Power versus Principles

Principles without power are good to have, but not that useful.  As the below clip explains, you have to fight for your principles and be willing to lose but at least fight.  That being said, power without principles I believe is much worse, and their argument to put power before principles is a dangerous slippery slope.

"Extremely rare" (for now)

As I mentioned regarding France, the center and the left will stop at nothing to hold or seize power. They are sometimes overt and sometime insidious about it but the leftward drift or occasional lurch is unabating. This is what we are up against as believers in common sense, and as in the case of the conservative party in the U.K., complacency or a leftward drift within, are no longer acceptable ways of dealing with it:

This is not America

 From back in February 2024, this judge is drunk on power, drunk on secrecy. This is not America.

Stuff you didn't know about Manchin's agenda

Peter Zeihan has disappointed me on politics but his understanding of geo-politics is typically spot on.  Here he answers a question about what Joe Manchin's machinations have delivered to his state. It's an interesting take.

Republicans missed their shot

 The lesson, next time you have power, USE IT!

Quick hit observations

Some quick observations this morning.

-When the unemployment rate for July is announced later this morning, I EXPECT an increase in the unemployment rate. Don't let them continue to clobber you with the unexpectedly adjective. If every increase had been that unexpected, we should fire the economists for repeated incompetence.

-RIM has been hit in Saudi Arabia with a ban on its messaging and other applications due to 'security concerns'. People can send messages without government being able to track it. So? How about banning burkas so people can't smuggle explosives? This is either political power concentration, economic protectionism or part of a local hysteria that has swept other countries in the Middle East. Perhaps all three.

-Is all that oil in the Gulf gone? Was Tony Hayward of BP right that it is a drop in the bucket? Or is it still a disaster and just hustled off the front pages to protect President Obama? Perhaps a bit of both.

Epiphany: The GM puzzle is coming together

More and more I find myself sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but if the puzzle pieces seem to fit together, it cannot simply be ignored. We are hit with thousands of bits of information every day. It's all too much to process, let alone analyze. It's just such circumstances that allow some obvious things to hide in plain site. However if you take the time to look at a few seemingly incongruous elements together, you can see a relationship that might actually exist, emerge into view.

The catalyst for me today was the announcement from GM that the new Chevy Volt scheduled for release next year is on track to get a whopping 230 mpg in the city. WOW! That is indeed a game changer.

The question is, why did they announce it now?

At an expected retail sales value of $40,000 it would seem to be a tough car to sell. But with a government cash for clunkers program, and gas prices back on the rise, it might still be worthwhile to a larger segment of the population than one would have expected months ago.

When the GM bailout occurred, the nickname Government Motors started making the rounds. President Obama claimed he didn't want to run GM, he wanted the government out of the car business. Many bloggers (myself included) and pundits called him out on that. He was lying, he was/is a socialist. The US federal government's ownership share could in fact go as high as 70% of the company. No doubt it will.

That's because Obama isn't interested in running GM. I think he's just interested in their profits. Think about it; a struggling company that despite itself is on the verge of coming out with a game-changing vehicle that needs government help. The government bails out the company, but unlike previous bailouts, under the guise of being a fiscal watchdog, presents a number of conditions - including a restructuring deadline. A deadline that ensures that GM will have to declare bankruptcy. The government then attempts to dictate the terms of that bankruptcy to it's advantage, and ensure it's ownership of the company. So far it could be about money, or power, or it could be about control, it could be about socialism, it sure doesn't seem like it's about helping the company out and getting paid back and moving on with governing where the government should be.

Then look at that Volt. It will get 4 times the gas mileage of the current leader fuel efficiency leader, Toyota's Prius. Look at that mountain of debt the government is racking up with reckless abandon. With 70% ownership comes a hefty share of GM's bottom line. That's a revenue stream that could be used to pay for, say, health care. And ditto for any of the banks the government has it's claws into. Obama doesn't care much about telling GM how to make cars, just like he doesn't really care about the environment - Cap and Trade is window dressing for more taxes. The President wants the money so that he can finance the government's ability to create and run programs. Programs that will do for health care what welfare did for people's actual welfare; not solve the problem but create a group that is dependent on the government for the meager scraps it's thrown. A class that will be beholden to that elite group of leaders in Congress, specifically the Democrats - who can scare up a conservative bogeyman who 'wants to take your benefits away'.

So it is about power, but GM is about the money that can help buy that power. Now that the government is in the car playing field, they wasted no time getting the cash for clunkers idea out of the gate. But why announce it now, I asked already? Because the cash for clinkers program is getting results. And now that they know that they have to make ensure that the demand doesn't burn itself out before next summer - the table has to still be set for the Volt in September 2010.

These things may be nothing more than coincidences, but they sure do fit together awfully nicely, don't they?

Listing President Obama's Priorties

If you had to take all of the Obama agenda items and prioritize them, how do you think they would look? A lot of your answer would depend on how you view the President's motivations, even just from the perspective of a conservative eye. If you view Obama as full of hubris and self-importance the list below would look quite different. However, I personally believe that there is a side of the President that is thinking bigger picture. I think he's thinking about winning a much larger victory and is willing to have a longer term window to achieve it.


And I don't think that is entirely at odds with the hubris view. If the President wants to affect a sea change, a dynamic shift in the political culture that moves the country unalterably to the left, does that not make him a historical President? Even more so than a mundane cap-and-trade victory? So by thinking really-big-picture he is in a sense believing he can transcend the smaller victories and have his name written as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. The Muhammad Ali of Presidents if you will.


With that in mind, here's my interpretation of the priorities of this President:


(1) Ensure a dynastic rule of the Democratic party that will last for decades. Obama wants power centralized and held in Democratic hands for years to come. Closer to home he wants power centralized in his hands for years to come - as many as he can get. This requires a myriad of efforts including - staying popular, staying in the limelight, demonizing the Republicans and/or conservatives at every turn, fudging the the census with ACORN and gerrymandering districting efforts, a re-visitation of the Fairness Doctrine, working more and more closely with the complicit press, assigning control of the positions of captains of industry to a hand-picked, loyal few, rewarding those loyal to him (like the UAW), and punishing those opposing him (like IGs), thereby buying or intimidating loyalty, redistributing wealth to loyal voting blocks in order to ensure loyalty. Pretty much every decision can be viewed in the light of whether or not it will help Democrats retain power.



(2) Federalized Health Care - this is sort of an offshoot of the first point oddly enough. It's not about saving money because there are smarter options around than having the government take over. It's not about providing coverage to the uncovered, because there are non-governmental ways to ensure that as well. Governmental solutions run counter to the American way. But not the Chicago way. It's all about control. Health Care is a means to control who gets what health care, and thereby help enforce loyalty. They want to put Republicans in a position to have to cut back on the unsustainable costs so they can point out to the newly coddled class that "the Republicans don't like you - and this proves it." Don't buy the straw man argument that they'll use to say conservatives say the government can't compete so why are they so worried about a market-based government provider. The truth is the government is supposed to be the referee so it can't be a player in the game too or the bias in it's own favor will naturally seep out into it's actions. Ultimately it's a takeover. and takeovers are all about power.


(3) Environmental Reform - whether it's a cap and trade system or a tax, this is about two things - generating government revenue, so they can redistribute wealth in any social engineering way they desire and about, once again - control. The government can push you to behave in certain ways if they control the taxes and rules governing that behavior. They can subsidize behavior they like and penalize behavior they don't like. They can do it at a corporate level too if they want to do so. Are they really that interested in the environment? Are they really convinced Al Gore is right and thousands of dissenting scientists are out-to-lunch? Maybe. It doesn't matter - that's not the Obama motivation. The environmental movement has become the home of many socialists and communists and it's all about more government control.


(4) Hubris-related accomplishments - getting peace in the middle east (at any cost, including abandoning allies like Israel and embracing tyrants like the regime in Iran and ignoring those that won't play ball like North Korea), maybe getting an airport or a highway or 500 schools named after himself, dramatically scaling back on the military which will raise his star with the left quite far. Heck, why not cure cancer? All of these accomplishments would boost his own image. It may or may not be a top priority, but it would seem like it's still part of his thought process.

(5) Bankrupting the economy. This one I'm not sure about. In a perverse way, bankrupting the nation could be an act of hubris. He'd certainly be remembered for it. Conversely, perhaps the President sees the spending as an absolutely essential step to consolidating power. If that's the case, the money is inconsequential, it's a by-product of trying to achieve his objective. Or perhaps he is so far to the left, he secretly wants to see America fail so that he can have it re-built in a more socialist way. If the government collapses and the creditors are left holding the bag, when you start up the People's Republic of America, where can the bill collectors go? Nowhere. And who in the US will complain when they are told they're not going to be held responsible for the debt their government incurred? In fact, they'll argue, no one will be held responsible - voila - we've provided you with a 70 year free lunch (dating back to the Roosevelt days) and all you have to do is swallow this giant red pill.


What fits best with my previous assumptions is that it's all about obtaining and maintaining power. Those of you still enthralled by Obama have to wake up to the reality that the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world for one reason and one reason only: FREEDOM. Capitalism works because it is founded on freedom. Innovation is inspired by freedom. The pursuit of happiness is an option because of freedom. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are not 'negative rights' they are the most positive rights imaginable. Whether I have the Obama motivations right or not you've got to consider this; the actions entailed in the above points are all actions that will lessen your freedom. The question you have to ask yourself is this; Is that what you really want?

Attacking Sara Palin

I've tried to ignore the anti-Palin parade on the left. In some quarters it's infected the right. Still I've tried to ignore it. What Governor Palin does between now and 2012 will go a long way towards determining whether she was a conservative flash in the pan, or the next Ronald Reagan or something in between.

I like Governor Palin. Not because she is a plain-spoken average American and that makes her homey and relatable. I like Governor Palin because she is a red meat conservative. She embodies a lot of what the Republican party has let slip from it's grasp in the last decade. Not every position earns her a conservative 'gold star' but she certainly was spot on with respect to many issues;

• Anti-taxpayer-funded-Wall-Street-bailout
• In favor of energy independence
• Pro-life
• Firm believer in free market capitalism
• Tough views on crime
• Committed to providing strong education, including morals.
• Worked for government reform
• Pro free trade
• Lifelong NRA member
• Health care must be market-and business-driven.
• Supports a path to citizenship, but no amnesty for illegals.
• Favors tax cuts

That looks like a pretty solid batch of ideals. Not a lot on foreign policy in there, where she's deemed weaker by many. But hopefully conservatives do not fall prey to the left's groupthink on Sarah Palin - that she's a lightweight. That would be underestimating her ability, and playing into their hand of trying to discredit on of the GOP's star-power candidates.

And that's why I've stopped ignoring the Palin-bashing. She is not a perfect candidate. She may or may not be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. But she is smarter, more qualified and better able to lead than she is being given credit for in the MSM and to a lesser degree in some snobby conservative circles. My thoughts here are that the GOP and conservatives should not villify their own. There's plenty of liberals to get riled over, and we should focus our arrows at their short-comings, not our own.

Let's give Governor Palin a chance to prove herself and prep herself for her future candidacies and reserve judgement. In fact, let's reflect on the positive qualities she possesses, including her ability to connect and make a positive impression on the American public (absent the hyperbolic disdain she has and will continue to receive from the MSM).

Clean Coal, Solar and/or Drill Baby Drill?

Here's the argument for the government to subsidize clean coal and solar power.



While he makes a good case for both coal and solar power, he inadvertently makes an even better case for drilling here, now (by proxy). Though he doesn't mention it, the difference with drilling is that the government doesn't need to spend or subsidize for drilling oil or natural gas. In fact it generates corporate tax revenue and/or licensing rights levies for states or federally (to some possible extent) and from Income Tax on the jobs that are created. And eventually, it generates sales tax revenue as well. And in fact, since the window of return is shorter than for clean coal or (ugh!) solar, why not 'Drill baby, drill!'? Or at least try the 'all of the above' approach espoused by John McCain .

Any domestic energy production helps the balance of trade deficit, helps federal budgetary revenues, creates jobs and enhances national security. How could anyone be against that? Oh, yeah, I forgot about the environmentalist/socialist crowd who don't care if we are overrun by a hostile despotic power, as long as the owls are safe and global warming, er, climate change is fought with all our combined might...