Bring on 2010

Thank God for Bill Whittle and others like him. Enjoy…

New Era of Obama = Same Old Politics

As much as this characterizes our government, it is also becoming a universal sentiment of an entitled society.

Last week, President Obama lashed out at the financial institutions on Wall Street, again.

When the President of the United States flippantly refers to private citizens and their businesses as ‘fat cat bankers on Wall Street’ there is a problem with the president. When the public sees nothing wrong with this, there is a larger problem with the public itself.

The irony of this particular instance of class warfare populism exhibited by Barack Obama, is that as he delivers these remarks, we learn that government employees are much better paid than private workers. This may seem unrelated at first glance, however, the president petulantly proclaimed these so called ‘fat-cats’ the architects of our current recession, seemingly excusing the federal government of any and all responsibility in the matter. I won’t get into all the intricacies and arguments here, but suffice it to say this is a more than generous revision on the president’s part. So the age old question ‘cui bono?’ does not reflect well on those ‘fat cats’ in D.C. if we understand their role in the unraveling of our economy compared to their ever increasing compensation.

The cycle is a vicious yet convenient one: Support and push policies that loudly proclaim help for the helpless while quietly destroying the free market, which action directly creates more ‘helpless’ to promise more for while also creating the circumstances in which people will more likely cede power to ‘the only people’ who can fix things. Oh, and they need to be better compensated for all the extra work of saving us.

In fact, USA Today reported the following:

• On average, federal employees earned $71,206 per year, compared to $40,331 in the private sector.

• From December 2007 through June 2009, average federal employee salaries increased by 6.6 percent, while average private-sector salaries increased by 3.9 percent. Federal employees at the top of the pay scale received pay increases of 8.6 percent during that period.

• Federal employment is getting top-heavy. Federal employees making more than $100,000 increased from 14 percent to 19 percent of total government employment. In fact, the number of federal employees making more than $100,000 has more than doubled in less than two years. There are now more federal employees making more than $100,000 per year than $40,000 per year.

How could anyone say no to this face?

In light of these facts, how can any government employee begrudge any private citizen their salary? The fact is that these ‘fat cats’ on Wall Street are creating something. They are creating jobs and wealth for millions. The ‘fat cats’ in Washington are best known for creating hurdles for those that would create jobs and wealth.

Worse still, Obama warns that the ‘fat cats’ had better stop opposing government control of their pay and strict oversight of their day-to-day operations because, basically, they owe him for the bailout, which coincidentally many of them have paid back and others have been deterred from paying back.

Obama’s ignorance seems only matched and perhaps exceeded by his unmitigated arrogance. These comments were made just before the president was to meet with said ‘fat cats’ to persuade them to comply with his wishes.

Who says this guy isn’t smooth?

School Choice

Thank God for the folks over at Reason.TV . In their typically succint and clarifying manner they pose some simple yet devastating questions to the current administration specifically and leftist ideology at large. 

 

How can we explain this issue being politicized? Is there any conclusion to be drawn other than undue influence of, and pandering to, special interest groups like the NEA?

There are moral dilemmas involved as well as straightforward pragmatic implications. What message is sent to those who were involved in the program and experienced success only to have it taken away? More importantly, what message does it send to those who hoped to one day be part of the program? If it works and it’s cheaper why not do it?

This seems to be yet another example of the government squashing the success inherent in a competitive free market. Let’s treat it as an opportunity to reverse the tide. Talk to your family, friends and neighbors about it and then call your representatives, senators or even the White House.

Like the democrats always say, it’s for the children.

Fun with Pictures – The Obama Edition

I’ve been collecting images as I come across things that are particularly hilarious or indicative of a tide of propaganda. Here are some of the results for your enjoyment.

 

"Obama: I'm not a miracle-worker" Don't be so modest.

 I’m sure everyone has seen this one, but its suggestiveness is worth noting. My fear here is for those that think it more than mere opportunistic propaganda or coincidence.

 

 

Does Obama approve of vigilante justice?

Which comic was W. featured in? It’s an honest question. I can’t recall any, but am open to correction. Do you think being wrapped in a web and hung from a street light could be considered torture? What about the Green Goblin’s civil liberties?

 

 

Not at all racist.

This is just unfortunate. But how else should Germany have responded to that rousing speech Obama delivered to the world from their soil? And what’s the deal with the curry dip?

 

 

Action for action's sake

More Obama and Superfriends. Is this portending assassination attempts? Seriously? The news didn’t hype Obama’s being a target enough that it had to bleed into comic book fantasy?

 

 

This should be a mandatory accessory for the dashboard of all GM cars. The price is even Union ready.

 

Is there anything that says you’ve made it more than having your very own bobble-head? The pop-culture overtones are obvious, but the physical action indicating yes, yes, yes may be the most telling.

 

 

German engineering at its lowest.

This may be the most disturbing simply for the lack of effort. Is this doll not a child? It comes off as a hurried instance of white babe in black-face. The Germans should probably stick to cars, beer and fantasies of EU domination.

 

 

Change Everything

 

What the heck?!?!?

 

If you have any images worth sharing please email them to me. My email is listed on the ‘About’ page under maker.

Whither the Constitution?

With the recent revelation that Justice David Souter will be retiring from the Supreme Court, we are given an opportunity for debate on a matter of great importance. Is the Constitution of the United States of America relevant or even worth consulting? Surely, foundational respect and reverence for the Constitution is an apolitical issue, no? If only it were that simple.

Justice Souter

There are two sides to the debate over the Constitution and its legitamacy. On the one hand, there are those that believe that it is a ’living, breathing’ document that changes over time as cultural or societal norms shift or decay. On the other are those who say the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, this is another issue that is pretty clearly divided along ideological lines. Liberals, or more accurately, Statists tend to believe that as times change the Constitution must adapt and change as well. Conservatives trend towards acknowledging that the values and morals implicit in the Constitution are timeless and just as applicable today as they were at their writing. It seems that in valuing the Constitution we are faced with an ‘all or nothing’ decision. As Mark Levin writes in his new book Liberty and Tyranny ,

“If the Constitution’s meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framers’ intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.”

Is the Constitution a binding contract prescribing the standards for governing? Or, can the laws be changed based on trends or feelings indicative of different social ‘values’? Levin goes on to say,

“To say the Constitution is a ‘living and breathing document’ is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism. It is a mantra that gained purchase in the early twentieth century and is paraded around by the Statist as if to legitimate that which is illegitimate.”

Article V of the Constitution addresses the ways that changes can be made to the Constitution. There are but two, and only one has ever been used. The built-in difficulty of changing the Constitution speaks to the critical nature of its reliability. A constitution is made powerful by its permanence. If it is something easily altered or ‘reinterpreted ‘ it is a sand-like foundation at best.

The Constitution

 

 We can mostly agree that the founding of our country was a net good. And, judging by the 200 plus years since, it has birthed the greatest nation in history, both in might and benefit to the rest of the world. This success is owed entirely to the Constitution that has liberated, prospered and strengthened generations of people united under its protections, and to the principles and faith upon which it was founded.

 The question I submit for your consideration is this: If the Constitution is a malleable thing, upon what foundation is our country now built?

No, the fish was really this big….

Seriously, this big

It has been awhile since we have posted anything about Biden. Now that I think about it, has he really done anything since being elected? Either way, Joe’s one of a kind witti -ness was displayed last week.

Joe has a long history of gaffes, exaggerations and lies. His latest was an attack on Bush. “I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office,” Biden began, “‘Well, Joe,’ he said, ‘I’m a leader.’ And I said: ‘Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.’” According to White House staffers not only did this exchange never happen but Biden never even had a meeting with the President alone in the Oval office.

This is not the first time Biden has made Bush the goat in his whimsical fantasies. In 2006 Biden said the following on Real Time with Bill Maher “And the president will say things to me, and I’ll literally turn to the president, say: ‘Mr. President, how can you say that, knowing you don’t know the facts?’ And he’ll look at me and he’ll say – my word – he’ll look at me and he’ll say: ‘My instincts.’ He said: ‘I have good instincts.’ I said: ‘Mr. President, your instincts aren’t good enough.’”

Karl Rove gave this analysis “If you notice, all of these incidents have the same structure: Joe Biden courageously raises the impudent question; the president befuddles the answer; and Joe Biden drives home the dramatic response.”

I believe everyone has had exchanges with people where afterwards you think to yourself “I should have said X.” Unfortunately, Biden does not merely think he should have said X, but actually claims that he did say it.

The Right often accuses Obama of living in a dream world when it comes to his policies and whether they will succeed. It seems that poor Joe’s dream world is a bit more all-encompassing.

The Great Overreach

The problem with the Liberal philosophy is that it has an unquenchable thirst for power. When was the last time you heard a Modern Liberal, not to be confused with a Classical Liberal, call for a decrease in Government? I guess I should clarify, when have they asked for a decrease in Government outside of Law Enforcement and the Military? This should not be a surprise even to Liberals because the idea that the Government can solve any problem is at the core of their belief system. “Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources.” (Levin) A belief system with this at its heart will invariably lead to severe overreaches when they are in power. In only about two short months we have seen several examples of overreach.

Salaries

Barney Frank

On March 22nd, I wrote a piece about how the administration was seeking to control executive pay. I asked “How long until it’s not just executives anymore?” Well, unfortunately, it appears the answer was 2 days. On May 24th, the House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank passed the Pay For Performance Act of 2009. The act “is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.” It would give power to the Treasury department to determine if salaries are unreasonable.

Initially, this would be justified by only applying to companies that took bailout money. The problem I see is the problem of the slippery slope. Just look at where it has taken us so far, from just executives to all employees of bailout companies to…..what? I am reminded of Wickard v. Filburn, a case tried before the Supreme Court. In the 1940s (through today) the Federal Government has the ability to regulate interstate trade. In the Wickard ruling, the Supreme Court decided that it could regulate whether a private citizen could grow crops on his own land to use for his own consumption. How could the Court do this, you ask? Well, the Court said that by not participating in interstate trade the farmer affected interstate trade, thus opening him up to regulation. With rulings like this it doesn’t take much to imagine a situation where the Government declares it can control all salaries.

Running a Business

Giethner and Bernanke

Treasury Secretary Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke argued for the ability to “regulate and even take over financial goliaths whose collapse could imperil the entire economy.” Shockingly, Obama agreed. This is such a large overreach/power grab that I am surprised they had the audacity to ask for it. The Government has no right to take over companies like this. The only thing Geithner and Bernanke disagreed on was which of them should have the power. In another post I wrote I talked about how Obama and his team decided that they knew more about the auto industry than the board of GM. The Government cannot run a car company, a bank, a financial institution, a hospital (see Walter Reed) or a post office. A commenter asked what Wagoner (former CEO of GM) knew about running a car company. I ask what does the Government know about running an economy, specifically Geithner. You can learn all about how Geithner devastated the Indonesian Economy in the 90s. In a post on what caused the Tech Boom I briefly mentioned part of its cause was due to the Asian crisis. Guess who was behind it? “[B]y frightening the Chinese into building their vast $US2 trillion foreign reserves, Geithner was responsible for the build-up of tremendous imbalance in the world financial system. This imbalance, in turn, according to Keating, contributed to the global financial crisis which has since devastated the world economy.” Three cheers for Geithner!

Free Speech

Supreme Court

There have been many attacks on Free Speech in the last few years. Most of them are under the guise of fairness. McCain-Feingold was a blatant attack on free political speech. “Just last week, the Obama administration argued before the Supreme Court that it has no principled constitutional problem with banning books.” (Goldberg) The Supreme Court is hearing a case about a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. “Several justices asked the deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, if there would be any constitutional reason why the ban on documentaries and ads couldn’t be extended to books carrying similar messages. Stewart, speaking for a president who once taught constitutional law, said Congress can ban books “if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy” for a candidate and was supported, even slightly, with corporate money. Such advocacy, Stewart conceded, could amount to negatively mentioning a politician just once in a 500-page book put out by a mainstream publisher.” I guess these words just aren’t clear enough “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Before people start commenting on McCain being on the Right, give me a break. He has more in common with the Left than the Right, which is why he lost the election.)

These are just a few examples of the overreaches we have seen lately. Let’s hope the American people remember Liberty and wake up soon.

Earth Hour 60 Minutes Too Long

If you have had the pleasure of getting to have to sit through an esurance commercial recently, you are probably aware that Friday March 27th marked what was touted as ‘Earth Hour’.  This was nothing more than an hour of self-congratulatory, symbolic ‘abstinence’ from any use of electricity. The reason for this ‘world wide’ statement was to help curb the effects of man-made global warming. The following day snowstorms ravaged Texas, which begs the obvious question. Did the environmentalists overreach?

Of course the two had nothing to do with one another, as it is becoming increasingly evident, man-made carbon emissions had nothing to do with the warming trend we experienced in the 90s that has somehow gone missing of late. So why all the fuss? In the rush to save the world and ultimately ourselves, we seem to have forgotten to ask if it (or we) really needs saving.

Ignorance is bliss

Propaganda is easy. If anyone says otherwise, simply observe Michael Moore and his burgeoning protege Al Gore. What they lack in intelligence, charm or talent, they more than make up for in hubris and outright lies. If propaganda isn’t easy, how do we explain Al Gore’s Nobel Prize? But here lies the beauty and ease of Al’s and Michael’s positions. Make outlandish claims loudly enough, or with the right hint of serious monotone, and you don’t have to be right. Heck, you can even make a ‘scientific documentary’ that includes CGI laden clips from a disaster movie about the next ice age and be hailed as a seer, if your politics are correct. Where are the shouts of, ‘Proof, proof, give us proof!’ ? Or at the very least, ’Why is it so damn cold?’ How is it that CNN and other ‘serious’ news stations consult Michael Moore for his opinion on myriad topics despite his admission of being nothing more then a propagandist dressed as a documentarian? Why is no one held to account for the horrendous inaccuracy in the ‘evidence’ of melting ice caps? Why is ‘global warming’ a given when nothing definitive even suggests it?

Much to the contrary of Al’s seminal work, the answer to these questions seems to be that ‘global warming’ is a very convenient lie. A crowning achievement in the left’s long line of exaggerations, half-truths, contrivances and complete fabrications all in the name of empowering the government to control and protect us from ourselves.

I am not writing to say that this issue has been decided.  I am writing to say there is no issue to decide. It is as if we have all been convicted of a crime that no one can prove occurred (for a similar case read this by ender). Until a crime has been proved I refuse to stand trial and so should you.

Keep reading The Daily Switch in the weeks and months ahead for more on environmental fascism. We’ll delve into, not only the comical inanity of it all, but the very real dangers as well.

The Perils of Multiculturalism

Since we seem to be on a video kick here at The Daily Switch, I figured I’d talk about a video that I found last year and have watched several times since then.

In the video Mark Steyn says, “Multiculturalism is the slipperiest ‘ism’ because it doesn’t invite an argument.  It says there’s no point to having an argument.”  This philosophy is based on a “cult of ignorance.”  It is a belief system that ignores or disregards fact.  Steyn talks about the British Empire in the video, he says that it was a multicultural country in that it knew tons and tons about every culture.  It learned how to speak obscure languages that no one would ever hear outside of the small tribe where it originated.  The difference between that kind of multiculturalism and the one we see today is that it “objectively [knew which culture was] superior to the other.”  It had the ability to distinguish which culture was better and why.

Today, we are told that every culture is of equal value.  There is a reason America is the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  There is a reason that Britain spawned the world’s regional super powers.  The reason is that its culture, its core beliefs are in fact better than other cultures.  There is no question that a free economy brings prosperity to all in any country it is found.  There is no question that totalitarian governments enslave their “citizens.”  And yet, we are told we must give these backwards cultures equal footing when discussing values and beliefs.  For a more concrete example think about how the media and elites excuse the atrocities occurring in the Middle East.  We are talking about cultures that treat women like dogs, hunt down homosexuals and force everyone to follow the same religion.  Any objective observer can see that these cultures are not equal.  Steyn calls it a denial of reality, which it is.

The multiculturalist does not stop and cannot stop at this point.  Earlier this week Maker posted a video of Evan Sayet entitled “How Modern Liberals Think.”  In the speech, Sayet asks how the Modern Liberal ends up on the wrong side of every issue.   The reason this happens is because of moral relativism and its descendant multiculturalism.  In order to validate their view that every culture is equal, they must show that what thinking people view as wrong is actually the same as, or on the same level as, what is right.  Or they must take what is right and make it wrong.

The UN’s Human Rights Council is a perfect example.  In its first meeting in June of 2006, it chose not to condemn any of the following:“Darfur, there are three quarters of a million people beyond humanitarian reach, 2.5 million people displaced by the violence, 385,000 people in immediate risk of starvation, and over two million dead in 22 years of violence and deprivation. But it wasn’t genocide in Sudan that interested the Human Rights Council. Nor was it a billion Chinese without civil and political rights. Not 13 million women in Saudi Arabia whose lives depend on hiding from sight in public places and never being caught behind the wheel of an automobile. Not the dire human-rights conditions of 23 million people in North Korea. Not Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s incitement to genocide or his country’s legal system, which includes crucifixion, stoning and amputation.” (Bayefsky)

It chose to condemn Israel.  Israel, the only country in the region where a citizen can actually choose to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew.  Insane, right?  This is the sickness of multiculturalism.  In order to remain relevant; it must degrade what is good and promote what is wrong. Which in effect smears the black and white of truth into a gray sea of moral ambiguity.

Jaw Droppingly Amazing

Here is an amazing video of Daniel Hannan absolutely obliterating the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It’s a short clip, about 3 minutes long.

He lambastes the PM for his reckless spending and ignorant economic policy. Hannan perfectly describes the crisis Great Britain is in. He states that going into the economic recession, the UK is ranked last out of the G20 in readiness to weather the storm.

One of my favorite quotes from the speech, “You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it is nonsense. Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go off into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The Markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by 30%. And soon the voters too, will get their chance to say so. They can see what the Markets have already seen. That you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.”

Keep in mind that this was said to Brown’s face, not through the media. We need more politicians like Hannan in US and the rest of the world. Cut the charade, stop playing politics and get the country back on track.