Add Napolitano to lunatics list

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary for Obama, was responsible for that silly report about the potential of veterans and single-issue voters to be recruited into right-wing extremism. She issued this hastily written document over objections by some of her advisors, and just before the Tea Parties, in an apparent attempt to intimidate conservative and other protesters. Then she made her infamous remarks about border security. She claimed falsely that the 9/11 terrorists got into the USA by crossing the Canadian border. She also implied falsely that there is no border security there. “The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.” She knew nothing about the subject, but pretended that she did.

She even said that whatever is being done on our southern border should also be done on our northern border. So either we stop building a border security fence along the Mexican border, or else we build one along the Canadian border. (All 5000 kilometers of it? Another Great Wall of China?) Canadians are seeing and hearing these things and are wondering just how bonkers she really is.

Then she went on CNN and said, falsely, "And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil."

Last year, as governor of Arizona, she tried to cut off Sheriff Joe Arpaio's funding for cracking down on illegal immigration in Maricopa County. Apparently Obama thought that this made her the perfect candidate for heading up Homeland Security.

I hereby add Janet Napolitano to my list as Democrat Lunatic #8.

Note: Earlier entries on my Dem Lunatics List were Nancy Pelosi, RFK Jr., Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, and of course Barack Obama.

Sorry for saving the world

One of the most frustrating things about the left is that they seem to have little use for history and even less regard for objective facts. Facts have little use when you just "know" -- in your gut and with every fiber of your being -- that you are right. Emotion trumps rationality every time. How well policies work is always less important than how they make you feel. Try telling a liberal, for example, that the evidence is clear that socialism in Europe has led to flat economic growth, falling birth rates and a 1970s-style economic and social malaise, and you will get a retort about social justice, the moral imperative of universal health care and the "progressive enlightenment" of European environmental policies. On the left, its better to be enlightened than it is to be rich, I guess. In an academic exercise, such tripe is irritating but tolerable. But when such denial of reality becomes the dominant force behind U.S. government policy -- on almost every issue of importance -- it is time to take notice.  I've written many times that Barack Obama lives in a "parallel universe" inhabited by lots of feel-good imagery, moral clarity and social justice. This is the universe of Europe, and his recent trip showed him quite at home among the hand-wringers and apologists who value symbolic gestures over concrete action.

On Sunday, for example, Obama spoke in Prague before a huge crowd and talked about setting the stage for nuclear disarmament -- a long-time moral imperative of the left -- even as North Korea was launching a test missile capable of delivering one of its newly-developed nuclear warheads as far as Tokyo. Mr. Obama responded to this clear violation of U.N. resolutions by referring it back to the U.N. for "further action" -- meaning more hand-wringing backed by timidity. In Obama's world, of course, the U.N. has a special moral authority, and is the arbiter of choice in this kind of crisis. Forget about its track record. The symbolism of China, Russia and France -- not to mention Syria, Gabon and Tahiti -- being in charge of global security is the kind of image that brings smiles to those who believe that the United States is "just another nation". You know who those people are, right? They are the ones now in charge of your government.

Image, as it turns out, is everything on the left. So you will forgive Obama for apologizing all over himself for American "transgressions". He goes to Turkey and apologizes in effect for America's war on terror -- saying that we "are not at war with Islam" -- when, in fact, we are at war with a significant, virulent strain of the religion. He apologizes for the excesses of American capitalism as the root of the current economic crisis, when in reality the engine of the American economy has lifted the standard of living across the world.

Obama is so sorry. In the ultimate irony, the most hubristic of presidents in modern times want to walk the globe with humility. He wants the world -- the same world that America, with its blood and treasure, has saved repeatedly from extremism of all kinds -- to know how badly we feel and how sorry we are. We feel badly for being exceptional, for leading and for fighting for human freedom.

We're sorry for saving the world. I guess next time, we'll leave you with Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein.

Henry Ford rolls over

Barack Obama has now unveiled the next iteration of America's new industrial policy, and if you own shares of Ford Motor Company you have every right to be angry. The bailout of GM and Chrysler and the intrusion of the White House on their corporate governance is now part of a program to pick the winners and losers in the U.S. auto industry. The President has made it clear that GM will not fail due to ineptitude, decrepitude or attitude, and the full faith and credit (such as it is) of the United States has now interceded to ensure it. The market no longer is working, because your government wants the UAW to have jobs, and is willing to use your tax dollars to fund them. And, of course, it wants American auto companies to build small "green" cars, and now that it controls the behemoth that is General Motors, you can bet that they will -- whether you want to buy them or not. And what of Ford Motor Company? The company that brought you the modern automobile industry has, of course, struggled over the past year in a tough market. But due to superior products and better management, Ford has managed to resist the need for tax payer dollars. In a true market, Ford would now be enjoying the fruits of its effort by gaining on GM and Chrysler -- both of which would now be in bankruptcy. The company's employees and shareholders would now be benefiting from the demise of two of its main competitors and be rewarded for its ability to negotiate the difficult waters of CAFE standards and tough credit by surviving in the short-run and and expanding in the long-run. A great American success story, right?

Only not in Obama's America -- where it is more important to reward vested interests than it is those who play by the rules and do a good job. Why should Ford be in a position of watching its two primary domestic competitors receive government aid that will make them leaner and more effective competitors? How is that fair? What is the incentive for doing a good job and not needing a hand out if it puts you at a strategic disadvantage? This is the ultimate moral hazard -- that it is actually better to fail than to succeed, because the government will be there to save you. No matter what.

And don't be mislead. The taxpayer is now on the hook for saving GM and Chrysler. And if you work at Ford or own Ford stock -- tough luck. You will have to sit back and watch as the government puts is ample resources into making your competitors stronger. You lose for winning. What an ironic place to be for the company that Henry Ford built -- the man that created the foundation for mass production, who developed the Model T and established the roots of the modern transportation industry. A man built to compete, with a legacy that is now threatened by the ultimate in non-competitive forces.

One thing you can be sure of: somewhere in his grave in the Ford Cemetery in Detroit, Henry Ford is rolling over.

It’s not too soon to judge Obama

It’s been just over two months since Barack Obama became President, and his popularity is beginning to slip. Those who so strongly backed the Illinois senator say it’s too soon to be critical while those who did not, believe that enough evidence is in to vindicate their negative appraisal. Above everything else, Obama wanted to be regarded as a "transformative" leader, symbolically and substantively. He spoke often last year of the need to rise above petty politics, the old conflicts, stale arguments, etc., beyond cynicism even, in the direction of a bipartisan and perhaps post-partisan politics that solves problems and makes sound investments in our nation’s future.

It is a mistake to credit the supposedly new attitude when the fact is that there are serious differences of opinion about how to deal with our domestic and international problems. The fact that Obama and other Democrats now control the executive and legislative branches may give them the votes to pass any bills and institute any policies they like, but does not prove that they should prevail. After all, Obama led many to believe that congressional Republicans would be consulted as changes were made.

Obama’s claim that he was rising above partisanship was merely a ploy to deflect attention from the seriousness of the partisan differences and to neutralize opposition, if not stigmatize it. Sure, "politics ain’t beanbag," but that bit of political wisdom is as much an indictment of Obama and his pretentious claims of nonpartisanship as it is of those who are surprised that Obama is a partisan after all.

As to the substance of Obama’s policies, there is no doubt that he is as opposed to constitutionalism, free markets and American exceptionalism as his election-year commitment to "transforming" America implied that he was. Naive people who either dismissed or fell for political rhetoric did not think about what transformation was really about. But the clues to that ambitious objective were in plain sight for those who paid attention.

Seeking to outdo even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Obama means to replace the markets that have been the source of our nation’s prosperity with government controls in every area in which he can make some sort of plausible case. Yet the credit crisis was brought on not by markets out of control but by the biggest lenders of them all, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, indulging into an orgy of bad loans and underwriting the efforts of private lenders in the process.

Yet Obama insists that our problems are due to corporate greed while facilitating continued borrowing by millions of unqualified home buyers, thereby ensuring more greed. That bogus claim underlay the audacious "stimulus package" of $780 billion that is way out of proportion to the problem and irrelevant to its solution. As White House aide Rahm Emmanuel said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so this administration has taken full advantage of the opportunity to waste money on a multiple trillion dollar scale for years.

And because both the price of oil and our dependence on foreign sources have risen so much in recent years, Obama proposes that we shift to subsidized alternatives such as solar, wind and geothermal that have yet to prove themselves as efficient and cheap as oil and natural gas, while ignoring nuclear power and preventing off-shore and continental drilling that would have supplied our needs long ago.

Similarly, Obama’s otherwise well-founded concern about the declining state of public education unfortunately leads him to call for vast expenditures of money and bigger salaries without regard to results. Education is too bureaucratic and union-dominated to deliver the goods, particularly when Obama proposes that everyone be educated until the first year of college.

And the biggest jewel in the Obama crown is government health care which, like energy and education, has already been made too expensive by government funding. When consumers are not responsible for the costs of the services sought, they have no incentive to control costs. Medicare and other government health programs have driven up costs because consumers have delegated their expenses to a third party.

We don’t have to wait for the full implementation of costly "reforms" to know that we made a mistake in electing Barack Obama. Like our founding fathers, we don’t have to wait until we are taxed of all our earnings or deprived of all our liberties to revolt. Like them, we can see this coming and take the necessary steps to avoid or reverse it. Fortunately, we still have free elections in which to make that choice.

Off with their heads!

One of the hallmarks of revolution -- particularly of the socialist variety -- is retribution. My previous posts about the Obama brand of "retributive justice" have focused on the systemic penalties that his policies have on those who produce wealth. They are punitive -- bot not focused on specific individuals. Until now, I was of a mind that not even in Obama's "new America" would we be stringing up capitalists to cries of "off with their heads". I guess I've underestimated the zeal of the anti-business zealots in the Congress. Last week the House voted 328-93 to slap a 90% tax -- ex post facto -- on the bonuses of anyone at every bank receiving $5 billion in TARP money who earns more than $250,000 a year. A draft Senate version is even broader. This tax applies to income earned last year and under legally binding employment contracts. It is confiscatory and punitive to the extreme, and targets many talented and innocent executives who have been working in good faith and have had nothing at all to do with the melt down at their companies.

Keep in mind that many of the banks who took TARP money did so under pressure from Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson, who famously gathered them into a meeting room at Treasury and twisted arms until they took Federal bail out funds whether they wanted them or not. Now the government apparently has these companies where it wants them: having forced them to take the money, they are now confiscating the wealth created by the individuals who run them. Its a classic nationalization power play worthy of Hugo Chavez. And it is patently un-American and unconstitutional.

The The Wall Street Journal has an important lead editorial on this today -- I won't repeat it here. But this is a salient paragraph from it that is worth keeping in mind:

The financial system will suffer in particular, just when the Obama Administration is desperately seeking more private capital to ride out future losses. Facing such limits on the ability to reward talent, every bank CEO will try to pay off the TARP as soon as possible, whether or not this leaves the bank with a weaker capital base. Hedge funds and other investors that Treasury needs for its new Public-Private Investment Program, or for the Federal Reserve's TALF, will also be warier, if they'll play at all. Treasury may promise nothing punitive for these programs, but that's also what it said about the TARP.

America is quickly becoming a banana republic with executive fiat taking precedence over legal contracts. It will fully undermine our system -- and reflects the total lack of understanding that our government has about how incentives influence business and how markets work.

Viva la revolucion!!