The Next US Supreme Court Justice

It appears that the U.S. Supreme Court will add in a new face some time this year. David Souter, George H. Bush appointee, has decided to retire at the end of the current court term.[1] Although appointed by Bush Sr., Souter often sided with the liberal side of the court so the balance of the court will not change (though Obama's appointee will mostly likely lean the liberal side more often than Souter). Now the search is on for someone to replace him.

So who will Obama pick? Some people have been mentioned but let's review what Obama has said concerning the criteria that he'll use when deciding who he'll nominate.

While on the campaign trail, President Obama said the following concerning his potential nominee:

• 2008 in Ohio:

"I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,"[2].

• 2008 in New York (debate):

"I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through,"

• 2007

"And then there's another vision of the court that says that the courts are the refuge of the powerless," he said. "Because oftentimes they can lose in the democratic back and forth. They may be locked out and prevented from fully participating in the democratic process.... And we need somebody who's got the heart -- the empathy -- to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges."

A judge that's empathetic and understands what it's like to be poor or black or gay or old?? I think Che Guevara would have been an excellent pick for the President. Wait, actually no he wouldn't have. Che wasn't fond of homosexuals.[3]

I wonder if President Obama wants his nominee to be empathetic toward the unborn child. Perhaps when he said "have a sense of what real-world folks are going through" that he meant gun owners. What about small business owners? Wealthy people? I mean, they are in the minority, especially these days. Or Is empathy only reserved for minorities, like myself but excluding rich folks, who are "oppressed" by the majority? Yes, that must be it then.

Arlen Specter, fresh off his recent converstion over to the Democratic Party, put in his valuable 2 cents by stating that he wanted Obama to look beyond judicial credentials and pick a statesman or stateswoman[4]. How on earth did Specter get elected so many times? Pennsylvanians are suspect, at best, when it comes to their politics (Rick Santorum and John Murtha to boot).

Anyway, here are some real people that Obama might pick (rumored):

• Sonia Sotomayor

• Elena Kagan

• Diane Wood

I sense a theme here. I'm sure I will be wonderfully disappointed with his selection.

White House Bonehead of the Week...

Let’s face it, any blunders committed by the current Obama Administration necessitates a scapegoat. After all, why should the Commander in Chief have to take the fall for what happens under his watch? Not that this is, or will be, the last Presidential Administration to make use of the time honored tradition of the “White House Scapegoat.” In fact, plenty of Administrations before this one ( both Republican and Democrat a like), have saved face at one time or another by pinning a bonehead move on a low level peon. That said, this week’s “White House Bonehead of the Week Award” goes to no other than Louis Caldera.

Caldera, the Director of the White House Military Office, was the brilliant mind beyond the infamous Air Force One buzzing of lower Manhattan last Monday. The stunt, a photo opportunity gone horribly wrong, sent thousands of New Yorker into a terror-filled panic. As the plane, with its F-16 escort, flew at low altitude around ground zero, New Yorkers streamed out of buildings thinking they were about to witness another 9/11 attack on the city.

As for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, he was never told what the White House was up to, leaving him to angrily call the stunt "ill-conceived" and a "waste of taxpayers' money."

Naturally, this type of grade-A stupidity had to be pin on somebody. That somebody was not to be White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who did his best to dodge all questions about the incident. Gibbs went as far as saying that he had no other information about the flyover than what was already in the news, adding the hilarious line, "You might be surprised to know I don't know every movement of Air Force One or what happens to it."

Though a close runner up for Bonehead of the Week, Gibbs managed to dodge the issue long enough for Caldera to step up and issue the following statement:

"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that
decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

What’s that? No, not quite Obama issuing an apology for “American arrogance” world wide, is it? Heck, it’s not even an acknowledgement of stupidity. In the end, it’s merely a low level “I am sorry for the confusion” statement.

I am guessing there was no way to pin this one on the Bush Administration? Still it would have been refreshing to have had an Administration take real responsibility for a blunder, but that would be “hoping” for some real “change.”

Rejoice! Arlen Specter leaves the GOP.

Arlen Specter, beloved GOP senator from Pennsylvania, announced today that he be leaving the Republican Party and join the Democratic Party. I must say that it's about time.

Mr. Specter said in a statement that he released today that:

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right," Specter said in a statement released this morning. "Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."[1]

The GOP has moved far to the right?



Let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Specter's real reason for moving to the Democratic side is due to the GOP moving to the right since the Reagan Era. Which issues, that he disagrees with, could have possible moved to the right since that time.

He voted for the bailouts[1], Bush's prescription drug bill[2], The Patriot Act[3], and Obama's Omnibus Bill[[4]. Perhaps the Republicans just aren't big enough spenders for Mr. Specter.

The real reason for his decision to leave the GOP has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with being re-elected. Yes, Arlen left because he fear being unemployed. Specter, in 2004, narrowly defeated Pat Toomey in the Republican primary. Specter was expected to lose to Toomey this time around. In fact, a recent poll showed that Toomey was up by double digits on Specter[5]. However, some experts believe that the switch to a new party will most likely guarantee Specter the election in 2010. Clay Richards, assistant director for the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said that he "just can't see anything but a landslide for Specter at this point". Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics, agrees,"I think [Specter's] prospects for reelection are very good,"[6] Oh yeah, Specter switched parties for ideological reasons.

This kind of switch, to extend one's employment, is one reason why I am in favor of term limits. Arlen has been in the senate long enough and I think it's time he does this country a favor and retire. I, for one, am glad that the Arlen Specter types are leaving the Republican Party. The less fiscally liberal types that are in the GOP the better, in my humble opinion.

Specter will most likely continue to blame the social "ultra conservative" or religious part of the party (because frankly he cannot possibly mean that he is a fiscal conservative) as the election grows closer. The President even said that he will raise money and campaign for the swine[7].

I think Specter might have found his soul mate; well only if it manages to get him elected.

Global Warming to blame for the Swine Flu?

Global Warming Climate Change is the new Al-Qaeda

If there is a terrorist attack somewhere in the world chances are that Al-Qaeda will get the initial blame, correctly or incorrectly. During the mid 70's Illich Ramriez Sanchez, otherwise known as 'Carlos the Jackal', was also blamed for nearly all attacks. Now we have a new villain to blame.

It was just a matter of time until someone, somewhere would try to link the swine flu to global warming climate change. Jean Williams, who writes for the Seattle examiner, opines in a article titled "Could deadly swine flu be caused by climate change or polluted water" whether climate change could possibly be the cause of this flu. Ms. Williams says that Steven Sanderson, head of the Wildlife Conservation Society, believes this to be true.

“..even minor (climate) disturbances can have far reaching consequences on diseases”. He added, “The term ‘climate change’ conjures images of melting ice caps and rising sea levels that threaten coastal cities and nations, but just as important is how increasing temperatures and fluctuating precipitation levels will change the distribution of dangerous pathogens”.

Sounds like Al-Qaeda to me.

In recent years climate change has been blamed (or people tried to link it to) , directly or indirectly, on the following things.

• US Airways Flight 1574 (the one that crash landed in the Hudson).

“There is evidence both in North America and in Europe that birds are shifting their territories,” said Joel L. Cracraft, curator in charge of the department of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History. “And that has been correlated with global warming.”[1]

• The Death of the Loch Ness Monster

“Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.”[2]

• The Rising Cost of Beer

“Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Malting barley is a key ingredient of beer.

'It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up,' Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention.”[3]

• Increase of Kidney Stone cases

“Researchers at the University of Texas say global warming will trigger a dramatic rise in kidney stones in the United States.

According to their study, warming temperatures over the next 42 years will cause a 30-per-cent jump in cases of nephrolithiasis, or kidney stone disease, in some regions of the country.”[4]

• Thin Whales

“The team says its study offers the first evidence that global warming could be harming whales, because it restricts their food supplies. And they say the discovery could only have been made by killing the animals.”[5]

• Increase in Shark Attacks

“Another contributory factor to the location of shark attacks could be global warming and rising sea temperatures. 'You'll find that some species will begin to appear in places they didn't in the past with some regularity,' he said.”[6]

• Black Hawk Down (yes, as in what happened in Somalia)

“In Somalia back in 1993, climate change, according to 11 three- and four-star generals, resulted in a drought which led to famine,” said Markey (D-Mass).

“That famine translated to international aid we sent in to Somalia, which then led to the U.S. having to send in forces to separate all the groups that were fighting over the aid, which led to Black Hawk Down. There was this scene where we have all of our American troops under fire because they have been put into the middle of this terrible situation,” he added.[7]

• The Death of Costa Rican Frogs

"It is believed climate change is raising temperatures allowing a skin fungus to enter the places where the amphibians resided," he [Alvaro Herrero, a biologist with Costa Rica's National Biodiversity Institute] said."[8]


There is much more, simply do a Google search on it.

This thing is starting to remind me of the South Park episode called Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow.

"We didn't listen!!!"

Swine Flu goes International...Can the US deal?

Having an engineering project to oversee in San Luis Potosi Mexico, I have a vested interest in the latest breakout of the Swine Flu. My problem is that San Luis or SLP for short, is in the middle of an outbreak of the killer bug, and the city has up their health warning to level 4, as the death total for the virus surpassed the 150 person mark. In conjunction, my company has suspended all travel to the country while the world gets a handle on the issue.

Yet, a much bigger problem looms in the horizon as the epidemic has now reached out past our southern border, and made its way onto the International scene. It is now reported that the resilient little bug has found its way into the United States, Canada, Britain the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions, sending the World Health Organization (WHO) scrambling for a containment and eradication plan.

A spokesman for WHO has confirmed that in the US, high school students returning from a spring break trip to Mexico have contracted and spread the virus. WHO also confirmed that an additional case of the flu has been reported in the US. With the latest reports showing an outbreak of the virus in at least six different countries, the World Health Organization decided to raise its alert level to Phase 4.

While deaths attributed to the flu are not new in this country, there is a major concern that humans may not have natural immunities to fight off this latest strain that is a combination of pig, bird and human viruses.

In a worse case scenario , the US government has estimate that a large scale pandemic would infect over 90 million Americans, with nearly 10 million requiring some form of hospitalization. Such an outbreak would cause a problem in hospitals around the country, some of which are not equipped to handle the expected influx of patients.

Extending outside the health care industries, the pandemic would cause the closing of schools to prevent the further spreading of the illness. The US Economy could also be affected, as business would have to deal with a temporary shortage of labor, as well as restrictions on travel and shipping. It has been estimated that a severe pandemic could shrink U.S. output by about 5.5 percent.

Scrambling to find answers, the Obama Administration, in a statement made by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “the U.S. is preparing as if the swine flu outbreak were a full pandemic.”

Michael Leavitt, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has added, "We have a playbook that was developed and is being followed," though "It's a substantially better picture than what we faced three years ago." Leavitt is the man who oversaw pandemic planning for President George W. Bush during the Bird Flu crisis of 2005.

It remains to be seen how the current Administration is able respond and contained this latest International crisis now threatening the US.

Hayek's Tool Bag of the Week: Al Gore

It is with great pleasure to announce that Al Gore, 45th Vice President of the United States, as the winner of my Tool Bag of the Week award.

Mr. Gore paid Washington and Congress a visit this week in order to testify before the House Energy and Commerce committee concerning the "Cap and Trade", also known as The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The former Vice President completely supports this bill and called it "one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress...I believe this legislation has the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960's and the Marshall Plan of the late 1940's"[1]. Here are some other highlights from this testimony. Here's the transcript.

• "We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families."

• "Passage of this legislation will restore America's leadership of the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis. It is truly a moral imperative."

• "The United States is the world's leader. We are the only nation in the world that can. Once we find the moral courage to take on this issue, the rest of the world will come along. Now is the time to act before the world gathers in Copenhagen this December to solve the crisis. Not next year, this year."

I must admit that I personally believe that Mr. Gore is one of the smartest people on this planet and I truly mean that. The man is making a wonderful living ringing the bell of alarm concerning "Climate Change". My problem with Al is that he's going about this situation in a classic Tool bag kind of way. Let me example further.

First, the man paints those that disagree with him as "deniers". Of course the word deniers conjures up thoughts about Holocaust deniers. He also managed to tie the Civil Rights Legislation with this bill. I wonder why. Mr. Gore says that there is no debate or discussion concerning the causes of "Climate Change" when he proclaimed that "the debate is over". It's a perfect storm really. If you are on the other side you are equal to an anti-semitic, racist, who believes that the earth is flat, and that you probably molest your children (Ok, that last part wasn't Al Gore but just another lover of the planet).

Second, Mr. Gore is constantly saying that oil companies are funding researchers, researchers that dare to question the other side in any form, in order to confuse the public about man induced climate change (or warming, or what it's called this week). However, "man is killing the planet" side of the argument are funded by environmental lobbyists or are representing Clean/Green energy companies that stand to make a pretty penny if legislation like this pass.

How is that different from the oil companies?

I'm sorry, I lost my head there for a second. Mr Gore and his environmental comrades are just heroic figures trying to save lives. They just happen to be making a lot of money in the process. Oil companies are raping the earth and should be shot.

I hear you, Big Al. I feel like I am having a Bill Murray moment right now.

Anyway, you're still a giant Tool Bag, Al; albeit a very wealthy one.

By the way, check out the exchange between Prince Al and congresswoman Blackburn (R) from Tennessee. Albert is in classic form, smug look and sighs included.

5 things I hate about the Republican Party

My parents are Cuban and migrated to this country in the early 70's for political reasons. My father is a staunch anti-communist, and a die-hard member of the Republican. I have been a member of the Republican party since 1992 (I voted for Clinton that year), but I've been seriously contemplating leaving the party. The following 5 reasons are most to blame for my disgruntlement towards the GOP.

(The following list is in no particular order).

1. The George W. Bush Era:

The Republican Party has certainly changed since the Barry Goldwater/Reagan era, and President George Walker Bush will forever be the face of that change. His era of rule featured the following gems: TARP, Increased federal spending [1], Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme court, failure to privatize social security, and a host of other hits. And no, Iraq, Gitmo, and "torture" is not on my list. My disdain for the presidency of George W. Bush is mainly due to his utter contempt toward fiscal conservatism, and his adherence to collective policies toward the end of his administration .

2. Arlen Specter:

My contempt for the tool that is Arlen Specter could not possibly grow any bigger. The senator from Pennsylvania has a long history of upsetting conservatives within the GOP on such topics as: Abortion, The Clinton Impeachment, and some health care measures [2]. While I do disagree with his stance on abortion, my disdain for Mr. RINO himself are due to the following reasons:

• His 46 % rating (lifetime) by the AFL-CIO. His rating was 64 % in 2008 [3]

• Mr. Specter is a fan of bailouts. He voted 'Yes' on The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Obama's bailout), voted 'Yes' on The Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act of 2008, and voted 'Yes on The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Bush's bailout).

Need some the tax payers money? Specter is your guy, the louse.

3.Talk Radio Personalities:

Talk radio is a major influence within the conservative movement (shocking, I know). Although such "conservative" radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin are not directly affiliated with the GOP, they are as much a part of it as Moveon.org, Dailykos.com, and Air America are apart of the Democratic Party. It's a new age in politics.

Yes, my political interests are within the same spectrum as the above mentioned personalities, however my anger with them comes from their lack of venom, and fury they show the GOP (although less with Beck than the others). They do criticize the GOP from time to time but it is tame compared to how they speak of the Democratic Party. These personalities should take note of how Michael Savage does things. Mr. Savage has called congressional Republicans "gangsters", and even called President Bush "a fiscal socialist".

I may disagree with some of Michael Savage's stance on certain issues, but no one can call him a shrill for the Republican Party. Can the same be said for Hannity or Limbaugh?


4. "Cronyism, Nepotism, Rascalism":

Homer Stokes, a reform candidate running from governor of Mississippi in the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou", had a popular phrase that he would use to describe Pappy O'Daniel, the incumbent: "Four more years of cronyism! Nepotism! Rascalism! Of service to the interests". Yes, it does sound like Washington, doesn't it? The Republicans had their own issues with rascalism. Here's yet another list.


• Florida Congressman Mark Foley and his sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages with former pages[4].

• Jack Abramoff's, a former Republican lobbyist, scandal in where he was found "guilty of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials.[5]

• Randy "Duke" Cunningham, former congressman from California, plead guilty to bribery charges in 2005.[6]

And a host of others....

5. Embracing Keynesianism :

If there is anything that draws my ire these days it's the Keynesian school of economics. One of the tenets of Keynesianism is the state creates policies in order to stabilize a "bad business cycle"[7]. An obvious example of this was the wasting of over 700 billion by Bush with the first bailout.

Friedrich August von Hayek, Nobel Prize winner in economics in 1974 and a very influential figure in the Austrian School of economics was a great critic of Keynesianism. He stated that:

Keynesian policies to combat unemployment would inevitably cause inflation, and that to keep unemployment low, the central bank would have to increase the money supply faster and faster, causing inflation to get higher and higher. Hayek’s thought, which he expressed as early as 1958, is now accepted by mainstream economists[8]

Hayek also believed the Keynesian policies would lead leads to totalitarian abuses, due to the need for centralized planning. John Keynes, the creator of Keynesianism, surprisingly echoed that concern:

The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of ['The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money'], nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire."[9]

The fact that Republicans, specifically President Bush and his administration, would embrace such failed fiscally policies is the biggest crime, in my eyes, that they have committed against all people who believe in liberty, limited government, ,and free markets.

I wonder what Barry Goldwater would think about the current state of the GOP if he were alive today. Actually, I think that would put him back into his grave.

Holy TARP, Batman!! (and other banking goodness)

The awesome program that is TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) continues to work its wonders. According to the Wall Street Journal, "lending at the largest banks is actually down in February by 23%". Here's a graph breaking down each of the individual banks.




The main purpose of TARP was to make sure that credit continued to flow so that these banks could make loans out to customers. The Obama administration response to this data is to say that things would be much, much worse without the TARP program; which is something that would be difficult to prove (either way). However, for most people, the return on this 700 billion dollar project has been more than disappointing. What started off as a horrible idea by the Bush administration, has turned into Obama's nightmare. By the way, I haven't even mentioned the power grab ability that this TARP project has given to the government.

While we're on the subject of banking let's talk about the stress test. For those who have already forgotten, "stress tests seek to measure a bank's ability to continue lending under extreme economic conditions. To help shore up confidence in the banking sector, the government is expected to distinguish between banks that need more capital and those able to withstand a worse and prolonged economic downturn."

There has been a lot of concern over these stress tests in government and financial circles. Many of them, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, believe that many of these banks are under capitalized. A website called Turner Radio Network says that they have a gotten a copy of the stress test results that are not suppose to be made public until May 4th. This is the same website that actually got the leaked out report concerning Homeland Security targeting "right wing extremists", so they do seem to have some sort of track record of correct reporting. Anyway, the alleged results of this test is down right scary. I will post what they had on their site.

LEAKED! Bank Stress Test Results !

1) Of the top nineteen (19) banks in the nation, sixteen (16) are already technically insolvent. (Based upon the “alternative more adverse” scenario which had a 3.3 percent contraction of the U.S. Economy in 2009, accompanied by 8.9 percent unemployment, followed by 0.5 percent growth of the U.S. Economy but a 10.3 percent jobless in 2010.)

2) Of the 16 banks that are already technically insolvent, not even one can withstand any disruption of cash flow at all or any further deterioration in non-paying loans. (Without further government injections of cash)

3) If any two of the 16 insolvent banks go under, they will totally wipe out all remaining FDIC insurance funding.

4) Of the top 19 banks in the nation, the top five (5) largest banks are under capitalized so dangerously, there is serious doubt about their ability to continue as ongoing businesses.

5) Five large U.S. banks have credit exposure related to their derivatives trading that exceeds their capital, with four in particular - JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank America and Citibank - taking especially large risks.

6) Bank of America`s total credit exposure to derivatives was 179 percent of its risk-based capital; Citibank`s was 278 percent; JPMorgan Chase`s, 382 percent; and HSBC America`s, 550 percent. It gets even worse: Goldman Sachs began reporting as a commercial bank, revealing an alarming total credit exposure of 1,056 percent, or more than ten times its capital! (HSBC is NOT in the top 19 banks undergoing a stress test, but is mentioned in the report as an aside because of its risk capital exposure to derivatives)

7) Not only are there serious questions about whether or not JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs,Citibank, Wells Fargo, Sun Trust Bank, HSBC Bank USA, can continue in business, more than 1,800 regional and smaller institutions are at risk of failure despite government bailouts!

The debt crisis is much greater than the government has reported. The FDIC`s "Problem List" of troubled banks includes 252 institutions with assets of $159 billion. 1,816 banks and thrifts are at risk of failure, with total assets of $4.67 trillion, compared to 1,568 institutions, with $2.32 trillion in total assets in prior quarter.

Put bluntly, the entire US Banking System is in complete and total collapse.

Again, the results on these tests have not been made public but it could be a very, very ugly day on May 4th.

Ahamdinejad turns Racism Summit into Farce

Perhaps the recent attention that has been given to Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, and Cuba’s Fidel Castro, has now prompted Iran’s own member of the Axis of Evil, President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, to take center stage at the U.N. Racism Summit, and deliver the type of speech puts him back in the lead of “World Dictators we Love to Hate.”

Not that the Summit needed the little mad man from Iran opening his mouth again to spew anti-Semitic rhetoric, since a boycott by the US and other allied nations had already condemned the meeting to the status of “multi-national farce” for much the same fears.

Still, being true to what was expected of him, Ahmadinejad used the platform for attacks against Israel (as if Israel really needed a little more hate thrown their way). In his ever delusional manner, Ahamdinejad proceeded to pronounce Israel as a “cruel and repressive racist regime,” that is bent on mistreating Palestinians.

At least US President Obama had the good sense to avoid the whole thing. Kudos for Obama, for all the wrong actions I think he has taken during his first 100 days in office, at least he acted right on this one, calling the Summit in part a meeting that would be laced with “hypocritical and counterproductive" antagonism toward the Jewish state.

So repulsive was the Iranian Presidents speech that upon his attacks, several diplomats got up and left the hall while he spoke. Of course, in keeping with the current state of affairs in the Middle East, there were several other nations that applauded the speech, which is just as disturbing in its own right.

In the end, Ahamdinejad served to under score the limitations that the United Nations is faced with as a platform for world peace, or as a leading force in world politics. Not that we did not know that already, but it’s nice to be reminded every now and again that this overly self-important organization is not the answer to what the world needs; As for continuing the Summit against Racism, why bother?

No. not that racism is not an issue that should be properly addressed world wide, it’s just that as long as this platform continues to be used to propagate other agenda’s it will not achieve what it was set up to do…and isn’t that the real shame of letting a mad man like Ahamdinejad have his day in the sun? After all, why should this pint-size mad man address real racism around the globe when he has a political ax to grind?

Are Obama and Chavez BFF???

Yes, I am biased, and with good reason.

Having been born in a third rate Communist country, and having seen first hand what Socialism gone wrong looks like, color me skeptical that anything positive will come out of the Obama – Chavez handshake in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad this past week.

Nothing good for the US that is, for Chavez it was a once in a lifetime photo-op to try and legitimize his place on the “Who’s Who List” of third-world dictators. What more can you say about Chavez than that his idol and mentor is Cuba’s Fidel Castro?

Still, Obama is trying to stick to his guns, calling the meeting with the long-winded and narcissistic Venezuelan leader, at the Summit of the Americas, "an opportunity for frank dialogue on a range of issues, including critical issues of democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090419/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cb_obama_summit)

Sure, I would love to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on that, but honestly, I know better. Having lived in a Communist country, I know that there is no love lost for America in a country whose leader idolizes a monster like Castro.

So I have two choices, I can take the high road and say that we have a President who is naïve enough not to have figured out by now that no good can come out of making friends with Chavez, or I can have the ugly opinion that they are Socialist birds of a feather with more than a few points in common. An ugly thought to have of your President, sure, but didn’t we just recently wade knee deep into the nationalization of private businesses?

Isn’t that a page right out of the Socialist handbook that Chavez follows? Didn’t Castro too begin by nationalizing businesses the minute he took over the Island nation of Cuba? Hey, I’m just keeping it real. My ideas of “hope and change” goes no where near replacing the U.S. Constitution with the Communist Manifesto.

For his part, Chavez who wanted nothing to do with the last US Presidential Administration, goig as far as calling Obama “much smarter than the last president.” The problem is that it doesn’t really matter if the statement is true or false, what really matters is a US-hater like Hugo Chavez would not make that kind of statement if he did not have a hidden agenda to go along with it.

Obama, on the other hand, shakes off the critics by saying, "It's hard to believe we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States" by talking with Chavez. Sure okay, but lets count the times in which talking to a third-rate dictator has accomplished anything for US strategic interests? Anyone really believe that the Cuban missile crisis could have been avoided by a talk between Kennedy and Castro? Really? Or did it a take a hard stance and a blockade of the Island nation?

At least let us hope that Chavez has not added Obama to “his Five” or that he will be referring to the US President as his new BFF. Only time will tell though.

Susan Roesgen, of CNN, needs a lobotomy

I'm a believer that all media outlets display some form of bias. Of course some of these displays are more subtle than others. Unfortunately, sometimes a writer or reporter will go out of their way to make a statement. Let's take Susan Roesgen as the latest example of this kind of behavior.

Susan was sent to cover the "Tea Party" rally that took place in Chicago. Susan became the story when she lost her mind, or perhaps it was the affects of the lobotomy, when she antagonized the crowd with her mindless questions, constant interruptions, lunatic inferences, and overall bias approach to covering a story.

The best part of this entire story, and by best I mean the gheyest, is not in that video. Susan closed one of the segments by saying that she only saw 1 black person at this protest rally. Now, I wasn't there so I don't know how many black protesters there were. I honestly don't know why that's even relevant. It's certainly a wonderful thing that a reporter, especially one as dumb as Susan, would besmirch the character of all those who participated in this protest, and also infer that these participants are racists.

Of course, she wasn't the only one who thought such a thing. Susan now joins the ranks of such mental pygmies as Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann. Janeane went on record when she stated "This [The "Tea Party Rally"] is about hating a black man in the White House...That is nothing but a bunch of Tea Bagging rednecks". Mr. Olbermann agreed with her, which is not difficult to believe since they share a brain.

Susan, please do the world a favor and get a lobotomy. Oh, while you're at it, get your tubes tied as well, you sanctimonious windbag hack. Now that I think about it, perhaps all the normal thinking people of this country can donate money to the "Get Susan, Janeane, and Keith a lobotomy" fund. Actually, now that I think about it, could we even tell after the surgery is performed?

By the way, I found out some interesting news concerning Susan Roesgen. Mrs. Rosegen was apparently rejected not once but twice by Fox News. Perhaps this better explains her little rant against Fox News (which I do not watch)? Well, either way I'm all for helping her out. Never let it be said that a conservative does not care about their follow "man".

Class Warfare 101: The "Not A Dime" tax myth

During the 2008 US Presidential campaign, and after he was elected, President Obama repeated his mantra of “Your taxes won’t increase one dime” for families making less than $250,000 a year (or individuals making 200,000 or less). Obama was able to ride a populist wave against those that have, as well the negative sentiment against Republicans due to the Bush years, to win the presidency. However, examining the "Not A Dime" tax pledge shows that it was, at worst, a lie, or, at best, an insane promise.

I shall now go over some of the ways in which everyone's taxes will go up.

1. Cap and Trade tax

Cap and trade has been the subject of much debate, at least on the blogsphere. President Obama's Cap and Trade policy in his budget calls for over 650 billion in revenues from Cap and Trade (Although Jason Furman, deputy director of the National Economic Council, said that figure is actually much higher, anywhere between 1.3 to 2 trillion). Expect higher energy costs, and not to just the rich.

Here's a preview of what could come from Cap and Trade:

1. North Dakota: Utilities say cap-and-trade means higher rates

2. Louisiana: Obama's new energy tax hits Louisiana the hardest


2. Cigarette Tax

President Obama, in February of this year, signed into law a federal hike on cigarettes. This hike, a doubling of the tax, is expecting to help fund health care for children (You are your brother's keeper after all. Sorry Cain).

Oh yeah, this won't affect anyone making less than $250,000 a year though. Wait, no, I lied. Sorry.



3. Inflation:

Federal spending has not stopped since the majority of voters in this country elected Barack Obama (Thank you, Mr. Bush). In fact, spending has gotten much, much worse. When federal spending increases this much then inflation is always a real possible. Richard W. Rahn, Chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and a contributor at The Cato Institute, breaks down why a big inflation rate just might be around the corner:

"Return of Money Snatchers?"

An increase in government spending must be financed by increasing taxation, or increasing government borrowing, or creating more money by the central bank (the Federal Reserve), or all of the above. Increasing taxation or government borrowing does not directly increase inflation, but if the central bank creates new money faster than goods and services are increased, inflation will result.

Keep an eye on the printing press.


4. Federal Income Tax?:

Perhaps some of you are saying to yourself "Hayek, Obama was clearly talking about Federal Income tax during his campaign and when he addressed the congress". Well let's assume for a moment that he was just referring to Income Tax. An editorial titled "Who Pays Taxes" appeared in the Washington Post this month, a paper with a liberal reputation. The editorial stated the following:

President Obama has promised that taxes will not be increased for families making under $250,000. That is a promise that will probably have to be dropped down the road. There just isn't enough revenue to be found above that figure unless we create a system so lopsided that voters would always want more government spending because it would come at such a low price.

The commonly used political definition of "rich" has crept up in recent years from $100,000 to $250,000. Either that definition is going to have to change again, or we will have to come to terms with the fact that the middle class will have to face higher tax burdens, too

Nice to see that the label "rich" keeps getting lower, and lower, and....

“Border Czar”… Brand New Name, Same Old Face

Recently the violent war being waged between Mexico’s federal government and drug cartels along the US-Mexican border has been spilling over onto US soil.

To help combat this latest crisis, the Obama Administration has fallen back on an old idea with a new name, that idea is the creation of a “Border Czar” position within the Administration. Actually, the official name of the position will be the "DHS Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs," but “Border Czar” is much shorter and a lot catchier. Call it what you may, this is still old idea going by a new name, so much so, that the person picked to fill it has held the position before.

Enter Alan Bersin. Bersin, the man tapped to be the new Border Czar, once served as “the Attorney General’s Southwest Border Representative” during the Clinton Administration (1995-1998). At the time it was an appointment which may have had as much to do with his decades long friendship with the Clintons, than with real experience, since Bersin had spent most of his life practicing law in the private sector.

During the Clinton years, Bersin answered to Attorney General Janet Reno. Going forward, he will be answering to, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Though a novice his last go around, Bersin, will at least now have experience working with local and state officials, as well as international partners, in this latest chapter of the war on drugs.

Sure, Bersin will have other functions to include promoting commerce and trade, but who is kidding who, his focus will be on making our borders safe. Bersin will have an eager friend in Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Calderon has been waging a wide open battle on the drug cartels that currently infect his country, and which makes Mexico the launching pad for drug trafficked into the United States. During Calderon’s war of the cartels it has been estimated that over 10,600 people have been killed in the drug-related violence. The most recent out break of violence being a gun battle between the Mexican military and drug traffickers in the mountainous region of the Guerrero, that took the life of 15 perpetrators and a soldier this week. A week in which Obama will be visiting Mexico to discuss the ongoing border issues.

Yet it remains to be seen what impact, Bersin will have on this growing problem. His last tenure as Border Czar yielded a mix bag of results. Included in the results was his implementation of “Operation Gatekeeper,” a program that fortified the borders near San Diego in an effort to stop the flow of illegal crossings into the US. While some hailed the program, critics of Bersin point out that it only serve to move the problem further east. It is also interesting to note that during his first run as Border Czar, that the budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Services was more than doubled, leading to an increase in Border Patrol agents and border fencing to help combat the problem.

While only time will tell if the re-instatement of Bersin will have the desired effects on the war on drugs this time around, it may be safe to say that the position of “Border Czar” will be sticking around this time.

Boston Tea Party...2009 Style

Protest, rebellion, and grass roots movements are words you would most likely associate with the liberal left. More likely than not, the typical American protester is a long haired, kindred spirit of the 60's who may be found wearing a Che' Guevara t-shirt, while holding an anti-establishment sign.

But not today. Not this April 15th, otherwise known as Tax Day. Today, in hundreds of rallies across America, there was a different type of protester, one most American's would hardly recognize. Today, for the first time since I can remember, it was the American middle class, along with those who do not like the direction that the current Obama Administration is taking with taxes and spending, that finally decided to stand up and say they have had enough.

Though this latest entry into the protest arena didn't seem centrally organized, they certainly turned out in masses in "Tax Tea Parties" across America. Tea Parties meant to protest the alarming way in which today's US government is spending money.

Though many a member of the press would have you believe that this recent grass roots movement is nothing but the brain child of the Republican party or of at least a few conservative radio talk show hosts, most of today's protesters would strongly disagree. Their unison cry seem to cut across political party lines as if to say, "this is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is an American issue, and we as American's are tired of being ripped off by politicians. Politicians who mimicking days of old, are happy to taxes us without a single thought of really representing us!"

The movement will mostly likely be brushed aside by the White House and the Obama administration, who are too busy touting tax cuts for the American working class and the poor, to really pay attention, It may not even get the attention of the Republican Party, whose members are enveloped in their own search for direction and true leadership, to capitalize on this growing sentiment of "taxation without representation." But rest assure the event will not be lost on the American middle class, who has now tipped-toed clumsily but determined into this sphere of politics. So move over animal lovers, tree huggers, and retro child of the 60's, there is a new kid in town, and he is ready to stand tall and protest a different kind of injustice...run away government spending.

Pirates of Somalia (the Movie)

When I was five years old, I dreamed of being a Pirate, or an Engineer.

Sadly, becoming an Engineer won out, after all times had changed and technology had done away with the romantic notion that piracy on the high seas was a cool gig.
But sometimes old things are made new, and despite living in a world with GPS tracking, piracy has made a triumphant comeback. First, there was Keira Knightly, Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp making piracy on the silver screen look cool again in the Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy, and now the world faces a major out break of piracy along the Somalia coast line.

The latest in a long list of piracy was the recent attack on the US ship (Danish owned) Maersk Alabama. The Maersk Alabama was boarded by pirates on Wednesday (April 8) in a failed highjack attempt. Unfortunately the pirates ended up kidnapping the ship’s Captain Richard Phillips (of Underhill, VT). This incident has brought both the US Navy and the FBI into play, and currently a US Navy Destroyer has the pirates and the kidnapped captain in sight. Meanwhile, FBI negotiators have been brought in to try and resolve the issue, heightening the drama.

All of this however does not have the makings of a future Hollywood Blockbuster. After all, how do you glamorize this band of 21st century pirates? These pirates do not wear the colorful costumes of their predecessors, sail majestic wooden ships, or have the looks of a Keria Knightly or Johnny Depp. Instead, these are poor modern day imitations, made up of Somali clansman fisherman who dabble a bit in weapons trafficking one minute and a highjack or two the next. Nothing romantic there really, or at least, not romantic enough for a Hollywood hit.

No, sadly what we have here is strictly a made for TV movie at best, or maybe a badly funded Steven Seagal movie. In other words, this is a story not really worth telling, except for the fact that it’s becoming a thorn in the side of some pretty big nations with Russia, France, Spain, Japan and the US all having had ships attacked (list of ships attacked : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_attacked_by_Somali_pirates).
And aside from the nuisance its creating and costs involved in these attacks, Somali pirates are also affecting the delivery of humanitarian aid to hundreds of thousands of Somalis. Aid to Somali (up to 80%) after all comes mostly by sea, and fewer are the ships willing to take the risk these days. The Maersk Alabama was one of those ships.

And there in lies the rub as to why this story can never truly be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster, for what kind of pirate code (of the movie variety at least) would make an allowance for that type of real pain and suffering? That, and of course the story line does not befit colorful costumes, Hollywood starlets, or majestic wooden ships.

We <3 Castro!?!

I almost vomited my lunch today.

I almost vomited and it had little to do with anything I ate, and everything to do with the ridicules sound bytes I heard of US politicians gushing over a visit with Cuba's Fidel Castro.

To hear Representative Barbara Lee (Calif. Democrat) and her colleagues talk about Cuba and her visit with the 82 year old dictator, you would think that Cuba was an island paradise and Castro a wise paternal old man with nothing but love in his heart for America.

My problem with the whole thing? Well, for starters, I was born in Communist Cuba and lived there long enough to tell you Lee and her law maker friends are either Marxists (thinly veiled as Democrats) or people too naive to hold a seat in Congress. How else can you explain the feel good moment that came out of the meeting?

You want to know the real Castro, ask my uncle "Chino," who spent 18 years in a Cuban prison as a political dissident before former President Jimmy Carter helped get him released. Never mind the beatings he took in prison, ask him about the year he served in the nude, or the multiple years he spent in his underwear, and you will quickly come to realize that Guantanamo was not really the prison that needed to be shut down in Cuba. While you are at it, ask my father about Castro and his regime. My dad, who had the dubious honor of once playing baseball with the man, wound up in prison as well for trying to get a passport to come to America (through the Swiss embassy), back in the day where you still could. My dad's Defense Attorney told the judge to simply "throw the book at his client." Then there are the scores of people who died by firing squad in the early days of the post revolutionary period. Need I go on? The stories are endless...

Yet, here were three US law makers, praising Castro, his "humbled" home, his wife, and his desire of wanting to know more about Dr. Martin Luther King. Still, that wasn't the moment when my lunch wanted to make a hastily exit by way of mouth. No, that moment came a bit later when our politicians actually spoke of Castro's sincere offer to, "help President Obama in any way he can."

It's a sad day when we mistake a monster for a man.

Can the Nuclear Weapons Genie really be crammed back in the bottle?

I love irony in all shapes and form.

For example, I love the fact that President Obama chose a week in which North Korea tested a ballistic missile to stage a call to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

So while the Pyongyang government was busy violating (or allegedly violating) a 2006 Security Council resolution that barred North Korea from ballistic missile activity, Obama was stating (Sunday April 5) that all nations must strive together to rid the world of nuclear arms. What’s more, the US president went as far as saying that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one. Never mind the context in which they (the bombs) were used or the lives saved as a result, that is an argument for another day.

Though a nice thought for sure, such Idealistic rhetoric has little place in today’s world. After all, does Obama really think that mankind can cram the nuclear genie back in the bottle? Does he really believe that the likes of North Korea, Iran, or any third rate dictator on the horizon, would be willing to go along with such a notion? Better yet, does he think that a relatively powerless United Nation, who is not currently capable of handling even the simplest of warlords in Africa or even pirates off the coast of Somalia, can suddenly and effectively patrol the globe for dissenting nations?

Please! Give me the deterrent that was the Cold War any day over idealistic rhetoric turned meaningless by simple acts of defiance from two-bit dictators. At least you always knew where you stood during the Cold War. The world was basically black and white, with very little left for shades of gray. Back then, you either played puppet to the evil empire known as the Soviet Union, or you aligned yourself with the nation wearing the white hate, the United States of America. And having been born in Communist Cuba just a few years past the October Missile Crisis, I am at least qualified to offer an opinion on the subject. So yes, while you lived on the edge of your seat in those days, awaiting the likes of a nuclear holocaust, at least you always knew the good guys from the bad…and there was a balance of power, a balance that served as a deterrent to anyone wanting to play with weapons of mass destruction.

Now? Who knows where we stand now. Our current US president felt a need to apologize to the world for “American arrogance,” and in the same breath he naively stated that he would like for the nuclear genie to crawl safely back in the bottle and for the world to forget that such weapons exist.

At least we still have Kim Yong-il, North Korea’s mad little dictator, to remind us that the genie will never go quietly back into the bottle, and that ridding the world of a technology it already has (however malevolent )is nothing short of a naïve dream. So Kim, buddy, if you are listening, thanks for the dose of reality, and the touch of irony.