fail misleads the general voting population, and I have little doubt the ringleaders of the mob intend for that to happen. Alas, relativity smart people like David Frum and David Brooks give in to such people, for reasons I don't know, but when they do it hurts the future of the conservative movement.

I'm pretty cynical on the future of my generation and its ability to think past the next issue of People or the next paycheck, but that does not mean we have to give up on the future of us or our children. Teach your children to read the news. Teach your kids to read the classic stories, to read history and economics. Teach your kids to remain loyal to country, not party.

If we can do that, maybe we can beat populism and the dumbing down of our citizenry and maybe we can have our wonderful nation last a little big longer as a intellectual powerhouse.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) has had a very nice run over the past week. After falling below 6,500 on March 9th - a low not seen since 1996, it has rebounded to 7,486 at yesterday’s close on March 18th. (1) This rally was driven in part by an unexpected rebound in new home construction in February, Citigroup’s positive earnings, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s willingness to rewrite the valuation techniques on mark-to-market accounting.

Investors are looking for any sign of optimism to plow back into the market. However, the Federal Reserve (FED) has just given investors a reason to believe that the rally we have seen over the past week is nothing more than a typical short-term bear market “fake out.” On March 18th, the FED purchased $300 million in longer term Treasury Bonds. This move has blown up its balance sheet to $4 trillion. In addition, the Federal Open Market Committee said it would purchase an additional $750 billion in mortgage-backed securities. (2)

When the FED makes this bold of a move, it shows that it has no confidence that the economy will recover not only in the short-term, but in the long-term as well. In addition, this is yet another example of the dangers of a large and powerful central banking system. The reason why this action was taken was to keep long-term borrowing rates low. The FED’s purchase of these bonds increases the price which, in turn, decreases the yield. (An inverse relationship exists between price and yield.) During difficult economic times, rates are kept low to induce borrowing to get the economy moving again.

One may ask why such a move is dangerous, as it is prudent to keep borrowing rates low in a recession. However, what happens if borrowing rates are kept too low for too long? We already know the answer to this question, as it is the key reason why we are in the current situation. Alan Greenspan already made this mistake in the early 2000’s, and now Ben Bernanke is about to repeat history. The three key factors that need to be considered regarding the FED’s decision are as follows: 1) impact on the U.S. dollar, 2) increased concerns foreign investors have on America’s economic policy and 3) potential for hyperinflation.

The dollar’s rebound will come to a screeching halt…

In order for the FED to take this action, the printing presses will have to be fired up. Between the extra money supply and the country’s astronomical budget deficit, investors will begin to sell off the dollar. In just one day, the trade-weighted dollar index fell 2.7% - its biggest one-day drop since 1971. In addition, the dollar fell yesterday by the most in nine years against the Euro as well as falling against the Japanese Yen. (3) A weak dollar means weaker purchasing power for Americans, which cannot come at a worse time. The biggest sting comes with inelastic goods such as gasoline. It’s quite possible that Americans could be feeling some pain at the gas pump once again in the near future.

The rest of the world is not fooled by the FED’s gimmick…

America’s foreign investors and largest bondholders such as China and the United Kingdom will see the action taken by the FED as a confidence deflator. The only country that is not concerned about reckless spending is America! It is unwise to ignore the concerns of our foreign investors especially when their capital is so desperately needed – now more than ever before.

Inflation, inflation, inflation…

It seems that none of my columns can be published without mentioning the “I” word. I’ll continue to hammer on this as long as the wild spending spree in Washington continues. The 1970’s was a wonderful decade for music. People still enjoy the music and relive the days dancing the night away in “retro” bars. People may want to resurrect the disco ball, but stagflation need not make a comeback! The FED is concerned about deflation when it should be concerned about inflation. The action taken by the FED shows that it has no confidence in a quick economic recovery. If that is the case, folks not old enough to remember high prices and double digit unemployment of the 1970’s would prefer not to experience such trauma.

It would be grand if our federal officials were not so historically challenged so maybe just once, history would not have to repeat itself…

(1) http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX: DJI

(2) http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B7DB91E8A-FD87-4BD4-9296-3C6EA402C920%7D&siteid=rss

(3) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=USD

I’m going to be as pithy as possible. In 16 days, on the 31st of March, there is going to be a special election in New York’s 20th Congressional district to replace Congresswoman, Kirsten Gillibrand. The Republican candidate is Jim Tedisco. Tedisco led the charge against Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue New York State driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Right now, polls show Tedisco with a narrow lead over Democrat Steve Murphy, but that could change quickly with all the money the Obama machine is pouring into the contest. After all, at a time when the MSM is writing our party’s obituary, it would be quite an embarrassment for the Democrats to lose a seat they won just a matter of months ago. There is hope though. A group called The National Republican Trust PAC (GOPTrust) has mobilized an effort to put New York’s 20th district back in Republican hands.

From The National Republican Trust:

“The National Republican Trust is preparing hard-hitting television ads to make sure voters know this crucial contest is between conservative Republican Jim Tedisco and liberal Democrat Steve Murphy is on March 31. We urgently need your help to puts these hard-hitting commercials on the air.”

GOPTrust is an independent organization designed to help promote American values and support federal candidates for Congress, Senate and the Presidency who share those values. You can think of them as our own version of the left’s MoveOn.org. The National Republican Trust was instrumental in Senator Saxby Chambliss’ landslide runoff election victory in Georgia and they will be indispensible in the future as conservatives struggle against the literally unlimited funds of the Soros-Obama machine. We encourage all conservatives to support the GOPTrust in their efforts to take back New York’s 20th district. Here is the home page for those of you who would like to learn more about the group: http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/index.html. Here is the GOPTrust donation page: https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/tnrt/nat_repub_website/donate.aspx. I say we let it be known that the rumors of our demise were greatly exaggerated.

Seven weeks in to his presidency, Barack Obama has made a few mistakes. Declaring a spending bill with 8000 earmarks had none, nominating tax cheats to top level positions in his administration, and giving the Prime Minister of the UK a gift of25 Classic Hollywood Movies on DVD (about $20 at Wal-Mart). The Prime Minister had given him a pen box made of wood from a British anti-slavery ship. Oops, someone's people didn't get in contact with someone else's people.

Like any politician, our new President will have an assortment of gaffes during his presidency. God knows President Bush had his share, from his mispronunciation of words to his strange ad-lib phrases (the OBGYN one being the strangest of all) to the few times his lost his stage direction. These things happen to every president and every president has been demonized, in part, based upon the perceived image people have of them. I think presidents should be evaluated upon their actions and inactions, not their sound bite or looped news clip played over and over in comedy shows or YouTube, but one cannot ignore the great impact a president's public image has upon how people view and ultimately respond to a president and his policies.

With Presidents Reagan and George Walker Bush, it became the staple of the opposition to declare and portray these two as unintelligent, crass cowboys looking to start fights wherever they went: President Reagen because if his Hollywood background and President Bush because of his Texas background. Of course, the point of these portrayals was to make the presidents look bad in the eyes of people who already have bad views of cowboys and other such rugged individualist icons. The people pushing such views were usually, but not exclusively, city-based politicians, cosmopolitan writers and journalists, city-based peace activists and various other members of society who believe in a softer (dare I say, feminine) form of president. It was President Reagan's ever-stalwart belief in confronting the USSR with both military, covert and economic means that put fear into the Left that he may trigger a nuclear war with his “cowboy” antics. It was (and still is) President Bush's belief that we must preempt any immediate and dangerous existential threat since 9/11 proved that simple deterrence and legal hand-wringing could not protect us from people who care not for our walls or our laws. Bush's “dead or alive” comments, his liberal use of the word “evildoers” and the tough-guy talk like “bring it on” when commenting on the insurgents seemed abhorrent to the anti-rugged left. They could not abide by a president who did not have the airs of sophistication or articulation. They attempted, and in many cases succeed, in sinking Bush's popularity with smears against his intelligence.

President Obama has, for now, garnered a image of inexperience on the diplomatic front. After winning the election, Obama made a dozen or so calls to allied world leaders. One leader he missed was the leader of India[1]. Being a the world's most populous democracy, a nuclear power, a major trade partner and an close ally in Far East, I would think it deserved a phone call by the newly elected leader of the world's only superpower. The next big flub came only a few weeks ago with the returning of a British present: the bust of Winston Churchill [2]. The UK gave us the priceless gift after 9/11 and told us it was on loan as long as we wanted it. President Bush kept the bust in the Oval Office for his entire presidency as a reminder of resolve in the face of adversity. Obama decided he didn't want it. It wasn't exactly our President calling the Prime Minister a “limey bastard” or anything like that, but to conservatives and probably to a segment of the British population, it was a slight against the most loved British leader in the past 100 years. Coupled with his newest gaffe, Obama seems to have not grasped (or does not care for) the importance of symbolism in international politics.

Symbols are in every aspect of our lives. Our alphabet is just a collective of symbols we've imbued with meaning (in this case, sounds associated with speech). Numbers are symbols we associate measure amounts with. Flags, statutes, signs, animals, choreographed bill signings, military marches, and so on; they all are part of the unavoidable symbolic world we live in. Nations and international relations play heavily upon symbolic gestures. When our president goes to a conference in Asia, all the dignitaries are dressed in the local clothing. When our president meets with leaders of a religious group, he does his best to accommodate their customs. When we meet allies, we do our best to make them feel like friends. These gestures are very important in keeping the public image of a nation sanguine with the population of the country they are trying to court.

Yet, what cannot be forgotten is a nation's ability to project symbolic resolve and collective will. President Bush's impromptu speech at Ground Zero a few days after 9/11 in which he declared that “the whole world can hear you [the FDNY]” and that those who attacked us would “hear all of us soon” was an amazing symbol of American resolve and American vengeance against those who would kill our citizens. NATO's invocation of Article 5, which states that any attack on a NATO member is an attack on every NATO member, was a symbol of the Europe's friendship with the US. After 9/11, these acts, among others (like Congress singing God Bless America) worked to shore up the American citizenry's morale and have them believe their government would take swift justice to those who wronged us (even if behind the scenes there was infighting and confusion on what exactly to do).

President Obama's early gaffes, while minor and not affecting our foreign relations in any major way, are a bad omen when our president's major campaign promises was to “repair” our relations across the world. The President's supporters are claiming he's doing that, but I don't really see it. I watched him basically apologize to the Muslim world for George W. Bush and our wars of defense and liberation on Arab television in his first major interview as president.[3] That interview was quite symbolic. The positive or negative of it depends on who you ask. Secretary of State Clinton has been to China and to a meeting of NATO delegates. In her meeting with China, she publicly begged the Chinese to continue buying US bonds, something that doesn't make the US look all that sturdy economically (which affects our stock market).[4] With NATO, her (ironically) symbolic gift to the Russian delegate had the wrong translation of the word “reset”, as in reset the bad relations we've had with them. Instead, it said “overload” in Russian.[5] D'oh!

As I said before, these gaffes are minor, but they do leave a foul taste in the mouth of any American concerned with this nation creating a strong and leading image abroad. Our President wanted to mend ties with a world that didn't like us so much due to the image of our previous president. Unless Mr. Obama is purposely trying to make the United States out to be clumsy and addled-minded when it comes to other nations (as the Left accused the previous administration countless times), he needs to step up his focus on what exactly he and our diplomats are saying. We cannot afford any of these small mistakes to become a major row.

Out of all the things Mr. Obama promised during his run, the one thing I could agree with without any reservation is the mending of ties and the creation of new allies. This is one campaign promise I hope he keeps.

Sources:
1. http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence-military/16097-snub-india-obama-calls-hu-jintao.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/22/obama-returns-churchill-b_n_168919.html
3. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/27/65087.html
4. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton-china23-2009feb23,0,476137.story
5. http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2009/03/hillary-clinton-overloads-the-reset-button.html