Write your Congressmen

Sunday, April 26, 2009

What to do about Mexico

The drug war violence is pushing many Mexicans out and North, up to the US, giving them legitimate refugee status for the first time. But don't forget that it's the liberals who want the borders loosened. Once the Mexicans are here, the conservatives join the liberals as they want illegals as cheap labor. We end up with a sub-class that doesn't support American interests, exports American dollars rather than spending them here to boost our economy, lowers the tax base, puts American citizens out of work, dramatically increases illegal drug activity, and now poses a health threat as Mexico is dealing with a potential pandemic of a never-before-seen flu strain. This all spills into the whole of America daily. Opposing political interests, but with the same deadly outcome. But read on for the ultimate in confused policy.

I was thinking about Mexico vs China as manufacturing countries, and with whom I'd want to do business. On the strength of several things, I prefer Mexico. Mexico has much in common with us, in that they are a European-based, Christian nation. Can't say that for China, and historically, we've had nothing but problems with them ever since they were opened in the 1800's. But imagine if we could bolster Mexico to compete with China...

Any smart country wants stable borders. Good policy would be to develop Mexico as a stable industrial country. This would solve several problems: immigration, the drug war, inexpensive trade; but the biggest reason is that it is in our interest to stabilize countries that are on our border. Stability in Mexico means that they no longer need drug cartels to employ their citizens - honest people in Mexico can find decent work, probably through the manufacturers based in the US. NAFTA was all bout this, but it failed. A revitalization of NAFTA (leaving the unions out, this time, since they were instrumental in short-circuiting the cross-border trade agreement) is in order.

An interesting proposal concerning Mexico and NAFTA is that there should be nothing stopping American workers from emigrating south to be employed by American companies in Mexico. Just because the job moves doesn't mean the people can't. We saw a lot of this during the recovery from the great depression.

Rewarding democratic trading partners, rather than sell ourselves out to totalitarianism such as is the case with Chinese communism, would say much to the world about what we support. Right now, we fight wars to stem totalitarianism using goods bought from totalitarian regimes. Blows my mind.

The health issues posed are something that no political interest can deny. US immigration policy has always included the protection of the health of US citizens as a primary goal. Ellis Island, for example, became the best public health hospital in the world based on the quarantining and treatment of illnesses presented at the American border from immigrants coming from Europe. How we went so astray from that policy is criminal.

Throughout our history, America has been built on free economics, which to a large extent means greed. These days, it also means political correctness. Such will be our downfall. However, if we can turn these competing entities into decent international policy by infusing immigration, border control, trade and cross-border health into all of it, it's the height of efficiency and beneficial to America.

Friday, April 24, 2009

This is Precisely the Reason for Immigration Standards

You did know that immigrants from Europe were quarantined and given health inspections at Ellis Island, before being allowed to enter the US. As a result, Ellis Island's hospital was the foremost public health hospital in the world.

But of course, those more reasonable days have vanished, replaced by liberal politics.

Deadly new flu strain erupts in Mexico, U.Ss | Reuters:
"MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A strain of flu never seen before has killed up to 60 people in Mexico and has also appeared in the United States, where eight people were infected but recovered, health officials said on Friday.

Mexico's government said at least 20 people have died of the disease in central Mexico and that it may also have been responsible for 40 other deaths.

Mexico reported more than 1,000 suspected cases and four possible cases were also seen in Mexicali, right on the border with California."

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Political Crimes

The US is entering a very dangerous new era - one where a person can be acting in good faith to support the US and its policies, and in particular trying to stem violence and save American lives, only to later be tried for something another political party spins into being "unlawful."

There are many issues here - can a legal opinion constitute a crime; can a person be tried after-the-fact for committing a crime when the act done was legal at the time of commission, but much later (years) it be perceived as "illegal?"; why doesn't the statute of limitations apply; why doesn't presidential executive privilege apply; too many more questions to even ask.

This marks a time in the US when we're veering heavily into officially instituted political prosecution. Joe McCarthy created a very dark period in American politics when citizens were labeled as "communists," and were both prosecuted and ostracized for their political beliefs. It seems that we now have a similar situation - the Democrats are poised to hold a witch hunt for those who acted with one purpose: to keep Americans safe. The interesting thing about this comparison is that, while McCarthy's nonsense had at it's heart the well-known communist goal of overthrowing capitalism worldwide, Obama's crusade does not. it merely panders to those in his Democratic party who want to see heads roll. In this regard, the political left is more like a reliogios inquisition than it is any thing based on law and wrondgoing.

But personally, i expect nothing less from "true believers."


Probes of Bush Officials Loom - WSJ.com:
"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama raised the possibility of prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who approved so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on terror suspects."

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Obama Open to Prosecution of Officials Who Cleared Interrogation Tactics

Absolutely outrageous. It's like he can turn back the hands of time and make people responsible for things that were legal when they did them. This has to be illegal. It's certainly immoral.

Not to mention that these officials kept Americans safe at a time when there were terrosist attacks taking place in more "liberal" countries.

Obama Open to Prosecution of Officials Who Cleared Interrogation Tactics - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com:
"President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted."

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Makes me Proud to be American

First off, many, many kudos to Capt. Philips and his crew, and especially to the officers, men and SEALs on the USS Bainbridge.

On the high seas, every time we tolerated crap, we got it back in spades. Can you say, "USS Cole?" This time, our citizens behaved like Americans when threatened, and look at the outcome. Outstanding!

Now we need to extend this treatment to the rest of the pirates.

May I remind you that Somalia was Clinton's "nation-building" experiment?

Navy Made Split-Second Decision to Open Fire in Captain Rescue :
"MOMBASA, Kenya — U.S. Navy snipers opened fire and killed three pirates holding an American captain at gunpoint, delivering the skipper unharmed and ending a five-day high-seas hostage drama on Easter Sunday.

The pirates were pointing AK-47s at Capt. Richard Phillips and he was in 'imminent danger' of being killed when the commander of the nearby USS Bainbridge made the split-second decision to order his men to shoot, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said."

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Roves Calls Biden 'Liar' as Bush Aides Challenge VP's Boasts

Here's the main reason I believe Bush and Company:
"'The president would never sit through two hours of Joe Biden,' Wolff said. 'I don't ever remember Biden being in the Oval. He was such a blowhard on all that stuff - there wasn't a reason to bring him in.'"
Roves Calls Biden 'Liar' as Bush Aides Challenge VP's Boasts - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com:

Monday, April 6, 2009

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com
By STUART VARNEY

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I'm an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration's goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can't quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Network.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Geithner to Banks: Government Decides Your Executive Line-Up

Geithner to Banks: Get Federal Help, Government Decides Your Executive Line-Up - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com:
"Asked if chief executives of big banks such as Citibank and Bank of America should worry about their jobs if their companies don't improve their performance, Geithner said the government would not shy from such a restructuring.

'Where that's necessary, where it meets the test, where it's necessary to do what we ... exist to do, which is to make sure that this financial system supports recovery and the banks emerge stronger,' Geithner said."

Saturday, April 4, 2009

astronomical numbers

Richard Feynman:
"There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers."

Hedge fund paid Obama adviser Summers $5.2 million

Hedge fund paid Obama adviser Summers $5.2 million | Reuters:
"The disclosure documents showed many of the senior advisers to the president earned large salaries from their companies, served in lucrative positions on corporate boards and had large holdings of stocks, bonds and mutual funds."

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Yet more evidence of Government's incompetence

Last year companies clamored for revisions of "mark to market" accounting rules. Today, mark to market accounting is being eased. The stock market jumped hundreds of points.

Why wasn't this done a year ago, avoiding the crazy bailouts?

Stocks Extend Rally - WSJ.com:
"Stocks raced higher Thursday, boosted by an accounting body's decision to ease rules that force banks to write down their soured credit bets based on the most recent trades.

At about 12:40 p.m. Eastern, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 301 points, or 3.9%, at 8062.75. The blue-chip measure is poised to post a third straight gain."

AIG: More Evidence Congress doesn't know what it's Doing

Hank Greenberg was forced out as AIG CEO in March 2005. Yet members of congress still push to blame him for events taking place during four years after that. Greenberg led AIG to great success for 38 years. So what happened? Congress won't know, because it can't understand the workings of business. This is evident in their questioning; they're more focused on blame than on understanding. But for sure, they'll find some slob to blame. And voters will believe them.

No wonder congress hates Greenberg; he's been very critical of the AIG bailout, saying it should be restructured rather than allowed to continue with federal money. In other words, the former CEO of the world's largest insurer, a man with a lifetime of experience in the industry, thinks conress's actions were wrong, and a useless waste.

Pity the fool.

AIG Rescue Has Failed, Greenberg Tells Lawmakers - WSJ.com:

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) was more direct, asking Mr. Greenberg during a heated exchange, "Do you take any responsibility at all?"

Mr. Greenberg, accompanied by high-profile attorney David Boies, refused to accept any blame.

"No I don't," Mr. Greenberg said, referring to subsequent losses at the financial-products division and downgrades of AIG's ratings. He said the management that took over when he left the firm "must have paid very little attention" to the growing problems that led to the firm's demise.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) was involved in a heated exchange with Mr. Greenberg over the number of AIG shares he still owns and whether he should use the proceeds of any stock sales to help pay back what the company owes the government.

"Would you be willing to give this money back to go back to the taxpayers?" Mr. Chaffetz asked.

Greenberg appeared annoyed by the question.

"Why would it go back to the taxpayers?" Mr. Greenberg said. "You go out in the street and start collecting from them."

Additionally, Mr. Greenberg said billions in government funds should not have been paid to AIG's counterparties; giving other financial firms guarantees would've been a better option.

"These cash payments to [credit-default swap] counterparties should never have occurred," Mr. Greenberg said. "It would have been more beneficial for the American taxpayer if the federal government had walled off AIG Financial Products...and provided guarantees to AIGFP's counterparties rather than putting up billions of dollars in cash collateral to those counterparties.

..."I don't feel any responsibility at all" for AIG's problems, Mr. Greenberg said in an interview Wednesday. "How can I be responsible for something that occurred when I'm not there?""

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Updated - Bitten! - Obama Orders Chevrolet and Dodge Out Of NASCAR

OK, they got me. I wrote this scathing - but extremely well-written - article based on Car and Driver's April Fool's Day joke.

It's not often I'm duped, but when it happens, I'm proud to admit it.

I'm leaving the article here, so you can see how amped up I got. If it's any consolation, the same article was picked up by several mainstream politicial media outlets, too, including the Wall Street Journal. It was just too possible!.

Thanks for the indulgence.

- hd
_______________________________________

How far will Obama go in his control of private industry? Methinks we have the makings of a government-backed "Carrie Nation" type of crusade.

Carrie Nation was a leader in the temperance movement in the early 1900s, who tore through bars with an axe. Her actions led to Prohibition, which gave us organized crime. Yeah, real good move.

This is what do-gooders always accomplish: unintended consequences.

More to the point, since when does Obama think he knows anything about any kind of private industry? He's on the attack now, axe in hand, against the American auto industry and one of the most popular sports in the world: NASCAR. These actions will not only hurt the consumer, but will likely kill NASCAR (or at least cripple it). Make note Obama: you about to kill an industry unto itself, right now not so much affected by the troubles, which employ thousands upon thousands of everyday people.

So now Obama wants to include NASCAR in the mix of problems. NASCAR's response is limited, but any business will do what it must to survive. Foreign manufacturers have been beating on the door for years to get into NASCAR, and Toyota got in last year. Who will be next? From Car and Driver magazine:

"NASCAR officials remain tight-lipped about the call, but sources say series president Mike Helton and team managers are exploring several options, including other manufacturers to fill Chevrolet and Dodge’s vacated positions. Given the company’s recent interest in motorsport and the steady cash-flow and V-8 engine provided by its new Genesis sedan, sources indicate that NASCAR is pinging Hyundai to gauge the Korean company’s interest in occupying a spot in NASCAR."
The net effect will be to expose American car buyers to more foreign products, at a time when attention really needs to be focused on those made by American companies.

Why does Obama think he knows anything about any private business? From these actions, he clearly doesn't.

There is a saying, "Racing improves the breed." This is true. We know, because we now have cars that are more reliable than ever, and need less maintenance than ever. This came from technology developed through decades in racing. For example, my Chevy Monte Carlo doesn't need a spark plug change for 100,000 miles. Was that an arbitrary number that came from the minds of the marketing people at GM? Nope, it came from racing, where spark plugs are subjected to brutal treatment for extended periods of time (like an average speed of 150+ mph, 200+ mph top speeds, 9000+ rpm, and have to do it for over 500 miles in one trip).

Also bear in mind that my Mazda 6 doesn't have the same service interval. Foreign car makers know where the money is: repeat service.

Once again, politicians who know nothing are poking their nose where it doesn't belong.

What should the Dems do? Get control over their supporters related to the car industry. That means, start holding the unions' feet to the fire as well. Lower labor and retirement costs will save the American auto industry, not much else.

Let's be clear : GM, Ford and Chrysler make products that are competitive on the world stage at competitive prices. They do this carrying the albatross of UAW contracts which increase labor costs significantly over their competitors. That means the profit margin is eaten up by the unions and their rank and file, not the corporate bonuses. We may find multi-million dollar bonuses piggishly disgusting, but that's not where the real waste comes from. Overpayment for the same labor used by American auto's competitors is where the greed can be found.

So, Obama, get with it: If you really want efficiency, call in the UAW contracts and tear them up. This would fix the extortion done to American car makers by the UAW rather than removing marketing that has proven useful for decades. And created an industry unto itself (American auto racing), employing tens of thousands and enjoyed by millions. God knows we need some enjoyment right now.

Too bad I don't need a car. I'd buy a Chevy Malibu today, but not because of Obama; because of the crap being done to them by our government. Not to mention, have you seen one? beautiful car, listed No 1 in the ten best cars made today.



Obama Orders Chevrolet and Dodge Out Of NASCAR - Car News | Automotive News Blog at CARandDRIVER.com - Car News Resource: "In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government. Companies around the globe—Honda and Audi, to name two—have drawn down racing operations, and NASCAR itself has already felt the pinch in the form of reduced team spending. A complete withdrawal from America’s premier racing series is expected to save more than $250 million between GM and Chrysler, a substantial amount considering the drastic measures being implemented elsewhere."